[Senate Hearing 116-221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-221
REVIEW OF THE FY 2020 USAID BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-712 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 2
Green, Hon. Mark, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Hon. Mark Green to Questions Submitted by Senator
James E. Risch................................................. 36
Responses of Hon. Mark Green to Questions Submitted by Senator
Robert Menendez................................................ 42
Responses of Hon. Mark Green to Questions Submitted by Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin............................................. 53
Certifications Regarding the Central Governments of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras and the Accompanying Memoranda of
Justification Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez............. 72
The USAID Evaluation for the Record Submitted by Senator Robert
Menendez....................................................... 105
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen Press Statement
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine................................. 107
Reuters Article Titled, U.S. Ending Aid to El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras Over Migrants, Dated March 30, 2019,
Submitted by Tim Kaine......................................... 108
Community Letter to Hon. Mark Green Submitted by Senator Robert
Menendez....................................................... 111
(iii)
REVIEW OF THE FY 2020
USAID BUDGET REQUEST
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson,
Romney, Gardner, Isakson, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin,
Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. This hearing will come together, hopefully,
this morning, and we will start off. I have a few opening
remarks, and then I will yield to Senator Menendez to do
likewise.
Before we do that, for all of our guests and everyone, we
are starting early, as you can see, and we got surprising news
from the floor yesterday, which does not happen regularly, but
that is that we are going to have five votes, starting pretty
soon. Senator Rubio and I are going to take turns chairing the
committee as each of us shuttle back and forth to vote, which
obviously is one of the most important things that we do.
First of all, I am pleased to welcome Administrator Mark
Green, who brings to the table decades of development
experience, a commitment to transparency and accountability,
and a firm grasp for the purpose of foreign aid, which is to
end the need for its existence.
The USAID, the lead development agency charged with
advancing the economic global health and humanitarian interests
of the United States overseas, is the subject of our hearing
this morning. Under Mr. Green's leadership, USAID is undergoing
an organizational transformation intended to make the Agency
more efficient, effective, and adaptable to the 21st-century
challenges. And there are many challenges, and will be many
challenges in the 21st century. This transformation includes
certain areas of focus, the first being creating a unified
humanitarian assistance bureau, elevating stabilization and
resilience programming, and ensuring that innovation cuts
across all development sectors; secondly, bringing on a Clear
Choice coordinator to help identify ways to counter China's
malign development model; thirdly, pursuing procurement reform
and an adaptive staffing plan, which, if approved, may help
USAID attract and retain needed talent in a more coherent and
cost-effective manner.
Over the coming year, this committee will examine how USAID
and its implementing partners manage these changes. We also
will monitor how USAID positions itself to cooperate, rather
than compete, with the new International Development Finance
Corporation in catalyzing private-sector-led economic growth.
Change is understandably difficult, but we should never allow
bureaucratic inertia to prevent improvement.
USAID has done a lot over the past 58 years to make
Americans proud, yet, as we sit in this room, nearly 70 million
men, women, and children have been forcibly displaced from
their homes, the highest number recorded in modern history.
Additionally, an estimated 85 million people in 46 countries
will need food aid this year, and the threat of famine persists
in Yemen, South Sudan, and Northeast Nigeria. The Ebola
outbreak in Congo is spreading, and I think our witness is
going to have something to say about that and the risks that it
possesses and is to the world. And the Taliban and Boko Haram
continue to block polio vaccination efforts in small portions
of the world. And corrupt governments, weak institutions, food
and water scarcity, pandemic health threats, and economic
exclusion are fueling broader insecurity and creating
opportunities for extremist groups to exploit vulnerable
populations and threaten United States interests.
The challenges are daunting, and the means to address them
are limited, so it is incumbent upon this committee to
carefully scrutinize the President's foreign aid budget. The
budget must be strategic, effective, and aligned with the most
pressing national interests of the United States. It must
eliminate duplication and waste. It must focus on breaking the
chain of dependency by helping communities help themselves. And
it must support a workforce at USAID that is capable and
adaptive to the challenge we face in 2019, not 1961.
In any budget, difficult choices must be made. Investing in
U.S. military readiness is a good choice. But, undercutting
effective diplomacy and development, which can stabilize
situations before they spin out of control, disrupt pandemic
health threats before they cross our borders, and support the
growth of healthier, more stable societies with whom we can
trade, rather than aid, is also very, very important, and it is
a good choice.
Mr. Green, I look forward to working with you over the
coming years to ensure that USAID has the tools and the
resources it needs to advance USAID's critical mission for
America and in the world.
With that, I would like to recognize our Ranking Member,
Senator Menendez, for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator, for your service to our
country and appearing before the committee this morning.
Immense challenges are growing in complexity across the
world, but, in the face of human suffering created by both
natural and manmade disaster, it is baffling and disappointing
to receive, for the third year in a row, a proposal for
draconian cuts to our foreign aid budget from previously
appropriated levels. It is hard to understand how your agency
would effectively operate with the President's budget requests.
USAID can, and should, be playing a critical role. I
applaud your commitment to the people of Venezuela, where an
entrenched dictatorship has led to state collapse, the spread
of violent crime, a humanitarian crisis, and a massive refugee
crisis that is undermining regional economic growth and
stability. This should be the model, not the exception.
Across Africa, the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon has taken
the country to the brink of civil war, the Russian Government
has established a foothold in the Central African Republic,
and, before Mozambique could begin to recover from Hurricane
Idai, Hurricane Kenneth struck. In Syria, without sustained
investment into development, we have no hope of truly defeating
ISIS. In Afghanistan, what message would it send as we are
negotiating a peace deal, one, parenthetically, about which
Members of Congress have been kept in the dark about, to cut
the U.S. mission in half?
I know you know this, but it seems to bear repeating at the
outset. Development and humanitarian relief investments by
USAID are not charity. These programs and these funds advance
U.S. national security while helping to lift up the world's
most impoverished and build resilient and prosperous
communities that, in turn, promote global stability, which is
why, perhaps, the President's March 29th announcement to end
all foreign assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
is, again, the most illogical we have seen.
Over the last 2 years, the administration has, indeed,
touted the effectiveness of our Central American programs that
address the driving factors of migration, programs to promote
economic development, the rule of law, and that help confront
drug traffickers wreaking violence throughout their
communities. Yet, the President has requested fewer overall
resources and seems to be trying to withhold, reprogram, and
call back unobligated and unexpended funds from both current
and prior fiscal years. It is as if the President is
deliberately exacerbating the crisis. These kinds of cuts in
U.S. presence and investment work directly against our
interests, including by ceding ground to our adversaries.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the advances China is
making with its ambitious One Belt, One Road strategy that
exploits host nations while entrenching its economic and
political reach. Last year, you announced your Clear Choice
Initiative to counter China's growing development influence
around the world, something I have been looking forward to.
But, so far, I have seen the administration offer nothing
meaningful as an alternative to Chinese investment in Africa,
Latin America, or elsewhere, beyond rhetoric. Cutting the
budget for international development by more than 40 percent is
certainly an alternative, but not one that will achieve the
outcomes we desire. In fact, I would submit that the
administration is providing a clear choice, ``Turn to China for
foreign investment.'' Fortunately for American interests,
Congress has twice rejected the President's budget and program
proposals, and I expect we will do so again.
Administrator Green, you are a skilled former Ambassador,
legislator. You know the value of U.S. international
development and promoting democracy in U.S. foreign policy.
Your passion for U.S. leadership in delivering humanitarian and
disaster assistance are evident. But, the administration
continues to propose cutting USAID's budget as the NSC and OMB
continue this troubling foreign assistance review that seems
nothing more than an effort to slow-walk appropriated funds as
the F Bureau systematically delays approving spending plans.
So, from where I sit, the Congress must be more effective
in holding the administration accountable for its foreign
policy shortcomings and reminding the American people about the
importance of ensuring core American values, like democracy,
governance, and human rights remain essential components of
U.S. foreign policy. It is these fundamental values, along with
America's unparalleled strengths, a military second to none, a
vital economy driven by innovation and technological ingenuity,
a reservoir of goodwill with our allies and partners that
provide us the opportunity to define a new role and a new grand
strategy on the global stage for the 21st century.
I look forward to today's hearing and hope that we can work
together to repair and protect the critical work of your
agency.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
And now we are going to hear from our witness,
Administrator Green, who was sworn in as the 18th Administrator
of USAID in August of 2017. Previously, Mr. Green has served as
president of the International Republican Institute, president
and CEO of the Initiative for Global Development, senior
director at the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, and U.S.
Ambassador to Tanzania from 2007 to 2009. He also served four
terms in the United States House of Representatives,
representing Wisconsin's 8th District. Ambassador Green holds a
law and a bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-
Eau Claire.
Mr. Green, I meet with lots and lots and lots of different
people, and I can tell you, I was impressed with you, as I have
been with anyone, about their commitment and passion for the
job that you are undertaking, and, more importantly, your
pragmatic approach to the kinds of challenges that you face,
which are incredibly overwhelming, which anyone would agree to
that faces the kinds of things that you face.
So, with that, welcome, and we are anxious to hear your
message.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Green. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Ranking Member Menendez, members of the committee. I
appreciate this opportunity to summarize my testimony, and I do
appreciate all the support that we have received from both
sides of the aisle.
In total, the USAID request for fiscal year 2020 is
approximately $19.2 billion. It represents $2.4 billion, or 14
percent, more than last year's request. It is an attempt to
balance fiscal responsibility here at home with our leadership
role and national security imperatives around the world.
Members, in order to capture some of the important work
that so many of you have referenced, I would like to touch
briefly on a few of my recent travels. I just returned from
Ethiopia and Cote d'Ivoire with Senior Advisor to the President
Ivanka Trump. While there, we met with women leaders and
entrepreneurs to advance the Women's Global Development and
Prosperity Initiative. We discussed ways to improve the
enabling environment for women entrepreneurs and advance issues
like access to credit for woman entrepreneurs at all levels.
Earlier this month, I traveled to Senegal to lead the U.S.
delegation to the second inaugural ceremonies for President
Macky Sall. Senegal represents what is possible in Africa and
elsewhere through a commitment to democracy and inclusive
economic growth.
A few months ago, I visited South America as we continue to
craft policies regarding Venezuela, a country very obviously
moving in a different direction. It is no secret that Nicolas
Maduro's ruthless regime has destroyed that country's economy
and political institutions. Millions of Venezuelans, young
mothers with children, have taken desperate flight. The U.S.
has responded with over $256 million in assistance for these
migrants and their host communities. At the request of interim
President Guaido, and working with other countries, we have
pre-positioned humanitarian assistance in the region for
potential delivery into Venezuela; in fact, over 540 metric
tons of such assistance. And I will be heading back down there
in just a few days.
I have recently visited Jordan, another country where the
U.S. is playing a vital humanitarian leadership role. We have
been working hard to help reduce strains caused by years of
conflict and displacement, and to try to ensure that all people
in Jordan can access essential services.
Last year, I visited Burma and Bangladesh. Bangladesh now
hosts 1 million Rohingya, most of them there because of Burma's
ruthless ethnic cleansing campaign. In Bangladesh, we are
urging the government to allow humanitarian organizations to
provide migrants with a full range of support and services. In
Burma, we continue to call on the government to provide for the
safe, voluntary, and dignified return of Rohingya and other
vulnerable communities.
While most of our humanitarian assistance goes for manmade,
regime-driven crises, we are also responding to terrible
natural disasters, like Cyclones Idai and Kenneth in
Mozambique, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. We have already mobilized
approximately $70 billion in supplies and assistance to help
those impacted by the storms.
There is also the Ebola outbreak in DRC, where health
officials have reported now more than 1,550 confirmed and
probable cases, and now over 1,025 related deaths. As I have
said previously, we need to be very concerned about this
outbreak and the serious challenges it presents. We must not
take our eye off this ball. I am aware of new legislation that
was just introduced on the topic. We welcome it, and we do
really appreciate the committee's interest and leadership on
this. It is an important matter.
Of course, humanitarian matters are only part of our work.
For example, we are working hard to push back on the rising
antidemocratic influence of China and Russia. USAID will soon
unveil a broad policy framework for countering malign Kremlin
influence, especially in Europe and Eurasia. Our 2020 request
prioritizes $584 million to support that work. The request also
reflects an expansion of our work to help victims of ISIS in
the Middle East, especially those targeted for their religious
affiliation or ethnicity. We see helping Yazidis and Christians
and others as part of defeating the terrorist network, once and
for all.
Closer to home, when I last appeared before you, I provided
an overview of our transformation plans. We have made great
progress, thanks to the support of so many of you, and we
appreciate it. I look forward to addressing future questions
that you might have as we go forward on this as we try to
address some of the remaining congressional notifications.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to say a quick
word about our most precious asset, our human resources, our
dedicated Foreign Service Officers, Civil Service staff,
Foreign Service Nationals, and other team members who are truly
on the front lines of some of the world's most pressing
challenges. We are continuing to staff up and to bring our
workforce into greater alignment with strategic planning
numbers and available Operating Expense allocations. We are
planning to hire approximately 140 career-track Foreign Service
Officers before the end of fiscal year '20. We have also
approved 221 new Civil Service positions and have now selected
10 finalists for the Donald M. Payne Fellowship Program.
Members, I appreciate your support, your guidance, and your
ideas. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity
to appear before you. I welcome the opportunity to address
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Green
introduction
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, Members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020 Budget Request for USAID.
The FY 2020 request for USAID fully and partially managed accounts
is approximately $19.2 billion, an increase of $2.4 billion, or 14
percent, over last year's request. It requests $6.3 billion for global
health and $5.2 billion for the Economic Support and Development Fund.
In terms of USAID's humanitarian assistance, it requests $6 billion for
the new International Humanitarian Assistance Account, which, combined
with all available resources, will allow us to maintain the highest
level ever of U.S. humanitarian assistance programming.
USAID remains focused on our core day-to-day work: helping support
the world's most-vulnerable populations affected by humanitarian
crises; promoting human rights, democracy, and citizen-responsive
governance; and improving development outcomes in the areas of economic
growth, education, environment, and health worldwide. Every day, our
highly professional and dedicated staff work diligently to deliver
sustainable development solutions and build self-reliance in partner
countries, project American values globally, and advance our foreign-
policy and national-security objectives.
I know that I cannot touch upon our work in each country in the
limited time afforded me today, so allow me to discuss some of the
themes and situations at the forefront of our attention.
optimizing humanitarian assistance
The budget request reaffirms that Americans will always stand with
people and countries when disaster strikes or crisis emerges. The FY
2020 U.S. humanitarian request will provide an average of $9 billion in
both FY 2019 and FY 2020 when combined with all available resources,
allowing the U.S. to remain the single largest global donor and
maintain roughly the highest level ever of USG humanitarian assistance
programming. The United States will not only continue our role as the
world leader in humanitarian assistance, but we will also call on
others to do their part and we will work relentlessly to assure that
assistance is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Over the years, the responsibilities of the two USAID offices that
lead the bulk of our humanitarian assistance--Food for Peace and the
Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)--have been sharply
increasing. While they have often coordinated, they have worked in
parallel, with separate budgets, separate oversight, separate
structures, and different strategies.
Our overseas humanitarian assistance, within USAID's new Bureau for
Humanitarian Assistance, supports this administration's commitment to
optimize USAID humanitarian investments. This will ensure a seamless
blend of food and non-food humanitarian USAID assistance, better
serving our foreign policy interests and people in need.
The budget also delivers on the President's commitment to optimize
the effectiveness of the U.S. Government's outdated and fragmented
overseas humanitarian assistance. The proposal maximizes the impact of
taxpayer dollars, helps more beneficiaries, and delivers the greatest
outcomes to them by consolidating all overseas humanitarian programming
in the new Bureau at USAID while retaining State's lead role on
protection issues, as well as the U.S. refugee-admissions program.
venezuela
Nowhere is America's leadership in humanitarian assistance more
important, or more timely, than in our continued response to the man-
made, regime-driven crisis in Venezuela. As you know, the illegitimate
dictator Nicolas Maduro has repeatedly blocked outside efforts to
provide humanitarian relief to the millions of Venezuelan citizens in
need. We continue to monitor the situation in Venezuela closely, where
Maduro and his cronies have destroyed the country's institutions and
economy, and created the largest cross-border mass exodus in the
history of the Americas. Venezuelans could soon become one of the
largest groups of displaced people in the world.
In response to Interim President Juan Guaido's request for
assistance that could help him meet some of his people's urgent needs,
USAID and State--with support from the Departments of Defense and
others--have pre-positioned humanitarian assistance close to the
Venezuelan border with Colombia, and Brazil. USAID has also pre-
positioned humanitarian assistance inside of the island of Curacao, for
eventual delivery into Venezuela. Since February 4, the U.S. Government
has pre-positioned nearly 546 metric tons of urgently needed
humanitarian assistance, including food aid, emergency medical items,
hygiene kits, non-pharmaceutical commodities, water treatment units,
and nutrition products.
At President Trump's instruction, we have closely coordinated these
efforts with the international community. President Ivan Duque of
Colombia and President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, in particular, have
been key allies in our efforts. The United States is grateful for our
allies in the region who have stepped up to help the Venezuelan people
in their hour of need.
We will continue to support Interim President Guaido's efforts to
deliver aid to his people in Venezuela, and also continue to help
Colombia and other countries that are hosting Venezuelans who have
fled. To date, the U.S. has provided more than $213 million in
humanitarian assistance and approximately $43 million in development
assistance for Venezuelans and host communities in the region. That
funding has brought urgently needed food, health care, protection, and
shelter, to both Venezuelans and host communities. USAID also funds
local organizations involved with human rights, civil society,
independent media, electoral oversight, and democratic political
processes, and the democratically elected National Assembly. We are not
alone in this effort.
Many of our close allies have pledged support, and many private
citizens have already contributed assistance to Venezuelans in the
region, as well.
The United States stands with those who are yearning for a better
life and a true democracy. We know the answer to Venezuela's crisis
must be human liberty and democracy; Venezuelans deserve a return to
democracy, rule of law, and citizen-responsive governance.
We also stand with the Cuban people who have suffered for six
decades under an authoritarian regime--the same regime plays a crucial
and destabilizing role in supporting Maduro and his cronies. The United
States funds democracy programs that help the capacity of independent
Cuban civil society, support the free flow of uncensored information to
and from the island, and provide humanitarian assistance to political
prisoners and their families.
In response to requests by Cuban civil-society activities during
the Summit of the Americas in April 2018, USAID identified an
additional $750,000 in FY 2017 funds to increase humanitarian support
for Cuban political prisoners and their families, and to provide
additional communications tools to civil society activists.
tropical cyclone idai and kenneth
USAID mobilized quickly in response to the devastating impact of
Tropical Cyclone Idai on Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi.
Torrential rains covered nearly 900 square miles of land in water--
that's an area larger than New York City and Los Angeles combined.
Sadly, more than 600 people lost their lives, and 1.85 million people
are in desperate need of assistance.
USAID deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), which
includes experts in health, food security, shelter, and water,
sanitation, and hygiene to provide technical advice and make
assessments in real time. To prevent the spread of cholera and other
waterborne diseases, USAID delivered relief supplies, including water-
treatment units, water-storage containers, and latrines, and is working
with partners to provide medication and oral rehydration salts. To
reach the communities cut off by the storm, we also requested the
unique capabilities of the U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Africa
Command to provide airlift and logistics support for our humanitarian
response. Over the course of their mission, the U.S. military flew 73
flights, and transported more than 782 metric tons of relief supplies,
including food, medical supplies, and vehicles, as well as USAID
disaster experts and aid workers.
Cyclone Kenneth struck Mozambique in April, just 5 weeks after
Cyclone Idai; a total of 41 people were killed, more than 90 people
injured, and up to 300,000 people were impacted.
USAID has deployed a team to the affected area to determine
additional food, shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene needs.
outbreak of ebola in the democratic republic of the congo (drc)
Since the declaration of the outbreak on August 1, 2018, health
officials have recorded at least 1,554 confirmed and probable cases,
including 1,029 deaths, in DRC's North Kivu and Ituri Provinces as of
May 5, 2019. The U.S. Government deployed a DART to the DRC to augment
the ongoing Ebola response efforts. These disaster and health experts
from USAID and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
are working with partners to provide robust life-saving assistance and
support affected populations. The DART is coordinating with the DRC
Ministry of Health, the World Health Organization, other donors, and
key actors to support a unified effort, encourage sustained resourcing
and fair burden-sharing, and ultimately end the outbreak. USAID
assistance works to break the chain of transmission, including through
preventing and controlling infections, surveillance and case-finding,
contact-tracing, case-management, and raising awareness in communities
about how the virus is transmitted.
This response is a priority for the U.S. Government, not only
because we are committed to supporting those affected, but also because
effective efforts to contain and end the outbreak will prevent it from
spreading throughout the broader region and beyond, including the
United States. I remain concerned that the outbreak is still not
contained, however, and am working with colleagues in the interagency
to advocate for a more effective global response.
Rohingya Crisis in Bangladesh and Burma
Bangladesh now hosts 1 million Rohingya refugees from Burma in the
world's largest refugee camp. Over 740,000 of these refugees arrived in
the wake of an ethnic cleansing campaign conducted by Burmese security
forces that began in August 2017. Last May, I went to Bangladesh and
Burma's Rakhine State to observe firsthand the daily burdens and
suffering facing Rohingya communities. In many ways, it is the harshest
situation I have seen in my time at USAID. The United States is the
largest single donor of humanitarian aid to this crisis, and stands as
a beacon of hope to Rohingya.
Our efforts continue to focus on measures that will improve the
situation for Rohingya in Rakhine State, as well as Rohingya refugees
and host communities in Bangladesh. While providing life-saving
assistance is critical, we also undertake programming to encourage the
Burmese Government to address the underlying causes of tension and
violence, which are essential for lasting justice. This is a necessary
step if that beautiful country is to fulfill the promise of its far-
from-fully-realized democratic transition.
yemen
We also remain seriously concerned about the humanitarian crisis in
Yemen, which is the world's largest in terms of affected population.
Approximately 80 percent of the country--more than 24 million people--
require some form of humanitarian assistance. More than 3.6 million
people have already been displaced; there have been more than 1.6
million suspected cases of cholera in the last 2 years, and more than 5
million people are one step away from famine. Since FY 2018, the United
States has provided nearly $721 million in humanitarian aid to Yemen,
and USAID is responsible for nearly $692 million of that assistance.
support for religious and ethnic minorities
The $150 million in USAID and State Department funding this Budget
requests will help us continue our important assistance to those
religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East, and other regions,
whom ISIS sought to extinguish. We believe freedom of religion and
conscience are an essential part of our national character, and an
essential attribute of any country that seeks to be prosperous,
democratic, and just.
As evidenced by the heinous attacks in Sri Lanka on Easter morning,
religious intolerance is far from limited to the Middle East. The
bombings that took the lives of so many, including four U.S. citizens,
are a painful reminder that we must remain vigilant against this
scourge. USAID extends its deepest condolences to the friends and
families of those lost in the attacks, and we will continue our efforts
to promote interfaith dialogue and peaceful co-existence in our work
across the world.
democratic backsliding
Another significant challenge we face in many regions is democratic
backsliding. Rarely these days do authoritarian leaders oppose
elections outright. Instead, as we have seen in capitals from Caracas
to Phnom Penh, they use sophisticated tools and methods to bend
elections to ensure they can maintain their grip on power. Subverting
civil society and independent media, manipulating vote tabulations, and
other anti-democratic ploys are all too often undermining hope for
everyday citizens to be able to shape their future through the ballot
box. USAID will continue to fund programming that aims to counter
authoritarian impulses, nurture the capacity of civil society to
advocate for an agenda of liberty, and advance fundamental freedoms
worldwide.
Many parts of the world have seen an exponential growth of
predatory financing dressed up as development assistance. China and
Russia have been by far the greatest, though not the sole, sources of
such financing. This form of financing often leads to unsustainable
debt, eroded national sovereignty, and even the forfeiture of strategic
resources and assets.
As part of an agency-wide strategic approach, USAID will soon
unveil a Framework to help us counter malign Kremlin influence,
especially in Europe and Eurasia. This budget request prioritizes $584
million in State Department and USAID foreign assistance to support
that work and our efforts to aggressively communicate the stark
differences between authoritarian financing tools and the approach that
we and our allied donor nations use.
Our approach is true assistance that helps partner nations build
their own self-reliance and a more dynamic, private enterprise-driven
future. We aim to help partner countries recognize the costs of
alternative models, like those of China and Russia, that can weaken
confidence in democratic and free-market systems, saddle countries with
unsustainable debt, erode sovereignty, lead to the forfeiture of
strategic assets ignore the needs and concerns of local communities,
and further the militaristic ambitions of authoritarian actors.
One positive story in our work, both in terms of supporting
democratic processes and countering malign Kremlin influence, is in
Ukraine. USAID provided support to the Central Election Commission in
the lead up to the recent Presidential elections. According to the most
trusted international and domestic monitoring organizations, the
election was conducted peacefully and without significant external
manipulation--representing the true will of Ukraine's citizens. We look
forward to working with President Elect Zelenskiy to continue
strengthening democratic processes in the country, rooting out
corruption, empowering civil society, building a stronger basis for
sustained prosperity, and enhancing resilience to malign Kremlin
influence.
indo-pacific strategy
America's security and prosperity at home is closely tied to a
stable and free Indo-Pacific Region, and this request includes over
$1.2 billion in State Department and USAID foreign assistance to
protect U.S. interests and promote open, transparent, and citizen-
responsive governance across the Indo-Pacific.
In Asia, USAID plays a key role in advancing the U.S. Government's
Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), particularly the economic and governance
pillars, and the latter's headlining Transparency Initiative. America's
vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region is one in which all
nations are sovereign, strong, and prosperous. Together with our U.S.
Government partners, and in coordination with like-minded donor
partners, USAID helps advance the IPS by strengthening governance in
areas critical to achieving this vision--primarily with regard to
bolstering economies and free markets, supporting democratic
institutions and transparency promoting human rights and empowered
citizens, and fostering incentives that address the region's
substantial infrastructure gaps--foremost in the energy,
transportation, and digital connectivity sectors. By promoting open,
transparent, rules-based, and citizen-responsive governance across
Asia, the IPS mitigates the influence of predatory countries while
unlocking private-sector-led growth that helps drive sustainable
development and increase partner countries' self-reliance. As part of
this strategy, USAID is playing a leading role in the interagency.
At USAID, we are proud of our role as the world's premier
development agency. We are just as dedicated to ensuring that we
maintain that leadership role in the years ahead. To prepare ourselves
for the future, in late 2017, we initiated a series of interconnected
reforms we call Transformation. Aimed at shaping a USAID that remains
worthy of both American investments and the talented, dedicated staff
who work for us around the world, Transformation will allow us to
strengthen our core capabilities, increase efficiency, and ultimately,
improve outcomes while reducing costs. This Budget Request closely
aligns with, and supports, the implementation of these plans.
When I last appeared before this Committee on April 24, 2018, I
provided an overview of several planned initiatives in our
Transformation framework. After nearly 100 consultations with many of
you, your staff, and colleagues across Capitol Hill, we have since
launched our reform agenda and submitted nine Congressional
Notifications related to the Agency's new structure. Our structure is
closely tied to other internal reforms, and will provide the necessary
enabling environment, within USAID, to ensure this vision takes root. I
ask for your support for clearing the remaining Congressional
Notifications on our Transformation, and am eager to answer any
questions you might have.
country roadmaps: defining and measuring self-reliance
In pursuit of our vision of a day when development assistance is no
longer needed, we are now orienting our work around the concept of
fostering self-reliance in partner countries. USAID defines ``self-
reliance'' as a country's ability to plan, finance, and implement
solutions to its own development challenges. To understand where a
country is going in its Journey to Self-Reliance, we need to understand
where they are on that journey and how far they have come from. To that
end, and after consultations with USAID employees, external partners
and other shareholders, we pulled together 17 objective, third-party
metrics across the political, economic, and social spheres. They fall
into two broad categories: commitment, or the degree to which a
country's laws, policies, actions, and formal and informal governance
mechanisms support progress toward self-reliance; and capacity, which
refers to how far a country has come in its ability to plan, finance,
and manage its own development agenda.
We then assembled these metrics, country-by-country, as ``Country
Roadmaps'' for all 136 low- and middle-income countries as classified
by the World Bank. We rolled out Roadmaps in August 2018 for
socialization with partner governments.
These Roadmaps serve several purposes. First, again, they help us
identify approximately where each country is in its development
journey, a crucial first step in orienting our in-country approach
around the concept of self-reliance. Second, they help inform our
strategic decision-making and resource allocation processes and ensure
we better focus USAID's investments. As we better align our strategies
and our budgets, we look forward to working with you, and your
colleagues, to ensure we have the appropriate mix of resource
allocations. Third, because they use objective, open-source data, the
Roadmaps provide USAID with a common touchstone for use in dialogues
with countries and development partners. Fourth, the metrics help
signal to USAID--and the broader U.S. Government--when a country has
made enough development progress such that we should pursue a new, more
enterprise-centered phase in our partnership.
In October 2018, we published the Country Roadmaps online at
USAID.gov. I welcome you to take a look.
diversifying our partner base, and engaging new
and underutilized partners
Metrics provide us with critical insight, but, ultimately, it is
our in-country partnerships that advance our mission. Tapping into the
innovation and resources of the private sector, and working with a full
breadth of stakeholders, is critical to achieving sustainable
development outcomes and building self-reliance. Many local and locally
established actors--such as education institutions, non-profits, faith-
based organizations and for-profit enterprises--have long engaged in
their own efforts to build capacity, increase accountability, and
provide services in countries prioritized by USAID. They are natural
allies in our development mission, and this Request includes $20
million towards a New Partnerships Initiatives to expand our partner
base.
Historically, these groups have often struggled to compete for
USAID funding because of burdensome compliance and solicitation
requirements, the imposing dollar size and scope of our awards, and
unfamiliarity with USAID's terminology and practices. On our end, we
have admittedly lacked a sustained commitment to mobilizing new and
local partners. The result has been a dwindling partner base. In Fiscal
Year (FY) 2017, 60 percent of our obligations went to 25 partners, and
more than 80 percent of our obligations went to just 75 partners. The
number of new partners has decreased consistently since 2011.
With the launch of USAID's first-ever Acquisition and Assistance
(A&A) Strategy last December, we seek to reverse this trend, and tap
into the good ideas and innovative approaches we know exist in
underutilized partners. Included in the core tenets of our Strategy are
more collaborative approaches to partnership, prioritizing innovation,
and building the commitment and capacity of new partners. By
diversifying our partner-base, we will not only incorporate new ideas
and approaches into our tool-kit, but we will also strengthen locally
led development--a core component of each country's Journey to Self-
Reliance.
strengthening private-sector engagement
While there will always be an important role for traditional
contracting and grant-making in our work, we can accelerate and amplify
our efforts and outcomes by increasingly applying market- based
solutions to the development challenges we aim to address. At USAID, we
have long recognized that private enterprise is the most-powerful force
on earth for lifting lives out of poverty, strengthening communities,
and building self-reliance. But until recently, the Agency lacked a
formal, overarching policy to guide and galvanize our engagement with
the private-sector.
That changed last December with the launch of USAID's Private-
Sector Engagement Policy. The Policy serves as a call to action for all
Agency staff and partners to increase and strengthen our work with
commercial firms, and embrace market-based approaches to achieve
outcomes. We seek ever-greater input from the private-sector to move
beyond mere contracts and grants to include more true collaboration--
co-design, co-creation, and co-financing.
As part of this greater focus on private-sector engagement, USAID
looks forward to a close partnership with the new Development Finance
Corporation (DFC) established by the BUILD Act to mobilize financing,
and this Request provides $50 million towards the new DFC. With close
integration of tools such as the Development Credit Authority (DCA),
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), new equity
authority and other reforms, the DFC will make private-sector
engagement much more effective. We are working closely with OPIC and
the White House to make the new DFC a reality. Through collaborative
endeavors with our United States Government partners and the private
sector, we seek to join up our respective expertise to tackle problems
that neither could fully address alone.
We pursue greater engagement with the private sector because it is
sound development, it achieves better outcomes, and it leverages the
vast, largely untapped resources of commercial enterprise throughout
the world. But we also pursue it because it is good for American
businesses. The world's fastest-growing economies are largely in the
developing world.
USAID's work to promote regulatory reform already helps level the
playing field for American businesses, by reducing their barrier to
entry in these large markets. Combined with financing support from the
new DFC, the United States can help bring these American businesses
directly to the table to tackle specific challenges and further expand
their opportunities.
This renewed emphasis on private sector engagement has already
borne fruit. For example, last November, I signed a Memorandum of
Understanding between USAID and Corteva, one of America's great
agribusinesses. Together, we will tackle global hunger while
simultaneously cultivating new markets for U.S. technology and
expertise. I am excited to see what other partnerships emerge in the
months and years ahead.
women's economic empowerment
No country can meaningfully progress in the Journey to Self-
Reliance if it shuns half its population. The development dividends of
greater participation by women in the economy are numerous. Our
experience shows that investing in women and girls accelerates gains
across the full development spectrum, from preventing conflict to
improving food security and economic opportunity.
The President's National Security Strategy clearly recognizes
women's empowerment as a top foreign policy priority. On February 7,
2019, President Trump launched the Women's Global Development and
Prosperity (W-GDP), and signed a Presidential Security Memorandum that
clearly and decisively links the ability of women to participate fully
and freely in the economy with greater peace and prosperity across the
world. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, we allocated $50 million for W-GDP.
This year's request goes further, and includes $100 million to support
workforce-development and skills-training, greater access to capital,
and changes to the enabling environment so that, around the world, all
women have greater opportunities to reach their full economic
potential.
staffing
At USAID, our human resources are our most precious asset. Our
professional, experienced, and dedicated corps of Foreign Service
Officers (FSOs) are at the frontlines of what we do as an Agency. In
recognition of that, USAID will continue to staff up and bring our
Foreign Service workforce into greater alignment with strategic
planning numbers and our available Operating Expense budget.
Specifically, we are seeking to expand our overseas Foreign Service
capability to better manage financial risk, increase program oversight,
provide critical support for the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR), and fill technical positions that have been
chronically short-staffed. USAID has also selected 10 finalists for the
2019 Payne Fellowship program.
USAID is preparing to hire approximately 140 career-track FSOs
between now and the end of FY 2020. Hiring 140 FSOs over the next 2
fiscal years and adjusting for attrition would bring the total FSO
workforce by the end of FY 2020 to just over 1,700 FSOs. For USAID's
Civil Service, USAID's Hiring Review and Reassignment Board, has
approved the hiring of an additional 221 staff to be added to the
General Schedule workforce, which stood at 1,181 U.S. Direct Hires
(USDH) as of February 2019.
To support USAID's mission, we seek to test a non-career, term-
limited personnel system that is more efficient and flexible than our
current systems while also better for many program-funded staff, by
improving benefits and professional development. Within this budget
proposal, USAID is also requesting to pilot an Adaptive Personnel
Project (APP) to develop an agile, non-career/at-will U.S Direct Hire
personnel system that can rapidly hire, move, and retain a talented,
program-funded workforce. APP would be a program-funded, direct-hire
mechanism with Federal benefits and inherently governmental
authorities. The overall vision is to improve USAID's ability to hire
the right talent, at the right time, in the right place, for the right
duration of time.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, I
believe we are shaping an Agency that is capable of leveraging our
influence, authority, and available resources to advance U.S.
interests, transform the way we provide humanitarian and development
assistance, and, alongside the rest of the world, meet the daunting
challenges we all see today. With your support and guidance, we will
ensure USAID remains the world's premier international development
Agency and continues the important work we do, each day, to protect
America's future security and prosperity.
Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today, and I welcome
your questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
This is an important hearing. And again, I want to stress,
to all of our guests and witness, that, as we come and go,
please do not take that as any sign that what you are saying
here and what we are doing here is not important, but we do
have a series of votes that all of us are going to have to
attend to as we kind of come and go.
One of the things that you and I talked about recently that
is alarming is the situation regarding the Ebola outbreak. And,
by the way, we are going to do a 5-minute round to start with
here, and then we will go from there. But, I want to talk to
you for just a minute about that. You touched on it briefly in
your opening remarks. Can you talk a little bit about the time
we thought we had a handle on this thing, here we go again.
What is going on? What should we be aware of? What keeps you
awake at night in that regard? And explain your situation for
us.
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do
appreciate this opportunity.
I think the important way of thinking of this Ebola
challenge in DRC is that it is not simply a medical challenge.
We have had great success in fighting off pandemics before, but
this is much more than that. This is a convergence of failures
and dysfunctionality, quite frankly. It is a failure of
institutions, it is a failure of, in many ways, democracy, with
the lack of citizen-centered, responsive governance in the
affected areas. There is lots of community distrust. And, quite
frankly, we are seeing a deeply disturbing uptick in violence
targeted at outsiders, including healthcare facilities. Since
January alone, there have been more than 119 violent attacks in
the affected areas; 42 of them targeted at healthcare
facilities; 85 health workers have been wounded or killed. And
that shows you what we are really dealing with.
So, the response that we must have is much more than solely
a medical response. But, that, of course, is the core of what
we must do. It is rebuilding community trust. It is rebuilding
stability and security, such that healthcare professionals can
get into affected areas. But, the most important thing is
bringing communities together so that they turn to those who
can provide the lifesaving vaccines that they need and that we
can mobilize in a containment strategy. But, it worries me a
great deal, because--and again, we have now seen 4 weeks in a
row of record spread of the disease. If it gets towards a
couple of key transit population areas, I am very, very worried
about it.
Secretary Azar and I have each sent strong messages to the
World Health Organization--wonderful organization; Dr. Ted
Gross is a friend to all of us--that this outbreak is not under
control and that we must have a much more aggressive vaccine
strategy. So, it is multifaceted, a number of failures. And I
think it will take a broad-based response as a result.
The Chairman. That is a pretty bleak picture. Are you
cautiously optimistic? Are you pessimistic? Where are you on--
--
Ambassador Green. I am always cautiously optimistic. I will
say that--and many of you know Admiral Tim Ziemer--for a long
time, the head of the President's Malaria Initiative. He is the
acting head of our DCHA Bureau with humanitarian assistance. He
is there as we speak, and we are just getting reports back from
him. He has been able to eyeball some of the challenges,
because we really do want to make sure that we have a
multifaceted, complete response to this.
You know, it is something that we have been talking about
for quite some time. It really burst onto the scene last fall.
But, you had intervening factors of elections that, again, from
my perspective, were not the hallmark of a truly responsive
democracy, in the sense that there were so many problems with
them. In fact, the Congolese in the affected area were never
able to even vote in these last round of elections. All of that
to say that there is lots of distrust by citizens towards
officials, institutions. And, unless that is rebuilt, it is
very hard to be able to bring people in and apply the vaccine
that we know is a key part of preventing the outbreak and the
spread.
So, I do not want to sugar-coat it. I think it is a deep
challenge, and one that is truly worthy of the committee's
attention.
The Chairman. Thanks for shining a light on that.
I have got some questions about your activities and how
they intersect with China's activities out there, but I want to
make sure everybody gets a shot at that, so we will come back
to that, perhaps, a little bit later with that.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, I am glad you were talking about the Ebola
outbreak and the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. As you
said, it has killed more than 1,000 people. It is projected to
last through the end of this year. Community resistance and
insecurity are major obstacles to bringing the outbreak under
control. It is my understanding that your agency is pivoting to
a new strategy to improve community engagement and trust
through development activities to foster access for health
workers to treat and prevent the spread of Ebola. I am
concerned, however, that the decision to suspend non-
humanitarian assistance under the administration's strict
interpretation of the Trafficking in Persons and DRC's
Trafficking in Persons Tier 3 designation is going to prevent
AID from successfully employing the strategy.
Now, yesterday, I introduced legislation to remove any
legal impediments to that strategy. So, let me ask you, first,
has the White House approved the strategy to reduce community
assistance?
Ambassador Green. Decisions have not been finalized yet
with respect to the TIP designation.
Senator Menendez. What----
Ambassador Green. On the designation, sure, but in terms of
funding, decisions have not been finalized.
Senator Menendez [continuing]. But, as it relates to the
strategy, regardless of funding, for the moment, have they
agreed to the strategy that your agency has developed?
Ambassador Green. On Ebola?
Senator Menendez. Yes.
Ambassador Green. It is still being finalized. I think
there is increased awareness, and we are pushing a much more
aggressive approach. It has not been finalized yet.
Senator Menendez. What is the holdup?
Ambassador Green. The holdup, I think, is making sure that
we have full input from all parts of the U.S. Government that
will be required.
Senator Menendez. I hope we have a sense of urgency.
Ambassador Green. Oh, Senator, I do. And I am not going to
tell you that coming before a committee is a great experience
that is full of joy and----
Senator Menendez. It is the most----
Ambassador Green [continuing]. Pleasure, however----
Senator Menendez [continuing]. Enlightening experience you
could have.
Ambassador Green [continuing]. However, I will say that,
when Senators like yourself come forward with legislation like
this Ebola legislation, it is, from our perspective, welcome
and helpful, because it does raise the profile of the issue. It
points out, I think, very usefully, that a more comprehensive
approach will be taken. So, we look forward to working with you
on this.
Senator Menendez. Well, I hope we can move forward without
the legislation, although I am going to press it, but I think
that the right interpretation in pursuit of our own interests
would hopefully prevail.
For 2 years, from the President on down, the administration
has called for continued engagement in Central America in order
to address factors forcing people to flee their countries,
including the weak rule of law and high levels of criminal
violence. The Secretary of State has submitted nine
certifications to Congress confirming that Central American
Governments were making progress on these conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to include the
nine certifications and the USAID evaluation for the record.
The Chairman. So ordered.
[The information referred to above is located at the end of
the hearing.]
Senator Menendez. And I hope the President and the
Secretary of State review the administration's own records. Its
own records.
So, I am not going to ask you whether you agree with the
assertions the President has said, that these governments are
purposely sending migrants to the north. I am not going to
waste time with that. But, I do hope you can share for the
committee, one, what are the root causes that we see people
fleeing and seeking asylum? And, two, do you believe that the
programs that you previously had been engaged in to provide an
improved food security, expand economic opportunity, youth gang
alternatives, and the other elements of your program to create
institutional capacity were headed in a direction that was
working?
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Senator.
First off, I believe in our programs. The programs--
imperfect, we can always do better and always do more--I think
have been producing some good results, and I am confident that
they will be part of the longer-term answer. It is no secret
that we are all frustrated by the upsurge in numbers that we
have seen recently. I saw that former Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson said that this was a crisis, by anyone's
measure. We believe that our programs are most effective when
we have strong partnership from host-country leaders. The steps
that are necessary to take, I believe, will involve our
programs, but they are only successful, as we have seen in
places like Colombia, where we have the full buy-in from the
host country and it is taking some of its own steps, oftentimes
difficult ones. As you know, the Secretary of State and the F
Bureau are in the process of doing a review of all programs and
also the conditions under which we will all be able to
continue. And we are very hopeful that we can pick up the work.
I will also say there are a couple of things that we have
been doing. In recent months, one of the things that we have
been doing is looking at apprehension data to make sure that
our programs are specifically targeted towards those parts of
the region that seem to be producing migrant flows. Secondly,
we have been developing performance metrics in our grants and
contracts with implementing partners that will make reduction
of those numbers a specific performance metric. And so, we will
be partnering more closely with our partners, including the
private sector, and hopefully bolster innovation. We think it
is important work that needs to be done, and look forward to
the opportunity to build on success and improve what we are
doing.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. But, if we do not deal
with the root causes, we are not going to meet this challenge.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Senator Young.
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator Green. It is great to have you here
at the committee.
I have heard from our military leaders about the
unsustainable losses that are facing the Afghan military. And I
have also heard that the war is, essentially, at a stalemate.
In February, then-CENTCOM Commander, General Votel, said,
quote, ``Afghanistan continues to suffer from weak institutions
and a political environment marked by a lack of unity on core
issues.'' So, that is a frustrating statement for, really, all
Americans after 17 years of engagement in Afghanistan,
especially when we know our success there ultimately depends on
some sort of political resolution.
While some view the peace talks and reconciliation with the
Taliban as a positive step, I understand the situation is very
complicated, but I am reserving judgment, especially in light
of the fact that the Afghan Government is not party to those
talks.
Mr. Green, in your view, how is our mission in Afghanistan
going?
Ambassador Green. Well, first, I would like to take a
moment just to pause and express condolences and concerns.
There was an attack last night, that we all read about, in
Afghanistan. Still learning more about precisely what happened.
But, it is a reminder to all of us of just what a challenging
environment that we see there.
The Secretary of State directed us to be part of a posture
review in the size of our footprint, State Department
footprint, interagency, in Embassy Kabul. And, you know, we
have provided information. I know that review is being
finalized. We will consult with all of you when that is
completed.
You know, we continue to work through the Country
Development Cooperation Strategy that all of you have seen and
approved of. We view our work as crucial for supporting peace.
Secondly, we think that we need to continue to find ways to
strengthen citizen-responsive governance and citizen-centered
governance so that people have political and emotional
investment in institutions. We are continuing to work to foster
private-sector inclusive growth. One of the problems has always
been that it is a country that has mineral resources, but does
not necessarily produce inclusive growth such that a large
number of people are invested.
And then, finally, what is crucial to the success in
Afghanistan, in our view, is women's empowerment. So, it is
empowering young women and girls to get an education that ties
them to their country and the outside world, and gives them
skillsets, strengthening the tools for women entrepreneurs so
that they have greater control over their own future and,
again, produce that economic inclusive growth. So, that is
where our work is.
It is hard. It is----
Senator Young. Well----
Ambassador Green [continuing]. Extraordinarily----
Senator Young [continuing]. I want to get to brass tacks,
because our time is limited. So, you mentioned citizen
involvement and inclusive growth and involving working through
the private sector, wherever possible. How are USAID's efforts
advancing that? You mentioned you are reducing the footprint,
but your programming, right now, is advancing citizen
involvement through what activities?
Ambassador Green. Oh, again, working to strengthen local
governance institutions and empowering women to participate in
the political process. The great challenge are the security
costs.
Senator Young. I just want to point out, and it is not a
criticism of you. I actually----
Ambassador Green. No, no, no.
Senator Young [continuing]. I think no one is better
equipped to have this position than you right now. And it would
take a lot to disabuse me of that notion. But, I will say this.
We are negotiating with the Taliban. The government is not even
involved. The Taliban, I think, has different views on women
inclusiveness, women empowerment, than even the Afghan
Government does. I know the cultures are very distinct from
ours. We do not want to be unrealistic in our goals there and
what can be achieved. But, I am going to have to get more
clarity from you and your staff about exactly how we are
specifically trying to empower women.
In terms of inclusive growth, poppy cultivation, according
to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction, the recent release of the 2019 High-Risk List
says USAID will no longer design or implement programs to
address opium poppy cultivation. So, that is their major
private-sector, sort of, cash crop, is opium production right
now. And clearly we need another alternative. I do not know if
anyone has sharpened the pencil just to see if--I know we have
tried wheat in the past, substituting wheat, a much lower-
margin product than opium.
Ambassador Green. And we have, and that is a big part of
our work, is working----
Senator Young. Right.
Ambassador Green [continuing]. On value chains for
agricultural and horticultural products.
In the case of empowering women, the biggest thing, there
are 107,000 Afghan women who are educated, who were not before
the work that we are doing.
Senator Young. So, I guess the key challenge for this
committee as we oversee these activities and try and work with
you to ensure that you meet with success in achieving those
goals around good governance, citizen involvement, inclusive
growth, we need to make sure that, as the United States looks
to reduce its presence--and I am hopeful we are thinking
critically about reducing our presence, at some point, 17 years
in--how we can consolidate those gains we have made on those
different fronts.
Ambassador Green. Look forward to working with you on it,
very much.
Senator Young. I only had 5 minutes. I was generously given
6-plus. And so, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Green, I think you understand that there is a
great deal of confidence in your leadership on both sides of
the aisle on this committee, and a desire for this committee to
work with you in order for you to be able to carry out your
mission. It is extremely frustrating to see the type of budget
support that you have received from the administration. And we
recognize that, in previous years, Congress has not followed
that guideline and has provided you the resources that are more
realistic. But, we also recognize we have to figure out
strategies in order to carry out our missions. And I appreciate
your response to Senator Menendez's comments on the legislation
he has filed in regards to the health challenges we have on
Ebola. And I appreciate very much Chairman Risch's comments
about how we have put a priority on fighting for American
values, including fighting against corruption.
Your comment about having the help of host countries is
critically important to carry out your mission. We recognize
that. But, it has been Congress working with your agency that
has set guardrails that helped you. Trafficking in persons is a
clear example where we have given you clear guidance on how you
have to respond to trafficking. In women's empowerment, with
the WE ACT, we gave you clear direction on where you need to
work with us. And I think that has been very positive. And I
hope this Congress will give you clear direction on fighting
corruption--legislation that I have authored with Senator
Young, that passed this committee last Congress, that we are
working on and filed this week, last week, too--to give you
clear direction that, as you are working with host countries,
we cannot tolerate corruption, and that we need good
governance. So, we look forward to working with you on those
particular issues.
I want to sort of drill down on some of the real challenges
that we know we have, and how you are going to be able to
respond, recognizing the lack of support you are receiving
from, certainly, OMB on the budget numbers, how you are going
to use the resources to fight.
This committee authored, in the last Congress, a report on
Russia's activities in Europe. We now have the Mueller report
that clearly identifies Russia's attack on democratic
institutions here in America. We have the One Belt, One Road
Initiative from China, where we know, clearly, they are trying
to impact democratic institutions, and using their economic
power to do that. And then we see the President's budget cut
democracy programs by almost 50 percent. And we see the cut in
Europe and Eurasia by 54 percent, which is Russia's primary
target. We see the cut in East Asia and Pacific of 14 percent,
which is China's principal target. Reassure us that we will
work together to use the tools that you have to strengthen
democratic institutions, particularly in countries in which we
have bilateral programs and which Russia and China are
targeting for democracy erosion, where we need to strengthen
democracy.
Ambassador Green. Senator, thank you for the question.
You know, I do view our relationship, the relationship
between the agency and all of you, Congress, as extraordinarily
important. I believe in the open dialogue. I believe in the
constructive discussion of how we develop responses. You have
my full commitment. I mean, because it is the only way we
succeed.
When it comes to China, Russia, democracy, there are no
priorities that are higher for me. So, on the democracy front,
I am an old democracy warrior from my IRI days. But, secondly,
beyond that, none of our investments are truly sustainable if
we are not fostering citizen-responsive governance. It will not
last. And so, we have to focus on that. We develop clear
metrics in the roadmaps we have, country by country, that focus
on democracy. We are elevating democracy in our work with one
of the new bureaus. Terrifically important.
We will unveil, in a few weeks' time, our Countering Malign
Kremlin Influence Framework. And what we are trying to do is to
counter that country-by-country predatory strategy that the
Kremlin undertakes, looking for weaknesses, particularly in
Europe and Eurasia. You are right. So, we focus on such things
as independent media and media literacy, energy independence,
so we can help these countries not be so dependent upon Moscow.
We look to help fight corruption and foster transparency so
citizens have greater trust in their government.
And, when it comes to China, you know, I have been very
clear. I push back on the notion that some have put out there
that this is the era of great-power competition. I do not like
that term, because it suggests that this is a game and we are
on the same field and playing by the same rules and looking for
the same goals. It is not true. We do foreign assistance and
development. They do predatory financing. We try to partner
with countries and help lift them up so they can join us as
fellow donors. And the sooner that can happen, the better.
They, of course, are looking for the opposite. They hope to
make countries subservient and forever dependent. And I do not
think we can talk about it often enough. And so, from the Indo-
Pacific strategy to the work that we will do as an Agency in
our messaging, you have my commitment to work with you on this.
I think it should be one of our Nation's highest priorities.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that response.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Green, that was about as clear an enunciation of where
we are, as far as our relationship with China today. Thank you
so much for that.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to associate myself with all the remarks you made
about Mr. Green. He is an outstanding individual. I worked with
him in the House as a Member of Congress. I worked with him in
Africa. I have worked with him everywhere. He is terrific.
And I want to commend you on coming up with a new name,
``predatory''----
Ambassador Green. Predatory financing.
Senator Isakson [continuing]. ``Predatory financing.'' As a
real estate developer, I know what that means, but I now also
know what it means in food security and other things like that,
as well.
But, let me be real quick, because we do have a couple of
votes that I need to get to. Number one, food security is
something I have worked on a long time. I know that you are a
big supporter of food security and understand the global
challenges we have on food security. I also notice that, in the
proposal here, USAID's food security program will be combined
with other programs to form a new Bureau for Resilience and
Food Security. Will that help us in delivering our deeply
needed help of food security around the world?
Ambassador Green. It will. It will make us more nimble,
more responsive. You know, we are the largest humanitarian
donor in the world, by far. And no one else is close,
particularly on the food security side. What we have been
trying to do, and we will do with the new bureau, is also add
to it some of the resilience elements that, hopefully, get
those countries to a place where they are less dependent upon
our humanitarian food assistance. And part of that is some of
the very successful tools that come from the last
administration on Feed the Future, some of those investments,
where we harnessed the expertise of U.S. academic institutions
and agribusinesses. If we can apply those to some of the
challenges, I think it helps us all, in the long run, get away
from having to perpetually be a humanitarian donor, and can
help these other countries take care of themselves.
Senator Isakson. Well, fighting hunger is a tremendous
asset in bringing about security and independence and a good
life for people around the world who do not have it, so I am a
big supporter of that, and I hope this will help in doing so.
On Ebola, I want to go back to your alarm, stated calmly,
but distinctly. I am worried, too. I represent a state that has
Hartsfield International Airport in it, so many places--we have
CDC, we have Emory University. The first Ebola outbreak, most
recently, in Liberia, we were at the headwaters of that and
were successful in stopping it. I get the distinct message, not
necessarily subliminally, but directly, that, because of the
conflict in the DRC, because of the lack of security in the
DRC, the lack of coordination in the DRC, we are at real risk
of having an outbreak that will get larger and bigger before it
gets smaller. Are there things that we can do to help stop that
or make that situation less likely?
Ambassador Green. Yes. First off, as a confidence-building
message, let me be clear that we work very closely with the
CDC. Their medical expertise is second to none. And so, we are
closely working with them in the field. I think also part of
the answer are some of the measures that the Chairman has
talked about and are in Senator Menendez's bill, or at least
referred to, and that is taking a kind of a comprehensive
approach.
When you are fighting a pandemic in a setting like this,
you need to build trust in a community so that they are willing
to come forward and to rely on those tools that we provide. If
people are not willing to come forward, or if people go in the
opposite direction when we show up or anyone else shows up, we
will never get the pandemic under control. So, it is going to
require that kind of a response. That is why CDC, USAID, and
State have to be joined together. We each bring tools to this.
And we need to work closely together. And I think you would
hear from Dr. Redfield at CDC that we are in constant
communication. And both of our teams are there right now,
trying to do a full-on assessment----
Senator Isakson. I have heard----
Ambassador Green [continuing]. That we will come back to
with and give you a further briefing on.
Senator Isakson [continuing]. I have heard just that from
Mr. Redfield, and I appreciate you-all's cooperation and
coordination on that, because it is critically important to see
to it that we do what we need to do in the future.
And I want to end by just making a comment. I watched you
at work in Tanzania, when you were our Ambassador, and I
watched your work with PEPFAR, and putting people to work and
getting partnership attitudes between two countries and two
governments to deliver PEPFAR throughout that country at a less
expensive, more effective rate than anywhere in Africa, to
begin with. So, your natural ability and inherent like for
partnership is going to be the asset that brings us, in food
security and health security, a long way. And I appreciate your
service. If we can help in any way, please let us know.
Thank you, Mark.
Ambassador Green. Thank you. Would not be there without the
tools that all of you have provided, quite frankly. Thanks.
Senator Rubio. [presiding]: Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator Green, for being here today,
and for your service to the country.
One of the prime recipients of USAID in Europe has been
Ukraine since the Russian seizure of Crimea in 2014. And one of
the areas of our focus has been on trying to address corruption
there. As you have so rightly pointed out, a stable, prosperous
democracy is the best way for countries to better use
assistance that we are providing and that other countries are
providing. But, I was really troubled recently to see high-
ranking Ukrainian officials, such as Prosecutor General Yuriy
Lutsenko, publicly criticize our leading diplomats, and further
troubled to see his false allegations begin to circulate, not
only in Ukraine, but in rightwing media here in the United
States. So, how does USAID ensure that U.S. foreign aid in
Ukraine supports legitimate reformers who are really working to
fight endemic corruption?
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Senator.
First, as a general matter, what I often point out, the
best way to push back on the Kremlin is success in Ukraine and
in the neighborhood. That is the one thing that his people
cannot tolerate, and that is seeing democracy and markets work,
and women's empowerment.
In terms of our programs, focusing on tackling corruption
is the central piece to our work, because it is creating that
investment--as you know from these last elections, people spoke
pretty clearly, and they were absolutely fed up with corruption
and lack of responsive institutions. They want to see change.
We are helping to power that change. E-governance is a big part
of what we have been able to do. And also, we have a success
story from the elections, themselves. USAID funded some
cybersecurity tools that helped the Election Commission in
Ukraine push back against intrusions from Moscow into the
elections that we all knew were likely to occur. I had an
opportunity to meet with the mayor of Kiev yesterday, Vitali
Klitschko, and we were talking about ways--first off, he has
helped to foster some anticorruption institutions,
transparency-based, but looking for new ways--the more we can
use e-governance, the more we can push back on old institutions
and bureaucracy, I think that is crucial if we are going to see
popular support for the reformers in Ukraine, and also their
continued success in moving towards Europe.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I hope you will also help push back
against false stories like the ones that have been circulating
out of Ukraine about our diplomats.
I want to go on. I appreciated very much your comment to
Senator Young about the importance of women's empowerment and
stability in Afghanistan, and particularly, post any peace
negotiations, the important role that women will play. I had
the opportunity yesterday to sit down with Ivanka Trump and
review the administration's forthcoming Women, Peace, and
Security Strategy that is the result of legislation Senator
Capito and I sponsored that was signed into law in 2017. And it
now requires that we have a strategy for having women at the
table in any post-conflict negotiations. One of the things that
I hope you will support is the importance of having women at
the table as we look at any peace negotiations that go on with
respect to the Taliban and the Afghan Government. And hopefully
you are prepared to do that and you are prepared to officially
implement this Women, Peace, and Security Act.
Ambassador Green. Senator, thank you. And yes, we are in
the final stages of its approval, the strategy released
publicly. But, you are precisely right, history tells us that
the best way to produce sustainable, lasting peace and
effective governance is to make sure that women have their seat
at the table. So, we certainly agree.
Senator Shaheen. I just got back from Afghanistan, and I
met with a number of women leaders. And they said two things to
me that I thought were very powerful. First, they want peace.
There is no doubt about it. As you know, Afghanistan has had 40
years of war. But, they do not want to lose their rights. They
said, ``We want to see the Afghan constitution that was put in
after the overthrow of the Taliban that preserves human rights
for all Afghans, but particularly for women. We do not want to
go back to that time when women could not work, when there was
no freedom of movement, when women could not go to school, when
girls could not go to school. That is not a future stable
Afghanistan.''
Ambassador Green. Moving back to the past of those days and
that kind of demeaning of women and marginalization of women
all restores the very conditions that led to the crises that
started all of this. So, we are with you. We are proud of the
work that we have done to empower women, economically,
educationally. And that is the work we plan to keep doing.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for spending some
time in my office with me. We discussed the humanitarian plate
in Yemen in my office, and I wanted to follow up, on the
record, with a question or two.
As I noted to you, in my recent trip with Senator Romney to
the region, all of the partners that work with you in Sanaa
flew into Amman, Jordan, to meet with our delegation to give us
some devastating news. And that news was that there are 250,000
Yemenis who are so sick and so malnourished that they are
beyond saving. A quarter-million Yemenis are likely to die in
the coming months because of the famine and the spread of
disease that exists both in Houthi-controlled territories and
in coalition-controlled territories. We have been a major
humanitarian partner in the efforts to save these lives,
notwithstanding the conflict, $720 million in assistance over
the last 2 years coming from the U.S. Treasury. But, this FY-
2020 request specifies only $41 million in total bilateral aid
to Yemen.
Help me understand that number and whether I am reading the
budget request wrong. Are we going to see a diminution in our
humanitarian assistance to Yemen in the coming year?
Ambassador Green. Senator, I do not have the precise budget
figure on Yemen, but let me say this. We will not walk away
from our humanitarian role there. Again, as you know, as you
rightly pointed, $721 million in humanitarian assistance in
Yemen, $692 million of that comes from USAID. We continue to
work closely with all the NGOs that are working there. I met,
yesterday, with Carolyn Miles, from Save the Children. And yet,
today, at the end of the day, I will be meeting, as I do
regularly, with all the international NGOs that are working in
Yemen. And, a few days ago, I spoke with the World Food
Programme by phone, just on another assessment there. All of
the dark things that you have characterized there are true. I
mean, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. And, in some cases,
the level of suffering, you know, is not irreversible--or is
not reversible. It is not something that we can immediately
turn back on, and it will have long-term consequences that are
dark and sad. We will not walk away from our humanitarian role.
Senator Murphy. And you had testified, in the House, that
the conflict itself was what is blocking humanitarian
assistance. I would tend to agree. And our humanitarian
partners tend to agree. But, I would just reinforce what we
discussed in private, which is that, notwithstanding the
settlement of the conflict, there are steps that both sides can
take in order to improve the situation for Yemenis on the
ground. I will say, though, that we are only party to one side
of the conflict. And so, we have much more impact over the side
of the conflict of which we are a member, and there are
certainly steps that our partners can take to release money
into the economy, to free up the bureaucratic hurdles that
still exist to this day on humanitarian assistance getting into
the Red Sea ports. We can take steps, even notwithstanding the
political process, to ease the flow of humanitarian aid into
that country, correct?
Ambassador Green. Senator, yes. So, first off is a point of
clarification. The $41 million--just had a note given to me--it
is the development assistance part of our request, does not
reflect the humanitarian assistance that we will, naturally,
provide.
But, secondly, you are correct, in that both sides have
steps to take. That is absolutely true. Part of the reason that
we meet with--Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and I--
regularly with representatives of all the key international
NGOs and U.N. family, quite frankly, is to learn about those
impediments that weaken the effectiveness and raise the costs.
And then what we try to do--and State obviously takes the
diplomatic lead, here--is to push those to ease the burdens in
delivering assistance.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I had a question that I
wanted to ask about the impact of the cuts to the Palestinian
Authority that is probably too complicated for the time that I
have remaining, so I will make it for the record.
I will just use my final 20 seconds to note that, on this
trip, Senator Romney and I also visited Iraq. And there is a
great fear, in Iraq, that the failure to resettle displaced
populations and to rebuild the portions of the country that
were destroyed in our fight, along with the Iraqi army and
militias, to root out ISIS will be, in fact, the ultimate
invitation for these Sunni extremist groups to reemerge. And
there are rumors that we are going to cut our humanitarian
assistance and development assistance into the country. It
still represents only about 20 percent of our total spend
there, which seems to me to be an unthoughtful apportionment of
dollars. But, I will just state the imperative of continuing
and increasing our development and reconstruction assistance to
Iraq. If we do not make that commitment, if we do not signal
our long-term commitment to that funding, it will provide an
impetus for an already-strengthening ISIS inside Iraq to make
the case to Sunni populations that it is its only protector.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
I have you all to myself. We are in the middle of votes, as
I am sure they have told you; so, hence, all the movement.
So, let me start, just take off from the point of Yemen. I
think we are all concerned about the humanitarian crisis there,
and recognize--I think we are upwards of $230 million or so
that we have provided so far. And what is the number?
Ambassador Green. In Yemen, it is $721 million.
Senator Rubio. Oh, wow. Okay, perfect.
So, my question to you is the following. It is still an
active conflict zone. Theoretically, just as an example, if the
Houthis, I would suspect, or I would know, at the direction,
let us say, of the IRGC and the Quds Force and Soleimani, were
to conduct attacks, say, in Saudi Arabia--against Saudi Arabia,
as they have done in the past, or against U.S. interests in the
region--for example, the U.S. Navy or even commercial shipping
vessels--that would elicit, necessarily, a military response.
If you could describe--I think we could all sort of sense what
that would do for the humanitarian efforts that are going on
there--but any sort of active attack by the Houthis, especially
at the direction of Iran, against either Saudi interests, which
would elicit a Saudi response, and, God forbid, against U.S.
interests, which would elicit a devastating response, would
dramatically exacerbate and, I would imagine, significantly
impede, if not stop, efforts to provide aid to the people who
so desperately need it.
Ambassador Green. Mr. Chairman, I guess, a couple of
points. Obviously, as to the diplomatic and security situation,
I would defer to the State Department. They are the ones who
can give you the best characterization of where they see the
posture of that situation. However, on the humanitarian front,
we all recognize that, even at best, what we are trying to do
is treatment, not cure, that a long-term political settlement,
a cessation of hostilities, (a) is crucial to being able to get
in to provide lifesaving medicine, to provide lifesaving food
assistance. And some have characterized very effectively how
dire the need is. But, in the long run, it is getting in to
restore some reemergence of the social compact between citizens
and leaders of ministries and local institutions that will
provide some kind of stability and predictability. So,
humanitarian assistance, or the humanitarian assistance agency,
but we recognize that diplomacy and development and, obviously,
security, in a secure setting, are the only way we can produce
long-term----
Senator Rubio. Yeah, I guess the point I was trying to
drive at is, if the Houthis truly care about humanitarian
assistance reaching the people who desperately need it,
attacking the United States on the orders of Iran, or allowing
the IRGC to operate from space they control, is not the best
idea, if, in fact, they care about humanitarian assistance.
Ambassador Green [continuing]. We need a cessation of
hostilities, including missile and UAV strikes from Houthi-
controlled areas. I mean, we just have to have that. And then,
subsequently, the coalition airstrikes must, obviously, cease
in all populated areas. Those are the two steps that we need to
be able to effectively deliver humanitarian relief.
Senator Rubio. And an escalation of the conflict by the
Houthis, by targeting targets inside Saudi Arabia or targeting
the United States, would run counter to a cessation of
hostilities.
Ambassador Green. An escalation of hostilities is a very
bad thing for innocent people on the ground who are trying to
desperately get those medicines.
Senator Rubio. Pivoting to Venezuela, I know you have
spoken about it in your opening statement. It is my
understanding--and perhaps the numbers have been updated--that,
last year, Colombia spent over a billion dollars dealing with
well over a million migrants. They are our strongest
counterdrug partner in the region, one of our strongest allies
in the region. How would you describe, whether in numbers or in
just general terms, the impact that the instability in
Venezuela is having on Colombia, both from a cost and societal
perspective?
Ambassador Green. Sadly, it is one of the most undercovered
and underappreciated aspects to this conflict. I have seen
reports suggesting that Colombia's economic growth, while still
positive, has been reduced by .8 percent just on the basis of
the burden of the uncontrolled migrant flow. But, I am heading
back down to the region in a couple of days' time. There are so
many things that we are working with President Duque on that we
are going to raise the profile of, but this is a dark cloud
that certainly threatens their future. As we talk about
humanitarian crises, we have the obvious ones that we all
recognize, and then we have the narcos running around the
place. So, we have, on top of everything else, this
extraordinarily unstable situation in which the Venezuelans are
providing safe harbor to bad guys who impact the ability of
Colombia to take on some of their longstanding governance
challenges for peace and reconciliation. So, it is a terrible
threat to Colombia. I am very impressed with President Duque. I
am impressed with his plans. I am impressed with what they are
trying to do, and their generosity and hospitality towards
Venezuelans. But, they need our help desperately.
Senator Rubio. One of the things I am growing increasingly
concerned about is a number of Venezuelan military and national
guard defectors that are currently located inside of Colombia,
and the Colombians have shouldered the cost of housing and
providing for them. But, we get mixed reports that they were
evicted from the hotel, that these folks stepped forward and
did the right thing in supporting the constitution. What are
the plans or what discussions are occurring, in terms of
dealing with that group, particularly, of the military
defectors that now find themselves inside of--I say
``defectors''--military officials that have joined, rank-and-
file soldiers and guardsmen and police officers that have
joined the legitimate government--who is taking care of them?
What plans are in the works to address providing for them a way
forward?
Ambassador Green. Senator, in terms of formal plans, they
have not been completed or finalized yet, so I do not have much
to tell you on that front. What I can say is that we are in
touch with Guaido's people all the time, continuously, and it
is something they are very much aware of, as are the Colombians
with whom we speak continuously. So, we are working to forge
plans driven by them that deal with this challenge and others.
These are obviously changing numbers all the time, but it
represents another uncertainty that impacts the situation.
Senator Rubio. Yeah, I would just say the United States, it
is my view, has an obligation to contribute to that effort, and
I hope we can work with you and with the administration to make
it happen. Multiple administration officials, Members of
Congress, myself included, actively called for these
individuals to do what they did, which is not to kill innocent
civilians, and to come forward. They did so, at great personal
risk, in many cases, at great personal price for their families
that were left inside of Venezuela. And I just personally
believe that we do have a moral obligation to contribute not
just money, but some plan for them to have a way forward, and
not just simply that they would be stuck there on the Colombian
side with no sort of future prospects.
I see that I have been--you ready? All right. Senator
Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator.
And thank you, Administrator Green. I share comments raised
by others, that you have the confidence of this committee. We
are very appreciative of your work. But, my questions are going
to focus on what I think is difficult about your job right now.
March 28, 2019, Thursday, the DHS put out this press
statement, ``Secretary Nielsen Signs Historic Regional Compact
With Central America to Stem Irregular Migration at the Source,
Confront U.S. Border Crisis.'' And I am just going to read the
first paragraph of the press release, ``Secretary of Homeland
Security Kirstjen Nielsen traveled to Tegucigalpa, Honduras,
where she met with security ministers representing the
countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The
multilateral discussions marked the continuation of a multiyear
diplomatic process and the signing of a historic memorandum of
cooperation on border security cooperation in Central
America.''
I would like to introduce this press statement of DHS for
the record.
Senator Rubio. Without objection.
[The information referred to above is located at the end of
the hearing.]
Senator Kaine. That was Thursday, March 28th.
Friday, March 29, at Mar-a-Lago, President Trump said he
was mad at the Central American nations for not doing more to
stop a border crisis, and he said, ``We are not going to give
them any more money.''
On Saturday, March 30th, Reuters, the title, ``U.S. Ending
Aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras Over Migrants''--``
`The United States is cutting off aid to El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras, known collectively as the Northern
Triangle,' the State Department said on Saturday, a day after
President Trump blasted the Central American countries for
sending migrants to the United States.''
I would like to introduce this article for the record, if I
might.
Senator Rubio. Without objection.
[The information referred to above is located at the end of
the hearing.]
Senator Kaine. Two days. The DHS announces a historic
memorandum of cooperation with the three nations, and the press
release goes on to cite all of the elements of cooperation that
we are going to be engaging in with these nations to stop the
border crisis. Within 24 hours, the President said he is mad at
these nations and we are going to cut off funding. And then, on
Saturday, 2 days later, March 30, the State Department
announces all funding to these nations are being cut off.
Mr. Green, I have got a series of questions about this. As
USAID Administrator, were you aware of the fact that DHS was
involved in lengthy discussions with the Governments of the
Northern Triangle countries around a memorandum of cooperation
to stop migration flows?
Ambassador Green. We had some awareness. We did not
participate in those discussions, but we certainly had
awareness.
Senator Kaine. Obviously, that is in the DHS side of the
family. You are in more of the State Department side of the
family. But, you were aware of those discussions. And I do not
think it would be unfair to say that, if you were aware of
those discussions, it is likely the case that the Secretary of
State was also aware of the discussions that the DHS was
engaged in. Is that fair?
Ambassador Green. I cannot speculate, but I would assume he
was aware.
Senator Kaine. Sounds reasonable. Do you know whether the
President was aware of the discussions or the signing of the
historic accord that his own Cabinet Secretary put out this
statement about on March 28th?
Ambassador Green. I do not know. I do not know. I do not
have awareness.
Senator Kaine. I have been very critical of this
administration for blowing up diplomacy. I think backing out of
the Paris Accord was a bad idea. I think backing out of the
U.N. Global Compact on Migration was a bad idea. I think
backing out of the JCPOA was a horrible idea, potentially
leading us closer to an unnecessary war. But, I have, I think,
been wrongfully asserting that the administration wants to back
out of diplomatic deals that were deals done under President
Obama's tenure. This is an example. When, on Thursday, March
28th, the Trump administration announces a compact with the
three Central American nations, and, in less than 24 hours, the
President is announcing that he is suspending all funding to
those nations to do exactly what we want them to do, I have
deep questions about how decisions are being made by this
administration. I have confidence in you. You are going to make
the best out of what you are given. And you have, testified, in
response to Senator Menendez's questions earlier, that you are
not backing away from any of the programs. And, hopefully, we
will find a way to continue these programs. But, the suspension
of aid to these nations within 2 days after we reached a--in
President Trump's administration's own words, it is an historic
accord to stop immigration. And we suspend funding? I conclude
that this President must be pro-caravan. He likes to say he is
against caravans, but maybe he actually likes caravans, because
it gives him something to run his mouth about and run his
Twitter account about.
If this administration was against migration flows from
Central America, they would not blow up their own diplomatic
deal within 48 hours after announcing it, following a multiyear
process with these nations. And it raises real questions: why
would you, as another nation, want to partner with the United
States? If you will sign a historic deal with the United
States, and the United States will unplug it within 48 hours,
why would you want to be a partner of ours to stop migration or
do anything else?
I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. [presiding]: Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome.
Let us start by talking about Sudan. As you know, last
month in Sudan, President al-Bashir was removed from power
after three decades of brutal repression. There are worrying
signs, however, that Sudan's new rulers are going to drag out
any transition to true democracy, and perhaps indefinitely. In
your judgment, what is the role of development assistance in
building up Sudanese institutions?
Ambassador Green. We are obviously very supportive of a
transition to a peaceful and democratic Sudan. We think that
the people of Sudan have spoken loudly and clearly. They want a
return to civilian government. And we look forward to,
hopefully, the day where we are able to support and strengthen
just that.
Senator Cruz. Do you anticipate any significant problems
distributing aid or promoting USAID's mission under Sudan's
current governance?
Ambassador Green. We do provide humanitarian assistance
now. We are the largest donor to the people of Sudan, in terms
of humanitarian assistance. We provided over 250 million of
humanitarian assistance in 2018. But, again, as I have said
before, humanitarian assistance is treatment, not cure. And
that obviously is not the long-term answer. The long-term
answer is fostering citizen-responsive governance. And we think
that is what the people of Sudan have been protesting for. And
we are all very, very hopeful, but also deeply concerned, as
you have characterized. We need to see that transition occur. I
think it is important for Sudan, and it is important for all of
us.
Senator Cruz. Yeah, I agree.
Let us shift to Nicaragua. I am also deeply concerned about
the political trends in Nicaragua and the Ortega regime. Last
year, I passed legislation, along with Senator Menendez and
Congressman Ros-Lehtinen, to impose targeted sanctions and
restrictions on loans to Nicaragua and to mandate a civil-
society engagement strategy. The legislation was signed into
law December 2018. Assistance plays an important role in our
Nicaragua strategy, including democracy assistance. What is
USAID's strategy for ensuring that our development assistance
in Nicaragua is used in a way that promotes our priorities and
values?
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, quite
frankly, for raising the issue of Nicaragua and focusing on it.
We agree with you very strongly. Ortega is a brutal tyrant who
has clearly shown no regard whatsoever, not only for democratic
rights, but for the well-being of his own people.
First, I think we all need to salute the extraordinary
courage of young Nicaraguan activists and democracy voices.
Under the harshest of crackdowns, they have continued to be
loud and clear on calling for democracy. We see ourselves as a
crucial lifeline to them. And so, in the last year, we have
provided support directly to the Nicaraguan people, $17.6
million for Nicaragua through OTI, as we call transition
initiatives, first off, to provide some civil-society support
and reinforcement, but provide some relief for these folks.
Also, our voice has been consistent in calling for justice,
rule of law, and a restoration to democratic order. We will not
back down, just as the young people of Nicaragua will not back
down.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Let us shift to Venezuela. The history of development
assistance in Venezuela has been a complicated one. For
decades, Chavez, Maduro, and their thugs have used foreign aid
as a political weapon. Meanwhile, the country has spiraled into
catastrophe, which has required USAID to coordinate with other
agencies and assets in the region, including SOUTHCOM. In your
judgment, what steps can USAID take, both in Venezuela and
elsewhere, to ensure that badly needed aid is not diverted by
regimes like the one in Venezuela?
Ambassador Green. Thank you. As to Venezuela and
assistance, I guess I would offer a couple of things.
First, I want to thank all of you. I want to thank the
members of this committee and this body for its support for our
democracy assistance work in Venezuela over the years, both
sides of the aisle. The first time that I met Juan Guaido face
to face--I had spoken to him once on the phone, but face to
face--he thanked me for that. That is what he thanked me for.
He thanked me for the support that we have provided to civil
society, but, in particular, the National Assembly. He is, of
course, the leader of the National Assembly, and thus, the
interim President. And that is a reminder to all of us of just
how important these investments are. We need to stay engaged
and support democracy, civil society, young democratic voices.
And, so, first and foremost, we would not be here if not for
those investments. And I am grateful.
On the humanitarian side, it is an extraordinarily
difficult situation, obviously. As we have mentioned, we have
pre-positioned assistance in a number of places. We welcome the
announcement by the International Red Cross/Red Crescent that
they are trying to find ways to see that assistance can be
delivered in-country, not subject to diversion from Maduro and
his regime. And I can tell you more in a different setting.
But, we will make sure that our assistance does not get
politically weaponized, as assistance has too often in the past
by Maduro. He has used it to punish enemies, to reward friends.
And obviously, we are not going to let that happen, in terms of
our assistance.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. And we thank you for your focus on
that particular point that you made at the end. That is
incredibly important.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Menendez.
Thank you, Administrator Green. It is great to be with you
again.
Let me continue on that point about the fragility of
democracy in the world and the important efforts that we make
to support it, not just in Venezuela, but in lots of countries
around the world. We spoke briefly at the IRI event last night.
IRI is one of those organizations that is supported by taxpayer
funds in order to help ensure that democracy and governance are
advancing around the world. NDI and the other National
Endowment for Democracy programs, I think, are well worth our
continuing to support.
I am concerned about election security and ways in which
increasing capacities for surveillance by authoritarian-leaning
states' ability to turn off the Internet, ability to use
biometric databases to monitor and surveil their population
makes exactly the sort of work that we have done for decades
through IFES, one of those key organizations, more freightening
because we are literally handing regimes, now, a biometric
database of all their constituents. We had long thought that
the places where we most needed to invest in elections and
democracy were the least developed countries that had the most
ground to cover. In some areas, like Southeast Asia, for
example, or Eastern Europe, we are seeing interference in
elections by the Chinese, by Russians, by other actors, that
gives me real pause.
Are we developing election security toolkits? Are there
things within democracy and governance we should be doing, in
light of the ways in which our own last presidential election
was put at risk? And what is your view on whether our democracy
and governance funding overall is robust enough?
Ambassador Green. Senator, I think you have captured some
really important decisions that we have to make and important
challenges that we have to explore. You know, it is
interesting--and I am a democracy warrior from way back--you
know, you look at 20 years ago, and the battle we had was
against authoritarians who opposed elections. They no longer
oppose elections. Everybody supports elections. They had to
steal them and bend them and manipulate them, such that, long
before you ever get to election date, it is over. And that is a
challenge for us. I have asked my team, including my Statutory
Advisory Council, which has representatives of the various
democracy institutions in town, to develop a new framework to
help us go after this. A lot has changed in those 20 years. The
bad guys have tools. The bad guys are strategic. Notice that
one of the first things Maduro did during those protests is
shut down CNN en Espanol and close off the Internet, wherever
he could. We need to have a better response to that.
The most important things have not changed. And what I mean
by that is, you could see it with the courage of those
Venezuelans and the Nicaraguans and so many others. People want
democracy. People want transparent governance. People want to
have freedom of choice in their own future. As long as we have
that element, we can figure this out. But, we need to develop a
different framework than we have got. I worry that if we
continue to operate in the old framework--okay, we look at
election day, and we will, you know, the last couple of months,
fund election observers--we are not going to be very satisfied.
So, I am getting the institutions to help us develop a
series of benchmarks that help us evaluate, long before we get
into the home stretch of an election. If we do not, we are
going to continue to see--particularly China, with the closed-
Net election systems and software they provide--they are going
to continue to be satisfied, and we are not.
Senator Coons. Thank you for your answer and your focus on
this. I have two more questions. I will ask them and then use
what time you have left to answer, if you would.
First, I am just interested in the implementation of the
BUILD Act, the transition to a Development Finance Corporation.
I think it was a significant legislative accomplishment by this
body in the last Congress in the Trump administration. And I
just returned from a visit to China during the Belt and Road
Conference. Having an American-led response to the
infrastructure needs of the developing world, I think, is
urgent. I think it would be worth the time of this committee to
have you and David Bohigian and others who are actively
involved in this come back and testify to us about how well we
are doing at making it a Development Finance Corporation, one
that has measurable and responsible risk, that is going to be
good stewards of taxpayer dollars, but also deploy significant
new amounts of private capital with a development focus. I
would be interested in your views on how that is laying out.
And then, last, I understand you have already spoken about
Ebola and the DRC. I just wanted to commend you for your focus
on Tropical Cyclones Idai and Kenneth, and the responses in
Mozambique, and express my real concern about the fragility of
the DRC and the region, and my gratitude to Senator Menendez
for stepping forward and taking on a leadership role on
tackling Ebola. Anything you care to respond to in what I
suspect is 30 seconds. Thank you.
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Senator. As always, thank you.
On Mozambique, as I said, we have mobilized about $70
million. I sent a team there, a 17-person Disaster Assistance
Response Team, as well as my counselor, Chris Milligan, who has
deep experience in the region. A long way to go, but we are
working on it.
An additional challenge in Mozambique in the north, the
insurgent attacks are beginning to restrict our ability to get
into some of those most affected areas by Kenneth, so we are
watching that.
In terms of the DFC, I am like you, I am a believer in the
DFC, and I was long before I got to USAID. You have been very
eloquent. And I think you have been on the mark. I think the
most important questions that we need to answer--we are working
closely with OPIC, but, as we go forward--to make sure that we
have clear development impact so that these tools, which we now
use, Development Credit Authority, which are a vital part of
bringing the private sector to bear on some of our great
challenges, building capacity and accelerating private
investment, but also making sure that we do not duplicate,
unnecessarily, institutions. We want to make sure that we
continue to--USAID and the 80-plus missions that we are in
around the world--you know, we want to help identify projects,
evaluate them, make sure that they have development impact, and
then bring them to the DFC with all of the financial tools and
expertise that it has. So, the integration, I think, is going
to be key, and that is what we are going to be working on in
coming weeks. If we do this right, it is a major tool in the
toolbox.
One thing I will say. It is not about the money, in the
sense of number-to-number with China and Belt and Road. It is
what it produces. We believe in self-reliance. We want private
enterprise, we want countries to lead themselves, in the long
run. China obviously does a very different thing. So, you know,
we are not trying to mimic China. We are trying to do a very
different model. And that is what I think we can get to.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Administrator.
Thanks for your patience, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
On climate change, I have been appreciative of USAID's
programs that have sought to improve resiliency among countries
in the face of climate change. However, the administration's
fiscal year '20 budget does not include funds for the global
environmental facility and an international environmental donor
fund we have historically supported, and does not identify any
environment- or climate-related priorities. The Secretary of
State's unwillingness to say if he prioritizes climate change
in U.S. foreign policy and decisions by the State Department to
remove references to ``climate change'' from international
declarations, including this week's Arctic Council statement,
reflects the administration's disregard for integrating climate
change into how we address conflict mitigation, migration, and
displacement, and other humanitarian questions.
Do you believe that climate change is a foreign policy
priority that needs to be tackled?
Ambassador Green. Senator, I will let Secretary Pompeo, our
top diplomat, talk about foreign policy leadership. But, what I
can say: we recognize, (a) that climate is changing, and (b)
that we need to help countries deal with its consequences. So,
in our roadmaps that we use as, sort of, guideposts in our
Journey to Self-Reliance work, we have key metrics on
biodiversity and the environment. We think it is awfully
important.
Secondly, we continue, in so many parts of the world, to
develop tools, as you pointed to, resilience tools and others,
to help countries deal with the fallout from changing climate
and how it affects governance, self-sufficiency, and so on and
so forth. That priority will continue for us.
Senator Markey. And I am very much in respect of your
commitment to foreign assistance, but I think that the budget
request actually reflects a lack of commitment to working on
this issue and giving these countries the help they need to
deal with the climate crisis. I mean, it is a crisis for them.
And for the United States not to even make some kind of a
statement, in terms of its foreign policy objectives, I think,
is something that is heard overseas, and I think it is
important for us to remedy that in our national statements.
And let me just move on quickly. Despite some signs of
progress in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, we are
seeing a number of troubling indicators on the democracy front
in the Indo-Pacific. Election interference by the junta in
Thailand, the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma, or human
right abuses in the Philippine drug war, increasing
restrictions on press freedom--are all signs of democratic
backsliding.
In previous East Asia Subcommittee hearings, Cory Gardner
and I highlighted the challenges posed by China's repressive
authoritarian model, and that model is now being exported
around the region. The administration's budget request for
foreign assistance resources for the Indo-Pacific is to double
the budget request from the previous fiscal year. However, it
is still nearly $200 million less than the amount dedicated to
the region in 2018. How can we effectively counter
antidemocratic efforts in the region if we still do not have
robust funding to promote democracy and human rights in the
Indo-Pacific?
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Senator. And particularly as
you stated the question early on in surveying the scene in
Asia, I do not disagree with you. I mean, those are, I think
that captures well some of the challenges that we are seeing.
The Indo-Pacific strategy, our piece of the Indo-Pacific
strategy, is focused on three objectives: fostering economic
growth, obviously, but improving management of natural
resources--that goes hand in hand with economic growth--but
strengthening democratic systems. And so, we are working to
develop tools on media integrity and literacy. We are working
to support a civil society. The missing voice of civil society,
quite frankly, in parts of Burma, I think is one of the great
challenges. And, I think, also being very clear about what we
see, from the imprisonment of the Uyghurs to--in my view,
nothing has caused me more despair than the Rohingyas who have
been left behind in places like Sittwe. I think we should be
clear-throated on those challenges.
Senator Markey. I will tell you that Senator Gardner and I
are concerned, because, ultimately, these trends are being
exacerbated. And, you know, we were able to pass, and the
President signed, the ARIA legislation last year. And we know
how robust China is going to be. And if we are not robust
ourselves, then you do not have to be a genius to figure out
how this whole thing plays out. So, by underfunding a lot of
these programs, then we just wind up with the officials in
these countries wondering: do we really care? And the money
itself is, in fact, a statement that we would make. So, I would
just encourage the administration to consider its commitments
and ensure our funding is sufficient to match the magnitude of
the challenge, because, otherwise, I am afraid it is a losing
strategy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, back in our February hearing, you expressed
initial support for the importance of convening an
international donor summit and for coordinating a truly
international response to Venezuela as humanitarian and refugee
crisis. Why has this not happened yet?
Ambassador Green. It is still something that I personally
support and think we should be doing. Two things. We continue
to be in close contact with Guaido's government, and want to
make sure that they prioritize it, as well. Beyond that, we are
still working with our partners at the State Department to get
them fully on board. But, as you know, I think it would be a
useful step.
Senator Menendez. Yeah.
Ambassador Green. I think it is----
Senator Menendez. I am sorry to cut you off, only because I
know we are going to have to go to vote. But,
internationalizing a donors conference so that we send a
message to the Venezuelan people that there is a hope after----
Ambassador Green [continuing]. We have 53 other nations
joining this----
Senator Menendez [continuing]. More than recognize Guaido.
They need to be part of it. So, I will press it with the
Secretary.
Let me move to Ethiopia, quickly. Assuming office just over
a year ago, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed undertook some pretty
sweeping political reforms in the most populous country in the
Horn of Africa. He freed thousands of political prisoners and
journalists, he lifted the state of emergency, he allowed
political opposition parties to return to the country. I mean,
it is pretty remarkable. However, the transition remains
fragile. If we continue to fail to support Abiy's efforts, the
most profound political transformation on the continent may
fail. What are USAID's conflict mitigation programs, activities
related, in certain areas in conflict zones in Ethiopia? What
are the goals of these activities? How many people are they
reaching? Give me a sense of what we are doing there.
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Senator.
And it is interesting. If you would have told me, a year
ago, that we would be looking at the Horn of Africa as being
the opportunity area in Africa, I would have thought you were
crazy. But, you are right. So, in Ethiopia, we have been moving
quickly. Obviously, we continue to provide humanitarian
assistance. We have 8 million people who are food insecure.
But, we have a number of programs that we are pursuing with the
invitation of Prime Minister Abiy. We have additional funding
that we have put in for democracy, governance, human rights
programs. We are also providing technical support to the
attorney general and supreme court to expand those institutions
so they are more independent in their decision-making and
oversight capacity. We also have been supportive of civil
society groups like IRI and NDI. They are now returned to
Ethiopia. That is fairly recent. And they are trying to go back
to their longstanding work to strengthen the democratic ethos
at the community level.
One of my great concerns is the fragility of Ethiopia,
politically. There are still ethnic tensions, as you know very
well. And so, we are looking to support institutions that
promote reconciliation but also give people the opportunity to
sort of weigh in and have a constructive investment in
government.
Senator Menendez. Well, we want to follow up with you on
that.
And then, lastly, I am going to submit, for the record, a
series of questions about rescissions. I am deeply concerned
that, even though the Congress keeps rebuffing the
administration on spending, we see program funds that are
frozen in the Northern Triangle, in Syria, in the West Bank, in
Gaza, in Pakistan, and a whole host of other things. So, this
thwarts the congressional intent that money is to be spent for
these programs. And I am concerned about where rescissions are
going. So, I am going to ask you that question, and I would
like to get an answer in writing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Mr. Green, thank you so much for being here today. This has
been one of our more enlightening hearings in the--even though
the foreign assistance budget is one of the smallest slivers of
the United States entire budget, the Federal budget, it really
cannot be measured in dollars, and its impact is critical for
America and for American interests around the world. We need
your agency to be strategic, efficient, effective, and
accountable, and we are glad to have you there because we know
you pursue in those goals, just as we do.
So, with that, for the information of members, the record
will remain open until close of business on Friday.
Senator Menendez, is that long enough for you to----
Senator Menendez. Absolutely.
The Chairman. All right.
We will leave the record open until close of business on
Friday. We would ask if you would get your responses in as
quickly as possible, as it helps us as we move forward.
So, with that, if I can find the gavel, we will close the
hearing today. Thank you much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Hon. Mark Green to Questions
Submitted by Senator James E. Risch
china's role in africa
Question. Chinese economic projects--both in the physical and
digital realms--continue to proliferate on the African continent as
Beijing aggressively pursues its ``One Belt, One Road'' initiative
around the world. Many of these China-funded projects are conducted
under the auspices of development, but instead often result in
crippling debt. How is USAID operating in this environment,
particularly where partner countries are working with the Agency on
their journeys to self-reliance, while also becoming increasingly
reliant on Chinese financing?
Answer. In an era of intensifying competition among global powers,
including the People's Republic of China, the U.S. model for
development is one of independence, self-reliance, and growth--not
dependency, domination, and debt. We emphasize that our approach is
true assistance that helps governments, civil society, and the private
sector in our partner nations build self-sufficiency in a more dynamic
future in which private enterprise drives economic growth. We aim to
help governments and the public in our partner countries recognize the
costs of alternative models, like those of China and Russia, that can
weaken confidence in democratic and free-market systems, saddle
countries with unsustainable debt, erode sovereignty, lead to the
forfeiture of strategic assets, ignore the needs and concerns of local
communities, and further the ambitions of authoritarian actors. Through
programs such as Prosper Africa, Feed the Future, and Power Africa, the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) counters Chinese
influence by providing mutually beneficial, alternative methods of
development while encouraging private-sector investment.
The administration not only will encourage African leaders to
choose sustainable foreign investments, but also promote a grassroots
approach that engages citizens in these decisions. USAID champions
citizen-responsive, democratic governance and building strong
communities to mobilize Africans to advocate for their own interests.
As USAID works to foster overall self-reliance in a partner country, we
will ensure we build the capacity of governments, civil society, and
the private sector to make informed decisions about their choice of
development partners.
humanitarian assistance
I strongly support aid reforms that will help us stretch dollars
farther, save more lives, and advance key interests, but I'll need a
lot more information about the proposed reorganization of humanitarian
assistance before I can throw my weight behind it.
Question. Mr. Administrator, how is the proposed State-USAID
humanitarian assistance coordination structure meant to function? Will
USAID will need to get the Department's approval before responding to
food crises or providing assistance to internally displaced persons,
which are currently within your area of responsibility?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
proposes the consolidation of all overseas humanitarian aid in a new,
single, flexible International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account
and the new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) at the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), with a new high-level, dual-hat
leadership structure under the authority of the Secretary of State.
These changes would allow the U.S. Government to respond seamlessly to
the ongoing and emerging humanitarian needs of the most-vulnerable
displaced people, including refugees, victims of conflict, stateless
persons, and migrants worldwide. With this proposed structure, the U.S.
Government would have a single, unified voice and message with the
international donor community and implementing organizations to
optimize outcomes in humanitarian crises.
Question. Who is meant to lead the response in areas where there
are both internally displaced persons and refugees, such as Colombia?
Answer. With the changes proposed in the President's Budget Request
for FY 2020, the responsibility for the implementation, administration,
and management of all overseas humanitarian-assistance programming,
including for both refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs),
would lie with USAID's new BHA, under the new IHA account. The IHA
account would finance overseas assistance currently funded through the
International Disaster Assistance (IDA) and MRA accounts, and under
Title II of the Food for Peace Act. The IHA account would maintain all
the IDA's authorities and receive expanded ones to cover all overseas
refugee operations, including those currently funded through the
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account. As such, USAID would
remain the U.S. Government's lead Federal coordinator for responding to
international disasters and would not need to seek the Department of
State's approval before mobilizing in a crisis. The State Department
would continue to manage programs to resettle refugees in the United
States funded by the (MRA) account.
Question. Do you believe the consolidated request for humanitarian
assistance accurately reflects current needs and U.S. interests?
Answer. We anticipate humanitarian needs will remain at
unprecedented levels around the world. The President's Budget Request
for FY 2020 reflects this reality, and includes $5.968 billion for the
new IHA account. The Request takes into account resources requested in
prior Fiscal Years in the current IDA and MRA accounts, and would
enable USAID to maintain a level of resources comparable to that
appropriated in the recent past. The amount requested through the IHA
account would allow the United States to remain the largest single
humanitarian donor to crises around the world, while asking other
donors to contribute their fair share.
Question. Are you anticipating major changes in humanitarian
conditions in place like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Congo, South
Sudan, Central African Republic, Northern Nigeria, Burma, and
Bangladesh that would support such a sizable reduction in U.S.
humanitarian assistance?
Answer. Our view is that this new model would leverage the
comparative advantages of the State Department and USAID to assist and
advocate for people in greatest need. The new proposed structure would
enable the U.S. Government to execute consistently a response that
monitors the performance of implementers, including United Nations
agencies, in a uniform way; eliminate duplication or gaps in aid; and
deploy a seamless and effective assistance strategy for all affected
people.
Question. What other donors have stepped forward to fill the void?
Answer. The U.S. Government generously provided approximately one-
third of global humanitarian funding in FY 2017. Along with the State
Department, USAID is working on diversifying the global humanitarian
donor base and bringing new contributors into the current international
system, including foreign governments and the private sector. The
strategy is working, as other donor governments have recently increased
their humanitarian contributions. For example, France's 2018-2022
Humanitarian Strategy aims to make the French one of the top three
European donors of humanitarian aid, and one of the top five donors
globally, by increasing annual donations to C500 million ($560 million)
by 2022. Canada's 2018-2019 budget represented the largest increase in
Canadian foreign aid in 16 years, and included $738 million for
humanitarian assistance. The Republic of Korea increased its
humanitarian assistance by 50 percent from 2015 to 2018.
africa
Question. Ethiopia. The budget request identifies Ethiopia--which
is currently undergoing a democratic transformation--as a priority
country for assistance. How is USAID supporting this transition, and
how is that reflected in the FY20 request?
Answer. At a time of full-spectrum transition in the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, we are working closely with the new
Government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali to ascertain its highest-
priority needs and target our technical assistance to maximize our
impact. We are focused on tangible and timely interventions to produce
measurable results in a dynamic and fluid operating environment while
attempting to balance funding for Ethiopia against an increasing number
of global strategic imperatives.
The President's Budget Request for Ethiopia for Fiscal Year (FY)
2020 represents an increase from the Budget Request for FY 2019, which
reflects the administration's recognition of the need for greater
investments in democracy, rights, and governance during this time of
transition. Moreover, we have funded many of the rapid-response
interventions we have pursued through centrally managed funds and
awards, which has expanded our capability to provide just-in-time
technical assistance in key reform areas. We continue to consider the
use of central funding to take advantage of rapid windows of
opportunity in Ethiopia's democratic transition.
Through these efforts and careful coordination with the
international donor community, the U.S. Agency for International
Development and the U.S. Government are well-positioned to provide
catalytic support to the Government of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian
people as they move toward a more inclusive and democratic future.
Mozambique. Mozambique was just beginning to recover from Cyclone
Idai--a disaster likened to Hurricane Katrina here in the U.S--when it
was hit by a second, even stronger Cyclone Kenneth. USAID has mounted a
robust response to both disasters: You've launched a DART, called in
DoD to provide critical lift, and released nearly $60 million for
relief in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi.
Question. What have we learned about disaster preparedness in the
region? What were the key impediments to a more timely response?
Answer. In light of changing weather patterns, the entire
Mozambican coastline is now susceptible to cyclones, including areas
historically shielded from storms. To increase preparedness for
disasters in the region, the pre-positioning stocks of emergency relief
and food commodities for immediate post-disaster distribution in
cyclone-prone areas is critical. In addition, investments and
improvements in SMS-based early-warning systems are needed to
communicate effectively with populations in disaster-prone areas.
Lastly, building codes and improved design plans must play a factor in
the construction of cyclone-resistant structures.
Question. Private donations are notably low for this response, as
compared to other recent international disasters. Why? How can we help
raise awareness of this plight?
Answer. The U.S. Government experienced few impediments in its
response to Cyclones Idai and Kenneth. An initial challenge, quickly
overcome, was clearing incoming relief supplies at Mozambican airports.
Additionally, after issuing a request for international assistance the
Government of Mozambique (GoM) should facilitate the entry of
humanitarian staff by conceding visas more rapidly, including upon
arrival.
Question. How has Cyclone Kenneth affected the already unstable
Cabo Delgado region? Can humanitarian actors safely operate, given the
presence of armed extremist groups in the region? Do you agree with the
Government of Mozambique's insistence on sending security forces to
``protect'' humanitarian operations?
Answer. To date, Cyclone Kenneth has not had any major impact on
stability in Cabo Delgado Province. Humanitarian agencies have put in
place safety and security procedures that allow them to continue
responding safely to needs in the Province. Lack of access by road and
helicopter currently poses a larger challenge than the presence of
extremist groups. The GoM no longer insists on providing armed escorts
to accompany distributions of humanitarian assistance; relief agencies
themselves can decide whether to use these escorts. Humanitarian actors
are also coordinating their movements and distribution plans with the
GoM's police forces.
sudan
Question. Sudan. What is USAID doing to facilitate a democratic
transition in Sudan? Are you planning to assist the Transitional
Government in preparing for elections? How much and what forms of
assistance is available to help enable Sudanese citizens to finally
realize their desire for an open and democratic society?
Answer. The transition underway in the Republic of Sudan represents
a significant shift in the relationship between the Sudanese state and
its people. As we closely monitor negotiations between Sudanese protest
leaders and the Transitional Military Council on the formation of a
Transitional Government, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) is exploring ways to adjust our posture to help influence
events in a positive direction. Should a path toward a democratically
elected government emerge from this process, USAID stands ready to
support.
For many years, USAID's modest development assistance in Sudan has
focused on building civic capacity to engage in community-level
conflict-mitigation in areas that have long suffered the devastating
effects of violence (Darfur, the Nuba Mountains region, and Blue Nile
state), supporting engagement by civil society in political processes,
and building grassroots capacity for peace-building and community
resilience to social and economic shocks. Our flagship conflict-
mitigation program, which focuses on community development and
supporting civil society, is now in its fifth year, and will continue
to be an important vehicle for our efforts in Sudan.
On May 17, 2019, USAID participated in a meeting of like-minded
international partners, the African Union, and the United Nations,
hosted by the U.S. Department of State, to discuss how to influence the
trajectory in Sudan in a positive way and begin to explore how to
address the myriad economic and political crises Sudan faces. These
discussions are ongoing in the hope that an interim, civilian-led
government will soon be in place, and will inform USAID's thinking on
next steps in Sudan.
As the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of
Sudan, USAID continues to provide robust aid to address the emergency
needs of the most-vulnerable Sudanese, and to press authorities in
Khartoum and the state capitals to remove all obstacles to humanitarian
access. Much of the country remains in desperate need of life-saving
assistance because of protracted displacement and the impact of the
economic crisis. However, our teams are continuing to explore
opportunities to strengthen the resilience of the poorest.
We also continue to seek creative ways to work with other donors in
Sudan, including the Department for International Development (DFID) of
the United Kingdom. For example, we are expanding the reach of a
program in nutrition and livelihoods funded by DFID that encourages
communities that are emerging from conflict to use agriculture and
other sustainability methods to improve their resilience.
middle east and north africa
Question. Iraq and Syria. The necessary fight against ISIS left
vast areas of Iraq and Syria devastated. Shortly after the liberation
of Raqqa, the CENTCOM Commander spoke of the need to ``consolidate
gains'' in areas liberated from ISIS control. I know you worked closely
with CENTCOM on aspects of this. Specifically, he spoke about the need
to reconnect people to their governments, address basic needs, and
prevent conditions that led to the rise of ISIS in the first place. The
administration has engaged the international community for donations.
However, what is our strategy to achieve stability in areas liberated
from ISIS? I'd like you to speak to preventing conditions that will
lead to more instability and violence.
Answer. The approach of the U.S. Agency for International
Development to helping areas liberated from the so-called Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) achieve stability focuses on the following:
1. Helping Communities Heal and Restore:
Addressing Immediate Needs: Working with our partners, we provide
drinking water, shelter materials and household items, medical
care, psycho-social support, food, and cash transfers to help
displaced families and those who are seeking to return home;
Promoting Stabilization: We fund community-led efforts to address
local priority concerns, such as removing rubble and erasing
ISIS's propaganda; and
Restoring Essential Services: We improve access to health care,
education, water, electricity, legal aid, and other essential
services through funding for staff, training, supplies, and
other needs.
2. Promoting Economic Recovery:
Rehabilitating Critical Infrastructure: We repair electrical
infrastructure (power substations, transformers, transition
lines), water infrastructure (treatment plants, pumps, wells,
water networks), schools, health facilities, and other key
public infrastructure;
Creating Access to Jobs and Markets: We provide vocational
training, job-placement, and support to start businesses; and
Assistance to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: We support the
development of small and medium-sized businesses to increase
competitiveness and create jobs.
3. Preventing Future Atrocities:
Strengthening Dialogue: We convene local, faith-based and national
leaders to address the barriers to the sustainable return of
those displaced by ISIS back to their homelands; and
Supporting Justice and Reconciliation: Working with civil society
and the Iraqi Government we strengthen policies and processes
that address systemic issues that face disaffected populations
and promote justice.
In addition, the Iraq Governance Performance and Accountability
(IGPA) program funded by USAID provides technical assistance to the
Government of Iraq (GOI) to improve its economic management and support
Iraqi-led decentralization. The GOI has identified the decentralization
of authorities and responsibilities from Baghdad to the Provincial
Governments as a way to improve responsiveness to Iraqis' basic needs.
Our programming also makes investments in the development of local
civil-society organizations, which are key to facilitating improved
linkages between Iraqi citizens and their governing authorities through
advocacy.
western hemisphere
Question. Venezuela. What contingency plans, if any, does USAID or
the broader U.S. Government have in place now that security forces
aligned with the Maduro regime have not allowed the delivery of
international humanitarian assistance inside Venezuela?
Answer. The United States is closely monitoring the situation in
Venezuela and continues to apply all diplomatic, economic, and
financial pressure possible in an effort to support the people of
Venezuela to restore their freedom. We are committed to helping those
in Venezuela who are suffering so needlessly because of the man-made,
regime-driven crisis.
We are working with Interim President Guiado's administration and
the international humanitarian community to determine ways to safely
deliver aid to people in Venezuela. Through decades of experience, the
humanitarian team at the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) has learned that working with impartial, independent, and
civilian-led aid organizations is the safest and most-effective way to
reach people in need without putting them in danger.
The United States also continues to provide robust funding for
response efforts throughout the region as the growing impact of
Venezuela's crisis spill into neighboring countries. As of May 8, 2019,
the United States has provided more than $256 million in humanitarian
and development assistance to support emergency efforts in affected
countries and build the long-term capacity of their institutions and
communities to host the approximately 3.7 million people who have fled
Maduro's repression and chaos in Venezuela since 2014.
Of this $256 million, USAID has provided more than $94 million in
humanitarian assistance to support Venezuelans in the region as of May
8, 2019. USAID's assistance primarily targets activities in health,
nutrition, water, sanitation, hygiene, shelter, and food.
Question. What are the challenges for humanitarian organizations
operating in such a highly politicized environment? What are the
potential security concerns and risks?
Answer. A major challenge for humanitarian actors is that parties
to a conflict can seek to interfere with, undermine, or foster
suspicion about, the delivery of assistance. The illegitimate Maduro
regime's narrative that any humanitarian assistance is a pretext for
regime change politicizes aid in a way that puts workers at risk of
harassment or arbitrary arrest. In addition, Maduro's insistence that
no humanitarian crisis exists in Venezuela has led his venal regime to
restrict access to data on health and food security and other
statistics that would allow aid organizations to plan a response to
verified needs more assuredly. Additional challenges in politicized
environments in general include bureaucratic impediments imposed by
corrupt regime officials and non-state armed groups, logistical and
infrastructure limitations, high levels of insecurity, and intrusion by
state security services. In Venezuela, symptoms of the ongoing economic
collapse have a negative impact on the operations of aid agencies,
including hyperinflation; frequent, unpredictable blackouts; and
shortages of fuel.
When working in challenging environments worldwide, the U.S. Agency
for International Development, in collaboration with our implementing
partners, ensures robust risk-mitigation measures are in place to
safeguard U.S. taxpayer dollars appropriately.
Question. To date, how much international humanitarian assistance
has been delivered inside Venezuela through the United Nations and
other organizations?
Answer. As of May 8, 2019, the United Nations (U.N.) has approved
$9.2 million through the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) for
humanitarian assistance inside Venezuela. As of the same date, non-U.S.
international donors have contributed more than $70 million to the
response in Venezuela, according to the U.N.'s financial-tracking
system.
democracy dividends
During the last administration, USAID adopted a policy of
disengagement from democracy and governance programs in ``closed'' and
``closing'' spaces.
Question. What role does USAID now play in advancing democracy and
good governance in ``closed'' and ``closing'' spaces? How does this
budget reflect your personal commitment to democracy?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
continues to carry out our mandate as the lead democracy-assistance
Agency for the U.S. Government, and we are fully committed to
programming where democracy is at risk. USAID invested two-thirds (66
percent) of our bilateral assistance in democracy, human rights, and
governance (DRG) in Fiscal Year 2018 in restrictive or challenging
environments characterized as ``closed autocracy'' or ``electoral
autocracy.'' We also are addressing emerging challenges, such as
democratic backsliding and resurgent authoritarianism that threaten
U.S. influence, prosperity and national security. USAID consistently
has led the U.S. Government's response to democratic openings,
including rapid support to the 2017 political opening in the Republic
of The Gambia, as well as more recent, swift, and targeted
interventions to support the unprecedented reforms in the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Additionally, USAID spends hundreds of
millions of dollars to build the capacity of civil society and human-
rights defenders globally.
USAID is a recognized leader in difficult environments, and I want
to keep it that way. Last year, I scrapped the previous policy guidance
on programming in ``closed and closing spaces'' because it was
discouraging us from being bold in our defense of freedom. Our new
global program on enabling and protecting civic space is spearheading
efforts to understand and respond to emerging challenges to the
freedoms of association, assembly and expression, including by piloting
the use of machine-learning to forecast restrictions on civic space and
test programmatic interventions to boost the resilience of activists.
The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 of $1.2
billion (in the proposed Economic Support and Development Fund) for
assistance in DRG represents a slight reduction of 2 percent compared
to the proposal from FY 2019, consistent with an overall reduced
Request. Nevertheless, the Budget Request will allow USAID to expand
the number of countries where it is investing DRG resources, while at
the same time focusing them on the democratic institutions and
processes most critical to advancing self-reliance. The President's
Budget Request for FY 2020 includes new DRG funding for 13 bilateral
programs not included in FY 2019, including six in Africa and four in
the Indo-Pacific region, as well as funding increases in other regions.
Question. How could State and USAID better capitalize on
opportunities to support democratic transitions in places like Sudan
and Venezuela, including through the delivery of ``democracy
dividends?''
Answer. USAID has long experience with funding stabilization
activities in transitional environments like the Republic of Sudan and
Venezuela. These activities provide visible support for governments'
engagement with citizens on local priorities and finance the
implementation of community-driven development projects. Rapid and
flexible technical assistance can enable citizens to participate in
devising local development plans with government officials, conduct
community consultations and oversight, and help establish much-needed
infrastructure to provide services for citizens.
The changes underway in Sudan represent a significant shift in the
relationship between the Sudanese state and its people. As we closely
monitor negotiations between Sudanese protest leaders and the
Transitional Military Council on the formation of a Transitional
Government, USAID is actively exploring ways to adjust our posture to
help influence events in a positive direction. Should a path toward a
democratically elected government in Sudan emerge from this process,
USAID stands ready to provide funding, including for civil society;
conflict-mitigation; and other efforts to rebuild democracy, such as
constitutional development. In Venezuela, USAID's existing programs
fund civil society and independent media to ensure the Venezuelan
people have a voice and have access to information free from the malign
influence and propaganda of the Maduro regime. USAID also is funding
the only legitimately elected democratic institution in the country,
the National Assembly, to help support Venezuela's return to democracy.
__________
Responses of Hon. Mark Green to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
tip report sanctions
In countries where authoritarianism is gaining ground that also
happen to be designated Tier 3 countries under the Trafficking Victims
Protections Act . . .
Question. Do you believe USAID programs that promote democratic
freedoms and the exercise of fundamental human rights like freedom of
speech, assembly and association should be suspended? Are these
programs being suspended under the administration's pretext of being
tough on human trafficking? Is there a specific USG written policy on
what programs/funding to cut in Tier 3 sanction countries? Is there
written guidance for missions and program staff? Is there oversight
over what programs missions are cutting?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
strongly believes that improving democratic, citizen-responsive
governance in a country bolsters its long-term stability and economic
prosperity. As part of our emphasis on building self-reliance, USAID
views investments in democratic institutions, citizen-centered
processes, and fundamental freedoms as key drivers of strengthening the
commitment and capacity of governments, civil society, and the private
sector in partner countries to take on their own development
challenges.
Human trafficking threatens public safety and our national
security. The administration seeks to implement the restrictions on
foreign assistance mandated by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
(TVPA) in a way that holds governments accountable for failing to meet
the minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons.
The TVPA exempts from restrictions programs that do not involve the
governments of countries on the Tier Three list in the annual
Trafficking in Persons Report published by the U.S, Department of
State, and our activities limited to engagement with non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) in those countries are continuing. In some cases,
we are de-scoping programs away from governmental institutions, or to
exclude governmental participants, so the activities may continue with
NGOs only.
The President's determination not to grant waivers under the TVPA
provides the policy basis for the administration's implementation of
the Act. Consistent with the President's determination, the U.S.
Government will not provide assistance that is subject to the
restrictions under the TVPA during Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. The U.S.
Department of State and USAID have provided guidance to Bureaus,
Missions, and Embassies on the application of the restrictions under
the TVPA as they relate to existing and planned programs. In some
cases, however, the administration has explored the use of available
notwithstanding and other authorities to continue life-saving
assistance and protect other foreign-policy and national-security
priorities that would otherwise be subject to the restrictions under
the TVPA.
central america assistance cuts
The administration has called for continued engagement in Central
America in order to address driving factors forcing people to flee
their countries--including weak rule of law and high levels of criminal
violence.
Question. What do you believe are the root causes and motivations
for migrants and asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle?
Answer. Many push and pull factors drive attempted illegal
immigration to the United States from Central America. Lack of
opportunity, hunger and food-insecurity, widespread crime and violence,
and high levels of corruption and impunity at all levels of government
all play a significant role in people's decisions to leave their
homelands.
Question. Do you believe USAID's development assistance programs to
improve food security, expand economic opportunity and provide youths
alternatives to gang involvement are effectively addressing the root
causes of migration?
Answer. The development-assistance programs in Central America
funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have
improved food security, expanded economic opportunity, and provided
young people with alternatives to criminal gangs in the communities in
which we work. However, the President has made clear that the
Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have not done
enough to prevent illegal immigration to the United States. The U.S.
Government has urged them to make needed reforms to improve the
security of their citizens, increase economic growth, and fight
corruption and impunity. The administration is developing specific,
additional steps to propose that the three Governments take to improve
the security of their borders; combat human smuggling and trafficking,
especially of children; receive and reintegrate their returned
citizens; and further dissuades illegal immigration to the United
States.
Question. Are you confident that USAID's development programs are
implemented effectively in the regions and communities where migrants
and asylum seekers are fleeing from?
Answer. The U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) is
refining our programs continually to ensure we are addressing the areas
of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with the highest rates of out-
migration. We rely on data provided by the International Organization
for Migration and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security to target our programs more precisely
to the areas of highest out-migration and thereby enhance their impact.
When funds become available, USAID will continue to use these data to
refine our investments so they address the factors people themselves
say are causing them to immigrate illegally to the United States,
including by developing performance metrics that will make the
reduction of relevant migration numbers a specific performance
benchmark for our implementing partners.
Question. Is there data supporting the suspension of all foreign
assistance to Northern Triangle countries as an effective strategy for
curbing migration?
Answer. I am not aware of any relevant study or data that examine
this particular question.
Question. What is USAID communicating to our implementing partners,
host country governments and assistance recipients on how this policy
is being implemented? Will you confirm that the Secretary of State
submitted to Congress numerous certifications affirming that Central
American Governments are making progress addressing the drivers of
migration?
Answer. At the instruction of the Secretary of State, we are
carrying out the President's direction regarding foreign assistance in
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The current review of all
foreign-assistance funding from the U.S. Department of State and the
U.S. Agency for International Development from Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 is
intended to provide detailed data to the Secretary to determine the
best way forward pursuant to the President's direction. Activities
already planned or paid for under existing contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements funded by resources from FY 2017 are continuing
during the review period, although the Department of State and USAID
will not initiate any new activities.
Question. In your testimony you mentioned that new review, that is
serving as the pretext for the freeze on all foreign assistance to the
countries of the Northern Triangle, aims to examine host country
commitments . . . aren't the 7045(a)(4)(B) certifications, for which
the Secretary of State has submitted nine to date (the most recent in
September of 2018), granted on the basis of the host countries'
commitments? If so, how will this separate review be different, or
justified as necessary outside the certification process? Will you
confirm that the Secretary of State submitted to Congress numerous
certifications affirming that Central American Governments are making
progress addressing the drivers of migration?
Answer. I refer you to the U.S. Department of State for more
information.
Question. USAID published a report in May 2018 documenting how your
programs are successfully advancing U.S. national interests by
contributing to decreased homicides and improving governments' capacity
to uphold the rule of law. Can you provide us with an overview of
achievements?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
funded efforts in Central America to combat rampant crime and violence,
reduce corruption and impunity, disrupt the activities of transnational
criminal organizations, and provide greater economic opportunity.
Examples of the results from these investments in Fiscal Year 2018
include the following:
USAID's assistance enhanced local economies by boosting private-
sector exports and domestic sales by more than $73 million, and
helped businesses generate more than 18,000 new jobs;
USAID's assistance strengthened the rule of law through support to
more than 600 local civil-society organizations; the training
of more than 1,200 human-rights defenders; improving case-
management in more than 300 local courts; and training more
than 4,600 judicial personnel; and
Along with investments from the host-country governments, other
donors, the private sector, and civil society, U.S. assistance
is contributing to dramatic decreases in homicide rates in El
Salvador and Honduras, including through cutting-edge
programming to prevent crime and violence, such as after-school
and pre-employment services and support to more than 140,000
at-risk youth across the region.
Question. Did this report take into account, or identify, the
regions and communities of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador where
many, if not most, migrants and asylum seekers are coming from? If not,
why not?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development has used, and
continues to use, data on apprehensions at the U.S. Southern border
from Customs and Border Protection within the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and other sources to target our programs in the
geographical areas of Centra America responsible for the highest out-
migration to the United States.
Question. If so, why does the new review, that is serving as a
pretext for freezing all assistance to the Northern Triangle, need to
be done again?
Answer. The President has made clear that the Governments of El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have not done enough to prevent
illegal immigration to the United States. Over the past 3 years, the
U.S. Government has urged them to make needed reforms to improve the
security of their citizens, increase economic growth, and attack
corruption and impunity. The administration is working to develop
additional steps to propose that the three Governments take to improve
the security of their borders, combat human smuggling and trafficking,
and further dissuade illegal immigration to the United States.
Question. Who is conducting this new review? (OMB? State
Department's F Bureau? National Security Council?) What is USAID's
involvement or engagement in this review? What inputs or opinions are
you providing? Will the diplomats and development experts at the U.S.
missions to these countries be consulted for opinions and analysis
based on their experiences?
Answer. The President has made clear that the Governments of El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have not done enough to prevent
illegal immigration to the United States. Based on consultations with
our Missions in these countries, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) has provided detailed information on all of our
programs in Central America to feed into a review of all foreign-
assistance funding sub-obligated into current agreements and awards by
the U.S. Department of State and USAID during Fiscal Year 2017. This
review is intended to provide detailed data to the Secretary to
determine the best way forward pursuant to the President's direction.
Once the review is complete, we will be able to share more information
on the funding and programs implicated.
syria stabilization
The President's FY20 budget zeroed out Syria Stabilization
programs. These are programs that support efforts to provide safe
drinking water, restoring schools, rubble removal, and demining areas
so that Syrians can safely return to their communities.
Question. Is working towards stabilizing Syria in the U.S. national
interest?
Answer. Stabilization is in the U.S. national interest, as it helps
prevent the reemergence of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria. Stabilization assistance restores essential social services,
such as water, electricity, health care, and education; provides for
the removal of explosive remnants of war; supports local civil society
and first-responders; and restores livelihoods and agriculture.
Question. Is there a military solution to defeating ISIS?
Answer. We defer to the U.S. Department of Defense to respond to
this question.
Question. Will ISIS ever be defeated without sustained diplomatic
and development investments?
Answer. The Coalition to Achieve the Enduring Defeat of the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has much work left to do. Sustained
diplomatic and humanitarian assistance is necessary to mitigate the
conditions that could lead to a resurgence of ISIS.
Question. Do you believe these programs were effective in
countering violent extremism in Syria?
Answer. The stabilization programming managed by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) plays a demonstrable role in
countering violent extremism, as evidenced by the inability of the so-
called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to reconstitute in
Northeast Syria. USAID's focus is on enabling our partners in the local
community and building the capabilities of local governments to take
command of their own future. USAID's activities help prevent a void for
malign actors to fill, and also mitigates grievances that drove people
to ISIS in the first place.
rohingya
Question. In your written testimony to the committee, you referred
to the Rohingya in Bangladesh as refugees. However, in your opening
statement you referred to the Rohingya in Bangladesh as migrants,
saying: ``In Bangladesh, we are urging the government to allow
humanitarian organizations to provide migrants with a full range of
support and services.'' In your view, are the more than 800,000
Rohingya that have fled to Bangladesh since August 2017 refugees or
migrants?
Answer. The more than 800,000 Rohingya who have fled to the
People's Republic of Bangladesh since August 2017 because of state-
sponsored violence in Burma are refugees.
stage setting for 2019 rescission package
The decision to freeze funds or end programs in the Northern
Triangle, Syria, West Bank and Gaza, Pakistan, or via TIP sanctions,
along with an ongoing ``Foreign Assistance Review'' conducted by OMB
and the NSC, begs the following questions:
Question. What other funds or programs is OMB and F Bureau looking
to suspend?
Answer. We refer you to the Office of Management and Budget and the
Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the U.S. Department of State.
Question. What is the universe of FY18 USAID Spend and Operations
Plans awaiting approval from F Bureau?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
monitors the approval of Spend and Operational Plans (OPs) as part of
how we plan, deliver, assess, and adapt our programming in a given
region or country to achieve more effective and sustainable results,
advance U.S. foreign policy, and support the Journey to Self-Reliance.
As of May 17, 2019, 11 OPs still require approval by the Office of
Foreign Assistance Resources at the U.S. Department of State. (See
table below.)
Question. Can you give this committee any assurances that OMB will
not send Congress a rescission package this year?
Answer. We refer you to the Office of Management and Budget for
questions on a possible recession.
russia
Question. Senator Graham and I have a bipartisan bill called the
Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act or DASKA. DASKA
includes a reauthorization of the Countering Russia Influence Fund,
which would provide assistance to European countries vulnerable to
Kremlin interference. Would you support such an effort? From your
perspective, what types of programs are necessary to address Putin's
malign influence efforts?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
appreciates your leadership on the Defending American Security from
Kremlin Aggression Act, and we look forward to working with you on this
legislation. This measure complements USAID's efforts to counter malign
Kremlin influence in the region through the Countering Russia Influence
Fund and other related programs. USAID views malign Kremlin influence
as the single-greatest challenge that threatens development progress in
Europe and Eurasia.
Guided by the Development Framework for Countering Malign Kremlin
Influence (CMKI), USAID's programming in Europe will strengthen the
democratic and economic resilience of countries targeted by Moscow and
work to mitigate Russian-sponsored attempts to undermine a range of key
European institutions. Experience has shown that the Kremlin's malign
tactics in different countries evolve in response to perceived
vulnerabilities. The Framework focuses on key sectors for development
in Europe and Eurasia, including democracy, the information space, and
the economic and energy sectors. Examples of current programs that
counter malign Kremlin influence include providing additional resources
to central election commissions to strengthen their cyber defenses
against Russian-backed hacking attempts; supporting investigative
journalists to expose corruption instigated by the Kremlin; bolstering
independent media networks and enhancing media literacy; promoting the
diversification of energy resources; and encouraging transparent
business and financial regulation to reduce opportunities for
corruption.
afghanistan
Last month, Reuters reported that Secretary Pompeo is accelerating
a plan to cut up to half of the workforce at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
This comes alongside negotiations with the Taliban where their main
demand is U.S. withdrawal from the country.
Question. Coming in the middle of negotiations, what signal would
you say a large embassy drawdown sends to the Taliban, the people of
Afghanistan, and to our allies who have fought side by side with us for
17 years?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
reviewing our current assistance program in Afghanistan, and has
notified Congress of a change in our staffing posture in Kabul
consistent with the Secretary's direction to align our presence with
core U.S. national-security interests and achieve our most-important
objectives. These core objectives include supporting the Afghan peace
process and preserving the flexibility to invest in the implementation
of an eventual peace settlement; preserving state stability, including
by bolstering citizen-responsive, democratic governance to guard
against the conditions that enable the creation of terrorist safe
havens; assisting the transition to Afghan self-reliance by promoting
growth focused on exports and led by the private sector; and helping
civil society to deliver core functions customarily provided by
government. Our goal is to refine our portfolio of core activities to
align with these priorities more tightly, to respond nimbly to changing
needs in Afghanistan.
Question. Will this reduction in the workforce at Embassy Kabul be
coupled with a reduction in foreign assistance to Afghanistan?
Answer. We will determine the precise levels for future assistance
and the exact programs that will make up our streamlined portfolio in
Afghanistan in the coming months, after internal consultations within
the U.S. Government, discussions with the Afghan Government, and
conversations with Congress. Our initial analysis indicates that it
should be possible to support our primary goals and still lower
assistance levels responsibly and strategically over the next few
years. The U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S.
Department of State will brief the Committee in detail once this review
process is complete.
Question. If so, how will you pay for the peace deal?
Answer. The U.S. Government interagency supports the peace process
in Afghanistan with the tools that pertain to each institution's
respective responsibilities and portfolio. Overall efforts at the U.S.
Embassy in Kabul, led by Ambassador Bass, benefit from the coordination
of the Peace and Reconciliation Working Group (PRAG) and the Embassy's
Peace and Reconciliation (PARS) Section, which includes representatives
from all relevant parts of the Embassy. As part of the posture
adjustment, the Embassy assessed assistance programs and funding to
ensure they could respond flexibly to emerging priorities related to
peace and reconciliation.
Question. What signal does a reduction in personnel and resources
send the Afghan Government and public?
Answer. This review is in line with President Ghani's January 2019
letter to President Trump that called for a review of U.S. assistance
in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government consistently has messaged
throughout the review that our commitment to Afghanistan remains
steadfast, and that its purpose is to ensure our assistance is focused
and productive.
Question. Can you explain how reducing the U.S. footprint in
Afghanistan, ahead of the conclusion of peace negotiations, services
the strategy for reaching a peace deal?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
recommends a continued, but reduced assistance portfolio, which will
support the Afghan peace process by creating the conditions necessary
for lasting stability, including in newly secured areas. By empowering
women, strengthening civil society, and addressing the delivery of
basic social services, health, and education, USAID will help the
Afghan Government to demonstrate accountability to its citizens while
preventing backsliding into conflict. To ensure USAID is well-
positioned to contribute to these outcomes, our subject-matter experts
are identifying lessons-learned in recent programming in peace and
reconciliation in other countries, such as Colombia, to inform the
design of future post-peace projects; reviewing our current and planned
portfolio to help the Mission modify and adapt our investments to
prepare for peace; and identifying any gaps in our current peace-
support programming.
orphans and vulnerable children
The President's Budget request proposes to eliminate funding for
orphans, and otherwise vulnerable children, even including those who
are blind or otherwise disabled.
Question. What is the rationale for eliminating assistance for
orphans and vulnerable children? How many children are supported with
current funding? What activities are the agency currently implementing
which USAID will no longer execute if Congress appropriated FY20
President's Request, or lack thereof, for orphans and vulnerable
children?
Answer. As in the past, the President's Budget Request for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2020 does not propose funds specifically for orphans and
vulnerable children.
However, under Congressional direction, programs funded by the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) that support orphans and
vulnerable children have achieved significant results. For example, in
FY 2018, USAID directly financed services for over 38,000 vulnerable
children and 23,000 caregivers. In 2018, we also trained close to
39,000 providers and strengthened over 1,400 organizations that offer
services to vulnerable children.
USAID also works to strengthen child-protection and social-service
systems more broadly to better serve all children in need. The Child
Blindness Program supports approximately 800,000 children a year
through the continuum of pediatric eye care, which includes screening
for vision impairment, the provision of eyeglasses, sight-restoring
surgery, education and rehabilitation services, and the development of
breakthrough solutions and technologies to prevent and treat child
blindness.
USAID is using our current funding for vulnerable children to
support the three objectives of the new Advancing Protection and Care
for Children in Adversity: A U.S. Government Strategy for International
Assistance: 1) Build Strong Beginnings; 2) Put Family First; and, 3)
Protect Children from Violence. Across all objectives, the Strategy
promotes strengthening families as one of the best investments to
eliminate extreme poverty, boost economic growth, promote healthy
societies and human dignity, and help people emerge from humanitarian
crises.
inspector general funding
Question. For the last 2 years, USAID's Inspector General has noted
that the amount provided in the President's budget request is not
sufficient for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to properly
execute its oversight duties. According to the Inspector General, the
proposed $4 million cut to the OIG in the President's FY 2020 Budget
request would require the OIG to reduce the number of audits it
conducts and recommendations it makes. This is especially concerning
considering that for every dollar Congress invests in agency inspector
generals, their offices recover $17 in cost savings. Given this
assessment, what steps are you taking to ensure USAID's Inspector
General office is properly resourced and that we maintain
accountability in our foreign assistance programs?
Answer. I refer you to our Office of the Inspector General for your
question on its resources.
nagorno-karabakh
Question. Last year, I supported $6 million in assistance to
support pressing humanitarian needs in Nagorno-Karabakh and to find a
peaceful solution to the frozen conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. With regard to demining activities, the humanitarian group
HALO Trust estimated that the region is likely achieve mine-free status
this year--so it is critical to ensure that U.S. assistance continues
for this life-saving work. How is USAID supporting these humanitarian
needs and supporting peace in this region?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
continues to work with the U.S. Department of State on solutions to
advance peace in Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) and sustain gains following
Armenia's political transition last Spring. Currently, USAID's
assistance to victims of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) focuses
solely on supporting demining through Halo Trust.
As a direct result of USAID's assistance, Halo Trust claims that an
estimated 97.9 percent of the known mined areas within the boundaries
of traditional NK (the former Soviet oblast) are now mine-clear as of
September 2018.
role of development in the administration's africa policy
In remarks at the U.S. Institute for Peace last year, then Under
Secretary of State Tom Shannon articulated the administration's four
strategic purposes in Africa: Advancing Peace and Security; Countering
the Scourge of Terrorism; Increasing Economic Growth and Investment;
and Promoting Democracy and Good Governance.
Question. Increasing Economic Growth and Investment and poverty
alleviation are not necessarily one and the same. What role does
development play with regards to the administration's four strategic
purposes? What do you see as USAID's role in countering terrorism and
violent extremism? How does this budget support that role?
Answer. Carefully designed development assistance from the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) is critical to the
administration's four strategic purposes in Africa. At the U.S.
Institute for Peace, former Under Secretary Shannon specifically
mentioned easing the way for economic growth and investment, which
includes USAID's work through three regional Trade and Investment Hubs.
In addition, with the roll-out of the White House Strategy for Africa
in December 2018, the U.S. Government will be implementing a new
initiative, Prosper Africa, which looks to increase significantly two-
way trade and investment between the United States and countries in
sub-Saharan Africa. Sustained economic gains anchor USAID's promotion
of democracy and citizen-responsive governance, and demonstrate
positive impact for the citizens of our partner countries. In a similar
vein, reducing the threat of terrorism maintains the conditions for
economic activity while fostering opportunities for youth and
marginalized communities to engage more fully in economic
opportunities.
Many of the biggest external security threats the United States
faces--including terrorism, pandemics, and transnational organized
crime--incubate and thrive in weak, failing, and failed states. USAID
promotes U.S. national security by strengthening institutions and
citizen-responsive governance, improving the delivery of basic social
services, fostering women's empowerment, and promoting economic and
social resilience.
As noted in USAID's policy titled, The Development Response to
Violence Extremism and Insurgency, the Agency has a distinct and
critical role in addressing the national-security issues related to
countering violent extremism. USAID designs and deploys development
tools to respond to the drivers of violent extremism and terrorism in
parts of Africa, such as the Horn, the countries of the Sahel, and the
Lake Chad Basin, where the threat of terrorism is growing. As the
United States pushes to counter the so-called Islamic State, Boko
Haram, Jama'a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin, and others, defeating
them militarily on the battlefield is not enough; we must also address
the ideology and tactics these groups employ to attract new recruits,
as well as the underlying social, political and economic conditions
that fuel radicalization to violence. USAID reduces vulnerability to
violent extremism by strengthening the capacity of African
institutions, amplifying credible moderate voices, and increasing
community cohesion in areas that are at greatest risk of falling under
the sway of radical influence.
USAID has demonstrated a commitment to countering violent extremism
in Africa over the years through the budget process. USAID's
investments provide a sustained approach and build trust and
partnerships with key actors at the national, local, and community
level across the African continent. The President's Budget Request for
Fiscal Year 2020 proposes $41.8 million in funding to counter violent
extremism in Africa.
The current National Security Strategy further elaborates on the
promoting Democracy and good governance in Africa, stating that, ``We
will encourage reform, working with promising nations to promote
effective governance, improve the rule of law, and develop institutions
accountable and responsive to citizens . . . '' However, the
administration's request for the past two fiscal years has been less
than half that amount ($330 million) appropriated in FY17.
Question. How do you propose to achieve the stated policy goals of
the administration for Africa with such a drastic reduction in the
democracy and governance budget? What could we realistically expect to
achieve with this limited investment if Congress were to appropriate
the levels that the administration has requested?
Answer. The administration's Strategy for Africa and the
President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 promote democracy,
human rights, and good governance in sub-Saharan Africa. While lower
than previous years, the Budget Request's proposed level for democracy,
human rights, and governance in FY 2020 as a percentage of overall
funding for Africa is equal to or greater than the ratios from FY 2011-
FY 2016. The proposal reflects the administration's recognition of the
importance of citizen-responsive governance to the success of all
development efforts in Africa within a constrained budget environment.
We will continue to work with our partners to leverage the U.S.
Government's investments and ensure continued support for democracy and
human rights, including the promotion of citizen-responsive governance
across to help guarantee progress in economic growth, health, and
education. For example, many Missions of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in sub-Saharan Africa have developed
close working relationships with other donors, which have led to
jointly funded activities. We will continue to seek out these
opportunities and build new partnerships with international and
domestic organizations to support governments, civil society, and the
private sector in African countries on the Journey to Self-Reliance.
The President's Budget Request will enable USAID to advance
democracy and citizen-responsive governance in sub-Saharan Africa by
promoting the rule of law, credible and legitimate election processes,
a politically active civil society, and accountable and participatory
governments. USAID collaborates closely with colleagues at the U.S.
Departments of State and Defense to ensure our funding addresses the
democratic deficiencies that contribute to transnational threats,
fragility, conflict, and instability. For example, USAID's programs
complement diplomatic efforts that strengthen governance institutions
and protect the democratic and development gains made across the
continent. The Budget Request will also enable USAID to continue
funding upcoming political processes in countries across sub-Saharan
Africa, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republics
of Mali, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, all of which are facing pivotal
transitions. This includes programs that will improve the transparency
and accountability of electoral institutions, and engage all
stakeholders--parties, candidates, civil society, and voters--to
participate in political processes and use appropriate channels to
resolve disputes peacefully.
promoting effectiveness through strong environmental
and social safeguards for usaid projects
Question. Sustainable and effective development is only possible
when project design and implementation properly accounts for
environmental, social, and human rights risks. This includes not just
analysis at the project approval stage, but also ongoing monitoring as
well as accountability and remedy if negative impacts occur. Although
USAID has some environmental and social standards, the agency lacks a
comprehensive set of safeguard policies. Considering the proposed 2020
USAID budget, what steps will you take to address this gap and ensure
that USAID projects follow strong environmental and social safeguards?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
remains committed to strong environment and social safeguards in all
our programming. Specifically, USAID fully implements the environmental
safeguards required by Section 117 of the Foreign Assistance Act, as
amended, and Section 216 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, in accordance with Executive Order 12114 and the
environmental-impact principles of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1970. In accordance with operational guidance under Chapter 204
of USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS), ``Environmental
Procedures,'' USAID's Activity Managers, Contract Officer's
Representatives, and Agreement Officer's Representatives, in
consultation with the Agency's officers who perform environmental-
impact assessments, ensure our Operating Units consider, monitor, and
mitigate effectively the potential adverse environmental and social
impacts of our funding actions. Furthermore, USAID is in the process of
revising ADS 204 to improve and advance our continued commitment to
analyzing and mitigating the possible impact of our programs on the
environment and local communities.
ensuring accountability for usaid's projects
Question. Ensuring accountability throughout USAID's operations has
been one of your top priorities as USAID Administrator. However, USAID,
unlike OPIC and the soon-to-be operationalized U.S International
Development Finance Corporation, currently does not have a grievance
office, also known as an independent accountability mechanism, to
receive complaints from communities that may have been negatively
impacted by USAID's activities. An accountability mechanism for USAID
would help facilitate remedy for harmed communities and enable people
to productively move forward, which furthers USAID's development
mandate, strengthens its institutional legitimacy, and protects the
U.S. image abroad. Will you commit to developing an accountability
mechanism for USAID in the next fiscal year?
Answer. Accountability is essential to all of our programming at
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). As such, USAID
uses multiple avenues to ensure accountability in our programming to
beneficiaries, stakeholders and taxpayers. In addition, USAID adheres
to robust principles of monitoring to ensure the ongoing and systematic
tracking of data and information relevant to our strategies, projects,
and activities.
For our programs to be effective and to further our development
mandate, I agree USAID must be able to adapt in response to changes and
new information. Adaptive management in Missions and Bureaus requires
different tools, depending on the programmatic context. For example,
USAID has developed Guidelines on Compulsory Displacement and
Resettlement in USAID Programming, which describe best practices and
tools intended for use by USAID's Operating Units and their partners at
all stages of the Program Cycle when USAID's programming leads to the
displacement and resettlement of legitimate landholders who do not have
the genuine right or ability to refuse. Ensuring that compulsory
displacement and resettlement avoids, minimizes, and mitigates the risk
of impoverishment of affected legitimate landholders is critical to
achieving good development outcomes. The Guidelines are consistent with
international good practices established over several decades.
Further, USAID's Environmental Compliance Procedures (22 CFR 216)
identify resettlement as a class of action with a ``significant
effect'' on the environment, which requires either an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or an Environmental-Impact Statement (EIS). Each of
these documents forces our staff to consider the impact of development
upon communities and demonstrates how USAID's programming incorporates
these considerations into our work and mission.
In addition, the hotline operated by the Office of the USAID
Inspector General (OIG) continues to accept tips, allegations, and
disclosures from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, or
mismanagement in USAID's programs and operations.
Ultimately, USAID's programs advance freedom and dignity by
assisting governments and citizens to establish, consolidate, and
protect citizens-responsive, democratic institutions and values.
Participatory and accountable governance, the rule of law, authentic
political competition, civil society, human rights, and the free flow
of information are the keys to strengthening communities' ability to
engage productively in their own development.
fulfilling usaid's national action plan on responsible
business conduct commitments
Question. You have often touted the importance of engaging the
private sector in international development. For private sector-led
development to be effective and sustainable, private sector actors need
to follow best practice regarding environmental, social, and human
rights standards as well as develop mechanisms for negatively impacted
communities to seek redress. How are you ensuring that USAID
effectively promotes responsible business conduct in development and
fully implements (and exceeds) its National Action Plan commitments?
Answer. In alignment with the National Action Plan on Responsible
Business Conduct led by the Office of Commercial and Business Affairs
at the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) published a new Private-Sector Engagement (PSE)
Policy in December 2018. The Policy includes a focus on promoting
responsible business practices, and states: ``This policy complements
U.S. and international initiatives focused on responsible business
conduct, including the United Nations (U.N.) Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights; the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises; and the
U.N. Global Compact. In implementing this policy, USAID will promote
the importance of responsible, environmentally friendly, inclusive, and
transparent business practices, and seek to collaborate with those
companies that serve as global leaders in bringing shared value to, and
acting responsibly in the communities where they do business. Moreover,
USAID will examine these considerations when we conduct due diligence
and assess reputational risks.''
USAID's PSE Policy defines ``PSE,'' in part, as ``holding the
private sector accountable for making inclusive business investments
that have a positive social and environmental impact on communities,''
and it requires that all USAID staff and partners who engage in PSE
conduct due diligence when establishing formal partnerships: ``In
conducting due diligence, USAID should carefully consider issues of
additionality and shared ethics, including upholding responsible
business practices, environmental protection and respect for human
rights.''
As USAID implements this new Policy, the Agency continues to have a
strong focus on implementing and exceeding its commitments to the
National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct. Examples of that
work include the following:
Addressing Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing: Through
our Regional Development Mission for Asia, USAID is working
with the private sector to increase transparency in seafood
supply-chains as a strategy for countering illegal fishing,
improving labor conditions on fishing vessels, and improving
the sustainable management of fisheries. This work has involved
a partnership with Thai Union, the third-largest seafood
company in the world. In Indonesia, USAID is working with
Bumble Bee and Anova Seafoods to pioneer new blockchain
technology to enable DNA barcoding and smart contracts that
give specific resource rights to communities or fishers. While
blockchain is still in its infancy, this partnership is
advancing technological innovation that not only is changing
the way goods travel around the world, but also having a
positive impact on ecosystems and the lives of people in source
countries. In this way, USAID is turning negative externalities
into positive ones for development through private-sector
partnerships that increase the commercial viability of
environmentally sustainable fishing practices.
Addressing Wildlife Crime: USAID works with the private sector to
keep illegal wildlife and wildlife products out of legitimate
business lines. Our ROUTES partnership with the transportation
sector, coordinated by TRAFFIC, reduces the use of businesses
in the illegal transport of wildlife and wildlife products. The
partnership provides targeted data analytics about flight
routes used by traffickers, builds the capacity of airline and
airport personnel by giving them the necessary tools and
information to detect crime, raises awareness among staff and
clients, and embeds best practices in combating wildlife
trafficking within the existing policies of transport
companies. USAID also works with the technology sector to
detect and remove illegal wildlife products advertised for sale
on social-media platforms.
Promoting Responsible Trading of Minerals: USAID's Responsible
Minerals Trade (RMT) Program works to break the link between
conflict in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and
the minerals trade, in coordination with other U.S. Government
Departments and Agencies, the Congolese Government, other
donors, the private sector, and civil society. In 2010, the
U.N. reported that almost every mine site in Eastern DRC was
under the control of armed groups. Since that time, USAID has
supported the validation of more than 600 artisanal and small-
scale mine (ASM) sites as conflict-free. USAID, along with the
U.S. Departments of State and Labor, also established the
Public-Private Alliance for Responsible Minerals Trade (PPA), a
multi-stakeholder initiative that promotes the responsible
sourcing of gold, tin, tantalum, and tungsten in the DRC and
the Great Lakes Region. By 2017, an estimated three out of four
tin, tantalum, and tungsten sites in the region were free of
the control of armed groups. In addition to the security
improvements, the conflict-free supply-chains have also
generated an important legal source of revenue. In 2018,
validated conflict-free mine sites in the DRC legally exported
approximately 15,800 tons of tin and tantalum worth over $285
million. In 2019, USAID supported the very first export of
conflict-free gold to the United States from the Eastern DRC
through a private-sector-led gold supply-chain that involves
only U.S. companies.
USAID's current programming is scaling-up the export and sale of
conflict-free, artisanal gold from the Eastern DRC by
developing market linkages between end-users and ASM
cooperatives to benefit economically disadvantaged communities,
encourage legitimate international mineral trade from the DRC,
and reduce conflict. USAID is also refitting and improving
current methods of validating mine sites to ensure long-term,
verifiable, and transparent conflict-free supply-chains from
the DRC. USAID continues to be part of the multi-sector Public-
Private Alliance for Responsible Minerals Trade (PPA) to
encourage responsible sourcing from the region by end-users and
other supply-chain actors.
Promoting Responsible Land-Based Investment: An emerging global
consensus holds that responsible agricultural investment
requires businesses and governments to recognize and respect
local land and resource rights. USAID played a leading role in
working with the global community through the U.N. Committee on
World Food Security to develop guiding principles and best
practices for promoting responsible agricultural investment and
respecting and protecting legitimate tenure rights. Through
training and technical assistance, research and evaluation,
policy reform, and pilot projects, USAID is committed to
implementing the Principles for Responsible Investment in
Agriculture and Food Systems (RAI) and Voluntary Guidelines for
the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and
Forests (VGGT). These instruments create important standards of
practice that protect people and communities and create an
enabling environment that promotes broad-based economic growth
and reduces extreme poverty.
As a result, USAID developed the Operational Guidelines for
Responsible Land-Based Investment, a tool to provide more
specific and practical guidance to execute the guiding
principles of the RAI. The document describes USAID's
recommendations for best practices related to due diligence
for, and the structuring of, land-based investments, with the
goal of reducing risks and facilitating responsible projects
that benefit both the private sector and local communities. The
Guidelines also can help companies identify practical steps to
align their policies and actions with provisions of the VGGT;
the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standards
on Environmental and Social Sustainability; and other relevant
instruments, including the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights (UNGP).
In addition, USAID is currently working with local communities and
the private sector to strengthen land rights and support
responsible land-based investment projects in the Republics of
Ghana, Kenya and Mozambique.
__________
Responses of Hon. Mark Green to Questions
Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
central america
The President's budget requests a nearly 30 percent cut in foreign
assistance over 2018 enacted levels and now the White House has
suspended aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras entirely.
Question. Given that the administration has identified Central
American migration as a top priority, how can we cut off the funds that
address the root causes of this migration?
Answer. As I said during my testimony, the situation at the U.S.
Southern Border frustrates me. We have been working with the U.S.
Department of State to implement the administration's policy related to
out-migration from Central America. The President has made clear that
the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are not doing
enough to prevent illegal immigration to the United States. Over the
past 3 years, the U.S. Government has urged these Governments to make
needed reforms to improve the security of their citizens, increase
economic growth, and address corruption and impunity. We are engaging
actively with the three Governments to identify specific, additional
steps they can take to improve the security of their borders, combat
human smuggling and trafficking, and further dissuade illegal
immigration to the United States. The U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) is working hard to develop new metrics specifically
tied to out-migration so that our programs in Central America can be
more targeted and effective. USAID is confident that we are part of the
answer to address the situation, but our assistance is most effective
when we see buy-in from host-country governments.
Question. Much of this funding goes to supporting efforts to combat
gangs and drug trafficking. What effects will reducing law enforcement
capacity have on gangs' ability to operate?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State is reviewing all of the
foreign-assistance funding from Fiscal Year 2017 that its Bureaus and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) sub-obligated
into current agreements and awards in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. This review is intended to provide detailed data to Secretary
Pompeo so he can determine an appropriate way forward pursuant to the
President's direction. Once the review is complete, we will be able to
share more information on the funding and programs implicated.
Question. Foreign assistance is not a gift. Very little of it flows
through central governments and much of our funding supports non-
profits which help citizens hold their governments accountable. How
does cutting off this assistance provide incentive to Central American
Governments to more fully cooperate with the United States?
Answer. This administration desires a prosperous, safe Central
America. Migration flows from the region continue to increase, and tens
of thousands of people arrive at the U.S. Southwest Border every week,
according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection within the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. President Trump determined the
Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are not doing
enough to prevent illegal immigration, and the Secretary of State has
directed the U.S. Department of State and USAID to cease obligating new
funds for those three countries and to reprogram funds from Fiscal Year
2018 to other administration priorities. The Department of State is
actively engaging the three Governments to urge them to increase their
efforts to enhance the security of their borders, increase efforts to
combat human smuggling and human trafficking, receive their returned
citizens, implement public-information campaigns to dissuade illegal
immigration to Mexico and the United States, improve economic growth
and citizen security, and strengthen governance and judicial capacity.
Question. As USAID reviews these programs, can you please explain
how missions in those countries have been consulted for their expert,
on-the-ground perspectives on whether those programs have been
effective in reducing poverty and violence?
Answer. The Missions of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have
provided detailed information on all of our programs in the three
countries to contribute to a review of all foreign-assistance funding
from Fiscal Year 2017 sub-obligated into current agreements and awards
by the U.S. Department of State and USAID. This review is intended to
provide detailed data to the Secretary so he can determine an
appropriate way forward pursuant to the President's direction. Once the
review is complete, we will be able to share more information on the
funding and programs implicated.
venezuela
The administration has requested authority in FY2020 to transfer up
to $500 million to support a democratic transition in Venezuela and
respond to related needs in the region.
Question. What type of support would this assistance entail and
from what accounts would the aid be transferred?
Answer. The proposal for transfer authority for assistance in
Venezuela included in the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020 reflects the need for flexibility, given the rapidly changing
situation. We will continue to coordinate closely with the U.S.
Department of State, Congress, Interim President of Venezuela Juan
Guaido, international donors, and other governments in the region on
the most-appropriate use of any such funds to bring about a democratic
transition in Venezuela and to respond to needs in the region. The
needs of the Venezuelan people range from immediate food and medicine
to assistance with free and fair elections. We look forward to
continued collaboration on this important issue.
Question. What contingency plans, if any, does USAID or the broader
U.S. Government have in place now that security forces aligned with the
Maduro regime have not allowed the delivery of international
humanitarian assistance inside Venezuela?
Answer. The United States is closely monitoring the situation in
Venezuela and continues to seek all appropriate means to support the
Venezuelan people. We are committed to helping those who are suffering
so needlessly because of this man-made crisis.
As of May 8, 2019, the United States has provided more than $256
million in humanitarian and development assistance to support the
emergency efforts of the governments and civil society in affected
countries and build the long-term capacity of communities to host
approximately 3.7 million people who have fled Maduro's repression and
chaos in Venezuela since 2014. Of this $256 million, the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) has provided more than $94
million in humanitarian assistance to support Venezuelans in the
region. USAID's assistance primarily targets activities in health,
nutrition, water, sanitation, hygiene, shelter, and food.
As Secretary Pompeo announced in January of this year, the United
States is prepared to provide more than $20 million in initial
humanitarian assistance to support response efforts within Venezuela,
as conditions allow.
USAID is working with Interim President Guaido's administration and
the international humanitarian community to determine ways to deliver
this aid to people in Venezuela safely. Through decades of experience,
USAID's humanitarian team has learned that working with impartial,
independent, and civilian-led humanitarian organizations is the safest
and most-effective way to reach people in need without putting them in
danger. As is the case all over the world, USAID is working on ways to
deliver assistance inside Venezuela through international and local
humanitarian partners, and in a way that is safe, efficient, and
ensures the aid reaches those who need it most, without being hijacked
by the illegitimate Maduro regime. This planning includes considering
options for safely providing assistance under a number of contingencies
that would help create a political and security environment conducive
to the principled and accountable delivery of aid.
colombia
Senator Blunt and I recently introduced a resolution commemorating
the U.S.-Colombia strategic partnership and relaunched the Atlantic
Council's Colombia Task Force. At great cost and sacrifice, Colombians
have worked to partner with the U.S. in Colombia and elsewhere to fight
armed groups, halt narcotics trafficking, and help stabilize the
region. They now face the added challenge of a crisis next door in
Venezuela and more than a million Venezuelans who are now in Colombia.
Question. How is USAID contributing to an increased presence of the
civilian Colombian Government in historically conflictive rural areas,
as foreseen by Chapter 1 of the 2016 peace accord? (Lack of government
presence strongly correlates with the presence of armed groups and
coca.)
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
strategically coordinates our Plan Antioquia with the Government of the
Republic of Colombia (GOC) to increase its presence in conflicted rural
areas. Plan Antioquia links former coca-growing communities to licit
markets, and assists the Colombian private and financial sectors to
reach small businesses and help entrepreneurs expand their operations.
This ``whole-of-government approach'' has enabled the U.S. Embassy in
Bogota to work in close coordination with regional officials to help
reduce a geographic area's production of coca. The GOC has established
Strategic Operational Centers (CEOs) in nine important coca-growing
regions to expand upon security gains. The CEOs are the security
portion of a ``three-legged stool'' (along with eradication and
alternative development) within a given area where the region is
secure, where a functioning government exists, and where legal economic
development is taking place.
Question. With 13,000 former FARC members scattered around the
country, and often participating in Colombian Government-sponsored
development programs, how does USAID manage to avoid violating the
``material support to FTOs'' statute? Is there a need to reinterpret
this statute to make it less applicable to situations involving lower-
level demobilized guerrillas who are participating in the peace
process?
Answer. The investments of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in the Republic of Colombia focuses on assisting
the Government of Colombia (GOC) to build its capacity to advance the
sustainable implementation of the peace plan. USAID's programs work in
areas of the country that are emerging from armed conflict, to target
victims and others who the GOC has verified to have severed ties with
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Such assistance does
not trigger the prohibitions on the provision of material support to a
Foreign Terrorist Organization. USAID conducts a thorough analysis of
risk and creates a plan for mitigating any risk identified for each
activity. USAID works closely with GOC counterparts and implementing
partners to ensure all activities comply with all applicable U.S. and
international sanctions.
Question. How does the administration plan to help Colombia address
the Venezuela crisis without detracting from Colombia's own efforts to
consolidate peace and security?
Answer. The U.S. Government is the largest donor of assistance in
the Republic of Colombia in response to the man-made crisis in
Venezuela. As of May 8, 2019, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) have contributed over $256
million in assistance in response to the Venezuela regional crisis. Of
this, the U.S. Government has provided more than $128 million in
funding to help Colombia accommodate Venezuelans migrants, including
$91 million in humanitarian assistance and $37 million in economic and
development assistance. This development and economic assistance helps
Colombian communities manage the challenges of displaced Venezuelans,
including to build the long-term response capacity of national and
local institutions. All of these activities are in addition to USAID's
ongoing investments that support the implementation of the peace accord
at planned levels.
Question. Part of the success of Plan Colombia was that it balanced
counter-narcotics and security assistance with support for development,
governance, and human rights to address the root causes of conflict and
crime in the country. Why does the administration plan to cut more than
$80 million dollars in economic support and development funding to
Colombia at this critical moment?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for the Economic Support and
Development Fund for the Republic of Colombia for Fiscal Year 2020
requests resources to foster reconciliation; expand the presence of the
Colombian state, citizen-responsive governance, and human rights to
regions historically under the control of the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia; and to promote rural economic development in
marginalized communities--an important counterpart to the U.S.
Government's programs to eradicate coca and interdict shipments of
cocaine.
caribbean engagement
We have seen the importance of engaging the Caribbean as related to
the Venezuela crisis, narcotics trafficking and migration, countering
violent extremism, and votes in the U.N. and OAS.
Question. Does the administration have a strategy to more
effectively engage with Caribbean nations?
Answer. Yes. The administration's blueprint for engaging with
governments, civil society, and the private sector in Caribbean nations
more effectively is through the Caribbean 2020 Strategy, A Multi-Year
Strategy To Increase the Security, Prosperity, and Well-Being of the
People of the United States and the Caribbean. Through the Strategy,
the administration focuses its engagement with the Caribbean region in
the areas of security, diplomacy, prosperity, energy, education, and
health.
Question. The president's budget proposes zeroing out assistance to
the Eastern Caribbean, the Dominican Republic, and the USAID Caribbean
development program. What effects will that have on Caribbean countries
ability to respond to these challenges or support U.S. positions in the
U.N. or OAS?
Answer. The Operating Units of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in the Caribbean likely will continue to receive
funding through regional programs, such as the Caribbean Basin Security
Initiative (CBSI) and the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR). USAID remains committed to engaging with the
governments and people of Caribbean nations. For example, I will be
traveling to Trinidad and Tobago and St. Lucia in later this month to
meet with host-country leaders and tour USAID-funded sites.
Question. Will you and/or your staff meet with my office to discuss
the current challenges facing the Caribbean, identify priority
countries, and examine the resources required to address these
challenges?
Answer. Yes. We would be pleased to meet with your office to
provide a briefing on our current portfolio in the Caribbean, as well
as on the challenges that are facing the region.
mexico--combatting corruption
Mexico's president Lopez Obrador has said he would make combatting
widespread corruption a center piece of his administration. Increased
efforts are urgent. In the past decade, 22 former governors have been
investigated for corruption in Mexico, some of them for colluding with
the organized crime groups that are largely responsible for rising
violence--but only three have been sentenced for a crime. USAID has
supported Mexico's efforts to reform its judicial system to increase
its investigative and prosecutorial capacity, it has also funded civil
society efforts to combat corruption.
Question. How is USAID engaging with the Lopez Obrador
administration on anti-corruption efforts?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
continuing to provide ongoing technical support to key institutions
within the National Anti-Corruption System (NAS) of the United Mexican
States. Core counterparts include the legally mandated Citizen
Participation Committee and the system's Executive Secretariat. USAID
also engages with the National Transparency Institute to improve access
to information and fiscal transparency. Under Mexican law, all 32
Mexican States must replicate the NAS, and USAID is supporting state-
level anti-corruption actors, including audit institutions, internal-
control units, and specialized anti-corruption prosecutors.
Question. Will USAID continue to support civil society and
journalists who are working to promote transparency and accountability
and uncover corruption scandals?
Answer. Yes. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
continues to provide robust support to local Mexican civil-society
organizations and journalists to advance their anti-corruption
priorities. USAID is working in direct partnership with leading Mexican
civil-society organizations, supporting locally led efforts to
investigate corruption and advocate for policy reforms. These
partnerships cover diverse themes, including procurement integrity,
ethics for private-sector and government employees, budget transparency
and citizen participation, as well as advocacy and technical support
for the full implementation of Mexico's National Anti-Corruption
System. In August 2018, USAID launched a new activity to assist Mexican
investigative journalists that provides ongoing technical training,
fosters networks between Mexican and international reporters, and
supports the sustainability of Mexican independent media outlets. USAID
also funds training opportunities for Mexican journalists on physical
and digital security, which helps them to operate more safely in a
dangerous environment. In addition, USAID continues to provide funding
and technical assistance to the Special Prosecutor for Crimes Against
Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) and the Government of Mexico's National
Protection Mechanism, which protects journalists and human-rights
defenders.
mexico--disappearances and extraordinary mechanism
for forensic identification
Question. Over 40,000 people have disappeared in Mexico since 2007,
many at the hands of organized criminal organizations as well as
security forces working in collusion with these groups, almost 2,000
mass graves have been uncovered in the country. This crisis has left
thousands of families searching for answers about their loved ones and
exposed structural weaknesses in Mexico's forensic services given their
inability to effectively process and identify remains and produce
evidence for prosecutions. USAID is currently present in several states
in northern Mexico to support civil society to search for justice in
cases of disappearances and increase government capacity to respond to
these cases. Given the need to strengthen forensic services in Mexico
to contribute to effective criminal investigations, is USAID
considering expanding this work to additional states in Mexico or to
support the Federal Government's recently announced Extraordinary
Mechanism for Forensic Identification?
Answer. Yes. Pending availability of funds and the appropriate
political will at the state and federal level, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) envisions geographic and programmatic
expansion of our work to help strengthen criminal investigations and
prosecutions in the United Mexican States. USAID's funding and
technical assistance at the State level in Mexico is designed to assist
State Attorneys General to investigate and prosecute cases of forced
disappearances more effectively; implement and consolidate forensic
databases and registries as mandated by the 2018 General Law on
Disappearances; and catalyze broader interest and action on these gross
violations of human rights. USAID's activities in the States of
Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon marry international forensic expertise with
local knowledge, networks, and context, and work with local civil-
society organizations, collectives, and State authorities to identify
remains and develop state-level DNA and missing persons databases.
USAID's partners also engage in the States of Jalisco, Coahuila, and
Veracruz in cases of gross violations of human rights and
disappearances, particularly regarding the implementation of the
General Laws against Torture and Disappearance.
At the Federal level in Mexico, USAID recently assisted the
National Search Commission to clean up redundancies and inaccuracies in
the National Registry of Missing Persons. Through a cross-check of
dozens of official databases, the registry now contains 38,954 unique,
accurate records of missing persons.
nicaragua
Question. Over the past year, the Ortega regime has violently
repressed peaceful protests, resulting in hundreds of deaths and
thousands wounded and/or fleeing into exile. The Trump administration
has stressed its intention to support civil society and promote human
rights in Nicaragua. Please explain how you will fulfill that pledge if
assistance to Nicaragua--more than half of which was for democracy
assistance in FY2018--is cut from $10 million to $6 million, as
proposed in the current budget.
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
remains committed to helping the Nicaraguan people, including civil
society, as they demand a more open, transparent, and accountable
government. USAID's programs strengthen the capacity of civil society
and youth leaders to promote and defend democracy and transparent and
accountable governance at the local and national levels, and assist
independent media to report truthful information against a backdrop of
oppression and censorship. Cross-cutting themes for the portfolio
include the engagement of young people, digital security, and human
rights. For example, USAID sponsors digital-security experts and local
trainers to assist civil-society leaders, new stakeholders, and
independent media on safe practices for secure communications and the
storage of data. USAID also funds local organizations that document and
elevate human-rights abuses to regional and international platforms.
Should conditions in Nicaragua allow for a political opening to re-
establish democratic order, USAID would be positioned to support free,
fair, and transparent elections. When the Ortega regime ends, USAID
will assist the Nicaraguan people with a peaceful transition,
undertaking institutional reforms, and strengthening civil society.
democracy, human rights and governance
I believe it is absolutely critical to the success of U.S. national
security strategy to advance democracy and human rights around the
globe, combat corruption, and strengthen good governance and rule of
law. Supporting democracy, human rights, and good governance helps keep
America safe, minimizes migration, and allows our businesses to more
effectively compete in global markets. Yet, for far too long U.S.
foreign policy has treated governance issues as a secondary
consideration. I applaud the administration's willingness to apply
Global Magnitsky sanctions against corrupt officials and human rights
abusers, but am alarmed by the proposed 50 percent cut to democracy
programs, the 40 percent cut to DRL programs, and 60 percent cut to the
National Endowment for Democracy.
Question. How does this proposed budget reflect American values?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
for global democracy programs reflects the notion-articulated in the
National Security Strategy and the Joint Strategic Plan of the U.S.
Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID)-that respect for human rights, democracy, and inclusive
governance is more likely to produce peace, stability, and prosperity
at home and abroad, and is therefore critical to U.S. interests. At
USAID, we know that programs aimed at combating corruption, supporting
accountable, citizen-responsive governance and ensuring respect for
human rights reflect American values; assist governments, civil
society, and the private sector in our partner countries on the Journey
to Self-Reliance; and encourage the development of effective
democracies that are critical to maintaining U.S. prosperity and
security.
Question. How central do you view these issues as being to our
foreign and national security policy and how is anticorruption factored
into the State Department budget?
Answer. These issues are critical to foreign, national-security,
and economic policy. As an Agency, we know that corruption undermines
national development; perpetuates poverty and dependence; imperils
critical humanitarian and relief efforts; destabilizes democratic
societies; and fuels transnational crime and the trafficking of drugs,
arms and people. For these reasons, fighting corruption and promoting
good governance around the world continue to be a key priority for the
United States, as affirmed in the National Security Strategy, the Joint
Strategic Plan of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), and the draft Democracy, Human
Rights, and Governance Strategy of the National Security Council. The
President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020 does include $581.8
million for Department of State and USAID to strengthen the enabling
environment for citizen-responsive governance in many of the countries
in which we work.
Question. My Combatting Global Corruption Act, which I reintroduced
last week with Senator Young, would allow the U.S. to take stock of
where our anti-corruption programming and could be most beneficial.
Given how critical these issues are to the long-term success and
sustainability of our global engagements, what and where are the trade-
offs between being able to pursue good governance and other diplomatic
or security considerations?
Answer. Globally, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) views the pursuit of citizen-responsive governance as fully
compatible with diplomatic and security considerations. Often
mischaracterized as zero-sum choices, these are actually mutually
reinforcing objectives. The reality is that pervasive corruption and a
lack of accountable governance sabotage the political and economic
systems in countries around the world. These problems affect every
sector--denigrating ecosystems, worsening health and education
outcomes, discouraging private investment, increasing disease,
preventing children from reaching their potential, and feeding the
drivers of conflict and citizen insecurity. Building the capacity and
commitment of governments, civil society, and the private sector in
countries around the world to enhance transparency, accountability, and
citizen-responsive governance is not at odds with, but rather
safeguards, overarching U.S. diplomatic and national-security
objectives.
This is particularly true in countries with weak political and
economic institutions and with partial or fledgling accountability
systems, including post-conflict nations and those with transitional
regimes. Through strengthening self-reliance at the national and
community level, USAID's programs take a multidisciplinary and
integrated approach to combating corruption and building accountability
and integrity throughout the governance system and across sectors,
including all branches and levels of government; oversight, audit, and
law-enforcement institutions; public-sector agencies; the private
sector; and civil society.
In practice, we balance citizen-responsive governance with other
diplomatic or security considerations in the Integrated Country
Strategies developed by the U.S. Government interagency at each U.S.
Embassy.
Question. Do DRL, INL, and the Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs (EB) have the staff resources they need to expeditiously
research, vet, and apply sanctions?
Answer. I defer to the U.S. Department of State.
Question. Given the violence and instability we see caused by
autocratic regimes like Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Iran, what is
the rationale for cutting these valuable programs?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020 will
allow the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand
the number of countries where we are investing in democracy programs.
Additionally, USAID's programs will focus resources on the democratic
institutions and processes most critical to advancing self-reliance in
our partner countries, to ensure programmatic impact. USAID is also
committed to focusing our resources to address emerging challenges,
such as democratic backsliding and resurgent authoritarianism that
threaten U.S. influence and prosperity.
countering russian influence
We recently received a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's report regarding Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. As Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
recently said, ``There was overwhelming evidence that Russian
operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens,
and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian
strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine
America, just like they do in many other countries.'' I believe that
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can and must play a leading role
in responding to the findings of the Mueller report by holding hearing
s on the findings and continuing to work on legislation to hold Russia
accountable for their malign behavior and interfering in our democracy.
Question. For FY2019, Congress appropriated $275 million in foreign
assistance (to be made available from funds appropriated under other
headings) for the Countering Russian Influence Fund (CRIF), intended to
counter malign Russian influence, propaganda, and aggression in Europe
and Eurasia. How does USAID's proposed FY 20 budget address Russian
aggression and support civil society--such as journalists, human rights
defenders, and others--who are working to counter Russian propaganda
and other malign influence in the Europe and Eurasia region?
Answer. The Countering Malign Kremlin Influence Development
Framework of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
informed the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. The
first two pillars of that strategy focus on 1) countering efforts to
undermine democratic institutions and the rule of law; and, 2)
resisting the Kremlin's manipulation of information. The Framework,
which orients and guides USAID's use of resources to respond to malign
Kremlin influence, focuses on the strengthening of democratic
institutions, including civil society and independent media outlets.
The President's Budget Request will support the capacity of civil-
society organizations to serve as legitimate representatives of
citizens and to safeguard their interests, to allow them to counter
external malign efforts to marginalize and stigmatize them.
Additionally, USAID's regional and bilateral programming with civil
society will fund a broad range of civic actors, including human-rights
defenders, journalists and independent media organizations, and civic
groups. Specifically, our programming will enable organizations to
advocate for improved legislation and regulations and empower groups to
engage in high-level policy discussions. Programming will also finance
advocacy and ``watchdog'' organizations to track and report on both
domestic and foreign efforts to discredit the sector, to undermine
democratic institutions and processes, or to interfere in the
democratic processes of countries in Europe and Eurasia. For example,
in Georgia, USAID launched an online dashboard that reviews data from
70 sources of Georgian-language anti-Western propaganda, most of which
originate in Russia, and analyzes their main themes, popularity, and
other dimensions in real-time.
To counter Russian disinformation campaigns, USAID is leading
efforts to bolster professional, competitive media outlets in Europe
and Eurasia to produce engaging and credible news and information and
build public trust in the media. Our programming also funds enhanced
media literacy, not only to teach critical thinking skills and improve
analytical capability, but to give citizens a better understanding of
the watchdog role of the press; the power of media messages to shape
domestic and global events; and the role the public can, and should,
play in informing policy-making.
USAID's efforts in countries like Ukraine and the Republics of
Armenia and Moldova focus on teaching these skills inside and outside
of the classroom across a variety of age groups. In particular,
activities like political satire, and debunking efforts, alongside
fact-checking initiatives and more traditional educational curricula,
have proven effective across demographic age groups.
Question. How would the President's proposed overall 54 percent cut
from FY2018 of all State and USAID assistance for Europe and Eurasia
impact the Agency's ability to support such activities?
Answer. While the President's proposed Budget Request for FY 2020
represents greater fiscal restraint, USAID's Missions in the region
plan to maintain focus on the administration's key priorities, which
include protecting U.S. national security and specifically countering
malign Kremlin influence. Prior-year appropriations and the current
Budget Request will allow our Missions to continue their current
programs to counter this influence.
usaid gender policy review
My understanding is that your agency is currently reviewing the
USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy, including
provisions regarding gender integration and gender analysis across
USAID's work. As the lead Democratic sponsor of the Women's
Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act, I am keenly interested
in ensuring that the Act's requirement for gender analysis remains a
key priority for USAID programs, policies, and activities under this
review.
Question. Can you explain the steps you personally are taking to
ensure that the gender analysis requirement of the WEEE Act is
implemented at your agency and preserved under the review of the Gender
Equality and Female Empowerment Policy?
Answer. Updates to the Policy on Gender Equality and Female
Empowerment of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
will include the requirements and parameters set forth in the Women's
Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment (WEEE) Act regarding policy
outcomes and the integration of equality between women and men and
female empowerment in the Program Cycle. The USAID team that is leading
the review will ensure that the revised Policy will maintain the
gender-analysis requirement of the Act, which reaffirms the Agency's
existing mandates.
Question. Can you also explain how your budget request intends to
ensure and improve gender integration within USAID, including through
advancing your own Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020 will
support the implementation of USAID's Policy on Gender Equality and
Female Empowerment through expanded training for the Agency's staff to
increase their capacity to carry out gender analyses and incorporate
findings in programming and technical assistance to our Bureaus,
Missions, and Operating Units. The Budget Request will also fund work
in programmatic design and evaluation; the development and delivery of
guidance; and tools for the integration of gender, including countering
gender-based violence, across every sector in which USAID invests.
women's economic empowerment
Question. Your administration has requested $100 million to advance
women's economic empowerment around the world, driven by the Women's
Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative. While I am a
strong proponent of investments in women's empowerment, this request is
out of sync with the overall cuts to foreign assistance proposed. These
cuts will impact programs and initiatives that promote the rights and
well-being of women and girls globally, including their ability to be
healthy, educated, skilled and empowered to participate in the economy.
How do you reconcile this? Can you explain how your budget request
intends to advance women's empowerment on the one hand, but also
seemingly aims to restrict broader funds and programming to advance
these goals on the other?
Answer. Promoting the rights and well-being of women and girls
globally continues to be an administration priority, as demonstrated in
the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, which calls
on other donors to build on American investments abroad, and seeks to
expand partnerships with the private sector to catalyze U.S. commercial
deals. The Women's Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative
promotes women's empowerment across its three pillars: 1) advancing
workforce-development and vocational education to ensure women have the
skills and training necessary to secure jobs; 2) promoting women's
entrepreneurship and providing women with access to capital, markets,
technical assistance, and networks; and, 3) striving to remove the
legal, regulatory, and cultural barriers that constrain women from
being able to participate in the economy fully and freely. The work of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the three
pillars of the W-GDP Initiative benefit the livelihoods of women and
their families across all sectors.
w-gdp and private sector engagement
Question. The Women's Global Development and Prosperity
initiative--which you discussed during your recent visit to Ethiopia
and Cote d'Ivoire--promises to promote women's economic empowerment
around the world.
Answer. In furtherance of the goal of the Women's Global
Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative of reaching 50 million
women by 2025, we recognize the critical importance of leveraging the
ingenuity and resources of the private sector through robust
partnerships and collaboration. In accordance with our Private-Sector
Engagement policy, the staff at the headquarters of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) will work with our Missions around
the world and across USAID's Operating Units to engage in partnerships
with the private sector to advance women's economic empowerment and
contribute to the efforts of the W-GDP Initiative by offering not only
financial resources but also technical assistance in the design,
planning, and execution of development projects and activities.
Question. How will USAID's work on W-GDP align with your Private
Sector Engagement policy in terms of leveraging new private enterprise
to reach the initiative's goal of empowering 50 million women by year
2025?
Answer. The W-GDP initiative also includes a $50 million catalytic
fund from Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, which seeks to leverage external
sources of capital. The W-GDP Initiative will work with private-sector
companies to explore new and innovative ways to address some of the
greatest challenges that limit women's full and free participation in
the economy. Through these public-private partnerships, the W-GDP
Initiative will help scale existing activities to promote women's
economic empowerment with proven results and develop new metrics-driven
and outcome-oriented programs that are sustainable; effective; and
ultimately contribute to USAID's mission of helping governments, civil
society, and the private sector in our recipient countries on the
Journey to Self-Reliance.
unfpa
As a result of the State Department's decision to pull funding from
UNFPA, $32.5 million appropriated for the agency will be transferred
from the International Organizations Bureau to USAID. While I think it
is clear that no one can replace the vital work of UNFPA in some of the
world's most challenging settings like Yemen and Venezuela, I want to
make sure we are going to continue to support programs like these with
these additional funds at USAID.
Question. It is still unclear where FY2018 money has been
reprogrammed. Can you share where this funding has been reallocated and
specifically what programs it is supporting? Can you assure us that any
transferred funds will be going to our existing international family
planning and evidence-based reproductive health programs that support
access to contraceptives and work to combat child marriage, gender-
based violence, and female genital mutilation--all key components of
UNFPA's work?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will
invest the funds originally available for the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 for voluntary family planning
and maternal and reproductive health as required. These investments
will contribute to the U.S. Government's commitment to increasing
women's access to high-quality health care, and advance progress toward
the Agency's Priority Goal under the U.S. Department of State-USAID
Joint Strategic Plan for FY 2017-2022 of ending preventable maternal
deaths.
hiv/aids
The administration aims to achieve AIDS epidemic control in 13
countries by the end of 2020.
Question. How would the 29 percent cut to HIV/AIDS funding for
FY2020 impact this goal? Please discuss the administration's request to
limit the U.S. share of Global Fund contributions to 25 percent, rather
than the 33 percent limit for past contributions. How would that change
affect Global Fund operations?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for the Global Health
Programs account for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 of $6.3 billion will finance
programs to control the HIV/AIDS epidemic; prevent child and maternal
deaths; combat infectious-disease threats; and build healthier,
stronger, more self-sufficient nations. This request will allow the
United States to continue its leadership role in a sector of
demonstrated comparative advantage and success. U.S. investments will
leverage resources from other donors, the private sector, and host-
country governments to address shared challenges. The Budget Request
will enable the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to
help control the HIV/AIDS epidemic globally by achieving goals
articulated in the administration's PEPFAR Strategy for Accelerating
HIV/AIDS Epidemic Control (2017-2020).
This new approach to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria (Global Fund) will reinforce U.S. leadership while
encouraging greater burden-sharing from other donors. The U.S.
Government is planning to pledge up to $3.3 billion over 3 years (FY
2020-2022) to the Global Fund's next Replenishment cycle with a
commitment to match other donors at a rate of $1 from the United States
for every $3 pledged from other donors. This change in the matching
ratio of our pledge matching is critical to demonstrating and
continuing U.S. global leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria, while pushing other donors to contribute a
greater share of resources to address these public-health challenges.
mexico city policy/plgha
In January 2017, the administration reinstated the Mexico City
Policy and expanded it so that it applied to all global health programs
rather than only family planning activities. In February 2018, the
administration indicated in its 6-month assessment that it was too
early to determine the impact of the policy and that another assessment
would be conducted in December 2018.
Question. Has that assessment been conducted? If not, when will it
be done and the findings be published? What effects has the policy
appeared to have had on access to care, particularly in remote areas
where all health services are provided in one facility? What impact do
you expect the further expansion of this policy, announced by Secretary
of State Pompeo in March 2019, to have on access to health care in such
areas?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State has worked closely with the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Departments
of Defense and Health and Human Services to implement the Protecting
Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) Policy consistently, examine
progress in carrying it out, and monitor its effects. The State
Department's Six-Month Review on PLGHA, released in February 2018,
recommended further analysis when more-extensive experience would
enable a more-thorough examination of the Policy's benefits and
challenges. USAID is working with the Department of State and the other
affected Departments to complete that review, which will assess the
implementation of the Policy, including any effects on the delivery of
care.
The PLGHA Policy implements what the administration has made very
clear: U.S. taxpayer money should not fund foreign organizations that
perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in
other nations. The PLGHA Policy does not change funding levels for
global-health assistance by one dollar, nor does the Secretary of
State's announcement of March 26, 2019.
ebola outbreak
Question. The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of
Congo is continuing to spread. Please describe how current resources
are being used to address the ongoing outbreak.
Answer. In September 2018, the U.S. Government deployed a Disaster-
Assistance Response Team (DART) to coordinate the Federal response to
the outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This
expert team--composed of disaster and health experts from USAID and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)--is working tirelessly to
identify needs and coordinate activities with partners on the ground in
the DRC. By augmenting ongoing efforts to prevent the spread of disease
and providing aid to help affected communities, this work ensures an
efficient and effective response by the U.S. Government. USAID is
closely collaborating with our interagency partners--like HHS
(including both CDC and the National Institutes of Health) and the U.S.
Department of State--to battle this disease, along with the Government
of the DRC, other donors, the United Nations (U.N.), international
partners, and affected communities.
As of May 8, 2019, the DART typically has between 10 and 15 members
deployed in the DRC, located in both Kinshasa and Goma. In addition,
the DART has five consultants--two in Beni, two in Goma, and one in
Butembo--embedded in the operations of the World Health Organization
(WHO) to support the local commissions in charge of surveillance and
the prevention and control of infections in health facilities and
report to the DART.
The outlook for the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC is worsening.
As of May 21, 2019, the Government of the DRC has reported 1,847
confirmed and probable cases. As of May 8, 2019, USAID has invested
more than $86.9 million into the response to the outbreak. This funding
is supporting 12 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), three U.N.
agencies, and one public international organization to implement key
activities outlined in the U.S Government's response strategy. The DART
in the DRC and the USAID Response-Management Team (RMT) in Washington
continue to support a more community-based approach that emphasizes
assessment/dialogue, increasing local participation, and providing
wrap-around humanitarian assistance as part of integrated programs.
Increasing insecurity, intense community resistance, ineffective
leadership, and poor coordination are major challenges to the response.
USAID sees a number of areas for improvement, and is pressing to
make changes at every level as part of a reset endorsed by the U.S.
Ambassador to the DRC, the DART, HHS/CDC, and other lead donors. The
DART is working with partners to provide vital assistance and overcome
some of the key challenges that have made this outbreak difficult to
contain. As such, the DART is supporting a multi-pronged approach to:
(1) stop the spread of infection and provide vital care to Ebola
patients; (2) support programs in community outreach and education to
dispel rumors and earn the trust of community members in areas affected
by the disease; (3) enhance coordination with international and
interagency partners; and, (4) broaden the response to address the
long-standing needs of communities not related to Ebola. In addition,
in response to the recent troubling uptick in cases, the DART is
working to enhance the response's operations and is pushing the U.N.
and the Government of the DRC to shift from a top-down approach to one
that elevates the community's role and increases local acceptance and
ownership of activities.
Question. Considering the persistent increase in cases, what
changes, if any, is USAID considering in its response?
Answer. The U.S. Government's reset strategy, endorsed by the U.S.
Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the U.S.
Disaster-Assistance Response Team (DART), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) within the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), and other lead donors [including the World Bank,
the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom, and
the Humanitarian Aid Department of the European Commission (ECHO)]
includes the following elements:
Leadership Changes at the United Nations (U.N.): The U.S.
Government and other lead donors have urged the U.N. to
designate a senior-level leader in the DRC with the authority
to lead the U.N.'s part of the response to Ebola as part of the
reset.
Engagement with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): The U.S.
Government is pressing the Government of the DRC and the U.N.
to provide NGOs and civil society with formal roles on
coordination structures at all levels of the response, based on
technical competencies.
Longer-Term Strategic Planning: The U.S. Agency for International
Development is pressing the U.N. and the Government of the DRC
to develop a 6 to 9 month response plan that fully captures the
associated costs of the Government, the U.N., NGOs, and civil
society necessary to contain and end the outbreak with
appropriate financial tracking. The plan should use the model
of an inclusive approach to humanitarian funding, as supported
by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(UNOCHA) in complex emergency humanitarian responses.
Broaden the Humanitarian Response (``Ebola Plus''): USAID is
immediately broadening its response to address non-Ebola needs
expressed by communities in hotspot areas: The DART is
currently reviewing initial proposals to provide other
humanitarian assistance as part of integrated Ebola response
programs to gain community trust and acceptance, including
livelihoods; food-security support; and water, sanitation, and
hygiene (WASH) Please note that International Disaster
Assistance funding is necessarily short-term and is not a
substitute for broader development and stabilization efforts in
the region, which is what communities in the DRC have
requested.
Localize the Response: USAID is pressing our partners to increase
local hires and partnerships with local civil-society
organizations, including faith-based organizations, and to
expand the participation of NGOs across the response to Ebola,
including community representation at the coordination and sub-
coordination levels. This must also include women, as the
response to date largely has left out this key constituency,
despite their influence and authority. Along the lines of
``localizing'' the response, USAID has urged the World Health
Organization (WHO) to consider reducing international
visibility in Butembo to reduce the resentment of the local
community.
Improve the Operational Response: The U.S. Government welcomes the
recommendation made by the Senior Advisory Committee on Vaccine
Use of the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on May 7,
2019, and will urge all partners to use the findings to enable
a more forward-leaning posture on the use of vaccines,
including a geographic vaccine strategy. USAID is working to
improve the surveillance of community deaths, as too many new
cases are detected post-mortem and are not tracked, isolated,
or safely buried. USAID is pressing the Government of the DRC
on the use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to conduct
surveillance of community deaths, which has the potential to
improve the turnaround time of diagnosis and prevent
transmission. USAID funds community-level, event-based
surveillance, and is exploring options to expand it. The U.S.
Government will also implement the Surveillance Training to
Enhance Ebola Response and Readiness (STEER) program, created
and led by the DRC Ministry of Health to leverage alumni of the
HHS/CDC Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) to improve
the core knowledge and skills of frontline Ministry health
workers in epidemiology and the prevention and control of
infections (IPC) in clinics and hospitals.
Preparedness: There is an urgent need to intensify readiness in
Goma and the Goma-Butembo corridor to avoid further spread of
the outbreak within the DRC and, potentially, across its
borders. Therefore, USAID is prioritizing risk-communication,
WASH, IPC in health facilities, training for health-care
workers, and community outreach. USAID and HHS/CDC will support
rapid-response teams and address gaps in coordination,
screening, triage, reporting, surveillance, the vaccination of
health workers, and screening of travelers at borders.
global health security agenda
The $90 million budget request for global health security is aimed
at advancing the Global Health Security Agenda across priority
countries.
Question. How many countries is the United States currently
supporting through the Global Health Security Agenda?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in
partnership with other U.S. Government Departments and Agencies,
national governments, international organizations, and public and
private stakeholders--seeks to prevent avoidable epidemics, detect
threats early, and respond rapidly and effectively to outbreaks of
infectious diseases. USAID seeks to strengthen in-country capacities
targeted at the places, populations, and practices that contribute to
the emergence and spread of infectious-diseases threats, especially
zoonotic ones (those that originate in animals). Here are the
geographic locations of USAID's activities with Global Health Security
and Emerging Threats funds keyed to GHSA focus countries as presented
in the congressionally mandated ``Fifth Report on the Proposed Use of
Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Global Health Security Funds by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID):''
GHSA, Phase I countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire,
Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, and Vietnam;
GHSA, Phase II countries: Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ghana, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia,
Rwanda, and Thailand; and
Countries at high risk for the emergence of global threats: Burma,
the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Madagascar, Mongolia,
Nepal, and the Republic of Congo.
Please note, the financial and geographic allocations are subject to
change, based on consultations and coordination with HHS
Question. How might the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic
Republic of Congo impact the availability of funds for other countries?
Answer. USAID is responding to the ongoing outbreak of Ebola in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). USAID is funding these efforts with
International Disaster Assistance funds appropriated for Ebola in
Fiscal Year 2015. USAID does not anticipate that our on-going response
efforts in DRC will affect the availability of funds to help
governments, civil society, and the private sector in other countries
to prevent avoidable epidemics, detect threats early, and respond
rapidly and effectively to outbreaks of infectious diseases.
tuberculosis
Question. In FY2019, Congress appropriated a 16 percent increase
for TB programs from FY2018 levels. What did USAID do with the
additional funding?
Answer. I launched the Global Accelerator to End Tuberculosis (TB)
in September 2018 to support national governments, civil society, and
the private sector to meet the targets set at the High-Level Meeting
(HLM) on TB of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly to treat 40
million people by 2022. By using funding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2019,
the Accelerator will expand and target technical expertise to increase
the diagnosis and treatment of cases of TB and multi-drug-resistant
(MDR) TB. Related efforts include the placement of advisors in
Ministries of Health; the increased involvement of local organizations
in the response to TB, including community and faith-based groups; the
accelerated transition of the funding and management of TB programs to
governments and their partners; and improved coordination with other
health programs, particularly around co-morbidities, such as diabetes,
HIV and undernourishment. The Accelerator focuses on the countries with
the highest burdens of TB in which the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) already has existing partnerships, and where the
Agency could reprogram funds to align better with local communities and
partners to deliver performance-based results towards the global
targets from the HLM.
Question. Please explain why the FY2020 budget requests that
funding be returned to FY2018 levels. How might a reduction in funds
affect ongoing efforts?
Answer. With the increased funding, USAID will also continue to be
a major supporter of the Global Drug Facility (GDF) of the Stop TB
Partnership, the largest supplier of medicines and diagnostics for TB.
USAID's programs will also continue to require national funding for TB
drugs through the GDF to broaden the market for quality-assured drugs
and increase the sustainability of TB programs in high-burden
countries.
USAID has been a catalyst for investment and change in high-burden
TB countries, and will continue our efforts to increase the investment
of national domestic resources, which already make up over 80 percent
of funding to support the global response to TB. The focus of the
available funding in FY 2020 would be to provide support in the 23
high-priority countries.
Question. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) remains a
concern for many, particularly in countries with high HIV-TB co-
infection rates. Please describe how USAID programs address MDR-TB and
work to avert further spread of the strain.
Answer. Diagnosing MDR-TB starts with finding TB cases, since
around the world clinicians are only finding two-thirds of them. The
remaining one-third of TB cases are either not diagnosed or diagnosed
but not reported. With the resources already available, USAID is
funding interventions to accelerate the detection of MDR-TB, starting
with finding the missing cases and improving access to drug-
susceptibility testing (DST). We are increasing the active screening of
TB and MDR-TB among vulnerable groups by using different strategies,
including community-based screening, universal screening, and DST at
health facilities
People with drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) can be reluctant to start
treatment because the regimens are long and difficult, and can involve
serious side effects. To address this issue, USAID is financing the
development of new TB-treatment regimens that are shorter and more
tolerable to patients. Additional funds would continue to support
activities in the National Action Plan on MDR-TB, including clinical
trials to evaluate new drugs and ensure that those most in need can
have access to them.
strategy and budget mismatch
Question. The administration's National Security Strategy
recognizes that America ``faces an extraordinarily dangerous world,
filled with a wide range of threats that have intensified in recent
years'' and that we must use all of our national security tools to
confront these threats. For the third year in a row, however, the
administration has proposed deep cuts to development and diplomacy,
indicating once again a strategy and budget mismatch. How do you
reconcile this discrepancy in resources with not only the threats we
currently face but this administration's own strategy to confront those
challenges?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
balances fiscal responsibility with national-security imperatives and
prioritizes countries and sectors most-critical to U.S. interests.
The President's Budget Request for FY 2020 proposes strategic
investments in development and diplomacy that enable the United States
to retain its position as a global leader, while requiring the
governments of other nations (both donors and host-countries) and the
private sector to make greater, proportionate contributions toward
shared objectives that support U.S. national security and advance
American interests.
usaid transformation--humanitarian account consolidations
Question. Please discuss the proposed consolidation of U.S. funding
into a single new global humanitarian account. How might this impact
the U.S. Government's funding relationship with implementing partners,
particularly multilateral organizations?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
proposes the consolidation of all overseas humanitarian assistance in a
new, unified, flexible International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA)
account and in the new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) at the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with a new, high-
level dual-hat leadership structure under the authority of the
Secretary of State. These changes will allow the U.S. Government to
respond seamlessly to the ongoing, as well as new, humanitarian needs
of the most-vulnerable displaced people, including refugees, victims of
conflict, stateless persons, and migrants worldwide.
The IHA, managed by the new BHA at USAID, will draw on the
efficiencies and comparative strengths of USAID and the U.S. Department
of State. It will improve coherence and coordination in our funding of
implementing partners, including both non-governmental and multilateral
organizations. The proposed changes will allow the U.S. Government to
monitor the performance of implementers consistently and uniformly, and
will ensure no duplication or gaps in aid. The new proposed structure
will allow for a seamless and effective assistance strategy for all
affected people. Practically speaking, implementers that now have to
work with two or three offices with different award systems and
reporting, monitoring, and oversight requirements would receive funding
from only one Bureau, with one set of parameters designed to optimize
outcomes for beneficiaries.
Question. What have been the U.S.-based NGOs' responses to the
proposed consolidation?
Answer. InterAction, the alliance of U.S.-based international non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), has expressed support for the
creation of a unified entity that has authority for all of the U.S.
Government's overseas humanitarian assistance to generate greater
coherence in the goals and activities of our aid. USAID is committed to
working with U.S-based non-governmental organizations through the
proposed structure.
Question. Under the proposed FY2020 budget, do you expect other
changes in the way the United States responds to humanitarian crises
worldwide? If so, in what respects and why?
Answer. The $5.968 billion the President has requested through the
IHA account would allow the United States to remain the largest single
donor to crises around the world and meet humanitarian needs quickly
and flexibly by supporting vulnerable populations affected by conflict
or natural disaster. The President's Budget Request for FY 2020 enables
USAID to deliver humanitarian assistance more effectively by elevating
its role within the U.S. Government; promoting efficiencies through the
creation of the new BHA, including the integration of all overseas
assistance for refugee at USAID; and ensuring other donors contribute
their fair share to address humanitarian crises globally.
humanitarian office consolidation-interagency coordination
Question. How, if at all, do you anticipate the reorganization of
offices within USAID will impact coordination between USAID and the
State Department? How, if at all, will it affect interagency
coordination with DOD in the response to humanitarian crises? Under the
consolidated plan, what role do you see for the State Department on
U.S. humanitarian diplomacy and leadership?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
consolidates overseas humanitarian-assistance programs and funding in a
new International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account at the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). The proposal recognizes
the importance of combining the delivery of humanitarian assistance and
diplomacy. As part of USAID's Transformation, the Offices of U.S.
Foreign Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace together will combine to
create a more seamless and efficient approach to humanitarian
assistance and eliminate the artificial divide between food and non-
food aid at USAID.
The President's request for a new dual-hat leadership structure
will connect humanitarian diplomacy and assistance in a new and more
effective way that will improve overall coordination between USAID and
the U.S. Department of State. The two institutions are working out the
leadership structure, but we look forward to briefing you and your
colleagues on this proposal at the appropriate time. Working together
with the U.S. Department of State and the Office of Management and
Budget, we believe we can create a new model that will leverage the
comparative advantages of both organizations to assist and advocate for
people in greatest need.
proposed eliminations--inter-american foundation (iaf) and
u.s.-africa development foundation (usadf)
The budget request proposes the elimination of the independent
Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S.-Africa Development
Foundation (USADF), asserting that their small grant programs should be
administered through USAID's Western Hemisphere and Africa bureaus.
Question. What benefits, if any, do you see in transferring these
activities from specialized independent agencies to USAID? What are the
potential drawbacks?
Answer. The consolidation of the small-grants programs will combine
regional expertise and programmatic approaches to expand the toolkit
the U.S. Government deploys to address complex development challenges.
The consolidation will also result in administrative cost-savings.
build act implementation
The BUILD Act passed by Congress in 2018 authorized the
establishment of a new International Development Finance Corporation
(IDFC) that will include the Development Credit Authority (DCA) that
has long been part of USAID. The IDFC is expected to become operational
by the start of FY2020.
Question. Do you have any concerns about USAID's access to the DCA
as a financing tool when it becomes part of the IDFC?
Answer. Access by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) to the financing tools of the DFC will be paramount to the
success of both institutions. Our goal is to ensure strong
institutional linkages and easy and full access to the DFC's full suite
of financing tools (loans, guarantees, equity investments, risk
insurance, and technical assistance) by all our programs and field
Missions. To that end, teams at USAID and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) are working closely together on a regular
basis to develop the right processes and procedures to ensure this
level of access.
Question. Do you anticipate that the shift will result in less
development finance expertise at USAID?
Answer. We at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
have approximately 40 positions that will shift to the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) from our
Development Credit Authority (DCA) when the DFC comes into being at the
beginning of Fiscal Year 2020. Our DCA staff makes up a very
significant portion of the Agency's in-house development-finance
expertise. Therefore, yes, there will be ``less development-finance
expertise at USAID.'' One might speculate this transfer of personnel
could be a big loss for the Agency, particularly at a time when USAID
is expanding our engagement with the private sector; however,
throughout the process of creating the DFC, we have emphasized the
necessity of building strong institutional linkages between USAID and
the new organization, to ensure seamless access to the DFC's large
group of specialized financial experts and expanded set of development-
finance tools, including equity authority.
Question. As the IDFC implementation process moves forward, are
there any outstanding concerns from the USAID perspective that you
would like to see addressed?
Answer. We continue to work closely with the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) on all transition matters, of which there
are many, given the long history of the Development Credit Authority
(DCA) within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
OPIC's management has established a process through which USAID may
raise all concerns with operational implementation of the DFC, and we
are working through them. A very active interagency working group on
the DFC surfaces and addresses any policy concerns around the creation
of the new organization, and we are an active participant in that
group.
We will continue to track our joint efforts closely to ensure the
DFC not only maintains but expands the DCA's model of programming
driven, funded, and owned by USAID's Missions in the field. We are also
pushing to ensure development remains the driving force behind all the
DFC's transactions. To this end, we are closely tracking the creation
of the position of Chief Development Officer and the DFC's new
processes for scoring, monitoring, and evaluating the development
impact of transactions.
bilateral foreign assistance--mena
For FY2020, the Trump administration proposes to spend an estimated
$6.5 billion on total bilateral assistance to the MENA region and
proposes to cut bilateral foreign assistance for programs in Syria.
Question. How does the budget request reflect the administration's
stance on bilateral foreign assistance and U.S. priorities?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020 for the
Middle East and North Africa supports our Memoranda of Understanding
with the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and
continues our longstanding partnership with the Arab Republic of Egypt.
It advances efforts to counter Iran's malign influence across the
region; bolsters the stability of key friends and allies; expands our
support for persecuted religious and ethnic minorities; supports
efforts in stabilization and recovery to help ensure the enduring
defeat of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and other
terrorist organizations; and provides the flexibility needed to support
a comprehensive, lasting Arab-Israeli peace.
Question. Can you comment on the decision to allocate 91 percent of
total bilateral aid requested for the MENA region to Israel, Egypt, and
Jordan over countries like Syria?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
maintains our commitments to key allies, including funding for the
Memoranda of Understanding with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ($1.275
billion per year) and the State of Israel ($3.3 billion per year). The
changes from the President's Request for FY 2019 account for
significant accomplishments in the battle against the so-called Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), including its territorial defeat, and
success in encouraging other donors to support stabilization activities
in liberated areas. We are committed to the enduring defeat of ISIS, a
political solution to the Syrian conflict in line with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 2254, and the removal of all Iranian-led
forces in Syria. Efforts to encourage our partners to share the burden
of providing stabilization in liberated areas raised over $300 million
in Coalition contributions for stabilization and early-recovery
activities in Syria last year, including close to $180 million we have
invested in contracts managed by the U.S. Government, and we are
seeking additional contributions for stabilization in Syria moving
forward.
diplomatic progress fund
Question. Many of us have long said that the road to peace between
the Israelis and the Palestinians requires both sides to negotiate
directly. It also requires not only security cooperation, but also
economic progress. We have yet to see full details on the
administration's peace plan negotiations, but the details we have heard
focus on economic security. Please provide additional details on the
administration's proposed ``Diplomatic Progress Fund.'' How, under
current law, would entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip be eligible
to receive U.S. assistance?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
includes in the new Diplomatic Progress Fund $175 million in Economic
Support and Development Funds, which the administration could use to
advance U.S. foreign-policy priorities in the West Bank and Gaza. We
will continue to assess where U.S. foreign assistance can advance the
administration's policies and priorities and provide maximum value to
the U.S. taxpayer. We will take relevant legislation into account in
making that determination, including both the Anti-Terrorism
Clarification Act and the Taylor Force Act.
cyclones idai and kenneth
Question. In the past month we have seen two major cyclones impact
East Africa, with Mozambique suffering the brunt of the damage from
both storms. Can you tell us what you're doing to respond to Cyclones
Idai and Kenneth?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
deployed a Disaster-Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Republic of
Mozambique to coordinate the response by the U.S. Government (USG) to
Cyclones Idai and Kenneth. The DART conducted needs-assessments and
worked with partners to scale up the humanitarian response rapidly to
cyclone-affected populations. As of May 8, 2019, the USG has provided
nearly $80 million to help affected communities in the Republics of The
Comoros, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe affected by the cyclones. As
part of this package, USAID financed United Nations agencies and non-
governmental organizations to provide emergency food assistance to more
than 1.6 million people; shelter assistance to more than 225,000
people; safe drinking water, improved hygiene, and sanitation to more
than 700,000 people; and supplies to prevent the spread of waterborne
diseases such as cholera.
Question.How are you planning to incorporate long-term
reconstruction and resilience efforts into the response?
Answer. As humanitarian conditions in Mozambique and the affected
neighboring countries continue to improve, USAID is shifting its focus
to early-recovery and resilience activities, while continuing to
monitor and address emergency humanitarian needs. USAID's staff are
conducting assessments of the longer-term impact of the cyclones, and
will begin to assist communities to rebuild their livelihoods and
improve their resilience to future shocks.
__________
Certifications Regarding the Central Governments of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras and the Accompanying Memoranda of Justification
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
__________
The USAID Evaluation for the Record
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
__________
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen Press Statement
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
Secretary Nielsen Signs Historic Regional Compact with Central America
to Stem Irregular Migration at the Source, Confront U.S. Border Crisis
Release Date: March 28, 2019
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen traveled to
Tegucigalpa, Honduras where she met with security ministers
representing the countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The
multilateral discussions mark the continuation of a multi-year
diplomatic process and the signing of a historic Memorandum of
Cooperation (MOC) on border security cooperation in Central America.
Together with Guatemalan Minister of Government Enrique Degenhart,
Honduran Security Minister Julian Pacheco, and Salvadoran Minister of
Justice and Public Security Mauricio Landaverde, Secretary Nielsen
expressed her gratitude for the continued collaboration and partnership
of the Central American nations as they work to stem the flood of
irregular migration and develop regional approach to addressing the
ongoing humanitarian and security emergency at our Southern Border.
``America shares common cause with the countries of Central America
in confronting these challenges,'' said Secretary Nielsen. ``We all
want to enforce our laws, ensure a safe and orderly migrant flow,
protect our communities, facilitate legal trade and travel, support
vulnerable populations, interdict dangerous and illicit drug flow, and
secure our borders.''
``I look forward to implementing this historic agreement and
working with my Northern Triangle counterparts to help secure all of
our nations and to end the humanitarian and security crisis we face,''
said Nielsen. ``Together we will prevail.''
The MOC--the first ever multilateral compact on border security--
aims to better synchronize cooperation between the countries in order
to bolster border security, prevent the formation of new migrant
caravans, and address the root causes of the migration crisis through
better synchronized efforts to include the following:
Human trafficking and smuggling;
Combating transnational criminal organizations and gangs;
Expanding Information and Intelligence Sharing;
Strengthening air, land, and maritime border security.
Each of these focus areas will be pursued through an array of
agreed-upon initiatives. Technical working groups with representatives
from each country will monitor the initiatives and ensure they are
carried out expeditiously. The groups will meet periodically throughout
the year, with Secretary Nielsen and the Northern Triangle Ministers
continuing to meet in the coming months to ensure continued momentum.
While in Honduras, Secretary Nielsen also participated in a
bilateral meeting with the Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez
and First Lady Ana Rosalinda Garcia de Hernandez. Secretary Nielsen
affirmed America's commitment to working with Honduras in a shared
effort of combating human trafficking and child smuggling, as well as
addressing the major drivers of irregular migration prompting families
and individuals to put themselves in harm's way by embarking on the
dangerous journey north.
__________
Reuters Article Titled, U.S. Ending Aid to El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras Over Migrants, Dated March 30, 2019, Submitted by
Senator Tim Kaine
__________
Community Letter to Hon. Mark Green
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
May 3, 2019
Mr. Mark Green
Administrator
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Administrator Green:
We, the undersigned, believe that U.S. Government (USG) investments
in gender equality are critical to achieving U.S. foreign policy
objectives, strengthening our national security, and increasing
economic opportunities both abroad and at home. As reflected in the
2018-2022 Joint Strategic Plan and the 2017 National Security Strategy,
``societies that empower women to participate fully in civic and
economic life are more prosperous and peaceful.'' \1\
We understand that USAID is currently updating its Gender Equality
and Female Empowerment Policy, which seeks to comprehensively improve
the lives of people around the world by advancing gender equality and
``empowering women and girls to participate fully in and benefit from
the development of their societies.'' We hope that any changes to the
policy are based on a rigorous evidence-base and made in the interest
of improving the policy to reflect new evidence where it exists, and
new best practice, while also maintaining the policy's integrity and
allowing for consistency.
The Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (GE/FE) Policy has been
a critical foundation for progress on the promotion of gender equality
throughout development and humanitarian assistance efforts over the
last 7 years, including identifying and addressing gender gaps, needs,
opportunities, and barriers for achieving development outcomes across
USAID's work. Notably, following USAID's leadership in putting in place
the GE/FE policy and ADS Chapter 205 on integrating gender equality and
female empowerment, a large number of USAID implementing partners have
modified their internal policies, focusing on mainstreaming gender in
accordance with USAID's direction and leadership.\2\
Congress under this administration has passed legislation that the
President signed into law, bolstering this agenda, including the
Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018 and the
Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017. These laws and associated
initiatives are important steps and make clear that the U.S. Government
recognizes that promoting gender equality and the rights of women,
girls, and LGBTI individuals, while utilizing an evidence-based
approach, is critical to the achievement of the U.S. Government's
foreign policy objectives. Without working to achieve gender equality,
U.S. aid will not be as effective as possible, and the conditions that
lead to the need for aid--such as fragility and conflict--will
perpetuate. The advancement of global gender equality and women's and
girls' empowerment is not only the right thing to do, but also the
smart thing to do.
Today, we are writing to provide guiding principles for how USAID
can strengthen its approach to and promotion of gender equality through
updating its GE/FE policy.
1. Reaffirm gender equality as a core development objective, vital
towards achieving the Journey to Self-Reliance. A strong, evidence-
based, and effective GE/FE Policy is critical to the realization of
human rights; effective and sustainable development outcomes and
growth; and over time transitioning from assistance to strategic
partnerships with capable partner country governments and civil
society.\3\ Supporting and strengthening the systematic leadership and
participation of local women's civil society organizations in decision-
making processes is key to ensuring community and country self-
reliance.
2. Maintain a holistic approach, affirming the indivisible nature
of different aspects of women's and girls' lives and others
marginalized due to their gender identity.\4\ The achievement of gender
equality and women's and girls' empowerment requires a GE/FE Policy
that maintains a holistic approach, and looks at root causes of
inequality including harmful social and cultural norms about gender. A
holistic approach must include engaging men and boys and LGBTI
communities in the advancement of gender equality and the promotion of
positive masculinities.\5\ It is critical to utilize cross-sectoral
efforts to ensure, among other outcomes: \6\
Access to safe, quality, and inclusive education;
Access to health services, including sexual and reproductive health
information and services;
Prevention of and response to gender-based violence;
Access to gender-responsive child and youth-friendly services;
Access to paid employment and asset ownership, including youth
workforce development;
Reduction and redistribution of unpaid care work;
Women's and girls' collective voice in governance, including
through supporting their meaningful political participation and
strengthening local women's civil society organizations; and,
Access to legal rights and judicial mechanisms to ensure those
rights are upheld.
3. Retain core principles of the GE/FE policy, especially the
explicit commitment to the principle of pursuing an inclusive approach
to foster equality. The policy must continue to be inclusive of all,
regardless of age, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability
status, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic area,
migratory status, forced displacement or HIV/AIDS status.\7\
4. Take a lifecycle approach to understanding the specific actions
needed to advance gender equality and women's and girls' empowerment,
with a focus on adolescents. Gender inequality and gendered power
dynamics affect individuals across their lifecycles, and therefore all
humanitarian and development interventions must assess and address
these dynamics to achieve their objectives.\8\
5. Integrate a gender analysis throughout the program cycle. As
USAID looks to strengthen program design and integrate best practices,
evidence, adaptive management and learning throughout the program
cycle, USAID should ensure that a gender analysis and the engagement of
program beneficiaries informs each stage of the cycle. This includes
mainstreaming a gender analysis throughout strategic planning,
procurement, project design, project implementation, and monitoring and
evaluation.\9\ Gender analyses are critical to understanding the
realities of women's and girls' lives, as reflected in the Women's
Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018. They must be
conducted comprehensively and consistently throughout both development
and humanitarian contexts.
6. As USAID re-organizes bureaus and establishes new ways of
working, ensure that the mandate and capacity to conduct gender
analyses and integrate findings is maintained or strengthened across
all bureaus and missions. The GE/FE Policy should continue to be
applied to all USAID missions in the field as well as to USAID policy
and programmatic operations in Washington DC and elsewhere. This
consistent approach will continue to facilitate orientation about and
implementation of the GE/FE policy.\10\
7. Evaluate the implementation of the GE/FE policy in an open and
transparent way. USAID should ensure a strong collaboration, learning,
and adaptation (CLA) approach by developing benchmarks for evaluating
the updated GE/FE Policy with input from partner country government and
local and international civil society organizations as well as from
USAID staff, partners, and leadership.\11\
8. Commit to meaningful substantive consultations with civil
society organizations in the process of reviewing the GE/FE policy.
Following USAID's established tradition of partnerships, the Agency
should commit to formally engaging the views of civil society
organizations with expertise in comprehensive and holistic gender
equality policy and programming via in person consultations, and
provide opportunities for written input into revisions of the policy
before any updates to the established GE/FE are made final. This
consultation process should include a wide range of civil society
voices who have proven expertise in global gender equality issues,
including, but not limited to, implementing partners, advocacy
organizations, and those focused on evidence-based research.
9. Ensure the development, collection, analysis, and use of sex-
and age-disaggregated data and gender-responsive data metrics,
including gender equality indicators and data on issues specific to
women and girls and others marginalized due to their gender identity,
as well as other quantitative and qualitative gender data. USAID should
strengthen the development, collection, analysis and use of sex- and
age-disaggregated data and gender-responsive data metrics, including
gender equality indicators and data across all sectors in order to
provide a holistic picture of the status of women and girls. Topline,
national metrics, and individual metrics that are age and gender blind
mask deep inequalities within populations as well as missing key early
warning indicators for fragility.\12\ Such quantitative data,
complemented by qualitative data, should be used in monitoring as well
as in evaluation to identify the extent to which interventions are
closing gender gaps and shifting harmful gender norms, and to determine
whether interventions are potentially causing unintended consequences
exacerbating and/or creating new vulnerabilities faced by women and
girls. Using such data and analysis, stakeholders will be best able to
collaborate, learn and adapt interventions accordingly.
Further, the full implementation of the GE/FE policy requires
internal structures best suited to maximize efficiency and impact. This
should include a fully staffed and funded Senior Coordinator for Gender
Equality and full-time gender-dedicated positions in the pillar and
sector bureaus at USAID headquarters and in every USAID Mission. All
relevant positions should be trained on the GE/FE policy as well as
requirements under ADS 205, including on how to effectively undertake
and use a gender analysis. Having the right capacity in the right
places is critical to success.
Any updates to the Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy
must align with existing laws and key, cross-sectoral policies and
strategies: \13\
Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act (2018)
Women, Peace and Security Act (2017)
U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence
Globally (2016 update)
U.S. Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls (2016)
USAID LGBT Vision for Action (2014)
PEPFAR Gender Strategy (2013)
Ending Child Marriage & Meeting the Needs of Married Children: The
USAID Vision for Action (2012)
USAID Youth in Development Policy (2012)
We appreciate the opportunity to provide recommendations on
strengthening the promotion of gender equality and women's and girls'
empowerment through the update of the USAID Gender Equality and Female
Empowerment Policy. We look forward to continuing to work with you to
ensure effective U.S. foreign assistance that helps create a more
stable and prosperous world.
Sincerely,
ACDI/VOCA
Advancing Girls' Education in Africa (AGE Africa) AHA Foundation
American Hindu World Service (AHWS) CARE USA
ChildFund International Data2X
EnCompass LLC Faiths for Safe Water
Friends of the Global Fight against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Global Rights for Women
Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation Global Women's Institute GreeneWorks
Heartland Alliance International Helen Keller International (HKI) Human
Rights Watch
I4Y (Innovations for Youth), UC Berkeley International Action Network
for Gender Equity & Law International Center for Research on Women
International Medical Corps
International Rescue Committee
International Youth Foundation
Jewish World Watch Mercy Corps
Mercy Without Limit
National Association of Social Workers
National Cooperative Business Association CLUSA International National
Democratic Institute
National Organization for Women Oxfam America
PAI
Plan International USA
Planned Parenthood Federation of America Project Concern International
(PCI)
Save the Children Shadhika Solidarity Center The Hunger Project
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society The
Voices and Faces Project
U.S. National Committee for U.N. Women United Nations Association of
the USA
United States International Council on Disabilities Vital Voices Global
Partnership
Women for Afghan Women Women for Women International Women Graduates
USA
Women's Global Education Project Women's Refugee Commission World
Learning
ZanaAfrica Foundation
CC: Senator James E. Risch, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee
Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee
Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee
on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Sub-
Committee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Congressman Eliot Engel, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Congressman Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs
Committee
Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey, Chairwoman, House Appropriations Sub-
Committee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Congressman Hal Rogers, Ranking Member, House Appropriations Sub-
Committee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
----------------
Notes
\1\ Joint Strategic Plan (FY2018-2022), p 23; National Security
Strategy (2017), p. 42.
\2\ See Gender Practitioners Collaborative, Minimum Standards for
Mainstreaming Gender Equality--http://genderstandards.org/.
\3\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
p. 1.
\4\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
p. 1.
\5\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
pp. 6, 7, 11.
\6\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
pp. 6-9.
\7\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
p. 2.
\8\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
p. 3, fn.3.
\9\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
pp. 11-12.
\10\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
pp. 15-18.
\11\ USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment (2012),
p. 14.
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ Please note other cross-sectoral strategies, including at the
international level such as the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and
the Sustainable Development Goals. The targets and indicators related
to Goal 5--Gender Equality are particularly significant.
[all]