[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:45 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham (Chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Moran, Lankford, Leahy, Shaheen,
Coons, Merkley, Murphy, and Van Hollen.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. The hearing will come to order.
Today, we are going to be hearing from United States Agency
for International Development Administrator Mark Green about
the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request. Very briefly,
Mark you are doing a great job. You understand the agency. To
all the people under your command, they are doing a great job
in very difficult circumstances. I do not know if I speak for
every Member of the subcommittee, but I think I certainly speak
for myself, and most of us, we are not going to approve this
budget reduction. It is insane. It makes no sense. It makes us
less safe, and I do not know who writes these things over at
the White House, but they clearly do not understand the value
of soft power. If you are going to win this war, you better be
on the ground and you better have something to offer other than
the terrorists, which is a hopeful life versus a glorious
death.
So, I am confident this subcommittee will restore the 23
percent cut below the fiscal year 2019 enacted level. And
again, to me, from the administration's point of view, this is
a very short-sighted approach to the problems we have in the
world and if you do not have some developmental aid available
to you, you better really build a military a lot bigger than it
is today because that is the only option left to you.
Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I just want you to know that
the Chairman and I are together on that.
I think General Mattis has said it best when he said, if
you cut the foreign aid budget, buy me more bullets. And that
is not directed at you, Mr. Green. We have known you a long
time and I know are here because you have to defend the
administration's budget.
One of things that Senator Graham and I have done, and
before him Senator McConnell and I, is to get this bill passed
out of our committee with strong bipartisan support because
USAID and our soft power should not be a partisan issue. It
should be an American issue and we are going to try and keep it
that way.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Administrator Green, welcome back.
In many ways I feel like we are picking up where we left off when
you testified before this subcommittee a year ago.
The fiscal year 2018 and 2019 budget requests for USAID proposed
cuts in virtually every program funded by this subcommittee, and those
cuts were overwhelmingly rejected by the Congress. They would have
eroded decades of progress against poverty, disease, and despair around
the world.
Yet here we are again, presented with a budget filled with feel-
good language about self-reliance and U.S. interests, that would
significantly undercut U.S. global leadership at a time when other
countries, particularly China, are looking for opportunities to assert
themselves as we withdraw.
Here is just one example: The fiscal year 2019 Omnibus included
$8.8 billion for global health programs. For fiscal year 2020 the
President requests $6.3 billion, a cut of $2.5 billion--not million,
billion--which is even $360 million below the fiscal year 2019 budget
request.
How can we justify that, knowing the countless lives that could be
saved if we just provide the same amount as last year? And knowing the
threat that contagious diseases pose for millions of Americans
traveling, studying, and working overseas. And knowing that a deadly
virus is just a plane ride away, as we saw with Ebola. A single case in
Texas caused near panic in this country.
There are many other ways that U.S. interests would be compromised,
and how U.S. leadership would be undermined, by this budget request.
Anyone who travels overseas, as most of us do, can see what China and
Russia are doing to extend their influence. I and eight other Senators
got an earful from U.S. military commanders in Alaska and Hawaii just
last week.
We see the pressures our allies and partners are under due to armed
conflict, climate change, poverty, and migration.
We can either continue to be a leader, or withdraw and let others
assume that role. I cannot understand a budget request that so starkly
threatens what we, and those who came before us, have achieved.
I know your job is to defend the President's budget. I don't envy
you, especially knowing, as I do, how deeply you care about USAID and
its mission--as do we all. But we need to hear not just the raw numbers
or meaningless comparisons to the fiscal year 2019 budget request--
which was rejected--but what it would mean for USAID's operations and
programs if this budget were to become law--something, I suspect, you
would prefer not to contemplate.
Senator Graham. Thank you. Mr. Green, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Leahy,
Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to
summarize my testimony, and I do appreciate all the support
that you have shown both sides of the isle.
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. In
order to capture some of the important work we are doing, I
would like to briefly touch upon a few of my recent travels.
First, I have 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 boost the enabling environment for women
entrepreneurs in issues like access to credit for women
entrepreneurs at all levels.
Earlier this month, I travelled to Senegal to lead the U.S.
delegation to the second inauguration 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 economic and political institutions.
Millions of Venezuelans, young mothers with children, have
desperately taken flight. The U.S. has responded with over $256
million in assistance to 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, nearly 546 metric tons of such
assistance. 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 ensure that all
people in Jordan can access essential services.
Last year, I visited Burma and Bangladesh. Bangladesh now
hosts one million Rohingya refugees, 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 refugees with a full range of support
and services. In Burma, we continue to call on the government
to provide for the voluntary, safe, and dignified return of
Rohingya and other vulnerable communities.
While most of our humanitarian assistance goes for man-
made, regime driven crises, we are also responding to terrible
natural disasters like cyclones Idai and Kenneth in Mozambique,
Malawi, and Zimbabwe. We have mobilized approximately $60
million in supplies and assistance to help those impacted by
the storms. There is also the Ebola outbreak in DRC, where
health officials have recorded over 1,400 confirmed and
probable cases, and now more than 930 related deaths.
As I have said previously, we need to be concerned about
this outbreak and the serious challenges that it presents. Of
course, humanitarian matters are only a part of our work. For
example, we are working to push back hard on the rising anti-
democratic influence of China and Russia. USAID will soon
unveil a 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 the victims of ISIS in the Middle
East, those who are targeted for their religion 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 your support. I look forward to addressing any questions you
might have going forward as we address some of the remaining
congressional notifications.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to say a 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 many 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 2020. We have also
approved 221 new civil service positions and have now selected
10 finalists for the Donald J. Payne Fellowship Program.
Members, I appreciate your support, your guidance, and your
counsel. And Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity
to appear before you.
I welcome your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Green
introduction
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, Members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
2020 Budget Request for USAID.
The fiscal year 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
fiscal year 2020 U.S. humanitarian request will provide an average of
$9 billion in both fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 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
humanitarian policy 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, healthcare, 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 fiscal year 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
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.
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 1,353 confirmed and probable cases,
including 880 deaths, in DRC's North Kivu and Ituri Provinces as of
April 23, 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 one 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 nearly 5
million people are one step away from famine.
Since fiscal year 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 subcommittee 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 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 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 fiscal year 2020. Hiring 140 FSOs over the
next two fiscal years and adjusting for attrition would bring the total
FSO workforce by the end of fiscal year 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 subcommittee, I
believe we are shaping an Agency that is capable of leveraging our
influence, authority, and available resources to advance U.S.
interests, transform the way we provide humanitarian and development
assistance, and, alongside the rest of the world, 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.
Senator Graham. Thank you. My first is a comment. If we
restored the funding that is being proposed, the cuts that are
being proposed by the administration, do you think you could
wisely spend the money?
Mr. Green. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Senator Graham. Given what you know about the world, do you
think now is the time to cut $1 billion out of democracy, human
rights, and governance programs?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, as I have testified, this budget
represents a delicate balance between obligations here at home
to the taxpayers and priorities around the world.
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY
Senator Graham. Rather than beating you up about some of
the absurd cuts to this budget, let us just move on because
that would take the whole six minutes. And I know you are a
good guy and I could not think of a better person to be in
charge than you, so it is nothing personal. Afghanistan, could
our programs function in Afghanistan if we withdrew all our
military forces effectively?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Graham. Would you be worried about the safety of
your people?
Mr. Green. Yes.
LIBYA
Senator Graham. Okay. Libya, do we have any presence on the
ground in Libya?
Mr. Green. I want to make sure I do not misspeak. We are
watching the situation carefully and are obviously concerned
about security. We have partners on the ground.
Senator Graham. So pretty much we are out of the game in
Libya?
Mr. Green. I would not----
Senator Graham. How much money did we spend in Libya to
stabilize Libya?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I do not have that number with me.
I will get back to you.
[The information follows:]
In 2015, U.S. assistance totaled $38,910,000. In fiscal year 2016,
it totaled $34,134,000. And in fiscal year 2017, it totaled
$225,702,000, which includes $131,500,000 in funds from the fiscal year
2017 Security Assistance Appropriations Act. Since 2011, the State
Department and USAID have provided nearly $521 million in stabilization
funding to transition Libya to a unified, inclusive, and accountable
government capable of providing security, denying safe haven to ISIS
and other extremist groups, and building prosperity for all Libyans. In
addition, during this timeframe the U.S. Government has provided over
$169 million in humanitarian assistance to deliver food, health,
protection, shelter, and water, sanitation, and hygiene assistance for
conflict-affected people in Libya, including internally displaced
persons (IDPs), refugees, and migrants.
Senator Graham. And the only reason I mention this is
because I just got back from traveling. I was in Tunisia the
day that the President called Haftar, the eastern militia
leader, and that call sent a signal to everybody that somehow
we are changing our strategy, we are backing him, which I think
would be a disaster. So, I just want everybody to know that if
Libya continues to fall apart, then we will have another wave
of refugees going into Tunisia. They are a good ally and it
would create a lot of racial instability.
NORTHERN TRIANGLE
Do you support cutting off aid to the Northern Triangle
countries?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, as you know, right now the State
Department has essentially frozen assistance and is undertaking
a review. We think our programs are part of the answer, and we
look forward to working with State upon completion of the
review. And I note that this request does, for 2020, allocate
resources for the Northern Triangle area, and so we are very
hopeful that we will be able to continue on with work,
modifying it making it better, obviously. Everyone recognizes
that there is a crisis.
Senator Graham. I think that is what destabilized these
countries. We clearly need to change our laws that create
massive waves of immigration from Central America, but we are
not going to change the root problem until we address it, which
is governance, corruption, and violence in these three
countries. Is that correct?
Mr. Green. I think, clearly, tackling those challenges is
part of the answer. Again, we are working hard to develop new
metrics so that our programs can be targeted more effectively.
Senator Graham. I appreciate that, but I just want to be on
record that I think the only way you are going to solve this
problem is to stay involved in the Northern Triangle countries,
not withdraw.
VENEZUELA
If Maduro falls today, do we have a plan to help the
Venezuelan people?
Mr. Green. One hopes Mr. Maduro falls today----
Senator Graham. Well let us just assume he will because
eventually he will.
Mr. Green. No, I would agree. His days are numbered. I do
not know what that number is. I hope it is a small one. We have
been engaging in scenario planning each and every day, and we
are in close contact with representatives of the Guaido
government and leadership.
Senator Graham. So here is what I would ask you to do.
Submit a supplemental emergency, whatever you want to call it,
request to this subcommittee when that day comes so that we can
get ahead, for a change, of problems where vacuums are created,
and I think most Members of this subcommittee would gladly help
you with some resources to stabilize Venezuela when Maduro
falls, not if. So, in that regard, we would very much
appreciate any advice you give us about what a good response
would look like.
THE SAHEL
From your point of view, Cote d'Ivoire, you were there
right? The port of Cote d'Ivoire is essential to providing some
economic prosperity to the Sahel. Do you agree?
Mr. Green. I do. I was not with you on that part of the
recent trip, but absolutely. It is one of its key strategic
assets.
Senator Graham. And the Sahel is being held together
basically by duct tape, and if it falls apart there will be
another wave of migration.
Mr. Green. We agree with the priority of stabilization and
economic growth. As you know, we are developing an integrated
plan with the State Department, particularly in the air in
Niger and Burkina Faso, but I agree with your priority and
appreciate your leadership on the Sahel. I think it is, in fact
should be, a high priority, and I also agree that ungoverned
spaces particular in that part of the world are a risk and a
danger to us in our strategic interests.
EBOLA OUTBREAK
Senator Graham. Thank you. How concerned should this
subcommittee be about the Ebola outbreak in the DRC, and what
should we be doing that we are not doing?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We should be very
concerned. In my estimation, the outbreak is far from under
control. Secretary Azar, from Health and Human Services, and I
have both sent correspondence to the WHO, to Dr. Tedros. We
need a much more aggressive vaccine strategy, among other
things. But when it comes to Ebola in the DRC, the DRC setting
is a labyrinth of challenges, poor governance, resentment
towards community leaders. You have a failure of democracy in
many, many ways. So, they are all kinds of challenges. It will
take more than simply a medical approach. It will take a
development approach to try to tackle this terrible disease and
to contain its outbreak.
Senator Graham. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, the past is prologue. In
fiscal year 2018-2019, the budget request for USAID, to follow
up with what Senator Graham said, proposed cuts in virtually
every program funded by the subcommittee. Most of those cuts
were overwhelmingly rejected by Republicans and Democrats alike
because they would have eroded decades of progress against
poverty, disease, and despair. Now we have a budget filled with
feel-good language about self-reliance and so on, but the
fiscal year 2019 omnibus included $8.8 billion for global
health programs. For fiscal year 2020, 1 year later the
President requests $6.3 billion. And even that is $16 million
below the fiscal year 2019.
Look at the panic we had in this country when one case of
Ebola, which is always just a plane ride away from the U.S.,
showed up in Texas. And then I look at what China and Russia
are doing to extend their influence. I just led a codel to east
Asia. We began in Alaska. Went to Korea, then Vietnam. We were
very impressed with your people in Vietnam who are working to
help those who have been suffering from the effects of Agent
Orange and injuries caused by land mines. But we got an earful
from our military commanders in Alaska, and our military
commanders in Hawaii, about what Russia and China are doing
throughout that region.
Now, President Trump says since the Northern Triangle
governments are not preventing their citizens from leaving and
seeking asylum elsewhere, which they have the right to do, we
should stop providing aid to those countries.
NORTHERN TRIANGLE
Am I correct that roughly $450 billion in unobligated 2018
funds with the Northern Triangle is being reprogrammed?
Possibly including some health programs?
Mr. Green. It is true that pending final decisions from the
Secretary of State it is money that is being redirected to
other global priorities.
Senator Leahy. I understand $450 million. Potentially
hundreds of millions of fiscal year 2017 funds. Now what
percentage of the aid that we send to these countries do not go
to the national government but rather go to the people?
Mr. Green. I do not have that number with me but very
obviously a lot of this money is aimed towards taking on
citizen security and taking on economic growth. Trying to
create some vibrancy closer to home such that particular young
people in those areas see their future closer to home.
Senator Leahy. I think you would find the majority of it
goes directly to the people, and reprogramming it means it is
taken away from helping the same people we want to stay in
their country.
ASSISTANCE FOR THE WEST BANK AND GAZA
Now USAID, and I have seen its work, is supporting programs
to help meet the basic health, education, water and sanitation,
and other needs of the Palestinian people in the West Bank. We
supported humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza
through the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. Is the USAID
providing any assistance to the Palestinian people today?
Mr. Green. As of today, no we are not.
Senator Leahy. Okay. We created a cross-border, people-to-
people program to promote reconciliation between Israelis and
the Palestinians. Everybody I talked in Israel says it is a
great idea, and the only people who did not like it was Hamas.
Most Palestinians like it. Is that program stopped?
Mr. Green. The only assistance that we are able to supply
with regard to West Bank, Gaza is that entirely inside Israel,
the people-to-people person program that is inside Israel. In
terms of cross border work, no we are not as of January.
Senator Leahy. So, it would seem to me, you do not have to
respond to this, but it would seem to me that does not do too
much to encourage self-reliance among the Palestinian people.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Does USAID have a climate change strategy, specifically to
help countries mitigate and adapt to global warming? I say this
because I can think of wars starting over water among other
things. Do you have specific programs at USAID to address
climate change?
Mr. Green. We have had and continue to have a number of
programs to help countries deal with the fallout from changing
climate, from food security and resilience programs to land use
planning in places like Indonesia. And that will continue to be
an important part of our work.
Senator Leahy. In fiscal year 2019, we provided $179
million for renewable energy programs, $177 million for
adaptation programs. I just want to know how you are going to
spend these funds and is there anything in the fiscal year 2020
budget for these kind of purposes?
Mr. Green. Again, our programming goes towards helping
countries deal with the consequences of changing climate, and
so it cuts across many parts of our work and we will continue
to do that work from promoting biodiversity to food security
and resilience. So, we will continue to do that work because
that is what our partner countries call for, and they need.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. I
think it is safe to say that both Senator Graham and I want you
to be successful.
Senator Graham. Yes, amen. Senator Shaheen.
FAMILY PLANNING
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and let me share
my--and my thanks Administrator Green, for your leadership at
USAID and for your being here today to discuss the budget
proposal for your agency. This administration has expanded the
Mexico City policy to include U.S. global health programs. I
have real concerns that this policy was not properly vetted and
that it is having severe impacts on our health programs in many
countries.
The last time I raised this with someone from the State
Department, I was told that we are still trying to collect
information on what the impact is of that expanded policy. But,
the Foundation for AIDS Research conducted a 6-month study to
determine the effect of the expand in Mexico City policy and
their findings strongly suggest that the delivery of
comprehensive sexual reproductive health information services
by current PEPFAR implementing partners is being disrupted by
the expanded policy. In fact, 69 percent of countries which
were surveyed, and they were most common in sub-Saharan Africa,
they indicated that at least one organization in that country
had to change the way it provides services or its operations.
And of course, we know that the majority of PEPFAR funding is
located in sub-Saharan Africa.
In January of 2019, the NGO Marie Stopes International, who
is not signed on to the administration's policy, also reported
a funding gap at $50 million as a direct result of this policy,
and their information suggests that just means 1.4 million
fewer women have access to contraception services and that will
lead to 600,000 more unsafe abortions and 4,600 avoidable
maternal deaths. That is just one organization that is being
affected.
I assume that we would agree. While we may disagree on the
importance of reproductive choice, that we would agree that we
would like to see America's policies when it comes to delivery
of services reduce the number of unsafe abortions and improve
maternal health. Would you agree with me that that should be a
goal of our policy?
Mr. Green. And I will say is I think it is important to
point out we are the largest bilateral donor to global health
and will continue to be under the President's request. And as
to the issues you raised forcefully, and you and I have spoken
many times and you are very passionate obviously and
understandably on this cause, the new report will be coming out
in a matter of weeks.
We think it should be out in the month of May to address
some of the issues and questions that you raised as we promised
you we will. We were delayed, quite frankly, because of the
last Senate appropriations but that should be coming forward to
you soon so that we will have the facts. You will be able to
take a look and see what some of the impacts and effects have
been.
Obviously our obligation is where a partner does not agree
to the conditions, the standard language through the Protecting
Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), is to provide a
transition and minimize disruption that is what we have been
undertaking in terms of some of the numbers that you raised. We
will make sure that we get to you those numbers and have a
briefing with you to make sure that we have addressed the
questions that you have raised.
Senator Shaheen. I appreciate that. I understand that under
the new policy that Secretary Pompeo has announced, that not
only are the foreign NGOs who receive U.S. funding required to
comply with the policy, but they are expected to please their
partners and their partners' partners while ensuring their own
compliance. So, is that correct and is USAID doing anything
differently to help them provide the information that is
required?
Mr. Green. So, two parts to that. First, the latter part of
it in line with the Secretary's announcement, we are working
with State to finalize both frequently asked questions and what
the standard language looks like but as of the first part of
it, this part of the Secretary's announcement does not reflect
a change in policy. It is the same policy that was in existence
say last year. There are a couple of other minor changes that
were announced that actually do not touch upon those issues,
but in terms of the underlying issue of the follow on sub-
grantees, that is actually not a change in policy. It is
consistent with the policy last year.
Senator Shaheen. But I guess that doesn't get it at my
underlying question, which is are the NGOs who receive
assistance required to police the partners that they do
business with. How does that information relate to USAID and
what is USAID doing to help them with how to figure out how to
police this?
Mr. Green. So again, it is actually not a change in policy.
What it does require is a certification. It does require in the
standard language that they agree to its provisions. In terms
of reporting----
Senator Shaheen. Excuse me. I am sorry to interrupt but let
me just be clear. And the certification requires not only that
they comply with the expanded policy, but that any partner that
they are doing business with, they are required to ensure that
they are complying as well?
Mr. Green. It is. Again, clarifying existing policy that
any organization which receives funding subject to PLGHA is not
providing support to any foreign organization that provides
abortion services or counseling. So, it is actually not a
change in policy. As to the impacts, when we did the first
report we gave to you and briefed you on, as you know and as
you pointed out, that was 6 months into the policy, and so we
had relatively modest data at that point.
We now obviously have much more time that we are looking
at. And in terms of what the consequences in numbers are, what
its effects have been, that is what we will be able to report
to you in May. And I will say in terms of actual numbers and
organizations involved, that is actually what is in the final
stages of the report that is being prepared that State and
USAID and others are finalizing.
Senator Shaheen. So, will it report the number of entities
that are--those organizations that are receiving assistance are
doing business with, will that be part of the report as well?
Will we look at how they are being affected as well in terms of
the impact of this policy?
Mr. Green. It will report those organizations that have
chosen not to accept funding under those conditions. Yes, if
that is what you are asking.
Senator Shaheen. Yes. And will it provide the impact of
what that means in terms of lives and other health impacts from
the failure to use that funding?
Mr. Green. Well the funding will be used. It will simply be
used by other organizations. So, we transitioned to other
organizations that are willing to accept funding under the
conditions of PLGHA. So, the funding--this actually does not
reduce funding by a dollar. It does change the organizations
that are willing to do that work subject to receive those
funds.
AFGHANISTAN
Senator Shaheen. Well, I look forward to the report. I want
to go to Afghanistan because two weeks ago I was in Kabul. We
met with representatives of the government, met with women
leaders in the country, and talked to them about their concerns
for ending the war. The women that I spoke with were very
eloquent in saying that they were tired of the war. They wanted
it to end after 40 years but they did not want to see their
rights reduced that they have enjoyed since the Taliban was
overthrown.
And one of the things that was clear is that any post-
conflict situation is going to require support for economic
development in Afghanistan. And yet, this budget request
reduces the funds for economic development there by $100
million, a cut of 20 percent. So, I would say given the
situation there, do you think that the deed for foreign aid to
help with economic development should be diminished at this
point?
Mr. Green. Senator, as you know the Secretary has ordered a
pause to review in Afghanistan that we have been participating
in. We will, in our work, continue to perform according to the
recent country development cooperation strategy, and quite
frankly investment in women in terms of women's education,
economic empowerment, and participation in government is
crucial part of the future of Afghanistan. I think we have all
known that for quite some time so we will continue to
prioritize those programs. Again, we see it as vital to the
future.
We are obviously all hoping for successful outcome in the
peace negotiations that are underway, but we certainly can plan
to continue investing in women. It is programming that were
awfully proud of, from the teachers that we have trained to the
young girls who are going to school who could not before, to
those who are participating in civil society and governance. We
think it is truly a hopeful sign for Afghanistan's future.
Senator Shaheen. Well I certainly agree with that and I
hope you will share that priority with everyone involved in any
future peace negotiations. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Administrator Green
thank you for being here. Thank you for taking time to visit
with me in my office yesterday, and I thank you for your
leadership in working to make the world a better place. General
John Allen who was a former commander of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan, I have kept his quote around to remind myself and
he said this, in many respects, USAID efforts can do as much
over the long-term to prevent conflict as the deterrent effect
of a carrier strike group or Marine expeditionary force. It
brings me to the importance of food aid.
FOOD AID
Can you tell us about how the essential programs like Food
for Peace, Feed the Future, and the Dole-McGovern programs
are--how important they are to the stability of developing
societies to the well-being of our own country, and is now an
appropriate time to cut funding to those programs?
Mr. Green. Senator, I appreciated the chance that we had to
talk about the importance of these programs. And as I mentioned
to you, food security and the food security tools that we have
did not exist when I served as ambassador, to my great regret
quite frankly, in Africa.
I think our food assistance from, obviously, that we
provide on a humanitarian basis to, I would argue even more
importantly what we do in terms of food security investments on
the developing side, is one of the true highlights of American
foreign policy and development policy. This is an area in which
America is pretty good. American agribusiness leads the world
in what it is able to provide, and so when we're able to share
this technology and help spread these investments, we help
countries deal with, and Senator Leahy brought up the issue of
climate change, but we help them deal with resilience issues
from drought to the fallout from changing climate and natural
disasters.
So, this is some of the most important work that we do.
With the funding for Feed the Future, we continue to focus on
our target countries, the 12 countries that were determined
according to the criteria under the Global Food Security Act,
and we think these are the countries in which we can make the
greatest difference, and so that is where our focus is. But
also, the investments that we have made in recent years
continue, and we continue to get the benefits of those.
So even though, you know, we have had to balance,
obviously, funding for these programs with fiscal needs here at
home, I am confident that we will continue to lead in the food
security field.
Senator Moran. Administrator, I certainly care about both
the development and humanitarian side of our efforts in regard
to food aid. I have carried with me a photograph that I took in
Kansas more than a year ago. It is no different today than it
was then, with grain piled as high as you can see up to a local
grain elevator in the absence of markets, and I would highlight
for you as I have done for the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture the opportunity that we have not only to feed the
world but to utilize grain that is otherwise sitting on the
ground in Kansas and across the country. Our farmers
desperately need markets and grain desperately needs to be
consumed, and we have famines ongoing around the globe and it
seems to me we ought to be able to bring these two things
together.
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
In a different vein, I appreciate how seriously you take
China's efforts to extend its influence through its Belt and
Road Initiative. In our conversation, you exhibited a
significant amount of passion for this topic. Would you talk
about China's practices and what we need to do as the Unites
States of America to counter them?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator. You are right. This is a
cause that is important to me personally and I think is
important for the United States in the world these days. First
off, I do not like to use the term great-power competition that
some use because it almost implies that we are on a plane field
playing by the same set of rules, seeking the same outcome, and
that is simply not true. We do foreign assistance, they do
predatory financing, quite frankly.
And so, I think the striking differences between the two
models of engagement in the world is something that we should
not shy away from talking about over and over and over again. I
had, for example, a reference, a conversation I had with some
American businesses working in Central America and they said,
you know, you all talk about Chinese assistance, we call it
loan-to-own. They provide money and they know they are not
going to get paid back. They are simply going to get assets
surrendered to them.
Also, secondly, the tools that we use. So, we try to bring
the strength of private enterprise to our investments. The
Chinese model brings Chinese business, which is often a wolf in
sheep's clothing, harvesting data and collecting data for their
own purposes and interests. Also, quite frankly, you know,
China talks about how its overriding policy is noninterference
and my argument is that when they use, in a place like
Venezuela, technology that they honed and sharpened in
Tiananmen Square, that is a non-interference? That is
interference on behalf of the dictators and against everyday
citizens.
What we offer is a taste of the American dream. We offer
opportunity. We offer self-reliance. We help countries lead
themselves. We need to talk about it over and over and over
again. If we get caught up in a numbers discussion or financial
arms race in terms of dollars, I think it is a mistake because
we are playing by different sets of rules and have different
purposes. We want to help countries lead themselves and we
should talk about it over and over and over again. We want to
liberate the coming generations in places like Africa to be
able to provide for themselves and grab a taste of what it is
that you and I have here.
And so, I am passionate about it and I think it should be
at the heart of our policy.
Senator Graham. That is a great answer. Senator Merkley.
WEST BANK AND GAZA
Senator Merkley. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Administrator Green. Your work spans the globe, affecting
millions of people's lives. Starting first with the West Bank
and Gaza. It is a very difficult place to have an economy. We
have in the past helped with water infrastructure and health
infrastructure, housing, and nutrition. How important is that
assistance from United States?
Mr. Green. Well, obviously, we believe in all of our tools
in the investments that we make. As we have discussed, a
combination of events has put us in a place where in terms of
West Bank, Gaza, you know, we are not providing programming at
this moment. A combination of a review ordered by the
administration last fall, which led to the redirection of some
funding, and then the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018
(ATCA) at the end of last year, has prevented us, and in the
resulting letter from the Palestinian authorities saying they
would not accept assistance from us, has put us in the position
where we are unable to do just about all of the programming
that we would do.
To be clear, we do not plan to close our mission in West
Bank, Gaza. However, we are clearly reducing our staff size
because of the lack of programs that we are able to do. But we
are hopeful that when the peace plan is unveiled, we are
hopeful and believe that we will be a part of it in terms of
the future, and so we are hoping to be able to get back to some
programming. That could be part of the peace solutions.
Senator Merkley. The time. I am going to ask you to answer
a little more succinctly. Thank you.
Mr. Green. I apologize.
Senator Merkley. You know, one of these, you mentioned the
peace plan, and one of the supporting documents to the budget's
mission says that aid to the West Bank should be contingent on
diplomatic progress achieved in support of U.S. objectives in
peace. Does this mean that we are politicizing our aid? That we
only give it if they say yes to whatever peace plan we put
forward?
Mr. Green. Senator, I do not have any visibility on the
peace plan discussions. I do not think that that is what it is
saying. I think what they are saying is that we hope to get to
a place where we are able to be able to provide assistance as
part of a peace plan, but I would not characterize it as
politicizing the aid.
Senator Merkley. Okay. I was concerned about that language
and want you to take a look at it because that is certainly the
way it sounds that aid is frozen until we get agreement from
them in our plan. The U.S. has been a very powerful broker in
the peace dialogue, but I do not think politicizing aid would
be helpful in that regard.
NORTHERN TRIANGLE
Turning to the Northern Triangle, how much actual--are
resources that we appropriated then were affected by the
conditions that the Congress put on it, by holds that some
Members put on the funding, and by the administration's
certifications. How many dollars did we actually deliver for
fiscal year 2018 to the ground in the Northern Triangle?
Mr. Green. So, for fiscal year 2018, we do not currently
have obligation data available. For fiscal year 2017, we
obligated a total of $366 million for the three Northern
triangle countries, and I can break those down.
Senator Merkley. Yes. I knew it what was obligated but it
is actually quite a difference between what was obligated and
what arrived on the ground. Maybe we can follow up later and
take a look at that difference.
I went down with Senator Carper, some House Members to meet
with the presidents and review the U.S. strategy aid there. It
is a pretty bleak story of vast stunting on the nutritional,
extreme extortion on street level businesses, the big influence
of drug cartels, and high-level corruption. The list is pretty
long and the amount of aid we delivered I think was a fraction
of that $366 million and it pales in comparison to remittances,
which in the last year were $17 billion.
It seems to me if we are going to have an influence on
tackling those problems to affect people's desperate flight
north, we are going to have to put a lot more resources into
it.
Mr. Green. Senator, I look forward to following up with
your office and we will try to provide those numbers for you.
[The information follows:]
Of the $366 million, $292 million has been obligated directly or
sub-obligated to a contract or grant, or transferred to another agency
for USAID programming on the ground in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras as of March 31, 2019.
BURMA
Senator Merkley. Turning to the Rohingya situation. Thank
you for your work on that. We are the biggest aid provider to
help Bangladesh address the plight of the Rohingya who some
hundred thousand are crowded into Cox's Bazar. I am concerned
about one plan of the Bangladesh government which is to put
120,000 people onto a mudflat in the middle of the Delta that I
think would be massively impacted in any major storm because
any major storm floods about a third of the country as it is.
Are we expressing any concern as a Government about the impact
people being put onto that Bhashan Char island?
Mr. Green. What I can say is we are in no way, shape, or
form funding it and providing support to it. I share your
concern. I think last year we were all fortunate in that we did
not have the heavy rains and storms that so often hit in that
area, and so we have been taking the opportunity to reinforce
shelters. It is not a perfect answer but at least it is a
little bit.
And we have made clear in our discussions with the
Bangladeshi government that we seek to provide a full range of
services to give these poor people some hope. As we have
discussed, the plight of the Rohingya, particularly those left
behind in Burma, I think has filled me with more despair than
almost anything else that I have seen. It is a truly terrible
situation.
SUDAN
Senator Merkley. My time is up so I will just close with
the comment that in Sudan people have risen up against Bashir.
He has been taken off the scene. There may be a moment here
where there is a possibility of democracy or just another day
of military dictatorship, but I am hoping that all aspects of
our State Department, all resources in our foreign strategy,
will be brought to bear to help the people of Sudan transition
to democratic control that reflect the will of the people.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Graham. Senator Lankford.
NORTHERN TRIANGLE
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green, thank
you for being here. Thank for all your work. You do a lot
around the world and so we appreciate you, both your traveling
and your engagement, and your attention to detail. I want to
follow up on a statement that Senator Merkley made about the
Northern Triangle. About 4 years ago, we committed about $650
million towards the Northern Triangle. At the end of that time
period, several of us in this committee went back to be able to
ask, where did the money go, how was it used strategically. And
the pretty clear answer we got from the State Department was,
we only had half a year and so our focus was getting the money
out the door. And it went to basically every Federal entity
that had a footprint there just to be able to make sure we
spent it and we got it out the door. That was not the answer we
were hoping to get. The answer was, what are we doing, how are
we measuring it.
So, the next year we came back and asked the same question.
We got a fairly similar response of, hey, we are just getting
organized. So, this subcommittee actually put some requirements
on State Department in our past appropriations work to just ask
the question, what are the metrics, where are you looking to
go, what are we trying to accomplish? Now the response of the
administration to an area that has been very important to us
and is quite frankly exceptionally important to the United
States if that goes well, the response of the administration
seems to be, well we are not getting the answer back yet on
getting metrics and all those things are changing so we are
just going to pull back funding entirely, I hope the answer is,
until we get it right and then lean back in.
So, my question for you really has to deal with the
development assistance. What is the target, what is the plan to
be able to do there because there are essential needs and it is
very important to us just in stabilizing our own country to
make sure we have a stable Central America as well. That is to
the benefit of our foreign policy to make sure that that is
strong as well.
Mr. Green. Great question. So, first off, globally we have
changed all the metrics that we use to measure our work, and we
have actually produced road maps for each country. We are using
17 independent indicators trying to measure progress on those
characteristics that we think are essential for self-reliance.
As specifically to the Northern Triangle, a few things that we
are doing.
So, we began adjusting our programming in recent months to
focus our programs as much as we can on those areas that are
producing, according to apprehension data, the largest number
of refugee or migrant flows. So that is the first piece of it.
Secondly, we have been working on and hope to be able to return
to, in the future, being able to put specifically into our
programs, into all of our offerings, contracts and grants and
our partnerships with private business, specifically reducing
migrant legal immigration flows as an objective against to
which contracts and grants must be evaluated. So, we
incentivized our partners to look specifically at that issue
and to report on it. And we think that is one of the best ways
to get the data that you are looking for.
Senator Lankford. I will tell when I met, and many of us
have been in the region, but when I met with leaders in the
region, they desperately want their focus to stay. They want to
create----
Mr. Green. It is their future. It is the life blood of
their future.
LEBANON
Senator Lankford. Correct. They see hard workers leaving
the area and is to the detriment of their country and to the
region as a whole. And they are trying to figure out how to be
able to stop that as well but let me shift a little bit.
Another really important partner for us in the Middle East is
Lebanon. They have 1.5 million refugees from Syria there. I was
in the Beqaa Valley a few weeks ago. It is remarkable to be in
some of those communities and see two, three times more Syrians
than there are Lebanese in those area. It is a very difficult
challenge for them. It is one the U.N. has been very engaged
in.
I know that you are engaged in as well, and it is very
important to us that we stay engaged with Lebanon, the LAF, and
what they are doing to be able to stabilize the country as well
as our ongoing partnerships there. Help me understand kind of
the goals of how things have changed in the last couple of
months for USAID in Lebanon and kind of the direction you want
to go.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator. I agree with the importance
that you place upon Lebanon. Obviously our goal is to promote a
stable, sovereign, and prosperous country that is at peace with
its neighbors. So, we are working to provide quality reliable
education, water and sanitation to Lebanese citizens as well as
Syrian refugees living there. That is a big part of our focus.
We do not currently have an assistance agreement with the
government of Lebanon, which creates some limitations on what
we are able to do. We are primarily engaging with civil
society, and local and regional governmental leaders, but from
providing services to those who have been displaced to the host
communities, it is a high priority for the reasons that you
stated.
BURMA
Senator Lankford. That is great. Help me understand a
little bit with Burma. You mentioned in your opening statement
that you spent a lot time on a man-made disasters basically, on
being able to help, and your target is to be able to help
determine what can we do not only to help people in this area
but hopefully change the status quo of what is actually
happening there long term. How do you measure that in a place
like Burma, to be able to figure out obviously so much human
need that is there and in Bangladesh and the region. But trying
to change the status quo for the people long term on that, how
do you measure that?
Mr. Green. Difficult to measure in a setting like that. So,
in the case of Burma, two aspects to it. The overriding theme
of our work is that the government of Burma needs to complete
its democratic revolution.
The great hope that we all had that was launched,
unfortunately, it is entirely incomplete. They did the first
part of it, perhaps the easiest part of it. They now need to
create a vibrant civil society that gives the ability for its
numerous community groups to be able to engage in a
constructive way and that is not taking place right now.
Secondly, with respect to the Rohingya who are in Burma who
have been left behind, I can tell you that I visited a
displaced community camp not far from Sittwe, essentially a
prison camp. I mean, there were fences and guards, and I had to
look in the eyes of a young father as he said to me, I will
never forget this, he said okay, there is no mosque so we
cannot worship, there are no teachers so my kids can't get an
education, I am not allowed to leave without written permission
which I never get, and the only food I have got is what you
give me. What do I tell my son?
I have no answer to that, and so we need to continue to
press the government of Burma to change that scenario. They
have to find ways to reintegrate, in a dignified, voluntary,
and safe manner, the Rohingya because they are part of the
future, and until that happens, you are going to continue to
see the despair, and my opinion, inherent instability.
Senator Lankford. True. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
Administrator Green and thank you for all of the work that you
are doing and your team at USAID with the resources that you do
have. I just want to second the comments of the Chairman with
respect to the budget that was submitted. It is totally
inadequate to support important U.S. foreign policy goals and I
am confident this subcommittee will address that.
EGYPT
Let me ask you about Egypt because I know you visited Egypt
recently. You have got President el-Sisi who of course visited
the United States recently at the same time that he has
imprisoned thousands of Egyptians for expressing their
political views, tortured a lot of his citizens simply for
expressing their political views, has imprisoned as of today
about 15 to 20 U.S. citizens on trumped-up charges. Would you
agree that it would be appropriate for us to condition any U.S.
assistance, whether military or economic, at the very least on
the release of U.S. citizens who were imprisoned by Egypt?
Mr. Green. I would refer you to the State Department for a
statement of foreign policy, however, let me say that clearly
that is not in line with our values. Secondly, you know, as you
and I discussed, we work through civil society groups. That is
how we do our assistance. And so, when you have restrictive
laws and regulations that make it difficult for civil society
to be vibrant and to operate, quite frankly that restricts our
ability to help them with the things that they seek to achieve
as a people and a government.
Senator Van Hollen. Yes. And I know as we discussed
yesterday, we are hopeful Egypt will change that law to at
least allow NGOs to operate more freely again. That of course
doesn't address the issue of the 15 to 20 American citizens
that are being detained.
WEST BANK AND GAZA
Let me follow up on some questions that Senator Merkley
asked regarding assistance to Palestinians whether in Gaza or
the West Bank. You referenced the Anti-Terrorism Clarification
Act of 2018 (ATCA). We talked about this yesterday. Would you
agree that the way the ATCA has been interpreted has led to
some unintended consequences?
Mr. Green. I am assuming they were unintended. I would ask
the authors but clearly it has been eliminated our ability to
do programming in the West Bank, Gaza area involving
Palestinians. They followed up with correspondence and
indicated they would not accept it.
Senator Van Hollen. Yes, and look I support the Taylor
Force Act. I was, you know, co-sponsor of that legislation,
making sure that systems did not flow through the Palestinian
Authority (PA) but what the ATCA has done, and I believe it was
unintended, was to prevent any humanitarian assistance flowing
to support humanitarian efforts in the West Bank, Gaza or
elsewhere. But as you indicated that is only half the equation,
right. This administration actually has made a deliberate
decision to terminate all U.S. assistance in any event. Did
they consult with you at all before they made that decision?
Mr. Green. So last fall, the administration determined to
redirect assistance then from West Bank, Gaza. What we are
hopeful for now----
Senator Van Hollen. So, Mr. Green, a simple question. I
mean as I recall they did not----
Mr. Green. So, we certainly have been providing input on
our programming and we continue to do that.
Senator Van Hollen. Did you recommend terminating U.S.
assistance to Palestinians?
Mr. Green. I was not asked. And so, I did not recommend.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Would you agree that those
programs, for example, support through Catholic relief
services, Lutheran World Federation, the Augusta Victoria
Hospital, that those have served U.S. interests by providing
humanitarian relief?
Mr. Green. We believe that all of our programs do and so I
will stand up for all of our programs. And we are very hopeful
that we will be getting to a place as part of a peace deal or
peace offering that will allow us to return to doing some of
that work there.
Senator Van Hollen. Well I appreciate your hopefulness. I
unfortunately am less hopeful given everything I have been
hearing about the so-called plan of the century which to me
sounds more like an effort on the one hand to just totally
squeeze the Palestinians economically by cutting off assistance
as you just described has been the administration's position,
thinking that somehow that is going to get people to surrender
some of their political objectives. That has never been, in my
view, a formula for success but I guess hope springs eternal.
Speaking of that, I am concerned because you were in Jordan
recently as well, right?
Mr. Green. Yes.
JORDAN
Senator Van Hollen. And, you know, the King when he was
here a few months ago expressed great concern about the fact
that the United States had ended its commitment to the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). The Jordanian foreign
minister has repeatedly said that that is going to create
instability. On the short-term we have seen others around the
world held back though some of that support, but do you agree
with the foreign minister that supporting UNRWA is important to
stability in Jordan given all of their challenges that they are
facing?
Mr. Green. Senator, I do not mean to duck the question but
UNRWA is a State program, so I refer you to the State
Department.
Senator Van Hollen. And I understand that, but you were
just in Jordan and there is a lot going on there. And, you
know, Jordan is going to be squeezed in a big way, politically,
if the so-called deal of the century does not address some
fundamental issues. We are putting the King, who has been a
little island of stability and a pro-American leader, in an
awful situation by cutting off funding for UNRWA and possibly
making him very vulnerable, with respect to whatever we are
going to roll out on the so-called deal of the century. So, do
you share any of those concerns based on your recent visit to
Jordan?
Mr. Green. You know, as we discussed, I take a look at
Jordan and the tremendous challenges that they face inherent in
their status as a host community and so I think it is incumbent
upon all of us to do what we can to obviously to ease the
burden, financial burden, but also create more vibrant
opportunities for the young people. It is our largest mission
and will continue to be a central part of our engagement in the
region. It is very, very important.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Before Senator Coons, if the Palestinian
Authority (PA) fell who would replace them?
Mr. Green. Senator, I cannot answer that question.
Senator Graham. Probably not good people.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham. Thank you
Administrator Green for testifying today and for your
tremendous service to our country. It was great to see you in
Cote d'Ivoire, the World Bank's Women's Empowerment Conference
that I attended along with Chairman Graham, and it is good to
see you back here in Washington as well.
As many of my colleagues have said, the administration's
proposal to cut 27 percent from the total international affairs
budget or the 150 accounts is dead on arrival, so I will forgo
detailing all the different ways in which I think it is ill-
advised and I oppose it. I just want to express my gratitude to
the Chairman and many others here in a bipartisan basis for
saying we will not embrace a cut of that significance. One
example I will point to that I think helped show why these cuts
would be concerning is the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
EBOLA OUTBREAK
As I think you know very well, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo is simultaneously going through a governance crisis,
a humanitarian crisis, and a raging Ebola outbreak, and of the
first attack by an ISIS linked group in the country, yet the
budget proposes a 30 percent cut in assistance to DRC. As you
have conveyed to me, and many others have as well, the Ebola
outbreak in DRC is spreading and is increasingly out of
control.
A record 26 people died of Ebola in North Kivu Province
today alone, the highest daily toll since the outbreak began. I
would be interested in your telling this subcommittee how we
can strengthen your efforts and support your efforts to
encourage the WHO to do more to fight this outbreak, and in
your opinion, are we investing enough resources in preventive
global health security measures to improve resiliency and to
prevent this Ebola outbreak from getting further out into the
region?
Mr. Green. Great question. So first off, I would say that
the investments that we have made on the global health side
have been strong and I think effective. I think this is far
greater than a global health challenge and that I think is
really what makes this particular pandemic challenge among the
most challenging and daunting that we have ever faced because
it is layer after layer of problems.
And I think that the answer to it is going to require more
than simply global health and humanitarian investments. It will
take development investments, as you know, and we have talked
about in many of the poorest parts of the world, when we try to
engage in the kinds of behavioral change, communication that is
often at the heart of our work, it is very difficult for people
who are hungry, who are facing problems of effective democratic
representation, facing a wide range challenges, to focus on the
one that we are bringing forward. So, I suspect the effective
path forward, which we are pushing hard on, will be a
comprehensive approach that does involve a lot of addressing of
development challenges on top of the immediate medical ones.
In addition, we have been on the record, we sent
correspondence to WHO, urging them, calling upon them to take a
much more aggressive stance in their vaccines strategy. You
know, as you know as we have discussed, there are population
centers nearby the outbreak area that if the disease were to
spread there, I think would present numerous significant
challenges. So, I appreciate your bringing it up because I
think it is one of the most important, certainly global health,
but one of the most important challenges on a security front
that we face right now.
Senator Coons. Should we take comfort from the fact that
there is a vaccine or is there a ceiling in terms of the number
of currently manufactured and available vaccine doses and a
real risk that when we hit that ceiling we will not be able to
replenish the supply for a significant period of time?
Mr. Green. One of the challenges with the vaccine that we
are using currently is they take 8 to 10 months to replenish.
And so, we need to be thinking ahead. And again, my view is
that if we are going to err on the side of caution producing
far more vaccines supplies that might be immediately called
for, and also secondly, let's face it, we should not assume
that this will be the only pandemic, the only outbreak that we
face. And so, I think to be properly prepared and responsible,
I think we need to significantly ramp up. There are other
vaccines that are out there. There is a two dose vaccine which
represents some challenge and its deployment but is being used
with healthcare professionals, health workers. But again, we
need a much more aggressive vaccine strategy in my estimation.
Senator Coons. I appreciate your staying in close touch
with us about it because I am very concerned that there is not
the level of engagement that there needs to be from our
Government when Ebola got away from us in West Africa.
Mr. Green. And if I can say, I think one of the other
challenges to remember is the new head of state in DRC was
named newly elected and has not been able to form a new
government yet. And so, the minister of health that is in place
today will not be the minister of health in a matter of weeks
and that of course creates uncertainty. So, there are many
challenges beyond the immediate global health challenge.
FRAGILE STATES AND GLOBAL FRAGILITY ACT
Senator Coons. One of the other challenges is how ISIS or
an ISIS linked group has taken advantage of these governance
and humanitarian challenges to execute the first ever attack by
ISIS linked group in DRC. Do you think USAID and our whole
foreign policy apparatus is well positioned to take preventive
measures to combat extremism in fragile states?
As I think you are well aware, Senator Graham and I are
working to advance the Global Fragility Act to require State
Department, USAID, Department of Defense to collaborate on a
strategy to prevent, reduce fragility in at least five priority
countries, and it would direct resources to a partnership
development fund to leverage private dollars and donors by
allied or partner countries. And I hope you will support this
legislation, but I am interested in whether you think we
currently are well-positioned to deal with fragile states and
preventing them from becoming failed states in exactly the way
we are seeing unfold in the DRC?
Mr. Green. This legislation and the thrust behind it is
most welcomed. We look forward to working with you on it. As we
have talked about, nature abhors a vacuum and so does
stability, and right now there is a vacuum in many ways,
particularly in the Sahel region, and so we need to sharpen our
tools and sharpen coordination across the interagency to make
sure that we deploy them carefully in a coordinated fashion and
I think you have touched upon the right mix. So, we look
forward to working with you on it. It is very, very important.
UNITED STATES DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
Senator Coons. Let me also just ask, President Trump signed
the bill act into law last year. It is a bill that I took a
very active hand in and it authorizes the establishment of a
new development finance corporation. I am just returned from a
trip to Asia where I met with leadership of the export-import
bank of Korea, published an article in partnership with our
ambassador in Japan about how we could work with the Japan Bank
for International Cooperation (JBIC).
One of my concerns is that it retained, you know, the word
development in the title Development Finance Corporation not
there by accident. It was certainly my intention that there be
very strong links between our lead development agency, USAID,
and the implementation. That there be both double-headed
leadership and field staff and assessments that ensure that
these projects are not just commercial in nature but have a
development focus.
Are there concerns you have or that you would be willing to
share with us about implementation? Are you confident this will
be a development finance corporation?
Mr. Green. Senator, I really appreciate your question, also
what you have put on the record, especially as a leading author
of the legislation. Upon its passage and being signed into law,
we immediately began meeting with the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), our counterpart, towards the
implementation according to the legislation. And I think that
those meetings have been good, constructive meetings but in
many ways the most important decisions lie ahead of us and I
think it is crucial that it retain integration of development
and the field staff that we have around the world at USAID,
with the tools that OPIC brings newly enhanced, thanks to the
legislation. And I think it is also important that we look at
it with a clear development impact.
It is important that, if we are going to compete with
China, it is important that our assistance incentivize the
kinds of reforms that helped countries to reach self-reliance
and self-sufficiency. Again, China will never do that. If we
simply provide loans, if we simply provide assistance but do
not incentivize reforms and do not have a very clear
development outcome to projects, I think we will fall short of
what you intend with the legislation. And so, we are hopeful in
coming weeks and months that we will be able to have that
integration. I think it is important.
Senator Coons. Thank you for that answer. You know, as
Senator Graham and I worked on the Fragile States bill, we
recognized it will be challenging to get State and Defense and
USAID to all pull in the same direction, all work together but
that is the only way that a comprehensive strategy to prevent
fragile states from becoming failed states can actually work
for the Development Finance Corporation to actually carry
forward on the vision that many of us worked so hard to get
into law here in the Congress. It has got to be a development
finance corporation.
At the Belt and Road Conference in Beijing just a few days
ago, Xi Jinping responded to criticism that many of their
projects are opaque, are burdening partner countries with
excessive debt, and do not have a development focus. I think we
need to be showing an alternative approach that is genuinely
transparent, that are good deals from a commercial perspective
but that are also sound from the development perspective.
I know the chairman has been quite tolerant with my going
well over time. I just want to ask one last question. One of
the things I am trying to move forward is a partnership fund
for peace that would put $50 million into assistance to the
Palestinian people through private sector partnerships. This is
not through the Palestinian Authority (PA). This is not for any
other intermediary. It is essentially to take advantage of
existing USAID work in East Jerusalem and private sector work
to scale a partnerships between entrepreneurs who are both
Israeli and Palestinian. Is that something you are familiar
with? Is that something you could imagine being a positive in
the environment that Senator Van Hollen was just talking about
where the withdrawal of our support for UNRWA is leaving a
significant vacuum in the perception of our support for the
advancement of the Palestinian people?
Mr. Green. Well, obviously I would have to see the
legislation and would have to take a look at the legal
framework within which we are working, but anytime that we can
sow seeds of private enterprise, growth, and economic
opportunity seems to me to be a good thing.
Senator Coons. Well, thank you for your testimony and I
very much look forward to working with you in the year ahead.
We have got a lot of important things to do together. Thank
you, Administrator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Thanks, Senator Coons, and you will be
invited to appear before the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
Africa to talk about the Global Fragility Act and we hope to
have a hearing and a markup and get it moving. Thanks again
Mark for coming. Statements for the record from the Office of
the Inspector General, USAID, and a letter from the Comptroller
General of the United States regarding ``Priority Open
Recommendations: U.S. Agency for International Development'',
will be made part of today's record (see Appendix at the end of
the hearing).
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I would ask that subcommittee Members submit any questions
for the record no later than this Friday, May 3rd, by 2:00 p.m.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Mark Green
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. Will the ``safe zone'' require humanitarian and
stabilization assistance? How much is included in the fiscal year 2020
budget request for this purpose?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
currently funds 21 organizations that are delivering humanitarian
assistance in Northeast Syria, including international non-governmental
organizations and United Nations agencies. USAID continues to monitor
discussions about ``safe zones'' in Syria, but cannot determine at this
time the level of humanitarian and stabilization assistance, if any,
that might be required for them.
Question. Does the administration intend to continue to fund the
important work of the White Helmets? How much is included in the fiscal
year 2020 budget request for this purpose?
Answer. With available funding, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) continues to fund and prioritize the life-saving
work of the White Helmets; from fiscal years 2013 through fiscal year
2018, USAID provided approximately $39 million in financing from
humanitarian accounts to the White Helmets. There is no indication this
posture will change as we move into 2020, although the President did
not include dedicated funding for the White Helmets in the budget
request for fiscal year 2020.
Question. The fiscal year 2020 budget request is a 21 percent cut
below the fiscal year 2019 enacted level. In Asia specifically, what is
your narrative to explain to allies and adversaries that America is not
retreating?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2020 for
Asia is nearly 50-percent higher than his proposal for the region in
the previous year. Since last year, the Administration has launched an
ambitious strategy to promote a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific
region. For its part, to achieve maximum results for available dollars
under the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) has developed a sharply focused plan
for aggressively scaling up approaches already proven successful.
Throughout Asia, we will redouble our efforts to engage the private
sector--American and local--to increase the impact of foreign
assistance. We will work with governments, civil society, and the
private sector in our partner countries to mobilize domestic resources
to advance our joint development objectives, and we will leverage
funding from like-minded bilateral and multilateral donors in the
region.
Question. What is the role of USAID in implementing the Indo-
Pacific Strategy?
Answer. The role of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) is to build capacity and commitment in our partner countries to
bring about the necessary changes to achieve the goal of the Indo-
Pacific Strategy (IPS): to advance a free, open, and secure Indo-
Pacific region in which all nations are sovereign, strong, and
prosperous. Taking advantage of relationships that USAID develops by
being present on the ground, we are focused on creating the necessary
regulatory environment to achieve three key objectives:
--Strengthen Democratic Systems: Over the last few years, democratic
institutions across Asia have been significantly tested,
particularly because of increased corruption, opaque commercial
deals, and subversions of national sovereignty. USAID will
implement programs in democracy and citizen-responsive
governance that promote the integrity of electoral processes,
protect human rights and promote religious freedom, strengthen
the independence of media and the integrity of information, and
support civil society.
--Foster Economic Growth: Despite Asia's growing wealth, a number of
challenges constrain partner countries' growth and create
opportunities for foreign predatory tactics that create
economic and political dependency. USAID's programs in economic
growth and governance will focus on leveling the playing field
for trade, improving competitiveness, creating an enabling
environment for the development of high-quality infrastructure,
and strengthening the digital economy and connectivity.
--Improve the Management of Natural Resources: Irresponsible
infrastructure projects erode the natural resources upon which
many of our partner countries depend for their long-term
growth. USAID will fund programs that focus on strengthening
legal frameworks for the management of natural resources and
enforcement of environmental safeguards; fostering sustainable
private-sector supply-chains; enabling energy-sector
transformation and safeguards; promoting the adoption of
international environmental standards; supporting water and
energy security; and encouraging legal and sustainable forestry
and fishing.
Question. We understand that State and USAID are implementing a 50
percent personnel reduction in Embassy Kabul, and the budget for
Afghanistan is a 24 percent cut below fiscal year 2018 enacted.
--What was the strategic rationale for reducing our personnel
footprint in Afghanistan?
--Where does USAID plan to reduce staff and what impact will this
have on our ability to effectively implement assistance?
--Is the Administration signaling to Iran and the Taliban that we are
abandoning Afghanistan?
Answer. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan remains an important
focus of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) is reviewing our current assistance program in
Afghanistan in an effort to better align it with core U.S. national-
security interests. 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 support for citizen-responsive, democratic
governance to guard against conditions that create or enable the
establishment of terrorist safe havens; and assisting the transition to
Afghan self-reliance by supporting private-sector growth led by
exports, and funding civil society to provide core functions
customarily provided by government.
While undertaking this realignment, we wish to remain flexibly
responsive to changing needs in Afghanistan, while shifting to more-
sustainable levels of staff in Kabul. Under the direction of the
Secretary of State, we have completed the initial planning for a 50-
percent reduction in staffing at the USAID Mission in Afghanistan. We
anticipate the adjustment will affect all offices at the Mission while
preserving key competencies for implementation, planning, and
oversight. The plan will not affect Foreign Service National staffing.
In addition, USAID plans to consolidate and streamline our portfolio to
improve management with fewer staff. With these changes, USAID
anticipates we will still be able to provide sufficient oversight and
performance-monitoring of our programming.
Question. The administration proposes significant cuts to
assistance for Pakistan ($265 million below the fiscal year 2019
request level), including reprogramming funds in the pipeline.
--Is USAID planning on a staffing reduction in Pakistan? If so, by
what percentage?
Answer. As the Mission of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan continues to
spend down its pipeline and our programs evolve through their life
cycles, the Agency will adjust staff levels in Islamabad accordingly,
including the mix of hiring mechanisms, to reflect oversight and
operational needs dictated by programmatic requirements. While the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2020 for development
assistance for Pakistan is significantly lower than the fiscal year
2019 request, the USAID Mission in Islamabad continues to implement a
substantial portfolio of existing programs, and will maintain staffing
levels necessary for the responsible management of U.S. taxpayer
resources. USAID will notify Congress about any changes to staffing
levels in Pakistan.
Question. What is the appropriate role for USAID in addressing the
long-term development challenges that fuel conflict, including scarce
resources, high birth rates, and lack of education/economic
opportunities?
Answer. Most countries in which the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) operates are making gains along the Journey to
Self-Reliance, but some are experiencing various degrees of fragility.
Ineffective governance, exclusionary politics, corruption, and
festering social tensions drive vulnerability to armed conflict,
extremist and political violence, and even state collapse.
Environmental hazards, the depletion of natural resources, rising
migration, and other stresses exacerbate these vulnerabilities.
To protect gains in fragile countries, USAID's investments aim to
prevent crises in the first place, by counteracting the drivers of
conflict, violence, and other instability. Through conflict-sensitive
approaches to development assistance, USAID uses resources for health,
education, economic growth, and food security to address conflict-
fueling grievances and foster constructive engagement. When instability
does erupt, USAID assists governments, civil society, and the private
sector to mobilize effective responses to mitigate the impact of these
crises. To ensure rapid and strong recovery from crises, USAID's
programming works to strengthen resilience to shocks and stresses at
the national and community level, including those that result from
increasingly strained natural resources and mounting environmental
pressures.
Question. What programs are contained in the fiscal year 2020
budget request to address conflict and development in Africa?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2020 budget
includes requests for bilateral conflict-mitigation and stabilization
programs in the Republics of Burundi, Mali, and South Sudan, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, and the Federal Republics of Nigeria and Somalia.
Historically, Missions of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) in Africa have also received resources from the Reconciliation
and Complex Crisis Funds managed by the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict,
and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) for activities to promote the
involvement of women in peace and security.
In countries that do not have bilateral conflict-mitigation and
stabilization funds, USAID seeks to address the root causes of violence
indirectly through conflict-sensitive approaches across diverse sectors
and funding sources. Conflict-sensitive approaches recognize explicitly
and seek to mitigate risks that development assistance will aggravate
grievances or increase tensions between groups, and when possible, also
attempt to rebuild trust within the parameters of their development
objectives (e.g. health, education, agriculture).
Question. What is the ``Prosper Africa'' initiative, and what level
of funding is included in the fiscal year 2020 budget for its
implementation?
Answer. Prosper Africa is the Trump Administration's whole-of-
Government, economic initiative to increase two-way trade and
investment between the United States and Africa while supporting jobs
at home and abroad. It will advance African and American prosperity and
security, fuel mutual economic growth and job-creation, and demonstrate
the superior value proposition of transparent markets and private
enterprise for driving self-reliance.
Prosper Africa is a new way of doing business. It will modernize
the way the U.S. Government supports the private sector by using its
expansive presence, capabilities, and expertise to increase engagement
on the African continent. The Initiative is not an effort to absolve
any Federal Departments or Agencies of their existing mandates; they
will continue to do what they do best, and use scarce resources to
address systemic problems that exclude American competitors and sponsor
game-changing interventions. Fifteen U.S. Government Departments and
Agencies will work together to facilitate transactions and foster fair
and accessible business climates and robust financial markets across
Africa.
The President's request for Prosper Africa for fiscal year 2020 is
$50 million.
Question. How can the Committee best support implementation of the
Women's Global Development and Prosperity initiative?
Answer. The Members of your Committee, whose leadership and support
are critical to upholding and advancing women's empowerment, and
equality between men and women, play an important role with the Women's
Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP), a first-of-its-
kind whole-of-Government approach to enhance women's participation in
the global economy. The U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) manages the W-GDP Fund, an innovative vehicle for scaling
proven programs and catalyzing private-sector engagement, which
currently consists of discretionary development dollars from fiscal
year 2018. As codified in the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic
Empowerment (WEEE) Act of 2018, multiple factors affect gender equality
and women's empowerment, which require investments across sectors and
integration of effective interventions into every program by using the
best available evidence. We welcome the Committee's support to shine a
light on the critical issues that affect gender equality and women's
dignity and economic empowerment, such as gender-based violence.
Question. Do you agree that the U.S. and other international donors
must do more--earlier and better--to bolster governance, institutions,
and the legitimacy of the state to counter the rise of extremism?
Answer. Preventing the growth and spread of violent extremism is
key to achieving the goals outlined in the 2018 U.S. National Strategy
on Counterterrorism. Security is fundamental to achieving objectives
embodied in the Journey to Self-Reliance. Ineffective governance,
exclusionary politics, corruption, and festering social tensions drive
vulnerability to armed conflict, extremist and political violence, and
even state collapse.
To be successful, we must work with national and local governments,
international organizations, civil society, faith-based organizations,
the private sector, affected communities, and others to address the
drivers of violent extremism, conflict, and instability. The U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) is shifting to a systemic,
whole-of-society approach across its programming to counter violent
extremism to advance the U.S. Government's strategy to prevent
terrorism. These programs will focus explicitly on the challenges posed
by violent extremism, targeted at a hyper-localized level, and will
leverage critical local partners.
Question. What total resources has USAID requested in fiscal year
2020 to address fragile states in Africa and elsewhere?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
requested $338.4 million in Economic Support and Development Funds in
fiscal year 2020 for bilateral programs to address development
challenges in 18 of the 22 most-fragile states in Africa, according to
the Fund for Peace's Fragile States Index (using the ``Alert,'' ``High
Alert,'' and ``Very High Alert'' categories). This figure does not
include funding for health programs or resources that benefit these
countries via regional or centrally managed programs.
It is important to note, however, that there is no universally
agreed definition of ``fragile states.'' The World Bank, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the Fragile
States Index, among others, classify fragile states differently. USAID
does not explicitly label countries ``fragile'' and ``non-fragile,''
budget for fragile states, or fund ``fragility'' programs. Instead,
USAID seeks to understand the underlying patterns of governance that
drive fragility and vulnerability to crisis, and address those through
development-assistance interventions across sectors.
Programs in peace and security and democracy, human rights, and
governance target the underlying drivers of fragility. Programs in all
development sectors, including health, education, and food security can
also help to reduce fragility by incorporating approaches that
strengthen governance relationships within and between state and
society. As a result, this can help enhance inclusion and cohesion, and
build transformative capacities at the local level.
foreign assistance
Question. The Committee is aware of an ongoing foreign assistance
review. What are the elements of this review and which countries is the
Department or NSC conducting reviews of foreign assistance?
What was the role of USAID in this review?
Answer. We refer all questions on the Foreign Assistance
Realignment to the National Security Council.
Question. There has been discussion that USAID is in the process of
creating a ``New Partners Initiative'' (NPI) that aims to make U.S.
foreign assistance more effective by leveraging the strong local
community relationships enjoyed by many small to medium-sized non-
profit organizations. Smaller organizations, both faith-based and
secular, have an immense ``value add'' to USAID missions through their
unique ability to build partnerships and relationships on a local
level. These organizations are able to mobilize resources and respond
quickly to immediate needs and conflicts. Can you please provide the
committee with updated information on the status of the NPI?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
shifted to focus on increasing the ability of governments, civil
society, and the private sector in our partner countries to plan, fund,
and manage their own development based on their individual levels of
capacity and commitment, an approach we call the ``Journey to Self-
Reliance.'' Advancing self-reliance means diversifying the Agency's
partner base, strengthening the capacity of local partners, and
managing awards more proactively to hold traditional partners
accountable for empowering local organizations to lead in the
implementation of programs. The New Partnerships Initiative models how
we plan to pursue all of these strategic objectives.
We, at USAID, also believe that small to medium-sized
organizations, both faith-based and secular, bring immense value to
development. As USAID seeks to accomplish our core purposes in
development assistance or humanitarian relief, we need to reach corners
and communities of the world where governments cannot effectively go,
or have chosen not to go. USAID must be able to touch people who have
been left behind or forgotten. In many settings, this involves working
first with civil society, including communities of faith. Civil-society
and faith-based partners are often uniquely trusted by, and capable of
delivering services in, these neglected communities. They can harness
networks, resources, and insights that help us reach out in ways the
U.S. Government, host-country governments, or international partners
otherwise could not.
USAID will launch the NPI on May 1, 2019, to attract a wider range
of potential award applicants--such as civil society, faith- and
community-based organizations, small businesses, local entrepreneurs,
universities, diaspora groups, and others--and facilitate their working
with the Agency. The Initiative itself was a recommendation of the
Effective Partnering and Procurement Reform (EPPR) work stream under
USAID's Transformation initiative.
A priority under the NPI is pursuing greater direct engagement with
new and ``underutilized'' partners (defined as organizations that have
received less than $25 million cumulatively from USAID over the last 5
years). The NPI defines ``local partners'' to include both local
entities and locally established organizations. USAID's Missions will
pursue direct awards to new and local partners that qualify, and
alternatively engage established partners as awardees that mentor new
and local partners as sub-awardees. Such prime partners will then focus
on building the capacity of their subprime partners and pass through
the majority of funds to them, so the sub-recipients can lead in
implementation. In addition, USAID will deepen our engagement with
established partners to leverage significant private development
assistance and other non-Federal funding. This will enable the Agency
to scale outcomes and extend our mission in hard-to-reach areas. The
NPI approach should help USAID's Missions to engage new and
underutilized partners through a series of solicitations designed by
technical bureaus to meet shared, country-level objectives.
On May 1, USAID will release the first NPI solicitation, an NPI
Annual Program Statement (APS) from the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict
and Humanitarian Assistance. This solicitation will focus on the
prevention of, and recovery from, conflict, with an Addendum from our
Mission in Iraq. USAID's Missions will release more country-level
addenda soon, and the Bureau for Global Health will issue an NPI APS in
the coming weeks.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Anyone who is paying attention to what is happening in
the world can see that pressures on developing countries are
increasing. Climate change and an increase in the number and severity
of natural disasters, armed conflict, human displacement, unsustainable
rates of population growth, energy and water shortages, weak
governance, corruption, violent extremism, Ebola and other public
health threats--the list of complex challenges the world faces, and
especially poor countries, is not getting shorter.
Given the above, and given that USAID's entire budget is a fraction
of 1 percent of the total Federal budget, why is the administration
proposing to slash funding by an average of more than 20 percent from
the current level for USAID programs and personnel to combat these
problems?
Answer. While the administration views the role of the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) as critical to national security,
the President also remains committed to restraining overall non-defense
discretionary spending, including for USAID. The President's budget
request for fiscal year 2020 upholds U.S. commitments to key partners
and allies through strategic, selective investments that enable the
United States to retain its position as a global leader; at the same
time, it relies on other nations to make greater proportionate
contributions toward shared objectives that support U.S. national
security, promote U.S. prosperity and economic opportunities, and
advance American interests and values around the world.
We acknowledge that this budget request will not provide enough
resources for us to meet every humanitarian need or seize every
international development opportunity. USAID remains deeply committed
to 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, the
environment, and health worldwide.
Question. Why is this in our national security interest?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2020 aims to
balance fiscal responsibility here at home with our leadership role and
national-security imperatives on the world stage. The proposal for
fiscal year 2020 prioritizes those countries and sectors most critical
to U.S. interests, by providing resources to enhance maritime security;
advance democracy, human rights, citizen-responsive governance, and the
rule of law; promote private-sector competitiveness; improve health;
support basic education; counter terrorism; address transnational
crime, and maintain the United States' status as the preferred security
and economic partner in the world.
Question. For years, USAID has supported programs to help address
the basic health, education, water and sanitation, and other needs of
the Palestinian people in the West Bank. We have also supported
humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, through the U.N.
Relief and Works Agency. This administration, in contrast, has cut off
all assistance to the Palestinians.
If the Palestinian Authority does not agree to whatever peace deal
the White House puts forward, will USAID resume humanitarian and
development assistance? If not, why not, and what impact will that have
on the Palestinian people?
Answer. In August 2018, the Administration concluded its review of
Palestinian assistance. At the direction of the President, the U.S.
Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) re-directed more than $200 million in fiscal year 2017 Economic
Support Funds originally planned for programs in the West Bank and Gaza
to high-priority projects elsewhere.
In December 2019, the Palestinian Authority requested that all
activities implicated by the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA) in
the West Bank and Gaza end by February 1, 2019. Accordingly, USAID
ceased all ongoing programmatic activities by January 31, 2019, with
the exception of grants to manage and mitigate conflict in Israel with
Jewish and Arab participants.
USAID defers to the White House on further questions concerning the
peace plan, and the conditions under which United States assistance to
the West Bank and Gaza would resume.
Question. We are increasingly seeing infectious diseases spread
from wildlife into human populations. Past Ebola outbreaks and the
current one in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are examples.
Scientists warn that the next big pandemic will likely be caused by
a deadly pathogen transferred from animals to humans.
USAID's Emerging Pandemic Threats program has led to many
discoveries about the emergence and spread of human pathogens that
originate in animals, but more needs to be done.
What additional investments and capabilities are needed to reliably
identify and mitigate potential pandemic threats in wildlife, before
they infect humans, and how much is in the fiscal year 2020 budget
request for this?
Answer. The United States, in close cooperation with its
international partners, prevents, detects, and responds to infectious-
disease threats at home and abroad, whether naturally occurring,
unintentional, or deliberate. The Congressional Budget Justification
for fiscal year 2020 includes a request of $90 million for the Global
Health Security Agenda (GHSA). These funds would support the next phase
of the GHSA, known as ``GHSA 2024,'' and would enable the U.S.
Government, in partnership with other nations, international
organizations, and public and private stakeholders, to prevent
avoidable epidemics, detect threats early, and respond rapidly and
effectively to disease outbreaks to prevent them from becoming global
emergencies or even pandemics. Assistance from the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) would also strengthen systems and
capacities across the animal- and human-health sectors needed to
identify and address zoonotic diseases at the national, regional, and
community levels; strengthen laboratory and surveillance capabilities
to detect and characterize infectious-disease threats; improve risk-
communication programs; and strengthen the detection, surveillance, and
control of pathogens resistant to anti-microbial.
In the near future, the U.S. Government will launch its Global
Health Security Strategy, which supports the President's Biodefense and
National Security (NSS) Strategies, including the priority actions
under the NSS of ``Detecting and Containing Biothreats at their
Source'' and ``Improving Emergency Response.'' The Global Health
Security Strategy describes how the United States will prevent, detect,
and respond to infectious-disease threats globally and domestically,
including by improving compliance with the International Health
Regulations (2005) in developing countries.
Question. It is difficult to think of anything that more directly
affects people's health and quality of life than safe water and
sanitation. Yet billions of people lack one or the other or both. In
fiscal year 2019 we included $435 million for these purposes--which is
not very much for the whole world--and the Administration is proposing
to cut that to $165 million in fiscal year 2020, a cut of $270 million
or 62 percent.
Why so little for these programs?
Answer. We thank Congress for its unwavering support for improving
global water and sanitation through the Senator Paul Simon Water for
the World Act of 2014 (the Act). The U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) will continue to prioritize water and sanitation,
in line which available resources, to implement the Agency's Water and
Development Plan under the U.S. Global Water Strategy required by the
Water for the World Act. The Plan seeks to help partner countries
increase safe drinking water and sanitation for the underserved and
most vulnerable, in alignment with U.S. national-security and foreign-
policy objectives.
USAID intends its assistance in water and sanitation assistance to
be catalytic in helping governments, civil society, and the private
sector in our partner countries plan, finance, and deliver sustainable
services for the neediest. Through our Water and Development Plan, we
are working to strengthen systems for water and sanitation and leverage
new financing for the sector. Consistent with the needs and opportunity
criteria in the Act, and USAID's Water and Development Plan under the
U.S. Global Water Strategy, the Agency is committed to focusing on
countries and regions of greatest need, especially those where the
opportunity to improve the lives of women and children is greatest, and
to leveraging investments by partner governments, other bilateral and
multilateral donors, and the private sector to maximize impact.
Question. How can people escape poverty without safe water and
sanitation?
Answer. Reliable access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene are
essential to health, resilience, the empowerment of women and girls,
and the escape from poverty. The Journey to Self-Reliance Country
Roadmaps developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) use an index of child health and access to water and sanitation
as a leading metric for measuring the progress of our partner
countries. These Roadmaps serve several purposes, including helping us
to identify where each country is in its development journey and
informing our strategic decisionmaking and allocations of resources.
The inclusion in the Road Maps of metrics for water, sanitation, and
hygiene (WASH) reflects USAID's overall commitment to the Water for the
World Act and our investments in WASH to build health, resilience, and
prosperity in our partner countries. The Roadmaps and the high-priority
designation criteria in the Water for the World Act ensure we focus
USAID's investments in places where they will have the greatest impact
over the immediate and long term.
Question. Your fiscal year 2020 request would cut funding for
international family planning by more than 60 percent, to $237 million.
According to information from organizations that do this work, based on
achievements in fiscal year 2018 this cut of $370 million would have
the following impacts:
--15.4 million fewer women and couples would receive contraceptive
services and supplies;
--There would be 4.6 million more unintended pregnancies, including 2
million more unplanned births;
--There would be 1.9 million more abortions, the majority of which
would be provided in unsafe conditions; and
--There would be nearly 9,000 more maternal deaths--deaths that could
otherwise have been prevented.
We know that access to modern contraceptives dramatically reduces
maternal and newborn deaths, as they enable women to space their
pregnancies at least 3 years apart. Women are more likely to survive
pregnancy and childbirth and their children are more than twice as
likely to survive infancy.
How does an administration that calls itself ``pro-life'' justify
these budget cuts?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor to global health
programs, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive, and to investing our available resources
effectively. Preventing child and maternal deaths and improving women's
health are high priorities for the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and we fund programs in dozens of countries
focused on maternal and child health; nutrition; malaria; HIV/AIDS;
tuberculosis and other infectious diseases; and voluntary, informed
family planning. This effort has always relied upon partnerships with
other donors and national governments, and its continued success
depends on their sustained involvement, because the United States
cannot fund every program indefinitely. Building self-reliance and
self-sufficiency demands a greater level of domestic funding for
voluntary family planning and activities to improve reproductive
health.
Question. For purely political reasons that have no factual basis,
the administration is transferring $32.5 million we appropriated for
UNFPA to USAID.
In which countries and for what purposes are you using the fiscal
year 2018 funds that were reprogrammed from UNFPA?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will
invest the funds originally intended for the United Nations Population
Fund in fiscal year 2018 for activities in voluntary family planning
and maternal and reproductive health, as required by statute, and will
submit the required Congressional Notification. These investments will
contribute to the U.S. Government's commitment to increasing women's
access to high-quality healthcare, and advance progress toward the
Agency's priority goal under the USAID-State Department Joint Strategic
Plan for fiscal year 2017-2022 of ending preventable maternal deaths.
Question. In your testimony you say ``The United States stands with
those who are yearning for a better life and a true democracy.'' You
then go into detailed critiques of Venezuela and Cuba, and later on you
talk of a ``backsliding of democracy . . . from Caracas to Phnom
Penh.''
Nobody here would defend the governments of those countries. But
like others in this Administration, you ignore the world's most
repressive governments whose leaders President Trump has praised, like
Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Egypt.
You say ``Rarely these days do authoritarian leaders oppose
elections outright. Instead . . . 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.'' That sounds like
Egypt and Honduras, doesn't it?
Do you agree that if the U.S. is going to be taken seriously as a
leader in defending democracy overseas, we need to be consistent?
Answer. The ascent of authoritarianism and the rise of hostile non-
state actors have altered the strategic global landscape and increased
the vulnerability of well-established democratic nations and emerging
democracies alike. The People's Republic of China and the Russian
Federation directly challenge an international order based on
democratic norms, respect for human rights, and peace. The
dictatorships in Iran and North Korea seek to increase their regional
influence through coercion and aggression, export their illegal nuclear
programs, and ssupport malign non-state actors. State-supported and
independent cybercriminals attack the interests of the United States
and its allies through theft, extortion, and malicious intrusions aimed
at crippling infrastructure. The Kremlin conducts covert and overt
campaigns to undermine core Western institutions and weaken faith in
the democratic and free-market system; this malign influence and
predatory behavior extends to the political, security, informational,
energy, and economic spheres.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) recognizes
the importance of country-specific context in shaping a programmatic
approach to address any nation's most- pressing democracy, rights, and
governance challenges. Where countries are manipulating elections and
subverting civil society and the independent media, USAID is funding
programs that can shine a light on irregularities and abuse, provide
greater transparency over the actions of malign actors, and offer
protection for civil-society organizations and human-rights activists
that face legal or physical danger for their efforts to expose
wrongdoing or hold governments accountable.
In recognition of the diverse global threats posed by China and
Russia--as well as those posed by regional actors--USAID is also
developing frameworks for countering authoritarian influence globally
and safeguarding democratic systems. The goal is to have an approach we
can apply consistently in nearly every country where USAID works to
identify and address vulnerabilities to democratic institutions,
processes, and norms that risk being exploited and undermined. The
approach will also draw from recent evidence that reveals USAID's
democracy assistance has the biggest return on investment in hybrid
regimes where democratic systems are under threat and there are
opportunities to restore and expand liberties. I look forward to
sharing this framework with you and discussing how USAID is applying it
across a variety of country contexts, including in some of our more
complex bilateral partnerships.
Question. Like it or not and regardless of what the White House may
think causes it, climate change is happening. The Department of Defense
considers it a national security threat. I would take it a step
further: it is a global security threat.
In fiscal year 2019, the Congress provided $179 million for
renewable energy programs and $177 million for adaptation programs.
How and where do you plan to spend those funds?
Answer. Programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) continue to help countries deal with the
consequences of climatic shocks. The Department of State and USAID are
in the process of developing funding allocations for fiscal year 2019,
including for renewable-energy and climate-adaptation programs. The
State Department and USAID take into account Congressional directives
when proposing funding allocations, including information included in
the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanies the annual Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act
(SFOAA).
We anticipate that the allocation and obligation of funds for
renewable-energy and adaptation programs would build largely on
existing programs supported with funds from fiscal year 2018.
Climate-adaptation is a secondary objective in many of USAID's
programs, in particular those in climate-sensitive sectors such as food
and water security, disaster-risk reduction, and infrastructure.
Question. How much is in your fiscal year 2020 budget for these
purposes?
Answer. The President did not propose funding specifically for
climate-adaptation or renewable energy in his budget request for the
U.S. Agency for International Development for fiscal year 2020.
However, the budget request includes $201.966 million for modern energy
services, which includes renewable energy and end-use energy-efficiency
in its definition.
Question. Your recent op-ed in Foreign Policy magazine describes
how China's Belt and Road initiative threatens the ability of
developing countries ``to achieve self-reliance''.
You wrote that ``China does not support globally recognized
sustainable and transparent lending practices'', and that China
exchanges debt for access to a country's strategic assets--like farm
land, minerals, railroads and ports.
The administration points to the new Development Finance
Corporation (DFC) as the way to counter China's influence, by promoting
private sector investment consistent with international standards for
transparency and financial sustainability.
Is the DFC capable of offsetting the huge investments the Chinese
are making to obtain access to foreign resources? If not, what is to
prevent us from falling further and further behind?
Answer. We refer you to the White House on the question regarding
the new Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the influence of the
People's Republic of China.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has created a
``Clear Choice'' Framework in which we show our partners, and potential
partners, the difference in the approaches taken by the United States
and China and other authoritarian countries.
What the United States and our allies seek to do is to help
countries move from being recipients of assistance, to partners, to
fellow donors, a trajectory we at USAID call the Journey to Self-
Reliance. Chinese state-provided financing is large, but it is
predatory, long-term obligations, very often unsustainable, that give
China a strategic and often military advantage.
The most important things we can do to oppose the Chinese model are
to make that choice clear, and to have a presence in our partner
countries. The governments and private sector in most developing
countries will say behind closed doors that the United States is their
preferred partner because of the vibrancy our system offers. We need to
engage with them and provide them more flexible opportunities to work
with our private sector.
Question. We included $3.5 million in fiscal year 2019 for USAID's
Advisor for Indigenous Peoples Issues, a position I established years
ago. We also required USAID to post on its website--not later than 90
days after enactment, which will be May 15th--the policy on indigenous
peoples we asked for in fiscal year 2018.
The goal of the policy is to ensure that USAID meets the highest
standards for protecting the rights and addressing the needs of
indigenous peoples, who are among the world's most vulnerable.
Has the policy been finalized?
Answer. The programs and practices of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) should meet the highest standards for
protecting the rights and addressing the needs of indigenous peoples.
USAID is in the final stages of launching the Policy on Promoting the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (PRO-IP), which establishes a framework
for engagement with indigenous peoples to ensure they are partners in
the development process. USAID is providing safeguards to prevent any
unintended impact on them from our programming.
In late 2018, USAID undertook a significant revision of the draft
Policy, and used the document for consultations with indigenous
peoples, stakeholder non-governmental organizations, and U.S.
Government Departments and Agencies. The Agency is now finalizing the
draft for posting on the Agency's website during the Ssummer of 2019.
We have used the $3.5 million included in the appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2018 to support the Advisor for Indigenous Peoples
Issues, to pilot programs to further the objective of protecting
indigenous peoples, and to prepare guidelines and launch activities for
the implementation of the new Policy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. What is the status of the USAID Transformation process?
Answer. The Transformation is the global effort by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) to position our processes,
programs, workforce, and structure for the future, through 27 projects
and 77 total deliverables.
After several months of planning and project-development, led by
teams of USAID employees, the Transformation has achieved several major
deliverables, including a new Leadership Philosophy for the Agency; the
Self-Reliance Metrics and Country Roadmaps; USAID's first-ever Private-
Sector Engagement Policy; the Agency's new Acquisition and Assistance
Strategy; important improvements in our human-resources systems and
policies; and changes in the policies for managing our awards. After
the completion of a major deliverable, the respective Bureau or
Independent Office within USAID assumes accountability for the
continued implementation of the reforms.
The most important piece of the Transformation is securing
concurrence on the remaining Congressional Notifications (CNs) for the
Agency's restructuring and limited legislative changes necessary to
implement the restructuring, including the pilot Adaptive Personnel
Project. As of today, April 30, 2019, Congress has cleared the
following CNs related to the Transformation:
--Reorganization CN #1: Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance;
--Reorganization CN #2: Bureau for Resilience and Food Security;
--Reorganization CN #3: Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization; and
--Reorganization CN #5: Bureau for Asia.
Question. What action, if any, do you seek from Congress to fully
implement the proposed reforms?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
seeking a statutory change to allow the use of Program funds to pilot a
non-career, term-limited, and talent-based hiring mechanism (the
Adaptive Personnel Project) that would provide the Agency with the
flexibility and adaptability to hire staff to support ever-changing
programs in global health and to respond to crises and humanitarian
need.
USAID is also seeking statutory changes to support our structural
reforms. The first is to rename the Agency's two remaining Executive
Scale Level IV Assistant Administrator positions as ``Associate
Administrators,'' and to label all remaining Assistant Administrators
without regional distinction in Section 5313-5315 of Title 5 of the
United States Code. The second is an amendment to Public Law 105-277 of
1998 to create the USAID Office of Security (SEC) as an Independent
Office ``within the Office of the Administrator,'' as proposed in the
Congressional Notification (CN) for the reorganization of USAID's
Bureau for Management (M Bureau). Third, for the expanded M Bureau to
function optimally, USAID is requesting authority to transfer funds
into an Information-Technology Working Capital Fund (WCF), as
envisioned by the Modernizing Government Technology Act of 2017, as
well as the authority to establish an Acquisition and Assistance WCF to
support the Agency's efforts in procurement reform.
Following extensive consultations with Congress on our structural
reforms, USAID transmitted nine Congressional Notifications to our
Committees of jurisdiction that outline a series of proposed changes.
USAID continues to work with these Committees to address several
remaining holds.
Question. How have the reforms impacted the fiscal year 2020 budget
request?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2020
advances and reflects the implementation of reforms across the U.S.
Government, including a major structural reorganization of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) to strengthen our core
capabilities, increase efficiency, and reduce costs. USAID's structural
reforms are foundational, and would create a field-focused,
functionally aligned Washington operation that would empower our
Missions to advance the Journey to Self-Reliance in our partner
countries.
The President's budget request would improve the ability of
governments, civil society, and the private sector in our partner
countries to marshal and manage their own development through the
mobilization of domestic resources and improvements in fiscal
transparency, the enabling environment for private investments, public
financial management, and the creation and growth of capital markets.
All of the reforms we have proposed will improve how we do our
business. We look to leverage fiscal year 2020 resources through new
approaches to private-sector engagement and more efficient, effective,
and collaborative procurement practices.
Question. How do you anticipate that these reforms will impact
country, regional, and sector aid allocations in the coming years?
Answer. The Policy Framework, Self-Reliance Metrics and Country
Roadmaps, and other reform efforts at the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) have set new expectations for how we approach our
development work. We are looking to make sectoral investments to
reinforce governments, civil society, and the private sector in our
partner countries on their Journey to Self-Reliance, and we are
incorporating this approach in our sectoral strategies, many of which
we are revising and updating now. We look to integrate new procurement
practices, new approaches to engaging the private sector, and other
core parts of the Agency's Transformation into all of our work. One
such reform is building the annual budget request based on objective,
data-driven analytics rooted in the Journey to Self-Reliance framework,
including by accounting for how we are leveraging the private sector
and aligning performance with budget. This has led to some changes in
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2020, but will have even
more impact as we complete new Country Development Cooperation
Strategies for every Mission over the next 2 years.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Question. USAID Form 1420 requires contractor employees to provide
their salary history for the last 3 years, which potentially raises
concerns about perpetuating gender pay gaps.
--How does USAID use the salary history information collected on Form
1420?
--To what extent, if any, does salary history influence compensation
for personnel on USAID contracts?
Answer. The market rate for a position should be the first factor
to consider when setting a salary, supported by other considerations,
such as an individual's suitability, qualifications, and experience.
Given the potential for gender disparity in hiring and compensation
based on salary history, I have approved revising Form 1420 on
biographical data to eliminate salary history and replacing it with
market value and supporting rationale for Personal Service Contractors
and positions under cost-reimbursement contracts. The work stream on
Effective Partnering and Procurement Reform under the Transformation of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has fast-tracked
this action, to provide Contracting Officers (COs) with new tools and
approaches, while also ensuring the Agency's standards are up-to-date,
responsive, and flexible to emerging needs. The Agency will now pursue
rule-making to revise the bio-data form and work through any public
comments during that process. Even without the regulatory change, COs
must ensure they do not penalize a qualified individual with a lower
salary history by approving a lower salary/rate if the candidate meets
all the requirements for a position.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Graham. The subcommittee stands in recess subject
to call of the chair.
[Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, April 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
APPENDIX
Statement and Letter for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Inspector General Ann Calvaresi Barr4
United States Agency for International Development
USAID's Top Management Challenges and OIG's Continuing Oversight
April 30, 2019
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for asking us to provide a statement for the record for
the subcommittee's hearing on USAID's fiscal year 2020 budget. USAID
manages nearly $30 billion in budgetary resources to expand economic
growth, create markets and trade partners for the United States, and
promote stable and free societies. In addition to promoting good will
abroad, these investments help advance U.S. national security
interests. USAID's programs provide humanitarian aid to people in
countries recovering from natural disaster and periods of armed
conflict, as well as assistance in combating the spread of disease and
addressing food insecurity, child and maternal mortality, illiteracy,
and gender inequality.
Coordinating and implementing foreign assistance is inherently
complex, particularly in countries and regions characterized by
conflict, government instability, or natural disaster. The inhospitable
environments USAID frequently works in create major challenges for the
Agency in carrying out its mission. How well USAID identifies,
assesses, and mitigates risk in delivering assistance programs is key
to overcoming these challenges and to the programs' effectiveness.
While adapting to the myriad of country contexts requires flexibility,
it cannot eclipse the rigor and safeguards that are needed to protect
USAID programs and funds and provide beneficiaries the assistance they
desperately need.
To help ensure that the U.S. Government achieves maximum return on
these investments and achieves its foreign assistance goals, OIG
provides independent oversight of USAID.\1\ As part of this oversight,
the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-531) requires
USAID to include in its performance and accountability report a
statement by the Inspector General summarizing the most daunting
challenges the Agency faces and the progress made in managing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OIG also provides oversight of the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, U.S. African Development Foundation, Inter-American
Foundation, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. In addition,
OIG provides oversight of overseas contingency operations as part of
the lead inspector general framework established in section 8L of the
Inspector General Act, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing on our recent audits and investigations, we identified four
top management challenges that need USAID's attention now and likely
into the foreseeable future. This statement for the record summarizes
these challenges--some of which are longstanding--from our ``Fiscal
Year 2019 Top Management Challenges'' report.
summary
The first major management challenge concerns USAID's efforts to
assess and mitigate the risks in providing humanitarian and
stabilization assistance--particularly in nonpermissive areas, those
affected by conflict or natural disaster. Deficiencies in this area
create opportunities for those who seek to exploit vulnerabilities.
USAID's limitations in mitigating implementer risks have contributed to
the complex corruption schemes we uncovered in Iraq and Syria, and
across Africa. This challenge is rooted in the Agency's lack of
effective planning, monitoring, and evaluation to counter corruption
and the threat of foreign assistance diversions to terrorists.
The second challenge concerns the need for more robust analyses of
country capacity and financial backing to build on U.S. investments in
international development. Promoting sustainability and ending the need
for foreign assistance is central to USAID's mission. However, USAID's
upfront analyses of multimillion dollar projects were insufficient to
determine a country's ability to strengthen local skills and secure
public- or private-sector commitment to continue development activities
and services after U.S. involvement ends. This was the case with
USAID's HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment project in Cambodia when a
key donor abruptly decreased its funding soon after the project was
launched. The sustainability of USAID's West Bank and Gaza Conflict
Mitigation and Management Program has also been called into question.
USAID has yet to evaluate the program--which has been ongoing since
2004 with more than 100 grants awarded to local and international
organizations--to determine long-term impact and improve the
effectiveness of future grants. Again, insufficient planning,
monitoring, and evaluation are at the root of these vulnerabilities.
Reconciling distinct interagency priorities and functions to
advance U.S. foreign assistance is the third major challenge facing
USAID. Our oversight of USAID activities related to the Ebola response
in West Africa, sustainable energy in Haiti, and other foreign
assistance efforts continues to show that competing priorities,
different policies and procedures, and additional layers of review--
particularly with the Department of State--complicate and impede
multiagency response and development activities. Our work validated
gaps in the delivery of foreign and humanitarian assistance in West
Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and fragile states worldwide.
The fourth challenge concerns vulnerabilities in USAID's financial
and information management systems. USAID's ability to carry out its
mission and ensure effective stewardship of Federal funds depends on
the integrity and reliability of these systems. Despite noteworthy
actions to improve its systems, USAID continues to grapple with meeting
stringent Federal financial and information management requirements for
promoting transparency and accountability. Specifically, USAID has been
unable to reconcile its intragovernmental transactions and differences
between its general ledger and Treasury's; manage its awards to
implementers, which total approximately $17.6 billion annually; and
fully comply with Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act
requirements.
managing risks inherent to providing humanitarian and stabilization
assistance
In December 2018, the United Nations estimated that $21.9 billion
would be needed to assist 131.7 million people in 42 countries affected
by natural disasters and conflict. USAID reports expending an average
of approximately $2.6 billion on humanitarian and stabilization
assistance annually.\2\ Public health crises and extremist group
activities further exacerbate the need for humanitarian and
stabilization assistance worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For fiscal years 2013 through 2017 as reported in USAID's
agency financial reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To procure and distribute relief supplies in these volatile
environments, USAID must balance efforts to deliver assistance--which
frequently entail working with nongovernmental organizations (NGO),
contractors, and public international organizations (PIO),\3\ while
coordinating with multiple U.S. Government agencies and international
donors--with safeguards to ensure assistance does not adversely affect
local markets or fall prey to corruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ PIOs include U.N. organizations or international finance
organizations, and are subject to fewer Federal restrictions than other
types of implementers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraud, waste, and abuse in these settings are acute, and managing
these risks has been a longstanding challenge for USAID--especially
when short-term humanitarian responses evolve into a protracted
presence, as in Syria, Iraq, and Somalia. While USAID evaluates
operational context and implementer capacity to determine whether the
risk of inaction outweighs the risk of providing assistance, our
investigations and audits continue to expose weaknesses in USAID
planning and monitoring that create opportunities for bad actors to
exploit vulnerabilities, as described below.
Overseeing PIOs. PIOs help implement U.S. humanitarian responses in
nonpermissive environments. However, USAID has been challenged in
overseeing these organizations. As we reported in September 2018, USAID
did not align its PIO policies and processes with Federal internal
control standards or develop clear documented standards for properly
vetting, managing, and overseeing PIOs. In addition, USAID lacked
sufficient policies and processes for identifying, assessing, and
managing PIO risks. Instead, USAID relied on PIOs to assess and manage
their risks. USAID's awards to PIOs working in Syria and Iraq--which
now span more than 6 years and total $2.6 billion--are particularly
vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse because the awards had not been
designed with internal control standards appropriate for the context.
Responding to Public Health Crises of International Concern. The
2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa was one of the deadliest infectious
disease outbreaks in modern history. USAID led the response by the
United States, which appropriated around $5.4 billion and was the
largest international donor. USAID's strategy provided needed
flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, including evolution of
the disease. However, a lack of policies for a whole-of-Government
approach, delays in obtaining emergency funding, and other factors
complicated the response. Insufficient needs assessments, frequent
staff turnover, and weak handover procedures for rotating response
teams further undermined USAID's efforts. One official said USAID
operated with too few people to follow the money and determine whether
support was reaching targeted beneficiaries. Ultimately, USAID procured
$4.6 million in excess medical supplies, and most USAID-funded
treatment centers and care units opened after the majority of Ebola
cases had already occurred; as a result, some centers and units never
saw patients.
Identifying and Curbing Fraud and Corruption in Nonpermissive
Environments. Nonpermissive environments are especially vulnerable to
individuals intent on stealing U.S. funds and goods, depriving
beneficiaries of assistance in insecure countries such as Iraq and
Syria. A $150 million pledge that the United States made in July 2017
to help Iraqis return to communities freed from Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS) occupation was placed on hold because of fraud
allegations. Following a joint investigation, USAID and the United
Nations Development Programme agreed to additional funding requirements
that call for stronger internal controls, expanded monitoring of
project activities, controlled sharing of contract details, enhanced
fraud prevention training, and a full-time, Iraq-focused investigator.
USAID's cross-border relief programs for internally displaced
Syrians have been similarly exploited, reducing the quality of
humanitarian assistance provided to refugees. One individual with close
ties to host-country officials manipulated tenders to companies he was
affiliated with for personal profit. In another case, a USAID
implementer manipulated procurements in favor of vendors that offered
bribes and kickbacks, shortchanged deliveries, and substituted products
in USAID-funded supply kits with items of lesser quality. A separate
incident exposed a ring of Turkish vendors that colluded with staff
from four USAID implementers. USAID has taken action to improve award
management, program oversight, internal processes, and fraud
prevention; however, our ongoing investigations continue to
substantiate allegations of fraud and mismanagement.
Preventing Support to Terrorists. Enhanced vigilance is critical to
ensuring U.S. foreign assistance does not support groups designated as
foreign terrorist organizations.\4\ The risks inherent to providing
assistance can be exacerbated in states with weak democratic systems
and accountability where these groups operate, often with great
influence over the communities that USAID assists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Designated as such by Executive Order 13224, the Specially
Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List published by the Office
of Foreign Assets Control, or the Department of State's State Sponsors
of Terrorism List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insufficient monitoring and oversight have allowed terrorist groups
to divert assistance from intended beneficiaries. For example, under
the threat of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)--a designated terrorist group
operating in northern Syria--an NGO's employees knowingly diverted
thousands of USAID-funded food kits worth millions of dollars to
ineligible beneficiaries (including HTS fighters) and submitted
falsified beneficiary lists. A USAID third-party monitor reported the
diversion, and our investigation resulted in USAID suspending the
program and the NGO terminating dozens of employees. Another OIG
investigation found that implementer staff were affiliated with or
sympathetic to known terrorist groups in northwest Syria. The NGO
ultimately suspended portions of its program to reverify the identities
of all of its beneficiaries, adapted its program to the changing risk
environment, and terminated or asked for the resignation of a number of
employees.
While USAID requires its award applicants to disclose any prior
material support provided to terrorist entities and verifies that
contractors are not blocked from receiving USAID funds, implementers
have falsely certified that they have not materially supported blocked
entities. Further, USAID's requirement to disclose past material
support to terrorist organizations concerns only implementers applying
for assistance awards, not contracts. We notified USAID of these
vulnerabilities--which particularly affect high-risk programs in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and similar nonpermissive environments--and
understand the Agency is working on corrective action.
Detecting and Reporting Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA). On
learning in February 2018 that an NGO had covered up claims of SEA
violations in Haiti following the country's catastrophic 2010
earthquake, we sent a memorandum to the USAID Administrator
highlighting vulnerabilities in USAID's SEA-related reporting
requirements for implementers. Our March 2018 memorandum noted that,
under Agency policy for awardees and subawardees, the standard for
reporting SEA allegations to USAID and OIG was limited to complaints of
human trafficking or procurement of commercial sex. Even in cases of
trafficking and commercial sex, implementers were given the discretion
to report only allegations that they deemed credible--a threshold that
may be too high and delay independent and prompt assessments and
responses by USAID and OIG.
USAID has taken action to address some risks we identified. For
example, USAID has included special conditions in some awards and
revised its policy for agreements with PIOs to improve its oversight of
these organizations. Further, after the Haiti SEA incident was exposed,
the USAID Administrator reaffirmed the Agency's zero tolerance for
sexual misconduct, exploitation, or abuse of any kind--a message
emphasized at the Administrator's March 2018 ``Forum on Preventing
Sexual Misconduct.'' \5\ The Administrator also established the Action
Alliance for Preventing Sexual Misconduct, joined by an OIG liaison,
which worked with OIG in updating standard award provisions and
establishing additional guidance clarifying that all forms of sexual
misconduct that affect beneficiaries should be reported to USAID and
OIG, not just those involving trafficking or commercial sex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The forum included the Inspector General and representatives
from key implementers and U.N. agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will continue to assess USAID's humanitarian assistance
activities. For example, we are reviewing USAID's activities in Iraq as
part of an ongoing audit. Another OIG audit is looking at USAID's
oversight of selected implementers delivering humanitarian assistance
in response to the Syrian crisis. We are also currently auditing
USAID's response to crisis in West Africa--where years of conflict and
escalating violence perpetuated by Boko Haram and ISIS have displaced
an estimated 2.5 million people in the countries surrounding the Lake
Chad Basin--in part to assess its actions to prevent terrorist
organizations from obtaining USAID humanitarian funds.
strengthening local capacity and improving planning and monitoring to
promote sustainability of u.s.-funded development
The ultimate aim of U.S.-funded development is to end the need for
foreign assistance. To support partner countries' journey to self-
reliance and better ensure that development is sustainable after U.S.
involvement ends, USAID calls for investing in communities that have a
stake in continuing activities and services; building the skills of
local stakeholders; and promoting planning for sustainability, which
could include public- or private-sector participation and financial
backing.
Best practices for achieving sustainable development encourage
increased use of local systems to implement donor-funded programs.\6\
USAID initiatives reflect these principles, and in 2016, the Agency
updated its policy on development programming with an emphasis on
promoting local ownership. However, working with local partners and
host-country governments with limited capacity, weak financial systems,
and insufficient internal controls presents significant challenges for
USAID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Best practices incorporate principles from the 2005 Paris
Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action, and
the 2011 Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAID also continues to work to implement its planning, learning,
monitoring, and evaluation cycle to (1) design programs that are
supportable and complement larger strategies, (2) promote
accountability, (3) adapt programs before they get off track, and (4)
inform decisions about current and future programming. Our audits and
investigations have repeatedly shown the consequences of operating
without a fully implemented program cycle, especially on development
programs that encourage self-reliance. For example:
--A key assumption for the success of USAID's HIV/AIDS prevention and
treatment project in Cambodia was continued support from other
donors. However, soon after the project was launched in
November 2012, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria abruptly decreased its funding, requiring the project
to substantially reduce the number of planned local centers for
excellence, undermining USAID's plans to strengthen local
organizations and minimize the need for external funding after
the project was implemented. At the same time, the project
lacked performance indicators to quantify progress in
implementing planned innovations, measure efforts to build
local capacity, ensure innovations' cost-effectiveness, or
inform decisions on expanding innovations to reach larger
populations.
--USAID's Global Health Supply Chain-Procurement and Supply
Management Project--a $9.5 billion indefinite delivery,
indefinite quantity contract awarded to Chemonics International
in 2015--is intended to provide cost-effective health
commodities in more than 50 countries, as well as technical
assistance in supply chain management. However, since 2016 our
investigations and joint operations with local authorities have
revealed that host governments' warehousing and commodity
distribution systems are vulnerable to supply chain leakage,
creating the potential for large-scale, illicit resale of
USAID-funded commodities to private businesses and public
markets. These joint efforts have, as of March 2019, resulted
in 41 arrests and 30 indictments of subjects suspected of
selling stolen commodities on the black market.
--USAID did not evaluate its West Bank and Gaza Conflict Mitigation
and Management Program-- ongoing since 2004 with more than 100
grants awarded to local and international organizations--to
determine long-term impact and improve the effectiveness of
future grants. The mission recently initiated an evaluation
that it expected to be completed in May 2019.
--The Haitian Government delayed planned reforms considered key to
the success and sustainability of a USAID-funded project to
expand electricity generation in the country.
--USAID/Pakistan did not reach an agreement with stakeholders on who
would operate and maintain Pakistan's $20.9 million Satpara
agricultural irrigation project after USAID's planned December
2018 withdrawal. The project called for Pakistan's Public Works
Department to manage the upgraded irrigation system, but with
no prior experience managing these types of systems, the
department did not plan to take over responsibility, and the
irrigation system has already shown signs of deterioration.
--On the Gomal Zam Multipurpose Dam Project, USAID and Pakistan did
not implement a plan to maintain electricity generation or
restore power in the event that it failed. After the dam was
completed in June 2013 and handed over to the Pakistani
Government, Pakistani officials reported sporadic electricity
generation, and by October 2016, system failures and damages
had altogether shut down electricity generation, which has yet
to be fully restored.
USAID has begun to address its multiple sustainability challenges.
Notably, USAID began a strategic transition in 2018 that focuses on
building country self-reliance using high-level metrics to identify
strengths and weaknesses, help inform strategic decisions, and
ultimately determine a country's level of commitment and capacity to be
self-reliant. USAID has taken other steps too. For example:
--To build local capacity, USAID established external partnerships
with the International Organization for Supreme Audit
Institutions and signed a memorandum of understanding with the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) in April 2016 to enhance
the oversight capabilities of audit organizations in developing
countries. The success of these partnerships will depend on how
USAID cultivates them.
--To improve planning and monitoring--longstanding challenges cited
in our past Top Management Challenges reports--USAID updated
and added rigor to its policy for program design and management
in September 2016. Recognizing the need to build internal
capacity to fully implement the policy, USAID's Bureau for
Policy, Planning, and Learning developed new training, tools,
and technical assistance to support missions' program planning
and monitoring. As of August 2018, the Agency had trained more
than 3,000 staff in performance monitoring and evaluation, and
approximately 900 staff had completed courses in project
design. These actions should help address the Agency's planning
and monitoring challenges, but sustained management focus will
be required to ensure programs and projects are effectively
designed and meet performance expectations.
--In addition, USAID included sustainability in its first Agency Risk
Profile \7\--approved by the Administrator in July 2017--and
developed a sustainability risk mitigation plan. Even with the
mitigation plan in place, Agency leadership recognizes that
regular monitoring of the plan through the enterprise risk
management (ERM) process may be needed. The Agency also
included risks related to planning and monitoring in the risk
profile and will continue to monitor and manage these risks
through its ERM process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The risk profile was developed in response to OMB Circular A-
123, which mandates that Federal agencies institute a comprehensive
enterprise risk management system.
We continue to monitor USAID's efforts to strengthen capacity and
promote sustainability. For example, we recently issued a report on
USAID's efforts to strengthen local capacity, enhance and promote
country ownership, increase sustainability, and implement risk
mitigation procedures. While USAID officials in operating units
worldwide were optimistic about the positive impact of these efforts,
the Agency lacked a means to determine whether it had achieved progress
toward its goals. Our ongoing audits will examine issues related to
sustainability in USAID's programs for democracy and governance and for
global health supply chain management.
reconciling interagency priorities and functions to more efficiently
and effectively advance u.s. foreign assistance
Implementing foreign assistance programs, projects, and operations
that involve multiple U.S. Government agencies has presented
significant challenges for USAID in achieving its core mission. In
particular, coordination with the Department of State--which makes
policy and funding decisions for operations related to political and
security crises--has complicated USAID's project planning and
execution. Despite broad interagency guidance on the Department of
State's role in politically sensitive environments, USAID employees are
sometimes unclear on how best to manage additional layers of review,
nimbly respond to changing priorities, address both U.S. diplomatic and
development goals, and balance short- and long-term priorities.
The joint USAID-Department of State reform effort conducted in 2017
demonstrated the complexity in aligning complementary yet distinct
missions and underscored USAID's persistent challenge in implementing
programs, projects, and operations that involve other U.S. Government
agencies.\8\ Our point-in-time review of the effort highlighted
uncertainty about the joint reform's direction and end goals, and noted
that disagreement and limited transparency on decisions related to the
consolidation of functions and services led to questions about what the
reform effort had achieved. USAID staff also voiced concerns related to
the Agency's separate reform plan, including a lack of transparency and
inclusivity in its development. Since then--amid leadership turnover at
the State Department and ambiguity on the future of joint redesign
efforts--USAID forged ahead with its independent transformation
initiative. In August 2018, USAID outlined its proposed plans to
Congress through nine congressional notifications--some of which have
since been cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OMB Memorandum M-17-22 required executive branch agencies,
including USAID and the Department of State, to submit reform plans and
workforce plans to OMB by September 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government's Haiti reconstruction efforts and the
international Ebola response foreshadowed USAID's joint reform
challenges. USAID was largely responsible for implementing State
Department commitments to the Haitian Government for post-earthquake
reconstruction, including a project to provide sustainable electricity
services. However, USAID/Haiti lacked the staff needed to plan for and
monitor efforts to meet both the State Department's priority for
generating reliable electricity for an industrial park and USAID's
broader development goal to expand modern electricity service to
Haitians. When State Department assumptions about the Haitian
Government's appetite for energy sector reform and commercial demand
for electricity did not materialize, USAID/Haiti had to shift its long-
term strategy for the power plant from government to private management
and reduce its expansion goals. Ultimately, USAID's project did not
meet its modernization and expansion goals, and the power plant will
continue to rely on U.S. Government support until it can be transferred
to another operator.
The international response to the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in West
Africa, which called for an unprecedented level of coordination for
USAID, also demonstrated interagency challenges that affected
operational effectiveness. While USAID had previously responded to
public health crises of international concern, it continued to operate
without a policy framework to launch a rapid and coordinated response
to the Ebola outbreak, and responders were left to re-create processes
for controlling the virus.
USAID has been responsive to our recommendations to improve
interagency coordination. For example, USAID agreed to formalize its
plan to conclude the Haiti power plant project and to address staffing
concerns that undercut project monitoring and implementation. With
regard to responding to public health emergencies of international
concern, USAID reports that it is working with other U.S. agencies to
identify and regularly test roles, capabilities, and responsibilities;
agreed to direct the implementation of a strategy for communicating and
coordinating with other responders; and committed to incorporating
handover procedures for members of rotating response teams. In
addition, USAID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
issued a joint statement to their staff encouraging work relationships
that deepen teamwork and collaboration.
To help reconcile their respective priorities, USAID and the State
Department established in May 2018 the Stabilization Assistance Review
(SAR), which provides guidelines and best practices to optimize U.S.
foreign assistance and advance stabilization efforts in conflict-
affected areas. At the direction of the National Security Council,
USAID and the Departments of State and Defense are working together to
implement SAR recommendations and apply SAR in priority countries.
While the agencies emphasized their commitment to institutionalize
learning, evaluation, and accountability, closer coordination will
require shifts in policies, process, and culture. As GAO reported in
September 2018, U.S. agencies still needed to formally document their
agreement, roles, and responsibilities to enhance coordination and
reduce the potential for duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``U.S. Agencies Have Coordinated Stabilization Efforts but Need
to Document Their Agreement'' (GAO-18-654), September 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to USAID officials, the Agency and the State Department
are also leading an interagency policy research initiative to inform
U.S. assistance to fragile countries. Recommendations coming out of the
initiative are expected to help coordinate assistance to advance
prevention goals. Further, USAID encouraged staff to attend Department
of State national security courses to build collaboration and knowledge
across the interagency foreign affairs community. In August 2018, USAID
announced an in-house course to train staff in techniques and best
practices for interagency communication, policy development, and
decisionmaking.
USAID is also moving ahead on proposed structural changes announced
in its August 2018 transformation initiative. Among these, USAID
proposed a Bureau for Policy, Resources, and Performance that includes
(1) an Office of Development Policy to advance USAID's development
policy leadership and coherence and (2) an Office of Bilateral and
Multilateral Engagement to set Agency policy and standards, identify
best practices, support Agency engagement with donors, and identify and
create needed functions for Agency-wide coordination and oversight of
multilateral organizations.
USAID's many actions have the potential to improve interagency
coordination. However, fully implementing these actions will be an
ongoing challenge for USAID, particularly in areas where the authority
to act is outside its purview.
We continue to monitor USAID's efforts to improve interagency
coordination. For example, we recently issued a report on USAID's Power
Africa initiative, which brought together diverse U.S. agencies to
collaborate and share expertise on existing and new efforts in the
energy sector while capitalizing on agencies' comparative advantages
and minimizing duplication. However, by expanding rapidly--extending to
all of sub-Saharan Africa and tripling its goals--Power Africa
increased its exposure to various risks, and the USAID Coordinator's
Office had not fully implemented a portfolio-wide program to manage the
risks.
addressing vulnerabilities in financial and information management
Meeting the Federal Government's strict financial and information
management requirements has been a governmentwide challenge. While
USAID has made notable progress in addressing these requirements, it
continues to work to reconcile its financial statements and strengthen
its awards management.
Reconciling Intragovernmental Transactions. To provide
accountability and transparency in their transactions with one another,
Federal agencies (referred to as ``trading partners'') must reconcile
any accounting differences. These differences can occur if trading
partners use different accounting periods or methodologies for
classifying and reporting transactions. The Department of Treasury
reported that as of September 30, 2017, USAID had $488 million in
unreconciled transactions with its trading partners. According to
Treasury's scorecard--used to track and rank each agency by its
contribution to the Government's unreconciled differences--USAID was
the 19th largest contributor (out of 140 agencies) at the end of June
2018, with differences of $377 million. USAID's ongoing efforts to
improve its reconciliation process and eliminate differences are likely
to resolve timing differences. However, other differences, such as
those caused by accounting errors, require additional attention.
Reconciling the Fund Balance With Treasury Account. USAID's
financial statements for fiscal years 2017 and 2016 had a material
weakness related to the Agency's Fund Balance With Treasury (FBWT)
reconciliations. A material weakness indicates that a material
misstatement of the Agency's financial statements may not be prevented,
or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. In the past, USAID did
not reconcile its FBWT account with Treasury's fund balance each month,
or promptly research and resolve any identified differences. Instead,
USAID adjusted its FBWT account to agree with Treasury's fund balance.
While USAID has made progress in reducing the unreconciled amount,
large unreconciled differences with Treasury remain. As of September
30, 2017, the net difference between USAID's general ledger and the
amount in Treasury's records was approximately $214 million, of which
$83 million was due to outstanding unreconciled items and $131 million
was unexplained. This difference accumulated because of ongoing
problems with a legacy system and data migration, and the continued
lack of an integrated system to control reconciliations performed by
USAID missions. USAID management continues to work to resolve this
issue.
Improving Award Management. Full and open competition is required
when awarding U.S. Government contracts, except in unusual and
compellingly urgent circumstances or when other qualified sources are
lacking. For grants and cooperative agreements, USAID encourages
competition to identify and fund programs that best achieve Agency
objectives. Under certain circumstances, eligibility to bid may be
restricted to a particular type of organization or other limitation,
typically for sole-source awards, as long as a justification for using
sole-source awards is fully documented and approved by appropriate
authorities. However, a USAID contractor operating in Syria had not
adequately documented justification for 36 of 41 sole-source subawards
it made--leading us to question $5.6 million in costs. USAID's Office
of Acquisition and Assistance agreed that documentation was lacking and
that the Agency should have held the contractor accountable for
complying with Agency policy. Although the Agency determined the
questioned costs were not allowable, it did not plan to collect these
costs from the contractor because USAID had approved the awards. The
Agency cited factors-- primarily violence in the region--that prevented
exploring other options for competition.
In addition, we have made a total of 3,365 recommendations in more
than 400 performance and financial audit reports issued over the past
decade that concern implementer underperformance and inadequate awards
management. USAID's reliance on awards to implement its programs around
the world-- approximately $17.6 billion annually--demands effective
awards management to hold implementers accountable for achieving
program objectives.
USAID's primary information technology challenge relates to
complying with the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform
Act (FITARA)--enacted in December 2014 to reform and streamline the
U.S. Government's information technology acquisitions, including
strengthening chief information officers' (CIO) accountability for
their agencies' IT costs, schedules, performance, and security. USAID
did not comply with several FITARA requirements, such as not having the
CIO report directly to the Agency head and not providing the CIO
adequate oversight and decision authority over budget execution
activities related to the use of IT resources.
We are following USAID's efforts to reconcile intragovernmental
transactions through our annual audits of USAID's financial
statements,\10\ as well as its progress in complying with FITARA
requirements. We are also conducting an audit to assess the Agency's
acquisition and assistance processes. Specifically, we are assessing
how the Agency manages its awards to implementers, and its use of
common management tools. In addition, we will be assessing USAID's
stewardship of expired and canceled awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the
Federal Financial Management Act of 1994 (Title IV of the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994, Public Law 103-356), requires an audit
of USAID's annual financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
continued oig oversight
In response to the subcommittee's request for a brief summary of
our fiscal year 2020 budget request, we submit the following. For the
past 2 years, Congress has provided funding beyond OIG's request. We
appreciate Congress' recognition--through its directed oversight
support and resources rendered through the appropriations process--of
the value we bring to the effectiveness of foreign assistance and
humanitarian assistance programs and to American taxpayers.
Our fiscal year 2018 audit and investigative returns amounted to
approximately eight times the cost of our operating budget. In addition
to these financial returns, our recommendations have triggered
foundational changes in policy and programming around global health and
humanitarian assistance, agency procurements, and engagement with
public international organizations. Your funding, coupled with our
internal transformation and realignment efforts, has advanced the
standing and impact of our work.
To provide robust oversight of USAID and the other agencies we
oversee, we requested $75.5 million for fiscal year 2020--$1.1 million
less than we received in 2019, but $4 million or 5 percent more than
that proposed in the President's budget.
The additional 5 percent would enable us to meet our operational
and staffing needs for identifying and reducing risks of fraud, waste,
and abuse. Specifically, we would be able to continue to conduct
performance audits and investigations needed to effect real change in
foreign assistance, realize substantial recoveries and cost savings,
and maintain maximum transparency and accountability.
My office remains committed to ensuring that USAID and the other
foreign assistance entities we oversee prudently use every dollar they
receive. Your support, oversight, and engagement--along with our
revised strategic approach to our work--are critical to carrying out
our mission, especially in light of the high-risk and challenging
environments that foreign assistance programs operate in. Thank you
again for your support. We remain committed to meeting or exceeding
your high expectations.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]