[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5199-S5200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION FUNDING
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I had the fortunate opportunity to travel
to Africa and South America over the Easter recess, and I want to take
a moment to share some of my observations with my colleagues.
Mali receives significant U.S. foreign assistance totaling $45
million in fiscal year 2007, $55 million in fiscal year 2008--and $461
million in Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, funding.
While Mali appears headed in the right direction, I worry that the
MCC is going down the wrong path, specifically by funding a $90 million
renovation project for Bamako airport's runway and terminal. I
understand that this project may have been formulated through a
consultative process, but it seems to me that it should be funded
through the African Development Bank or by private investment. I expect
the MCC to justify to the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee the
necessity for U.S. taxpayers to fund the airport project, and to
consult on the reprogramming of funds required by the derailed $90
million industrial park project.
The funding disparity and contrast between our traditional
development agency--the U.S. Agency for International Development,
USAID--and the MCC was glaring in Mali. Where USAID--could benefit from
a slight increase in overall funding, the MCC was struggling to
determine how best to reprogram $90 million. I am very concerned that
MCC may not live up to its billing as a more effective aid delivery
program, and its deep pockets may create unintended opportunities for
corruption.
I had the opportunity to visit the U.S. Embassy and learned of the
loss of air conditioning for a lengthy period of time which was a
burden to American and local staff. This is not the first time I've
heard of problems at our newly built embassies, and I encourage the
State Department to make sure that no patterns exist at these
facilities because of subpar contractors or equipment.
Like Mali, Nigeria receives significant U.S. assistance primarily
through a new initiative, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, PEPFAR. Assistance in fiscal year 2007 totaled $350 million and
$491 million in fiscal year 2008, of which $282 million and $410
million are for HIV/AIDS activities, respectively.
On paper, Nigeria is wealthy country with significant oil reserves,
and, we were told, an estimated $57 billion in an excess crude account.
Corruption is unfortunately a cancer that stymies development and
political progress in that country; Transparency International's
Corruption Perception Index, 2007, ranks Nigeria 147th out of 179th.
Nigeria is a PEPFAR focus country, with a 3.9 percent prevalence rate
among adults. Given Nigeria's significant natural resources, it is
imperative that the AIDS Coordinator begin a process of transitioning
from U.S. to Nigeria-funded programs. America can help the Government
of Nigeria spend its health dollars, but I question the efficacy of
U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS programs in that country. I will have more to
say on this issue when the Senate considers the reauthorization of
PEPFAR, perhaps later this year.
Namibia is also a PEPFAR focus country, and received $86.9 million in
fiscal year 2007 and $103 million in fiscal year 2008 for HIV/AIDS
programs. Unfortunately, other programs for Namibia, specifically
support for democracy activities, has been in steady decline over the
past few fiscal years and is being zeroed out. Given that the ruling
SWAPO party is no longer a monolith, and splinter parties are forming,
the Administration's reduction in assistance to Namibia may be ill
timed and ill advised.
My staff and I are exploring ways to ensure that sufficient funding
exists for non-HIV/AIDS programs for Namibia, including immediate
support for domestic election monitoring activities in that country,
and like Nigeria, I encourage PEPFAR personnel to explore sustainment
strategies for U.S.-funded HIV/AIDS programs.
I am also concerned that the United States is not supporting enough
exchange programs with countries in Africa. I intend to increase these
programs in upcoming appropriations bills.
South Africa is also a PEPFAR focus country and received $398 million
in fiscal year 2007 and $547 million in fiscal year 2008 HIV/AIDS
funding. South Africa is running a budget surplus--in this case
totaling $2.4 billion.
I am very pleased that our U.S. Ambassador understands the need for
South Africa to assume greater financial responsibility for HIV/AIDS
programs, and it is unfortunate that certain South Africa government
officials have not been aggressive in addressing this issue. Any future
support for HIV/AIDS programs in South Africa should be conditioned on
the development and implementation of sustainment strategies to ensure
that the Government of South Africa assume the care for its infected
populations.
Crime remains a significant challenge to everyone in South Africa,
and given the increased personnel requirements associated with PEPFAR,
it may make sense to allow the use of PEPFAR funds for administrative
and operational expenses at the U.S. Embassy, including for security
purposes. New initiatives create increased desk
[[Page S5200]]
and office space needs, and I've asked my staff to take a closer look
at this issue in anticipation of marking up the fiscal year 2009 State,
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
I also intend to continue to work with Secretary of State Rice on
resolving travel issues impacting members of the Africa National
Congress, which is an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-South African
relations.
Finally, although Argentina is not a major recipient of U.S. foreign
assistance--some $2 million was provided in fiscal year 2008--relations
between our countries have been historically good. I encourage my
colleagues to continue to follow counterdrug and counterterrorism
developments in that country--and region.
____________________