[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois ADAM SCHIFF, California STEVE ISRAEL, New York BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BARBARA LEE, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KAY GRANGER, Texas MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Nisha Desai, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, and Clelia Alvarado, Staff Assistants ________ PART 5 Page United States Department of State................................ 1 U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 57 Supplemental Request for FY09.................................... 163 Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator............................ 231 Millennium Challenge Corporation................................. 285 The Merida Initiative............................................ 339 Africa: Great Lakes, Sudan, and the Horn......................... 463 The Role of Civilian and Military Agencies in the Advancement of America's Diplomatic and Development Objective.................... 521 Building a 21st Century Workforce................................ 613 ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations PART 5--STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 ? STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois KAY GRANGER, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois STEVE ISRAEL, New York ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BARBARA LEE, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Nisha Desai, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, and Clelia Alvarado, Staff Assistants ________ PART 5 Page United States Department of State................................ 1 U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 57 Supplemental Request for FY09.................................... 163 Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator............................ 231 Millennium Challenge Corporation................................. 285 The Merida Initiative............................................ 339 Africa: Great Lakes, Sudan, and the Horn......................... 463 The Role of Civilian and Military Agencies in the Advancement of America's Diplomatic and Development Objective.................... 521 Building a 21st Century Workforce................................ 613 ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 55-951 WASHINGTON : 2010 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JERRY LEWIS, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOSE E. SERRANO, New York RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut Jersey JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ZACH WAMP, Tennessee ED PASTOR, Arizona TOM LATHAM, Iowa DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CHET EDWARDS, Texas JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island KAY GRANGER, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas SAM FARR, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana ALLEN BOYD, Florida JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey KEN CALVERT, California SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama MARION BERRY, Arkansas STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma ADAM SCHIFF, California MICHAEL HONDA, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota STEVE ISRAEL, New York TIM RYAN, Ohio C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado ------ ------ Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director (ii) STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 ---------- -- -------- Thursday, April 23, 2009. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE WITNESS HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order. I would like to welcome all guests to this hearing room. And I respect your right to be here and respect your views. But I would ask that you respect this very important hearing. You may certainly engage in a silent protest, but I ask that you be seated and not disrupt these proceedings. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I welcome you, my former Senator, my constituent, my friend, to your first hearing before the House Appropriations Committee as Secretary of State. We look forward to hearing the policy objectives and assumptions supporting your request for $7.1 billion in supplemental funds for State Department operations and foreign assistance. Failed fiscal policies have left our economy in shambles and the world on the precipice of a global financial crisis. The security challenges we face abroad demand our urgent and focused attention. You and the President and all of us have inherited a world in peril. A dangerous and power hungry Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear energy and hegemonic ambitions. The insecurity and instability of Afghanistan and Pakistan have intensified, and the Taliban and al Qaeda have gained ground. From North Korea to Nangahar, from Somalia to Sri Lanka, to the Swat Valley, instability threatens the security of the United States and its allies. In Pakistan, policy decisions focused on short-term security interests, which neglected the long-term needs to build civil society, empower and educate women and girls, and develop democratic institutions, have advanced neither security nor stability. Today the escalating terrorist violence in Pakistan and that government's inability and unwillingness to confront the extremist threat undermine any progress we have made in Afghanistan and complicates future efforts there. I fear that we are losing the window of international consensus and commitment to help the region gain a strong foothold on its long climb out of conflict. After 8 years and billions of dollars, we are no closer to improving security, solving the poppy problem, empowering credible partners to eliminate corruption and stabilize the government, or enabling a more tolerant society that respects the rights of women. Recent actions by North Korea, including its missile launch, reflect flagrant defiance and lack of interest in engaging responsibly with the rest of the world. Given these developments, I hope that you will detail how your supplemental request for resources for continuation of Six-Party Talks for a yet-to-be-negotiated Phase 3 of an Action for Action plan are expected to improve the situation. And in the Middle East, where I met last week with Israeli, Palestinian, and Egyptian leaders, President Obama's election and your leadership have generated new optimism and hope that our country can pursue a new direction to address the global challenges that threaten national and international security. But as you know, optimism and hope must be accompanied by smart strategies and tough diplomacy. In meetings in the region and discussions yesterday with King Abdullah of Jordan, concern over Iran dominated our conversations. While there continues to be a wide gulf between Israelis and Palestinians on further progress on the Roadmap, and questions remain on the state of the so-called unity talks hosted by Egypt, I am convinced that there is still a strong commitment among Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, and the Jordanians to create the conditions required for peace and security to take root and a determination to deal with the destabilizing role of Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Israelis and Palestinians stressed the importance of the economic and the security assistance that you have pledged to the Palestinians and were unanimous in their praise of General Dayton's security initiative. In-depth discussions with UNRWA provided some assurances of their commitment to transparency and accountability in the humanitarian assistance that they manage, but the State Department must continue to ensure that UNRWA lives up to its commitments. It is clear that Hamas will not accept the conditions defined in the Palestinian Antiterrorism Act or in the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign Operations bill. Yet, you have requested language that I understand would provide a limited amount of flexibility for the President to support a PA government that might include individuals associated with Hamas if all the ministers in such a government accepted the conditions of PATA. Now, while I have great confidence in you, Senator Mitchell, and President Obama, concerns remain about this language. And I hope that you can clarify what type of government the administration would support and why. I also hope to get a better sense from you on the implications for the State Department of our plans to draw down U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2010. And finally, let me express concern about new authorities for the Defense Department in the supplemental request. While I understand the need to train and equip the Pakistani military for counterinsurgency capability, such assistance should not be provided through Defense appropriations. We will continue to ensure appropriate coordination mechanisms and implementation agreements so that DOD can implement these programs effectively and efficiently. However, the overall policy responsibility rests with you, and so should the funds for the Pakistani Counterinsurgency Capability Fund. Similarly, this committee has appropriated $700 million for the Merida program to date, and frankly, I am baffled that an additional $350 million has been requested under the Defense appropriations. Madam Secretary, the United States is facing major challenges, and I look forward to your testimony. But first let me turn to the ranking member, Representative Kay Granger, for any comments she may make. And I should alert you to the fact that this is the only committee in Congress where there are two women in charge. And so I am delighted to turn to my ranking member, Kay Granger. Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I also want to thank and welcome Secretary of State Clinton to her first hearing before this subcommittee. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the administration's $7.1 billion fiscal year 2009 supplemental request. At a time when our citizens are tightening their belts, the Congress must be certain that we are funding only the most essential and the most effective and the carefully examined foreign policy priorities. Let me begin by saying, there are several areas I applaud the administration's commitment. The Chair and I of this subcommittee just returned from a trip to the Middle East, where we traveled to Israel, the West Bank, and Egypt, and we welcome this administration's renewed focus on brokering peace and security for the countries in that region. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about how items in the supplemental request will support those efforts. I am also pleased with the attention given to Mexico and the problems there and the $66 million requested for procurement of helicopters. I hope that we can work together to make sure that the assets that Mexico needs in their fight get there as soon as possible. I am also reassured by the President's demonstration that continuing the global fight to stop terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is a continued top priority. I believe additional oversight is especially needed in the military presence as it expands and foreign assistance programs are increased to make sure that we are using those funds effectively in that fight. I have concerns about the administration's efforts to blunt the effect of the global financial crisis in developing countries. It may have merit, but the request lacks adequate country specificity, economic justification, and explanation of the impact of such assistance. I look forward to your presentation and asking some questions as we go along. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I would like to turn to Mr. Obey for any comments he may have. Opening Remarks of Mr. Obey Mr. Obey. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Secretary, you have a terrifically tough job. We all know that. And I am sure we all wish you well. But you have inherited some incredible messes. And Americans can be funny people. I mean, it seems to be in our nature that we think there is a solution for everything, for every problem. Sometimes we have got solutions for problems that do not even exist. But we also run into some problems that, at best, can simply be managed, not solved. And I think you have got more than your fair share of those. I, frankly, do not know what I am going to do on your supplemental request because I am very concerned that it is going to wind up with us stuck in a problem that nobody knows how to get out of. And here is my concern. We have been at war almost eight years in Iraq. It is a measure of how wild things have been in the past that we count it a great achievement that there are only about 100 attacks a week in Iraq. Over 52 weeks, that is a lot of attacks. You can imagine what would be happening in this country if we were experiencing the same thing. We are told that the situation in Afghanistan has gotten worse. And we are told that it is unlikely that we are going to be able to resolve that problem to our satisfaction unless we deal with the reality of Pakistan as well. And we are told that the administration has gone through an extensive review in order to try to focus its policy much more discretely and narrowly. And I think you have done that. I mean, I understand that the goal, rather than having some grandiose set of goals, the goal in Afghanistan is simply to demolish al Qaeda so they do not provide a threat to us. And I do not question your goals, and I do not question the rationale behind any of the decisions that underlie the policy that the administration intends to pursue. What I question is whether we in fact have the tools and the capacity to actually get anywhere near those goals. And I say that because, I have been around this place 40 years. My experience with Pakistan during all that time is that it has always been Pakistan, which means it is a country of dealmakers, but they do not keep the deals. And so, as a result, we have factions playing for their own interests, not focused on the real threats to that state. You have the insistence of the Pak Government that they continue to focus on India rather than focusing on the real threat. You have the central government give away a region of the country to the Taliban and accept the fact that the sharia is going to be the rule of the day there. And then you see calls to apply that across the entire country. I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the existing Pakistani Government to do one blessed thing. And without a functioning government focused on the right issues in Pakistan, we cannot, we cannot achieve our goals in that region, in my view. And so what I would like to know, the Chairwoman has referred to the sense of optimism that has accompanied President Obama's election. And I share that optimism. I think the whole world does. But we also cannot approach problems as though we are permanent presidents of the Optimists' Club. We have got to look at realities. And I am concerned that when I see the so- called realists in this town, such as Jackson Diehl, who is a perfectly fine reporter, but when he says, as so many others say, that this effort in Afghanistan is going to require the entire eight-year attention of this administration, to me that means we are stuck with a sixteen-year effort in that region. And I do not want to see all of the other goals of the administration, both foreign and domestic, in the end devoured by this insoluble problem. While it is nice to have goals, and it is nice to be optimistic, what I want to know, is whether or not the administration will have in its own head a defined timeline by which, if Pakistan does not perform, if that government does not get their act together, if they do not quit playing it every which way, if the intelligence service in Pakistan does not stop double-dealing, that they need to know that we are not going to be stuck there backing them up forever. No matter what you do, you are going to be criticized. No matter what you do, it is going to be the wrong decision in a lot of people's eyes. In my view, no matter what you do and no matter what you try to do, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely dim because of the nature of the territory. I am not convinced, let me put it this way, I am convinced that this is one of those problems that we cannot solve; we can at best manage. And I want to know that we have a strategy for managing it if we face the fact that we just do not have the tools in that area in order to achieve the goals that we are talking about now. And my other problem, since people are also talking about the possibility of an IMF replenishment, during the years I chaired this subcommittee, I put a lot of IMF money through the Congress, but I have to tell you, I have great reluctance to do so given the fact that the Western European governments, especially Germany, are declining to provide the kind of economic stimulus that the world seems to expect of us but which they do not seem to be willing to deliver themselves. And if they do not pull their fair share of the load in the wagon on that score, we are going to have a prolonged worldwide recession, and the United States is not going to be exempt from that. So those are my thoughts. And I hope that you can reassure me on those points today. But frankly, I doubt it. Not because of any lack of ability on your part, but because I just am concerned that virtually every initiative this administration wants to pursue domestically and internationally in the end can be devoured by this problem if we are not incredibly, incredibly careful and thoughtful about it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Lewis, do you have an opening statement? Opening Remarks of Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Only to say that I am very anxious to hear the Secretary's statement. I welcome Secretary of State Clinton, and we appreciate your hard work. I am very anxious to ask questions. I hope we have time to get to them. Secretary Clinton. Yes. Mrs. Lowey. Madam Secretary, we will be happy to place your full statement in the record if you would care to summarize, but proceed as you wish. Thank you. Opening Statement of Secretary Clinton Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. Is this on? I want to get to your questions. I think it might help to do a quick overview of what we do have in the supplemental and the reasons behind it. We know that we are asking for a significant sum, but it represents only a fraction of what we spend each year on national security. And we think that diplomacy and development are ever more important to safeguarding the security and prosperity of our people and our Nation, because after all, if we are successful in either managing or solving problems, we save the money and the lives that would otherwise have to be spent in dealing with conflict. You know very well on this committee the range of difficult problems we have inherited and that we are attempting to cope with. We have launched a new diplomacy that we believe is powered by partnership and pragmatism and principle. And I am very proud of the men and women of the State Department and USAID who literally work around the clock and around the world. We have requested, with respect to Iraq, $482 million in the supplemental budget for civilian efforts to partner with our military efforts as the withdrawal continues. Already the Iraqi Government is exceeding our spending for reconstruction and in many areas matching or exceeding our efforts on individual projects. We want to help manage that transition. And this money will enable our civilian American employees and their local counterparts to help create an environment in which we assist the Iraqi Government to take more and more responsibility. Obviously, security is our paramount concern in Afghanistan. The supplemental request of $980 million for Afghanistan is targeted to specific areas essential for security and stability. As a result of our strategic review, we are not trying to be all things to all people. We are focusing on making government institutions more accountable and effective, promoting the rule of law, stimulating licit economic activity, especially in agriculture. Afghanistan used to be self- sufficient in agriculture and even was an exporter beyond its borders. We are also going to be working with local communities at the provincial level and below to help stabilize the security situation through job creation. What we have determined through our analysis is that many in the Taliban are there not because of ideological commitment but, frankly, because they are paid better than you could be paid in the Afghan police force. So we are trying to unlock this puzzle about how to attract young men in particular into legitimate employment. Our commitment to train up the Afghan National Army and the police force will go hand in hand with that effort. And we are also focused on continuing to support women and girls. We think that is an essential part of our foreign policy. But progress in Afghanistan, we believe, depends upon progress in Pakistan. And we do seek supplemental funding of $497 million. I take very seriously Chairman Obey's comments and cautions. And Mr. Chairman, my view on this is that in order to manage, we have to make these commitments. We have to keep our pledge at the Tokyo Donors Conference. Other nations see Pakistan as we now do and therefore came forward with $5.5 billion in commitments. We have to try to strengthen civilian law enforcement, particularly in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Northwest Frontier Province. And there are humanitarian needs that we think serve our national security interests, which we have, in my view, never sufficiently built on. Following the earthquake in Pakistan, Pakistani public opinion toward America improved dramatically because we were there with both military and civilian assets to help the people who had been stricken by the earthquake. We never followed through. We never had a strategy to say, we have made some progress in these areas, what more do we need to do to consolidate that? Key to our new strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan is to hold ourselves and our partners accountable. And we are committed to doing that. We obviously are going to set performance measures. I remember very well for six years on the Armed Services Committee trying to get accountability measures for both Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to get what we then called benchmarks. We never got them. We are going to prepare them. We are going to share them with you. We are going to work with you to try to figure out what are the ways we can tell whether we are successfully managing and/or solving our challenges. We also are focused on the Middle East, as Chairwoman Lowey mentioned. Both she and Ranking Member Granger emphasized the importance of this region to our country. If we are genuinely interested in achieving a comprehensive and secure peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to Israel's security. At the same time, we believe we should continue to help the parties find a path to a two-state solution and support efforts initiated by the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Prime Minister Fayad to end corruption, promote security, and build infrastructure to demonstrate tangible benefits of peace to the people of the West Bank. And we think, as part of that strategy, we have to address the humanitarian needs in Gaza by working directly with carefully vetted partners. We have made it clear we will only work a Palestinian Authority Government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet's principles: a commitment to nonviolence; recognition of Israel; and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap. In the event of any Hamas participation of any sort in this coalition, this would apply if the government, representing all of its agencies and instrumentalities, accepts these principles. At Sharm el Sheikh last month, I announced a U.S. Government pledge of $900 million that includes humanitarian, economic, and security assistance for the Palestinian people, both Gaza and West Bank. And Madam Chairwoman, our supplemental request of $840 million is included in that pledge. It is not in addition to it. And it will be implemented under the most stringent requirements we have ever put on aid going into that area. From the first days of this administration, we have also signaled our determination to create partnerships, partnerships with other governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations and institutions. This is not a moral or altruistic imperative. We believe that extreme poverty poses a grave threat to global security and certainly to prosperity. Development experts have predicted that 50 million more people could end up living in poverty this year. A sharp increase in global poverty has the potential to spark humanitarian crises, erode gains from a wide range of U.S. taxpayer investments in development, reverse progress toward achieving the Millennium Development goals, and destabilize countries that are partners and ours. Many responsible countries cannot raise funds to restore safety nets, restore financial markets, and serve the poor. And I care particularly about children and women, who are the most marginalized to begin with. And we think this is an important action that our government should take in our interests as well as to further our values. The $448 million requested for assistance to developing countries hardest hit by the global financial crisis is designed to provide a temporary safety net. And I appreciate Congresswoman Granger's question. At this moment, we are evaluating which ones of these countries will need our help and how best to deliver that. I think the United States has to remain a world leader in providing food aid and life-sustaining support for refugees and other victims of conflict. And these efforts will be complemented by investments in the supplemental budget for emergency food aid. The food security problem is especially acute, and I am pleased that the President has asked the State Department and USAID to lead our government's efforts in addressing this across the agency. We had the first meeting, Madam Chairman, ever held in our government to bring everybody together. So we are trying to rationalize, streamline and make more effective our efforts across the board. We also think it is important that we lead by our example when it comes to shared responsibility. That is why we have included $836 million for United Nations operations, some of which will be used to cover assessments in which we are already in arrears. Now, we are well aware that the United Nations needs reform and greater accountability. But I think it is fair to acknowledge that in many areas U.N. peacekeeping missions save lives and, frankly, expense for us. I was just in Haiti, where the U.N. blue helmets cost 75 percent less than if we had to send troops to Haiti, as we did, you know, 12 years or so ago. And when I was in Haiti, where we support those U.N. peacekeepers, I concluded, listening to the Brazilian general who led them, that they have made significant gains in security and stability that are still fragile. Our continuing support for peacekeeping missions like this I strongly believe are a low-cost way for us to achieve our own goals. We are asking for small investments targeted to specific concerns, international peacekeeping operations and stabilization in Africa; humanitarian needs in Burma; the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program, assuming they come back to the Six-Party Talks; assistance for Georgia that the prior administration promised that we believe we should fulfill; support for the Lebanese Government, which is facing serious challenges; funding for critical air mobility support in Mexico as part of the Merida Initiative. Let me end with one final point. In order for us to pursue an ambitious foreign policy to both solve and manage problems, to address our interests and advance our values, we have to reform both State and USAID. And to do so, we have to create a department and an agency that are funded the right way, where the people doing this work have the tools and authorities that they need. This is particularly important in dangerous regions like Iraq and Afghanistan. I want to just end with one statistic. I asked for a review about the dangers facing aid workers. In Afghanistan, the casualty rate for USAID employees, contract employees, locally engaged employees and other international aid workers, is 1 in 10 have been killed in the last 8 years. Our comparable percentage for military casualties in Afghanistan is 1 in 57. What we are asking people to do, which we believe is absolutely essential to our country's security, is assume responsibilities so that we can make diplomacy and development on a par with the military and defense functions of our foreign policy. But I want to underscore to this committee, which knows this very well, this is not easy. It is not safe, and it is extremely difficult to get right. But I pledge to you that we are going to do everything we can as we move forward, advancing President Obama's and our Nation's vital interests, to make sure that diplomacy and development are well prepared to take our place at the head of our Nation's foreign policy objectives. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.007 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I will be calling on members based upon the seniority of those members that were present when the hearing was called to order. And I ask that each member please keep their questions to within 5 minutes per round. And I will alternate between majority and minority. Madam Secretary, I thank you again for your testimony. I know that there are many questions. Our time is limited. I would like to begin by repeating three concerns that I raised in my opening remarks and that you also addressed. Number one, I am concerned that the Pakistani Government is cutting deals with extremists without getting anything in return, as evidenced by the recent agreement in the Swat Valley. And certainly we know about the news today. As we now know, that agreement has only emboldened the Taliban to surge into the Buner district just an hour outside Islamabad. How do we succeed in Pakistan if the Pakistanis themselves are either unwilling or incapable of making the tough choices and taking the tough action needed to confront the insurgency? Two, as I noted, I know that we are all in agreement on a policy that prohibits any funding for Hamas or any Hamas- controlled entity until Hamas is willing to agree to the Quartet principles. In my opinion, I must say, that day will never come. However, Madam Secretary, you have asked for the ability to engage with a power-sharing government if that government meets these principles. I would like you to elaborate on why you need this language. What type of government would you support? And when you say that the power-sharing government would have to meet the three principles, I believe it is not enough for Abu Mazen and Salaam Fayad to accept the principles; it must be all the ministers, including any minister appointed by Hamas, that comply with these principles. And I would like to know if you agree with that. And lastly, I would like you to elaborate on the administration's policy on Iran. While I support the President's policy of engagement, I do not think we should be taking any options off the table. In fact, I believe that any diplomatic initiatives have to be coupled with a tightening, a real tightening of the sanctions regime. I would like to know if you agree with that. I think we need to ensure that our European allies, the Russians, the Indians, and others are also enforcing these sanctions. As good as Stuart Levy is, I hope you can share your thoughts on this. Secretary Clinton. Thank you so much, my Congresswoman. Let me start with Pakistan. As I said yesterday, appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I and our administration are deeply concerned by the increasing insurgency that is destabilizing Pakistan. We have made those concerns abundantly clear to the Pakistani Government, both the civilian and the military leadership, and we have had a series of meetings with both the Pakistanis and the Afghans, going in depth about how to get the Pakistani Government to change their focus, as Chairman Obey referenced, from what they viewed as their existential threat, namely India, to what we view as their existential threat, namely this extremist insurgency. Changing paradigms and mind-sets is not easy. But I do believe that there is an increasing awareness on the part of not just the Pakistani Government but the Pakistani people that this insurgency, coming closer and closer to major cities, does pose such a threat. I was heartened to hear that leaders of opposing political parties, even Islamic-based political parties, have begun to express their concerns about the deal in Swat. Parliamentarians are beginning to speak out. Yesterday I called for the Pakistani diaspora to also speak out. And we believe that there is a growing awareness on the part of the Pakistani Government that their strategy, which historically, as you know, was to leave those areas basically alone. The British left them alone. The Pakistani Government from its very inception left them alone, and the mind-set was, well, that does not really affect us in Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi. And now they are seeing that indeed it could. So I believe, Congresswoman, that there is a significant opportunity here for us, working in collaboration with the Pakistani Government, to help them get the support they need to make that mind-set change and act more vigorously against this threat. Now, there are no promises. They have to do it. I mean, we can support them. We can encourage them. The leadership of Pakistan will be coming for our second trilateral meeting in about two weeks here to Washington. Our Special Representative, Richard Holbrooke, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, have been spending countless hours in really painful, specific conversations, because I want to underscore the feeling we get, which is that if you have been locked in a mortal contest with someone you think is your principal, in fact only, real enemy, and all of a sudden circumstances change, but they do not change so much that you are still not worried about that other enemy, it just takes some time. And I think that there is a growing understanding of that within the Pakistani leadership. Secondly, with respect to Hamas, as I said yesterday, again before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we will not deal with a Palestinian Authority unity government that includes Hamas, that does not meet the criteria of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and agreeing to all of the agreements that have already been entered into by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and then the Palestinian Authority. And I want to just, you know, reiterate that no aid will flow to Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas. Under our supplemental provision, the unity government would have to be certified by the President as meeting the requirements that we have set forth. And the reason for this request is that, number one, the Palestinian Authority itself has not agreed to any such unity government. The discussions have focused on so- called technocrats, people who might go into a unity government of some sort to fulfill certain specific functions. But this is a critically important time in the Middle East. And we do not know what will come from these ongoing talks in Cairo. But if what emerges from these talks is a unity government that abides by the Quartet principles, we do want to have the authority to deal with that government in the peace process or negotiations that might possibly develop. Before providing any such waiver, the Administration would consider all the relevant facts, including who these people were, what their role in the government was, to make sure this meets our standards and our national interests. And we would expect any unity government to meet the standards of transparency and accountability that have been set forth by Prime Minister Fayad. We doubt there will be such a unity agreement. There does not seem to be one in store. But we do not want to bind our hands in the event that such an agreement is reached and the government that they are part of agrees to our principles. Finally, with respect to Iran, as I also said yesterday, we have been working closely with our friends and partners and interested nations with respect to engaging with Iran. Just like you found when you traveled in the region, we hear about Iran from everyone. This unites Israel and the Arab neighbors in the region. Everyone is concerned, as we are, about Iran's activities. We are concerned both about their pursuit of nuclear weapons and about their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors and their support for terrorism and organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. But we have tried the policy of total isolation for eight years, and it did not deter Iran one bit. The nuclear program has continued unabated. They were not supporting Hamas before; they are supporting Hamas now. So our view is we have to proceed on two tracks simultaneously and completely linked. As the President has said, we have said to the Iranians, we are willing to discuss with you a range of matters. We have sent our representative to the P-5-Plus-1 to be a full participant because we think we need a better approach to try to deter and prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, and we continue to work on sanctions, which we intend to have available. We believe that pursuing this two-track approach, letting the world know we are willing to engage--we do not know whether they want to engage with us; there is no basis yet for concluding they do--will give us a stronger hand in getting leverage on them when it comes to tough, crippling sanctions. Mrs. Lowey. I am over our time. I just wanted to clarify one point. When you talked about the government that you intend for us to support if in fact there is a government, in my judgment, all the ministers should comply with the Quartet principles and the principles in PATA. Would you agree with that? Secretary Clinton. Our belief is that if the government complies with it, that is what we are looking for. And again, I mean, we are talking in such hypotheticals. We have no intention of dealing with Hamas unless they do what the PLO did. I mean, I was in Gaza when the PLO voted to recognize Israel, renounce violence. I was deeply involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland. Not everyone in Sinn Fein and not everyone in the IRA initially agreed to the principles. But the leadership of the government that was dealt with in both instances did. That is what we are looking for. And we think that is sufficient, given the assurances that we will be looking for to provide you. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you. In press reports this week, it appears that the new Israeli Government is not likely to move forward on peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons and limiting the increasing influence of Iran on the region. I would like to know how this emerging position of the Netanyahu government affects the prospects for peace as we are moving forward, and is our government encouraging Arab states to take any specific actions against Iran? How are we doing that? And what countries do you believe can be most helpful to us? Secretary Clinton. Well, Congresswoman, we are not going to prejudge the Israeli position until we have had face-to-face talks. You know, Senator Mitchell was just in the region, had intensive talks with the Prime Minister and members of his government. The Prime Minister will be coming to Washington in May. And we think that it is important not to prejudge what their view is and how that can best be approached. And let me just give you an example of what I mean. As I said, Israel is in lockstep with their Arab neighbors vis-a-vis their concern about Iran. We could argue, and many Arab countries have, and I think some of you met with King Abdullah in the past several days, and he has made public statements to this effect; that for Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it cannot stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts, that they go hand in hand. And if we can work out such an approach, and this is obviously, you know, up to the Israeli Government, they have to make these decisions, but if there is such an approach, then a lot of the Arab countries are saying to us there will be a sequencing of supporting that will strengthen the region's response to Iran. But as I said, we have not had those in-depth conversations yet that we are looking forward to having with the Israeli Government. Ms. Granger. Have you had those conversations with Arab states specifically? And what kind of expectations do you have from them and which ones will be most helpful? Secretary Clinton. I must say we have had ongoing conversations with Arab states, literally across North Africa, Israel's immediate neighbors, and into the Gulf. The Arab Peace Initiative, which by the way has the same principles as the Quartet principles, which people, you know, should really give the Arab League, most particularly Saudi Arabia, credit for; every country with whom I have personally met, and that is most of them by now, wants very much to support the strongest possible posture toward Iran. They believe that Israel's willingness to reenter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran. So I really believe that that is their strongly held view. And we have to sort of get everybody together in one place, which has not yet happened, to figure out how that can proceed. Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Obey. Mr. Obey. Madam Secretary, two questions. There is a lot of talk about benchmarks with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. My problem with benchmarks is that I have always felt it is difficult, virtually impossible, to try to run a war from Capitol Hill. Sometimes if you have incredible obstreperousness on the part of the executive branch, that is your only choice, to try, but I do not have much faith in our ability to do so. The problem with benchmarks as I see them, if they are congressional benchmarks, is that if they are too tight, money does not flow, and it messes up your ability to carry out the policy. And if they are too loose, all they are is a cover- your-fanny program for Congress. And what I would like is to have something more real. So I am not asking you now what they would be, but what I want to know, within a reasonable period of time, is what will the administration's own internal benchmarks be that they will use to determine whether or not this policy is succeeding or whether it is time to go in a different direction? Second point is this: When I came to Congress, it was 1969, middle of the war. I succeeded Mel Laird, who was then the Secretary of Defense. And I was against the war. But Mel convinced me that Nixon had inherited the war from Johnson and that he deserved some time to try his policies. And so I said, all right, I will keep my mouth shut for a year and see what happens. And that is what I did. And I held out for a year before I started voting for measures to try to shut that operation down. I do not want to try to shut down the administration's ability to deal with a problem they inherited. But my question is this: Would not a year be plenty of time for us to judge whether or not the Paks are really willing to do what is necessary to deal with this problem? Should not we be able to determine within a year whether they are serious, whether they are focusing on the right problems, whether they actually have control of their intelligence operations so that we do not have a deep suspicion that they are actually financing some of the actions taken by our enemies in Afghanistan? Secretary Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think your two questions are related. I agree with you completely that we need the internal benchmarks, measurements of performance that we are currently working to present. We would prefer they not be embodied in congressional legislation for the very reasons you just described, but we do think we owe you a set of measurements that we are going to try to judge whether we are making progress or not, and that you should be able to judge as well. So what we intend to do is to present these approaches that we are working on. And it is across the government. The intelligence community will have certain measurements; the Defense Department will; we will look as well. But we would prefer that they be how you hold us accountable without, you know, paralyzing our efforts to move forward. So I agree with that. But when we work those through and present them to you-- some of them will be classified; most of them will not be--they will give us the indicators that I think you are seeking as to whether we are making any progress in Pakistan. You know, on a simple measure, is the Pakistani military still amassing hundreds of thousands of troops on the Indian border, or have they begun to move those toward these insurgent areas? What kind of kinetic action are they taking? How much? Is there an increasing uptempo or not? Is it sporadic, so they start in and then they move back? Now, if someone representing the Pakistani military were here with me today, I am sure he would say, we have lost 6,000 people in these efforts in the last I think two, three years. And that is a measurement. It is a tragic measurement. But if you lose soldiers trying to retake part of your own country, it seems to me that is the army's mission, you know, to see how they can get back the governing capacity. So we think that we will have an ability to lay out these markers. We welcome your advice about others that you think would be useful. And then we are going to measure it. Now, is it a year, 18 months? I am not prepared to say that. I do not know. But, obviously, we want to see progress on these measurements. And we want to see the progress, you know, beginning and continuing and not stopping and starting. And that is what we are going to look for. Mr. Obey. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Secretary Clinton, you come to this job at a very, very critical time in this shrinking and volatile world. And the focus upon Pakistan and Afghanistan is very much appropriate. But it seems to me that that which we experienced, the world experienced, in Mumbai has changed the level of intensity of these challenges like one cannot hardly imagine. Indeed, I want to support a progressive policy to help strengthen Pakistan. I am very concerned about the changes that have taken place just in these last few days. I do understand, on the other hand, why Pakistan has so many troops on the Indian border. If indeed just a little more militancy causes a spark that causes India to react, if something were to happen in Kashmir, we could have an explosion that involves two nuclear powers faced off against one another. General Petraeus was before us yesterday in the Defense Subcommittee, and in this discussion, the fact that the Pakistani military is totally incapable of dealing with the military of India, the comparison just is night and day; that reality could lead to the exercise of nuclear arms. I hope that the Defense Department, the agencies in other words, and your people are intensely involved in looking at this. Could you give me some commentary about your concerns about India versus Pakistan? Secretary Clinton. It is a very profound question, Congressman Lewis, because there have to be efforts to enhance confidence between India and Pakistan. Those are not likely to be undertaken until the Indian elections are over. And as you know, the Indian elections take a long time because they are the biggest democracy in the world, and they do a pretty good job, frankly, running their elections. But we are not going to have a government for weeks. There have been a number of high level discussions by members of our administration, including between the President and the Prime Minister on the sidelines of the G20 summit in London, raising the issue of how India can do more to tamp down any reaction on any front like Mumbai could have provoked. We worked very hard, and as did the prior administration, to prevent India from reacting. But we know that the insurgents, and al Qaeda, and their syndicate partners are pretty smart. They are not going to cease their attacks inside India because they are looking for exactly the kind of reaction that we all hope to prevent. So we do have a lot of work to do with the Indian Government to make sure that they continue to exercise the kind of restraint they showed after Mumbai, which was remarkable, especially given the fact it was the political season. We are also encouraging the Pakistani Government to reach out to the Indian Government and to continue some of those confidence-building measures that they were doing, like opening the bus routes in Kashmir and other things that did have some positive effects. So you have put your finger on the dilemma that I was answering Chairman Obey about. If Kashmir blows up, and insurgents come over that line of control every day or at least every week, then all bets are off. But if the Pakistani Army stays on the line of control and on the Indian border and doesn't turn their attention to dealing with the insurgents, we got a mess on our hands. Secretary Clinton. So, we do have to navigate through this. Now, that is part of what the highest levels of our Administration are doing from--Director Panetta has been in both New Delhi and Islamabad. Our military, we are in this funny situation because CENTCOM stops at Pakistan and PACOM stops at India, but there is a lot of coordination going on to kind of keep that relationship strong. It is very complex. And one final thing I would say is why are we so concerned about this? One of the reasons is nuclear weapons, we spend a lot of time worrying about Iran; Pakistan already has them. And they are widely dispersed in the country. There is not a central location, as you know. They have adopted a policy of dispersing their nuclear weapons and facilities. So it is imperative that we do everything we can to keep India and Pakistan on a good basis so that when something pops up and they make an accusation and they fall back on what are just natural impulses to blame the other, it doesn't escalate. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Schiff. Opening Remarks of Mr. Schiff Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, it is wonderful to see you, and I am so proud that my daughter can have a chance to watch some of your talent and capability to testify today. I want to make a couple of quick points and invite you to respond to as many as you can within my 5 minutes. First, I want to follow up on the comments of our Chair of the full committee. I share the concern he has raised over Afghanistan and Pakistan and the magnitude of the mission, the doability of what we are trying to accomplish. In 2 years, we will be approaching the tenth year anniversary of military involvement in Afghanistan. We will have been there for a decade. And I think probably beyond any contemplation, we will be there in 2 years, so it will be a decade we have been in Afghanistan. And the questions the country has will intensify as they should. Where are we headed? Will we be in Afghanistan for a second decade? Do we have a military role here other than counterterrorism? And one of the flashpoints for me is we have provided a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan. They haven't changed the paradigm, as you have pointed out, and more pernicious there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services that ISS director asked that they be working across purposes with us. I don't know how we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and have the effect of killing our troops next door. So I wonder how can we structure or military support to Pakistan in a way that ensures they make the paradigm shift, which they have been telling us now for years they recognize, this is their work, Pakistani Prime Minister says, but have not acted yet like it is their war. So how do we structure our military support to force the paradigm shift and to ensure that the ISS not working at cross purposes. To follow up on our subcommittee Chair's question on the Palestinian authority, I am concerned, and I think your testimony leaves this open that you can have a situation where Hamas is permitted to appoint ministers to a unity government, provided those ministers agree to quartet principles even though Hamas does not. And it seems to me unworkable to have Hamas organizing terrorist attacks against Israel at the same time it has the power to appoint ministers to a collation government. And I wonder if your testimony is leaving open that possibility and how that could be workable, because I do not see how that could be workable. The final question I would like to ask is about Somalia, and to a lesser degree, perhaps Yemen, I am concerned particularly with Somalia that it may become the next Afghanistan, and that we have been adrift in terms of our policies in Somalia for 2 decades. And I don't want to see us forced to embark on an another decade-long military campaign in Somalia or Yemen. So what can we do now to prevent that from happening? Thank you, Madam Secretary. Secretary Clinton. You know, I think that each of your questions really poses a central challenge to our foreign policy and our security. We have had troops in Korea for 50 years, we have had troops in Europe for 50 years. We have made long-term commitments that were in the beginning motivated by the threat of the Soviet Union and the potential of a nuclear war. And it was a very clear threat, you know, everybody could look on a map and you could see the Soviet Union and you could hear their leader say they were going to bury us, and you could see the crisis along the way with Khruschev banging his shoe, and President Kennedy dealing with the Cuban missile crisis and the rest of it. There was a framework in which we could really understand and deal with what was ironically a conventional threat, you know. And we deterred it and we basically contained it and we waited for the Soviet Union to collapse under its own weight. We face, in my view, a very serious threat, but it is of such a different nature that we are still trying to figure out the best way to contend with it. And so a lot of what we are talking about, your questions, my answers, our strategic reviews, you know, we are struggling with how on earth do we deal with people who are scattered around the world, concentrated in a few places, finding havens, using and perverting religion to motivate their followers, using modern tools like the Internet to wreak havoc. This is a very different challenge. And I think that we are still finding our way and so are the people we are working with who are trying to figure this out. Specifically Congressman, with respect to your question on Pakistan's military. The Pakistani military has actually used F-16s in the tribal areas. We have agreed to a mid-life upgrade because without that mid-life upgrade, they can not fly at night, which is a pretty good time to fly if you are going after insurgents. And so we are saying yes, we want to see a shift toward the enemies that we think are posing this threat to Pakistan, and by the way, posing a threat to us. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan. Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. And we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control central Asia and we went to work. It was President Reagan in partnership with the Congress, lead by Democrats, who said, you know, it sounds like a pretty good idea, let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these Mujahideen and let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated, they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there is a very strong argument, which is it wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the stingers that we left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you, in fact we are sanctioning you. So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lot of time. So this is an incredibly difficult set of issues that are all interconnected. But we can point fingers at the Pakistanis which is--I did some yesterday quite frankly. And it is merited, because we are wondering why they don't just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for having contributed to. We are developing what we think to be very positive relationships with the civilian, the military and the ISI leadership. But I think any analyst will tell you that we can actually talk to and relate to the top leadership, but we have not had a continuing dialogue or training or contact with a lot of the middle leadership who have been influenced by the trends of increasing Islamitization that have swept the Muslim world. So I put that out there because I think we have to think of the context in which we are dealing here. And just quickly on Hamas, look, I understand the sensitivity about this. I believe that we have a proposed policy in the supplemental that is an important way of our being able to encourage a unity government that does accept the quartet principles. And I would just underscore what I said about northern Ireland. There were a lot of people who weren't enthusiastic about joining in peace talks and did so because they were pushed, but when they sat at the table they had to be part of an entity that said they were in favor of a peace. And not continuing the bombings in the UK and northern Ireland. And finally, I could not agree with you more on Somalia. We left Somalia for good reason. We said what are we doing in Somalia, you know? President Bush, the first President Bush had us go in on a humanitarian mission, we were never adequately resourced for that mission. We didn't have sufficient forces there. You all know what happened. We withdrew, we said fine. It has been basically a failed state and al Qaeda and their allies love failed states. They just love them because they can set up shop and nobody is there to do anything to them. So we are looking at not only the piracy challenge, but how do we support this new federal transitional government of Sheikh Sharif, who at least has said a lot of the right things about how he wants to deal with al-Shabab and the insurgency. But I totally respect these three questions because they illustrate the challenges that we are confronting. Mr. Schiff. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Kirk. Opening Remarks of Mr. Kirk Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I am the only member of this subcommittee I think that served in the State Department and the Defense Department and the World Bank, so it is with great admiration I have for your career team. And I have a note of bipartisanship. You made tough--two tough calls on foreign policy recently. One when China confronted the USNS Impeccable in international waters you could have surrendered that ocean. Instead the following week you put a U.S. destroyer next to her and I think sending the correct message. You, also in the face of Vice President Biden, saying that we should not authorize the Afghan surge, you said that we should, and the President ended up agreeing with you and against the Vice President. And I think that was exactly the right call in Afghanistan and applaud you and the President for making that decision. We here have your wartime supplemental up. I would say it is not an $83 billion bill. I understand we just got a request for $100 billion for the IMF, and so I hope that Secretary Geithner will appear before our subcommittee as well since we are going to double the cost of this bill given the letter that was just arrived from the Speaker's Office last week. One question I have for you is this committee has now approved $5.2 billion for Palestinian programs since 1992. That is more money than we provided to treat and cure cancer last year for the United States. It looks like much of that money was wasted and now we have got a request for $815 million more just in 1 year. Much of this money obviously borrowed from China to give to the Palestinians and I worry about the wisdom of that. There is a lot of authorization language that was attached and I don't know how we will work this out, whether the appropriators will write the authorization language or whether Chairman Berman will. But one key provision does appear that it would provide taxpayer subsidies to a coalition Hamas government. And you know that we have at least 26 American citizens that have been murdered by Hamas, including Tahilla Nathanson of New York, 3 years old; Malka Roth of New York, Mordechai Reinitz of New York, Yitzhak Reinitz of New York, Leah Stern of New York, Goldie Taubenfeld of New York, Shmuel Taubenfeld of New York, also 3 years old, murdered by Hamas. The list is the people killed directly on Hamas' orders is clear. Now, the language I have it here for you to make it easy. This is the language provided that the chairman wrote, and I think this is very good language that prohibits assistance until Hamas has accepted and complies with the principals. This is actually an authorization of assistance to the government if the predecessor advises in writing or committees on appropriations that such government has accepted. Meaning that if we have 1 FATA president and 20 Hamas ministers, you would have the right to authorize taxpayer subsidies of this government. I am worried that I met with King Abdullah yesterday who said that Hamas ministers all directly follow the orders of Tehran. And so it is a worry that we would provide taxpayer subsidies to a government with Hamas ministers. That is sort of like saying we will provide taxpayer subsidies to a collusion government, it only has a few Nazis in it, but it is okay. And I worry that the law that this committee drafted by the chairman is exactly correct. And I don't think that this language should prevail. I would offer an amendment restoring the Chairman's language if it comes up this way, because I frankly think this dog will not hunt and it jeopardizes the entire bill. But I leave it up to you to comment. Secretary Clinton. Let me totally agree with the comments you made about Hamas and the terrorism and violence that they have wreaked, primarily on the Palestinian people, but then causing the deaths and injuries of Israelis and even Americans. I cannot stress strongly enough our Administration's rejection of dealing with them, or in any way, supporting them or those who espouse their rejectionist violent attitudes. But you know, Congressman, we are currently funding the Lebanese government which has Hezbollah in it. And we are doing that because we think on balance, it is in the interest of the United States to support a government that is working hard to prevent the further encouragement of extremism. Mr. Kirk. If I could interrupt. King Abdullah told us yesterday he is concerned that Hezbollah will coup that government in July. Secretary Clinton. We are all concerned about it, which is one of the reasons why it is important that the elections that are going to be held in Lebanon try to reinforce the leadership of the existing government, which has been standing in the way. Mr. Kirk. I would just urge that you are picking up some pretty strong bipartisan concern here, which means that an amendment is coming, I would urge to you beat a strategic retreat at this point. And use the Congress as the bad guy, saying look, I am not going to be able to get taxpayer subsidy for a Hamas government in which King Abdullah publicly is telling people on Capitol Hill that all these ministers directly receive orders from the MOIS Iranian intelligence service in Iran. And so you are just going to have to either go into coalition without our money, which isn't going to happen or--and use us as the bad guys. Secretary Clinton. Well, I appreciate that advice. I mean, obviously we see it in a slightly more complex set of circumstances. In fact, we think there is some divisions between the Hamas leadership in Gaza and in Damascus. There is no doubt that those in Damascus takes orders directly from Tehran, there is no doubt about that. But we do believe that there has been some efforts to try to get more authority and opportunity on the part of those in Gaza. But nevertheless Congressman, I take your point. I take it and I understand exactly the point you are making. Let me just---- Mr. Kirk. Can I just end and applaud you again for the tough call in Afghanistan. You made the right call in Afghanistan. And as a Senator from New York and now as our Secretary of State, failure was not an option in this state. I really applaud you, because it was a hard one. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Israel. Secretary Clinton. Let me just quickly add to the Congressman's point about the IMF. The EU and Germany as part of the EU will contribute to the IMF. I know that Chairman Obey had expressed some concern about what these countries that weren't doing stimulus would do vis-a-vis the IMF replenishment, and there is a commitment they will be part of the IMF replenishment. Mr. Kirk. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Israel. Opening Remarks of Mr. Israel Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, welcome, it is great to see you again. I have to apologize earlier, I had to step out to give a speech to a group of people who are interested in legislation that I proposed called Cash For Clunkers. And I explained to them that I couldn't stay very long because I had to rush back to the hearing where I said Senator Clinton was testifying. And someone in the audience said, no, she is Secretary Clinton. I said, I just can't let go. Secretary Clinton. Oh, Thank you. Mr. Israel. Madam Secretary, I am interested in having a conversation with you in the next several weeks about an idea that I have proposed called Solar Villages Initiative, and that is something I am anxious to engage you. Let me, in the next several minutes, focus on Afghanistan and the National Solidarity Program. Any history of Afghanistan proves that an attempt to impose order from top to bottom from external forces internally is doomed to failure. Alexander tried it, Genghis Khan tried it, the Brits tried it in the great game, the Soviets tried it, and now in many respects, I think we are trying it. There is one program that is homegrown, called the National Solidarity Program in Afghanistan that creates local solutions to local problems. It is managed by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, it is in 26,000 villages, 15\1/ 2\ million Afghans have benefited by it, it has helped 500,000 families, it has provided clean drinking water, built schools, led to the empowerment of women. In order to be eligible for an NSP project, you have to have a local governing council, and that local governing council must elect a woman as part of the women's empowerment initiative. And because it is entirely under local control and owned and operated by Afghans, the Taliban doesn't view it as an effective target. They would rather target ISAF projects than Afghan projects. The problem is that it appears that there is at least $140 million shortfall in NSP for this year. There are 20,000 village projects that, to coin a phrase, are shovel ready but can't get the funding. And it doesn't mention anything about the National Solidarity Program. So I am hoping that we can work together on a program that is one of the few examples of proven and demonstrable success, if not in the supplemental, then as we go forward. And I would appreciate your perspective on that. Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I agree with you completely. It is my information that in this supplemental, we are requesting 85 million in additional funding for the Afghan reconstruction trust fund, which, as you may know, is the vehicle through which we fund the National Solidarity Program. I think that we do agree with you that this has been very successful, it has gotten in to villages, it is actually producing results on the ground. And we don't fund it directly, because we don't want it to be seen as a tool of our policy because it is not, it is a policy of the Afghan government. So there is money going into the trust fund for replenishment of the solidarity plan. Is that right everybody behind me? Okay. Mr. Israel. Thank you. Secretary Clinton. That was so easy, Congressman, that was easy. Mrs. Lowey. And since your green light is still on, I just want to agree with you, in every meeting we have had, there is a focus on the National Solidarity Program and it is hard to even believe that it is in 26,000 villages, but I have heard continuous corroboration on that, and I really appreciate your bringing it up. Mr. Israel. And since my green light is still on. Mrs. Lowey. Oh. Mr. Israel. I would just take the opportunity, I am heartened about the 85 million. I will need to focus a little bit on that. The Afghan finance minister is due in and we are going to have a conversation about that soon. But still we need to keep in mind it is--at least $140 million shortfall this year, at least 140 million. If you ask some they say quite higher, and I am hopeful that that long-term deficiency can be addressed as we go forward. Mrs. Lowey. And since there is universal agreement we can work together---- Mr. Kirk. Yes. Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. With the Secretary to see if we can find some more funding for that very successful program. Mr. Kirk. Will the gentleman yield? Especially the shortfall where U.S. troops are deployed. I think we can come to the idea that fully funding NSP in U.S. AORs would have huge support from this subcommittee. Secretary Clinton. What we are doing in total is providing 145 million in fiscal year 2008, 2009 funds for the NSP. So I don't know if that takes into account the shortfall or not. We will find out---- Mr. Israel. We will figure it out. Secretary Clinton [continuing]. Specifically for you and get back to you Congressman. Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Crenshaw. Opening Remarks of Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for being here today. You know, if anybody is listening to what goes on here, I think they would come to the conclusion that your plate is pretty full. We have touched on just about every hot spot in the world and so we appreciate the job that you are doing and the difficulties that you face. Since we talk about so many different things I want to just bring up U.S./Russia relations, because I think they are lurking in the background, particularly in terms of the Middle East. I think a week or two ago I read where the Vice President said we ought to punch the reset button with Russia. And it probably isn't that easy. We still have some underlying differences, but I would guess that the reason he said that is because in the last couple of decades the U.S.-Russian relations are pretty well with the war in Georgia reached a new low ebb and maybe the only way to go is up in that sense. But with Russia all the growth that took place with oil revenues and then the difficulties we faced, it had new parameters and yet now things have changed again. So maybe to start with, what do you think about that in terms of, can you really punch or a reset button, their relationship with Iran, things like that? Where do you think we are in that sense? Secretary Clinton. That is a great question. We have had a series of quite constructive meetings. I have met with their Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and we teed up some decisions for our President's meeting in London. And the meeting between President Obama and President Medvedev were quite positive. I think there are areas where we can cooperate and rebuild a constructive relationship. We are going to engage in negotiations leading up to new start agreement by the end of this year because the current one expires. We are cooperating on North Korea, the North Korea as well as the Chinese supported a very strong statement, making clear that North Korea contravened the Security Council's resolution about their missile launch. We are also beginning to cooperate in the Arctic Council about the Arctic, which I think I will highlight for you. I think it going to be a big issue in the years to come as we have more and more navigable water and Russia is the dominant presence in the Arctic. We are really looking for many areas where we can narrow the disagreements we have without sacrificing our principles. We are continuing our work with Georgia and Ukraine on an accession plan to NATO. We continue to press the Russians not to support Iran, which we think poses a greater threat to them than it does to us personally. So there is lot that we are working on and we have actually put together a work plan, an organized approach to going through all of the these issues between us. Secretary Lavrov will be here in Washington in early May. Having said that, we have to do a better job of understanding how we can interact with the Russians so that they don't engage in aggressive and threatening behavior to their neighbors. Their domination of energy in Europe is extremely intimidating. And I have appointed a special envoy for European, EuroAsian energy, because we have to get more pipeline roots and we have to help support countries to figure out how they can get our sources of energy besides depending upon Russia. So there is a lot that we are looking at and I think your question is really important because while we are dealing with all these hot spots we have long-term challenges. We have just decided in NATO to restart the NATO Russia council, which I supported. I thought that was the right decision. But it is complicated. You look at a map, there is such a huge land mass. They border all of these difficult areas that we are dealing with and we want to see whether we can partner with them to try to manage and solve some problems. Mr. Crenshaw. I can't see the light, if it is not on I just want to ask you about the encounter with the Czech Republic and Poland, that is a source of tension, can you comment on where we are? Secretary Clinton. Well, the proposed missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic is designed to address a threat from Iran. It is not designed to overwhelm the Russian arsenal. Even after a new start agreement, you are going to have a lot of nuclear weapons left. It never was intended to deter the Soviet Union for the Russians, we obviously don't think that that is in the cards at all. But that is what we have been telling the Russians over and over again, this is about Iran. We think Iran is a threat to Europe and to you. We have also offered to the Russians to do research together on missile defense and to share information to try to provide an umbrella of security for Europe and Russia against a system that Iran might acquire, which is why we think it is important they don't supply Iran with a defense system to guard against incoming missiles. So we have made this clear. I think the historic sensitivity of the Russians to their own borders, their effort to have a sphere of influence which we totally reject makes it a hard case, but I think that they are going to understand what we are trying to say and we will see what comes of it. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much. Mr. Rothman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chandler is back. Opening Remarks of Mr. Chandler Mr. Chandler. Madam Chair, thank you. Madam Secretary, first of all thank you for all of your hard work throughout your long public career. I think you are going to make a terrific Secretary of State and I am awfully glad you are there. I have several things that I am interested in, most or a lot of things about Pakistan and the Middle East I know have already been asked, but I would like to get your ideas about the support--continued support for the ongoing counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan. You know, there are some observers who are concerned that this program to date has only managed to alienate Afghan villagers from their government and from our forces. They argue that perhaps counternarcotic programs should be put off until the war is won. I would like to hear your views on that. I would also be curious to hear what you think about what I am afraid is a developing very difficult situation in Sudan between the north and the south in particular. We hear an enormous amount about Darfur. Darfur is extremely important to everybody, but Darfur may actually, if you can believe it, be a minor problem in comparison to where Sudan may be headed in the future. I am concerned about the volatility of the whole region, the viability of Sudan as a state. Can it maintain itself as a complete entity or will it break up and can that be tolerated by states in the region, the volatility of that situation? And also if you have time your views on the future of NATO generally. Is NATO a viable organization and what can it appropriately be used for in the future. Thank you. Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Congressman. To your point on counternarcotics in Afghanistan, we are certainly continuing with our counternarcotics efforts, but we are intent upon increasing the funding and support for alternative development programs. I was surprised when I learned some years ago that Afghanistan was called the garden of central Asia. It was filled with fruit trees and orchards and I have seen pictures from 40, 50 years ago and it is just unrecognizable. Anybody who has flown over Afghanistan now and seen the erosion and the dust and the lack of arable land, it was a surprising contrast. There are so many ways that we could support agriculture in Afghanistan and we intend upon doing that. That is one of our highest priorities. At the same time we understand the threat that counternarcotics or narcotic trafficking poses. It is not the main source of funding for the Taliban and al Qaeda but it is a source of funding. So we are going to emphasize agricultural and we are going to emphasize trying to expand programs to bring back the trees and the soil. When I was a Senator from New York I had a program between Cornell and one of our State universities to provide seedlings to Afghanistan. It was done on a small scale. I could never get the prior administration to really focus on it. And of course it does pose a conflict, because if you are going to aerial spray poppies, you will also kill fruit trees so it is complicated. So I think creating this alternative agricultural approach and then creating markets I will just end with this on this point because it is fascinating to me, you know pomegranates have now been proven, pomegranate juice to lower cholesterol. Afghanistan used to be and still is one of the principal growers of the pomegranates. And I think there is a lot we can do here, we need to be smart about. I also agree with you about your caution concerning the north, south conflict in Sudan. We are very focused on Darfur for obvious humanitarian reasons and the continuing harassment by the Khartoum government and their militias, but we have got to keep our eye on the north, south. The comprehensive peace agreement that was reached, if that blows up again it brings in the other neighboring countries. So we have a special envoy for the Sudan, a retired two-star Air Force general and part of his mission is not just to focus on Darfur but to focus on the Sudanese challenge overall. Mr. Chandler. NATO. Secretary Clinton. I am over my time. I took a gentle hint when they turned the time---- Mr. Crenshaw. I think that was for me. Secretary Clinton [continuing]. Clock my way so I figured I was supposed to follow it. NATO obviously we have to focus on the future for NATO. We are in the midst of a strategic planning effort. I think NATO still has a very important purpose and I am a strong supporter of NATO but we have to rethink how we structure it, reform its management and its administrative functioning and figure out what its missions are going to be. Mr. Chandler. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Rehberg. Opening Remarks of Mr. Rehberg Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, I can't think of anybody more highly qualified for this position than you. And thank you for taking the job having been First Lady and a Senator and now a cabinet official. By the end of this 4 years, you might qualify to run for the House of Representatives. Secretary Clinton. John Quincy Adams did, remember. Mr. Rehberg. Just in a different district. Do take on Nita, we like her as well. I have a parochial issue, I will not waste time, I will like for the record if I could get unanimous consent to ask to submit some questions specifically about the directorate of defense trade controls and it is a defense issue where exporters of defense items are being charged a fee because they wanted to be 75 percent self funded and you have kind of wrapped up some of my small gun barrel exporters in Montana, it doesn't make any sense to have them up against defense contractors when it comes to a fee. So I have some specific questions that I am not getting answers from the State Department, and I would like to submit those for the record if I might please. Mrs. Lowey. I would be happy to enter it into the record. Mr. Rehberg. And then if I could ask two questions specifically. I want to get back to our role as appropriators and that is the Merida Initiative and the 400--and I believe it is 65 million that we appropriated in July 2008. Some of it is very slow in getting out, we had Assistant Secretary Johnson in talking about the various dates, but unfortunately some of those dates are being missed. I would like you to specifically speak about that. And it plays into Montana surprisingly because we have a huge meth problem. And Mr. Sebol out there has a Montana meth project sweeping the country. He is helping to finance a public private partnership, but a lot of that is coming from Mexico and other places. I would like you to speak to the additional money you are requesting in relation to how it is not going out as timely as it could. And my final question is the Millennium Challenge. I happen to be a large supporter. I didn't see anything specifically in your testimony about the Millennium Challenge. You do talk about 448 million for assistance to developing countries is that Millennium which wouldn't go very far based upon the financial obligations? I just want to hear from you a little bit about your philosophy and the direction you kind of intend to take under the Obama administration as far as Millennium, and not doing what we did in Somalia walking away, Pakistan and some of the other countries, because it plays right into it, promises made and then promises not kept. Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Congressman. And I do understand your concern about the DDTC program, and we described the current policy in a letter that we sent back to you on April 17, but I will also look into this and have our staff follow up with you. Obviously the goal is not to put anybody, any small business out of business, I mean that is not the goal here. It is to try to deal with the cost of running this program, which is obviously a facilitating program for American business. On the Merida Initiative, I share your frustration in how slow it has been getting the money out. Now, some of that reason I am sure David Johnson talked to you about this is we have to be sure we have in place the safeguard so the money goes where we intend it to go. But that doesn't explain it, it is just too slow. When I was in Mexico, that is what I heard from both the President and the foreign Secretary saying, look, you say this is urgent and a big deal, but we are not getting the help we need even after the money gets appropriated. And I would like to work with this committee, and in general, Chairman Obey, the entire Appropriations Committee, but obviously I have a parochial interest here in my appropriating partners here. We have to figure out why this takes so long. Now if we don't want to do it let's just say we don't want to do it, but if it is wending its way through the bureaucracy and it needs 900 sign-offs before a dollar is spent, we are just wasting time and losing ground. And because we aren't as agile as we need to be in a lot of these circumstances, I am seeing other countries, primarily China fill that gap. An article today about Jamaica right here in our own hemisphere facing a financial shortfall because of the G-20, it goes to Congresswoman Granger's question, came to the United States, we said well, we don't have the money and we are not prepared to be able to help you. They want to China and they just signed a memorandum of understanding with China giving them what would be not very much money, I don't remember exactly, maybe 150 million or something. And now they have a government to government relationship with China. So Mexico needs our help, we should deliver the help. In the supplemental we are providing funding for 3 Black Hawk helicopters for their public security secretariat to provide them urgently needed air transport. I went down and visited their new police academy, they are trying hard to end the corruption, build morale. They told me they asked for the helicopters because they had budgeted to use the money on some other thing they needed in the fight against the drug cartels, and just haven't gotten it and it has taken years. So let's try to get to the bottom of this, because you all do your work and you get it appropriated. I go around talking about what we need to do, and it is kind of hollow. And we are losing ground and we are seeing particularly China come in right behind us because countries get tired of talking to our bureaucracy and decide they are going to cut deals with somebody else. Millennium Challenge grants are a very important part of our foreign policy. It is a new approach and it is an approach that we think deserves support. We have to make sure that just like anything else, it is part of our overall review of foreign aid, how it is working and how it can be better. But I think it has had a positive effect in a number of settings where it has encouraged people to make changes that we wanted them to make. So we are going to be looking closely at how to make it even better. Mrs. Lowey. Before I turn to Mr. Rothman, I just want to thank you for your comments. This committee was in Mexico not too long ago. And we were so impressed with the President and the urgency of our assistance was repeated everywhere and yet it is just so slow. So we look forward to working with you and addressing that issue. Thank you. Mr. Rothman. Opening Remarks of Mr. Rothman Mr. Rothman. Thank you Madam Chair and Madam Secretary. It is a great delight and honor to have you before us and to reiterate what my colleagues have said, what a great privilege and moment in U.S. American history to have such a qualified, intelligent, experienced person such as yourself with such an extraordinary grasp of these issues as our Secretary of State and we are delighted you took the job. We are very proud to have you in that position. We just came back from a trip to the Middle East with our chairwoman Mrs. Lowey and our ranking member, Ms. Granger, and I think it is fair to say as you indicated in your remarks that there appears to be a window of opportunity now for an agreement, a peace agreement between Israel and her neighbors that perhaps did not exist in the last several years. That opportunity is present and we want to make the most of it. The worst actors in the region all have one thing in common, they are connected with Iran, their Iranian proxies, whether it be Hezbollah or Hamas. And while we would very much enjoy a new relationship or a new beginning with the Iranian people given their present regime and its offensive policies and disruptive activity in the region, that is not going to happen soon. Here is my question: How do we balance the need to begin the engagement in terms of negotiations and discussions with Iran that I think are an important departure from the past and necessary to see if there is a chance to peacefully resolve our issues of conflict with Iran? How do we balance that need to want to talk with the need for greater sanctions? What is the order of priority? Do we proceed with sanctions before we proceed with the discussions? How are you going to handle or juggle that, number 1. I have to get any questions in quickly. The other is with regards to the funds that you requested for Gaza. I know of your commitment that none of this money according to U.S. law it cannot, but that your commitment that none of the money will go to Hamas, or any of the terrorist groups, what kind of new mechanisms do you plan to--do you and your magnificent staff intend to put into place to make certain that no Hamas member gets any of that humanitarian aid that we want to provide to the people of Gaza. And finally, Egypt, the border between Egypt and Gaza, we had a wonderful meeting with the authorities in Egypt and I believe not only Egypt, but most of the Arab world in the gulf, Jordan, Egypt and other places or the Saudis are committed to a new day with regards to living together in peace with Israel, resolving the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The number one sticking point, Iran. They are making trouble, they are destabilizing the region, and their efforts to take over the region are very, very serious. So how are you going to balance the discussions and sanctions, make sure Hamas doesn't get any piece of that humanitarian aid that we are giving in Gaza and how are we doing for helping the Egyptians secure that border with Gaza to prevent the rearming of Hamas with long range rockets? Secretary Clinton. Well, these are such important questions Congressman. We have sanctions and we continue those sanctions on Iran. We don't yet have any real engagement so we don't know how to gauge the seriousness of any effort the Iranians may agree to be a part of. The sanctions are a tool both for us to leverage pressure on the Iranian regime to change behaviors that we obviously consider serious threats. And so we are talking with our partners about additional sanctions as part of incentives, disincentives kind of approach to Iran. It is a delicate balancing act. It is hard to predict because so much of it depends in any negotiation whether you are getting something or not. You know one of the proposals that has been put forth by a number of people is the so-called freeze for freeze. We would freeze our sanctions and they would freeze their nuclear---- Mr. Rothman. They have been known, the Iranians, to slow walk the negotiations. They did that with the EU, how do we prevent---- Secretary Clinton. We know that, we know that. Right now we are testing their willingness to have any kind of engagement, there is no engagement. So we have to plan all of this, think it through. Ambassador Dennis Ross, who is handling our southwest Asia policy including Iran is, I am sure you know him, he is extremely thoughtful and smart about how to sequence this. So there is no easy answer to your question right now. We know what our objectives are and we know that if we are not successful in moving toward those objectives that we have to impose even tougher sanctions, so it is a back-and-forth kind of assessment. I would reiterate what we intend to do about any aid that went to the Palestinian authority assuming that it complied with the quartet principles. By saying that we intend to hold any entity that receives American aid to a very high standard we have made it clear to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency that we intend to carefully track any aid that they receive. They have taken additional steps, partly at our urging to make their process more transparent, consistent with both United Nations commitments and U.S. legislation. They conduct background checks on employees, they share staff lists with us and with Israel. They prohibit staff participation in political activities. They launch investigations upon receiving information from Israel, us or anyone else about any staff member engaging in inappropriate or illicit activities. They are actually investigating staff members right now who were elected in internal elections within Gaza. And we have pressed them very hard because they have to earn our confidence in this. We are also vetting any NGOs. We have been very clear that any group that is a vehicle for us to give money for humanitarian relief in Gaza will be held to the same standards. We have a set of requirements on the Palestinian authority that they have to pay certain bills like utility companies and others because we want the cash transfers to be trackable. So we are putting in place a lot of safeguards. In addition, and finally on Egypt, Egypt has been very cooperative and helpful. They are doing more on the tunnels. I think that the plot that they uncovered involved Hezbollah was a real wake up call in some ways. And they understand the increasing alliance between Hezbollah and Hamas and their connection to groups within Egypt that are aiming to destabilize the government. So I am seeing a greater level of understanding and cooperation Congressman. Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Lee. Opening Remarks of Ms. Lee Ms. Lee. Thank you. Madam Secretary, first let me just say you truly have the weight of world on your shoulders, but it is not weighing you down one bit. You are doing a wonderful job. And I am convinced, I really believe the world is going to be a safer place because of your leadership so thank you very much. Regarding the supplemental, I have quite naturally a serious concern that the military request is 75 billion and the diplomacy and diplomatic and development request is about 7 billion. And many believe that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, but the supplemental in terms of its balance certainly doesn't reflect that reality. I was concerned when Congress authorized the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001 that we were given a blank check that provided for an open- ended military presence and the use of force in Afghanistan. And I couldn't support that and I still see this happening. I am not sure where this all ends. Having said that, let me ask you a couple questions, just first with regard to the status of forces agreement. I know when you were in the Senate and Senator Obama was in the Senate, you offered status of forces agreement. I have a bill here very similar. What is the status of this now, now that the Administration is looking at this, I believe under the previous status of forces agreement, does that still hold? Secretary Clinton. Are you referencing Iraq or Afghanistan? Ms. Lee. Iraq. Secretary Clinton. Iraq? Ms. Lee. Iraq. And then do you intend to look at one as it relates to Afghanistan, or have you really thought about that? Secretary Clinton. Congresswoman, the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq has been agreed to by the Obama Administration. There is a definite deadline, as you know, for the removal of combat troops. That is under way. There is not a comparable agreement vis-a-vis Afghanistan. Ms. Lee. And you are not contemplating one? Secretary Clinton. That has not been part of any discussion. Ms. Lee. Okay. With regard to the global HIV/AIDS efforts, the Global Fund, as you know, and some of the numbers are really significant in terms of the results: We put over 2 million people on AIDS treatment; 5 million have been treated for TB; and 70 million bed nets distributed to prevent malaria. And I believe this year the anticipated contribution is about $900 million. But I think it would have to be significantly increased if we expect to fully fund the anticipated grants and really meet the dramatic increase in anticipated demand. So I am not sure about the level of commitment that we can--or requests from the administration on this, and should it be or will you see a dramatic need to increase it for 2010? Finally, let me just mention this issue that, Congresswoman Lowey, I believe we were in Morocco, Ghana, Liberia, Kenya, and Uganda last year. During this trip, we went from location to location, and I pointed out then, and I am still concerned about this, the lack of minority personnel and minority contractors providing contractual work, services as it relates to USAID. And so I am still looking for some answers. Again, this goes back prior to this administration as to the policies with regard to the utilization of minority- and women-owned businesses. In my prior life, I actually was a business person, and I tried over and over and over again, probably for 11 years, to do business with the State Department, never could break through USAID as an AID contractor. So I am wondering, have you had a chance to look at that and diversity in the workforce and all of the issues around diversity? And again, thank you so much for your leadership. Secretary Clinton. Well, you are welcome. Let me just say on PEPFAR and the Global AIDS, Malaria, and TB Fund, our budget will come up, and I look forward to discussing the reasons behind our request. We believe that what we are asking for will be adequate given what is in the pipeline. And it kind of goes back to this problem of getting the money out and getting it where it needs. I mean, we just have to streamline this. We are really not doing ourselves or our taxpayers a service when we spend all this time, you know, working on our proposals to you, and then you spend so much time reviewing them and coming up with what the congressional response is, and then it just sits there. So we have got to kind of get on top of this. I take our commitment to diversity very, very seriously. And I will continue to emphasize the importance of us reflecting the country that we proudly represent. We have made some progress over the last several years. There is a wonderful program that is named for my friend Charlie Rangel that places young people in internships in the State Department. But, you know, we still have work to do. The whole contracting issue about USAID is one that we have got to explore together. I mean, it is estimated that $0.50 on the dollar never gets even into the program because it goes into contracting-related costs. And some have said, and I repeated it at my confirmation hearing, USAID has been turned into a contracting agency. So I would like to bring more of the services and the expertise inside USAID. But in any event, I will certainly assure you of my and the Department's, and of USAID's commitment to diversity in hiring and contracting find the very best people we can. Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Madam Secretary, as you can see, there is strong bipartisan support for your leadership. You have a huge plate. There are enormous challenges. But I know this committee is honored and privileged to have the opportunity to work with you to address these challenges. Ms. Lee mentioned HIV/AIDS. If Earl Blumenauer were here, he would be talking about water. If someone else were here, they would be talking about micro enterprise. So we know the tremendous challenges, and we know that you are addressing them. I just want to close with one issue which I addressed in my opening statement, and that is the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund. I will be having conversations with our distinguished Committee Chairman, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Murtha. I think this decision to place those funds within the Department of Defense is a tremendous error. I think it undermines your authority. You are the person who has the authority to carry out our foreign policy agenda. And I do not say this lightly. We have been talking about this as soon as it was brought to our attention. So I urge you, because of the position you have as Secretary of State, to continue to work with us to make it clear that it is you and the Department of State that has the authority to set policy. And we will be keeping in touch on this issue. And I look forward to a positive resolution. So let me again say thank you. I am glad that we have been able to close in a timely manner, because there is a commemoration of the Holocaust which is beginning as we speak. And again, I look forward to working closely with you. Thank you very much. Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. This concludes today's hearing on the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations request. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands adjourned. I just did not say, Madam Secretary, if members have additional questions, including myself, they will submit them for the record. Thank you so much. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.023 Wednesday, May 20, 2009. U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITNESS ALONZO L. FULGHAM, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and Related Programs will come to order. Today we are delighted to welcome Alonzo Fulgham as at the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Thank you for joining us today. While we really do appreciate your efforts to move the agency forward during this transition, we are anxiously awaiting, as I am sure you are, the appointment of a USAID administrator who can work closely with the Secretary of State and articulate the importance of long-term development within the administration. As I noted last week, the President's fiscal year 2010 budget calls for a dramatic increase in USAID operating expenses and provides for a significant boost in humanitarian and development assistance. It totals $1.438 billion for operating expenses, a $384 million increase over the fiscal year 2009 level, including the funding requested in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental. This request would support an additional 350 foreign service officers to keep us on track to double the USAID foreign service workforce by 2012. In addition, it includes $245 million for additional spaces in embassies and missions around the world to accommodate increased personnel. I hope that you can provide insight into how USAID is ensuring that the new hires have technical skills that reflect the program priorities, including climate change, agriculture, gender sensitivity and basic education, what training programs are being put in place to ensure that the new foreign service officers are oriented toward local engagement with nongovernmental organizations and developing country governments with a focus on building local capacity and providing smaller grants with more targeted goals and outcomes. Finally, how is USAID coordinating its projected growth with the State Department, and do you have a joint operations plan that takes into account security, space needs of the new employees requested in both the USAID and state budgets. Among significant increases in critical development areas, I was pleased that $1 billion was requested for basic education. that is pretty amazing. As you know, providing an education opens doors for young men and women and benefits the individual, their community and the world. I look forward to working with the administration to ensure that U.S. government resources support quality education and that USAID supported schools serve as an anchor of stability and support in communities. Just last month I spoke with Queen Ranya of Jordan about the need to establish a new, multilateral global fund for education. During development of the 2010 budget request, did the administration consider the merits of such a fund? Can you provide me insight into those discussions? The $1.2 billion request for climate change initiatives includes $579 million for adaptations and clean energy programs, a $309 million increase over the fiscal year 2009 level. Mr. Israel's ears perked up with that. Clearly, the administration has structured its request to address the climate change crisis the world is facing, but USAID does not currently have extensive expertise in this area and the current staffing plan calls for only 21 new officers in the field. How, then, does USAID intend to provide proper oversight management of this new initiative? How will USAID programs be coordinated with efforts made through multilateral funds and with the State Department? Who is taking the lead on the post-Kyoto negotiations? As you know, I believe that successful programs have maximum impact when efforts are well-coordinated. The budget includes $1.3 billion for food security and agriculture. How will USAID coordinate with other efforts funded by private foundations, such as the Alliance for a Green Revolution and a multilateral organization such as the International Fund for Agriculture and the World Food Program? How will USAID programs build upon the agriculture investments made by the Millennium Challenge Corporation? I am also concerned that gender considerations must be factored into all aspects of development assistance, especially agriculture programs where women often make up a majority of laborers but receive little outside technical assistance. What steps are you taking to ensure that gender is taken into consideration during every phase of USAID's assistance programs? I noted last week my concern that health funding is not keeping pace with need. While I understand the President has announced his intention to provide $63 billion over six years, I am disappointed in the nominal increase for core maternal and child health, as well as family planning. I am looking forward to our discussion today and to working with you. Before we move to your testimony, let me turn to Ms. Granger, the Ranking Member, for her opening statement. Opening Statement of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am glad to join you as we continue the hearings on the administration's fiscal year 2010 budget request. I am pleased that Mr. Alonzo Fulgham is here and understand just recently that you had a common career interest in my hometown of Ft. Worth, Texas, and was glad to meet and talk to you about that. The administration's request for the state and foreign operations bill totals $52 billion, as you said, a large increase, 42 percent increase, over the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriations excluding emergency appropriation. Such a large increase in foreign assistance comes at a time when USAID is still working to hire the staff it needs to manage its existing workload. This Subcommittee appropriated the resources USAID is using toward this hiring effort begun by the previous administration. I look forward to an update on the progress made thus far to hire, to train and to deploy these new officers overseas. The administration's budget has been called a smart power budget. I have long supported the concept of smart power as a national security strategy, and I understand that USAID will play a key role. Thank you for being here with us today. I look forward to your testimony. Mrs. Lowey. Acting Administrator Fulgham, please proceed. Your entire statement will be placed in the record. Opening Remarks of Mr. Fulgham Mr. Fulgham. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Granger, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee today in support of the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Foreign Operations Budget Request and to discuss the important role the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will play in advancing our nation's foreign assistance priorities. I would like to begin my testimony by thanking you for the help and support you have given USAID during the past few years. Your support has been critical to our Agency's efforts to begin to rebuild and regain development leadership in the global arena. I am a career public servant, and a senior foreign service officer with over 20 years of experience serving my country at home and abroad. I am honored and humbled to testify in support of the President's fiscal year 2010 foreign operations budget request. I look forward to discussing the important role the United States Agency for International Development will play in undertaking critical missions and sustainable development programs in support of our nation's foreign policy and national security interests. As the acting Administrator, I proudly represent more than 7,000 USAID employees who serve the Agency with honor, often under very trying circumstances, throughout the developing world. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize Secretary Clinton and her leadership team for their engagement with and dedication to development issues and USAID. Since her second day on the job, when she came to USAID headquarters to address our staff, Secretary Clinton had made clear her commitment to see development properly established as the third pillar of U.S. foreign policy alongside diplomacy and defense, a commitment that is reflected in the budget request before you. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for USAID-managed accounts equals $36.7 billion, including food aid. This funding will put the U.S. government on the path to double U.S. foreign assistance by 2015 and to double the number of USAID foreign service officers over the next several years. Thanks to the critical support that we have received from the Congress, and from your Subcommittee in particular, USAID has already begun the process of rebuilding and regaining development leadership in the global arena. With fiscal year 2009 resources, USAID will add an additional 300 foreign service officers to its total workforce under the Development Leadership Initiative. In addition, the President's fiscal year 2010 request also includes funding for 350 new foreign service officers. As members of this committee well understand, diversity is central to the strength of any organization and is a high priority for USAID. I am proud to report that minorities represent 32 percent of the first five classes of our DLI. Madam Chair, let me assure you that you will begin to see positive change at USAID. We will improve our business processes--performing more functions in-house and using contracted technical services more appropriately. Overseas, USAID officers will spend more time with their projects in schools, and health clinics and small businesses in poor communities. A centerpiece of the fiscal year 2010 budget request is a significant increase in funding for civilian assistance programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. USAID is staffing up to serve these critical missions and participating fully in the whole of government approach to achieving positive results. It is USAID's work to address the many complex threats confronting the world we live in: global poverty, food insecurity, pandemic disease, climate change, post-conflict instability and both man-made and natural disasters. As such, USAID will take the lead in implementing a number of Presidential priorities. First, basic education. The President's request, a 60 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 request, will ensure that the United States remains in the forefront of programs for all girls and boys in developing countries to increase access to basic education. Next, global health. The fiscal year 2010 request is $7.6 billion, part of a total effort of $63 billion over six years, to undertake a new integrated approach to global health. The President's Global Health Initiative will build upon ongoing success in reducing deaths from HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. It will increase investment in safe motherhood and reduce infant mortality. The initiative will target for elimination certain tropical diseases afflicting millions and support improved healthcare services delivery. Moving to food security, President Obama announced at the recent G-20 summit his intention to request a doubling of U.S. funding for agriculture development in developing countries. USAID will support poverty reduction by boosting poor farmers' access to seed, fertilizer, credit, linking small producers to markets, strengthening farmers' cooperatives, working with U.S. land grant universities and encouraging private investment in agribusiness. Another key priority will be climate change. The fiscal year 2010 budget requests $581 million for this critical issue. USAID programs will help those developing countries most vulnerable to the impact of climate change become more adaptive and resilient. Finally, I would like to mention the Rapid Response Fund, a $76 million initiative that will provide our government with the flexibility to respond quickly to unforeseen opportunities and to help shore up fragile democracies. This fund will enhance our ability to respond to unbudgeted but critical windows of opportunity and demonstrate meaningful peace dividends to local populations. Madam Chair, with that I will conclude. Again, I thank you for your support to USAID and for this opportunity to brief the committee. I welcome your questions. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.032 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, and thank you again for your leadership. We will proceed with questions, five minutes each of us, and we will go side to side depending upon the order in which we can do it in. USAID STAFFING In a recent hearing, Secretary Clinton lamented that lack of USAID capacity and adequate staffing has turned USAID into a ``manufactured agency''. Her statement reflects the concerns that we have heard from nongovernmental organizations that USAID is moving away from indirect grants to large directed grants due to the lack of adequate staff to be innovative and creative in programming. In the past few years, as you know, the committee has worked with USAID to increase staffing, and as of today, Congress has provided funding to support the hiring of an additional 420 officers, and the fiscal year 2010 request will bring it to a total of 770 new foreign service officers. These young officers will all be sent to the field where they will be able to address some of the concerns raised by Secretary Clinton and the NGO community. A couple of questions following-up. What has USAID done to ensure that the expertise of the new officers reflects the priorities of the administration as outlined in the fiscal year 2010 budget? Where will these new employees be assigned? I understand that USAID has worked with the State Department to develop a construction and rehabilitation plan to ensure that these new employees have office space. Are you satisfied with the outcome of these discussions? Will these facilities be completed prior to the deployment of the new officers? Lastly, if additional staff is onboard in the field, how do you envision this impacting the operating model for USAID programs? Do you expect that USAID will begin to award smaller grants to local nongovernment organizations? Mr. Fulgham. Madam Chair, thank you. I think that through your leadership and this committee's leadership USAID has clearly recognized that the situation that we are in did not just happen overnight. It has been an erosion of our abilities over the last 15 years. Thanks to the generous support of this committee we have started to rebuild this agency. The key for us right now is people. We need to get back to basics. Working side by side with communities, as I stated in my opening statement, providing assistance at the grass roots level and identifying ways to find more contracting opportunities that allow for smaller contracts or grants. What we are doing as an agency is hiring about 170 new project development officers, and 111 contracting officers. We have a significant number of compliance and development officers who will be able to manage these smaller grants and also implement those grants. That is going to be the key. We have got to get the workforce up to a level where we can get away from these large omnibus contracts. Those contracts were put in place because of a necessity, lack of management talent, so you had to bundle them. So now we are in the process of changing a lot of those processes and creating opportunities at the smaller level. The key to being able to do smaller contracts is getting more officers in the field, such as compliance officers, contracting officers and lawyers. With respect to space overseas, we have been working very closely with the Department of State. Last week Deputy Secretary Lew issued an ALDAC, which is a cable worldwide to all U.S. missions, asking them to prepare for major staffing increases, and the doubling of USAID over the next three years. There is a task force that has been put together with USAID and State Department colleagues who are working through these issues to ensure that there are enough desks and training opportunities once these new officers arrive in the field. Mrs. Lowey. Yellow light. Okay. I will ask just one other quick question that I have been concerned about. I am puzzled by the presence of two separate requests for flexible funding, $76 million for a rapid response fund through the USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives, and $40 million for a Stabilization Bridge Fund to support the deployment of civilian stabilization initiative staff. These mandates seem very similar. I am not sure why they are both needed. How are they distinct from the existing OTI mandate that has been successful? Mr. Fulgham. Our staffs have been working very closely to try and refine this process, but I think it is very clear, and you have been a strong voice in the argument that we need to get the military out of doing these quick or CERP type projects. This fund will allow for us on the ground when we are in crisis to be able to address issues in the short-term until we can request funding for these programs in the regular budget process. The OTI fund is a much smaller fund similar to what we used in Serbia, particularly in southern Serbia, to address conflict and instability in local communities. We had small grants that were put into those communities to try to bridge differences and bring those communities back together. What we are looking at with this Rapid Response Fund is a much larger capacity to be able to address critical needs on the democracy side, on the health side and on the economic growth side. Mrs. Lowey. To be continued. Mr. Fulgham. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you. I am going to continue because on the rapid response fund I do not see a clear purpose or plan, so I want to go back to that and ask you very specifically why cannot the administration not used its existing programming authorities to meet these emerging needs? What criteria will be used to determine which countries qualify for the rapid response assistance? Give me a country or regional example of where such a fund would be needed. Mr. Fulgham. A case in point would be, let us say, Kenya. We are already in the 2009 budget cycle. Things spiral out of control, and a new government comes into place. Our current programs might not address some of the issues that the new government may need to put into place. Maybe they are having a significant amount of problems on the health side or economic growth side. How could we immediately put in place programs until the regular budget cycle could catch up in order to fund those programs? It is an emergency bridge to help countries that are in need. It is flexible. I know that that term ``flexible'' makes folks a little nervous, but in the world that we live in and the fact that we are trying to create space and help governments who are trying to move forward, we have to have the flexibility and the money available to help these countries in need on an emergency basis. The key here is that it is on an emergency basis and with the advice and consent of Congress. This fund will not be used every year. It is a set aside in case of emergencies. You have seen over the last few months the number of emergencies that we have been dealing with. Having access to a fund like this will allow us to have bridge funding until the regular budget appropriations can catch up. It also will help alleviate the need for additional supplementals. Ms. Granger. All right. I am going to come back to that in a few minutes but the other thing I want to ask you about, the Congress appropriated $245 million to support microenterprise and microfinance efforts. The administration's requesting $167 million for 2010. That is a $77 million decrease. In my experience, those funds have been very successful financing successful businesses and developing economies. Just like we have to educate people, we also have to give them a chance in those countries. You highlighted microfinance in your testimony but could you explain why the administration cut funds for the microenterprise by $77 million from its fiscal year 2009 level? Mr. Fulgham. In FY 2009, the previous Administration requested $103 million in funding for microenterprise. The FY 2010 request of $167 million represents a substantial increase over the previous request and reflects missions' estimates of the programming needs in the field. Some of our most successful programs have now spun off into banks. What we are trying to do is refine, improve the product and change some of the implementation mechanisms in some of the countries that we are working in, and at this point, we felt as though the pipeline that we had for 2010 was adequate to get us through that cycle. It may spike again in 2011 and go back up again, but the administration felt at this point in time that we have sufficient funding. Ms. Granger. Okay. Can you get me more information and keep me involved in that? Mr. Fulgham. I would love to brief you again. Ms. Granger. I am going to go back to what we were talking about before with the rapid response fund. I have many of the same questions about the Civilian Stabilization Initiative. It has been billed as the civilian counterpart to military response, as you were talking about, but the details are pretty sketchy. Is there an adequate consultation between state and USAID on the development of CSI? When will the committee receive a joint spending plan that is required for the fiscal year 2009 fund? What part of the fiscal year 2010 request will USAID implement? Can you give us some more details on that? Mr. Fulgham. Yes. As you know, we have been trying to put together a civilian response corps for the U.S. government to respond to reconstruction and stabilization crises over the last four years. There has been significant consultation under CSI. The State Department, and I cannot speak for their portion completely, is set up as a unit that is the belly button for the civilian government so that the Defense Department will have someone to relate to when there is a crisis related to reconstruction and stabilization. They are responsible for coordinating the rest of the interagency. The fund that they have set up is basically used for deployment only when they deploy their forces, whereas with ours, it is set up specifically for operational purposes. So I see the State Department as the policy and coordination unit and then USAID as the implementation arm of our civilian response corps. As for the joint spend plan, thank you, it is currently with OMB and they are going through the numbers right now. We hope to have that in the next week or so. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Lee. Opening Statement of Ms. Lee Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, and good morning. Let me ask you just a couple of things. You talked a little bit about the debundling of the larger contracts. I asked this question and the former administrator, Fore was it? Fore? Mr. Fulgham. Henrietta Fore. Ms. Lee. Fore. I asked about this issue when it came to minority contracting and minority hiring and one of the responses that I received was that due to the particular nature of USAID's operation in developing countries, most small firms did not have specialized and technical experience to compete for USAID grants or contracts. That was the response, you know, as a result of my inquiry. What I wanted to find out is do you all have goals and targets for minority and women-owned businesses? If you do, what are they? How does this debungling now of contracts fit into--I understand the small business piece, but in addition, you know, we have the AID eight program and all of the other minority business requirements. Mr. Fulgham. Ms. Lee, very good question. I have to admit, in the past our numbers have been woeful. Last year, after Ms. Fore had her meeting with you, we hired a true professional who really understands small business and minority businesses and what effect they could have on our business. In one year we went from 2.6 percent up to 4.8 percent. The goal for SBA is five percent, so we missed it last year by .2 percentage points. Ms. Lee. Is this for minority, small, or what? Mr. Fulgham. Yes. That is minority, small, disadvantaged businesses. Ms. Lee. Total. Mr. Fulgham. Total. The goal is five percent. So we came pretty close to meeting that. I am not proud of that. I think we could do much better. One of the things that we are doing now is providing more workshops on a quarterly basis for new contractors to come in and get a better understanding of how USAID works and how you get a contract with USAID. I think also one of the keys that we have been able to do is to start identifying any contract over $100,000 that is here in the Washington area that can actually go to a small business and get away from these larger contract contingencies. Ms. Lee. But you know what, there is a difference, though, between small businesses and then small and economically disadvantaged businesses. Mr. Fulgham. That is correct. Yes. Ms. Lee. And so the 4.8 percent, is that small, minority, women-owned? Mr. Fulgham. That is small and minority-owned disadvantaged businesses. Ms. Lee. Okay. Mr. Fulgham. That is the SBA definition. Ms. Lee. Okay. Mr. Fulgham. So, as I said, we have moved significantly further, we have got more work to do, but it is something that has gone on for a long period of time and we are slowly but surely making progress. I think that your senior staffer met with Mauricio Verra who has really moved the agency forward in this regard. To get back to my point, we are now putting rules and regulations in place that provide a level playing field, and that is the key, to provide a level playing field that will allow for small and disadvantaged businesses to compete adequately at the levels that they can compete at. I am very proud of what we have been able to do over the last year in that regard. Ms. Lee. Are you providing any technical expertise or any type of support for companies to really get into this? Mr. Fulgham. Yes, ma'am. There is a maintenance program that we have set up. In fact, we would like to invite you. I am going to publicly embarrass you a little bit and ask you to come on August 6 for a monthly vendor outreach session to give a keynote address for our small and disadvantaged partnering program that we are putting together. There are a lot of things being put in place right now that are going to allow us to do a better job. Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I think it is really important because remember when we were in Ghana on a CODEL and we saw many U.S. companies, part of the Millennium Challenge Account compact efforts, other USAID project personnel, and many Americans there, but we saw very few minority companies and minority Americans. Mr. Fulgham. One of the numbers I am really proud of is that of our task orders, which is our request for business opportunities. Out of $95 million in task orders awarded by USAID's Chief Information Office, 93 percent, or $88 million, went to small businesses. Ms. Lee. Good. Mr. Fulgham. We are also doing very well on the global health side. Anything over $100,000, we are trying to find opportunities for minorities and small and disadvantaged businesses. Ms. Lee. Okay, and if it is appropriate, if you could give us a list of the minority-owned companies that you do business with, I would like to see that list, and the type of contracts that they are doing. Mr. Fulgham. We would be pleased to do so. Ms. Lee. Okay. And then the other piece that I am hearing, rumor, is this the reorganization of the EEO office. What is going on? Mr. Fulgham. I want to be very clear on this. We are an agency that is growing by 100 percent over the next three years. We have the same infrastructure in place that we had 30, 40 years ago. To me, from a logical perspective, anything we can do to provide better support to our employees, we should be doing. By expanding and creating an Office of Civil Rights similar to what the State Department has, we are not decreasing our ability to help our employees, we are increasing our ability to help them. So the change has come about because we recognize that we have this tremendous growth spurt and we have got to be able to better support our employees. Right now we have a diversity council, we have an EOP office. They are all spread out in different places. I decided to bring them all together and create an Office of Civil Rights. It is similar to the State Department. We are trying to do more for our employees versus less. Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Good to meet you. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I think you raised this point and we had some in-depth discussions about it, and when you are talking about contracting, you are not just talking about contracting here, you are talking about abroad. Ms. Lee. Abroad. Mrs. Lowey. Because that is where it was very evident. Ms. Lee. Right. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome. Mr. Fulgham. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rehberg. For local and regional food purchase purposes, is there a difference between rapid response and emergency when it comes to your either pilot project or your $300 million request for emergency assistance? Mr. Fulgham. Sir, the rapid response program is a program that has been put together after the last couple of years. We have been dealing with so many different emergencies. We recognize there are two things that have to happen when you have an emergency. You have got to respond quickly, and you have to look at the cost. Purchasing goods reasonably provides for the rapid deployment of the food to the people who are most desperately in need. Mr. Rehberg. So are you suggesting there is no difference between your definition of an emergency and the rapid response? Mr. Fulgham. No, there is a difference. Mr. Rehberg. There is a difference. Mr. Fulgham. There is a difference. Mr. Rehberg. In looking at the list of where regional and local purchases have occurred I see countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tajikistan, Kyrzykstan, Nepal and Pakistan. How many of those countries have had more than one year of emergency food purchases at the local or the regional level? Mr. Rehberg. Would you, please. Mr. Fulgham. Over the past five years, none of the emergency USAID local and regional procurements, food vouchers or cash transfers for food has extended for a period of more than one year. Mr. Rehberg. My point is I am looking at the justification of your budget and your budget increases and I am starting to see a trend of moving away from the definition of emergency or rapid response. For all intents and purposes, to one of a decision to purchase locally in an attempt to perhaps, from my perspective, I have to justify to my taxpayers why we are taking money out of a farmer's pocket in Montana paying taxes to send over to USAID to purchase food products from somebody other than America and it is not a buy America. I have to have a justification. I can understand the flexibility, and I can understand an emergency, but if we start seeing a developing trend towards purchasing overseas, then we are going to put the red flag up. It is not just local agricultural producers; the unions are particularly upset from the maritime industries because all of a sudden they are not seeing their ships going overseas delivering the food in the areas, and so we are starting to get nervous about a trend developing. Mr. Fulgham. Congressman, as a loyal American, the last thing I want to do is put our farmers out of business. I think when you look at this program, it really is for rapid response in regards to real emergencies where people could potentially die if we use the standard approach in responding to their crisis. When you look at the amount that we are requesting, I believe it is $300 million; it is a comparatively small amount. Mr. Rehberg. Well, it is quite an increase over the past budget bill and so it throws up a red flag as to why are we-- and again, do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting we want to put any individual at risk when it comes to starvation, hunger, famine and such. What I am going to be looking particularly closely at is are we seeing that Somalia shows up one, two, three, four years in a row for emergency aid for local purchases when with a little planning on USAID's part, or the Department of Agriculture's, we just know it is going to occur and we get it in the pipeline and we do not use as an excuse rapid response or emergency. Mr. Fulgham. Point well taken, Congressman. Mr. Rehberg. Could you tell me the coordination between the Department of Agriculture and USAID? In the farm bill there was an additional authorization. I still have not gotten an answer, and I did ask this question earlier from the State Department, just exactly, is the authorization a $300 million authorization for the life of the farm bill and how you are going to coordinate or is it anticipated it is going to be a $300 million per year authorization? Mr. Fulgham. The new Farm Bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) Pilot program (including a study and final evaluation) over five years at a total cost of $60 million. As part of our regular coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), USAID shared and discussed the program criteria and implementation guidelines we developed for LRP this year. Moreover, USAID communicates regularly with USDA when providing assistance in the same country or region (e.g., Pakistan). The $300 million you are referring to is found in the Administration's FY 2010 budget request for State and Foreign Operations. As you know, International Disaster Assistance has typically been used to fund non-food emergency assistance, and provides the flexibility required to cover the local and regional procurement of food as well as the implementation of voucher programs when food is available, but not affordable for the vulnerable, at a community level. On the coordination between USAID, the State Department and USDA, it has never been better. I think we have a real team effort, especially looking at food security issues throughout the world. We have been working very close on a task force to deal with some of the issues regarding food security in some of the most troubled nations in the world right now. Mr. Rehberg. I appreciate that. If you could get back to me with the countries. Going back five fiscal years. Mr. Fulgham. That is a fair request, sir. I would be happy to get back to you. Mr. Rehberg. Do you also have the data on other humanitarian food assistance by other countries? We cannot be the only ones shipping food. Or vouchers to Somalia, Ethiopia? Mr. Fulgham. I could not agree more but that is a discussion with the Secretary at the diplomatic level on what we are doing to try to encourage our donor colleagues to be more supportive of some of these crises that we continue to address, sometimes on our own. Mr. Rehberg. You just do not have that information? Mr. Fulgham. No, sir. I do not have it right now. [Information inserted for the record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.035 Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Israel. Opening Remarks of Mr. Israel Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Fulgham, welcome. You have heard the Subcommittee's concern and interest in microfinance. I believe that there is a special nexus between microfinance and renewable energy programs throughout the world. There are sustainable business models where microfinance is assisting in the deployment of solar lanterns, solar flashlights, solar cookers and other renewable technology. Can you give me a sense of exactly what USAID is doing, the extent to which USAID is supporting microfinance programs on renewable energy? Mr. Fulgham. I think you are absolutely correct. In looking at our climate change strategy we are going to have to use innovation similar to this to get countries, especially where we have large economic issues, and with forestation, and farming and things of that nature, we have got to be able to bring the countryside into the game and get them to better understand why this is important for the longevity of their country. The overall climate change strategy is going to try to get at some of those things as we work closely with countries to come up with a strategy on adaptation and implementation of these programs. We have not been as creative as we could be. As you know, the Obama Administration is placing renewed emphasis on climate change, so now we have got to reconfigure and regear our operations to better address those issues. As we start to put together the strategies for the country, this will be an integral part of bringing especially the countryside into play and addressing this issue. As for the work we are undertaking in this area, USAID funds a number of programs linking microfinance and renewable energy. The Agency has given a $196,000 grant to ACCION International in Uganda to expand solar home lighting. USAID has also provided $205,000 to FINCA, a microfinance institution, to assess the market in Uganda and Afghanistan for renewable energy services, particularly in low-density rural areas that lack access to the national electrical grid. In November 2008, the Agency hosted a workshop on microfinance programs on renewable energy, which involved Grameen Bank and other PVOs. USAID has also funded the ``Energy Links PodCast'' series, an online resource containing interviews and information from industry leaders. The Agency is currently supporting two activities that focus on small and medium enterprises and microfinance institutions in the renewable energy sector. USAID is developing a toolkit and distance learning program to enable clean energy entrepreneurs to acquire business planning and technical knowledge to help them to develop bankable business plans. This program will support training classes in Senegal and Tanzania. In addition to the $600,000 contribution from USAID, USAID's implementing partner has raised investment funds from a socially responsible investor. The primary technology focus of this activity is improved cooking stoves. USAID also plans to work with Global Village Energy Partnership International to support rural and peri-urban clean energy Small and Medium Enterprises in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. USAID anticipates spending $200,000 on this project, which will also leverage funding from the Developing Energy Enterprise Project in East Africa program. The primary focus of this activity will be working with microfinance institutions to increase lending to borrowers in the clean energy technologies sector. Mr. Israel. Well, that is pleasing to hear. I know that you are seeking an increase of $309 million to fight global climate change in developing countries. In your testimony you talk about funding being used for deployment of tools for Earth observation, geospacial information hubs and early warning systems. I understand that. That is pretty sophisticated and somewhat scientific. Let me share with you a more basic model that I am hopeful that USAID will pursue. I have met with some of your folks before on this. This is a solar flashlight. You can buy one of these in the gift shop in the visitor's center. This solar flashlight is being deployed throughout the developing world. There is a model that the Subcommittee has heard me talk about repeatedly, and I will not torture them anymore by repeating it again, but there is a model in the Sunderbans in India where you have a small, sustainable microfinance program. Six women have a solar panel. They are using that to charge solar lanterns, they are renting the solar lanterns, they are lighting the village. The Department of Defense would argue that to have stability, and security and prosperity you need a $550 billion defense budget. In the Sunderbans we are doing it for $35,000 with technologies like this. So I am very hopeful. This is my number one priority on this Subcommittee is working with you and other agencies to accelerate the deployment of simple technologies like this which light an entire village. I am hopeful that we can work together on that. I have not had the opportunity to speak with you personally about it, but at first blush at least, do you think that this is consistent with USAID's mission, particularly with this ramp up in funding for climate change activities? Mr. Fulgham. As I said before, the status is evolving. We are looking at innovative ways to address these issues. We are clearly going to continue to look at the ecosystems and the forest land usage within these countries and we have got to look at appropriate technology as well, so it is a package. I think that once the new political leadership is onboard, these are going to be some of the things that we focus on as we look to increase the climate change budget, I hope, in the future to address a lot of these issues. Mr. Israel. My last question, one of the frustrations that I have, and I have shared this with Chairwoman Lowey, is USAID has its mission, we also have a Department of Energy that has an international assistance program that is meant to deploy technologies like this. To what extent do you actually coordinate with the Department of Energy to make sure that you are not duplicating, in fact, coordinating efforts to deploy technologies like this in the developing world? Mr. Fulgham. As you know, there is an interagency working group right now that is looking at these issues and there is more of a whole of government approach; there is more inclusion. As we begin to develop our new strategies and move forward in these particular areas, we are ensuring that there is not duplication in these areas. In these times of tight budgets we have to be very careful not to duplicate what we are doing with other agencies. Mr. Israel. My time has expired. As the new, as you say, political leadership shapes up, I look forward to working with them to advance the goal. Thank you very much. Mr. Fulgham. Look forward to working with you as well. Mrs. Lowey. I just want to emphasize that I have had many conversations with the Secretary about the issue of coordination because wherever we go we call it stovepipes of excellence. We are not complaining that people are not doing excellent work, but very often, in fact, Ms. Lee mentioned Ghana and we asked the Ambassador to bring together everybody, whether it was the foundations, other countries, World Bank, everybody who is doing work in that area, and they were delighted because they had an opportunity to meet each other. They really did not even know each other. So I know this is a key priority of the Secretary---- Mr. Fulgham. And deputy Secreatry Lew. Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. It has been a key priority of mine, and the deputy for sure because it is essential, especially at a time with tough resources and for more effectiveness, that we coordinate the standard procedure. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. Opening Remarks of Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome to you. I want to ask you a couple of questions about human trafficking. It is kind of a dirty little secret that goes on around the world, it even happens in our own country as well, and people do not talk about it very much because, frankly, it is pretty disgusting. It is just hard to believe in the 21st Century that people are being bought and sold for different activities. People just find it outrageous, but I guess it is something people do not want to talk about. You see it on the TV, every now and then you read a report, but then it goes back. As you know, I think it was in 2000 when President Clinton was in office before I came to Congress they passed a law to try to confront all this, and part of that law, every year the Secretary of State has to file a report, the so- called Tip Report, that looks at human trafficking as it goes around the world, as well as our own country. I understand the law allows us to sanction countries that we provide assistance to when they are not complying with the law. Do you know, what is being done at USAID to monitor that each year when that Tip Report comes out? Do we ever withhold assistance? Do we monitor that? Do we inform the countries that they are not meeting the standards? It seems to me when we will travel and I ask some leader, they will just say well, we are working on it. Can you give me some of your views on that? Mr. Fulgham. Yes. Sir, as the father of two daughters, this is probably one of the most reprehensible things that is happening in the world. I think that we recognize that this is happening mostly to people from vulnerable populations. It is all about political will. You have got to have countries and leadership in those countries who are willing to take the tough stance. I think our country has put in a tier process. If you reach Tier 3 then you are put on the list of no go, that your funding will stop, and that has happened to some countries. I think we have been very vigilant with the TIP program and with the State Department in ensuring that if a country is not living up to the tier process that we are willing to intervene and make a case that they should not receive any more funding from the United States Government. Overall, you know, we are continuing to increase and monitor these programs, we are doing more outreach, we are providing housing, we are trying to do more from a counseling and sheltering perspective, and also, one of the things we have to do from a development perspective is get at the root cause of the poverty in these communities. The more you can educate girls, the better off they are in understanding that there are economic opportunities out there and there is a better way forward for them. I think those are some of the basic things that we continue to do. We have worked very closely with international programs, the MTV program, which is a foundation, and doing lots of messaging, especially in southeast Asia and some of the problematic areas from transit to departure points. We are also trying to do a better job of forcing governments to recognize that they should not be involved in these processes. When I was in Serbia, this was a major transit point and we put a tremendous amount of pressure on the government to shut down the transit point between Serbia and Montenegro. There were some really good efforts done by the Serbian government, but then we had trafficking in another way from Italy, so there is always a constant pressure on these governments to try and change their ways but you have to continue to be vigilant at all times. It is not going to go away easily because it is such a profitable industry. Mr. Crenshaw. So you do monitor the progress they are making and you actually sit down, and you do not necessarily condition the aid but you---- Mr. Fulgham. If you go to Tier 3, your aid is cut off. Tier 2, you get a warning, you get a demarche, the USAID director in the foreign minister's office saying that if you go to Tier 3, then your aid will potentially be cut off. Mr. Crenshaw. Great. Well, that is very encouraging because, you know, if we have made this effort to really try to confront that. It is really encouraging to hear that you are making those kind of efforts. Thank you very much. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Chandler. Opening Remarks of Mr. Chandler Mr. Chandler. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Fulgham, good to see you. I apologize for having to step out of the room. I missed some of the questions, and I hope I will not duplicate some of the things that have been asked of you. First of all, I want to applaud you and your fellows in the foreign service and with USAID for everything that you do. It is utterly critical to the future of our country, I believe. Of course, I think you will get general agreement on this committee as to that notion. Our national defense, in my view, absolutely depends on what you all do. I am very pleased to see more emphasis placed on this area, on the whole idea of development and smart power, soft power, whatever you want to call it. I have a couple of questions that I think maybe have not been asked. One, I am curious about what USAID is doing in the way of developing markets. The Chair led us on a trip earlier this year to Central and South America and we were in Peru. I think we were all very impressed by some activities in rural Peru to of course work on finding alternatives for people who had been producing coca in the past. One of the new developments, I understood, was before we would just help them with crops but nobody helped them find a market. There was not any way to get monetary reward for the efforts that they had made. So if you could illuminate us a little bit on where that effort is going, how you are expanding it and so forth. And then the second question is a little bit different. USAID in the past has had a significant focus on preserving forests. This seems to have been broadened significantly in the fiscal year 2010 budget to include new landscapes. Can you give us a rationale behind the change in strategy there? Thank you. Mr. Fulgham. Okay. On the first question, I am happy to say that USAID has been involved in creating markets for the last 30, 35 years, especially on the agriculture side. I think your question is more specific in Latin America and the coca region. Mr. Chandler. There seems to be a little bit of an increase in emphasis on it, it would seem to me. Mr. Fulgham. Yes. I think that if we are going to address unemployment and increase economic growth in these countries, we have to do a better job of creating the foundation and the infrastructure that is needed in order to promote economic growth in these particular areas. That means you need a market- based program that goes from soup to nuts basically. You have from the time the crop goes into the ground, it comes out of the ground, it is packaged, it is marketed and then there is a market that it is going to in a particular region. That takes infrastructure from the government; it takes private sector involvement and it takes donor involvement, and you need all three of those working together. That does not come together in a year or two. As you notice, we have had significant amounts of funding going into that region and we are really just now starting to show fruit from those investments. Now, the government is now taking over some of these activities and funding them themselves. That is when you know the development is really working in those communities. We are going to try to replicate that in Afghanistan, and in Africa, and other continents and other parts of the world as well because we see agriculture as the way to creating economic growth and job opportunities in these rural communities. In regards to your question on preserving forests and broadening our efforts significantly, we recognize under climate change that we have to look at all avenues to diversify our programs to address the key issues that are affecting these communities that we are working in. Forestry is a huge issue for us. As you know, a lot of the countries we are working in, they are slashing, and burning and cutting down a lot of their forests, and so we are trying to provide additional advice and assistance. We are bringing in additional officers on the science side, environmental officers. We are going to hire 40 over the next three years. Also, one of the great things that we have right now is that quite a few environmental officers who have gone off to do other things, now want to come back to the environment sector because there is additional funding. We are just looking at expanding our horizons and our ability to affect change in these communities, and we are going to bring science and technology to a lot of the thinking that we are doing in this regard. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum Ms. McCollum. Thank you. It is good to see you again. Mr. Fulgham. Nice to see you again as well. Ms. McCollum. I would like to take a second to thank all the employees of USAID and recognize the bravery of those Americans, those unarmed service men and women, who represent our country so valiantly. You put yourself in harm's way to perform your missions of mercy that are vital to our national security. USAID employees take serious risks and all too often have given their lives for their country with little attention paid to the public sacrifice. So on behalf of myself, and I know other members of this committee, we thank you for your service. Now, turning to the budget request here for fiscal year 2010, I applaud the administration for making a strong and long overdue commitment to fight hunger around the world through agricultural development. You, Mr. Rehberg, had a good conversation about relief, but this is about development focus that the President is working on. We know that agriculture is a proven strategy to reduce hunger, it raises income and it builds broad-based economic growth. It is development that works. America has tried fighting chronic hunger with emergency assistance, as Mr. Rehberg was pointing out, and it is a flawed strategy and it has fallen short, so new President, new strategy. It is a smart investment, and I know it is going to pay huge dividends. I have another question, but part of what I would like you to talk about is how USAID plans to program the significant increases requested in the budget, and how USAID is going to fit in this whole role with the State Department on a new strategy. Then I have another issue I would like to bring up, and this is an issue in the budget where I have to admit I am frankly very disappointed, and that is the budget with this administration, their request for the area of child survival. I believe we are missing a tremendous opportunity. As we are all aware, more than six million children under the age of five die needlessly every year from preventable, treatable diseases. Over nine million under five deaths per year. So, you know, nine million children under age five per year. During my eight years in Congress that would mean 50 million children have needlessly died from conditions like diarrhea, measles and pneumonia, which USAID and other partners have the experience, and you have the expertise to prevent it today if we choose to do so, if we choose to give you the tools you need to do that. Now, the impact of the global economic crisis on developing countries is expected to result in an additional--an additional--400,000 children in poor countries dying this year. Now, we can do something if we choose to do something about it. The report released in April said the U.S. saved 1.2 million lives with PEPFAR since 2003 with billions of dollars. I want to save 1.2 million children's lives every single year. I know it is not in the President's budget, but I know he is concerned about maternal child health, so I would like you to tell us how we can work together to achieve this goal and start making a smart investment in the opportunity that we are missing in saving children's lives for literally, as the Chair and members of this committee know, for pennies. Thank you. Mr. Fulgham. Thank you. Those are two big questions. Ms. McCollum. It is a big world. Mr. Fulgham. Let me just try to tackle the food security question. Right now we have a billion people living in poverty and hunger in the world. This number continues to rise, and we recognize that. I think the President's request to double the amount of assistance for agriculture provides the lead in trying to address that issue. When you look at agriculture as a productivity issue we have got to provide more seeds, more fertilizer and improved irrigation. We have got to link the producers to the markets and improve infrastructure in the rural areas, provide better storage and removal of the trade barriers, as I discussed previously. The other part of the strategy, which is equally important, is that we are coordinating for the first time as a government. There is a task force that is being led by Cheryl Mills, counselor to the Secretary of State, where all the key players in the interagency, USDA, USAID, the State Department, are all coming together in order to plan out how to move forward with our new strategy. One of the things that we have left out are the land grant institutions. We have got to get them back involved in this process. They were part of the green revolution 15, 20 years ago. We have got to get them back into the game. Also, it is private investment that is going to make a huge difference. We cannot solve this problem by government to government and funding alone. It is going to take involvement from the private and public sectors in order for this to move forward and work. Then, I agree, we have to continue to focus on nutrition for children under two. I think by creating a larger agricultural base in these countries we can get at that, but we have to work at that from a regional perspective. Then, we need to focus greater attention on the role of women. I could not agree more. We have got to do more to support women and create opportunities for them for finance and credit, and also a role in the agricultural sector within the country. On the child survival issue, I think the administration is looking at this from a macro perspective. We want to get at a lot of other things that are important to the overall sector. We believe that the amount of money that has been requested by the administration adequately allows us in fiscal year 2010 to maintain the momentum that has been created over the last few years. I do not think one year makes a story. I would like to really look at this again two years from now, or three years from now and see where our numbers are. There is nobody in this room more committed to this issue than the Chair, and we have heard from her diligently about the fact that we want to see those numbers up. I really look at this budget from a holistic perspective. In the out years I think we will be able to provide more, but right now there are a lot of things crowding out some of these issues, and I think that in the out years we will be able to make up for it. Ms. McCollum. Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. Madam Chair, if I could, if the gentleman from Illinois will indulge me just for a second to talk to the committee. I think we need to look, I have been a strong supporter of PEPFAR, but I think we need to look at the outlays and what is going on with PEPFAR and the billions of dollars being spent versus the millions of dollars that could be spent to save more lives and have more children being able to enter school successful and healthy with all the school programs that the administration is working on. So I think that this committee should really take a look at it. I know you are going to be driving for efficiencies, and I think we will be able to do that. For the record, I would like to enter a couple of pages from a report from Save the Children talking about many of the things that the acting director spoke to. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Jackson, we are delighted to accept the report for the record. Opening Remarks of Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me first begin by offering an apology to the Chair and to Members of the Committee for my tardiness, and certainly to Mr. Fulgham. This morning at my son's school was a unit of discovery where he had to have his parents there to kind of share with his classmates and with his parents a little bit about himself and I just could not miss it. I want to follow up very quickly on Ms. McCollum's question about agriculture and be a little bit more poignant. Given the President's ambitious agricultural agenda globally, does USAID have the capacity and the agricultural experts to ramp up so dramatically across so many regions in just one year? And I wanted to hear your answer, Mr. Fulgham, to that question, and I also want to raise the question, I think I am going to get them out of the way at one time, about global health. Last week the President announced his commitment that his budget will provide a total of $63 billion between fiscal year 2009 and 2014 for global health programs. In the announcement the fiscal year 2010 budget is highlighted as a down payment on this commitment, yet the budget only requests an increase of $406 million for global health and HIV and AIDS programs, and only $106 million if the Committee approved $300 million is ultimately approved. This represents only a 1.4 percent increase over fiscal year '09. A major obstacle to reducing maternal mortality is the shortage of doctors, nurses, midwives, and mid-level health workers who are skilled birth attendants. In Sub-Saharan Africa and large parts of Asia, fewer than half of births are attended by a skilled birth attendant. USAID's maternal and child health strategy includes an increase of at least 100,000 in the number of community health workers and volunteers. What is USAID's strategy to reach this goal? And further, there is a broad recognition that a volunteer model for community health workers is unsustainable and leads to high levels of attrition. What measures will USAID take to ensure that these 100,000 community health workers are fairly compensated? Mr. Fulgham. On your first question, Mr. Jackson, earlier I talked about the rebuilding of the agency. We have depleted our agricultural staff over the last 15 years and we are now in the process of replenishing that staff. We are looking at hiring about 93 agricultural officers over the next three years. We have got about 20 in the system right now. In our major programs we have adequate attention, but we cannot expand rapidly in various parts of the world because of our inability to get the officers in the right places at the right time. I think clearly over the next couple years you will see a significant ramp up in this area that will allow us to do more on the agricultural side. We will continue, however, to have contractors in place in countries that are in desperate need of this technical support, but eventually moving those contractors out with direct hire assistance. Mr. Jackson. Global health. Mr. Fulgham. On the global health issue, USAID will carry out its strategy to reach the goal of 100,000 additional community health workers across the 30 ``MCH Priority Countries'' during 2009-2013. The initial approach will be to work with the approximately 15 countries that have policies and programs that include community workers as part of their national health strategy. In these countries, USAID will help upgrade and expand these community-based programs through the in-service training of workers, improving supervision systems, providing workers with educational and other technical materials, and, in some cases, with commodities to distribute to their communities. Senegal, Nepal, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, have recognized that extending high-impact interventions to greater numbers of families will require community-based service delivery. Once this approach is underway in countries with existing community-based programs, USAID will identify additional countries among the MCH Priority Countries that do not have such programs, but where need and readiness for them exists. In these countries, USAID will help governments examine the options and best practices for community-based programs, and will provide assistance in the development and roll-out of the programs, including the training of new community health workers and the supervisory and logistic systems needed to support them. With respect to compensation USAID supports fair compensation and incentives for Community Health Workers by helping introduce and scale up successful experiences and approaches for health worker compensation. Community Health Workers receive compensation or other meaningful incentives that result in sustainability of community-based programming in a variety of ways. Ethiopia's Health Extension Workers, for example, are directly paid by the government. In other countries, these workers receive remuneration by being allowed to keep a small mark-up on drugs and commodities they are permitted to dispense. This is the case with workers who provide community-based distribution of contraceptives in many countries. In some cases, CHWs receive support or special privileges from communities themselves. In other cases, non- financial benefits, such as free health services for themselves and family members, provide apparently adequate compensation. Even pure volunteer models have been successful at scale in some cases: For example, Nepal's Female Community Health Volunteers--who are a key element of that country's success in being on track to both Millennium Development Goals (MDG 4 and MDG 5)--are not paid, but many have been in their positions for a decade or longer. Their compensation comes from the effectiveness of their actions and the regard they receive from their communities, along with the strong commitment and systematic support of the health system at all levels. USAID systematically analyzes and documents these approaches and their results, shares them with governments of countries that might apply them in their own community-based programs, and helps those countries to implement, evaluate and assure success of their chosen approach. Mr. Jackson. I appreciate that. Let me, I wanted to raise one last question, I think I just have another minute or so. The lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation has a significant impact on the lives of millions of people every day. Providing safe drinking water not only improves health outcomes, but it also has an economic benefit for families and communities. Over the past few years Congress has requested that USAID fund water programs in a sustainable way. Can you give us some sense of what USAID's water strategy is? And in fiscal year 2010 the MCC has requested significant funding for water and sanitation oriented compact with Jordan. Can you give us some sense of the role in the water sector of Jordan and tell us how the MCC compacts build on USAID's prior commitment in that country? Mr. Fulgham. Yes, actually I can give you a little bit on that. I led the delegation to the World Water Conference in Istanbul about six weeks ago. Clearly we recognize that water is going to be one of the biggest issues we face over the next ten years. There are going to be countries that will probably run out of water before we run out of oil. And we are talking about massive populations potentially having to move to try to find that water. I believe that there are over 260 water ways that more than two countries share in the world. So clearly this is a huge issue for us. We are ramping up our water program at USAID, and Jordan as the example that you just gave is probably one of the more exemplary programs, but we still have problems there. It is about governance, it is about cost, it is about technology. We have been working very closely with the Jordanians. Right now out of their twelve aquifers, ten are in trouble. We have been working with Jordan over the last 20 years on water and conservation and costing. This new compact that Jordan is putting together with the MCC will be built on USAID programming. We are maximizing our investment which will allow us to create an environment where in Jordan they are doing the things they need to do to make the critical decisions to ensure that they have water in the future. But this is just not Jordan. We have, as I said, significant problems in the continent of Africa with water, and we have got to get back to basic programs that are identifying ways for governments to plan and strategize and come together with public-private partnerships. Once again it is not going to be just development dollars that make a difference in these countries, it is going to be the public and private sector and also donors coming together to come up with resources and strategies to affect the water in these countries. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And thank you for your time. This concludes today's hearing on the U.S. Agency's International Development Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request. The Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and Related Programs stands adjourned. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.104 Wednesday, May 13, 2009. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE WITNESS JACOB LEW, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs will come to order. Today's hearing will examine the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for international affairs. And I am pleased to welcome Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, who is well known to us from his previous work as the Director of OMB during the Clinton administration. And in light of the foreign policy challenges facing our country, many of which require tremendous resources, Secretary Clinton was quite wise in selecting you as one of her deputies. And looking at the fiscal year 2010 request for the 150 account, I can see that you are already having a significant impact. Because we recently had a hearing with Secretary Clinton on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, I would like to focus on the details of the 2010 budget request for this hearing and take advantage of the expertise we have in today's witness. Mr. Secretary, the President's budget seeks an unprecedented $53.9 billion for the 150 account, including $52 billion within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. And before anyone complains about the size of the increase I want to make it clear, let me note, that most of it simply is to regularize the supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the West Bank, Gaza and humanitarian assistance. Total supplemental funding combined with the fiscal year 2009 appropriations reflect an increase in 2010 of about $4 billion or 8 percent which is consistent with increases sought by former President Bush. President Obama, through honest and transparent budgeting, has declared up front the true costs and importance of our foreign policy. He is investing in diplomacy and development as our first line of defense by providing resources to create a 21st century State Department and USAID instead of relying on our overstretched military to run our foreign policy and implementing foreign aid programs. Our investments today in this approach will yield great dividends over time, and because as we all know, diplomacy and development generally are less expensive and more effective methods than military operations to achieve sustainable peace and security. In fact, the major increases in the international affairs budget are not for program expenses, they are for what I would call people expenses. With adjustments for supplemental funding, the President's request seeks a 30 percent increase for both the diplomatic and consular programs account and USAID operating expenses--which funds the operations of the State Department, including personnel, security and training at our embassies and USAID development personnel and security costs. I applaud you, Secretary Clinton and the President for following through on your pledges to rebuild State and USAID. However, we do need a comprehensive strategy for spending these resources to achieve specific goals. I hope you can provide insight on why the majority of the proposed new positions will be domestic deployments instead of overseas given our understanding that the greatest needs lie in our embassies and missions abroad. For example, how have you integrated the new hires for which you seek funding into your global staffing plans, how will you accommodate these new State Department and USAID employees and already crowded embassies, and how long will it take you to recruit, hire and train these new employees for deployment? Are appropriate human resource policies in place to ensure the best people for the job are hired? I am particularly concerned that you are seeking significant and much needed increases for USAID which does not have a management team in place. I fear that if nominations for USAID administrators and assistant administrator positions are not forthcoming, Congress' willingness and ability to provide the resources you seek will be compromised. Additionally, the administration needs to clarify the role of the civilian stabilization initiative and how it will interface with the operations of the rest of the State Department and USAID programs and personnel. Do you envision any differences in the concept than what was developed by the previous administration? Mr. Secretary, turning to the assistance programs there are relatively few major programmatic increases in the President's budget. The key increases on development assistance are to scale up basic education, expand agriculture and food security assistance and grow climate change initiatives. I continue to believe that access to a quality education is one of our most important tools for channelling young people in conflict-prone regions toward a more productive path. And I am very pleased that Secretary Clinton has continued her commitment to basic education. And I look forward to our continued partnership on this issue. Additionally, in light of the economic crisis and the impact on food security, I understand your emphasis on agriculture. And while the grim news on global warming certainly warrants a more focused approach to stem carbon emissions and facilitate eco-friendly solutions to the world's energy needs, I hope you can provide greater detail on the mechanisms and modalities for programming these increased resources. I am particularly concerned that there seems to be no budget detail on the $500 million requested for the Clean Technology Fund. I would note to my colleagues that the increases in the ESF account are largely to fund the programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, West Bank, Gaza. There is also a nominal increase in global health with the exception of malaria programs which are increased by $200 million. And while global HIV/AIDS funds have steadily increased over the past decade when many other aspects of the international affairs budget were cut or flat lined as we have seen with the H1N1 outbreak, health needs cannot be deferred. Mr. Lew, you, the Secretary, your colleagues of the State Department, face a daunting set of challenges. But you have inherited a committed and skilled workforce, you have a Secretary and a President that have inspired millions around the world. You have my personal commitment and the commitment, I hope of all of us in Congress, to help you succeed. Mrs. Lowey. Before I turn to you for your remarks, I would like to turn to Ms. Granger for any comments she may have. Ms. Granger. Opening Statement of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank Deputy Secretary Lew for appearing today to explain the administration's fiscal year 2010 priorities. The subcommittee has only begun to receive the details of this budget request. And I hope the Deputy Secretary and his staff will work quickly to provide the full budget justification so that we can better understand the items requested prior to us marking up the bill. We received some high level descriptions of the request. We note the accounts in the State foreign operations bill total $52 billion, a 42 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriation, excluding emergency appropriations. This large increase will bolster staffing, as the Chair has mentioned, for the State Department and USAID, support administration priorities like food security, climate change and global health, and continue support for civilian efforts to fight the war against terrorism, particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The administration has described this international affairs budget request as a smart power budget, one that balances diplomacy, development and defense in the advance of our national security objectives. I have long supported the concept of smart power, and I hope the Deputy Secretary will explain how the State Department and USAID plan to implement the amounts requested to support the diplomatic and development goals of this administration. Maintaining an appropriate level of highly trained staff is critical. It demonstrates smart power. And this committee has supported hiring efforts begun by the previous administration. I look forward to an update from the Deputy Secretary on the progress that has been made thus far to hire and deploy new foreign service officers. And I look forward to hearing about the new hiring expected for fiscal year 2010 and beyond. In closing, I should note that I am pleased the administration is following through with support for the Merida initiative. The $450 million request is an important investment in Mexico's war against drug cartels on our southern border. The Deputy Secretary and I spoke about how essential it is that the funds are provided quickly to the Mexican government. I thank him for the work he has done to expedite the funds already appropriated. I look forward to working with you and hearing from you. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Deputy Secretary Lew, your full written statement will be placed in the record. Feel free to summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough time to get everyone's questions. Proceed as you wish. Opening Statement of Mr. Lew Mr. Lew. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking Member. I appreciate the warm welcome and look forward to working with you and the members of this committee both today and as we go forward. It is my honor to be here to present President Obama's international affairs budget request for 2010. And I will take advantage of putting my statement in the record to summarize the major principles and priorities in the budget so that we can leave most of the time for questions. At a top line level of $53.9 billion, the request represents a 9 percent increase over the 2009 funding levels. This budget provides the detail of what we mean when we talk about smart power, and it provides the resources for the administration to pursue its foreign policy goals. The United States faces diffuse and complex threats, including terrorism, climate change, pandemic disease, extreme poverty and global criminal networks. Key to our security and prosperity is a stable and secure world, and we cannot achieve that through military means alone. It requires American leadership that promotes our values, builds strong partnerships and improves the lives of others. That is what President Obama and Secretary Clinton call smart power; harnessing the tools of diplomacy development and defense to help build a more peaceful and prosperous world. By reducing the risk that global poverty and instability will ultimately lead to conflict. Smart power will save us both dollars and lives in the long-run. We understand the economic conditions at home make this a very difficult moment to ask the American people to support even a modest increase in spending overseas. At the same time the American people understand that our future security depends on resolving current conflicts and avoiding future ones. When Secretaries Gates and Clinton testified together recently, they made a powerful case that investments in diplomacy and development, two of the pillars of our smart power strategy, are as vital to our national security as investments in defense, the third pillar. Smart power starts with people. That is why our budget puts an emphasis on increasing the size of the foreign service, ultimately achieving a 25 percent increase in state foreign service officers over the next four years. But I want to address special attention to the urgent need to rebuild the U.S. Agency for International Development. We are looking to USAID to take on some of the most difficult tasks in some of the world's most challenging environments. But with its ranks thinned to just over 1,000 foreign service officers worldwide, USAID does not have the manpower it needs, which is why this budget includes a 45 percent increase in USAID operations and puts USAID on a path to doubling its foreign service officers by 2012. All of our goals; conflict prevention, poverty reduction, food security, global health, climate change, come back to having the right people with the right training and the skills to get the job done. This budget also provides the resources to pursue critical missions in conflict areas that occupy much of our attention these days; Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Our fiscal year 2010 request seeks $2.79 billion in nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan and $1.3 billion in nonmilitary assistance for Pakistan, substantial resources that must be coordinated and deployed effectively. Following the administration's strategic review, State and USAID are implementing a comprehensive civilian program which is fully coordinated with our military and other key agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice, to bolster both security and development. At the same time, it is important to step back from these conflict areas to see clearly our broader objectives. We make investments to promote long-term development and human security both from the top down and bottom up strengthening the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations, and at the same time, partnering with citizens and civic groups to build human capacity and reduce extreme poverty. Children need a basic education that provides skills to pursue opportunities rather than hatred. Parents need jobs to reject the appeal of extremists who too often offer the only way to support a family, and for many survival requires minimal access to basic health care. Overall 56 percent of our assistance request is targeted to development programs with special emphasis on economic development, good governance, global health, food security, education and global climate change. For example, our budget request includes $7.6 billion for a global health initiative, which continues the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and expands it to address maternal and child health, neglected diseases, family planning and basic health infrastructure. It commits $3.4 billion to a food security initiative aimed at addressing the root causes of food shortages by more than doubling the resources devoted to agricultural production and productivity. And on the climate front it seeks $581 million to help developing countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change adapt by becoming more climate resilient and developing clean energy alternatives. Our budget also invests in the strategic, bilateral and multilateral partnerships that are critical to global security, stability and prosperity. We focus on states that can or must be partners in regional peace and prosperity. And tipping point states where the potential for conflict and instability present regional and global threats. And we leverage our multilateral partners who represent both a force multiplier and a cost effective means for addressing global challenges. We are strengthening global security capabilities knowing that when our allies and partners can defend their territory and borders against external and internal threats we are more secure. Our strategy seeks to forge partnerships among states to help build global security and capacity in a number of areas, including peacekeeping, police training, counternarcotics, nonproliferation and combating nuclear terrorism. Finally, we provide the resources, over $4.1 billion to respond to humanitarian needs. Our humanitarian assistance programs that provide relief when we see human suffering are a fundamental expression of our values. At the same time leading with our values often strengthens our ties with other people. Our humanitarian efforts in the aftermath of the earthquake in Pakistan actually began to turn the sentiment amongst many Pakistani citizens away from extremists and led them to see the United States as a political force for good in their lives. At this very moment we are taking steps to make sure that the United States is in the forefront of efforts to address the needs of people who are seeking safe haven as the government of Pakistan takes military action against extremists. There is a real possibility that in addition to the 500,000 already internally displaced another 1 million persons could need assistance. The challenge, in part, is providing funding and we are taking steps to make certain that we are able to help there. But even more challenging will be gaining access. And our very capable ambassador to Islamabad is coordinating with international organizations, NGOs and the government of Pakistan to determine how we can assist more effectively. Securing the resources to promote our goals is an important first step towards restoring American global leadership, but resources alone are not enough. We know we have to be better managers of our resources as well, especially in these difficult economic times. I hope my appearance before you today signals the Secretary's seriousness and determination that the Department be a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. It is the first time the position of Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources has been filled, and in only a few short months, our reform agenda is already robust. Even as we undertake the reviews and seek the necessary input to define our new approach, you have already seen signs of how we are going to work differently. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are bringing all agencies together under a shared set of objectives allowing us to benefit from the range of expertise available across the U.S. Government, maximizing resources through greater coordination and integration and recruiting rapidly to meet a critical and time sensitive mission. In food security and global health, the State Department is leading whole of government efforts creating inventories of programs, identifying gaps in our current programming and coordinating among agencies to develop a shared strategy. All of these examples highlight the need to develop broader mechanisms to manage by country and by function so that all foreign assistance programs are coordinated and resources can be allocated to achieve objectives most effectively and so that programs can be operated most efficiently. Accountability for results is another principle that will guide our reform efforts. We are keenly aware that with increased resources comes the obligation to demonstrate that we are making an important difference. Finally, we know that we need to be a more effective donor. Our people in the field must have the means to leverage opportunities, to build strong partnerships with responsible governments, and to support development progress by empowering partners to have more of a say in how aid resources are targeted in their countries. We look forward to consulting closely with you and other stakeholders as we consider these questions and others in the coming weeks and months ahead. I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and look forward to answering your questions. The President and Secretary's agenda is an ambitious one, yet with the right resources and good counsel, we are confident that we can meet these challenges. We look forward to working closely, and I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.118 Mrs. Lowey. We appreciate your wisdom and we appreciate your coming before this committee. And I will begin by asking some questions and then I will proceed from side to side giving each member 5 minutes. As you know, this subcommittee has supported efforts to strengthen USAID's capacity over the past 2 years. In my judgment, USAID is the key agency with the responsibility for implementing most of our foreign assistance programs, and I agree with the Secretary's objective of strengthening the agency. And I also agree wholeheartedly with, and we have had many discussions about, her focus on coordination, accountability. I have had this experience wherever we have been that people from one program don't know what the other is doing. And so to go there and coordinate and to demand coordination will really bring about greater effectiveness. However, I find it difficult to comprehend that 5 months into the administration we still do not have any political leadership at USAID. There is no AID administrator, there are no political appointments for any of the assistant administrative positions. And as I noted, I think there is really a danger that unless a management team is in place to administer these resources, not that you are not very capable, that Congress may be reluctant to provide such significant resources. Can you tell us where the process is in terms of appointing a USAID administrator and why this is taking so long? Mr. Lew. Madam Chairwoman, the process of selecting cabinet and subcabinet level officials in the government is, as you know, a very difficult one and a very time consuming one. The administration began a bit ahead of other administrations. We have now found ourselves in the same situation that other administrations have found themselves in at this point. I don't think we are particularly behind the past trends, but it is frustrating that we are not able to have our full team on the field. The process of selecting names, clearing names, bringing them forward for confirmation, has been very time consuming. I think the State Department is actually ahead of most other agencies at this point. Unfortunately, we have not been successful in moving as quickly on filling the key positions at USAID. There are a number of very good names that are in the process of review. And no one will be happier than the Secretary and myself when we reach the point where names are put forward for these positions. But I don't want to leave the impression that in the absence of leadership at the Agency itself that there has not been a good deal of attention paid to USAID. I can say that I personally have been putting an awful lot of my time and attention into paying attention to the kinds of management issues that when we have an USAID administrator I won't need to pay as much attention to. The Secretary has been involved as well. As we have planned for the Afghanistan effort USAID is at the core of it, and we have drawn on USAID at every level to be part of the strategic planning process and to implement effectively. As we review the priority areas, like food assistance and health care, USAID is at the center of it. So USAID is very much a part of the administration's efforts. We will all be happy when we have fully confirmed leadership in place. Mrs. Lowey. Well, I guess I expected that answer. However, I think it is important to note for the record that we eagerly await leadership at USAID because I know that your responsibilities are widespread. And we both agree that having that leadership in place will be very helpful. Mr. Lew. I could not agree more. Mrs. Lowey. And perhaps you can comment on the MCC. How close are we to having a CEO at the MCC? Mr. Lew. It is really largely the same answer. There are very good names in the review process. But again, I want to emphasize that Secretary Clinton is chairman of the MCC board and is engaged actively with the MCC as the person responsible for coordinating the foreign assistance programs. I have engaged actively with the MCC. And I think that contrary to the expectations that many had that we would not treat the MCC as a core program, we have very much been treating it as a core program and want very much to be able to help move it forward. Mrs. Lowey. Good luck in that appointment as well. Lastly, the fiscal year 2010 request includes funding to hire an additional 350 foreign service officers at USAID, 1,181 foreign service and civil service positions at the Department of State. This is in addition to the substantial increases this committee provided for staffing in the fiscal year 2008 emergency supplemental and in the regular bill for fiscal year 2009. Of the over 1,500 new positions in the fiscal year 2010 request, how many do you project will be posted overseas, how many domestically, can you explain the increased staffing, particularly for security related positions. Mr. Lew. Let me answer the question first in principle and then with some numbers. Our goal is to assign as many foreign service officers overseas as we can. There are domestic postings that support the efforts of foreign service officers overseas, so we will never be all overseas. There will be some balance. In the initial year of appointment, there are language training activities that have to be a domestic posting before someone is assigned overseas. So looking ahead, we see that there are roughly 180 positions that will be in hard language and other training at the Foreign Service Institute. We have a number of positions that are going to be coordinating with the Department of Defense, so there are about 20 positions that are detailed to DOD. And we have over 500 positions that are intended to be overseas right away. So the mix of domestic and overseas will be much more heavily weighted towards overseas as we get deeper into the training and deployment process. Mrs. Lowey. My red light is on. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. I understand that the President's budget proposes removing language prohibiting or restricting funds for the Palestinians. These provisions are intended to prevent U.S. dollars from falling into the hands of terrorists. In the hearing with Secretary Clinton we had a great deal of discussion about the prohibition on funds going to Hamas which the administration included in its supplemental request. Now the administration seems to be reversing course. Is there a reason why the administration has requested that safeguards on funds going to Palestinians should be removed in the fiscal year 2010 bill. Mr. Lew. I am not aware of any provision that reverses the restrictions in this area. There has been some evolution of the proposal, for the provision that was in the supplemental appropriation amended something that was put on in the Omnibus, and there may be something that is out of synchronization in terms of time. But I am not aware of any policy difference. And if there is something that hasn't caught up in time we will work with you to reconcile that. Our position is very clear that we want to be in a position to support a responsible Palestinian Authority that is working to build stability, both in financial and security areas. We want there to be room for a government to form so that it can draw as broadly as possible to create stronger support for moderate leadership and drive a wedge in the support that extremists have. And we are very comfortable with the resolution in the supplemental which we frankly thought clarified the original intent. Ms. Granger. Okay. We will follow up on that and see if there is a conflict. I also want to ask you about Merida. We have visited and we understand the problem with Mexico. I want to make sure that we are on track to provide Mexico with the helicopters funded in 2009 by the end of this calendar year. Mr. Lew. We are on track. I actually just checked the other day to make sure that we are on track. And in general, the Merida money to Mexico has not moved as quickly as we would like, and we have been paying quite a lot of attention to why things are stuck in the pipeline. Some of the issues have to do with the fact that Mexico had not previously been a recipient of military assistance, and there was a fair amount of process they had to go through. That is finished now. There are now agreements in many areas to provide equipment where they are locked into place with deadlines, including for the helicopters. Ms. Granger. Good. Let's make sure that happens also with the Black Hawks that are coming up. And then your fiscal year 2010 request includes $450 million. We have not seen full details on what is in that request. Can you explain a little bit about the equipment and the programming that is being requested? Mr. Lew. The intention in the Merida funding was to continue with the program. And frankly, the addition that we made that stood out the most was adding the Black Hawk helicopters back in. That was in the supplemental. But that was the major addition. So I think that the approach on Merida is to give the Mexican police and military the equipment they need to mount an effective effort to stop the drug trafficking and crime. We want to work with the government of Mexico as we go along, and if their needs evolve, to work with them to evolve with them. So the precise details for the equipment that will be provided in the $450 million I would like to get back to you on. Ms. Granger. I understand. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. I just want to note that the President's request does delete all the policy language, I believe, that is carried in our bill, not just the one that you referenced. So all of that language is in there. And I think we are in agreement with the administration, as you mentioned, that the additional language which we added, plus the other policy language that we have included, does define our positions, our mutual positions, very clearly. Mr. Lew. Going back to my former life at OMB, if I recall quickly, White House budgets always remove the language that is added, and that doesn't represent a changed policy, but it is an executive privilege issue. On the policy here, there has been no change and we remain anxious to work with the committee to make sure that there is no ambiguity about that. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey. I want to begin by welcoming Deputy Secretary Lew to our subcommittee and thank him for his testimony. Deputy Secretary, I read with great interest your testimony, at least the version I received last night. The version I have been presented today is several pages short. Mr. Lew. I didn't think you would want me to read the whole thing. Opening Remarks of Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson. It is actually not even here. It stops on page 4, and I think there are more pages that should be added. But during my tenure on the subcommittee, I have championed the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the larger African Diaspora. I fought not only to provide these fragile countries with emergency humanitarian assistance, but also with the resources for long-term sustainable growth. I noticed and appreciate the administration's effort in its fiscal year 2010 request for migration and refugee assistance in that account to incorporate recent supplemental funding into the core budget requests. Aside from funding a much more accurate reflection of the ongoing needs of the program, I think this will help mitigate the operational challenges that arise from relying on supplementals to fund regular programming. However I noticed that if the President's pending fiscal year 2009 supplemental request for MRA is approved by Congress, the fiscal year 2010 request would be slightly below the fiscal year 2009 appropriations. In view of the unmet humanitarian needs of many refugees and internally displaced persons--our ongoing special responsibility to displaced Iraqis and new humanitarian concerns in places like Sri Lanka and Pakistan--I am wondering how can the U.S. meet our current fiscal needs at the fiscal year 2010 request level. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. And in the interest of time, let me state also my next question. I noticed that our voluntary contributions to peacekeeping operations were decreased by around 25 percent. I know that the funds that were requested in fiscal year 2010 will support several missions in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Somalia, South Sudan, the DRC and Liberia. Since most of these missions have been ongoing for some time and will probably continue, why do we reduce our voluntary contributions to peacekeeping operations by 25 percent since we also decreased our assessed contributions to peacekeeping? Are there any missions that we might be neglecting? Thank you, Secretary Lew, and thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lew. Mr. Jackson, on the question of the funding level for refugee assistance, we very much have tried to take a look at the full year and include the resources that are likely to be needed. I should make the point here as in other areas that contingency planning is always subject to risk so you never have full knowledge of what will actually occur. So we would reserve the right if there are emergencies, even though we have planned ahead, to come back and work with you. In terms of the number that we put in here, there are several areas that in 2009 were quite intensive in terms of demands for resources in Gaza and Georgia and Lebanon. And the change of the reduced needs in those areas we think provides a sufficient cushion that we are now funding at an historical level that will enable us to meet the expected needs around the world. As the year develops if that turns out to be an underestimate, we would work with you on it. But it is our best estimate that given the reduction in needs in some parts of the world, there is a cushion to meet the needs in other parts of the world. On the peacekeeping numbers, an overview that I would like to give is that we both, in the supplemental and this budget, have taken very seriously the need for the United States to fully meet its commitments to all peacekeeping accounts. The supplemental clears up arrears-- this budget keeps us current and even takes a first step towards helping to deal with the problem that our fiscal year doesn't match up with the fiscal year of international institutions--and will synchronize our payments a little bit more closely to the needs of the international institutions' fiscal years. In terms of the specific numbers that you asked about, we are assuming that in the case of Somalia, that there will be a switch at least for the logistical support to be handled through assessed peacekeeping. We sent the notification to the committee last week on that. We know there is a variety of views on that issue and look forward to discussing that with you. We also note that the Liberia mission is scheduled to be completed and that will result in a lower level. So we think that the numbers that we have put in the budget will cover both the assessed and the voluntary requirements. Mr. Jackson. Just a very quick follow-up if I might. The Liberian operation, for example, is scheduled to be completed, but the request from the Liberians themselves and the request of neighboring countries and other countries that have participated in the operations are also making the case that they would like to expand the mission to keep the stability in Liberia. And so it just appears, from my perspective, that reducing the voluntary contribution and the assessed contribution, that we are making some assumptions based upon dates that we think are approaching, but they may not necessarily be mission worthy or what the reality is on the ground. I thank the Chair for yielding me the time. Mr. Lew. Madam Chair, can I just add one further response. The supplemental level was actually kind of a high water mark level because we were kind of clearing out some arrearages. And we would not need to maintain funding at the 2009 level, including the supplemental level in order to maintain our activities. So I think it may exaggerate the difference. And we would be delighted to work with you, Mr. Jackson, to kind of go through the numbers and make sure that we are fully accommodating what is likely to be the requirement in Liberia. Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you Madam Chair. Welcome. The Chair mentioned MCC. I was encouraged to hear what you had to say. I have been a big supporter of that. You talked about smart power. I think it is smart aid where we require folks to talk about economic freedom and human rights and things like that. I was encouraged to see the request of $1.4 billion a sizable increase from last year. But since there is no CEO yet, I am a little concerned, and I think I heard you correctly say that you are trying to make that happen. Because my question is, do you see the MCC continuing to be an independent agency or right now you mentioned the Secretary is overseeing things, and I think that is good, but you don't plan to move toward, away from the independent agency aspect and have it thrown in with all the foreign assistance, do you? Mr. Lew. I think that we view all of the different assistance programs as having important attributes that make them distinct from one another. But we also see there being a critical need to coordinate amongst them in a way that, frankly, they haven't been in the past. There are far too few countries where all of the different streams of U.S. aid are fully coordinated. And that leads to duplication of effort, redundancy of capacity and not necessarily putting the U.S. Government forward in the best possible light. So I think in general, while we very much appreciate that there are differences in MCC with its five-year compacts, its very clear benchmarks, and its very unique characteristics. But on the ground, MCC has to draw on USAID for much of the work that it does, just as PEPFAR draws on USAID for much of the work that it does. We would like for that collaboration to be much more thoughtful and organic than it is. Right now, we are in a situation where it could work in one place, it might not work in another place. And when I ask for examples of where everything is coordinated, I am pointed to precious few countries where everything is coordinated. I don't know that it requires a change in the law to accomplish what I am talking about. But if you think about the role of the ambassador and the DCM, if you think of them as a CEO with a range of programs that they oversee, there ought to be full knowledge by the ambassador and the DCM of all of the programs going on. And if one of the programs is undertaking an activity in an area where another is already present, a flag ought to go up and say let's do this together, let's not build two separate facilities that do the same thing, let's not duplicate effort, let's not send a confused message as to what the program of the Government of the United States is. I also think it is important that in all respects we think of our foreign assistance programs as being part of our foreign policy, an expression of our foreign policy. As we have gone through the very difficult discussions regarding the MCC compacts with certain countries where there are frankly problems, it has been very important to coordinate what is done through the MCC and what is done through our diplomatic channels so that we are supporting each other as opposed to working at cross-purposes. And I think that in that kind of nuanced way of managing, one can respect that each program has some very important characteristics that make them different from one another, but that doesn't stop us from coordinating them to run an effective cross-governmental program. Mr. Crenshaw. But you don't see any changes in the way--I mean, this is the fifth year they can have 5-year compacts. It is a pivotal year. Mr. Lew. I think that we do have some changes in mind. The MCC has proposed that the single compact versus a multiple compact issue is a serious concern that they have. And we support the notion of having multiple compacts. I think the whole question of 5-year funding is something that we need to work with the Congress on. If somebody had asked me 10 years ago would Congress lock up money for 5 years for a program like MCC, I wouldn't have believed it possible. But in fact, the commitment was made and there was the patience to stick with MCC long enough to give the program a chance to get the pipeline out into the field. I think we are now at the point where we all together have to evaluate the results, we are very pleased with the way MCC has been working and embrace the mission of MCC wholeheartedly. Mr. Crenshaw. One thing, the time is almost up, but it is unique in the way the funding is planned out over several years. Most of the foreign assistance gets appropriately spent. And so the MCC money is always a target for folks to say, well, I know that is committed, but it is really not spent so why don't we take that money and put it somewhere else. Do you have any ideas about how we can do a better job of making sure that when we enter in a compact and say this is what we are going to spend over a 3 to 5-year period that people don't grab the money each year. Mr. Lew. I think the risk of multi-year money is one that is perennial. I think it is the right way to think about an awful lot of issues and we would love to work on multi-year programs and other areas as well. It is not always in the best interest of achieving long-term objectives to have year-to-year decisions. At the same time, I fully understand that the appropriations process is an annual process. I think MCC has survived through its kind of early years with the tolerance that it takes time to get the pipeline fully flowing. I think that the challenge will be for MCC to show results, and if it can show results, we can work together on multi-year funding. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Schiff. Opening Remarks of Mr. Schiff Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Deputy, good to see you. I know we did not reach a meeting of the minds last week on the issue of coalition government. And I want to reiterate my concerns about that. In the event there is a coalition government that is formed, I think we will need to revisit many of the issues that we discussed, and I am just going to leave it at that. I do want to ask you about three countries this morning: Egypt, Yemen and Somalia. Last week you may have seen a pretty powerful editorial in the Washington Post taking issue with unrestricted FMF, financing or other financial assistance to Egypt without any discussion of the promotion of democracy in Egypt. And while I don't agree with the incompetent and condescending way that the previous administration sought to promote democracy in Egypt or elsewhere in the Arab world, the failure to impose democracy by diktat should not lead to total abandonment of a policy that seeks to bring more democratic rule to hundreds of millions of people through a process of candid engagement with current regimes, support for growth of independent civil society in the Arab world, support for media and unwillingness to continue turning a blind eye to gross violations of human rights. Poll after poll of Arabs taken in the last decade have shown that American support for authoritarian regimes is often at the heart of anti-American attitudes in the region. So my question, with respect to Egypt, is what will we be doing to promote democratic reforms in Egypt, notwithstanding the statements of the Secretary of Defense. And with respect to Somalia and Yemen over the weekend, General Petraeus told Chris Wallace we see tentacles of al Qaeda that connect to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the elements of al Shabaab in Somalia, elements in North Central Africa, and that strive to reach all the way, of course, into Europe and the U.S. My principal concern is over Somalia and Yemen. And is there anything in the State Department's budget or plans to try to create institutions in Somalia in particular, but also in Yemen, that will prevent either place from becoming the next Afghanistan? Mr. Lew. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Let me start, if I could, on your first observation because I actually think we may have not reached agreement on words, but we have a meeting of the minds. We agree with you wholeheartedly in the case of U.S. support for the Palestinian Authority that we should not be supporting organizations or individuals who have ties to terrorist organizations. And we want to make sure that as we implement any appropriation bill that is enacted that we make sure that there is no ambiguity about that. Sometimes it is hard to draft the words, but I think there is actually an agreement on the principle. On Egypt, the U.S. funding for Egypt has been a source of some tension in the relationship with Egypt over the last few years. And the combination of the reduced level coming down and the earmark that went from $50 million to $20 million for democracy was I don't think contributing to our ability to actually move Egypt forward on a democracy agenda. That doesn't mean that we don't want to support democracy activities. We do very much remain committed to promoting democracy in Egypt, and we understand the shortcomings that exist there. I think that in the conversations that the Secretary had when she was in Egypt, and the conversations that I have had with representatives of the government of Egypt, there has been an enormous appreciation that what we have said is we want to work together on identifying funding objectives which meet with our kind of bilateral approval. It is kind of not saying--we are not saying we won't be promoting democracy activities, we are saying we want to have a conversation with them and engage with them in a somewhat different way. Egypt is an important ally. They have important challenges in this area. We know that we need to work with them. I think that they know they need to work with us. And we have tried to use the very small change in the way the aid is structured to create a relationship where you can have more influence and make more progress. Mr. Schiff. If I can just say, if there is time for you to respond on Yemen and Somalia, I agree with that approach, and I think that we haven't been very effective in our democracy assistance funding in Egypt, and that there may very well be room for us to work with the Egyptians on supporting organizations and democracy, promoting institutions that aren't flash points in our relationship with Egypt. So I don't think we have gone about it necessarily the best way. And I think there is room to work with Egyptians on a better approach. But I want to make sure we are not abandoning an approach, because I think it is fundamental to the concern that many in the Arab world have about the United States. Mr. Lew. If I might briefly just address the question you raised on Somalia and Yemen. In Somalia, we have a significant effort in the peacekeeping area. And we have put some $28 million into economic support funds that can be used for precisely the purposes that you inquired about: Reconciliation efforts, training government civic leaders and supporting initiatives that facilitate dialogue in civil society. I don't think we disagree about the risk that is present in Yemen or Somalia. And we are very attentive to the fact that we have to keep our eye on areas of instability which could become the next challenge. Yet Yemen requires our attention as well and I'm happy to continue the conversation about Yemen. Mr. Schiff. Thank you Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Mr, Kirk. Opening Remarks of Mr. Kirk Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would note that when you left OMB, our assistance to the West Bank totaled $211 million. And this year will be four times that at $865 million. So I share my colleague from California's very deep concerns about the direction you are going. And I want to ask a very specific question. In November of 2007, the AID inspector general released a report entitled the Audit and Adequacy of USAID's Anti-Terrorism Vetting Procedures. The inspector general concluded the following: AID's procedures, policies and controls are not adequate to reasonably ensure against providing assistance to terrorists. These policies or procedures do not require the vetting of potential or current AID partners. Further, the sufficient management controls have not been developed to reasonably prevent aid from being inadvertently provided to terrorists. To decrease the risks of inadvertently providing funding and material support to terrorist entities AID should issue guidance on a worldwide anti-terrorist vetting program. In June 2008, the inspector general released its own report viewing the State Department's counterterrorism vetting procedures. They concluded procedures for counterterrorism vetting and whether vetting is conducted at all vary widely through the department. Different lists are consulted by different offices and few offices have negotiated special arrangements to conduct vetting at the terrorist screening center. The inefficiencies and potential vulnerabilities in these arrangements have been apparent both at the interagency and department level, but the interagency efforts so far fail to establish governmentwide sets of standards and procedures for counterterrorism vetting prior to awarding government assistance. In response to the 2007 report, AID developed a partner vetting system. I personally visited that office in Crystal City at the terrorist screening center. The final rule for the partner vetting system was published January 2, but left implementation to the new administration. Mr. Kirk [continuing]. Given the conclusions and recommendations reached by two IG reports and the very large provision of assistance now proposed for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, and especially the West Bank and Gaza, will you commit to implementing the partner vetting system for the State Department and USAID assistance. Mr. Lew. Mr. Kirk, in terms of current practices on vetting of NGOs, you know there is a vetting process in place where NGOs are checked against multiple terrorist lists. Mr. Kirk. Can I just tell you the current system is one that the IGs decry? The new system that I am asking. Mr. Lew. And I am going to answer your question. The rules that you are asking about were presented for our review soon after we arrived and we asked a number of questions about them. Most prominently was why did it apply to NGOs exclusively, why did it not apply to contractors. And frankly I couldn't be satisfied that there was a good rationale for saying that there was a difference that made a difference, and I asked USAID to go back and redraft a regulation that would be applied across the board. That has been sent to OMB. It is in the rulemaking process now, and it is on a template to become final. Mr. Kirk. Good. I support that you are actually going to expand---- Mr. Lew. I thought it was a mistake to issue a rule that went halfway and create confusion, when in just a few weeks we would be able to implement a rule that starts out in an even- handed way. Mr. Kirk. Great. I hope that there are no exceptions. Mr. Lew. I am not aware of exceptions. There obviously are many safeguards---- Mr. Kirk. The international NGO system hates this program, and so I would hope that you would not provide any out, given the very large increase and the fact that we may be, under language proposed by the administration, providing a taxpayer subsidy to Hamas-controlled ministries, the PA, this actually will protect the administration more than if there were---- Mr. Lew. Since all of my interventions have been to expand, not narrow the coverage, I know that it was broader than it was in January because it covers contractors. I will go back and check on that question as to whether any exceptions were in there. Mrs. Lowey. I just want say that I appreciate--you will get an additional minute--but I just want to say I appreciate the gentleman bringing up this issue because, as you said, it certainly is applicable in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the administration has been extremely cooperative and understanding. We have to strengthen the requirements. There are chances that someone could get through a hole, but I think if we are all in agreement that this is critical, we can certainly perfect the system. And I wanted to thank the administration, and now you can go back. Mr. Kirk. I take what you said as very good news. We have not received the formal budget justification for the Department. Our budgeting brief says that you will be requesting $62 million for public diplomacy, including 20 new positions. I am concerned that we haven't identified the Chinese speakers in that list of where we will be going. Also, last year we funded six new American presence posts for public diplomacy in China that cost about $1.5 million each in China. And Secretary Rice outlined a vision for 10 of these posts throughout China in the largest cities where we don't have a consulate. In the budgeting brief we have no mention of American presence posts. For example, here is a list of cities with no American presence whatsoever: In Xinxiang, 8.5 million people; Tianjin, 8.2; Chongqing, 7.5; Nanjing, 7; Dandong, 6.5; Hengshui, 6.3. So these are all plus five million metropolitan jurisdictions. Are we going to fund the American presence posts plans of the Department or are we going to let these cities go. Mr. Lew. Well, first in terms of when the details are going to be forthcoming, our plan is to get the detailed budget justification up in about 2 weeks, which I am told is actually ahead of past schedules, which given that it is a transition year is something that we feel pretty good about. So I apologize it is not here yet, but we are trying to get it to you as soon as possible. In terms of the American presence posts we are looking at the issue, and, you know, understand that it will require some engagement with the government of China to work through what would be acceptable posts. We are aware that they have a desire to have some additional offices in the United States and look forward to engaging in a conversation with them where their interests and our interests can all be worked through. Mr. Kirk. I just say that these cities alone, which would be six cities, is over 40 million people where there is no U.S. Diplomatic presence. Mr. Lew. I understand the issue, and I think that as we work through these issues with the Chinese there will be some places where presence is more likely to be possible than others, and we will get back to you as we proceed. Mr. Kirk. Thank you. I see. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. In terms of the resources I would just say that your input is helpful, and if we could justify positions in every place where we would like positions, I am not sure where that would take us, Mr. Kirk. So I look forward to working with you and certainly the State Department in evaluating your requests and see what we can do to be helpful. Ms. Lee. Opening Remarks of Ms. Lee Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being here and congratulations. We certainly have a lot of work to do. Mr. Lew. Yes, we do. Ms. Lee. War, poverty, genocide, disease, climate change, but I am very pleased to see that President Obama has pledged to double foreign assistance by 2015. It really begins to put us on the right track toward reaching some of our goals. So congratulations to you for being in the position to make sure that much of this happens. Before I ask you a couple of questions on the budget, let me just mention, and I mentioned this to the Secretary in terms of an inquiry with regard to a constituent of mine, Tristan Anderson, who was seriously injured when he was struck in the head by a tear gas canister in Israel and by Israeli soldiers while he was engaging in a nonviolent demonstration. So we will be following up, writing a more detailed letter because I am hoping the State Department is monitoring the full investigation of this very, very terrible incident. On the budget, let me ask about the Global Fund first of all. It has always been a key component in our response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, TB and malaria, and in a very short period of time we really achieved significant results putting over 2 million people on AIDS treatment, 5 million are being treated for TB, and 70 million bed nets have been distributed to prevent malaria, and of course we have been a generous donor to the fund, but the anticipated contribution I think it is $900 million in the fiscal year 2009 budget. That will have to be significantly increased if we expect to fully fund all of the grants and meet the dramatically increased needs anticipated for 2010. And so I am not sure in terms of this budget, it looks like we are flat lining our contribution to the Global Fund, and I am wondering could you clarify that, especially given the need to actually increase it. Next, let me just congratulate you and our administration for the new Global Health Initiative. I think that it is a major step in the right direction in terms of looking at how we address our smart power agenda. I am concerned, though, that the $51 billion allocated to PEPFAR and malaria over the next 6 years could fall short, if I am reading this right, at the funding pace which we authorized, and that was about $48 billion over the next 5 years. So I would like to get some clarification on how we are addressing the Global Fund and PEPFAR and I want to make sure that we are not--or we shouldn't--anticipate a decline in resources for these very important and productive and noble efforts that we are engaged in. Mr. Lew. Thank you for those questions. I think that by any estimation you know PEPFAR and the Global Fund have just done an enormous amount in a very short period of time to tackle a terrible disease--three terrible diseases with extraordinary impact. The President and the administration continue to support very strongly the funding of those programs, and as you noted, we have expanded the concept to have a broader global health focus. In terms of the Global Fund itself, we actually requested a higher funding level than has been requested previously, and overall we think we have funded both the U.S. and the Global Fund programs so that they can meet the need. There is obviously some interplay between the two, and we know that in the past there has been back and forth between Congress and the administration on this and we look forward to continuing that conversation as we go through the year. On the global health program more broadly, the focus on the three diseases in PEPFAR, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, has been enormously valuable in terms of just tackling a problem that 8 years ago had no solution and now giving 2 million people treatment that is life saving. You know, we need to find the means to extend that kind of focus to a number of other areas where we know very well how to improve health and life extending outcomes, actually more easily and less expensively than in those other areas. Our focus is on basic health issues, things like maternal and child health and the neglected tropical diseases, diarrheal illness which takes the lives of so many children, things that are very easy when you have a health presence to treat them and can be done in a coordinated way. In terms of the funding level overall, the President committed to funding the PEPFAR program at $50 billion over 5 years. He has actually increased it to 51 in his budget and it is over 6 years. We think that that is a funding level that will enable us to keep pace. There are many issues about the projected requirements to keep pace with the current program and, as I think you know, there is a statutorily required strategic review of the program which our new administrator, who is going to be running the PEPFAR program when he is confirmed, will take on as a first order of business. Ms. Lee. Madam Chair, may I just quickly follow up? With regard to PEPFAR, I want to make sure that we are talking about a minimum of at least $4.8 billion a year for PEPFAR. The numbers, I am not sure, I know you have $51 billion over the next 6 years, which falls short for the funding pace for PEPFAR alone. And then secondly, yes, the administration has requested more than previous administrations for the Global Fund, but that is part of the reason we are behind and there are grants now that are pending that won't be funded if, in fact, we don't significantly increase that $900 million. Mr. Lew. We believe the funding level that the administration put in meets the needs of the program. If there are shortfalls that you see, we would be happy to discuss those with you. Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to follow up with you on that. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Ms. Lee, and I just want to thank Mr. Lew as well for suggesting that there has been a conversation and that there will continue to be a conversation. As you know, in the supplemental we put an additional $100 million for the Global Fund, and as for the question of balancing all the tremendous needs we have, certainly we want to continue to see aggressive action with HIV/AIDS and the Global Fund and PEPFAR, et cetera, and how that balances with food security and agriculture and education. It is worthy of additional conversation, as you said. So I thank you for your input. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. Being new to the subcommittee, I am trying to create a timeline on food security and the definition of emergency purchases of local and regional commodities. I notice in your presentation you have an appropriation request of an additional $300 million. Could you work through with me what you mean by famine prevention? Is that an emergency in the minds of those within the State Department? And the authority was originally granted in the pilot project and in the farm bill of 2008, and I see a study is going to be published after 4 years. Work through with me a little bit, and the reason I come from this direction is that I fear a little bit of a shifting of intent or responsibility on the part of those of us from agricultural States. I have to defend my votes on foreign assistance, and let me make a statement then. You refute it if you should or can or wish to, and that is we are taking taxpayer dollars from agricultural producers in Montana to send over to Africa to buy food product, commodities from the European Union. Mr. Lew. Congressman, the thrust of our Food Security Initiative is to be able to develop in the long term sustainable food production systems so that the need for emergency assistance in the long run will be reduced. It is ultimately not a solution to the problems in those poorest countries of the world for us to either export commodities or for them to be purchased locally. Ultimately, they need to develop sustainable agricultural systems that can meet their own needs. Mr. Rehberg. And I clearly understand that, and you know, there is no way I could justify as a fiscal conservative the expense of the transportation of commodities from America over to a famine area, except that it is the taxpayer dollar that is being used to purchase the commodities in America to send to the area as opposed to taking the taxpayers' dollar and sending it over to a competitor to buy the product somewhere else to give for the food security. Mr. Lew. Over the past number of years there has been an evolution of the commodity program from a U.S. Export program to a mix of U.S. Exports and local purchases. It has actually had beneficial effects in terms of being able to stabilize markets around the world and provide the commodities that are actually needed in the recipient countries. When I was in my last tour of duty at the Office of Management and Budget, there were more than a few circumstances when commodity exports that we were proposing didn't meet the needs of the country we were sending them to, and there was food that they didn't eat and didn't know what to do with. Mr. Rehberg. Is that because we don't produce that food product in America or it was a purchasing problem? Mr. Lew. I think that the challenge we have is to make sure that we are providing commodities that are needed at levels that meet the demand, get delivered to the people when they need it, and that as much as possible don't cause instability in the markets that we are seeking to help. Mr. Rehberg. I can understand that in the emergency standpoint, but in an ongoing food security program it seems like somebody ought to be smart enough to get the product in the hands of people that they want purchasing from us so that we are not only teaching them to farm, which we all support, but also undercutting ourselves financially locally because it is our economic development in the farm States. It definitely is a shift that I see. I recognize it from---- Mr. Lew. Well, I think that it is a mistake to characterize these as emergency and nonemergency programs because these are really all emergency programs, and the need that we have is to meet the timeliness requirements, the appropriateness of the commodities, and as much as possible support the local production markets so we don't end up providing assistance but destroying the local agricultural market. There is a place for U.S. products in there. I don't mean to be suggesting that it is all or nothing, but I think that the fact that the program has become a mix, that is not a new policy. Mr. Rehberg. Could your agency provide information to me of the changing mix? Mr. Lew. Sure, I would be happy to. Mr. Rehberg. Whether it was 90/10 and now it is 60/40 or 50/50 or 30/70. Mr. Lew. Yes, I will. I want to underscore that the really important focus of the Food Security Initiative that we are undertaking is really in the area of promoting self- sufficiency, and the big increase in the budget here is in the area of promoting education and extension of technologies and farming practices, which is kind of neutral in the sense that it is not exporting or providing goods but helping to create a sustainable---- Mr. Rehberg. Real quickly then. Do you read the authorizing legislation in the farm bill that you are taking the $300 million figure for your appropriation request as $300 million per year in authorization or $300 million total over the course of the farm bill's authorization? Mr. Lew. I will have to get back to you on that, Congressman. Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lew. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Mr. Lew, I would like to congratulate the administration on its budget request. I support the smart power strategy that you described in your testimony. I look forward to working with the administration on our shared priorities, global health, climate change and agricultural development. Congratulations. Mr. Lew. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. I was also encouraged to hear the strong statement from you in support of Middle East peace, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent national security priority of the United States, but I have serious concerns about the new Israeli Government's failure to embrace the creation of an independent Palestinian state. This budget commits billions of taxpayer dollars to Israel and hundreds of millions to the Palestinians in pursuit of mutual peace and security. The American people are making a serious investment in peace. However, U.S. support must be matched by accountability, and it is time for both the Palestinians and Israelis to be accountable for removing obstacles to peace. One of those obstacles to peace and security is the government of Israel's continued support for the expansion of settlements and the failure to prevent the establishment of illegal outposts on Palestinian land. This land must one day be included as part of a future Palestinian state. Since 1967, homes have been built for 470,000 Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In the past 3 years Israel has built over 5,000 homes in the West Bank settlements and another 500 bids for houses were issued. Continued settlement expansion will only lead to one conclusion, a one-state solution, and this is an unacceptable solution. The continued expansion of settlements not only undermines the peace process but it undermines U.S. national security. In fact, the settlement expansion also undermines Israeli security and America's investment in Israeli security, and I would like to quote Vice President Biden in his speech to AIPAC recently. Quote, Israel has to work for a two-state solution, not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow Palestinians freedom of movement, end of quote. Now, I strongly support the Vice President's statement. So I would like to ask you to help me to understand clearly where the administration's position is. Does the U.S. Government oppose Israeli Government policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Can you assure me that none of the $2.8 billion in funds provided to Israel through the foreign military financing would be used to enable or facilitate the expansion or maintenance of settlements? And since settlement expansion is contrary to U.S. policy and undermines national security interests, what is our government doing to hold our partner Israel accountable if they choose to continue their policy of settlement expansion? And as you can tell I feel a sense of urgency to push for peace. Mr. Lew. Congresswoman, the administration and the President have, I think, taken a very clear position that we strongly support a two-state solution and that we feel that it is urgent for the United States to engage actively in the process. The President and Secretary Clinton have appointed Senator Mitchell as a Special Envoy and he has been traveling in the region, meeting with the parties. He has been working closely with the President and Secretary as they plan and prepare for meetings with heads of state from the region which are going to be held in the coming weeks. I think that the time is now for all the parties in the region to come forward and engage in this conversation constructively, and we have made clear that we want to be active and supportive of the process both diplomatically and through our financial support. I think that it is not the appropriate moment for me to be putting forward new administration statements on this issue. It is obviously a set of policies that are critically important in the coming weeks, months, and years ahead, and we very much hope that we reach a level of engagement that can break a logjam here. We are at a moment in history where in some ways there is remarkable commonality of interest among so many of the parties. There is a shared concern about the threat posed by Iran in the region and the world. There is a shared concern about the spread of extremism around the region and the world. I think we have to move into these conversations so that the President and Secretary are able to pursue in each of their conversations, as effectively and aggressively as possible, the efforts to bring the parties to be able to have a constructive dialogue. Ms. McCollum. Well, I thank you for your really diplomatic answer, and Madam Chair, I strongly support what this committee has been focusing on to make sure that we support Senator Mitchell in a unity government and that we remove obstacles for people who want peace to be part of that government, but at the same time guarantee that we are not funding Hamas. But along with the dollars that we are providing in that area, we need to be having a frank discussion with a great ally in Israel, a country which shines brightly with democracy in that area, that we also have taxpayers who are very concerned about illegal outposts and expansion, and we as representatives of the people are starting to hear very loudly and clearly from people that we represent from all faiths, from all walks of life who support peace that the settlements are an obstacle and that we have to stand strongly for a two-state solution, and they are very concerned about lack of support that they are hearing from the new Israeli Government. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Just briefly let me say that in addition to being a diplomatic response, I thought that Secretary Lew did reflect the observations of this delegation when we were in Israel, the West Bank, and Egypt just recently. And it was clear to all of us that there was a commonality of interests that was new. There was concern on the part of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and others about the danger, the threat of Iran to the region, and it was also clear to me that Bibi Netanyahu was in the process of evaluating the position of Israel before he came. In our meeting, which was very cordial, very pleasant, there was no clear answer to any of the questions that were posed and it was fairly clear to us that they were having and he was very specific about saying in the next few weeks that he and his cabinet were going to reevaluate their positions before they come to the United States. So I would hope that the conversations between Israel, between Bibi Netanyahu and others who may be part of it, between, I am not sure, I assume Abu Mazen will be coming and Salam Fayyad will be coming, and I hope that all the parties can work together. I think there is a real commitment on the part of the majority of the Israelis and certainly on the part of the Palestinians to a two-state solution. I am less optimistic in a unity government and a power sharing government, although we have placed many conditions in the legislation in response to Senator Mitchell's request for flexibility, I think Senator Mitchell, Abu Mazen, and the Israelis and most of us who were there have real questions about the reality of a unity government or power sharing government. But, however, that is certainly on the table. It is certainly going to be discussed, but I think there is agreement that this is a hypothetical. So let me say this. In my lifetime, having worked on this issue and been to the region many times, I hope that the administration, the President, the Secretary of State, Senator Mitchell, can bring the parties together and we can have two- state solution and seek peace. So I personally want to thank you and the administration for the commitment to this goal and hopefully again we can see it in our lifetime. And I thank you. Ms. McCollum. Well, Madam Chair, being Irish and having traveled to Northern Ireland when the peace process was started, I am very confident in Mr. Mitchell, but what he does is he holds everybody accountable. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, and I told Senator Mitchell that compared to the issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think he has a much easier job. So we all wish him good luck. Mr. Lew. No shortage of hard problems. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. I think we have votes in, what, about 10 minutes or so. So perhaps we can continue this discussion until the bells go off, and again I thank you for appearing before us. I want to focus for a few minutes on the Civilian Stabilization Initiative because the fiscal year 2010 budget requests $323.3 million for the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, or CSI, and in fiscal years 2008, 2009, this committee appropriated a total of $150 million in support of CSI, $95 million to the Department of State, $55 million to USAID. Your request reverses this pattern of joint funding to State and USAID by requesting all CSI operations funding under the Department of State. Furthermore, the budget recommends the lead in language that was carried in the last 2 years requiring that there be coordination between State and USAID. Let me just say I don't understand this at all, and so I would like to know, number one, what is the justification for the decision to request all CSI funding through the Department of State? I will give you a couple of questions and then you can just respond. I know you will remember them all. Mr. Lew. I am jotting them down. Mrs. Lowey. Why does the request delete language carried the last 2 years in the bill requiring consultation between the Department and USAID and the elimination of direct funding and the deletion of the consultation requirement? I would like to know what role will USAID have in the decision making process. And your budget request more than doubles the funding for this initiative. What evidence is there that this capability is effective and is being utilized, especially without USAID being involved, and are there examples of successful deployments and, if so, what are they? Let me just say in addition, the request includes $76 million to USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives for a rapid response fund. So I would like to know how these resources would be used, and how would the Department and USAID determine whether OTI will be deployed to a post-conflict situation or whether the CSI would be deployed? So as you can see, I think the coordination between State and USAID is absolutely essential. So I don't understand this request at all. Mr. Lew. Well, let me start by maybe taking a step back and saying that while efforts have been made to date to build a civilian stabilization program, they are so early in implementation that we do not have a capacity that is large enough to deal with the very enormous demands that we see in the world today and expect to see in the years ahead. So we start out with a deep commitment that for the State Department to take back the responsibilities that have over the past number of years kind of moved over to the Defense Department, it is absolutely critical that the State Department have the capacity to quickly deploy people with the right skills to areas of either crisis or where there are stabilization needs, and the concept behind this initiative is that there need to be three components. There need to be full-time employees who work on this all the time. There need to be ready reserve government employees who can be redeployed when needed, and ultimately, there need to be nongovernmental outside reservists, much like the military reserve, and just to put into context---- Mrs. Lowey. Before you go further, because I did ask you a lot of questions at once, I agree with you, but how do you do this? Together we want to build up USAID and you want to build up the State Department. So now you are saying it should all be in State Department. We are building up USAID with that expertise that I hope some day they can be transported swiftly and appropriately where they are needed, but now you want to move it all into State. Mr. Lew. Well, first, the deletion of the language I think is the same answer to the question before, that I think most, if not all of the language that was included in the appropriations bill was not included in the request just because that is the tradition of budget requests. So I think we need to separate the transmittal from the policy that we aim to work together on. I must say that I have had questions on this in my own mind since coming to the State Department. You know, the question of how to coordinate USAID and the State Department and other agencies of government is much more basic than C/SRS, and I think we need to get to the point where the dividing line that money was appropriated for one but not for the other, therefore they don't operate as one program is something that is right at the top of my list of things that we have to overcome. That may make me perhaps not sufficiently sensitive to how important it is to people here or perhaps in the agency that when the appropriation is made to one place or another it matters deeply to them. I think the goal here is to build a capacity that is sufficiently robust that it can serve the mission. The decision to put it in State versus USAID is something that we are continuing to review in the sense that it is not obvious to me why the decision was made to build an expeditionary capacity in a second part of the foreign policy establishment. We do have a S/CRS. It is working at its size very effectively. We just deployed the resources of the civilian response team to go to Afghanistan to work on the elections in August, and it was the one resource that we could send over immediately. It demonstrates the need to have this capacity. Frankly, I would like to engage in a conversation within the Department and between the Department and USAID and with the committee because I think that this is in some ways a cross-government effort. It is not just State and USAID. I mean when we need people who are experts in governance or rule of law or agriculture, they may or may not come from the confines of the foreign policy agencies and we need to have the ability to draw on the right people with the right skills to meet the tasks, and those are going to change over time. So I guess my view on this is that we have some something that is nascent that we want to build up. We want to work with you and the other committees of concern here to make sure we build up something that is not duplicative but that harmonizes the different parts of the foreign policy community, and the nonforeign policy community has a role to play here and that ultimately makes it less consequential where the appropriation is and more consequential what we are asking the people to do, and that is going to be how we try to manage across these boundaries. Mrs. Lowey. Clearly, I appreciate your response and I know that we have to have further discussion, but again my concerns have been if you don't have the civilian expertise at USAID and you are not totally focused on building up USAID, and I know you care very much about it, as does the Secretary, and understand the importance of it, then it is very hard to focus on the Civilian Stabilization Initiative without the investment in that expertise. We can certainly continue this discussion, and I also agree with you that there are people at the Department of Agriculture, for example, that may be called on. But I feel and I believe you share the commitment to building up expertise at USAID. Frankly, in my visiting, was it Ambassador Newman, I think former Ambassador Newman in Afghanistan, a place where we need staff, putting aside the Civilian Stabilization Initiative--you compare the strength that USAID had in Afghanistan when he was ambassador to what it has now and suddenly we are just trying to recreate everything. So I just want to be sure we have the basic strength before we try and build on other capacities elsewhere. Mr. Lew. We agree totally about the need to rebuild the USAID core base. But one point I guess I would like to add is that there is a disproportionate number of positions that we would like to be able to call on that will not be full time either State or USAID positions. In this 2010 budget we would end up with thousands of reserve civilians that we could call on and hundreds of full-time State and USAID employees. So it is like 10 to 1 in terms of the ratio of full-time versus standby reserve. I think the challenge we have is to design and implement a reserve system where those people are truly available to us, that they are pretrained, that they stay up to the standards that are required to be deployed quickly, and that to me is a huge undertaking, something the State Department has never done. USAID has never done. And it is something we have models of how military reserves work, but we need to develop the model for how to do that on the civilian side. I don't believe we are going to ever be able to have enough full-time civilians who are sitting in Washington offices waiting to be deployed, just as the military doesn't have enough full-time soldiers waiting to be deployed. They need a reserve capacity to meet these peaks and valleys of demand. I think that is a huge undertaking and one that we are very focused on, and we very much look forward to getting the appropriations for that so that we can build our capacity. Mrs. Lowey. The discussion should continue. Just before I turn it over to Ms. Granger, I want to make it clear. I don't foresee any capacity composed of people who are just sitting there with expertise waiting---- Mr. Lew. No, no, I understand. Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. To be deployed. Now they may be in another country. They may have the capacity totally focused someplace else and you'll be able to call on them. But to be continued. Thank you. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. The administration has included another request for $98 million in economic support funds for North Korea. That is for fiscal year 2010. Tell me exactly what those funds will support. I know the news that we see is grim. Do you see a potential to restart the six-party talks? Mr. Lew. The funds that are requested for North Korea are all contingent on progress being made in the six-party talks and progress being made in terms of compliance with the removal of the nuclear capacities. The specific funding would be for the area of fuel oil, keeping the commitment that we have to replace fuel oil when nuclear capacity is taken down for energy production, but it only would kick in in the event that North Korea complies. So there is absolutely nothing that we would provide here to North Korea absent North Korea's compliance. Ms. Granger. I understand. Thank you. Mr. Lew. And we hope that there is a return to six-party talks and that North Korea goes back into compliance because that is a hugely important policy objective that we and most of the world share right now. Ms. Granger. Certainly. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. I was very happy to see that the President's budget does take significant steps towards rebuilding our civilian foreign assistance and diplomatic capacity. I also strongly believe that the State Department should really accurately reflect the diversity of the United States in order to accurately represent our country. So I hope that this process and what you are about to do will include the whole issue of diversity, people of color, women, individuals with disabilities in terms of advancing opportunities for these populations of people. Also, for a couple of years now I have been asking questions with regard to the minority women-owned business participation and utilization as it relates to contracting within USAID and the State Department. I guess, Madam Chair, I don't know if I need to request a report from the Department because I still don't have a good handle on how the Department is doing as it relates to minorities and women and individuals with disabilities in terms of total contracting dollars and what the percentages are to these companies. Would that be under your jurisdiction or how could I get that information because--and I mentioned this before previously--in my last life I owned a small business and I tried to do business like other African American companies with the Department of State, USAID, and there were roadblocks after roadblocks after roadblocks, and I mean I did it the way that it should have been done, the proper way in terms of contracting procedures and not one, not one instance, and I don't know many people of color who have been able to do business with the State Department. So I am trying to get a good handle on that and still haven't been able to figure it out. Mr. Lew. We would be happy to work with you and pull together an analysis to explore both of those issues. Let me just underscore the Secretary's commitment and my commitment that in the area of recruitment it is very important that the State Department broaden its base for all kinds of reasons. We can only do our job effectively in the 21st century if we go around the world reflecting the diversity of the United States and the world that we are dealing in. And historically, the diversity has not been that great. There has been a lack of diversity at many levels historically in the State Department. I think we are doing better than in the past, but that doesn't mean we don't need to go out more aggressively and recruit at schools and through organizations and that help us to build the diverse base we need. Frankly, we have an opportunity now with the first significant expansion of Foreign Service officers in a generation to go about doing it in what we would consider the right way and to expand the opportunities for individuals to come in and get information, to expand the opportunities for them to be interviewed, and to make sure that as the selection process moves forward it is fair and open. So we agree wholeheartedly with that and would be happy to work with you to go through in more detail what our recruiting policies are and what the record is. In the area of contracting, at the risk of sounding too critical of my own department, we are kind of nondiscriminatory in making the contracting process difficult. We have to fix it. We have to get away from these giant contracts. It is not just minority businesses that have a hard time doing business with the State Department. I hear it from NGOs. I hear it from medium size organizations, large organizations. There are good reasons why things evolved the way they have over the years, but one of the things that we need to do is look at it, and as we look at it, to keep in mind that one of the benefits of opening up contracting to smaller, more competitive contracts is that it naturally helps to ease some of the barriers that have kept minority firms from competing. I don't have an easy answer for this, but I know that at an administration-wide level this is a goal that the President has, and it is certainly something we take seriously at the State Department. Ms. Lee. Well, thank you very much, and let me just say we would like to work with you. As Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, we have some ideas on how we could make this happen in a way that would work, and so I hope that you would consult with not only us but those of us in the Tri-Caucus who would like to see this happen. Mr. Lew. Thank you. Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. As we enter into a world of identity and Real ID and the next generation passport, I guess as you know you have a lot of secure information, birth cities, passport numbers, and the like. I guess, could you talk to me a little bit about what you are doing within the Department to protect the privacy of citizens. And does this budget--I was going through your testimony. I see you talk a little bit about cyber security, but I guess I want you to expand a little bit beyond your testimony of what you are doing internally. And does this budget reflect the kinds of things that you need to occur in the short term, whether we are talking about immigration policy, Real ID, and protection of that information. Mr. Lew. Congressman, there is a natural tension between raising the bar on how we scrutinize the comings and goings of individuals and personal privacy. Mr. Rehberg. I am from Montana. I clearly understand that concept. Mr. Lew. And we are very, very attentive to the importance that both sides of the equation are very important. I think that, you know, there have been some incidents in recent history at the State Department that show that there was perhaps not a high enough level of protection of individual files, even before our arrival. I know that there were actions taken to try and tighten that up. As we go forward and look at the different systems that we put in place, the challenge is to make sure that the law enforcement agencies that have appropriate needs and reasons for access get access but that nobody else does, and you know, it is not a problem that one can just say, well, we fixed it, we move on. You constantly need to pay attention to it. Systems change. Mr. Rehberg. Does this budget then reflect---- Mr. Lew. I think it is part of our ongoing program, and it is more a question of focus than it is budget. I am not aware of the need for any specific resources in this area, and I am told that there is $2.7 million in our privacy office which is for the programs. Mr. Rehberg. In new money? And is that going to be part of the next generation passports similar to Europass or have you not begun that process of changing the passport? Mr. Lew. Well, we have a new passport. I mean, the new passport that we have has in it a substantial amount of information that is electronically encoded. So that is in place already. The challenge is how to make sure that the access to the information is controlled and, as I said, available for proper purposes but not for improper purposes. Mr. Rehberg. So there is no additional money in this budget---- Mr. Lew. I will get back to you in more detail. I must confess that in the many details of the budget, I have discussed this with people at a policy level, but I am not deeply familiar with the funding issues behind it. So why don't I get back to you? Mr. Rehberg. I perhaps didn't know it as well when I voted for Real ID, and Montana is one of those States where I have got Ted Kaczynski on the left and the Freemen on the right and everything in between. So I am perhaps more sensitive to privacy and the identity crisis that we have going on with some of that information getting out. So if you could get back to me, I would appreciate it. Mr. Lew. I would just say more broadly there are a number of issues related to the bar having been raised very high on security that we need to reevaluate, and it is always difficult to put any interest over security. No one wants to be responsible for changing a protocol and then having somebody slip through who shouldn't have slipped through. On the other hand, we have to be careful that we don't create problems that are as important as the solution, and I understand the direction of your question, and I look forward to working with you. Mr. Rehberg. Appreciate it. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Deputy Secretary Lew, thank you again for your time. I certainly look forward to working with you, as I know does the committee, and this concludes today's hearing on the President's fiscal year 2010 request for the international affairs budget. The Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations and Related Programs stands adjourned. Mr. Lew. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.141 Wednesday, May 20, 2009. OFFICE OF THE GLOBAL AIDS COORDINATOR WITNESS THOMAS J. WALSH, DEPUTY U.S. GLOBAL AIDS COORDINATOR (ACTING), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs will come to order. I would like to welcome Tom Walsh, Acting Deputy U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Chief of Staff, to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2010 request for global HIV/AIDS programs. This Committee has made global HIV/AIDS a key priority, providing $18.8 billion over the past five years, nearly $4 billion more than President Bush's initial commitment of $15 billion over five years, to address the global AIDS pandemic. These resources have had impressive results, with 2.1 million people receiving antiretroviral treatment; 9.7 million people receiving care through PEPFAR, including 4 million orphans, 58.3 million people benefitting from HIV/AIDS prevention and related programs. I applaud the tenacity with which your office and the U.S. government as a whole has pursued treating and preventing this horrible disease. Your efforts and the complementary efforts of allies such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria have added years of productive life to millions living with HIV/AIDS and have provided time and space for other critical development to take place. However, we have seen new challenges emerge, as life saving drugs have had the unintended consequence of increasing risk behavior, have increased risk behavior. As we enter the second phase of PEPFAR, we must evaluate our successes, examine new challenges, adjust accordingly. While new infections among children have dropped and younger people in some parts of the world are waiting longer to become sexually active, having fewer sexual partners or using condoms, we must do more to ensure that our prevention efforts reach those most at risk. I look forward to hearing how PEPFAR will expand prevention programs in the coming years. The pandemic continues to have a disproportionate impact on women. As you know, among young people in Subsaharan Africa, the HIV prevalence rate for young women is almost three times higher than the rate among young men. This is not a new statistic, and I am concerned that PEPFAR has not taken steps to address this challenge. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes a renewed focus on the needs of women and children, and I hope that PEPFAR will reach out to USAID which has extensive experience providing accessible community based services that meet the needs of women and their families. I would also like to see PEPFAR coordinate better with country programs and strategies developed by state and USAID. What efforts are you making to integrate PEPFAR programs into these country strategies? PEPFAR is entering its sixth year and sustainability is becoming a higher priority. Through partnership framework agreements, PEPFAR is building long term reciprocal relationships with developing countries. In addition, recent discussions with the Global Fund and developing country partners have begun the dialogue related to integrating U.S. government programs into future Global Fund grants. Can you provide an update on implementation of the partnership framework program? Also can you outline the steps PEPFAR is taking to empower developing countries to assume greater responsibility for fighting the pandemic? In order to create greater capacity in host countries, the next phase of PEPFAR should expand programs that build capacity and help infrastructure so that nations can better meet their own health challenges. Although the fiscal year 2009 investment of $734 million for health systems was significant, how will funding for these programs be expanded in the coming years? If these interventions are to be sustainable in the long term, developing countries must be able to shoulder more of the responsibility for the health of their populations. Please update your plans to invest in health infrastructure and the training of healthcare professionals. Mr. Walsh, I look forward to hearing your remarks and working with you on these and other issues, but first I will turn to Ranking Member, Ms. Granger, for her opening statement. Opening Statement of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey. I welcome you today, Mr. Walsh. I will keep my opening remarks very short because we have votes coming up and I want to hear what you have to say. Now that the PEPFAR program is authorized for an additional five years, this Committee wants to ensure the funds, no matter which agency implements the programs, are being properly managed and coordinated. Also we want to make sure that our multilateral contributions are subjected to high levels of scrutiny and oversight and would be expected as such from the American taxpayer of course. I thank you for appearing today, and I look forward to what you have to say. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I understand that there are three votes that may be coming up at 11:35. So we will put your statement in the record, and summarize, please proceed as you wish. Opening Statement of Mr. Walsh Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member Granger, and other Members here and staff. I will try to summarize very quickly under the circumstances. We really have appreciated the strong support and partnership with the Subcommittee in the years to date. We feel the bipartisan support here has been an important element in the success of PEPFAR to date. As you see the President has put forward a request that is very significant in terms of the level of funding, and we do feel strongly about the need to be accountable for how that is spent. It includes both the bilateral programs which have been very successful and also our contribution to the Global Fund which is a critical piece of the overall U.S. government approach to HIV/AIDS as well as malaria and tuberculosis, the other issues. So rather than say anything more, because you do have my statement, I will just throw it open for questions. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.151 Mrs. Lowey. I will save my question if I have time at the end. And I will turn to Ms. Granger for questions. Ms. Granger. My question has to do with the confusion surrounding whether or not the Global Fund is experiencing a $265 million shortfall. Can you comment on that? It is often unfair the Global Fund does manage demand, it is a first come first served organization. As long as the proposals are technically sound, 10 countries consume 50 percent of the Global Fund's resources. Is this sustainable? Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Let me take your questions in reverse order because the first one is more of a big picture question. Demand management at the Global Fund is something that the Fund has as of two weeks ago begun to turn its attention to with the participation of the United States. As you know, we sit on the board of the Fund and participate in some of the committees of that board. Two weeks ago at its most recent meeting, the Fund board set up a working group to focus on this question. You are exactly right that historically the Fund's approach has been basically to fund any proposal that meets technical muster without any attempt to prioritize the different proposals. And there are questions in an environment of tightening resources over whether that is really sustainable anymore. And so we were pleased to join the other members of the Fund in putting together this working group to focus on this and come up with solutions by the time of the next board meeting in November, because you are exactly right that there is an inherent conflict there. With respect to its current financial position, it is true that there are approximately $265 million worth of grants that were approved for Round Aid, or approved at the board's meeting I believe last November, for which they do not yet have cash in hand. And thus under the rules of the Fund they cannot yet pay out those grants. That situation strikes us as quite analogous to that of our U.S. government PEPFAR bilateral programs which have to wait for funding during the course of a year. As we do different CNs during the year, we commit funds and they go out to the field and then are put into practice. At the time the Fund approved those applications, it knew that it was going to be a rolling process with several different tranches of approvals during the coming year, and that is progressing. On the one hand it is the case that right now they do not have all the money to fund all the proposals that were approved last year. We do anticipate that they will have that money by later in the year, and we see that situation is again as analogous to what we experience in PEPFAR on a fairly routine basis. We are working to make sure that our programs are ensuring that there is not going to be any gap in services or anything like that because that would be of concern, but right now we feel comfortable with where things are. Ms. Granger. Let me just ask one more question. The U.S. contribution is a third of the total contribution, right? Mr. Walsh. That is the statutory maximum. Ms. Granger. Tell me what the voting structure is on the Global Fund. Does the U.S. have veto power like it does at the World Bank? Mr. Walsh. Not at all. In fact I am not sure I can tell you in its entirety the voting structure. We can get back to you on it. It is rather complex, but one thing I do know is, we do not have veto power. We are one board member among many. They have a rather complex structure in which the donor block and the recipient so to speak, blocks are kind of set up into two different blocks. We recently experienced some of the governance challenges in the attempt to elect a new Chair of the Global Fund board at the recent meeting. It did not work because under the rules you needed a two third vote of the donor block and the recipient block, and the recipient block could not within itself agree on a single candidate. So it is a rather complex structure and I would be happy to get back to you with additional details on that. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Israel. Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Walsh, I want to talk to you about pediatric treatment. Today, 1,000 children around the world will acquire HIV. Without proper care and treatment, 500 of them will die before they reach age 2, 750 of those 1,000 will die before they reach age 5. Seventeen percent of all new HIV infections are children, but I am told that only 9 percent of those children are on antiretroviral treatment under PEPFAR. What are your plans to reach the pediatric treatment targets that are contained in the reauthorization for PEPFAR? Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Congressman. Our goal, as you know, the reauthorization target was basically to have the proportion of children who are on treatment correspond to the proportion of children as a subset of all who are infected in programs where we work. This is a very challenging situation mainly because of the difficulty of diagnosing children at very young ages. This has been a long lasting problem. We believe that in the last five years we have begun to make some progress on a couple of the things and indeed are progressing in terms of rolling out pediatric treatment. Just to give you a sense of what some of those best practices are that we have learned, the lessons we have learned and that we intend to apply in the years to come. The first one is, in terms of early infant diagnosis, the new innovation in recent years has been the use of what they call dried blood spot testing, where you can take the blood from the infant and then transport it somewhere else for testing rather than have to have it in sort of a cold preserved chain. We are really supporting, I think we are working through the CDC which is one of our implementing agencies, to focus on getting dried blood spot testing rolled out. We are also in a number of countries trying to update these health cards that mothers and children typically have to include HIV information. In some places they have not included that, and that has been a gap or a place where people can fall through the cracks that we have been trying to address. Another one is promoting universal provider initiated counseling and testing in pediatric wards. When somebody is in a health facility that is really the best time to catch anyone to test them for HIV. And so ensuring that pediatric wards make this a routine part of their pediatric care is another important thing. And then family centered care is another important innovation for scaling up pediatric services. Where possible we really like to co-locate pediatric and adult treatment so that we can get the whole family at once. Those are some of the things we are trying to do, but we are very much a learning organization. We have learned a lot, we have more to learn and more to do to apply what we have learned. Mr. Israel. I actually have some additional questions but I know we are trying to move briskly because of votes. I will yield back and follow up with you. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I will turn to Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum. Thank you, and I will cut down quite a bit of what I wanted to ask because I will submit it for the record. But let me focus on one part of your written testimony which I read, and that has to do with nutrition. As you are well aware, the developing world was hit with a huge food crisis in the past year, and it affects the same people PEPFAR is intended to serve. So most people have an immediate concern right now with food. And you know that without proper nutrition and calories, the drugs do not work as effectively or as efficiently. So I am wondering what the picture is for how you are coordinating with what is part of the mandate for nutrition, and it should be part of the mandate because without nutrition the drugs do not work properly. I have another question and I am going to put in, Madam Chair, for the record about how PEPFAR is going to integrate to meet all of its commitments that the Administration is making on maternal child health and other issues. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me address the food issue. We are really addressing the food and nutrition needs that are related to HIV in two ways. One is directly through our PEPFAR programs, the second is by attempting to partner with other programs of the U.S. government and others such as the World Food Program, for whom food and nutrition is really what they mainly do. So we refer to that as wrap-around programs. And so we really do see a need to strengthen our linkages with these other programs where food is mainly what they do. With respect to our PEPFAR funding, we support food and nutrition for three populations. One is pregnant and expecting nursing mothers, a second is orphans and vulnerable children, whether HIV infected or not, and the third is people who are on treatment but meet certain clinical criteria for malnutrition. Certainly one of the reasons PEPFAR has been successful is because we have focused on HIV/AIDS. And so we do feel strongly about the need to maintain that focus. But as you say, if people are malnourished beyond a certain point then the treatment really will not work. And so we have some criteria that I think have been widely commended, at least I have not heard a lot of criticism over them, for determining when somebody meets that threshold and thus needs nutritional support through our HIV/AIDS programs. Ms. McCollum. Tell us in more detail, thank you. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. I wanted to make sure Mr. Jackson had an opportunity. Mr. Jackson. That is very kind of you, Ms. McCollum, thank you. I was prepared to submit my questions for the record. But thank you, Ms. McCollum, and thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Walsh, during my tenure on this Subcommittee--first, welcome to the Committee. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Jackson. I have tried to increase the capacity of developing countries to provide basic services like healthcare and education. Our bill carries from year to year two provisions that I think do just that. One addresses access to healthcare and education by eliminating---- Mrs. Lowey. I just want to say the speed with which you are asking this question reflects the urgency of the issue. [Laughter.] Mr. Jackson. One addresses access to healthcare and education by eliminating user fees. And the second addresses government staffing levels of healthcare providers and teachers. Congress set a target of training and supporting the retention of at least 140,000 new health professionals and paraprofessionals to help PEPFAR partner countries to develop the health work forces required to meet PEPFAR goals and to support long term sustainability. Congress intended that these be additional health workers, increasing the total number of health workers in these countries beyond the number that would otherwise have been trained, deployed, or retained. What is PEPFAR's strategy for meeting this target and for ensuring that these are new, truly additional health workers that add to a country's capacities and are not health workers who have been added to the workforce even without PEPFAR? Secondly, what level of funding does PEPFAR expect to dedicate towards achieving this goal in fiscal year 2010, and what are PEPFAR's estimates for the funding required to achieve this target by 2013? And lastly, can you report on how these funding estimates are derived? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Congressman. I will do my best to answer your questions but I am afraid we are going to have to follow up with you with some more detailed information because some of your questions are a little more detailed than I am in a position to answer. In terms of the new health workers, yes, it is certainly our intention that these be 140,000 new health workers, ones who would not otherwise have been trained without PEPFAR efforts. We have come up with some guidance for the field. This is really going to be a challenging goal to meet. The initial proposals we got back from our countries in the field for this first year FY '09 really did not show us on as steep a trajectory as we need to be on in order to meet that goal. Therefore we are working with them intensively as part of this larger effort at health system strengthening. That is really the context. Health workforce is part of this larger issue of health systems, because, for example, if you train healthcare workers but there are not clinics for them to work in or there are not supportive systems for them, then they will not have the impact they need. So I am really going to have to get back to you on some of your specific budget questions about the amount we are devoting to training this year, but all I can say is we do agree that this is necessary not just as a goal unto itself, but it is instrumental to achieving the prevention, treatment, and care goals. A lot of the success we have had to date has been due to building health workforce and structures, and we need to do even more if we are to succeed at all across the whole range of issues we face. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. I know Ms. Lee is on her way, and we have a couple more minutes. So I will ask a few questions. I want to follow up though on Mr. Israel's comments, because to me that is so urgent and I am trying to understand it. We know that more than one child is infected with HIV every minute of every day, with newborns representing the vast majority of the estimated 1,000 infected each day. And even with progress, global coverage of prevention and mother to child transmission services is still unacceptably low. And looking at numbers in low to middle income countries, HIV positive pregnant women do not receive the medicines they need to prevent transmission of HIV to their babies. This is totally unacceptable. If we reached all pregnant women who are HIV positive, we could prevent hundreds of thousands of infections per year in children. So I would like you to explain, I have heard some of the explanations, but I would like you to explain what have been the values to scaling up PMTCT services, what can PEPFAR do to overcome these barriers? A majority of mothers we know deliver in their homes while most PEPFAR funded PMTCT programs target medical facilities. What are you doing to change this? Are you visiting communities? Why are you not reaching out in communities where most of the mothers deliver the babies? Mr. Walsh. Well thank you. We could not agree more about this, the severity of this issue, and share your frustration that something which we know how to do, and indeed the world really has developed very successful PMTCT programs, that they have not been scaled up to the degree we need to. The authorizers put into our reauthorization a requirement for an expert panel to come back to us with recommendations on this, and that panel is now writing its report because we prioritized it and told them we needed it fast. So we are expecting that to be sent to you and Congress in July which will set the agenda. But I can tell you a few of the things that we do know, and that we do need to do more on and plan to do more on in the days to come. Building on the success of a country like Botswana, where there is now mother to child transmission which is almost as rare as it is in the United States because their programs are so successful, and then you can contrast it with a country like Malawi where there is very little. Mrs. Lowey. And has not Botswana's incidents gone up? Mr. Walsh. They have an extraordinarily high rate of infection, but the rate of transmission from the mothers to the children is very low because, I mean as you see with many of these countries they have succeeded greatly in one area, not so much in others. And that is a pretty extreme case. Mrs. Lowey. I would like you to finish this, but also address the issue of Botswana, which is in a pretty good economic condition, and why their rates have gone up. Mr. Walsh. Right. Mrs. Lowey. But let us finish the first. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Some of the practices that have been particularly successful are, first of all strong political commitment from the governments. That is something we have seen on mother to child transmission in places like Botswana, not only Botswana but also in Namibia, Rwanda, Kenya or some of the other ones. They have also decentralized services from the capitals out to the district and local levels. They have really worked successfully, and we have tried to work with them, to coordinate the activities of all the different donors rather than have one donor off doing a project in one place, another one in another place, they have really tried to get us all to work together. Identifying HIV positive pregnant women in the first place is critical. And so I mentioned before the importance of provider initiated counseling and testing, where it is really an increasingly routine part of healthcare, and in this case antenatal care, for women to be tested and to learn their status, because if they do not know their status then there is no way that the PMTCT interventions are going to be given to them. And that policy change in Botswana, by the way, is credited with increasing the coverage of PMTCT interventions from 75 to 95 percent. That is something we are really trying to work with other countries to show, you know, if you want that same kind of success you need to get some of these policy things lined up in the right way. And then it is really critical to link the mother to child transmission interventions with HIV treatment and care, and then with other maternal and child health. We really do accept that it has been an issue for the whole global response that there can be a tendency to silo programs, and we have tried to resist that and we need to do even more to break down the barriers between the different services because a pregnant woman in a developing country faces a whole range of issues of which HIV is an important one. So in addressing that one, we also want to link with the programs that focus on the others. What was your other question? Mrs. Lowey. I will turn to Ms. McCollum and then we will continue. Ms. McCollum. Madam Chair, I think we are tracking so close to the same wavelength that we could ask each other's questions at this point. I want to go back, the President announced the new global health initiative, and it is going to increase substantially the U.S. commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS through PEPFAR. But it also calls for more comprehensive, to your point where you were just talking about a better integrated U.S. global health strategy that pays more attention to building health systems. And in fact in April PEPFAR had an assessment done in the Annals of Medicine, and the assessment found that in important respects PEPFAR has been extraordinarily effective. According to the study PEPFAR had prevented 1.2 million deaths, which I used in earlier testimony, in the focused countries, and it has reduced things by almost 10 percent. But it also found out that prevention efforts had largely failed, which is what the Chairwoman had asked earlier. It also asked questions about the long term cost effectiveness of the effort. So when you talk about building platforms, how is PEPFAR going to be integrated, or is PEPFAR going to look a little different as we go through and you are doing global healthcare reform as part of the way we deliver things, and not worry so much about labels now but outcomes. Mr. Jackson's question about nurses and midwives and encouraging testing and being able to do testing out in communities, to the Chairwoman's question, this needs to feel seamless. And so, are there discussions taking place? Because I think it is okay if PEPFAR grows and develops and looks a little different in the years to come because we have learned lessons. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. I think that is likely to be the case. As I said, we try to be a learning organization. The Institute of Medicine said we are, and we can do better. And clearly one of the areas where we need to do more is linkages and integration with other programs. I think that is really one thing that is behind this global health initiative that the administration announced, this idea that just as we have really focused intently on HIV/AIDS and malaria, we need to bring that same kind of intense focus to these other issues and to bring them all into a single integrated approach. I will say with regards to planning, and how we are going to do that, is still at an early stage. And so for PEPFAR's purposes, our incoming coordinator if he is confirmed by the Senate, Dr. Goosby is certainly going to lead a strategic review of our programs and ask I think some of these questions that you are focusing on about integration. And then that strategic review of PEPFAR is going to feed into this larger strategic review that will inform this global health initiative and really focus on what are these points of intersection, what are ones that we can strengthen between PEPFAR and maternal child health for example, family planning, malaria, TB, neglected tropical diseases. I think what you are alluding to is definitely the coming wave, one of integration and an increasingly holistic approach. Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Votes have not gone off. We might as well proceed some more. I would like to follow up on the Botswana question, and frankly it is the same in Uganda, we used to brag about ABC in Uganda, and was it in Uganda where the rates went dramatically down after a famous singer in that country contracted HIV/AIDS and then died, and that it frightened the population so it went down. I think it was Uganda, was it not? Can you explain what we are doing about that, obviously in most of the places that we have visited there is an urgency to focus on treatment because people are dying, they are lined up around the clinics, and many of the clinic directors frankly were very open and honest and said, okay prevention is fine but we have to take care of people who are dying. But given the upsurge of cases in Botswana and in Uganda and other areas, Botswana in particular because the economy has been fairly strong, I wish you would address those issues. Mr. Walsh. Right, I think you are really putting your finger on one of the toughest challenges we have to face. AIDS is in many ways a uniquely terrible disease, and with treatment, somebody who would otherwise die stays alive. It is very apparent, there is no missing the impact, it is very easy to count, and it is a great thing. But prevention is so much more difficult to quantify. We never really know who would have been infected, who is now not infected because of a program. We really understand the natural tendencies of the host governments we work with to really want to focus on treatment, and we want to focus on treatment too, but prevention has to be first, that has to be the highest priority. We are in some cases finding a little resistance to that message, and we are trying to work with countries to say, even as we address these treatment needs which are so great and unfortunately rather costly to address, because once somebody is on treatment they are never going to be cured. Right now there is no cure for HIV/AIDS, so we are taking on a lifelong commitment. So the best way to address that is to prevent people from becoming infected in the first place. Every country has a different story, but Botswana and the other countries in far southern Africa have the highest rates of infection in the world, and there is a whole range of reasons. I think one thing we have learned is that prevention really needs to be, we take what we call a combination prevention approach, a multifocal approach where you address the many different drivers of behavior. You know, just because you are meeting a youth population in one place where it goes, if you are not meeting them in the other places where they go, then you are only providing partial protection. We really need to scale up our programs, build on what the evidence supports, do it in a way that is tailored, and then frankly hit the population with multiple different interventions at once. Botswana is certainly one of the places where we and everybody else who is working there needs to do more and better because they have got a big prevention problem on their hands. Mrs. Lowey. I am pleased to turn to Ms. Lee because she certainly has been a leader, not only on this Committee, but on the authorizing Committee, and I am delighted that she was able to get here. Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize, there have been five things at one time this morning, but I am so delighted to be able to meet you and congratulate you and look forward to working with you and also Dr. Goosby, and I hope the Senate confirms him very quickly. It has been quite a job to get to this point with regard to our global HIV/AIDS initiatives, but it has been worth the bipartisan cooperation, and I think this effort probably more than most really highlights how we can work together to try to really address big big humanitarian, security and public health crisis. Of course I am always going to be concerned about funding, and I never have thought we have put forth enough funding for the Global Fund given the need. Also the integration with PEPFAR and the Global Fund, the programs and how we do that, and I apologize that I am being redundant, and if I am I will just talk to you privately about that. But on the funding request, it does not seem like that is much of a request, it seems very meager, and I am wondering if that is all you really think we need to fund the needs that are out there and the proposals that are pending? Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for all your leadership. I read Deputy Secretary Lew's testimony last week, and one point he made was, this is a conversation and this will be a conversation in terms of the right balances of funding among on the one hand multilateral approaches like the Global Fund, bilateral approaches that are run by the U.S. government, HIV/AIDS versus malaria versus tuberculosis versus all of the other areas that are now addressed in this global health initiative such as maternal and child health. We look forward to working with you on it. The Global Fund request is a very significant request, $900 million. Compared to the last request of the last Administration, which was $500 million, it is a large increase. But all I can say about whether it is the right number is that we will look forward to working with you to determine whether it is or not. Ms. Lee. And may I ask one more question, not a final question, but just the whole effort with regard to commercial sex workers. How are we addressing programs and strategies to help first of all make sure they understand prevention, but also making the transition from commercial sex work to, you know, 40-hour a week job that they all told me when I was there they wanted but the resources just were not there to get a job. And so how are we helping them at this point with our programs? Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Our programs reflect both of the pieces that you describe and recognize that we really have to do both things. In an urgent way we need to help them stay safe from HIV, and so we need to get them the whole range of intervention including condoms and other prevention, interventions. If they become HIV positive we certainly need to get them in care and treatment as well. But we also do support income generation programs to try to offer people a way out of that way of life if they are willing. We have many many programs, we will be happy to send you examples of some and get you more information on it. But we certainly recognize we need both approaches for those populations. A big part of our emphasis under the reauthorization as you know is really tailoring prevention strategies to the epidemiology of particular countries. Every country is different, but in many countries we do have these populations you are describing who face very elevated risks. Our teams are very focused on those, and that is part of what is positive about PEPFAR being a largely country-driven program where we have people on the ground working for the U.S. government to assess the needs and to tailor our programs. Ms. Lee. But you do not see any barriers to our funding now given the history of the conscience clause and all of the policies that had been established? Mr. Walsh. Right, well no I do not, not through the conscience clause nor through the prostitution policy requirement. That is one that people sometimes say, does that mean that the U.S. government cannot work with these populations in prostitution? It definitely does not. In fact the authorizing language specifically says that this provision is not to be read to prevent the U.S. from working with people in those populations. And so we definitely do and see a need to do even more of it. Ms. Lee. Good. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I want to thank you and all the many people in the field around the world for the important work that you do. And certainly we understand that even though the Administration's request has been very generous, the urgency of the situation certainly demands a large response, and this is why this Committee and the Secretary of State is focusing like a laser beam on coordination, working with the multilateral organizations, hopefully working with all the foundations that you do so that we can use every resource as effectively as we can. And I just wanted to express our appreciation to you again. And this concludes today's hearing on the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request for Global HIV/AIDS Programs. Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and Related Programs stands adjourned. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.182 Wednesday, May 20, 2009. MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WITNESS RODNEY G. BENT, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. Today, we welcome Rodney Bent, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2010 request for the Millennium Challenge Account. As you may know, Mr. Bent formerly served as a staff member of this Subcommittee, and it is a pleasure to have him back today. The President's budget requests $1.425 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a 63 percent increase under the Fiscal Year 2009 enacted law. The request includes funding for three new country compacts in Jordan, the Philippines and Malawi, as well as funding for two additional baseline programs. As the MCC enters its fifth year of operation, this is an appropriate time to take stock of achievements and challenges, and I believe the MCC holds tremendous potential to bring transformative change to countries in the developing world and to support sustainable long term development. Since its inception, the MCC has signed 18 compacts totaling $6.4 billion, 21 threshold programs totaling $470 million. The challenge to the MCC in the coming year is to demonstrate that its model is not only innovative but that it brings actual results in poverty reduction and sustainable economic growth to the poorest of the poor. I hope you will share quantifiable examples of progress today. The past year has brought fresh challenges to the MCC due to political instability. Compact implementation has been disrupted in Armenia, Nicaragua, Madagascar. At this time last year we discussed the impact of fuel costs which led to the scaling back of several country compacts. Today we face a global financial crisis, and I would appreciate it if you would provide insight into how economic and political circumstances have impacted MCC programs. Has the global financial crisis led the MCC to alter its country programs? Are participating countries expressing increased or decreased interest? MCC projections show that disbursements will at least double in all 18 of the country compacts compared to the previous year. In Morocco disbursements are projected to be eight times higher, rising from $21 million to $194 million. In Mozambique disbursements are projected to be 14 times higher, rising from $12 million to $173 million. How realistic is the projected disbursement data you have provided to Congress? What project outcomes are associated with the increase in disbursements? Last year the MCC undertook a reorganization to focus on MCC implementation, which seemed to have made a difference in the programs. What lessons learned can you share with us in how you are increasing the pace of implementation? Turning to the specifics of the fiscal year 2010 request, it includes funding for three new country compacts, including one in Jordan to improve its water and sanitation systems, a critical need in Jordan. Can you tell us where you are in the compact process? And, Mr. Bent, I appreciate your testimony today, look forward to discussing the fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And before we hear from you, let me turn to Ms. Granger, the Ranking Member, for her opening statement. Ms. Granger. Thank you, Chairman Lowey. Thank you for holding this very important hearing today. And good morning, Mr. Bent, thank you for appearing before our Subcommittee. I will make a very short statement this morning because we have time constraints. Chairman Lowey talked about the amount of this request. I realize that the MCC was created to be unlike any other entity or account in the U.S. Foreign Assistance Budget. Primarily, the MCC was designed to be implemented in a way that elevates good governance as a prerequisite to funding. I especially appreciate the MCC's focus on accountability and country-generated solutions. But it has been five years now since the MCC's inception, therefore it is a good point in time to examine the interim results and some ongoing and arising policy challenges that will set the MCC's course for the future. I have my concerns about the projects that are ongoing and the increase in cost that Chairman Lowey brought up, and I hope you will address these issues and answer our questions. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Bent, as you know, your full statement can be placed in the record, and if you wish, you may summarize. Please proceed, thank you. Opening Statement of Mr. Bent Mr. Bent. Thank you, Chairman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and other Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss President Obama's request for the MCC. I will definitely summarize my statement. I will try and be brief. On a personal note, it is a little unusual for me to be on this side, but nonetheless it is an honor to be here. Let me start with two truisms. First, the planet is a small place. The more countries that practice democracy, good governance, investment in people, and promote economic growth, the better for them and for us. Second, U.S. foreign aid will never, can never be a substitute for the income that households in poor countries want to and can produce for themselves. Helping poor households earn greater incomes will allow them to purchase food, buy better housing, spend more on healthcare and education, and pursue other opportunities for a better life. The key issue is how to make development assistance work more effectively. Some key lessons from the MCC experience. Select good partners who share our goals, enable those partners to select and implement their homegrown projects but using world class standards for project success, and by that I mean economic, environmental, gender, engineering. Use incentives which change behavior, frankly and do so more effectively than rhetoric or sanctions. Be rigorous in using specific and measurable outputs and outcomes. And be up front and candid about what you are trying to do. The MCC has signed commitment as you noted for $6.4 billion in 18 countries. We estimate that brings $11 to $12 billion worth of benefits to 22 million beneficiaries. So it is definitely a program that works and does have metrics. We anticipate as you noted three compacts. You have all the detail in the budget justification, so I will spare you that, and let us just jump to the questions. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.204 THRESHOLD PROGRAMS Mrs. Lowey. Okay, and we will proceed from side to side, which is our usual procedure. The MCC's threshold program has become a topic of much debate over the past year. At its inception, threshold programming was designed to assist countries to meet the specific indicators. In practice, threshold programs have had varied results. In some cases countries have become compact eligible prior to the end of their threshold programs, others have received a second threshold program, others frankly received a threshold grant but are not likely to ever become compact eligible. The initial goal of the threshold program continues to have merit, but I am concerned that this program has truly lost its way. I understand that MCC is undertaking an internal review. Could share some of the preliminary observations or recommendations of that review, and while this review is going on, what steps will MCC take to put this program back on track, and what mechanisms do you have in place to ensure that there is appropriate coordination between the MCC and USAID and there is no duplication of effort on threshold programs? For example, in Peru the MCC threshold program includes a significant child health component while USAID already has a $12 million health program in that country. And as you know there is considerable discussion about the need to develop whole-of-government development strategies in countries where the U.S. government is providing assistance. If this strategy was developed through a collaborative process that included all of the relevant agencies, do you believe that the threshold program would need to continue to be a component of the MCC portfolio? So what is happening with the threshold program? Mr. Bent. I did not count all the questions nested in there, but there were quite a few. Let me see if I can broadly explain the history and where we are going, how we are thinking about at the 5-year mark what the threshold program should do. The program was originally designed to help countries cross that threshold to become a compact. So in that sense there was I think an element of more risk taking. We were going to be working with partners who are a little further away than the compact eligible countries. The notion was that it would be a 2-year program, it would be largely administered but not entirely administered by USAID, and it would be the kind of program that would deal largely with issues like corruption that, frankly, are pretty tough to deal with. You are quite correct. Several of the countries have not done as well on the threshold program as I would have liked. I would point to the Ukraine as an example, but in some measure that is a good way of finding out whether the country is really ready to work on a compact. Other threshold programs have in fact been just brilliantly successful. I would cite the Burkina Faso Girls' Education Program in which we built 130 girl friendly schools, and that is frankly covering not only the schools but drilling wells, building teacher housing, working with the government of Burkina Faso to pay for teachers and textbooks. It was such a good program in fact that Burkina Faso wanted to include a second stage of that program in their compact. So I would highlight the purpose of the threshold program is to help countries, it is to give us some experience. But I think your question is really directed at, what is the future about. I think what we are trying to do, and it is a new board so they will have their own thoughts on this, we are going to present a series of questions: Does it make sense to have a second threshold program? If we have not been able to do something in two years, can we do it in four? What should the failure rate be like? Frankly, having spent a long time in government, if you are going to do something risky you ought to expect failures every once in a while. So I have no illusions that somehow the threshold program will produce 100 percent of success. But the goal is to make sure that the programs are well designed, that they get the beneficiaries in and of themselves, but that they do in fact lead to a compact. Having said that, I do not think every threshold program, every threshold country should be a compact country. It is not, and we make this clear when we talk about the threshold program, getting a threshold program just means you have an opportunity to compete. Whether you get a compact is going to depend on whether or not you meet the criteria and frankly how good the proposals are. How many beneficiaries, what is the government doing, what are the kinds of needs that the country has? Mrs. Lowey. In Peru, why did you need an MCC child health program when there was already a USAID $12 million health program in the country? Mr. Bent. What I have seen in a lot of cases, is that the threshold program is a little more directive in the sense that we are looking at indicators. And in a lot of cases, probably 90 percent of the time, USAID does administer the threshold program. I think sometimes we have had a good segue, in which people will look at a program, whether it is child immunizations or girls' education or governance, and then AID will in fact say, well look let us continue that program, it builds on some things that we have tried to do. I am afraid I cannot quite speak directly to Peru because I have not been there, but I would be happy to try and answer that question for the record. Mrs. Lowey. That is another way to get them additional money. Ms. Granger. Opening Statement of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. It is my understanding that most of these infrastructure projects, in both poor and rich countries, such as road projects, are often fertile ground for corruption ranging from petty theft to perhaps large scale collusion. As you know, corruption can lead to rising costs as well as decreased development and economic returns. In 2010 you are planning a compact with the Philippines, a country in the middle of a corruption scandal in which the World Bank canceled a $33 million road improvement project and black listed several firms they said had colluded in the business process. First, will the Philippines pass the corruption indicator and if so how will the MCC compact combat the corruption challenge that the Philippines infrastructure sector poses? Two, please give specific anticorruption measures that MCC will include in procurement, oversight, and auditing. And how do you think the MCC is distinct from the World Bank in its effort to prevent and counter corruption? Mr. Bent. Great series of questions. Let me deal first with the corruption and then with the Philippines. On corruption you are quite right about infrastructure, because the large contracts could be lucrative opportunities for people to scam. What we have tried to do, because corruption for us is a key indicator, and I will come back to that in talking about the Philippines, is we have tried to take every measure that we can to worry about, okay how do you identify it, how do you prevent it, how do you build into place the systems that are going to deal with corruption, and then how do you have that continuous monitoring to make sure that if you see it you can stop it. What I would say is that in the case of corruption, we have a corruption policy that has been blessed by Transparency International. Fighting corruption has been our hallmark and so we pay a huge amount of attention to it. What we do in specific infrastructure projects, it is in our interest, it is in the U.S. taxpayers' interest to have the most efficient, most capable companies do it. We hire procurement agents, we hire fiscal agents, we have twice a year audits. We try to make sure that when we look at the norms for procurement whether it is a road or a port or an airport, or, industrial park or building schools, what are the metrics? What are other companies doing? What are other donors doing? What has been the experience? We obviously do the checks in terms of companies and black lists, but that can only take you so far. What I have seen is that because we have engineers supervising engineers, we are really big believers in belts and suspenders in terms of looking at corruption. So far we have not had a major instance of corruption in an MCC funded project, but I will say we have had a couple of procurements where we looked at them, we did not feel that they smelled right, and we said, okay they are going back, you are going to have to rebid, you are going to have to resubmit. I think that kind of attention to detail is what marks us a little bit as being different. We spend a huge amount of time worrying about that issue and trying to ferret it out. In the case of the Philippines, they are probably the biggest program that we are likely to fund in 2010. For several years they did pass the corruption indicator. They are at the 47th percentile, which is within the margin of error, but enough to make us nervous and for us to in fact have a series of discussions with the Philippine government, with President Arroyo, with the Finance Minister Gary Teves. We have made clear to them we are concerned, that they must, according to the previous board policy, pass the corruption indicator before we will sign. They are well aware of that, I cannot think of any more blunt and direct conversations that we could possibly have had with them. The new numbers will come out in August and September, and we will see at that point. It will also be a new board, they will have to decide what they want to do. What is a little bit different about how we operate than the World Bank is that, and if there were somebody from Treasury here I would probably have given them equal time to offer some commentary on it, but several of our staff came out of the World Bank. There is in the World Bank cultural context the desire to get stuff done. You get promoted by doing projects. There is a government to government relationship. We do not have that same cultural context. We look at projects and they either work and the beneficiaries are there, or they do not, in which case we stop. We do not want to have that continuing 5-, 20-year relationship with a country. We are willing to pull the plug. In fact in several cases where we saw projects that did not work, we stopped them. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Jackson. Opening Statement of Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, welcome to the Committee. Mr. Bent. Thank you. Mr. Jackson. Let me comment on at least what I understand the reformation of foreign aid to have been over the last decade. We created the MCC and the threshold program to move away from direct grants to countries who were not following certain indicators to help reduce poverty, to get away from the tyrants, the despots, the unaccountable foreign aid, really in reaction to what the American people were saying about foreign aid, but also we wanted greater accountability in areas like poverty reduction. I find it a little bit disconcerting, and maybe you could help clarify it, when we would coax a country into the threshold process and then after they have met the indicators, including reformation of their civil society and other elements that would provide greater transparency, to then say that once they have met the thresholds, made these adjustments, they may not be eligible for a compact. It just seems a little disingenuous from my perspective. The whole point of the threshold program is to make them eligible so that they can have the resources to do that. This is a thought I would like you to comment on, but before you do, two years ago I accompanied the Chairwoman on a CODEL to Subsaharan Africa, and one of our stops was to visit the Kibera slum in Kenya, which was quite eye-opening. The number of people living in poverty and slums in the developing world is about a billion, and it is expected to grow rapidly unless actions are taken to address the challenges and the opportunities of urbanization and the growth of slums. The International Housing Coalition in a study conducted last year found that only about a quarter of MCC funds were going to urban areas, and none to improve housing. The flexible funding of MCC creates the real opportunity to provide multi- sectoral assistance and fund strategic approaches to slum improvement. How can the MCC constraint analysis process and MCC funding better focus on critical interrelated issues of slums, poor housing, and urban poverty alleviation? I would not want a country, let us say like Kenya, to meet the threshold, but after they meet the threshold there is no compact possibility. This is maybe a far-fetched example, but for a similarly situated country, there is no compact at the end of the threshold to address what the Chairwoman and Members of this Committee saw in that slum. Mr. Bent. Right. There were a couple of questions there. Let me see if I can parse them in the following way. For the threshold program, we do regard it as a way of getting countries to eligibility. But whether or not the country becomes eligible is in some measure, okay have they met the criteria? There are a couple of countries, I will use Guyana as an example, that had a threshold program, that did meet the criteria, but the previous board did not select for a compact eligibility. In part that is because Guyana is roughly a million people. I have been to the country and you could throw a stone and probably find 50 things that need going there, and so in some measure it is a good place to do development kind of work. But we have scarce resources. We have to look at both in terms of our staff and in terms of our budget what makes sense. It is a new board. Even though several of the private members are going to continue, it is a new Secretary of State, a new Aid Administrator, hopefully there will be one, a new VSTR, and there is a new Treasury Secretary. In some measure, what we are trying to tee up for the board are exactly those kinds of questions as part of the threshold review. Does it make sense if we have had a successful threshold program and the country now passes the criteria to make them eligible? And those are the kinds of decisions that I think the board needs to look at. In the case of Guyana, they essentially said, you have got scarce resources, is this a good place to put your money? On housing and the urban question, which is, we spend a lot of time on this, most of the poor in Africa and elsewhere are out in the countryside. So in some sense looking at those programs makes a lot of sense. Mr. Jackson. I know you are going to get to the urban question and I know my time is up, but I want to go back to just part of that answer that you raised about the threshold, and that is, in these countries that undertake the effort to apply for the compact, to go through the threshold process, they reform their governments, they reform civil society, they try to create greater transparency, they shift resources in order to comply so that they might be part of some kind of systematic approach to addressing poverty. Mr. Bent. Right. Mr. Jackson. Now at the end of that threshold, after they have made these reforms, what we are saying or the board is saying, and maybe we need greater clarity, is that there is a strong possibility that after all the reforms you have gone through there is going to be some back treading here because you may not get the compact? Mr. Bent. Well let me be clear, if you gave us the money we would be happy to do it. But, we do have to make choices. It is really the board that needs to decide where do you get the biggest bang for the buck, where are you going to get the most beneficiaries, where are you going to have a good program. I frankly do not like to be in the position of having to explain to a country that has made the kind of commitments, made the resources available, done the tough policy reforms, met the threshold program criteria, and then have to go back and explain as I did to the President of Guyana, I am sorry not this year. My hope frankly is that I can make a much more positive and constructive phone call to say, yes, you know, we would like to do it. But it is a function of the resources, and I probably more than anybody else appreciate what this Subcommittee has to go through in terms of making those kinds of choices. Mrs. Lowey. I think Mr. Jackson asked some really important questions. Maybe we can have a followup meeting on it, and I thank you. Mr. Bent. Could I just answer the one question about urbanization? Because it seems to me we really do try to pay attention to that. The Jordan program is hugely about urban waste water and use of water. So we are cognizant of it. What we are doing at airports and road and port infrastructure are really about urbanization kinds of projects. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Rodney, nice to see you again. Mr. Bent. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rehberg. It is always with some interest I look at the Members and staff that had survived a Kolbe death march. Ms. McCollum. I was there. Mr. Rehberg. Yes, some of us have won the t-shirt or deserve that. Some of us have two death marches. I want to talk specifically about some of the things Mr. Jackson brought up because as you can tell we are very supportive and we want to make this work. And we are particularly interested in why some of the countries do not make it. One of our trips with Mr. Kolbe was to Senegal and Benin. Having been on the ground and seen their project and the enthusiasm of not only the public but the government at the time, the one thing we did notice, and I brought it up at prior meetings, the separation of the judiciary always seemed to be a problem, but more specifically I noticed in those two particular countries kind of two-term- itis. They wanted to change the constitution so that as president they could be president for life. Is that one of the things that kind of knocks a country out, when they start changing their constitution? Because we want to see them moving more towards an open democratic or whatever government they choose for themselves. And talk a little bit specifically about those two countries. What happened, is there a chance to come back in once they have been dropped off or are they too far gone? Mr. Bent. No. Let me talk about Senegal as an example. I think we certainly had some startup difficulties there. Part of the difficulty is explaining to the Senegalese government and the Senegalese people how we operate. A lot of time governments will come in and they will say, we have got these wonderful projects, we want you to fund them. And we have to say, well let us talk about the economic rates of return, let us talk about the gender, let us talk about the engineering, let us talk about the environment. Do these make sense? What are you willing to put into these compacts? In the case of Senegal, I went there about 3 years ago, and frankly I was disappointed at the quality of the engagement we had. It was pretty clear to me the President just wanted to hand us over and say, you know, write the check, give us the money. And we said, no we are not going to do that, we are going to go through the full consultative process, it really has to make sense, you have to make a contribution. We had some back and forth on this, and for about 2 years I would have said that Senegal was on the do not resuscitate list. But in fact what happened was that I think the government, when they saw that Mali and Burkina Faso had compacts, countries that they regarded as less sophisticated, and speaking colloquially here, they were a little stunned. And they suddenly came back and they said, well what is it that these countries have done that allow them to go forward? In fact one of the key advantages of the MCC is that peer to peer pressure. When we see a compact that is in trouble, where things are not going well, we can send people, or frankly they send themselves, they will go to a country and say, okay you had this similar kind of road project, what did you do that made it work? That kind of peer to peer sharing is not something that shows up in our advantages, but it is major, it is real. So in the case of Senegal, they got wise, they came back, they put together a very good core team, they have now got a whole series of road projects that, depending on other events and funding, we are going to go forward with. Mr. Rehberg. Did their program or project change? Mr. Bent. Yes, very much. Mr. Rehberg. Not moving the town? Mr. Bent. No, the town is off our radar screen. We are working with roads and irrigation in Senegal. We have had several countries that have gone through peaceful transitions. El Salvador, I was just there a couple of weeks ago, were going from President Saca to President Funes, I think that will be a great success story. Ghana, President Kufuor handed over power peacefully. Mr. Rehberg. How about the changing of the constitution? Mr. Bent. That is, there is always a question, you know, one of the things that the board takes into account is what we call supplementary information. We have the indicators which, you know, we bore everybody with, but we have put together a huge amount of additional information. What is the governance like, what is the judiciary like, what is civil society like, what are people saying? What do businessmen say about them really, not just as measured by our indicators but much more texturally? Is the rate of taxation too high, is it stifling, what is going on? Those are all questions that we put to the board, and among them are going to be, okay is there likely to be a peaceful transition? Will there be an extra-constitutional effort? The case of Madagascar, I do not know if I want to save that as a question for later. Mrs. Lowey. Done. Mr. Bent. Well essentially, but it is a good example of, frankly Madagascar had one of our better programs. I was really looking to it as a huge success story. We were going at great guns, and then we have an extra-constitutional coup. That violates our sense of good policy. We sort of looked at it and we said, we have got to stop, you know, we are going to wind this program up. But I have to say it tears my heart out because that was one of our better performing programs. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Following up on this, and I know Mr. Berman is working on looking at the way that we put our State Department and foreign aid together, my problem with this is not that there should not be specialized programs within the way that we do aid, it is the fact that they start standing alone separate, they start competing for the same funds, or they use funds from other programs that we fund. For example a lot of USAID money has gone into PEPFAR, a lot of USAID money has gone into MCC to make the thresholds work. So as we think we are plussing up USAID to work on child survival, the child survival money gets kind of intermixed in with funding for threshold. I am going to make more comments and then I would like you to. I was always skeptical of having this be a standalone program, and my skepticism has not changed even though I have seen some good things happen. When you talk about threshold countries and you make it really clear, let me tell you it is not real clear to me that you have made it real clear with the number of ambassadors that line up outside of my door, literally. Mr. Bent. American or foreign ambassadors? Ms. McCollum. Foreign ambassadors who line up outside of my door saying, we have done this, we have done that, we are a threshold country, we are ready to go and we expect you to fund it. That is the wrong way that it should work. It should be, you make those tough decisions early on about what the threshold countries are going to be based on your budget, not the other way around setting up expectations. It is cruel, it is wrong, and then it forces this Committee to make the tough choices that we had nothing to do with as to whether or not we want to plus up child survival across the board, or put in a sustainable health care platform. I do not disagree that you do good things, but I do disagree with the way that it has been structured moving up. And let me give you another example just even from the conversation today. I think it is great that we did more for education in Burkina Faso, I think that that is marvelous. I think USAID has a clear mission to do that and that they should be given the funds to fulfill that mission. Now where I can see MCC working is to plus up the higher education, for technical support for doing all those things that you are doing, not K through 12 schools. So I say this because I want to have an honest conversation. I want to see you be successful, but I want to also see us be successful in many of the other endeavors this Committee works on and not be in conflict and not be in competition. And I want to make it very clear from this Member of Congress, I am fighting back as an appropriator when the ambassadors from other countries are coming into my office saying, you know what, they should not have done it that way. They should not have put you on the track for threshold with an expectation that you were going to get a compact when they had not consulted Congress about the money that was going to be available. Mr. Bent. Let me give brief responses if I can. On education, I think one of the advantages of the MCC is in some measure, because we require countries to also put in their contributions, so in the case of Burkina Faso it is looking at the teacher salaries and other things, that is I think above and beyond. There is no question that U.S. foreign aid needs a complete rethink. I would give a shout out to the MFAN folks and I would say, look everybody knows the status quo is not good, so what is the future going to bring? One of the advantages of the MCC is that we have a board that has AID, it has the Secretary of State as Chairman. So if you want to look at how to integrate programs, I think that is a great place to start. Everything you said about the competition for resources, I accept and I would be happy to talk with you at greater length about how we can together make sure these ambassadors have got the right approach to the threshold program. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Crenshaw. Opening Statement of Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome to the Committee. Earlier I asked the acting head of USAID some questions about human trafficking, and I was really encouraged to hear him say that when they decide in terms of where that USAID assistance is going to go they monitor the way the countries are complying with our TIP reports that come out every year and they take it pretty seriously, so that was very encouraging. I wanted to ask you about that because sometimes when I look through, I guess one of the things I like about the compact and the corporation is you sign an agreement, and we have got those criteria that you set out. And there is not really a criteria on human trafficking but I imagine it falls in kind of the Ruling Justly category. Mr. Bent. Absolutely. Mr. Crenshaw. But when I look at the chart we have 14 compacts, 12 of those 14 countries are ranked tier 2 or tier 2 watch list. Number 1 is minimum requirements, number 3 is not very good, 2 is kind of, we are working on it. Mr. Bent. Right. Mr. Crenshaw. But here is what is interesting, 6 of the 12 that are on the tier 2 or tier 2 watch list, they passed 6 out of 6 of the criteria under the Ruling Justly criteria, which makes me wonder, how seriously do you take when you are grading those compacts the compliance with the TIP report? Because if they are still, in fact six of those, they were on tier 2 for three straight years so they did not really move, and we are pretty serious about trying to deal with this as you know. And so, help me understand how that plays, and when you look at those criteria, what kind of efforts do you make to say to those countries, we have got a deal here and you are not really meeting part of those requirements? Mr. Bent. We take it very seriously. In the case of Moldova I think they were on the tier 3 and we essentially went and had a conversation saying, that will not be acceptable, you need to deal with that. Again it is part of the information that the board takes into account, it is certainly something we take very seriously just as I think Mr. Wolf last year asked about U.N. votes and we went back and we made sure that we went through that and we looked at it. These are all important factors. I cannot give you a mathematical weight because what we are also looking at is, okay what can the country do, how serious are they, is it a question of resources, is it a question of enforcement? But we do spend a huge amount of time on that. Mr. Crenshaw. If you take these six countries that have been on tier 2 for three straight years, it is almost $3 billion that we are spending. So I just hope that somehow we can sit down with those folks and, you know, not year after year after year have them not make any progress at all. So I appreciate that, but I do think we can probably maybe send that message, because I will from time to time ask the leaders of these countries when we are visiting, and it never seems to be high on their priority. It is always something they are concerned about, in fact if you ask anybody in this world, they are just outraged that this goes on in the 21st century. But they do not seem to be making as much progress as they could if they were really serious about it. Mr. Bent. It is a question of using incentives as opposed to withholding or using sanctions. We try to say, look we are all about positive incentives, you know, speak softly and carry a big carrot. But, you have got to do the right things and trafficking in persons is really important to us. Mr. Crenshaw. Let me ask you, do I have a minute, Madam Chairwoman? You know, when we were talking earlier about some of the contracts where our money is being used to say build a road or whatever, is there any kind of consideration given to U.S. companies if we have got a compact with somebody, Honduras or another country, part of that money is going to go to build some sort of facility, the road or some sort of equipment et cetera, is there consideration given to U.S. companies that are bidding on that? I do not think they should necessarily be favored, but do they get the same consideration? Mr. Bent. We actually bend over backwards to make sure that U.S. companies have every opportunity to bid. We make sure that the documents are in English, we make sure we go out and visit. It is in our interest to have a domestic constituency that thinks we are a good program. When I was in El Salvador two weeks ago and we just inaugurated a major road project to the north, I was delighted to see it was Caterpillar equipment there, and so I sent my friends at Caterpillar a picture saying, hey look I am doing my bit for you now you have got to do your bit for this country. Mr. Crenshaw. Well thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bent, I wanted to ask you about two countries, Jordan and Armenia. I was very happy to see that the Jordan compact will be ramped up in 2010, and especially pleased that we and the Jordanians will be working to address Jordan's incredibly scarce access to water. I think the late King Hussein said the only reason he could see going to war with Israel in the future would be over water. In your testimony you referred to a framework for benchmarks that the MCC will use. Can you elaborate on what those benchmarks may be? And I would like to be kept apprised of the Jordan compact's progress, so I would like to arrange to be briefed as developments warrant. And let me just get the other question out there in the interest of time. On Armenia, according to Armenian press reports last week, Armenia will request the MCC provide $1.6 million to rehabilitate railroad infrastructure. The press reports indicate that they are awaiting approval from the Millennium Challenge fund before the matter is forwarded on to the MCC. MCC already has in place a $67 million road rehab program, but MCC froze about 30 percent of the aid package in 2006 following that year's problematic elections. And I understand that MCC said in March that the Armenian government had still not addressed U.S. concerns about the status of democratic governance in the country. Last week Secretary Clinton wrote to President Sargsyan to ask him to ensure that the upcoming municipal elections in Yerevan are democratic. Are we awaiting the type of process that takes place in those elections to determine whether democratic governance has been restored sufficiently to release MCC funds? If not, are there other factors you are looking to in terms of the status of the funds? Mr. Bent. Let me take them in order. On Jordan we would be happy to brief you in more detail. We reckon that there will be about a million and a half beneficiaries to the project. It affects, I think, 90,000 households. But we would be happy to go through the metrics in terms of the types of pipe that we are putting in, the amount of water that will be saved not wasted, and what this will mean for frankly a very poor portion of Jordan. On Armenia, we had major difficulties with the election as you know. You are very well versed on events in Armenia. We had some concerns about it. With the new board, we presented those concerns and with a couple of other countries as well. The Secretary of State I think is directly personally interested in what is going on. We are going to have a board meeting in June in which we will again raise the issue of Armenia, as well as Nicaragua, as well as a briefing on Madagascar. So let me not jump ahead of where the board is because this is one of those cases where that tight coordination between the State Department, AID, and other government programs is hugely important to us. Mr. Schiff. I remember at the time the MCC suspended the funds that there were several issues, there was the problematic elections, there were the continued detention of political opponents, there were some potential media laws cracking down on free speech, and some concerns I think about curbing the rights of assembly as well as the opportunity for NGOs to work in the country. Are you able to tell me if any, some, all of those problems have been sorted out or whether they are continuing to be problems? Mr. Bent. I cannot tell you how they have been sorted out. Let me back up one step. Mr. Schiff. I do remember also that the Armenian government decided to put their own money into the rural road infrastructure to get it done before the rainy season, and so that was good, that was a positive step, but I would love to hear what you could tell me. Mr. Bent. Well in both Armenia and Nicaragua the projects are great, there is no question that, a little bit like Madagascar, they are some of our best performing projects as projects. I was at pains when I was in Nicaragua to talk with the Minister of Finance and say, look these projects are going great. The Armenian Foreign Minister came two weeks ago and I had to say pretty much the same thing. The issue is not the projects, it is the good governance questions. Every point you just listed is in fact an issue of some concern for us. The Secretary of State has taken a personal interest in this--and as the Armenian Foreign Minister and I think the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister said,--she has written letters to both. I cannot tell you what the response has been. I figured I would get phone calls from both ambassadors saying how well the meetings had gone and then when we will be talking about this at the June board meeting as well. Mr. Schiff. My time is up, but if you could let me know maybe after the hearing, of the issues that were raised earlier that concern the MCC, on which issues has Armenia made progress and which issues are you waiting to see progress. Mr. Bent. Absolutely, and I would like to come in with the State Department on that because we really do try to work through our ambassadors. We are part of the country team and we make sure that there is no daylight between the two of us. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Talk about the conflict in Mongolia. Mr. Bent. That was, every once in a while you want to try and do something that has not been done before. And so in the case of Mongolia it was frankly a pretty innovative idea to help the railroad, which is 50-50 owned by the Mongolian government and a Russian company, because, really, the heartbeat of Mongolia is going to be minerals and transportation. So we thought this is a great way of moving forward. But we insist on standards on accountability and transparency, and one of our conditions precedent for the rail project funding was that we be able to audit the company. If we are going to do an innovative lease, we want to make sure that we have got the financials there to back it up. There was a fair amount of stalling, and I can tell you more privately some of the other things that went on, but at the end of the day, we were not able to satisfy ourselves that that accountability would be there. The Mongolian government basically said, well we are not sure we can therefore proceed, and we said, fine. They are very interested in finding other projects. We are frankly in the mode of, well if they are good projects we will look at them but it is going to have to be done within our framework of beneficiaries of good projects and economic growth. Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to continuing our discussion on several issues that were raised. This concludes today's hearing on the Millennium Challenge Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request. The Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations and Related Programs stands adjourned. Mr. Bent. Thank you. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951A.220 Tuesday, March 10, 2009. THE MERIDA INITIATIVE WITNESSES THOMAS SHANNON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS (WHA) DAVID JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS (INL) RODGER GARNER, MISSION DIRECTOR FOR MEXICO, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. Good morning. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order. Today we have two distinguished panels to review implementation of the funding Congress has provided for the Merida program in Mexico and the countries of Central America. I want to welcome our first panel: Mr. Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Mr. David Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs; Mr. Rodger Garner, USAID Mission Director for Mexico. And we also look forward to hearing our private witness panel who I will introduce later. Over the past decade drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises have grown in size and strength, aggressively intimidating and overwhelming government institutions in Mexico and Central America and threatening security and the rule of law. Recent news reports as recently as this morning have highlighted the surge in violence in Mexico related to drug cartels and organized crime, while homicide rates and other violent drug-related crimes have sharply increased in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. This trend continues to raise questions about the most effective way to confront those powerful and well organized criminal enterprises. An estimated 90 percent of the cocaine shipped from the Andes flows through Central America up through Mexico and into the United States. In fact, in 2007 approximately 563 metric tons of cocaine transited into the United States via Mexico. And the drug cartels have expanded into other types of drug production, with Mexico now a leading supplier of methamphetamines, heroin, and marijuana to the United States. This subcommittee just returned from a trip to Mexico, Colombia, and Peru where we examined these challenges. We met with government leaders, law enforcement, military leaders, got a firsthand look at counternarcotics and alternate development programs the United States is funding. We were impressed by the political commitment of Presidents Calderon, Uribe and Garcia, all of whom understand the level of threat posed by the narco industry and are marshaling the resources to fight it. However, this problem cannot be solved through police and military actions alone. More must be done to invest in society and to provide alternate livelihoods, education, and opportunities for youth. While enforcement by police and military is important, security forces must institutionalize mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability as well as respect for the rights of citizens. I know that we will continue to work together to insist that United States counternarcotics funding emphasizes these principles; in addition, domestically more attention on reducing demand in our own society and also on curbing the traffic of guns from our country into Mexico. This is required to win this war. Since I became the chairwoman I have been pushing for more comprehensive border security strategy that encompasses counterterrorism, anti-gang, and drug interdiction in the Western Hemisphere. Because counternarcotics efforts have a higher chance of success when implemented in the context of strong security and judicial institutions, we must also strengthen these programs. Finally, we must work with the governments in the region to address the underlying poverty and lack of opportunity upon which the drug cartels prey to gain power and influence. Including funding in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations, Congress has provided 700 million for assistance for Mexico and 170 million for Central America under the Merida program. I would like the panels to assess what effect the funding is having on the flow of illegal drugs to the United States, the type of coordination between the United States, Mexico, and the countries of Central America, and what additional steps are necessary to make this joint effort work. Additionally, I hope the witnesses will address the following key issues: First, how do we break the power and impunity of criminal organizations and assist the governments in Central America and Mexico and strengthen border, air and maritime security from our southwest border to Panama? How do we improve the capacity of justice systems in the region to protect the rights of its citizens by conducting fair and just investigations and prosecutions? How can we implement rule of law programs as well as protect civil and human rights while curtailing gang activity in Mexico and Central America? And again, I want to thank Secretaries Shannon and Johnson and Mission Director Garner for testifying today, but before I turn to our witnesses let me turn to my distinguished ranking member for her opening statement. Opening Statement of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for having this hearing today. Even before our recent trip to Mexico I was certainly concerned about the violence that we are reading about literally daily in Mexico. But as a result of our trip I have grown increasingly aware that if the U.S. Government fails to act quickly to help Mexico in its war against the drug cartels, there may be grave consequences. For this reason, bringing our subcommittee together today for this important hearing is very much needed and very much appreciated. We are all becoming painfully aware that drug-related violence is rampant in Mexico and places in Mexico, with almost 6,000 people killed last year, twice as many as in 2007. The rising death toll is in fact a sign that the Mexican Government is serious about cracking down on the drug trade. The instability that has shaken Mexico is on our doorstep. I represent Texas, where we see criminals and drugs flow into this country while cash and weapons that support the drug trade move south across the border. The State Department estimates that some 90 percent of the cocaine imported to the United States comes from our southern neighbor. In exchange, up to $23 billion a year crosses the border and winds up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Fortunately, Mexican President Calderon and former President Bush took an unprecedented step to enhance cooperation between our countries to stop the scourge by announcing the Merida Initiative. The Congress supported this plan to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion to help control drug trafficking, and as a result the U.S. Government is about halfway through its commitment with $400 million appropriated last summer in the supplemental, another $300 million that will flow from the 2009 omnibus bill. From helicopters and surveillance planes to nonintrusive inspection equipment, the U.S. investment is intended to provide the hardware necessary for the Mexican Government to extend its authority to those remote and hard to access parts of the country ravaged by the drug trade. The funding for judicial reform will also help Mexico's law enforcement community root out corruption and work more effectively. Mexico has taken its own steps forward on this front with the establishment in January of the national public safety system, which will increase coordination between Mexico's three levels of government and enhance their ability to fight crime. I think these are very important investments to jump start the Mexican Government effort, yet the struggle could be long and painful. In closing, I applaud the efforts of the Calderon government to eliminate those powerful drug cartels. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the previous administration and the subcommittee in recognizing that the U.S. must partner with Mexico, as well as Central American Governments in this battle. And I encourage the Obama administration to continue this Merida Initiative and make it a top priority for the upcoming budget request to the Congress. I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you for being here. Mrs. Lowey. Members of our distinguished panel, we thank you again for being here. Your entire written statement will be placed in the record. We are hoping to have a lively question and answer session and we are limiting each of us to 5 minutes. So if you can summarize your statement. We will make sure we read it very carefully if we haven't read it already. And the order of recognition will be Assistant Secretary Shannon, Assistant Secretary Johnson, Mission Director Garner. Secretary Shannon, thank you. Opening Statement of Mr. Shannon Mr. Shannon. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Granger, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I am very happy to be joined by Assistant Secretary Johnson and Mr. Garner. This is a great opportunity for us, and we also want to thank you for your trip, as you mentioned, to Mexico and other countries. It is so important to gain firsthand knowledge of what is happening on the ground, and we deeply appreciate the effort you and your committee made. As you know, Mexico and the countries of Central America and the Caribbean are passing through a very critical period, which you highlighted in your opening statements. The fight among organized crime groups and drug cartels to control lucrative trafficking operations has unleashed appalling violence in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries in the region. And the effort by our Merida partner governments to attack and dismantle these criminal organizations has provoked a harsh response. The cartels are targeting police, military, and other security service personnel and using graphic displays of public violence to intimidate communities. This three-corner battle in which cartels fight each other while attacking state authorities represents a significant threat to our nearest neighbors and to our own national interests. The Merida Initiative recognizes the transnational nature of the challenge we face and provides us with a framework to collaborate with our neighbors to confront the criminal organizations whose activities, violence and intimidation, threaten the welfare, prosperity, and security of our citizens. I would like to briefly discuss the strategic importance of the Merida Initiative, what it means for the future of security cooperation in the Americas, and its potential to transform our relationships with our Merida partners. As I do so, I want to highlight that the urgency of our Merida assistance is heightened by the current financial and economic crisis. With public sector budgets at risk, remittances declining, and job loss throughout the region, the attraction that organized crime and cartels present is obvious. In regard to Mexico, as noted, the administration of President Calderon has expanded cooperation with the United States and offered to work with us in an unprecedented, collaborative, and coordinated fashion. We have accepted that offer through the Merida Initiative, but the nature of the challenge is daunting. As noted, authorities estimate that in 2008 alone over 6,200 persons were killed in drug-related violence, including 522 civilian law enforcement and military personnel, and we believe that the transnational nature of this threat is indicated by Federal law enforcement estimates that elements of Mexican based criminal organizations are present in 230 American cities. The important steps that Mexico has taken in this fight have included deploying the military in large numbers in operations against organized crime, professionalizing Mexico's police forces, and prosecutors, extraditing top drug bosses wanted by U.S. authorities, instituting long-term reforms to improve the effectiveness of the Mexican judicial institutions, and removing Mexican officials linked to crime syndicates and corruption. Working together with the Mexicans, we can address this threat, and our ability to cooperate with the Mexicans is going to be critical to our collaboration and our success. As noted, the Merida is on one hand a robust assistance package where we work directly with the countries of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean to address immediate needs they have, both institutional and with regard to their equipment. But it is premised on a partnership between our countries and our recognition that multifaceted problems associated with criminal organizations represent a shared responsibility whose solutions require a coordinated response, and this coordinated response is really at the heart of the Merida Initiative and at the heart of how our intra agency operates. In regard to Central America, in our conversations with Central American leaders and public security ministers we are convinced that the leaders of Central America have the political will that you found in Mexico, Colombia, and Peru. They are dedicated to eliminating violence and crime that plague our nations, but they are challenged by sophisticated traffickers, gangs and organized crimes who utilize widespread bribery, intimidation, and corruption to undermine the efforts of national law enforcement and judicial authorities. We have engaged with the Central Americans in unprecedented levels of discussion, and built I believe an initial framework in Merida that is going to pay big dividends, especially as we move forward. But we also recognize there is real concern about the Caribbean. In that sense the decision by the Congress to put funding in the 2008 supplemental for the Dominican Republic and Haiti was an important effort to understand the importance of the Caribbean and to require us to take a closer look at the Caribbean. We have done that. Admiral Stavridis and I have traveled in the region to meet with Caribbean leaders. Last September in 2008, Secretary Rice issued a statement committing the United States to working with the Caribbean to develop a security cooperation dialogue. And we will be meeting with Caribbean security personnel in May after the Summit of the Americas to begin a larger discussion about what that kind of security cooperation dialogue should look like. In concluding, I want to underscore that we appreciate the funding that the Congress has given us through the 2008 supplemental and the funding that is being considered at this point in time. Continued funding is essential for the well- being of Merida. Our ability to sustain resources over time is going to be key to the ability of these governments to meet the challenges they face. In closing, the Merida Initiative was born out of crisis. This crisis also provides us with a strategic opportunity to reshape our security cooperation relationship and expand dialogue with our partners on critical security and law enforcement issues. Thank you very much. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.007 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Secretary Johnson. Opening Statement of Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Granger, and other members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity you are giving us this morning to discuss the Merida Initiative, our security cooperation partnership to combat transnational narcotics trafficking and organized crime in Mexico Central America and the Caribbean. Our partner nations are already working hard to fight transnational criminals. They are demonstrating unprecedented courage and real determination. We believe with our help they can do much more. Since his inauguration in December 2006, Mexican President Calderon has taken decisive action against transnational criminal organizations. Under his leadership counternarcotics and law enforcement operations have expanded throughout Mexico and he has begun the arduous task of large scale police and rule of law reform. His efforts to combat corruption, confront powerful criminal syndicates, improve coordination among security agencies, modernize law enforcement agencies and professionalize their staff are indeed without precedent. But as President Calderon confronts the transnational drug trafficking organizations that threaten his country and the region, violence has climbed markedly. In Central America overwhelmed police face extraordinary challenges as criminals step up their murder, kidnapping, extortion and robbery. Gang members migrating both within Central America and from the United States take advantage of the breakdown in law and order and expand the neighborhoods they exploit. Failure to act now could mean that crime becomes more entrenched and the consequences of dealing with these problems later will be greater for all of us. With a long-term effort, they can emerge stronger, with more resilient, democratic and law enforcement institutions and with greater capacity to respond to the needs of their citizens. Madam Chairwoman, while the situation in present day Mexico and indeed Central America is unique, lessons we have learned elsewhere in other programs are still instructive. One of those lessons is the vital role of partners political will plays in meeting the crisis at hand. We truly have a partner of extraordinary political will in President Calderon. Another lesson is the importance of law enforcement and judicial institution reform. This is the kind of reform that lies at the hard of the Merida Initiative. Finally, we have learned that law enforcement needs the mobility to extend the state's authority rapidly to remote and inaccessible places. It is crucial that we extend credible deterrence across and ensure that law enforcement can reach high value targets and eliminate their threat to the rule of law. That is the reason helicopters play such a key role in the program for Mexico. Madam Chairwoman, the countries of the Caribbean, Central America, and Mexico face an extraordinary challenge from drug fueled organized crime. Merida in and of itself will not solve the problems this crime wave inflicts, but it will give us and our partners crucial tools to address the challenge effectively and restore the rule of law in our own neighborhood. Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions when the time comes. [The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.017 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Garner. Opening Statement of Mr. Garner Mr. Garner. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Granger, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to appear before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the U.S.'s role in the Merida Initiative. Madam Chairwoman, I also wish to thank you for your recent visit down to Mexico, for the opportunity we had to discuss different parts of our programs, and I especially want to thank you for visiting the Trafficking in Persons Center. The young victims were enormously encouraged by your words of support, so thank you for that. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you for organizing it. Mr. Garner. My pleasure. Criminal organizations prosper when public institutions are weakened by insufficient budgets, inadequate equipment, and poor training. Mexican civil society estimates that only 2 percent of criminal cases actually reach conviction. Poor coordination between law enforcement officials and efforts across the region also contribute to criminal success. The narcotraffickers have exploited our differences, they do not respect our borders, our laws, nor human life. USAID supports President Felipe Calderon's efforts to strengthen law enforcement and justice sector institutions that are key in addressing crime and violence. One way we do this is by fostering greater collaboration between U.S. and Mexican states. For example, New Mexico provided technical assistance and training to the forensics labs of Chihuahua. Colorado recently trained state police investigators from Baja, California. Drawing upon the best practices of the state experiments in justice reform, the Mexican Congress last year passed historic constitutional amendments to overhaul the entire justice system of Mexico. USAID's Merida programs will support the Mexican institutions as they now begin to train an estimated 1 million people in new, transparent, and more accountable ways of administering justice. Our Merida programs also promote greater respect for human rights. Mexico's old justice system relied heavily on confessions to prove the guilt, leading to many charges of human rights violations by police and prosecutors as they sought those confessions. The new justice system is founded on a presumption of innocence and evidence is required to prove guilt. In addition to providing scholarships to the rural indigenous groups that you met while you were down in Mexico, we also sponsor cross-border, university-to-university programs. Three of the 64 partnerships which we have fostered so far have assisted in law schools and helping law students retrain into the new system. Southwestern University Law School in Los Angeles, American University, and the Illinois Institute of Technology Kent College of Law are participating in these programs. We are grateful also to the U.S. Western Attorneys General of the States who have been very active in the program. Arizona's Attorney General Terry Goddard hosted a meeting a year ago in Phoenix between U.S. and Mexican state attorneys general. Increased interactions have fostered greater trust, cooperation, and identified simple practical solutions. For example, Arizona shares with Sonora now their database on stolen cars, which allows Sonora's law enforcement officials to better trace the origin of those abandoned cars that may have been used to smuggle guns and money from Arizona into Sonora. Merida funds are allowing us to expand these kind of programs. Of course the challenges we confront in Mexico are shared and in fact extend into Central America. Geographic isolation and the lack of economic opportunities makes some communities especially vulnerable to criminal activity, to gangs, and to drugs. In these locations USAID will support vocational education, computer literacy, and bring together businesses to increase employment opportunities. USAID will expand community crime, and gang prevention programs to strengthen the role of local government officials and citizen groups in leading, organizing, and mobilizing resources to improve security. USAID will also expand policing initiatives that bring together community leaders, civil society, and police to increase the cooperation, mutual understanding and results. In conclusion, I would like to add my thanks for the strong bipartisan support in this committee and in the entire Congress as we implement this very important program. Mexico has laid out a very ambitious reform program for their police forces and for their entire justice system. By participating in these programs, our Federal, State and local officials will gain a broader understanding and build a trust that will increase regional cooperation to defeat international criminal syndicate. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Garner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.023 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. I am going to be calling on members based on seniority, the members that were present when the hearing was called to order, and I will alternate between majority and minority and we are going to try to keep our questions to 5 minutes. Thank you all for your testimony. Some of you may have seen this article from the Los Angeles Times today about the raid Sunday, reporting from Tijuana. Mexican authorities on Monday announced the capture of an alleged lieutenant of a top crime boss along with 21 other organized crime suspects at a weekend party. The raid by Mexican soldiers also led to the arrest of 8 state police agents. And then it goes on. It was explained to us, as you know, Mr. Garner, about the complexity of the military, the issues that they have and that the police departments have, and they often rotate to be sure they don't have infiltration. But on the other hand, how do you keep an experienced force if you can't compete with the salaries of the gangs? So this was a challenge that certainly was presented to us. Secondly, as we know, Plan Colombia started as a three-year commitment when it was announced by the Clinton administration. Ten years later we are funding counterdrug programs in Colombia. Now my question is, and we all mentioned this, we are very impressed with President Calderon's leadership and the political will he has shown in fighting the cartels. But I asked myself after I left what happens after President Calderon leaves office? How do we institutionalize the political commitment and capacity so that the progress that is being made today remains after any changes in political leadership? And I wonder if someone or all of you can comment, is President Calderon reaching out to his political opposition to create a national consensus on the war on drugs? Are we reaching out to opposition groups in civil society and to subnational governments to ensure that there is political commitment beyond President Calderon's term? And related to that, I mentioned that Plan Colombia was originally designed as a 3-year program, here we are 10 years later. I know it is difficult to commit, but I would be interested in what you foresee as the length of this program, any changes that you see coming from the Obama administration, and what would you recommend to the Obama administration. In other words, it was clear to all of us that we have a real major problem there, and I wouldn't expect you to say well, on January 1, 2010, everything is going to be hunky-dory. So if you could respond. Maybe we should begin with you, Secretary Shannon. Mr. Shannon. Thank you very much. I am sure my colleagues will have other things they can add in response to your question. It is a very important question and it is an essential question. I would respond in a couple of ways. First, what President Calderon and the government of Mexico are trying to do now is effect deep institutional change in the national police, in the judiciary, but also driving that change through State and local police. They are responding at the moment in an emergency fashion to an urgent crisis, but they understand that in order to get beyond the emergency they need to build national capabilities and institutional capabilities. That is their focus, and it is the primary focus of the Merida Initiative. So institutional change will help ensure continuity over time. Secondly, the fact that President Calderon was able to launch his initiative shows that there has been a sea change in how Mexicans understand the relationship with the United States and has created a political space for President Calderon to build a new type of relationship with the United States that can be sustainable over time. But for that relationship, that kind of cooperative relationship, to be sustained over time, first he needs to show success on the ground, he needs to show that the kinds of steps he is taking now will allow Mexicans to recapture their communities. And this is why it is so important for us to engage as quickly and decisively as we can. Also, aside from early success, the transparency of the this initiative, hearings like this, the hearings that were held in 2008, the hearings that the Mexican Congress has held have really created a broader public understanding of the challenges that Mexico faces and of what the Merida Initiative is, and this will allow accountability over time and will allow Mexicans to understand that their political leaders are attempting to address a problem in working with us in the course of that. Mrs. Lowey. My time is up. Perhaps we can get back to some other responses later. Just one question about the political opposition. I understood and we understood when we were there that Lopez Obrador was traveling around the country speaking to large groups. Has he taken a position on the work that the President is doing? Mr. Shannon. He recognizes the problem. He has been critical of the President on a variety of issues. I can't give you a precise answer in terms of how critical he has been in terms of the Merida Initiative, but we can get back to you on that. [The information follows:] Mr. Shannon. All major political parties in Mexico recognize that their country faces a security crisis. Political parties have expressed differing views of how best to confront this threat. All have been appreciative of the U.S. willingness to recognize our shared responsibility, to do our part on our side of the border to reduce demand for drugs, trafficking in arms, and repatriation of drug trafficking proceeds. However, many (including Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador) have expressed concern that U.S. assistance could pose a violation of Mexican sovereignty. Early on, senators and deputies of all parties in the Mexican legislature expressed a similar frustration to that of U.S. law makers that the executive branches of both governments had not sought early congressional input for the joint effort. As the Mexican legislature has become more knowledgeable about the Merida Initiative, this concern has subsided. Mrs. Lowey. I think that is essential, because if we are looking at the long run, it is really important to have some cooperation from the opposition. Mr. Shannon. I am not sure I would describe him as the opposition at this point. Mrs. Lowey. Okay, well, that is---- Mr. Shannon. I think the primary political opposition remains the old PRI. Mrs. Lowey. PRI. Mr. Shannon. And Lopez Obrador's political party is actually split along these lines. I think there is a broad recognition of the national crisis and the urgency of it and the need for a better relationship with the United States to affect that crisis in a positive way. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Granger. Or Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis. Hello. Mrs. Lowey. Would you like to say something before Ms. Granger proceeds? Mr. Lewis. I think it has already been said. Mrs. Lowey. Okay, Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you. I have two questions, and we may not get to both of them. One is sort of long term. When we took our trip to Colombia and Mexico, I was struck with the similarities of where Mexico is today and Colombia was 10 years ago or when I traveled there the first time. And Assistant Secretary Johnson, you talked a bit about lessons learned. So I would like to know, what do you think is transferable or helpful for Colombia to the Mexico situation or some comparisons we might make that are that are wrong or different in those two countries and the situations they are on. Mr. Johnson. I think we can learn some lessons, although the situations are not by any means exactly the same. I think one of the lessons that we are trying to implement through this program is that what you need is not just addressing a specific problem, but you need to introduce systemic reform. And Colombia did introduce an adversarial justice system where oral arguments take place as Mexico is doing now, which is important both because of what Rodger was mentioning about the human rights issue, but also I think because it gives the public an opportunity to see justice being done. It is not done by closed doors with someone signing a document; it is done in an open courtroom setting. I think that is an important part of that. The change in the institutional reform in law enforcement is also an important element of this, and that is part of Merida as well, although I must hasten to add it is going to be a bigger challenge in Mexico because it is a federal state, as Ms. Lowey was mentioning just a moment ago about the various levels and the complexities of the law enforcement system. Colombia was able to have a national police service and that made it simpler, if you will, or more direct to make those changes. Merida does have elements of change that will have an impact on state and local, but it is not focused there. It is focused at the federal level. Among the things that will have a state level impact is an ID system for police officers throughout, up and down, all the way up and down to the beat cop so that they have a better grasp of who the police officers are and if there is a bad apple that they don't move from point A to point B and get rehired. It also provides for a polygraph training program that gives at the Federal level the opportunity for a complete polygraph and complete vetting of their entire police service. So there is a greater opportunity there to limit the opportunities for corruption. It won't ensure against it, but it will make it harder. And finally, I would say one of the things we are grappling with here is how to define our strategic objective. I think that is going to be more and more important. In Colombia I think when we defined it in terms of hectarage of coca, with due respect to my predecessors who were trying to figure out how to deal with this, I think if they had to do it over again they would look at establishing the rule of law throughout Colombia and taking control of Colombian territory. And that has been successful in Colombia, and I think the GAO report and others have recognized that and we have as well. I think we need to look for some sort of strategic objective in Mexico that we and the Mexicans define together that is really the measure of merit for this program as well. Ms. Granger. Thank you. I am on yellow. Let me ask one very quick question. You were talking sort of like you have a house and you have a foundation problem and you have to fix the foundation but the kitchen is on fire. Right now one of the things that has been mentioned, and we saw there, is the need for equipment and helicopters. I am very disappointed to say that my report this morning is that DOD said it will be 18 to 24 months before the Bell 412s are there, the Blackhawks even longer. Chairman Lowey said we have this President who is absolutely determined to do something about this and we want to help, and we can't get the equipment that we funded. What can we do about that? Mr. Johnson. I think the helicopters are the odd man out here in the equipment. We are moving rapidly to bring forth the nonintrusive inspection equipment that I understand President Calderon personally asked you or other members of the Congressional delegation about when you were there. We have agreed with the specifications with the Mexicans on about 60 percent of that. The remaining 40 percent we are working on now and anticipate will be agreed within the next several days. We anticipate the bulk of this equipment will be delivered about September. It is highly technical things and they have to be built to spec. The helicopters are harder, the FMF process has procedural issues that are associated with it that we are moving through it as rapidly as we can. We are in constant contact with our colleagues at the Department of Defense trying to figure out where the seams are there and push that together as much as we can. We are aiming at reducing that number that you just cited, but I can't tell you what we will achieve. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Excuse me. Before I turn to Ms. Lee, we would like to work with you on it. If there are FMF problems, perhaps we can be helpful. We will certainly put language in the bill if that is helpful, but it is absurd when you have a President who is really working so hard with a target not to provide the most obvious assistance immediately. I would also like to address what you said about the rule of law, because as you probably recall, when we adjusted the monies to Colombia we put additional funding in support of the Fiscalia and we are pleased that it made a difference. And as we approach next year's bill any advice you can give us certainly will be accepted with graciousness and appreciation. Mr. Johnson. One thing, whether we are talking about Colombia or Mexico or any large country which has an undeveloped transportation infrastructure or hard to reach places, it is this helicopter lift that really makes the rule of law work, moving the security services to where they need to be so that they can create the umbrella under which rule of law can take place. So these are not competing objectives, they are things that work together. Mrs. Lowey. No, I understand that. But it is pretty disappointing to me that we just came back, you have been there many times, and you see the urgency, bodies are being decapitated, people are being killed and we will get the helicopters to you, but you'll get them 24 months from now. I don't understand this at all. So I think we would like to have a follow-up discussion on this. If we are really helping them and pouring in all this money, then where is the product? Pardon me. Ms. Lee. Opening Remarks of Ms. Lee Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for this very important hearing. I want to welcome all of our witnesses. And I want to say to you, Mr. Garner, it is good to see you. And thank you again for all of the support you provided for our U.S. delegation to the International AIDS Conference last August. Glad you are still there. Let me just say, first of all, I have been skeptical on this for years, and I am still not hearing any response in terms of progress that would make me more optimistic that this is working. I was born in El Paso, Texas, and have many friends who constantly call me about what is taking place in Juarez and El Paso. So I often think about what is going on with the Merida Initiative in that area. So I would like to hear some feedback, if you have any details on that border area. Secondly, let me just say I recognize that strengthening the security forces to combat drug cartels is an important component, but it is only one component of what must be a comprehensive strategy to combat drug trafficking, drug use, violence, and lawlessness. I don't see this as making a lot of sense yet, it doesn't include any meaningful prevention initiatives such as programs that deal with domestic violence, that address young people at risk, criminally involved youth. It doesn't really address job training and job creation, nor does it address economic alternatives. And I am trying to figure out how we move forward if in fact this is going to continue the way it has in the past. I believe with this kind of money that we are putting into this initiative it should be more comprehensive and we should look at it in a totally different perspective. And so I would like to hear some feedback on why it is not as comprehensive as it should be and do you believe that it should be. Because from everything that I have learned about what is taking place there, it is just not working the way it is structured at this point. Mr. Garner. Thank you very much. I enjoyed your visit down there last summer when you attended the global AIDS conference. Thank you for coming down. You are absolutely right, we do have a lot of concerns. When the Mexican Government and President Bush and President Calderon got together, actually it was 2 years ago now, in Merida, there was a lot of focus on the military hardware. Remember the administration had just taken office, there was a lot of fear for them to ask the U.S. Government for anything. And of course there is always the issue of sovereignty. So the Mexican Government asked primarily for hardware. I think that the situation has evolved greatly in Mexico since then, where we have worked together side by side for the last 2 years. There is a greater comfort level that sovereignty is not threatened by us working together as two great nations, the U.S. and Mexico both making investments on both sides of the border themselves and then the Merida program bringing us together. But you are correct, as the economy has deteriorated in both countries, I think President Calderon initially felt that his own social programs could address the problems in Mexico, but he did not anticipate the economic downturn. So certainly as we look at this program, more and more communities that are unemployed, the narcos are advertising on the Internet, they are advertising with slogans and banners across the streets, good jobs, good benefits, great packages. So they are really going after those people that are under employed or unemployed. So certainly the economic opportunities are a major concern. Ms. Lee. What do we do? How do we do this right if that is a component? Mr. Garner. It has not been a component in the original request. I think this is an evolving process where each year as we get a new appropriation the Mexican Government and we will sit down together, discuss our priorities and look at the situation as it currently exists. Ms. Lee. My concern is, is this one of our priorities, Madam Chair? Mrs. Lowey. Yes. In fact the language was changed because of your input and my input, and we will continue to move in that direction. But I know we made that position very, very clear. I have felt not just in this last trip, but in other trips you talk to young girls or boys at a hotel and where do they learn their English? Not in school. If you have money, you can go to private school. If you don't have money, you are in public school and you are not learning English until you get that job in the hotel. So because of your input and I know the concern of this committee, there has been language in the bill since we had the opportunity to draft the bill and we will continue to work in that direction, because unless you are going to provide alternatives, and we did see some alternative development when we were there, and unless the government is going to really focus in its schools, and frankly President Calderon talks about it, but I do think, again repeating myself, if people have money they are going to private schools, they are not going to the public schools and that has to change to give people opportunity. But one of the key concerns is in the interim it is very hard for the police forces and others to compete with the kind of money that the narcotraffickers are spreading around. So this combination of giving people opportunity, investing in the schools, investing in economic development, being tough and strengthening the police and making sure you have a rotation system so you are not having the corruption is a balance. Ms. Lee. Also Madam Chair, that raises the question about the police who are notoriously, as we know, corrupt. So what is being done to make sure the police forces are cleaned up, in essence, if in fact we are going to continue to rely on them? Mr. Johnson. One of the things is what I mentioned a few minutes ago, the efforts that we have underway through this initiative to provide the basics of identification for the police and at the federal level a full vetting and polygraphing of the police. My first foreign service assignment, you mentioned you were born in El Paso, my first foreign service assignment was in Ciudad Juarez, and I think that is a special place. And I think it is pretty amazing that given the level of violence in Ciudad Juarez is how safe El Paso has maintained itself. And that is hats off to the police and federal agencies there. I think that is a difficult task. I have a team on the ground right now who are talking with the people in the area about what sort of things that we may be able to do to be of assistance, to be more focused on the border region, because I think that is an area that we need to give further thought to, but it is a work in progress at this point. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Just one other point and then we are going to turn to Mr. Lewis because I understand he has to leave. We have 73 million for civil society, 5 million for education as part of the program, and I would hope as a result of the reality on the ground when we get your request for additional monies that we can look at the whole picture and see if the proportions are appropriate. Mr. Lewis. Opening Remarks of Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I really have just come to listen, but your comments regarding growing concern about the availability of equipment, a new kind of circumstance in relation to and along the border are to me a reflection of this long history of Mexico being very concerned about its sovereignty. It didn't receive foreign assistance from us forever until the positive side of the drug challenge is that suddenly we have a new kind of contact, and maximizing or taking advantage of those relations and helping them with their problem with corruption, et cetera, is a very, very important part of the role we can play here. Having said that, I would like to, Madam Chairman, work very closely with you and Ms. Granger relative to this equipment question, dealing with Bill Young, et cetera. If we can't get the Department of Defense to recognize that this is an American security challenge, then there is something wrong. So could I yield my time to Mr. Kirk? Sure. Opening Remarks of Mr. Kirk Mr. Kirk. Thank you. I am very happy to be here and thank the Chair for this hearing, because I think I am the only graduate of La Universidad Nacional in Mexico here and came from State, WHA, Secretary Shannon's operation. I think about all that we have heard and remember the old Mexican phrase, ``Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.'' We have seen now a real uptick in violence of Mexican drug gangs brought to the United States. AP just reported a spike in killings and kidnappings and home invasions in Atlanta and also some beheadings in Alabama, that they conducted and an uptick in murder for hire and kidnappings in Phoenix. I wonder if I could submit for the record, this is DEA's list of Mexican major drug operations in U.S. Cities. There are 199 of them. I will just pick some random cities, Albany, Buffalo, New York, Chicago, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Helena and Billings, just for the record. This is also a map, if I could give that, of all the major operations, so it is covering all the large population centers. Also if I could submit for the record, we are seeing a tremendous increase in the weaponry brought in by these groups. So for example, there were average 9-millimeter hand guns, but this model 700P LTR, light tactical rifle, 30 caliber machine gun, Fabrique Nationale submachine gun, Barrett sniper rifles brought in by the cartels to the United States. AK-47 assault rifles, AR-15s, 66 millimeter light antitank weapons, and 40- millimeter automatic grenade launchers, all brought by the cartels into the United States. Mrs. Lowey. Do you have the manufacturer? Mr. Kirk. Well, for example, the 9 millimeters is an Italian pistol, the machine gun looks like an American one, the Fabrique Nationale is a Belgian rifle, the Barrett is made in the USA, AK-47 is made in Czechoslovakia and Russia, the AR-15 is made in the USA. The antitank weapon looks like a LAW, that is an American weapon, and the 40-millimeter grenade launcher also looks American. Mrs. Lowey. Does that report detail where they were purchased? I think that would be helpful information. Mr. Kirk. No. Mrs. Lowey. The information that I have received from this committee is that they were purchased in the United States and the gun law is so weak that the weapons are coming over the border. Mr. Kirk. Yes, it could be from a variety of sources. And so the point that I would like to ask you is where do we go---- Where do we go absent a helicopter end game, because it looks like now things are going to be quite some time but for action of this committee. If we are rolling in on cartels in trucks and cars, what does that operation look like as compared to rolling in on the leaders in helicopters? Mr. Johnson. First of all, I think that it helps to bear in mind that this program is a partnership and the reason the airframes that were proposed in part were proposed is because they are fleets that we are adding to what Mexico already has. So Mexico already has some capability in rotary lift in both the Bell airframe and the UH-60, and they are using those to operate now against these cartels. So they are using trucks where trucks are more appropriate, but in their outward planning they wish to establish a greater range and a quicker reaction and the airframes that we would be providing under this initiative would enable them to do that. And so I think while they certainly don't have the capability that they think they need and we think they need to have success, they do have some capability and they are using it. Mr. Shannon. Mr. Kirk, you raised a very important point about the transnational nature of the organized crime in North America today and the role Mexican cartels are playing in the United States and their linkage with organized crime in the U.S. And other illicit activities. And this is going to become I think a larger focus of this administration as they try to link up what we are doing in our foreign assistance authority through Merida and what needs to be done with domestic law authority in the United States as we are trying to make sure there are no seams that can be exploited by these cartels. Although this is a current problem for us and Mexico, it is not a new problem historically. We faced a similar problem in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s when organized crime in the United States was exploiting seams between municipal governments and between State governments, and before we had the kind of judicial tools necessary to attack organized crime structures. What we are trying to do to a certain extent is take the lessons we learned when we were fighting organized crime in the United States and apply them on an international basis for the first time with a country with whom we have a border. Mr. Kirk. Madam Chair, may I just conclude to say we have seen tremendous violence in Mexico, but even in Iraq we do not see routine beheadings. We have now seen that in northern Mexico. That practice has come to the United States. It would appear that this is a clear and present danger to the security of major and medium sized U.S. cities, of which the list has been submitted. And so I think this initiative directly relates to the security of the people that we represent. And seeing this kind of practice come across the border is a real call to action for this committee. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Jackson. Opening Remarks of Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me begin by associating myself with the gentleman from Illinois, his comments, and his thoughts about interrelatedness of the weapons trafficking and the cartels. We thank the witnesses for coming today and thank the chairlady for hosting today's hearings. The Merida program has always been a very ambitious program trying to break the impunity of criminal organizations, and I am sure you all can appreciate that those of us who are responsible for appropriating taxpayer dollars to fight these kinds of illicit and criminal organizations, obviously a number of questions that the American people want answered given the nature of what Congressman Kirk indicated, are problems that are now clearly creeping, if you will, across the border. We have read reports of gun shops on the border States selling weapons and organizations taking advantage of very sophisticated weapons that could ultimately be used against our allies in these countries, but also used against U.S. forces. So my question at least initially and, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shannon, it is probably more appropriately directed at you, is how can members of this committee be convinced that they are not providing assistance to individuals or units that have been previously implicated in corruption? Explain to this committee how your confidence and the confidence that we have in appropriating monies for this initiative will not be used and accepted or somehow diverted or somehow end up in the hands of these illicit organizations. Mr. Johnson. I think first of all we have to talk about the nature of what we are providing. The services and equipment we are providing are not attractive to be diverted to the hands of criminals for the most part. It is not intrusive inspection equipment, it is not something that a cartel will be interested in using. It is the type of things that a border service agency working either in a land border or airport or seaport would use to determine whether goods that are coming into the country in containers, and so forth, contain illicit traffic. So that is part of it. The helicopters as well, while I suppose one could speculate about helicopters being stolen for a particular purpose, they are unlikely to fall into the hands of an illicit trafficker. The services that we are providing to help in the rule of law reform and to help in police service reform likewise are not the kind of divertable goods and services. In addition to that, we have an extensive program in place that we have had for some time, because we have had an ongoing relationship with Mexico in terms of law enforcement support so that we can vet individuals and units that they work with in order to comply with the laws that you and your colleagues have passed that require us to do so, and that program is quite robust in Mexico. Tom may want to speak to it a little more. Those are the procedures and safeguards that we have in place in order to seek to avoid just what you just described. Mr. Shannon. More broadly your question I think also refers to the problem of corruption and institutional mismanagement, and one of the things we are trying to do through the Merida Initiative is work with the Mexicans to help them transform their law enforcement institutions, their public security institutions, through a variety of mechanisms, including creating vetting procedures, helping them develop polygraphing skills, creating inspector generals offices, creating a regular consultation mechanism between the Mexican state and civil society organizations in order to get feedback on how law enforcement institutions and the military are behaving in the pursuit of their fight against cartels. This is part of a broader effort by the Mexicans to unify their national police structure and then use regulatory mechanisms in law to build benchmarks and standards of practice at the national level and then translate to the state and local level. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Shannon, let me ask the question because I think you are touching upon it when you raise this question of corruption, is there any concern that the cartels and these illicit organizations are also engaged in democratic politics within some of these countries, that their destabilizing efforts aren't just in weapons trafficking or drug trafficking or other illicit activities, but they themselves have candidates running for office who could very well end up in charge of U.S. equipment, who could very well turn the other eye, if you will. That is the nature of corruption, that you get elected or participate in legitimate processes. But then you end up being covered for illicit and criminal activity. Any concern about that at all? Mr. Shannon. At the national level we have not seen candidates that we have been able to identify as linked to cartels. Mr. Jackson. At the local levels? Mr. Shannon. At the local levels. We don't track local elections throughout the region closely, but I think especially in some of the Central American countries there probably are local officials who have received funding of one sort of another from drug trafficking organizations. I would assume that in areas where the traffickers have attempted to establish themselves that this is a reality that we are attempting to deal with. This is one of the reasons why journalists have been targeted in Mexico and in Central America. What journalists have been doing is talking about relationships between cartels and public figures, and the effort to kill and intimidate journalists is designed to shut that down and not bring that kind of transparency to relationships. We are working with all the countries in the region to build political financing laws and political financing transparency requirements that allow us some insight into who is financing operations or political activities. What organized crime wants to do is not so much control the state, but to weaken it to the point that they can go about their daily business. Unlike political insurgencies, their goal is not to capture the state and then use the state for a purpose. So the degree to which they attempt to corrupt or intimidate political leaders, it is to prevent whatever the entity is, municipality, state or national government, from functioning in a way that hurts the business interest of the cartels. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Rehberg. Opening Remarks of Mr. Rehberg Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Kirk was speaking specifically to the involvement of the Mexicans coming across the border and getting within the communities. My question is do you see an interrelationship with organized crime in America helping in Mexico and Central America as well? You used a Los Angeles family as an example. Are they selling the weapons to the Mexican cartels, are they selling drugs in America that they get from the Mexican cartels, are they using their own organization as a friction between the organized crime in America and the Mexican cartels? Mr. Johnson. I think in the case of the Mexican cartels I can't cite you an example of what you describe. What I would say though is that the Central American gangs are an example of a criminal organization in the United States which has at the very least a cooperative relationship, if it is not the same organization as the ones operating in Central America itself. And so there is a movement of people, as well as activities back and forth across the borders. Mr. Rehberg. And organized crime in America doesn't have a problem with that, they are just allowing a free flow of movement across the borders? Mr. Johnson. Well, I think these Central American gangs, in at least one case, are alleged to have actually started in the United States and shipped themselves south, rather than the other way around. So there is a---- Mr. Rehberg. But there was already organized crime established in America, and they are either displacing or supplementing or creating friction. Mr. Johnson. As far as I am aware, it is a supplement, rather than a displacement. Mr. Rehberg. Okay. The second question I have is for Mr. Shannon and Johnson. And that is, does the Merida Initiative allow for the opportunity for the Mexican government to use their military; and do you endorse their use of the military, as opposed to a domestic police force? I know we would rather have the public involved. We would rather have domestic police involved and domestic judges involved. But there is a constant pressure on us to place National Guard on our border. We know that they are using their military in Mexico. Does the Merida Initiative address the military, how much they can use it, and is that something our government endorses or encourages or would oppose? Mr. Shannon. The Merida Initiative is primarily focused on enhancing the capability of civilian public security institutions. There is a component of equipment that will go to the military, both helicopters and some interdiction equipment. Mr. Rehberg. This is individuals, people that they are using in Mexico. Mr. Shannon. Well, I mean, for instance, there will be helicopters and some interdiction equipment that the military will use in the pursuit of its relationship with the police force. But the use of the military at this point in Mexico is an emergency measure, which highlights the urgency of the crisis that Mexico is in. Mr. Rehberg. How many then are they using in this emergency category? How many infantry? Mr. Shannon. Well, I believe--for instance, I believe there is in the area of 9,000 troops in and around Ciudad Juarez now. The Mexican military has, I think, 45,000. Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Then the question is, does the American government endorse that? Mr. Shannon. This is a sovereign decision of Mexico. We have not expressed a position on what we consider to be a sovereign decision and probably a necessary decision at this point in time. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. I would just concur with that, that we are working with Mexico in a very challenging environment. The military was an organization that had the capability and the integrity believed to be by the Mexicans to be the most effective instrument that they had at their disposal now. But, as Tom was mentioning, the aim they have and we have is to build sufficient capacity in their civilian police force so that they will not have to rely on this too long. Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Crenshaw. Opening Remarks of Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; and thank you all for being here today. Having just met with the President of Mexico and then the President of Colombia, you get the impression that Mexico is just beginning this, you know, to kind of stand up and say enough is enough, kind of what they did in Colombia 10 years ago. And I guess that is step one. Once you say we are not going to tolerate it anymore, then things kind of blow up, and that is why we saw 6,000 people get killed and more and more. So my question really is about the money that we are going to spend. Because if you look at Colombia, as somebody pointed out, we started out with a 3-year program. It has been 10 years. It has been $7 billion. And so the money we are spending now in Mexico--how significant is that in light of this huge problem? Number one. Is it being spent the way you anticipated that it was going to be spent? Do we have some accountability measures there? And the long-run question is, as it relates to how significant it is, what is your view of the long-range aspect? Are we looking at another Colombia? Is $400 million--is that a drop in the bucket? Is that a one-time shot? Or is that the beginning of a long involvement together that we may spend a whole lot more down the road? Could you touch on that just in terms of the money aspect? Mr. Shannon. Let me start and Assistant Secretary Johnson can address some of the accountability issues. But the Mexicans are making the major investment here. In 2009, President Calderon's government will spend upwards of $5 billion on security-related issues. And their investment is not only in money, it is also in blood. But I would say that the money we are providing is of catalytic importance. In other words, it is focused on providing the Mexicans some key training and equipment that they don't have right now and that they need in short order and that this is going to allow them to accomplish their goal at a much more rapid pace than they would have been able to do previously. But I also think that it is a symbol of partnership that also will allow us to transform our relationship with Mexico, and we are seeing this already in terms of security cooperation. And, in that regard, what we are going to get out of the money we are spending in the short- to mid-term is a greater degree of security cooperation with Mexico as we address a transnational problem, which is already affecting us here in the United States. And so we will not only be helping Mexico with this funding, but we will also be helping ourselves in a significant way and laying a foundation of cooperation that is going to pay large dividends in the future. The Merida Initiative, as initially envisioned, was a 3- year program. We are going to work hard with all of you to meet our commitment to make this 3-year program what we thought it was and make sure it is successful. But then, we are going to have to sit down with the Mexicans and determine what comes next. Because 3 years, I think, will be a good start and a good way to get the Mexicans along over a critical security hump, but after that it is really going to be up to the Mexicans to come back and indicate to us what else they might need in terms of help from the United States. Mr. Crenshaw. Do you have an example of an early success? As you talk about this, is there anything you can point to that this is what we set out to do? Is it too early to tell, or this is something that's really working? Mr. Johnson. The things that we have done so far are describing things of inputs, if you will, rather than outputs or outcomes. We put in a server farm, which is not a visible police thing, but it is entirely necessary so that their new program to track evidence and police operations all the way from the scene of the crime through the Court system can actually work. That was done in December. We are working now finalizing--we finalized one set of specifications. We are finalizing a second set over the next couple of weeks for this nonintrusive inspection equipment. Then the contracting process will take place. We anticipate this equipment will be on the ground around September. It is highly technical gadgetry. You have to build it from scratch. Those sort of the step-by-step things are happening. And we have put in place--in terms of accountability, what we have concentrated on are the kinds of thing related to internal controls and decision making: Accountability for equipment, on-site inspection to make sure that it is being used for the purpose for which it was provided. Those sorts of things are what we are working on now. We are working with the Mexicans to try to describe, if you will, a strategic outcome; and we haven't really come up with what I am comfortable with yet to come to you and say if we do this we will have succeeded. And I think that's where we need to concentrate our efforts right now in terms of defending what we are requesting the American people to provide here. But we think it is very much in their interest to be supportive of Mexico. Exactly what we want to have at the end of the program I think we are still struggling to define clearly. Mr. Shannon. But in terms of collaboration and the powerful symbol that Merida is in Mexico, we are seeing the Mexicans start to take apart some key drug trafficking organizations; and we are also seeing in their willingness to extradite people to the United States, a very important measure of success for us. And I think that this is going to become more evident with time. In fact, if we had our colleagues from DEA or FBI or ATF here, I think they would describe a relationship with Mexican law enforcement officials that is unprecedented in terms of its openness, the fluidity of flow of information, and the degree to which they work together. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Before I turn to the next panel, I have one additional closing question; and I know Ms. Granger did as well. For clarification, in 1997, the United States signed but never ratified the InterAmerican Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials, CIFTA. In 2005, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF, launched its Southwest Border Initiative to attack the firearm trafficking infrastructure of cross-border criminal organizations. Congressional Quarterly's cover story for this week relates that Mexican cartels have taken advantage of openings in U.S. gun control laws to stock up on military grade assault rifles, grenade launchers, bazookas, and even heavy machine guns, smuggling them back into Mexico. And when we met with President Calderon he spoke of the flow of weapons coming from the United States into Mexico. I told him I agree with him about the problem of illegal movement of weapons from the United States to Mexico and have written to President Obama that the ban on assault weapons must be enforced. So, whoever wants to respond, to what extent are arms trafficked from the United States into Mexico and then further trafficked to Central America? What cooperation exists between Central American, Mexican, and the United States officials to address this problem? How is the Merida program addressing this issue? Is the United States in compliance with all parts of the convention against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials? What are we doing to fully comply with CIFTA? Will the President press the Senate to ratify this treaty? And what is the President's time line for ratification of CIFTA? You can answer part or all of those questions. Mr. Shannon. I will talk about CIFTA. I will leave arms trafficking and our e-trace activities to Assistant Secretary Johnson. But, in regard to CIFTA, we believe we are in compliance with CIFTA. We have signed CIFTA. CIFTA has been sent to the Hill. It has not been placed on a priority list yet for ratification. We understand the importance of CIFTA. We have heard the Congress loud and clear. The administration is in the process of reviewing CIFTA with an eye to being able to say clearly to the Senate that it is time to ratify. Mrs. Lowey. Secretary Johnson. Mr. Johnson. On the arms trafficking issue, it is clear that a significant portion of the arms that are used by the cartels and other criminal organizations in Mexico originate in the United States. I think that the indictment about a week ago of an arms trafficker who was seemingly operating legitimately but clearly not, based on the affidavit that was issued, is a significant move; and it illustrates what can be done within our legal system in order to deter activities by individuals who would assist these organizations and use legitimate commerce to do so. In terms of the work that we are doing within Merida and its companion, one of them is in Mexico last year we were able to establish e-trace facilities at all of our consulates, as well as a long-standing one at the embassy, giving Mexican law enforcement an opportunity to use those facilities in order to trace weapons. We also have a program which is outside of Merida, because it is a domestic program that is changing, or is providing programming so that this system can be used with Spanish name conventions. That program should be in place before the end of this calendar year. As part of that, and within Merida, we are providing that opportunity for all of the states of Central America to have access to this program as well so that they can trace weapons; and I think the combination of our police agencies working together holds the best promise for actually doing something about this problem and addressing the criminals that are abusing the system. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Just briefly--and thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this. President Calderon has asked for our help, and he is--as we know in this room, this is an all-out war on the drug cartels. He has got 2\1/2\ years. He is through in January of 2012. The question was asked, you know, what--after 3 years, what--kind of give us a long term. This is Mexico, our neighbor. And there is no doubt of what Mr. Kirk was saying, the threat to our cities and where we are. So I just have great concern about the urgency, for instance, you know, when there's that length of time. When we were on the trip, what we heard over and over is equipment. I am just going to use that as the example. That is not the whole answer, of course. But whatever we need to give that helps, we need to have an urgency, too, that you can't deny when you just turn on the television every day or read the newspaper. So I would encourage you to let us help on that. But understand that 3 years is certainly not the end of this. Mrs. Lowey. I want to thank Ms. Granger for her final comments and thank the panel for appearing before us. It was clear, as you know, in our activities in Mexico, meeting with the President, seeing some of the programs, the urgency was palpable. I mean, this is really a problem not just for Mexico but the United States of America. Frankly, I grew up in government hearing about hydroponic lettuce being grown. And when we had a meeting, the cartels are obviously having some trouble at the border, and so they're moving in and even growing products like marijuana, hydroponically, forgetting about the border. They are just moving right in. So we share the sense of urgency. It is a bipartisan commitment, and we hope that this new administration will be evaluating the programs and presenting proposals to improve the program, change the program, if, in fact, that is what you conclude, sooner rather than later so we can move on it. And, again, I thank the panel for your presentations. We look forward to continuing the dialog. Thank you. We will stand in recess for a moment while the next panel comes up. [Recess.] Tuesday, March 10, 2009. THE MERIDA INITIATIVE WITNESSES LISA HAUGAARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LATIN AMERICAN WORKING GROUP JOY OLSON, DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON OFFICE OF LATIN AMERICA ANA PAULA HERNANDEZ, GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE COLECTIVO POR UNA POLITICA INTEGRAL HACIA LAS DROGAS (CUPIHD) Mrs. Lowey. The subcommittee will come to order, and I thank you for being here today. I would like to welcome our second panel: Ms. Lisa Haugaard, Executive Director of the Latin American Working Group; Ms. Ana Paula Hernandez, who is a consultant on human rights and drug policy; and Ms. Joy Olson, Executive Director of the Washington office on Latin America. I want to alert you to the fact that your written statement will be placed in the record; and if you would like to summarize, we certainly look forward to having a good dialogue with you. Thank you very much. Why don't we begin with Ms. Lisa Haugaard. Opening Statement of Ms. Haugaard Ms. Haugaard. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger and other members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to share perspective on this important issue. As all of you have said this morning, it is very important for the United States to respond to the explosion of drug- related violence in Mexico. But it must happen in a strategic and careful way that addresses the underlying causes. I am going to outline some ways in which the United States should shoulder its own burden of responsibilities for the violence and then talk about ways in which the United States can make sure as it goes forward that its aid and policies protect human rights. The subcommittee is tasked with responding to damage in Latin America caused by the illicit drug trade, but the main solutions aren't in foreign policy but in domestic policy. Each year, barely one-fifth of the Americans in need of treatment for drug abuse receive it. Expanding access to high-quality treatment would be the best single contribution the United States could make to this problem of drug-related violence in Latin America. Any aid package, however perfectly designed, will not solve the problem without that; and we are going to be back in this hearing room in another 5 years talking about the shift to another area of Latin America. So we need to really do something more about the problem of finding an effective and humane public health solution to this problem of drugs and drug-related violence. I was very pleased to hear all of the talk this morning about the problem about arms and the contribution of the arms flow from the United States to Mexico. That is the piece of the problem that we can deal with. The solution to these problems are not easy, but they are pretty well defined in terms of enforcing the ban on importing assault weapons and strengthening the ATF's inspection capabilities in the border region in particular, for example. The second point I would like to make is that, as the United States goes forward, it should not support and encourage a Mexican military role in domestic law enforcement, particularly an open-ended one, and should encourage the Mexican government to define its plan to withdraw the military eventually from public security and including its plans for forming strength in the civilian police force. And USAID should really be conceived of as helping to support this transition, rather than reinforcing this role. We are seeing that the growing role of the Mexican military in public security is resulting in increased human rights complaints against the civilian population. Complaints rose, for example, from 182 in 2006 to 631 in 2008. If you look at the State Department's recent human rights report you can see that there are no less than five incidents listed where soldiers killed civilians at checkpoints just in 2008, and these crimes are generally not effectively prosecuted. We know the subcommittee has been very sensitive to this issue, and we will really appreciate that. We are concerned still that there may be assistance through Defense Department authorities that don't take this adequately into consideration. Finally, I would like to talk a little bit about some lessons. You had mentioned the question of the Colombia experience, and I just want to say some lessons from the Colombia experience for Mexico. And this is not to say that the two situations are comparable but, rather, there are some ways in which the U.S. government responds to these kinds of major aid packages and major aid relationships that could help us as we go forward. The first lesson is that human rights training is good but not enough. And U.S. government tends to have the concept that if you add human rights training for security forces, that will solve the problem. And that--we saw that going forward with Plan Colombia; and yet rights groups have documented growing violations by the Colombian Army, particularly killings of civilians, in which soldiers were seen taking civilians dressed in civilian clothing, they would later show up dead dressed in guerrilla outfits, and they were claimed by the army as killed in combat. And these really spiraled up. Why did this happen with all of this human rights training and all of these good intentions? There is nothing wrong with the training. The training is good. But it failed to address certain structural issues. For example, there is a body count mentality where officers were--soldiers were rewarded for the number of people killed. And that, as well as the lack of investigation and prosecution of such crimes, resulted in this increase. Basically, no amount of human rights training can work when a justice system fails to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by security forces. Second lesson, very briefly, is just that judicial assistance is very good. We are very, very pleased to see the attention to judicial assistance and training in this package. But, as you move forward, there is kind of a standard package that DOJ provides, the transition to the adversarial justice system, all very good. And prosecutorial training. But unless you have an analysis of why there's still impunity in each judicial agency, you still can give all this training and it won't result in what you want. So you need to pay attention to that. And the final lesson is that, for human rights to improve, diplomacy and not just aid and training is the answer. With these kinds of major aid packages, what we have seen is that there is this natural human tendency to just--for our officials to really think of the aid recipients, the country, not just as a partner but as we are now kind of one entity; and that can result in not pushing on some important human rights issues. As this major aid package moves forward, it is really important for the U.S. government to maintain a little daylight between itself and its partner. And this is just--a healthy relationship is, you know, sometimes you have to say to each other, you know, well, you have a little flaw. It is important to maintain that kind of relationship. And what we found in the Colombia experience, what was very important was the existence of human rights language in the package and the willingness of Members of Congress, particularly of this subcommittee and its Senate counterparts, to look at that language and encourage the State Department to take that seriously. Without that, frankly, I don't think we would have had access as human rights groups to the State Department to encourage them to talk to their Colombian counterparts and to try to address this issue, for example, of civilian killings by the army. So, as you move forward, it is very important to really think about maintaining that little bit of distance. That is helpful in order to encourage the partner, in this case, particularly, the Mexican government, to really overcome problems of impunity. And, finally, just as the United States needs to preserve a little objectivity in relationship to recipient governments in these large-scale aid programs, it is also important for the Mexican government, in particular, to continue to raise its concerns with us about our failure, if it still is, to reduce demand for illicit drugs, to deal with the flow of arms, and to achieve immigration reform and neighborly border solutions, which brings me back to the first point, which is that, in this relationship going forward between the United States and Mexico, if the two countries are to resolve their joint problems, there needs to be an objective dialogue that is this two-way street. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.032 Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Hernandez. Opening Statement of Ms. Hernandez Ms. Hernandez. Thank you very much for the opportunity, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Granger and other distinguished members of the committee. I have been working in the promotion and defense of human rights in Mexico for over 12 years, and I want to focus my testimony on speaking about the current situation in Mexico as a result of the war on drugs but from the perspective of civil society. I want to talk about militarization, and militarization of public security and the use of the army as a means to fight the war against drugs has been a policy of the Mexican government since the 1980s. Yet, clearly, the use of the military has never been as evident or as intense as with President Calderon's administration. Direct participation of the military in public security is increasing on all levels of government, and military presence has become more and more common in principal cities in Mexico. In states like Guerrero, where I lived for 4 years, the presence of the military is not only in the cities but also in the rural and indigenous communities where poppy and marijuana are cultivated. This is a problem that is rarely talked about in Mexico, where the growers of illicit crops are forgotten in the drug war and there is not even talk of alternative development as occurs in other countries like Colombia or Bolivia. Instead of fighting the structural causes of the situation, recognizing its social and economic implications and formulating an integral development plan for the community, the government has continued to use the military as a way to manually eradicate illicit crops. The situation with drug cultivation in Mexico exemplifies, for me, the way the Mexican government has decided to tackle the entire war on drugs: above all, short-term, often dramatic actions with immediate but very limited impact and not sufficient long-term strategic actions that truly combat the structural causes of the situation Mexico faces today: poverty, corruption, impunity, and weak institutions. The use of the military has been presented by the government as a temporary measure that is needed due to the uncontrollable violence related to organized crime and that civilian institutions have proven incapable of dealing with the problem in an effective manner. With this we turn once more to the structural causes: clearly, a police force on all levels that is extremely corrupt and that has been profoundly infiltrated by organized crime, with almost no levels of confidence on behalf of citizens. To illustrate this, I want to refer to a civil society organization operating in municipalities in the mountain region of Guerrero, one of the poorest in all of Mexico, called the Civil Police Monitor that promotes transparency through rule of law and human rights within regional police forces. In its first year, in 2008, the Civil Police Monitor documented 117 cases of abuse committed by municipal police forces and judicial police, particularly arbitrary detention and extortion. At the same time, it received complaints by police recording the fact that they didn't have the most basic equipment, such as boots and ammunition, that they worked shifts of over 24 hours, they didn't have life insurance, that they were often not paid their salaries, which is less than $300 a month in this region. With these conditions, can we be surprised that the municipal police forces are so easily corruptible and infiltrated by organized crime? Lack of accountability, transparency, internal and external controls, and human rights abuses characterize the vast majority of police forces in the country. Lack of adequate training in crucial matters such as the use of force, few material and human resources, poor incentives, and low salaries are the police force's other characteristics. The police reforms in Mexico that have taken place and that have been very positive have been focused almost all on the Federal level, leaving the state and municipal police forces almost untouched, in spite of the fact that these are the ones that are directly in contact with the majority of the population. If the use of the army is a temporary measure, the only answer is a profound democratic reform of the police force which is the civil institution in charge of public security. Yet this reform on all levels, particularly the state and municipal level, is not occurring sufficiently. There are concrete reasons why numerous international human rights protection mechanisms have clearly stated that the military should not be in charge of public security tasks. They are trained in the doctrine of war and confrontation, not of collaboration and work with the community. For this reason, as Lisa just pointed out, the risk for abuse of power and human rights violations is extremely high; and that is precisely what has occurred. When military personnel are accused of human rights violations, the military courts apply article 57 of the Military Justice Code in order to keep cases involving their members within their jurisdiction. Although the Mexican Army may not be legally immune, military jurisdiction in practice is a de facto amnesty law that guarantees impunity for military personnel who violate the fundamental rights of the population. It is imperative that Mexico abolish its military jurisdiction and puts an end to impunity in cases of human rights violations committed by members of the army. This is even more urgent if the army will continue to be on the streets and within communities in many states as part of this temporary or urgent measure in fighting the drug war. The Merida Initiative contemplates that 15 percent of the funds are conditioned to the progress shown by the Mexican government in certain key areas of human rights: transparency and accountability within the police force, consultations with civil society, investigations and prosecutions of security forces accused of abuse, and enforcement of Mexican law prohibiting the use of testimony obtained through torture. These are, in my opinion, the minimal things that Mexico should be held accountable for; and it is of extreme importance that the mechanism to monitor their fulfillment is clear and effective. Many of the things contemplated in the Merida Initiative, such as equipment and technology we have talked about a lot this morning are very important. Yet, as has also been very much talked about, they contribute to short-term immediate actions but not to long-term structural reform. It is important to emphasize that this war on drugs, fight against organized crime, or however we choose to call it, is destined for failure unless it considers these long-term actions to strengthen Mexican civilian institutions on all levels, not just the Federal level. And it must be insured that this long-term reform agenda is not lost in the response to immediate crisis. This is not a battle that will be won in 4, 2, 6 years and clearly not within one Presidential administration; and it is important that clear benchmarks for short, medium, and long-term change be established in order to know if we are moving forward or backward. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.039 Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Olson. Opening Statement of Ms. Olson Ms. Olson. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey. It is a pleasure to be here. And thank you, Ms. Granger, as well. We appreciate the opportunity to present this morning, but we also appreciate your work and work with your staff. And I wanted to say to Representative Kirk that I thought I was going to be the only graduate of the UNAM here. I am so glad to hear that there is another. WOLA has followed the development of the Merida Initiative and consulted extensively with colleagues in Mexico with a variety of expertise, including human rights, constitutional law, judicial reform, policing and the military. We believe that the U.S. can most effectively address drug trafficking and violence in Mexico in three ways: First, by launching an ambitious effort to reduce drug demand at home, particularly by providing access to high-quality drug treatment; second, by combating the flow of arms and illicit drug profits from the U.S. back into Mexico; and, third, by supporting institutional reforms in Mexico's police and judicial systems. My testimony will focus on this last point, where we think that the resources that are appropriated by this subcommittee might have the most impact. Since the first tranche of the money was just released, it is too soon to assess impact. However, WOLA is concerned about imbalances in the assistance package, which we believe focuses too heavily on hardware and equipment and not enough on support for judicial and police reform. Other witnesses have talked about the serious violence taking place in Mexico. Suffice it for me to say that President Calderon has enacted a series of initiatives to strengthen public safety institutions by professionalizing and purging the police and by providing financial support to over 150 municipalities most affected by crime and violence. Nevertheless, the predominant element of Mexico's security strategy continues to be large-scale counterdrug operations. The military dominates these operations with the participation of approximately 45,000 troops. That is the number of troops that are involved in the drug war, not the total number of troops in the Mexican Army. And the military is increasingly involved in other public security tasks. Mexico's counterdrug efforts are hampered by abuse, corruption, lack of transparency, all to varying degrees in police, judiciary and the military, and torture is still a problem. But Mexico didn't get to this place overnight; and the tactics being used to confront the drug trade--purging the police, bringing in the military--are not new either. Efforts to purge the police go back at least to the 1980s. And June of 2005 saw the start of something called Operation Safe Mexico, which included the deployment of large number of troops to Mexican cities, as well as--much similar to what we are seeing today. History is important here because past efforts to purge Mexico's police and create new security agencies have all failed to put in place the structural reforms needed to insure police accountability and the continual ferreting out of corruption. Follow-through is everything. They have also generated a serious lack of faith in the police and attempts at police reform. Military deployments have not provided lasting solutions either and have produced more human rights abuses. The military can occupy a city, but after a few months they go back to the barracks, and the fundamental dynamics have not changed. U.S. policymakers should explore ways for the United States to support and strengthen Mexico's effort to evaluate police performance at the federal, state and local levels. One such mechanism, the National Police Registry, which I understand is still not fully functional--one is the police registry. Without a complete registry, there is no way to do thorough background checks and keep corrupt officials and human rights abusers out of the police. A functioning registry would be a minimal benchmark for assessing institutional reform. There is a real opportunity for the U.S. to contribute to lasting reforms in the justice system. Historic constitutional reforms were just approved in 2008. These represent a procedural revolution in Mexico, including oral trials and reducing the likelihood of testimony obtained through torture of being used. This reform, however, is not a quick fix. The government estimates that it will take 8 years to fully implement. But history tells us that quick fixes don't work and that the U.S. needs to invest long term. I know that the human rights language in the Merida Initiative has been controversial, but it is important and appropriate. Mexico's police and justice institutions are known for corruption, and the majority of human rights violations are committed by state and local police. There has also been a dramatic rise in the report of cases against the military. Because most of the human rights abuses committed by the military and against civilians are remitted to military jurisdiction, those responsible are seldom punished. Merida engages these institutions, policing and justice institutions--the police and the military, excuse me--so, Ojo, as they say in Spanish, or watch out, because you are giving assistance to unreformed and untransparent security forces. The U.S., especially in Latin America, has a bad track record of providing assistance to unreformed security forces that in turn commit human rights abuses in which the U.S. is implicated. The 15 percent withholding that Congress has required until the State Department reports that Mexico is taking action on human rights issues is completely appropriate and important. There is another problem with the structure of the Merida Initiative that should be addressed. It is one-sided. Although the initiative was pitched as cooperation between the two countries, it contains no additional commitments or funds for the U.S. side of the border. Many studies have shown that treatment for heavy drug users is by far the most cost- effective way to reduce problem drug use, and yet these programs are chronically underfunded. Any next stage for the Merida Initiative should contain a truly binational plan. One last concern. While the foreign ops process is funding the Merida Initiative, the Defense Department also has the authority to provide foreign military training for counterdrug purposes; and, last year, Mexico was added to the Defense Department's authority to provide equipment as well. Congress needs to consider and monitor all sides of the U.S. counterdrug effort, not just the Merida Initiative funded through this committee. In conclusion, success in Mexico's counterdrug effort will not hinge upon helicopters or ion scanners. What the U.S. decides to fund through the Merida Initiative signals what we think is important. Strong, effective rights respecting institutions and rule of law have the best chance of making a difference; and that is where the limited U.S. dollars should be spent. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.049 Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, and I hope this will be the beginning of a dialogue, because the information you have shared has been invaluable. The key here is how do you provide a balance between security and accountability, and this is what we have tried to do in our bill, and I appreciate your comments. I have found, especially after our visiting there, that it is very difficult to achieve that balance. Of course, it is early, as you mentioned. But achieving the balance between trying to address the security objectives of breaking the cartels, simultaneously ensuring that security forces do not overstep and abuse the very population that they are trying to protect is difficult; and it is clear that all three of you don't think that Mexico has achieved that balance. You have mentioned various areas where you think they can do better, so I am not going to ask you that again. And you have also made suggestions about how we can do better to help Mexico. We know that the Merida Initiative intended to break the power and impunity of criminal organizations; assist the governments of Mexico and Central America in strengthening border, air, and maritime controls from the Southwest border of the United States to Panama; improve the capacity of the justice systems in the region to conduct investigations and prosecutions; implement the rule of law; protect human rights; curtail gang activity in Mexico and Central America; diminish the demand for drugs in the region. These are laudable goals. I think the other panel and you could all agree on those goals. It is difficult and probably too early to evaluate what has actually been accomplished by the Merida program, whether it is having the desired impact. I have been in the Congress for 20 years. Drug use in the United States is not a new challenge, exactly. I also serve on the committee that funds labor, health, human services, and education. We have been talking about increasing money to stop the demand for a very long time. We know, whether it is that committee or this initiative, we are not putting enough money into it; and so I certainly respect that suggestion. Hopefully, we will be more successful. In terms of judicial and police reform, we have addressed that in the bill; and I think you mentioned that. And you also mentioned that efforts to purge the police go way back. We know we need structural reform in the police. We know we have to address poverty. What I find difficult-- and perhaps you can comment--to deal with now, when we were there and talking to President Calderon and others, because of the tremendous differences in salaries between the police and the narcotraffickers, they have even tried to keep a rotation in the police. But then it is hard to develop professionalism if they come in, and then they go out and they join a cartel. I appreciate your testimony. You have addressed so many of the issues. But keeping the corrupt officials out of the police has been going on in Mexico for as far back as I have been going to Mexico, and this issue of competing with the narcotraffickers on salary is really very difficult. So on all the other issues I think we just have to do more of the same, but on that issue we are never going to match their salaries. And I wonder if you have any suggestions. Do you agree with the rotation policy? Then you don't get the professionalism. If they are there too long, the President is concerned that corruption is certainly alive and well. How do you deal with that? Now. I mean, you are not going to solve the poverty issue overnight. We all know we have to do that. We have to reform the judicial system. We know that. How do you deal with those things now while you are dealing with all the other goals, protecting the population? Ms. Olson. I start with the fact that this has been going on for a long time, the fundamental problem of corruption and the fact that clearly the narcos have more money than the cop on the street, but that is true of almost any place in the drug chain. So there are other problems. I mean, salaries are one thing. Salaries need to be raised definitely. But that is not the only component. I think what Mexico has failed to do in past police reforms is follow through. There is an initial reform. There is an initial vetting. People are pulled out. Sometimes the military are brought in to temporarily take on roles while the police are supposed to be built up again. Often the military will come in, but that second stage of building up the local police capacity actually doesn't happen before the military leaves again. So, for me, the big thing on police reform is that it is continual, that it is consistent, and that there is follow- through. Mrs. Lowey. Does the polygraph work? Ms. Olson. Well, you know polygraphs are controversial. Mrs. Lowey. I know. Ms. Olson. They are controversial there. They are controversial here. I think polygraphs are a component. It is one thing that can be used, and it shouldn't be the only thing. So as you go about vetting police forces there are other things you can do, you know, continual review of taxes and financing of local cops. There are strategies that are being put in place and being put in place much more at the federal level than at the state and local level, and where you see the biggest problems with corruption are at the state and local level. So I think that part of the challenge for Calderon right now is that he has made some, I think, really good steps on the federal level with police reform. How that filters down to the state and local level is really one of the main challenges. Ms. Hernandez. I would agree clearly with everything that Joy has said; and I think it is about also having reforms on this level, particularly the municipal level which is so, you know, where is the greatest contact with both the population but also with the drug traffickers in certain degrees. And I think there are minimal things that can start to be done. It is such a huge problem. It is not something that is going to be tackled in one year or in one administration. But I think if at least there are better conditions for the police, I mean, if their rights are also respected--and this is a little bit of the example that I referred to. You know, they have violation of their labor rights if they are also within a very corrupt system. If they are also extorted by their own bosses within that chain, then if you don't start combating those things then there is no possibility to combat the big things. So it is about raising salaries, but it is also taking into consideration what they have to say. You know, we talk a lot about police reform, but I think it is a democratic police reform with the police themselves taking into account their needs and at least starting to improve those things on those levels, a very local level, I think, which is something that is almost forgotten many times. And you have got many, many very poor municipalities that were still working with dirt floors, with thin-sheet ceilings, you know, where the police don't have life insurance. I mean, these are basic things that I think you can start changing and that are going to make a difference. They are not going to solve the full problem, but they are going to start building up, I think, progressive solutions. Mrs. Lowey. Well, you probably know that we added $5 million for a police literacy program. It is probably too early to make them literate at this point, but, hopefully, it will help. Why don't we just take another short comment--my red light is on--if you have one. Otherwise, I will turn to Ms. Granger. Ms. Haugaard. Well, just one reform that is important is this establishing of a police registry so that if someone is fired by the municipal police, they don't get rehired by the federal or whatever. Mrs. Lowey. You know, that is in the bill as well. Ms. Haugaard. That is in the bill, and it is very important to monitor that and make sure that that moves forward. Because that is an agreed-upon reform that is already going forward that could make a difference. But you really need to keep your eye on that. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mine is a fairly short question, I think, but you talked just briefly about human rights training. Is there human rights training for the Mexican police as well as the Mexican military? And give me an idea of what it is like. Ms. Haugaard. Perhaps Ana Paula can talk more about what is actually taking place. In the case of how the United States has done it in other countries, there is a standardized human rights training about, you know, the laws of war and the laws of military and a democratic society; and it is a very standardized training. It is good. There are no problems with it. It can be helpful. But if you don't couple it with making sure that if you actually have a police or a military official who violates human rights and if they never get caught, it doesn't matter how many good, wonderful courses they go to. So the point is really that it has to be coupled but not that this isn't useful in and of itself. Do you want to go into a little bit more about the kind of training? Ms. Hernandez. I wouldn't have an answer of exactly the kinds of training. For example, there is a recent Secretariat created within the Secretariat of Defense of Human Rights. And I mean those are important things. But, clearly, if you have got this contribution where military personnel that commit violations cannot be held accountable, you have got the military jurisdiction, I mean, how can you have--I mean, what is the point of the training if they know that if they commit violations they won't be held accountable? And these were recent recommendations made to the Mexican state before the Human Rights Council. They just went through the universal periodic review, and all the recommendations that they have not accepted yet have to do with military jurisdiction. And I think that is a key--that would be a key political, you know, sign of political will of really taking serious human rights issue within the military if this started to change. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have appreciated the testimony today, and I just want to put it in context perhaps for myself. I thought I heard someone say most human rights violations are occurring by the police and the army. Is that including the drug cartels? Ms. Olson. The understanding of human rights in the context of international law is that human rights are crimes against individuals committed by the state and that the horrendous things the drug traffickers are doing are crimes. So they are not defined as human rights violations because of, you know, the legal framework. Mr. Rothman. Okay, so the comment in no way minimized the horror and the magnitude of the violence and slaughter and torture and maiming, decapitation, all those things that are being conducted by the drug cartels. Again, I appreciated your testimony; and I think that the chairwoman and other members of the committee have struggled and are trying to incorporate in our bill ways to address your concerns. I read a statistic that 90 to 95 percent of the guns used in Mexico's drug violence come from the United States and a very large number of high-caliber automatic weapons, assault weapons. Any thoughts on how the U.S.'s efforts to stop that flow are going? Ms. Haugaard. That figure comes from the ATF, I believe; and it isn't going very well, right now. One of the issues has been that the import or the ban on importing assault weapons in the United States has not been enforced, and that coincides a bit with the period of really expansion of the violence in Mexico. So that is an issue. Mr. Rothman. Is it your belief then that there are sufficient laws on the U.S. books to prevent the export of assault weapons across the border into Mexico? Ms. Haugaard. Enforcing that existing ban would be helpful. That doesn't solve all the problems, however. It would also be important to deal with the question of the sale of assault weapons within the United States, and it would be very important to strengthen ATF resources. Again, this is a question more of enforcing existing laws. So that basically what is happening is that the drug cartels are recruiting Americans to go and buy weapons. Mr. Rothman. Straw purchases. Ms. Haugaard. Yeah, just a few at a time at gun shows or wherever, and the regulations are not sufficiently enforced. There also aren't adequate regulations on ammunition, on sale of ammunition, which is another issue, simply enforcing what is already on the books. But I think you would also have to look at what more could be done in order to really put a stop to this. But it is a very serious issue, and I don't think enough is being done right now, yet. Mr. Rothman. And how would you judge, if you have an opinion, the coordination amongst Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and all the other U.S. agencies that are now involved, DEA and national intelligence services? Do you have an opinion on how that coordination is going in terms of this Merida Initiative? Ms. Haugaard. I don't think I could speak to that. Ms. Olson. I don't think I can answer that. The one aspect of the Merida Initiative that I have looked at the interagency process on has been related to youth gang violence. And, to be honest, the interagency process is not very effective; and it needs work. Mr. Rothman. How is it falling down? Ms. Olson. Turf disputes and who is going to do what and who is responsible for what, and I think it ended up with the overall program not being as effective as it could be. Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. I just wanted to follow up with one last question. What type of support should we be providing to civil watchdog groups, and what sort of protection does Mexico make available to citizens who claim they have been abused or mistreated by law enforcement and security forces? And what more should Mexico be doing? Ms. Olson. I am going to let Ana Paula address the issue of what kind of protection is provided, because I am not sure on that. What I do know is that, as we have looked at witness protection issues in Mexico, the system is really weak and needs strengthening; and I think that the farther we get into really going after organized crime the more important the witness protection program becomes. I think that is one important place where the committee could focus. Mrs. Lowey. And perhaps you can give us some information, who in the Mexican government works well with you? We have made many changes in the bill, as you know, based upon the input you have given us and others. Who else should we be empowering? Ms. Olson. In terms of parts of the Mexican government? Mrs. Lowey. Well, or in the country, there are civilian watchdog groups that come to talk with us. How can we make this package of aid, Merida package more effective? Ms. Olson. That is a very good question. Mrs. Lowey. You don't have to answer it today. You can think about it. Because I believe you had said, Ms. Olson, that it is early and we can't really evaluate. So if I am putting you on the spot, you don't have to answer it. Let me just say to the panel, we really appreciate your input, your work; and, as we prepare for 2010, I do hope that you can stay in touch with the committee. We constantly try to fine-tune the package. The balance, as I said many times during this hearing, is very difficult to achieve. Demand, for example, we have been worried about for more than 20 years. That is as long as I have been in the Congress. So we really do appreciate your testimony, and I thank you again, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue. Ms. Olson. Can I make one last comment? Mrs. Lowey. You certainly can. Ms. Olson. One last comment, because I think--Mr. Rothman, partly in response to your question, I think that when we talk about justice and police reform, what we are talking about is how you capture and prosecute criminals. I very much see the issues that we are talking about, police and justice reform, human rights, and catching and holding criminals accountable, they all go hand in hand. And I think that when the process starts working that way is when we will see the most impact. Lastly, because I think it is important to encourage the administration on this, is this idea of balance that you talked about, but balance between what the U.S. is going to do on our side of the border and what we think needs to happen on the Mexican side of the border. I know it runs completely counter to the budget system, because we budget in the different--the 150 account, and domestic demand treatment is not there. But I think, as it is conceptualized and presented, the different aspects of what the U.S. is going to do on its side of the border, it is very important that those be articulated to Mexico. Mrs. Lowey. Well, I would hope that it would be. As these agreements are negotiated, I would expect that it's not just our committee that is changing the balance but that Secretary Shannon and others are making their case as forcefully as they can for improvements in the balance. Why don't I just give Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Haugaard--if you have any last comments, we would welcome them. Ms. Hernandez. Well, I think, just touching on the last thing that Joy said, I think that is very important in terms of access to justice. As you were asking, Madam Chairwoman, what could we do and what could be most effective I think, as Ms. Olson was saying, if access to justice starts working in regards to how citizens denounce crimes, how they are protected--I think there is such a lack of confidence by the citizens, both of police institutions, of the justice system, that as those reforms that are currently hopefully being implemented, as they start working, I think that will improve and that will advance an overall thing. As I was just saying in my testimony, I think it is very important that these things, the minimal things that are established within the initiative in terms of things that Mexico has to report progress on, I think that is very important that that is effectively measured. Otherwise, those just fall as kind of empty words that are not---- Those are very important. They are the minimal things I think that need to be taken into account. In that sense, the possibility to dialogue with civil society organizations, the role that civil society can also play in that I think is also very important. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Haugaard. Ms. Haugaard. Well, along the same lines, this is a really complicated package; and the reforms we are talking about in terms of the justice sector and police are really complicated issues. The more that you can, obviously, both as we can see from this hearing and listen to perspectives of civil society, Mexican civil society, the more that you can encourage the administration and embassy to meet regularly with both human rights and justice reform and police reform kinds of groups monitoring groups in Mexico. I think the better the analysis, the broader the analysis the U.S. Government will have and the better you can watch as this develops. Because I have always found if you are trying to improve a justice system or trying to make police or military more accountable, you will move forward in one way and then all of a sudden it kind of goes off in the wrong direction. And you need that good analysis to be able to be on top of that and to be encouraging in the right direction. So the more there is that flow of information with civil society experts in Mexico in particular, the sort of better the U.S. Government's analysis will be and the more we will see this going in the right direction. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you again for your testimony and your time. This concludes today's hearing, examining the implementation of counternarcotics funding associated with the Merida program. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands adjourned. Thank you. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.082 Thursday, March 12, 2009. AFRICA: GREAT LAKES, SUDAN AND THE HORN WITNESSES JOHN PRENDERGAST, CO-FOUNDER, ENOUGH PROJECT DAVID SHINN, FORMER AMBASSADOR, AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SULIMAN BALDO, AFRICA DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs will come to order. Today this subcommittee will examine programs and policies in Africa, specifically in the Great Lakes, Horn of Africa and the Sudan. I welcome our distinguished panel, Mr. John Prendergast, Co-Founder of the ENOUGH Project; Ambassador David Shinn, Professor at George Washington University and former U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia and Burkina Faso; and Mr. Suliman Baldo, Africa Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice. Their diverse experience will provide valuable insight to United States policy in these troubled regions of Africa. As our nation grapples with global security imperatives, including in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must not neglect the myriad of challenges and opportunities in Africa. Over the last 40 years, nearly 20 African countries or about 40 percent of subsaharan Africa have experienced at least one civil war. It is estimated that 20 percent of subsaharan Africans now live in countries which are formally at war. Despite this grim statistic, there are glimmers of hope that some countries are emerging from conflicts and consolidating peace. Optimism--cautious optimism--is spreading from the center of the continent as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda join together to face down two rebel factions in eastern DRC. This joint action, which was followed by the retreat of Rwandan forces from the area, has weakened the rebel forces, and the people of the Kivus can look forward to a reduction in violence and a return to peace. I hope that the witnesses today can provide some direction on how the United States and the international community can help sustain this progress. What should the United States and other donors do to help consolidate the peace in DRC? What efforts can help overcome the destruction of communities as a result of the war and the gender-based violence used systematically as a weapon of war? Unfortunately, the news out of Sudan has not been positive. The actions of the Khartoum government last week demonstrate that they continue to thwart every effort to resolve the conflict in western Sudan and continue to oppress the people of Darfur. The expulsion of 13 international NGOs, the kidnapping of five aid workers which you just saw on the news, the apparent disregard for the health and well being of 1.5 million people living in Darfur is simply genocide by another means. Some Members of Congress and many in the NGO community have called for a Presidential special envoy to marshal international attention and put pressure on the Khartoum government. Perhaps our witnesses can give us examples of other steps that the Administration must take in the next 30 days to demonstrate that the United States remains committed to a long- term solution in Sudan and Darfur. I am also deeply concerned about Somalia's decades long descent into chaos. Since the 1990s, the country has been in the state of crisis. Recent actions by the people of Somalia to begin to form a consensus government offers some hope. However, how to deal with al-Shabab is a major challenge, and instability has led to increased piracy off Somalia's coast. Joint international action seems to be addressing some of these concerns. Could a similar joint effort to reestablish governance in Somalia and collaboration with the new government offer a chance for peace in the country? Finally, let me note that my colleagues and I have long criticized the narrow focus that provides only health and humanitarian dollars to Africa. While these challenges certainly are great, Africa needs trade, agriculture, economic development to prosper and grow. Additionally, more security assistance in the region would help counter the growth and influence of al-Qaeda and the other terrorist cells. Perhaps frustrated by the lack of State Department resources, we have seen the Department of Defense deploy greater resources and personnel through Africa, yet we cannot delegate responsibility to the military, nor allow them to be the dominant interface for the nations of Africa. I hope that the Obama Administration will reverse the years of a one-dimensional Africa assistance policy and put forward a more comprehensive diplomatic and development strategy for the African continent. I look forward to working with Secretary Clinton and all of the officials in the Obama Administration who share my commitment to this goal and expect that we can build on the goodwill and successes we have had in Africa over the past few years. Now before I return to more impressive witnesses, let me turn to our distinguished Ranking Member for her statement. Opening Statement of Ranking Member Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for convening today's panel on Africa, a region increasingly vital to the national interest of the United States. The panelists before us have extensive experience on the African continent and share our goal of bringing peace and stability to the region, and I appreciate your being here today. The political, economic, security and humanitarian challenges the United States faces in the Great Lakes, Sudan and the Horn are considerable. The spread of terrorism, regional instability and food insecurity are real threats to U.S. interests. The Congress has appropriated over $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2008 for this region to provide humanitarian aid, establish and sustain multiple peacekeeping missions, combat disease and develop and reconstruct nations emerging from conflict. The picture of this region, as the Chairwoman said, unfortunately is still mixed. In Sudan, over two million people remain displaced in the Darfur region, a conflict that is affecting neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. At the same time, a fragile peace agreement brokered by the last Administration between North and South Sudan struggles to succeed. The announcement last week of the Sudanese Government to expel 12 nongovernmental organizations that are delivering life saving humanitarian assistance is unacceptable. The United Nations African Union Peacekeeping Mission in Darfur authorized at over 26,000 personnel only had 12,359 troops deployed by the end of January 2009, nearly 19 months after its authorization. Maritime piracy based in Somalia is an increasing threat to international trade. Conversely, the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, PEPFAR, and the Malaria and Neglected Diseases Initiative have made great strides in improving health care on the continent. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has become an innovative tool to combat poverty, grow economies and strengthen African democracies. To date, there have been 11 compacts signed with African nations totaling about $4.5 billion. The Congress has invested billions and demonstrated its concern for Africa, but these resources need to be coupled with an effective and concerted strategy for achieving peace and stability in this region. I look forward to hearing from each panelist on the approach needed to address these chronic challenges and your expert views on the resources Congress might be asked to provide. I thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ambassador Shinn, why not begin with you? We are happy to place your full statement in the record. If you would be kind enough to summarize your oral statement, we want to get to the questions and have a real dialogue. Thank you. Opening Statement of Ambassador Shinn Mr. Shinn. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and Members of the committee. I will define for the purposes of this session the Horn of Africa as constituting Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti and Sudan. I would make the point that a problem or a conflict in any one of these countries has relevance for one or more of its neighbors. It is very important to treat this area as a region, not on a bilateral country-by-country basis. The only serious U.S. policy effort that tried to deal with the countries as an integrated region occurred in the mid 1990s. It was known as the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative. The initiative was a good one. Unfortunately, it did not have a lot of success for reasons spelled out in my paper, but I think it would be useful at some point to review the lessons learned as to why it did not have more success. The major crises in the Horn today are the failed state of Somalia, the civil war between Southern and Northern Sudan and the crisis in Darfur, the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea and periodic famines in several of the countries. There is also a second tier list of problems that I will not get into and even a third group of localized conflicts that deserve more attention that I will not mention now. It is also key to work with other players in the region rather than trying to carry out any policy on a bilateral basis. The United States cannot and should not be expected to solve the problems of the Horn on its own. In addition to working with traditional donors, it needs to work with countries like Egypt, the Arab countries and China. Russia is a little more problematic because of its arms sales, but even Russia needs to be included, also India and even Turkey, which is becoming increasingly active in the area. Having said that, a new or relatively new arrival to the area is Iran. I am not suggesting we work with Iran. I think Iran has to be monitored very carefully in terms of what it is doing there. Let me turn first to Ethiopia. U.S. policy towards Ethiopia since the current government took power in 1991 has been a delicate balancing act, and this will continue to be the case. On the one hand, Ethiopia is a strong supporter of U.S. counterterrorism policy in the region. It has been consistently responsive to U.S. concerns about stability and peacekeeping operations in the region. The United States must weigh very carefully these positive factors against the need for significant improvement in human rights issues and the democratization process. There have been the arrests of political dissidents, harassment of the private press, and unwillingness to allow civil society to engage in advocacy work. The next general elections occur in 2010, and the outlook for serious competition in these elections is frankly not very good. Eritrea. Relations with Eritrea have reached the lowest point since Eritrea became independent in 1993. There is a lot standing in the way of improving relations with Eritrea. Any U.S. attempt to improve relations with Eritrea faces huge challenges. A new Administration has the advantage, however, in that it can look at old problems in new ways. It may not be possible to improve relations with Eritrea, but I think the effort still needs to be made. On Djibouti, it hosts the only American military base in Africa. Its purpose is mainly to counter terrorist activity in the region. I think it is time, frankly, to have an independent assessment of the CJTF-HOA operation to find out whether it really is doing what it costs. Because Djibouti hosts CJTF-HOA and Ethiopia is dependent on the port, Djibouti becomes an important part of the regional policy for the Horn of Africa. Somalia has been much in the news of late. The situation is particularly fluid in Somalia today. The first priority is reestablishing security. An enlarged African Union peacekeeping force is not the answer, although it can help play a useful role by keeping open the port and the airport. Somalia needs to train in the first instance a community- based police force, and the international community has started that, but it needs to put more effort into it. The United States should also continue to support this new government in spite of its imperfections, while remaining in the political background. This is not the time for the U.S. to be up front and center. Let Somalis work through their differences in their own way. We should eschew military activity in Somalia and provide humanitarian assistance and be willing to step in as quickly as possibly with development assistance when the security situation permits. Turning to Sudan, the United States has four principal goals in Sudan: Ensuring implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement, or at least avoiding a return to civil war between the north and the south; ending the crisis in Darfur; improving the overall human rights situation; and continuing to receive the support of Sudan on counterterrorism. Achieving these goals requires a combination of pressure, frank talk and acceptance of some unpleasant truths, which some of you will disagree on. The government in Khartoum is highly flawed--that is unquestioned--but I think there are two positions that need to be reconsidered. The first is that I do not think U.S. policy is being well served today by continuing in the present tense to refer to what is happening there as a genocide. It is terrible, yes. Genocide? I do not think so. And the second position is that the United States appropriately put Sudan on the list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1993. In my view, the situation has changed and I think the State Department's annual terrorism report substantiates that. I think a combination of discontinuing references to genocide in Darfur in the present tense and taking steps to remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism just might jolt the situation and create some opportunities. Most, if not all, sanctions against Sudan would remain in place even after it is removed from the list. I will stop there, Madam Chairwoman. I have some comments on operational issues, but they are in the written record and members can review them. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.091 Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Baldo. Opening Statement of Mr. Baldo Mr. Baldo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, other Members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to this hearing. I will focus my comments on the Great Lakes region and particularly the situation in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The update from that is grim. There are opposing rebel groups, militias and the Congolese army, plus foreign armies from Uganda and Rwanda to be specific, that are waging wars there against different parcels of the eastern providences of Congo. The clashes are becoming increasingly violent from 2007 through late 2008, triggering the displacement of tens of thousands who are fleeing killings, mass atrocities and horrendous rapes and mutilations. In western Congo, the Kabila government demonstrates its use of abusive force, fronting concerns about narrowing space for democratic governance and political opinion. The mediation efforts in the Great Lakes region has caught only limited successes in containing the violence, and international pressure on President Kabila and his government to create a space for meaningful democratic exchange has not progressed. Therefore, a lot remains to be done if you want to reverse the cycles of killings and human suffering. Congo has been bleeding for the last two decades because of a lack of decisive policy to really address the root causes of the violence there. We believe that in the short term a policy intervention could be the appointment of an independent human rights and military observer mechanism, the purpose of which and in light of these ongoing atrocities by all sides in the conflicts to support the mechanisms of accountability and lead a major effort to end impunity, which is responsible for the repeated cycles of violence there. We believe that a push for a meaningful security system reform is essential. The international community must change its current approach, characterized by piecemeal and uncoordinated bilateral and multilateral initiatives to reform various sectors of the security system such as the army, the police and justice in isolation from each other. The security sector reform requires a long-term commitment. Further financial and technical assistance on security sector reform must be accompanied by political pressure and benchmarks to promote national ownership of the long-term security sector reform process in the country. Continued support for civil society in the DRC is key. The country for decades has had an implosion of central power, and in the vacuum alternative power sources have developed. These are the churches, civil society organizations, community groups that are providing for the needs of the populations at all levels, including local governments, protection of rights, and monitoring of abuses as they happen in civil society in Congo is a major actor in all these areas, and the struggle for accountability there could build on its tremendous efforts in this area. Now, traditional justice measures are needed. There is little political will in the Congo to really uphold members of the military, for example, accountable for their role in committing abuses. It is the documented fact by, among others, the United Nations peacekeeping mission that most of the violations that occurred in the country are committed by members of the National Army and the police, and the mechanisms are simply not there. We are encouraging local actors such as civil society organizations and others to really lead in terms of advocacy. Foreign assistance programs should really make sure that this happens. Recent security developments in Congo demonstrate the influence that the donor community and the international community could help bring about in a positive direction. As you recall, in January 2009 Uganda and Rwanda agreed to send their forces in a joint campaign into the DRC, in eastern DRC, with the purpose of fighting the rebel predominantly Rwandan Hutu group, the FDLR, the Forces Democratiques pour la Liberation du Rwanda. That campaign was very much triggered by international pressures both from Rwanda and the DRC due to the revelation in the United Nations report of November 2008 that Rwanda was supporting a very abusive rebel group in Congo led by Laurent Nkunda of particular notoriety and that Congo was also using the FDLR in its effort to contain the forces of Nkunda and to repel attempts. Therefore, the establishment of the responsibility of this steps in backing abusive rebels has forced them to move towards some reconsideration of their previous negative relationships, and this is what allowed progress in terms of establishing peace. As a result of the reports some European countries suspended their military assistance to the Rwandan Government, as you recall, and this was a triggering factor on this. Therefore, any progress towards peace in the Great Lakes region and in Eastern Congo would require really making of this alliance between the government of Kinshasa and the government of Kigali a strategic thing with cooperation and collaboration in addressing the security threats in the region and trying to find solutions for them. The political and humanitarian costs for conflict in the region are otherwise too terrible. We know that Congo is having by default of its own army and the lack of political will to make of it a dependable force to defend national security for all the rebel groups from the region. Lord's Resistance Army of Northern Uganda is settled there. A joint military campaign between the Congolese army and the Ugandan army that started in November and which is still ongoing has shown the costs of unprepared military campaigns in this case assisted by the United States military at the planning level, you know, that such planning for military operation, if it does not take the dimension of civilian protection into account, could have disastrous effects. That is exactly what happened. The campaign did not make any provisions for protecting local civilians, and the LRA vanished from the camps that were attacked by the Congolese and Ugandan army, but then retaliated against civilians, committing massacres, including the famous one on Christmas attacking several villages in Dungu District, Northeastern Congo, as people were celebrating Christmas. Hundreds were killed, and LRA remains at large. Unfortunately, the current campaign which ended between the Ugandan and the Rwanda army again is the FDLR. We are expecting in the humanitarian community--the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Congo are actually planning--for a backlash with FDLR fighters again taking revenge on defenseless Congolese civilians. The cycles of violence continue. A key trigger for that is the dysfunctionality of the Congolese army, its corruption, its total absence of capability of providing protection for the population, and in fact it is the perpetration of violence against the population. Our reading of this is that no matter what effort is put in extending development assistance to a place like Congo such as in the areas of fighting HIV or malaria and development of building the micro and macro national economy, as long as there is no genuine reform at the level of the institutions of governments, the security and the judiciary, all this aid will be jeopardized by the dysfunctionality of the systems in the Congo. I will stop here and end the discussion. We may address some of these points in more detail. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.099 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Prendergast. Opening Statement of Mr. Prendergast Mr. Prendergast. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to all of those on the committee who have turned up today for this with all the competing priorities. By the way, for us in the independent sector it is refreshing not to get buried behind the Administration witnesses. It is nice to get a chance to go first. What are the stakes here, just to put it in very clear and sharp focus. The region of East and Central Africa is the deadliest war zone in the world since the Holocaust. There is nowhere in the world that is even close, a close second, to this region. Ten million lives have been extinguished in the context of conflicts over the last 20 years, so the stakes simply could not be higher for what we are deliberating this morning and what the Administration is going to be facing in the coming months. I would say that our aid and our policy, going back Administrations, has mostly focused on managing the symptoms of these conflicts rather than committing to ending the conflicts. It is a paradigm shift that is needed for U.S. policy. We need that shift in order for us to begin to see an end to some of these cycles of violence and impunity that Suliman just so ably described. Congress should demand that the Administration that we look to ending these conflicts rather than managing their symptoms as a basic strategy of our government policy. In the strictest sort of U.S. taxpayer term, given the committee we are in front of today, what is a more efficient use of our resources? Let us just take an example. Was it to spend billions and billions of dollars for 20 years in Southern Sudan on humanitarian assistance or $100,000 over the space of two or three years to invest in the diplomatic effort that ended that war? I think the answer is obvious and the answer then has incredible implications for today and tomorrow. Why is there no peace process right now for Darfur? Why are we not engaged in building the peace process for Darfur 6 years into what many of us believe is a genocide still ongoing? Why is it that we do not have, nor are we even deliberating over, a special envoy for Congo and the Great Lakes, which is by itself the deadliest war in the world since the Holocaust? These are urgent priorities. They are almost cost free in terms of our budgetary implications, and they would save literally billions of dollars over the course of the decade. It is not an exaggeration. We are squandering, in my view, U.S. taxpayers' money with this approach that manages symptoms rather than ends crises and ends conflict. This is a business model for our foreign policy. If we just keep bailing it out with additional money for more symptom management we will see the continuing cycle of failure that we have. Let us put the resources and money into prevention and cure. Now, I was asked to focus on the two deadliest conflicts, Congo and Sudan. Starting very quickly with Sudan, and I am just going to make some recommendations about specific U.S. actions, particularly with respect to the appropriations process, hopefully that will have some relevance to your direct jurisdiction. President Obama's first major African crisis has officially begun with the expulsion of these humanitarian agencies from Sudan. We are already getting reports from some of the agencies left behind of children who simply have no food. So we are going to see now I think a dramatic spike, if nothing changes, in severe malnutrition and the diseases related to it that will see a death toll increase fairly rapidly. Directly responsible is the regime that has now been implicated in crimes against humanity through the arrest warrant of the ICC. I think it is imperative that the President confronts Khartoum's intransigence much more directly with a forceful and coordinated diplomatic response. We have to work with our allies and other countries that have leverage, but to maximize, and here comes the issues related to the Appropriations Committee. To maximize the effectiveness of such a response, it requires an adroit use of all of the elements of the foreign policy tool kit. The Appropriations Committee and its resources have a crucial role to play in this effort. Let me give you just a few recommendations specifically: Number one, funding for the Sudan special envoy and not just a person to go running around. A team should be in place under that envoy so that we have a fully developed squad that can be talking to Beijing, talking to the Saudis, talking to the Egyptians and the countries who have leverage--who if we were to work closely with them behind the scenes we could have an influence directly on the situation on the ground now. We need to be doing that. We need to be 24/7. That is what we do on Iran. That is what we do on Iraq and in North Korea and the issues that matter. We can do it on Sudan on the cheap with a special envoy and a small team with that person. Second, we need peace dividends for the people of Sudan. They need to see in Southern Sudan after the incredible investment of the United States Government in brokering that peace deal in Southern Sudan, maybe one of the signature accomplishments of the first term of the Bush Administration. The people of Southern Sudan need to see some measure of a peace dividend and so investing more clearly. We have put a lot of money in there, but not a lot is being shown for it. I go there fairly frequently, and you do not see it. So we need to put it in more visible spending on infrastructure, roads, education, health care, the kind of things that people can say okay, there is a benefit in peace. There is an incentive for peace, which will have an impact in continuing implementation in the south of that deal that we helped broker and in encouraging the Darfurians. Third is the issue of security sector reform. I think we have to again engage with the Southern Sudanese Government that we have helped in the birthing of with some very specific things with respect to: the preparation for election, the preparation for the referendum, and particularly with the development of military capacities, including the professionalization of their military capacities with respect to air defense and training, and moving from a rebel movement to a professional military. Finally, we need support for the election. This is one of these make or break issues. If it goes wrong, it could go really wrong. It could break really badly. We could see a resumption of war in Southern Sudan, which makes Darfur look like a footnote in Sudan's history, the death toll in Southern Sudan seven times as high as the estimates for Darfur. So we have to put some significant assistance into the logistics of making those elections work and the diplomatic muscle to work with the parties to ensure that there is some measure of fairness to the process. That is a very rapid shorthand of a lot of things that have to happen with respect to bringing about some positive direction on Sudan, but in the interest of time let us move on to the Congo and the surrounding region. As we have already heard from Suliman, the U.S. helped provide the diplomatic muscle to bring the parties together in Central Africa--the Ugandans, the Congolese and the Rwandans, countries that were just a few years ago at each other's throats. That diplomatic rapprochement to some degree has helped them facilitate the military operations that have allowed for joint operations against the Lord's Resistance Army and the Rwandan militia led by the former genocidaire, the FDLR. These are encouraging opportunities, but, as Suliman has said, they have resulted again in terrible human rights abuses. We own it because we were part of the conceptualization of the military strategy and military advisors are out there. We need to redouble our efforts to make sure. If we just walk away from that the repercussions for civilian populations are going to be dramatic in terms of the response by the Lord's Resistance Army and the FDLR and other militias who will see that they are not really serious about this stuff. So what do we have to do? I will do just the same as I did on Sudan. Just a few quick things that I think some measure of appropriations might make a difference in unlocking the cycle that the Congo and the Great Lakes region are locked in. Number one, and just as important as it is for Sudan, we need a special envoy and a team for Congo and the Great Lakes to deal with both the issue of Eastern Congo, the deadliest war in the world, and the scourge of the Lord's Resistance Army, which has gone on for 20 years with no resolution. I think a team working with their task being to end these twin crises could actually make a difference. Second, funding for the DDR account, the Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration, providing an incentive for particularly the child soldiers who have been abducted, the younger people who do not want to stay in the Lord's Resistance Army, providing incentives to bring them out that are not just military, that are not just the stick. We need the carrot as well. Programs where they can see there is a place that they can go back to. Many of them are afraid to go home because of the crimes that they were forced to commit against their own families, so we want to create that opportunity. Security sector reform. Just like with the Southern Sudan Government, the Congo Government, as Suliman was telling us, is one of the worst abusers not just in Congo, but in the entire continent of Africa. That requires professionalization of the military, and that requires human rights training. Finally, there is the issue of funding. The Senate is now working on a bill to deal with the conflict minerals that are fueling the Congo conflict. The tantalum, the tungsten and the tin and the gold are four minerals that are produced in Congo which end up in all of our electronics products, our cell phones and our laptops and our iPods and all the rest of it. We are directly, as consumers, fueling the war in eastern Congo, the deadliest war in the world. So the Senate is working on that and are going to work with the House on this measure. We need a bill that goes right to the mine of origin to ensure that these companies do not purchase the minerals that actually fuel wars. This is the same concept as the blood diamond movement. If you can change the logic of the producers from war to peace you can have an impact on the overall stability in the country. Conclusion. I think Africa's remaining wars require some thinking outside the box, which means that we have to have 24/7 diplomatic effort in this era of diminishing resources. The cheapest and most effective instrument we have is the vast experience of American peacemaking. I got a little glimpse of it when I worked for President Clinton for four years in his Administration. We have incredibly talented foreign service officers who ought to be deployed in small teams in both of these places, in the Great Lakes and Sudan, and could have an enormous impact. The cost effectiveness of ending these wars rather than continuing to manage the symptoms would be undeniable. So it is not an exaggeration I think in East and Central Africa to say that literally millions of lives are at stake with what we actually end up doing over these next four years. The committee's interest in this is extremely, extremely encouraging. Thank you very much to all of you for coming today. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.105 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for your outstanding testimony, and I personally appreciate your focus on next steps. What do we do now? All three of the witnesses certainly presented your observations and your suggestions. DRC I would like to focus on DRC, and I know my colleagues will pursue many different lines of questioning, because in DRC you really see multiple challenges. Last month the DRC Government joined with two bordering countries to undertake joint operations to dismantle rebel groups. Do you think, whoever would like to answer that, that the joint operations represent a strengthened central government willing and able to collaborate with partners? Do you think that these operations represent a desperate government struggling to reclaim control of its own borders? The joint action in eastern DRC has brought some peace to the area, but you all had several suggestions. What needs to be done to maintain the peace? The United Nations has developed a redevelopment plan for the region. Do you believe that these efforts will make a difference? Then you can talk about MONUC, the U.N. force in DRC. Perhaps I will stop with my question at that point. Who would like to respond first? Mr. Baldo. Thank you. Mr. Baldo. It is just totally inconceivable how much the Congolese army is dysfunctional. It is not a dependable fighting force. It is an army where privates and officers are of the same proportion, 53 percent, and the others in the millions are noncommissioned and warrant officers. There are people from defeated previous armies, you know, the ex Force d'Armee of Mobutu, defeated armies of Laurent Kabila and so on. What Congo is doing, because it does not have any capability to do anything on its own as an army, is it is outsourcing its military needs to armies of the neighborhood that are much more professional. But these armies have a long history in Congo, including during the deadly war from 1998 to 2002. All the eastern half of Congo was under occupation by the Rwandan army and the Ugandan army in northeastern Congo, and that was a military occupation which was driven by pillaging of natural resources in Congo. So Rwanda and Uganda are both very much obliged to assist because this interest has not disappeared. In fact, the flow of resources from Congo to the global economy passes traditionally through these two capitals, and there are mechanisms that are now ongoing whereby the two states are drawing a lot of resources from Congo even during this time. Therefore, there are no good guys in this operation. The international community and the U.S. Administration really have to keep a very close watch over Congo and its neighbors because of the history involved here. The key issue is to cut the most damaging driver and fueler of conflict in that part of the world, which is the illicit exploitation of resources. There have to be put in place mechanisms to really make sure that these resources do not feed conflict. The second important component is that the Congolese army really needs to be reformed at a large scale, and this is a political decision. Pressure has to be put on the Congolese Government to assume the responsibility and protect its own territory and its own population. No one can do that for them. Therefore, there must be a serious security sector reform in Congo happening if we are to have lasting peace in that part of the world. Thank you, Madam. MONUC Mrs. Lowey. What role should the MONUC, the U.N. force play in this effort? They have been there for I believe ten years. Mr. Baldo. Yes. The United Nations mission has a mandate to assist the Congolese National Army in campaigning. Again, it is these abusive rebel groups and militias like Laurent Nkunda's group, the LRA for that matter, the FDLR for that matter and so on. But MONUC is basically assisting an army that does not even know how to be assisted. It cannot fight in place of the Congolese army and it cannot fight, for example, along side the Congolese army when it invites armies of the neighborhood because the agenda is decidedly to keep the international community out of this bilateral arrangement. You know, it was a secret deal between President Kabila and Kagami that allowed the joint operation in Eastern Congo. So for the moment MONUC, and rightly so, are staying out of this campaign and are not assisting it. Why? Because none of these belligerents, state armies, militias, armed groups, care about the humanitarian cost of conflict to the local population. Therefore, campaigning, when it happens, is accompanied by massive killings, massive rapes, pillaging by all parties and no accountability for any of this. Therefore, we cannot expect the United Nations mission to be a party to a campaign which does not really aim to conduct war according to the Laws of Four. Thanks. Mrs. Lowey. I am going to turn to Kay Granger and then alternate according to the order of attendance. We are going to try to keep to the red light because obviously because of the complexity of the issue we could all go on and on. I am going to turn to Ms. Granger, our Ranking Member. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Prendergast. I am sorry. I apologize for mispronouncing your name. Mr. Prendergast. It is not the first time. DARFUR Ms. Granger. Okay. President Obama and Vice President Biden and U.N. Permanent Representative Susan Rice all called for a no-fly zone for Darfur prior to assuming their current duties, but there are many nongovernmental organizations on the ground that said they do not agree with that, including the ones that were ordered to leave. They oppose a no-fly zone, fearing its impact on their ability to deliver vital humanitarian assistance. My question to you is what is your position on a no-fly zone in Darfur? Mr. Prendergast. A very complicated issue. Thank you for raising it. First, we have to figure out our policy objectives. If our policy objective, for example, is to protect civilian populations from attacks, particularly aerial attacks, the principal advantage that the Sudanese Government has is its air force. On the ground they are largely neutralized, but when they add air support that is when you see some of the more significant damage done by ground attacks by the Sudanese Government. It makes sense. So the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions over and over again banning offensive military flights by the Government of Sudan, but then they have not created an enforcement mechanism for that, so that is why we saw Senator Biden and Senator Clinton, when they were senators, and Susan speaking on behalf of these things. Now, the question then for the purpose of the no-fly zone is will it work, or would it actually make things worse? I think it is not a given that it will work. If we are only prepared, for example, to go in, and let us just say we are not going to patrol the skies like this is Kurdistan. What we would do, though, is once they conduct one of their offensive flights we would send a plane from the Gulf or from Djibouti and shoot an airplane on the ground and destroy-- disable or destroy--one of their planes on the ground, just sort of a quid pro quo, tit for tat. If the Sudanese Government said well, do you know what? Maybe that is all they are prepared to do and then they shut down all airspace to humanitarian operations for three months let us say, what will we have accomplished? Well, potentially we will accomplish the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. So we have to be very careful that if we are going to go down the military road, which I think at some point may be required, we better be darn sure that we are going to back it up with a series of escalating measures perhaps, further targeted bombings, if we are going down that road. I am just worried that this sort of spurious kind of one- liner--let us start and try a no-fly zone--without thinking through the implications that we have to have a backup plan if Khartoum escalates like they escalated in response to the ICC, I think we ought to go down that road of significant planning with NATO now. And I think just doing that, by the way, just sending the signal that we go and we start consulting with our NATO allies about the possible enforcement of a no-fly zone, will I guarantee you have a very significant effect on the calculations of this regime in Khartoum. If they think we are finally getting serious about imposing a cost for the kind of things that they are doing, I think they will change their behavior. More accommodation, more statements without any meat behind them, is going to lead them down a further road of intransigence, and we are just going to see more people die in Darfur. Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Jackson. Opening Remarks of Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been on this subcommittee for 10 years, and we have never had a hearing on Africa, much less the three regions we are discussing today, and so I want to applaud you and the subcommittee staff for holding this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and for the work they have done in subsaharan Africa. Over the last several years I have raised concerns with Secretary Powell and Rice about the need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with failed or failing states so that they will not become havens for terrorists. Programs like the MCC that can make a huge difference with its infusion of capital do not address failed or failing states. What can we do? What resources do we have to mitigate the situation in some of these countries? Also during the last few years I have served in the Minority on this subcommittee. I was successful in securing funding for humanitarian assistance in a supplemental appropriations bill for Sudan and Liberia, and although I was pleased that the assistance we were providing was going to save lives, I wondered if it was sustainable. Could we year after year solve the fundamental problems that plague some of the poorest countries in the world in an ad hoc and a piecemeal fashion? I have introduced legislation that specifically deals with Liberia. My legislation does not attempt to provide humanitarian assistance. Instead, it identifies the root causes of Liberia's problems and tries to address those problems, providing Liberia with a foundation upon which to grow and develop and lift itself out of conflict and poverty. I am not saying this is the Tao or the way to solve the myriad of problems affecting subsaharan African countries, but I think we need to think about new ways to solve these problems that are comprehensive and sustainable. Now, this is really not a question, but I am interested in the panel's thoughts on this. In his book, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, Paul Collier posits the circumstances of the world's population is gradually improving as their countries develop economically, but that there are about a billion people that live in the most dysfunctional, conflict prone and stagnant countries that have experienced little growth since the 1980s and that they are most likely to remain stuck in poverty for the long term. Collier argues that this bottom billion are susceptible to radicalism, to terrorism, disease and many transnational afflictions that impact our global security. He attributes their lack of growth to several traps, including conflict, poor governance, being landlocked with bad neighbors and excessive dependence on natural resources. The populations of the DRC, Sudan and Somalia are clearly members of that bottom billion. For the panelists, should the donor community be taking Collier's advice and reorient itself toward focusing primarily on lifting these bottom billion countries out of their development traps? In whatever order you would like to address it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Shinn. Congressman Jackson, I am very sympathetic to the approach that you take, and I am also a fan of Paul Collier. I am not sure that it is feasible to deal with all of those who are at the bottom of the pecking order, but I think an effort certainly has to be made, if I could just bring it back to the Horn of Africa since that is the area I specialize in. I would reiterate a point that I made in my written testimony on something that was a little bit like what you are suggesting today that was tried in the mid 1990s in the Clinton Administration. That is the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, which had its faults, which did not achieve a great deal for a number of reasons. The focus of that effort was to deal with, one, improving food security through the Greater Horn of Africa, which consisted of 10 countries and included Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, but did not include the Congo, and two, preventing conflict and mitigating conflict. We found that two things happened. One, new conflicts kept piling on the existing conflicts to the point that we never got ahead of the game. That was a pity because it just wore everyone down. As a result there was not the success that we had hoped to see in it. The other problem, quite frankly, was a bureaucratic one. The embassies in the field, some of them, were not really enthusiastic about this effort. They did not fully support it. They wanted to do their old bilateral thing. What is the United States Government going to do for Tanzania or going to do for Kenya? They did not want to look at it in terms of the 10 country concept, so it ultimately died a slow death. There was some very modest progress made, but it was exceedingly limited. I think what you say makes a lot of sense. It is the way to go. It requires an enormous amount of resources, which may or may not be available in this economic climate today. It also requires an approach that involves all the other major donors or interested parties outside of Africa to be supportive of it. The U.S. cannot do it alone. It has to be with the involvement of others, and if that is not going to be forthcoming then it probably is not going to work. Mr. Prendergast. Thanks, Congressman Jackson. I think the MCC has been for a while the flavor of the month and so it is a bit sacrilegious to critique it, but I think it set itself up for eventual failure. Not initially, but if you are going to just promote islands of stability in the seas of instability without addressing some of the issues of sometimes failed states, sometimes eroded states, and we have no resources left to deal with those countries then what is going to happen to the few jewels that people put billions of dollars into when nothing is going to some of the other ones who are not performing as well? I think it is structurally a problem. And so the response then, and to almost echo David's issues with regard to the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, in your legislative proposals with respect to Liberia we need to invest in a strategy that deals with the root causes. You know, looking at how you reform the security sector sounds so boring. My God, it is so fundamental to state construction. You know, it is so you do not have an abusive military, which is the source of so many problems. Not just the human rights abuses that that military commits, but then the rebellions that are sparked because of it that end up being the wars that we then spend billions of dollars to take care of the victims of. We have to focus our support for opportunities for young people. If there are not those opportunities, if there is not the educational and employment opportunities in places like Somalia today--we do not have a development assistance program there--so who do we leave the education to? Everybody knows what is going on. We are losing the game in the long run because we are trying to nickel and dime it right now and spending most of our resources on humanitarian assistance because we are not investing a little bit in prevention. This is why diplomacy, and I think President Obama's campaign and what his Administration stands for, focus on the United States' leadership, diplomatic leadership. You know, dealing with the fault lines in society that cause conflict and addressing those fault lines, getting at the root causes. It sounds like a mantra, but we do not do it. So, I mean, that is really what we have to do is focus--refocus-- our considerable diplomatic and developmental capacities on the root causes of what then causes us to have to spend way too much money in cleaning up messes that could be prevented or addressed in the first place. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Kirk. Opening Remarks of Mr. Kirk Mr. Kirk. Thank you. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. John, you are uniquely positioned, as the Secretary of State is, to answer my questions, which require some remembering of critical decisions President Clinton made in the 1990s with regard to the United Nations. Let me just review the record that we see in Sudan. According to Save Darfur, of which you are a director, UNAMID, the peacekeeping force in Sudan, has never fired a shot in self-defense. It has never initiated any offensive action inside its Darfur AOR. The U.N. Secretary General reported 12 Janjaweed or government attacks in December and January, and there is no documented UNAMID response. UNAMID has a formal mission statement which requires it to confirm bombings, investigate attacks and monitor those attacks. In the UNAMID AOR it cannot enforce no-fly days imposed by the Government of Sudan to restrict humanitarian assistance. Now, UNAMID deployed in 2007, and from its deployment to date vehicle hijackings have gone from 137 to 277, a 102 percent increase. Since UNAMID's deployment, abductions have gone from 142 to 218, a 53 percent increase, and attacks have gone from 53 prior to deployment to 192 today, a 106 percent increase. This committee has provided $718 million of taxpayer money to UNAMID. We are approaching the $773 million this committee provided to UNPROFOR, the United Nations Protection Force, in Bosnia. I read the UNAMID mandate. The direct words in the UNAMID mandate are to deter violence, robust patrolling, establish disarmament, create security conditions--here is my favorite-- ensure security of humanitarian workers, ensure, protect civilians and proactive patrolling. On Monday, four UNAMID soldiers were wounded. There was no response from the force. I recall, as you can, President Clinton's experience with UNPROFOR. Many times when I talk to people who are fairly knowledgeable of foreign policy I say you know, we really should have solved Iraq like the way President Clinton did, by going to the United Nations and getting a mandate before we went into Bosnia. Everybody shakes their head yes, that is right. That is what President Clinton did. Actually President Clinton got no mandate from the U.N. for Bosnia in the Kosovo war. A lot of people say well, we relied heavily on the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia, and that is what helped solve the problem. It was President Clinton's decision to move the United Nations out of the way and move a NATO force into Bosnia that actually ended that conflict. I think a number of people in the Congress have completely forgotten the central lesson that President Clinton learned. We used to talk about UNPROFOR as the United Nations Protection Force for Bosnia. It was really the United Nations. It was neither very united, nor had very many nations, did not offer much protection and was not a force. And so I would ask you. Do you think that UNAMID is really the United Nations Accountants for Mass Internal Destruction and really is not adding very much value added as UNPROFOR did not, but at tremendous expense to the taxpayers through this subcommittee? Mr. Prendergast. Thank you. Well, on the surface every critique of UNAMID imaginable is probably justifiable, but I think we need to look at the context, the political context of the United Nations Security Council and the larger international community that doomed it to failure. Just a minute is all I need on this. Number one, we sent a peacekeeping mission, first an AU peacekeeping. We did not have the guts to even authorize a U.N. We sort of sent an AU peacekeeping mission out there without a peace deal, so we have sent an apple to deal with an orange in a crazy analogy. Secondly, we have sent this force out there to observe a peace deal that does not exist, but without even the requisite, the basic equipment necessary to allow us to have a chance of success. We made promises, going back three Administrations, to African forces all over the continent, along with our British and French allies. We said to them, and I saw it during the Bush I, saw it during Clinton, saw it during Bush II, that if you, Africa, will provide the troops, the human fodder, cannon fodder for these missions, we will give you the equipment and we will train you. We train them because it is cheap, but when it came time to provide helicopters and air support and the kind of grounds that---- Mr. Kirk. If I could just interrupt you, because I do not agree with you. I have dealt with peacekeeping troops from other countries, and except for guard duty they are really not that capable. You need western military forces to execute a mission. The Government of Sudan knew that and so they directly forbid that to be, Part A. When you look at the TOE, the table of equipment, for UNAMID it is basically a World War I military just trucked into a place, and it is sitting on bases administering it itself. When I look at the key factor in operations in an AOR like this, it is helicopter support. I think UNAMID can rent two. The Government of Sudan has 43 helicopters, including Heinz, which are basically highly capable flying tanks. The danger here is that we claim to be doing something, and when we claimed to be doing something in Bosnia 300,000 people got killed. This committee felt very good. You know, I watched this committee as it felt very good in providing money for UNPROFOR, but it was a complete distraction and it was not until President Clinton and Madeleine Albright made the critical decision to push the U.N. out of the way that we actually stopped the slaughter. Mr. Prendergast. A brief, brief, brief response would be indeed the response of just giving a little bit more to UNAMID is not the answer. It means that we are just continuing to treat symptoms rather than causes. We need to do what we did in Southern Sudan, which is to work assiduously, the U.S. leadership, in brokering a peace deal in Darfur, and if it does not work or if the situation continues to deteriorate in Darfur we need to look at some other options that do not involve the United Nations that would involve some use of military force as Senator Biden, Senator Clinton and Susan Rice talked about in the run up to the election. So I actually think there are solutions. We just need to utilize the resources that we have. Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Ms. Lee. Opening Remarks of Ms. Lee Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Also thank you for this hearing, and thank all of you for being here. This region of the world has been, quite frankly, totally neglected. I think all three of you have absolutely laid that out once again for us. I want to go back to Darfur, John, since you have been on this from day one. It does not seem to be getting any better. We declared genocide, but what it took in terms of enacting the mechanism to make sure that our declaration of genocide was real, that just, quite frankly, did not happen. Now we are looking at President Bashir being brought before the International Criminal Court. I think that is long overdue. Wanted to ask you, what is the implication, though, of him being brought before the Courts as it relates to the United States not being a part of the ICC? So what kind of influence do we have to help bring this criminal to justice? Secondly, let me ask you about the issue of the humanitarian workers because now, as a result of the arrest warrant, it is my understanding that Bashir has asked the humanitarian workers to leave and the humanitarian crisis is growing, so how do we address that? I am wondering if the White Paper we submitted, and you were part of this--Madam Chair, we worked with Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Payne and came up with a series of recommendations and a White Paper to submit to the new administration. We are still waiting to hear their response to the White Paper, but I believe many of the strategies that you laid out were incorporated in that White Paper, so I want to see if you are hearing anything from the administration in terms of what their overall strategy should be. Finally, let me just ask you about the numbers now in Darfur. What are the realistic numbers in terms of the people who have been killed? How are they going to survive through this next phase? Do we anticipate more people being killed, more refugees being run from their villages? You know, we have heard many suggestions but we cannot seem to figure out, you know, just exactly what to do. Personally, I think we need to use our chips with China. You know, I do not think the previous administration was ready to call China on the carpet, nor the Arab nations. We have talked with President Mubarak about this, and I know personally I have talked to the President of Algeria about this several years ago, but we cannot seem to get the world community to come down hard on what is taking place in Darfur. So I want to get your response and see what you think what else we can do. Mr. Prendergast. Okay. Great. Great questions, Congressman Lee. First, on the influence we have at the ICC, I think even though we are not a signatory, we have actually more leverage because of the ICC action than any other country because on the security council we are the one country that has been stood up and said we are not going to provide prematurely this Article 16, which is the deferral of the case that the ICC charter allows in the interest of peace, we are not going to allow that prematurely. So we are standing in the way of President Bashir skating away for free. So he knows that in order for him to have to remove this sword of Damocles over his head, the United States has to be involved. I say it is a sword of Damocles. Look, there is no world police force. We are not going to go in and arrest this guy tomorrow. There is no capacity to do that. However, remember how Milosevic responded after he got indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. He laughed. What tribunal? Eighteen months later, he is in prison. You know, Charles Taylor laughed. That was even funnier to him. You mean a tribunal based in Sierra Leone, this little country I have been dominating for the last 10 years and exploiting and taking all their diamonds, they have indicated me and I am supposed to somehow take this seriously? Eighteen months, 20 months later after he went to Nigeria he was captured by the Nigerians and sent to the Hague. I would not be dancing in the street if I was President Bashir for much longer. I think he ought to be looking over his back, not only externally at some of his allies, but internally within the National Congress Party. Who wants this millstone around their neck. They are going to have elections. The National Congress Party is going to run for president an indicted war criminal? I do not think so. I do not think it is the Taliban. We need to play this one very, very smartly. What that means is just like you are suggesting, we have got to go to Beijing which has an interest not in condemning, they are not going to vote for security council resolutions that condemn their commercial allies, but what they will do is they will support us in working towards a solution because their interests, their $8.5 billion investment in southern Sudan is at risk if the war resumes again in southern Sudan. The Egyptians are sick and tired of Bashir's support for Hamas, and Mubarak has said in no uncertain terms he is done with this guy, and the Saudis even are starting to have enough. You see these little articles popping up in the Middle Eastern press comparing Bashir to Saddam, which is very, very interesting. The wheels are starting to grind in the Middle East about this guy, and so if we play our cards right, I do believe we will see some progress. We cannot give this Article 16 up prematurely. We cannot do megaphone diplomacy without responses. We have to get in there and on a daily basis be discussing with the key countries that have a real leverage in Sudan. Just a note about what the U.S. Congress has done. Congress has been a battering ram against the last three administrations for them to do something about Sudan. They would not have done this comprehensive peace agreement that ended the war between the north and the south if it was not for years and years of activism on the part of people like yourself and many other congresspersons on both sides of the aisle. We would not have had the kind of extraordinary humanitarian assistance program led by the United States. By the way, no other country in the world combined gives as much as we do. What is that? That is a symptom, but it is actually to make sure that millions of people have not died like they did in southern Sudan. So the Congress has to again, I think. Even though we want to give the new administration a chance, it is seven weeks in or whatever it is, they have got to hear in no uncertain terms that we need action now. You know, President Obama was able to name George Mitchell, he was able to name Dennis Ross, he was able to name Dick Holbrooke as envoys. Where is the Sudan envoy? Where is the Great Lakes envoy? It does not take that much energy. You get a person, you put them out there and say it is your job, and put a little team together and go to work. In terms of number dead, I mean, the estimates are 350,000 to 400,000. It is a wild goose chase to find the numbers. We know, what, about 2.75 million people, maybe three, have been displaced, so that is a more firm number, but in terms of the number of dead, I think the evidence has been sort of whisked away by the sands of the Sahara Desert. We are never going to know. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Chandler. Opening Remarks of Mr. Chandler Mr. Chandler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for having this hearing. This is an area that so many of us know too little about, and it is very important for us to get this on our agenda as best we can. With that being said, I find myself mortified by what I hear. The information that you give leads me to believe that we have got a situation here that is as close to being insoluble as anything that I have heard about anywhere in the world given the history of it, the depth of the problems, the intricacy of the problems. I know that you put out some suggestions, but frankly, I would love for you all to give me an honest assessment of the need for or lack of need--I guess the best way to ask this is how can this be dealt with short of some kind of significant military intervention? I just do not know how you can get the security situation and deal with the governmental corruption, with these roving armed bands, I do not know how you can deal with all of these problems and then get back, get into a phase of humanitarian aid and nation building without some kind of military intervention from somewhere. Now, I am not about to suggest that we need to have a military intervention. Goodness knows we know what our situation is, and we know where we are in different places in the world, but if you could give me some assessment of how you get these regions in a situation where anything really ultimately can be done that can be lasting and meaningful without military intervention. Thank you. Mr. Shinn. Congressman Chandler, I think first my starting point is that there is no one out there who is going to engage in the kind of military intervention that you are suggesting which would be necessary to solve any one of these problems, not to mention the collectivity of them. Certainly the United States, in my view, is not prepared to do that. The United States has 43 peacekeepers in all of Africa today. Mr. Chandler. Well, can it really be solved, though, short of that? Do you really think it can be? I am not suggesting that it be done. I do not mean to say that. I am just wondering if you can solve it short of that. Mr. Shinn. If you look at history and the efforts that have tried to solve it up to this point one gets rather discouraged because there frankly have not been a lot of solutions in this part of the world. If you look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, or some other parts of Africa, there have been some solutions. The Horn is clearly the most conflicted corner of the world, and I agree with John on this, since the end of World War II. There is just one conflict after the other, and they are all interlinked and intermingled. That is why it is imperative to have a regional approach rather than a country-by-country approach. I must confess, I was very taken aback when Darfur developed as a serious crisis. Then there was very little attention to the north/south peace agreement in Sudan which, in my view, is potentially a much bigger problem than Darfur has been, although Darfur is pretty enormous. So you do have to look at it from the perspective of what is going on throughout the region. You do have to engage all of the partners who have some interest in this area. You cannot ignore anyone, and that includes China and that includes Russia because it is actually the largest provider of arms to the region. Whether you are going to get cooperation from some of these countries, who knows, but I think one has to try. That does mean you have to give high level diplomatic attention to it, and I agree with John on this. We may disagree on how to deal specifically with what is going on in Darfur, but I agree with the overall approach that that is the only way to do it short of major military intervention, which simply is not going to happen because no one is willing to do it. You look at the failed efforts to set up a peacekeeping effort in Somalia, for example. The Africa Union operation there is pathetic. You look at the UNAMID operation, and I would agree it has been highly unsuccessful, and I do not see it building up to the point where it is going to be very successful. All the United States has been prepared to do is write checks and provide logistical support and fly people in. They are not prepared to put troops on the ground, and it is not going to happen. So the best you can do, and it may not be enough, is to make an all out diplomatic effort. Mr. Prendergast. And the diplomatic effort would--you know, we said the same thing, people said the same thing about southern Sudan. It is insoluble, it is hopeless, blah, blah, blah. When the United States government invested in the peace process we went to the core issues and the core interests of these parties, we addressed them and within the 2-year process of those negotiations, the peace deal, which was an enormous accomplishment of the United States' foreign policy, was done. In Darfur, the issues are negotiable. Individual compensation, dismantling of this Janjaweed militia, power and wealth sharing, these are all issues that at the table they can be resolved. There is no table. Where is the United States? Where is the international community to do what we have actually proved can be done in southern Sudan, the same country with the same genocidal regime? It is remarkable that we have not done anything. This is the investment we need to make. Congo, the fuel for war is not there, it is here. We have got to start taking some responsibility, and that is going to be a huge role for Congress, I think, is to come up with that legislation that can verify that we are not purchasing minerals for our electronics industry that is actually fueling the deadliest war in the world. So there are many, many things that we can do in these places that can help. There is no magic bullet. We would have fired it a long time ago. There are things that we can do within our power as consumers, as a Congress, and as an administration and as a civil society like us that we can do that can actually make a difference. Sorry. Did not mean to interrupt. Mrs. Lowey. I was going to say, before we get to Mr. Israel, let us go to Mr. Baldo. Mr. Baldo. Many of the solutions that are needed and not military. On the contrary. These problems are just not soluble through military action. If we limit ourselves to the Great Lakes region, first I agree with Mr. Shinn that these are all interlinked conflicts of a regional nature. The Lord's Resistance Army is a Uganda rebel group that is now causing a lot of damage in four countries, in eastern Congo, in southern Sudan and in southern Central African Republic and potentially with the possibility of going back home into northern Uganda and disrupting the progress that has been made. Therefore, there is no way of dealing with these problems country by country. It has to be a regional approach. Second, the United States is a major actor. There are other major actors out there. What is needed is the multilateralism. You know, regional approach is multilateralism, just to say. Coordinate policy with the other international players with influence in the region, mainly European Union, leading European Union member states and share the layer of regional actors with a lot of influence. Eritrea qualifies, Libya does. You know, some of them are not traditional diplomatic partners but we have to face the reality that if you want to prevent this cycle of violence either in the horn of Africa or in Central Africa, we must take into consideration the influence that regional powers have. South Africa is very influential in the region of southern Africa and in the horn and so on, and then the African Union is subregional organization, the EGAD and so on. Third, the issues could be resolved through leverage. All the countries in the region, whether Rwanda or Congo, depend on the international donor community to supplement, you know, their functioning budgets. There is direct budgetary support for the governments of Uganda, Rwanda and DRC, and some liberties, you know, some little pressure could help achieve a lot of development at the level of peacemaking, peacebuilding and addressing security risk. This is exactly what had happened in the joint campaign between Rwanda and the DRC because Netherlands, Sweden, just to stop their budgetary supports for the Rwandan government and the next day Kizani agreed with Kabila that we need to address the issue of these abusive rebel groups from our country who are there. Therefore, solutions have to come from the region but the international community can apply pressure and get things done. This is diplomacy, this is policy and it does not need military responses. The military response is actually not wise to resolve these issues. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. I would like to continue that. Thank you. I am going to turn to Mr. Israel, but at some point, I know for those of us who have interacted with Mbeki and even Mandela, people are dying, starving in Zimbabwe, Sudan. We have gotten no assistance through the years. Let me turn to Mr. Israel and perhaps we can pursue that some more, I think. Opening Remarks of Mr. Israel Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to follow- up on this line of thought. I believe in muscular diplomacy and robust multilateralism, but I think you have got to have something to back that up, for as long as we delay, delay and delay, Bashir and others will defy, defy and defy. Let me suggest one asset that has been largely overlooked with respect to Darfur that some in Congress have given some attention to but I think it needs to be explored more fully. Near the border of Sudan and Chad is the Abiche airfield which is currently operated by, actually, the French. In 2007, I offered an amendment, which passed, to the Defense Authorization Bill, and I did this with my colleague, Ms. Lee, that asked the Department of Defense to do a feasibility study as to whether the Abiche airfield is feasible for humanitarian operations. And, in fact, once an airfield is feasible for humanitarian operation, it is feasible for other operations as well. The Department of Defense did a classified study, reported to Congress, and without going into the details of that classified study, obviously, the next step would be to actually fund some upgrades to the runways at Abiche. The government of Chad supports this, the government of Chad has indicated that it would cooperate with this, the government of Chad believes that that would be a very strong signal to send to Bashir that the world is taking this seriously, so seriously that it is putting money in to expand an airfield for humanitarian operations. We are going to pursue that in the current fiscal year Defense Authorization Bill, seeing if we can provide language stating that it is a priority of the United States Congress to see Abiche upgraded and provide those funds. My sense is you may not agree with this, but I would like your opinion as to whether if in a multilateral setting if France, and the United States, and Chad and other countries began to upgrade the capacity of an airfield that is within 200 miles of Darfur, what the consequences of that would be with the regime in Sudan. Mr. Shinn. I think it would require knowing a little bit more about what the potential use of that field is going to be. If it were announced as strictly a humanitarian operation, Sudan may or may not accept that. It may assume it has a more nefarious purpose behind it. That would probably give the Bashir government some pause for concern. I do not think there is any question about that. Pressure does have a role in this part of the world and with this government. I spent three years in Sudan, not when Bashir was in power but with other governments in Sudan, and I have some feel for how they think. It would leave a question mark in his mind. Let me put it that way. That might be good. If it were in the meantime carrying out legitimate, useful, humanitarian operations, that is for the good. I have been to Chad but not to Abiche. I have been to Darfur, but I do not know the Abiche airfield, so I do not know from a logistical point of view exactly what it would add to the humanitarian operation to that which is already going on. I am just not in a position to judge that. But if it would add in a quantitative sense to improving the humanitarian operation there, that is positive. Activating the airfield would leave a question mark in Bashir's mind as to what is this airfield really for. But at some point Bashir is going to come to the conclusion that it is just for humanitarian assistance and I do not have to worry too much unless it is, in fact, used for something more than that, at which point I might start being troubled by what we were trying to accomplish with it. I am just not sure that military action in this part of the world, particularly by western forces, gets us very far. I have seen too many cases where it did not. Mr. Baldo. Just to add here. What are the worst-case scenarios today in Darfur? With the rising tensions around the involvement of the International Criminal Court and the events there, we do have a population of victims of 2.5 million in the internally displaced camps, we do have multiple totally unaccountable militias that are roaming around these camps, and in the event of a worst-case scenario I could imagine, you know, militias attacking camps for the displaced because of some retaliation for the suspected support, for example, of the indictment of the president or because of, you know, there is a policy to dismantle the camps or disburse the displaced so that they are not so visible. If that happens it will be an immediate major humanitarian disaster. It is necessary to have that capability for humanitarian purposes on the Chadian end of the border to address precisely, you know, that kind of major humanitarian disaster. I see the likely scenario given that there are no viable peace efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully, and now the trend is actually on the contrary, rising tensions and rising confrontations with the international community. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Rothman. Opening Remarks of Mr. Rothman Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your distinguished service. I read your respective written testimonies. Ambassador Shinn, you make an argument that I have not heard before, your section about the Sudan, where you say U.S. policy is not well-served when it says that genocide is continuing today in Darfur. You then cite a report that says from an expert, as you describe him, that violent deaths in 2008 in Darfur were only relative to the charge of genocide of 1,550 violent deaths in Darfur, presumably not meeting the threshold definition for genocide. You say it is time to acknowledge that the situation has changed and that this label of continuing genocide is inaccurate and counterproductive. Have I summarized your view on that? Mr. Shinn. Yes, sir. Mr. Rothman. Can you elaborate on that? Mr. Shinn. Yes. I think that it is important when we are making policy to be making that policy on the basis of the facts that we have at the time they are being made. I am not talking about 2003, 2004, or 2005 in Darfur. I am talking about today, I am talking about through 2008. You get into all kinds of definitional problems when you start talking about genocide, but genocide is very emotionally laden. Whenever that term is used, as awful as things have been in Darfur, and I would be the first to acknowledge that, I do not think it crosses the threshold of the definition of genocide. I would agree that I am one of the very few people who is willing to stand up publicly and make that statement. I think there are a lot of others out there who may agree with me, who have looked at it from an academic point of view or who know the region, people like Alex deWaal, who has said it publicly. Mr. Rothman. But, Mr. Ambassador, what would be the diplomatic or public policy benefit in no longer using the term genocide to describe what is going on in Darfur? Mr. Shinn. Simply a degree of honesty. That is all. Just acknowledging the situation for what it is. Mr. Rothman. So it would not have any practical benefit to the people of the Sudan. Mr. Shinn. No. That we do not know. If one is to approach the problem of Sudan with a greater degree of honesty--and I made two points that are very controversial, one was this one and one was the list of state sponsors of terrorism--I think you will have a better response from the people in the region. We do not know what the response would be from the Sudanese. Mr. Rothman. Are the other nations in the region offended by labeling what is going on in Darfur genocide? Mr. Shinn. Let me put it this way. Offended, probably not, but the United States is the only nation in the world that has ever declared what is going on in Darfur as genocide. The only nation in the world. Does that not raise some issues? Why is the United States the only country to call this genocide? Mr. Rothman. Well, if we called it mass slaughter, would that be better? Mr. Shinn. Other nations call it crimes against humanity. I am not even judging what it was back in the 2003 to 2005 period, but I just point that out by way of fact we have to be more honest when we deal with these issues. That is the only point I am trying to make. Mr. Rothman. Okay. I accept the academic notion of proper use of terms. I am just wondering what the practical benefit would be beyond that accuracy in the use of verbiage. On the Congo, do either of you two gentlemen have any notions--I know Mr. Prendergast talked about using consumer power in some way, the west consumer power to in some way better the situation in the Congo, but as I read it, this is a conflict primarily between two major militias, and so how would efforts as consumers address their conflict for power and domination? Mr. Baldo. Well, there are a multitude of militias very often operating at the very local level in resource-rich areas in the DRC, in the Congo. The land is so rich in many areas you just have to do some digging to find diamonds, or gold, or cassiterite which is a material for tin, and so on. Timber, coffee are also other forms of riches in that country. To in a way address the issue of the link between illicit resource exploitation and violence, because it is in the fighting at the local level between these militias over control of mining areas and between corrupt army officers, whether of the Congolese Army or during the war of occupying armies of Rwanda and Uganda, that most of the killing occurs and most of the violence and the sexual violence occur because all the fighting men have one thing in common, they all prey on civilians and they are all perpetrators of mass violence against civilians. Just what you do when you have the gun and the civilians---- Mr. Rothman. So forgive me. Would you make the connection then between the consumer efforts and improving the situation there? Mr. Baldo. Exactly. These resources enter into global economies through Kigali and Kampala. For gold, for instance, Kampala, Uganda, has a production of only a few kilograms of gold, but the Central Bank of Uganda in its official statistics gives a number in the tons. Similarly, it is known that Rwanda is not a producer of many of these special minerals that go into information technology gadgets, and, you know, advanced industries. The international community could simply mandate that no minerals are imported from countries that do not produce it. That would immediately have the effect of really creating a clogging of the system. Mr. Rothman. So the Ugandan and Rwandan forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo would then, you believe, withdraw? Mr. Baldo. Now they are not present there. They are only present when they go by invitation of the Congolese government as has happened of late. Mr. Rothman. And how would that address the local militias? The native militias? Mr. Baldo. Well, you know, if you do proper investigation, as the United Nations has done through its materials, you could find links between these militias and state access, including the Congolese government itself and influential people in the army financing militias, buying these resources from them, exporting them through contacts, you know, in the regional markets for these minerals. Interestingly, because of this economic interest, in the conflict, you know, you will find that there are business interests between the Congolese Army and the militia of the democratic forces for the liberation of Rwanda which the Congolese Army is supposed to be fighting. Together there have been linkages of an economic nature that were documented by UN investigators. Mr. Rothman. Thank you, doctor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Lowey. Before I want to turn to Mr. Schiff, Mr. Baldo you know that the U.S. Ambassador to Congo and the U.K. Ambassador are trying to put together a task force just to deal with the issue that Mr. Rothman referenced. They are working on it to deal with this issue that you referenced. So we can follow-up on it. You are probably aware of that. Mr. Baldo. Yes. Mr. Rothman. I am just going to another panel. Mrs. Lowey. That is quite all right. Send them my best. I should be there, but I am not going there. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I wanted to turn the topic in a different direction to Somalia. Ambassador, you mentioned in your testimony that the U.S. had essentially abandoned Somalia after 1994. I think that is largely true. To the degree that we have been focused on Somalia, it has been intermittent, largely unsuccessful, uncoordinated and lacking in any really comprehensive policy direction. The question is what should our policy be now? We have a new president there, we have a supposedly moderate Islamic government, we have al-Shabab in the wings, we have a limited ability to intervene or act there because of the dangerous situation. I am not suggesting that we have some kind of military action there, but I am asking what role can we play constructively? Should we try to find ways to support this new government based on what we know about it or would our support for a government therefore damn the government in the eyes of the people there? Some have suggested it is so hard to get international aid into Somalia that we should establish through the international community a form of green zone in Mogadishu. I know you have recommended us focusing on trying to help them build a police force, but given the difficulty we have had in Afghanistan developing a police force, we found there it is much easier to build an army than a police force. I think you have, you know, some of the same clan dynamic in Somalia that it would be very difficult to build a police force potentially, a national police force in any event. What do we do? What can we do constructively in Somalia? Mr. Shinn. Thank you very much for the question, Congressman Schiff. I wish there were more interest in Somalia generally. On the Hill there are a number of people who do have an interest in it but it is not a very large group. The immediate problem in Somalia today is the issue of security. There is a window of opportunity right now, and that is the current new government of national unity. It is a combination of the former Transitional Federal Government (TFG) that the United States supported very strongly, which has been joined by the so-called moderate group of Islamists, actually, former members of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, the people that the United States was once opposing. That grouping has divided into various factions and the more moderate part of it, the Sheikh Sharif portion, is now working with the TFG. It is not clear whether this government is going to be widely accepted by the Somali people. We simply do not know. It is clearly being given somewhat more of a chance by Somalis generally in the country than the previous Transitional Federal Government, which was not doing the right kinds of things in order to ingratiate itself with the people generally. This government may trip and fall, too, but in the meantime, I think there really is no good option to doing anything other than trying to support it. By doing so, I am not suggesting that the United States should be out front and center at this point. I think this is frankly a time for the United States to quietly step back, let the Somalis do what they do best, which is to talk to each other. Let them engage in their own dialogue in their own way and work things out. Sometimes they do not work out, and in recent years they have not worked them out, but give them an opportunity to see what they can manage by bringing into the fold some of these dissident elements, the most difficult one being the al-Shabab group, the militantly religious organization that is opposed to this government. I am not convinced that all of that al-Shabab group is that committed to a radical ideology. I think there are some who are opportunists, some who can be eventually brought along to the moderate side, and I think that is the way to go. In the meantime, I think it is important for the United States to have in mind some kind of support for a development program once security becomes appropriate. You cannot do that now. There is no way to do a development program in Somalia today, but you have to be able to step in quickly when that is possible. The police force idea, I agree it is a gamble. There is absolutely no guarantee a police force would work, but Somalia has one interesting thing going for it. It has a very long history of a proud and professional police force. It is something that Somalis have always felt very strongly about. So it may not be the same situation you had in Iraq, for example. I am not saying it will work, but I am saying it is worth a chance. That is a medium term solution. You cannot have police go in and try to combat heavily armed al-Shabab right now. That is not going to work. So I see the police force as more of a medium term solution, and in the meantime, one has to muddle through on the security side by leaving the very weak Africa Union force there to keep the port and the airport open. That is important to keep them out of the hands of al-Shabab. The focus now should be on the political side and supporting the current government and helping it behind the scenes, whatever one can do, perhaps bringing the Arab League more into it, to peel away those opponents that still do oppose that government, with the hope that eventually it can stand on its own two feet. Mr. Schiff. Thank you. I do not know if you would like to add on to that as well? Mr. Baldo. Well, I am in agreement with this line definitely. It is the time for perhaps the new president to widen the support base of his government, and he is working very hard on this, coming from the background of, you know, because they were not on the same side, they were actually the opposition force to the previous government as the Islamic Courts, and to build a region of support base within Africa and in the Arab League region. I believe the potential is good. The outlook is that, you know, there is some expectation that this time Somalia may finally have a working government. So we are in this expectation and we will see where things will be heading. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you both. Before we close the hearing I have one additional question, and if you do, you are certainly welcome to ask it, Mr. Schiff. This subcommittee was in northern Uganda about a year and a half ago when there was still hope that Kony was going to sign a peace agreement. We met with some of the rescued girls and rescued boys, and there was a feeling of optimism that perhaps in spite of all the challenges there would be some movement towards a future in Uganda. Now, we know that the U.S. military was helpful as an advisor, we understand, in the recent military action which led--we saw in its wake murder, decapitation, rape, the ugliest scene. Over 150 people were either killed, or maimed, or destroyed by this recent action. I have a question for both of you. Do you have any comments on what, if anything, should be done now? How do you take action, if that is what you would recommend, to minimize or reduce the impact on civilians? Mr. Baldo. The prospects for peace have really helped create a real momentum in northern Uganda. Even before the conclusion of the UBA process there was a movement of people out of the camps going to their own areas and trying to revive their shattered lives and so on. Suspicion from Kony, in particular, was a key obstacle for concluding that peace process. He never believed the commitment of the government that once he had signed, then they would apply the other accountability mechanisms and will request the International Criminal Court to withdraw its arrest warrants against him. The government is committed to applying these mechanisms regardless of the fact that the peace has not been formally concluded. Therefore, they are forging ahead with the establishment of a special chamber in the high Court to try, you know, some of the war crimes out of Kenya and northern Uganda, they are preparing alternate mechanisms for the use of traditional justice as agreed, and some mechanisms for reparations for victims and to extend the benefit of the amnesty law to those willing to come out from the rebellion. One of the top people, deputy of Kony, who is also indicted by the ICC, has actually asked to be given amnesty and is negotiating his, you know, hand-over by an intermediary humanitarian actor to the government for amnesty. The government has had also as part of that package adopted a very ambitious reconstruction program because the problem of northern Uganda is economic and social marginalization and the lack of investment of the national wealth in infrastructure and development effort in north Uganda. The government of Uganda really has to do a lot of effort to bridge that gap. It has developed a program which receives a lot of international donor support, but the government is not doing much at this time to implement that program. It is a key--a key--prerequisite, I believe, for returning northern Uganda to stability, and to peace and to a sense of some belonging to their country. Once the people see that there is an effort to try and introduce, you know, a measure of compensation for many, many years of neglect from the government and many years of marginalization. I believe without that commitment from the government of Uganda, you know, the chances of lasting peace will be minimal. This is an area where again diplomacy and policy could play a major role by really pushing the government of Uganda to stay committed to this approach. Thank you. Mr. Shinn. Madam Chairwoman, it is an awfully good question and you raise yet another horrific problem in this part of the world of which there are far too many. I agree with what Suliman said. I cannot add a great deal to his comments except that my own personal view is that I do not think Kony has any intention of ever signing a peace agreement and abiding by it. We have gone through these charades so many times. How many times do you have that football pulled away before you decide to stop kicking at it? The one thing that I would add, though, that I think needs to be looked at more is the degree to which you can use traditional methods of conflict resolution among the Acholi people. They have their own systems for dealing with conflict. Many in the West would find these systems very disagreeable because they do not accord with western systems of justice at all, but there has been some history in using them and they have actually had some success, at least at local levels, in the Acholi area. I think that there has to be some more attention given to that because I sure do not see anything else working out there. I do not think that the International Criminal Court action achieved anything either, quite frankly. Arguably, it worsened the situation in the case of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). I think it is time to look at some traditional mechanisms of conflict resolution. It probably is not going to solve the Kony problem, but it might solve some of the issues underlying the Kony problem. Mrs. Lowey. Would that include military action? Mr. Shinn. The traditional mechanisms are very much based on local systems of justice, and, in some cases, letting some people off with a lot less than we would ever accept in a western system of justice. That is why we find them so disagreeable. In the context of the Acholi people, they have been shown on occasion to work. I am just arguing that there has to be more attention given to that. I do not want to suggest that this is going to resolve the problem of Kony. It will not, but if it can at least reduce the amount of violence in that region, that is a starting point. Mr. Schiff. Just one last question, Madam Chair. I wonder if you would mind giving us any thoughts in terms of Yemen, the status of any issues in Yemen that we should be concerned about, and whether you have any policy recommendations. Mr. Shinn. We are probably not the best people to be addressing Yemen. I have been there, though that does not make me an expert. I am concerned about the willingness of the Yemeni government recent many years to carry through with what it says it is going to do in terms of being supportive on counterterrorism and related issues. There have been too many occasions when they have not followed through, and, in some cases, have done the opposite of what the United States expected from them. This is very troubling. I was just reading a report the other day where it appears that some of these Somali pirates are being aided and abetted from: Yemeni territory. These may be private activities not those by the government, but if this is true, it is very disturbing because it is up to the government to stop that sort of thing. The government of Yemen, in theory, should be in a position to stop it. I think we are dealing with a government that is very torn between its continuing in power because of the views of the people that it represents, on the one hand, and wanting to maintain a decent relationship with the United States, on the other, and other western governments. As a result, you are getting a very ambivalent response out of that government. I am really not an expert on Yemen. I wish I did have a list of things that ought to be done, but I really do not. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. I would like to thank you again for your time. This concludes today's hearing on Africa. The Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations and Related Programs stands adjourned. Thank you. Thursday, March 5, 2009. THE ROLE OF CIVILIAN AND MILITARY AGENCIES IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF AMERICA'S DIPLOMATIC AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES WITNESSES DR. JOHN J. HAMRE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES NANCY LINDBORG, PRESIDENT, MERCY CORPS AMBASSADOR GEORGE MOOSE, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE DR. GORDON ADAMS, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State, foreign operations, and Related Programs will come to order. My ranking member I gather will be here any minute. Good morning. I welcome our distinguished panel, Dr. John J. Hamre, President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President of Mercy Corps and a recognized leader in the NGO community; Ambassador George Moose, Vice Chairman of the Board of the United States Institute of Peace; Dr. Gordon Adams, Professor of International Relations at American University School of International Service. We really look forward to hearing from you today on this very important topic. As you probably know, I strongly believe that foreign policy decisions rest with the Secretary of State as the principal adviser to the President, and this authority should neither be delegated by the Department of State nor superseded by any other department or agency in the executive branch. With this in mind, today's hearing will examine the relationship between the civilian agencies and the military in the formulation and execution of foreign policy. Last month, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, told an audience at Princeton University that United States foreign policy has become too militarized, end quote. I could not agree more. I have a growing concern with how the lines of responsibility between civilian agencies and the military are increasingly blurring, with the Department of Defense playing a larger role in diplomacy and development. I believe in the long run this will have a detrimental effect not only on the civilian agencies and America's reputation, but also on our military and ultimately our national security. Now, let me state clearly that I believe the United States military is the very best in the world, and they prove every day that they are adaptive, creative, innovative and serve our country with distinction. Yet the fact remains that if the civilian agencies are not stepping up to the plate, this does not mean that the job should fall to our overburdened military. It means that policy makers in Washington must provide support for and demand more from the civilian agencies. Today's panel of outside experts will explore with us the militarization of foreign policy and the toll being placed on the Department of State and the Department of Defense as well as on USAID. I would like this hearing to address several key issues. First, we have all witnessed the increased role that the military has recently played, often by necessity, in diplomacy and development, especially in insecure areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. Operationally what are the unintended consequences of this increased role to both diplomats, foreign assistance professionals, and the efforts of the NGO community, and what is the unintended consequence to United States foreign policy and how it is viewed by our friends and adversaries? On a practical level, what type of coordination and division of labor is necessary between the civilian agencies and the military to make any joint effort work, and is there confusion about who speaks for the United States? Additionally, there is growing consensus that the resources of the military and civilian elements of our national security apparatus are grossly out of balance. What will it take to get the civilian agencies in a position to fulfill their roles, particularly in nonpermissive environments? On a related note, what are the consequences of dueling security assistance authorities between the Department of State and Defense? As I said in our hearing last week on growing the diplomatic and development workforce, I cannot remember any other time during my service in Congress when diplomacy and development assistance were viewed as coequal components of defense in relation to our Nation's national security. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in July said our diplomatic leaders, be they in Ambassadors' suites or on the State Department's 7th floor, must have the resources and political support needed to fully exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading American foreign policy. I wholeheartedly agree and welcome the growing support for strengthening civilian capacity and believe that it is critical that we take advantage of this pivotal moment of consensus on this issue. This subcommittee has already begun to expand the capacity of USAID and the State Department because we all know that soft power is a more cost effective alternative to military interventions. Yet increased capacity will not materialize overnight. So then in the interim how do we move forward? Civilian agencies and our military have vastly different missions, and although they are not mutually exclusive, they cannot be substituted for or replace one another. So now is the time for Congress and the Obama administration to aggressively increase support for civilian agencies, strengthen our development and diplomatic capabilities, relieve an overburdened military, and provide the political support for the civilian agencies to exercise the responsibility Secretary Gates called for in July 2008. No one would dispute that a failure to act rapidly increases the risk to vital United States security interests. But the Congress and the administration must stop taking the easy and quick-fix route of providing duplicative authorities and overburdening our military while demanding results of civilian agencies without equipping them with the tools or resources needed. So I look forward to working with Secretaries Clinton and Gates and the Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, to create the framework for the United States Government so that they can execute their mandated areas of responsibility in a coherent and coordinated pursuit of the United States foreign policy objective. I look forward to hearing from this impressive panel of witnesses today as we explore this critical issue. But first I look forward to hearing from our ranking member, Ms. Granger, for any comments she may have. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for holding this hearing on the role of civilian and military agencies in advancing U.S. diplomatic and development objectives. Last week the subcommittee held a hearing on the 21st century workforce needs for the Department of State and USAID, and today we continue that discussion by examining the future of the civilian-military relationship. I want to thank the distinguished witnesses for coming and for sharing their insights on this important topic. You are the people we need to hear from. It has become clear that future threats to U.S. national security will require an approach that incorporates all three Ds, defense, diplomacy and development. It is also important that military and civilian agencies increase the level of cooperation in Washington and in the field in order to succeed. But over the last few years, civilian agencies have experienced difficulty carrying out their core functions, forcing the military to take up traditional civilian roles. That has created imbalance in the 3 Ds and strained areas of cooperation between the military and civilian agencies. Secretary Gates, as well as other military leaders, have acknowledged that future success in preventing conflict and stabilizing post-conflict situations requires a civilian component that can work effectively in partnership with the military. Recognizing the value of strengthened civilian- military cooperation, the Congress has provided resources to build the civilian agencies so they can more effectively advance U.S. interests. In addition to funding the Department of State and USAID staffing initiatives, the Congress appropriated $75 million in the fiscal year 2008-2009 supplemental and another $75 million is included in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill to support the standup of a civilian reserve capacity. Now that funding is in place and the civilian agencies are establishing civilian-military policies and programs, the Congress is monitoring closely whether the 3 Ds are returning to the appropriate balance. I look forward to hearing your views, the views of the witnesses on our progress and the prospects you see for achieving this goal. And I thank you for being here, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And members of our panel, of course we would be appreciative if you could summarize your statement for the record. Your total statement will be entered in the record, and I want to make sure that we have plenty of time for questions. So the order of recognition will be Dr. Hamre, Ms. Lindborg, Ambassador Moose, and Dr. Adams. We will begin with Dr. Hamre. Opening Statement of Mr. Hamre Mr. Hamre. Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member, all of the colleagues on this committee, thank you for inviting me to participate. This is the first time I have had a chance to appear before this subcommittee. I have been in front of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about 100 times, but I have never been invited here before. So I think it took 8 years of exile from the Department before I was invited and I do want to thank you for including me and thank you for taking the testimony. I am going to depart a little bit from it because I think the nature of the way you framed the discussion this morning differs a bit from my testimony, so if I might react to your statements and then open up for just a few observations. I think, Chairwoman, you highlighted the central problem when you talked about nonpermissive environments. I don't think there is a big dispute, I know there is no dispute from a Defense Department standpoint about the leadership we expect the State Department to give us in peaceful environments, and I know that the State Department doesn't have any quarrels about us being in charge when we are shooting. I think the question that is awkward is when you have difficult, compromised, insecure environments and we need to work together. That tends to be the problem. Now, unfortunately, when we are in insurgency warfare, this tends to be a very long and prolonged period. It is not the case for conventional war. You know the first Iraq war was 35 days, you know, it was over, and then it was a very different environment. We are involved in insurgencies in the last years and we are up against an opponent who intentionally blends into civil society, making it dramatically more complicated. We know we can't win insurgency warfares with violence. Those are won through political gestures. And political gestures in a, as you say, in a nonpermissive environment blend use of force and the use of soft power means. And so how do we construct that in a smart strategy in a very complex and difficult environment? Now these last 6 years have not gone well. We went into Iraq with probably an inappropriate model for what we anticipated we would confront. We didn't manage dynamically an evolving environment very effectively, and in honesty, our partners, I say ``our,'' I am speaking from a DOD standpoint, our partners in the civilian agencies didn't have resources that they could bring to the fight. So the Defense Department stepped in. It isn't a role that they seek. They would much prefer, frankly, they would much prefer not to have to do the economic engagement. But when you just didn't have the resources, many years of underfunding of the State Department and candidly not an operational culture in the field where you have an insecure environment, where it just created a highly unique circumstance that the military would prefer not to be in. Now, 7 years ago when I first went, actually, 8 years ago I first went to CSIS, I had just lived through the experience, I had been Deputy Secretary of Defense and I had lived through the challenges of Bosnia. And we knew how to get in a war. We didn't know how to rebuild civil society. So we launched a project to try to identify what does it take to succeed in post-conflict reconstruction? And Nancy was one of our commissioners. Congressman Wolf was one of our commissioners. And one of our early projects we did was to draft a template of all the things that have to be done in a post-conflict, in this kind of an environment, during the initial response when they are still shooting, in the transition phase to a stable environment, and then in the sustainability phase, in four different dimensions. Probably only 10 percent of these tasks belong to the military. You know, most of them belong to the civilian agencies. But they don't have the capacity to deal with it, and I would have to honestly say today they don't really have the capacity. So to sum up, you need to give resources to the civilian agencies to do their job. Number two, you have got to hold them accountable for producing capability that can go into the field with the military, otherwise the military will have to do this. Three, we need to start developing a framework where we can work and regulate the business of contractors on the battlefield. That framework has not been in place. We are now overreacting in the wrong way, and we are making it more compromised and more difficult. We have to get this right. And finally, we need to work out in insurgency situations the working relationship between government and nongovernmental organizations. I think we have especially in insurgent situations highly compromised circumstances that we have NGO people involved with and their relationship with us. This has to get worked out and it doesn't exist now. I would be happy to amplify during the question period. Thank you very much for inviting me. [The statement of Mr. Hamre follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.112 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Lindborg. Opening Statement of Ms. Lindborg Ms. Lindborg. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lowey and Congresswoman Granger, and members on the committee. I echo the appreciation for tackling this very critical topic, and there is an extraordinary consensus I think emerging on the need for smart power and for rebalancing our three Ds and the capacity to address these very critical challenges, and so we do have this amazing opportunity right now. I speak as the head of an operational NGO, Mercy Corps. We work in 35 conflict affected and transitional countries around the world. So I really speak from that experience of being on the ground where often it is the NGOs, the journalists, and the military who are there. And we see firsthand the need to work out these systems and these approaches that enable all of our capacities to be fully harnessed. These are challenging and deeply critical environments where you have got countries burdened by a very potent brew of poverty, weak governance, and conflict, and it is imperative for our national security interests that we determine the best way to address that. My greatest fear against the backdrop of what we said in terms of the lack of resourcing for our civilian capacities is that as the military has stepped into this void and we all appreciate that they have in fact shouldered burdens that were not otherwise able to be addressed, that we may be learning the wrong lessons. As we have equipped our military with additional capacities and additional authorities, created mechanisms like AFRICOM and the PRT, that we risk confusing short-term insurgency fighting methods, short-term security goals and approaches with our longer term development needs and objectives. And we need to understand that there is value in both and that they will require different approaches to enable both to fully go forward. We frequently have had to figure out how to work in these very tough environments. I would flag that in the last decade we talked quite a bit about complex humanitarian emergencies. The greater challenge for this decade is complex development. As John mentioned, we have many environments where what the military is calling counterinsurgency, we are seeing insecure environments that are plagued by poverty and poor governance and insecurity, and the challenge is how do you adapt the fundamentals of good development to these complex development environments? But first and foremost among those is the need for a community-led approach, and at a recent event hosted by USIP, World Bank President Robert Zoellick in fact noticed that community-led and community ownership of development is critical for legitimacy and authority of development processes. We need that process to be able to move forward, even as we are looking at the shorter term security objectives. Mercy Corps and other colleague agencies have had that experience in places like Iraq where we have interrupted uninterruptedly since 2003 with support and funding from USAID, where we were one of five NGOs working nationwide on a community action program. And I think it shows some of the models of how we might be able to construct community-based development programs even in the midst of a very insecure environment, where we use mechanisms such as community acceptance, where communities buy into these projects, they are their projects, and they vote on what projects will go forward. They vote on where our offices will be located. We have had no security incidents with any of the programs that we have conducted during our time there. Communities have invested significantly their own resources into these programs as well, and all of this has been done by unarmed civilians, the majority of whom are Iraqis. And they know full well that this is a gesture and a program funded by the U.S. Government. To the extent that when Katrina hit, a group of Iraqis joined voluntarily together to donate money to the victims of Katrina, recognizing the hand that the U.S. had extended to them. I would just sum up by saying that as we look forward to what we might do to help redress the balance, I would start by rethinking the PRTs. We need to create structures that allow both the short-term and the long-term development objectives to be pursued by both the military and the civilian. We should look at civilianizing 1207. This is an authority that was an inefficient workaround that is serving now to have the Pentagon fund projects through USAID. It is more efficient if USAID just does that for the post, the conflict prevention objectives that it is meant to serve. We need longer term funding that is more flexible, that enables the kind of flexibility that the military has with the CERP funds that can be deployed on the ground to move us quickly as these conflict environments move but through civilian structures. As has been noted, we must rebuild USAID which operates with less than half the staff that it had a decade ago, and I think there is a good start with the Obama administration's fiscal year 2010 international affairs budget and its request for $51.7 billion, especially with the emphasis of increasing personnel for State and AID. I look forward to the conversation. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Lindborg follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.124 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Ambassador. Opening Statement of Ambassador Moose Mr. Moose. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Granger, and members of the committee. I too am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you and for the committee's interest, the subcommittee's interest in this particular subject, which I think is critical to the conduct of our foreign policy as we go forward. I mentioned in my prepared remarks that I have benefited from my affiliations with several organizations that have taken a profound interest in this subject, among them USIP, Search for Common Ground, and LMI Government Consulting, but that my remarks will reflect strictly my own personal views. I thought that essentially my prepared remarks focused on what I believe is required to restore some semblance of balance between the military and civilian dimensions of our machinery for conducting U.S. and international security policy, and I won't rehearse those views here. I do think it is important to note, partly in response to previous comments, that I think this rebalancing is important across the full spectrum of our foreign relations, not only in hot, nonpermissive environments or even in environments which are partially secure and partially insecure, but the fact of the matter is our military is present everywhere in the world and they are increasingly active across the board, and so the question becomes how do we ensure some effective integration of those activities with the rest of the foreign policy activities of our government. I have tried in my prepared remarks to reinforce the testimony of colleagues from last week; namely, the case for a major increase in the capacities of the Department of State and other civilian international agencies. But as I looked at my testimony last night I thought it might be helpful to try to situate my remarks, perhaps that of others, in a somewhat larger context that is insofar as I can discern that larger context from where I sit down here in the trenches. As members of the subcommittee are aware, there has been a rich discourse going on around this town for the last several months, all of it turning on the question of how to reform and restructure our national security architecture. Those conversations certainly have been driven by the events of 9/11 and how we might better organize our foreign policy national security resources to address the threats that 9/11 exposed. They have also been driven by our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan of trying to bring to bear the full capabilities of our government in order to accomplish our goals of reconstruction and stabilization. Starting with Iraq, in particular, that conversation has prompted precisely the question of how we better integrate the tools in the field, and that conversation has led to at least one construct, the PRT, which is an effort to try to bring together the elements of our military, diplomatic and development capabilities at the operational level. There have been similar kinds of conversations taking place at various levels of the Defense Department, both here in Washington but also in the field, and I would note notably at AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM. At a more strategic level, there is the project of our national security reform which was funded by the Congress which has undertaken an examination of what might be done to achieve integration across Federal agencies, both military and civilian, and that study too starts with the assumption that the security challenges that we face are of such complexity that they require us to draw upon all the capabilities of government and to bring them together in whole of government approaches. That discussion at the Center for the Study of the Presidency has had a parallel at what John Hamre's organization has been doing over at CSIS under the rubric of smart power, and I believe that those two conversations, the one on national security forum, the one on smart power, are very much informing the conversations that are taking place at the NSC these days about what the future organization structure authorities of the new National Security Council ought to look like. Very much related to this is the conversation that my colleague, Gordon Adams, has been involved in over the question of reorganizing and restructuring foreign assistance, and Nancy as well. And that conversation certainly got a boost from Secretary Rice when she arrived at the State Department and quickly discovered how difficult it was to array the resources of our foreign assistance portfolio and to align them behind what she and President Bush determined were their national security priorities. And I would say that that is a problem that faces any administration given the fragmentation and the way that we do our foreign assistance and foreign policy budgeting. And closely connected to that has been another conversation about the role of public diplomacy, how we conduct the need for new structures within government, but beyond that how we leverage the capabilities, the resources, the contributions of nongovernmental actors in order to achieve that. Now, last but not least, there is a discussion that has been taking place in some parts of town about how what we do here in the United States somehow gets linked to what is happening overseas. And that conversation stems from a recognition that at the end of the day these problems, national security threats, foreign policy issues that we address, are simply too large for us to be able to deal with on our own. We need to figure out how we leverage of resources of others. Carlos Pasqual, over at Brookings, has been very much a part of that conversation. Now, returning to my remarks, the central point I want to make in this hearing is that the role of the State Department is, in my view, central to all of those conversations, and it is because that is where traditionally these issues get integrated, and it is quite true that in cases like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are major challenges to security, the fact at that level that requires a major role of the NSC. But there are simply too many problems out there for the NSC to be able to take them all on unless one envisages moving the entire apparatus of the foreign policy of the United States into the West Wing of the White House. We need therefore to rebuild the State Department as the centerpiece of a model, of a paradigm, of a structure that allows for the effective coordination of all aspects of our foreign and international security policy, which includes not only again the hot situations, the nonpermissive environments, but how we integrate those things across the board. And my experience is in Africa, and I can tell you that the security challenges in Africa require contributions from diplomats, development experts, and the military if we are to solve, help Africans solve the challenges that pose threats to their security, but which if unaddressed also pose long-term threats to our security. That begins with rebuilding the State Department, but I also think it goes to the question of the authorities and the mandates which have been eroded over time and which need to reviewed and restored. Thank you, Madam Chair. [The statement of Mr. Moose follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.132 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Dr. Adams. Opening Statement of Mr. Adams Mr. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair, Congresswoman Granger, and committee members, for having this hearing. I think it is critically important and quite unusual, I think a very unique precedent to have this subcommittee hold a hearing on this wide a topic, which is of course in the end structure and process and institutions are all going to be central to the decisions you have to make in this subcommittee. So I congratulate you for having the hearing, and I am happy to join the rest of my panelists in saying well done and a good start. What I am going to say will be very brief because we have a lengthy statement. I am not going to try to lumber you with the whole thing, but I wanted particularly to point out that much of what I say is based at least on two pieces of work with which I have been associated with other people both here at the table and on the dais. Congressman Kirk, who had to leave, was a member, a co-chair of a task force at CSIS which I sat on, on nontraditional security assistance which informed my thinking in this area greatly. And we have, as you know, and I have made copies available, done a report with the American Academy of Diplomacy at the Stimson Center on what we need to do to strengthen the tool kit of statecraft on the civilian side for the United States Government. So those two experiences plus my own experience at OMB and in the research world have influenced what I have to say. I am not a doctor and I don't play one on television but I thought I might cast my oral statement somewhat in the framework of diagnosis, prognosis and cure, to see if that at least lays some steps toward discussion in the question and answer. Diagnosis, I think quite simply we have, as you stated, a growing imbalance between our military and civilian tools of statecraft. And I would argue that is not healthy, hence the medical metaphor. It is not healthy for our military, it is not healthy for our civilian instruments, and it is not healthy for the American role in the world. And I will come back in terms of prognosis to what I mean by that. But the diagnosis I see in such areas as five new spigots and programs for security and foreign assistance in the Defense Department under DOD authorities over the last 8 years, which have cost us now as taxpayers a total of $50 billion in expenditure directly through the Department of Defense. And I see it in the seven spigots and programs that we have for stabilization and reconstruction operations across the government, many of them new and many of those in the Department of Defense. I see the diagnosis in the increasing tendency to develop civilian engagement capacities in military commands, AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, whose commander is a fine man, basically describe SOUTHCOM as a giant velcro cube to which other parts of the government could attach itself. And increasingly I was quite struck, for example, that General Petraeus was leading an across-the-board, governmentwide review of our CENTCOM policy, particularly with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And my question, coming back to George's question, was why is that review not being led in the State Department? Why is it being led by a military command? And that results in a yawning imbalance. We see other areas of activity that you are not less concerned with today, but public diplomacy, which George mentioned, is another one of them where there is a growing area of activity at DOD that is not well understood or even well studied. Prognosis. I think there are three consequences of this that do not bode us well for the future of American national security and foreign policy. Consequence number one is in fact an overstressed military, that we are asking an institution in uniform to perform an increasing number of functions which are not central to their core capacities, but we are asking them to do them nonetheless. Occupations, the civilian side, as Dr. Hamre mentioned, of counterinsurgency warfare, public diplomacy activities, economic development, building health clinics, schools and the like, all of which are wonderful things in high stress combat environments to have the military try to do, but have real severe consequences for the overall capability of our military in combat terms. Second consequence, a weaker civilian tool kit because to the extent that we rely on the military as the default position, we are increasingly saying to the civilian side let's not bother because we now have the military assuming the role. And third consequence, a message to the world, and this to me is perhaps the most serious, that to the rest of the world the American international engagement increasingly wears a uniform and however much we may respect our uniformsists and the jobs that they do, that is not always welcome in other parts of the world. In addition to that, we are sending to some parts of the world, Latin America, for example, a message that says we have spent decades asking you to keep your military in its barracks and out of politics and governance; meanwhile, we are inserting our military more and more into politics, governance, economic development and other activities in your countries. It is a mixed message that we are sending. Cure. I think it is important, and I think it was Nancy Lindborg who suggested it, that we not learn the lessons of the last post war. We often learn the lessons of the last war. Well, we are learning some lessons of the last post war. And there are real dangers in learning those lessons or taking Iraq or Afghanistan as the template for the capacities and structures that we need to build. Issue number one, strategy, what is it we intend to do? And Nancy raised that question. If what we are looking at is how we deploy civilian forces alongside a major U.S. military deployment, that is going to give you one kind of capacity. If what we are looking for is smaller scale international interventions where the primary responsibilities are civilians and the military is there as a security force, that is a different kind of capability. If what we are concerned about is strengthening governance in fragile and failing states or helping restore it in recovering states, that may be a third kind of capability. And in my testimony, and I am happy to discuss it more in Q and A, I talk about how we need to strengthen State, how we need to strengthen USAID, much of it drawn from the report that we did with the Academy, and particularly, and that is part of the focus of my testimony, is what we need to do to move transition, some of these authorities that have been created in the Defense Department over to the State Department as we build capacity in the State Department to take them on and perform them. And I will take questions happily. Thank you very much for the hearing. [The statement of Mr. Adams follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.150 Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much for your praise. As you can see, this committee is very interested in this topic, and in fact so is every think tank in town, as Ambassador Moose mentioned. I am just going to try to keep us all to 5 minutes, including myself, so that we can talk quickly and then perhaps have several rounds. Before I begin a line of questioning, Dr. Hamre, you said something and I wondered if I heard it correctly, and the White House has been talking about it, you said we need a framework to regulate contractors. To hear that from you as a military person is really shocking to me. We know what Stuart Bowen did as the SIGIR. Now are you saying there is no system? Or we need people at the Defense Department who are going to do what they should be doing? You can answer that quickly if you would like. It is shocking to me there isn't a system in place. Mr. Hamre. I think the system has become quite confused---- Mrs. Lowey. Is it the people who are confused or the system is? Mr. Hamre. I think the system is, and let me give you an example. How can we acquire technical services to support the government? This is a fundamental question. And we could acquire it, but we have decided that we can't afford that. And so we have chosen to go into the private sector to buy it. Should that be in the profit seeking side of the private sector or the nonprofit seeking side? It is very unclear. We have profit seeking organizations that are operating policy positions inside the government. We have nonprofit organizations that are running profit making operations. It is completely confused. It has become confused in recent years for several reasons. One is our personnel system for civil servants is obsolete. We do not hire the right people to manage contractors. It is a very profound problem. I would like to come back to you on another day. It is a much bigger issue than people realize. And it is not superficially the question we have evil people doing wicked things in the government. That is not the case. They are struggling with obsolete systems, obsolete policies, and we have been trying to make it work under very changing and dynamic circumstances. So I would be pleased to come and talk with the committee at another time. Mrs. Lowey. I would be interested in that and certainly our ranking member, Mr. Rothman, currently serves on the Defense Subcommittee. We do have expertise here on this committee. But it is shocking to me. You make some very good points but, boy, we could use some of those billion dollars here, and I would hope we would be able to figure out what to do with them at State and USAID. So we will get back to that issue. Ms. Lindborg, I just would like to follow up on a couple of things you had said. Will the NGOs first of all accept assistance from military sources? Is humanitarian space still a concept that the United States should try to ensure? Or is it your observation that insurgencies are deliberately targeting aid workers regardless of who provides the funding and therefore makes the concept irrelevant? Ms. Lindborg. Those are all the critical questions that our community is facing and struggling with. The majority of NGOs as a matter of policy do not accept funding directly from the Department of Defense. There are exceptions, but most of the interaction---- Mrs. Lowey. I didn't necessarily mean funding, assistance. For example, in Afghanistan the military met with us and they are building schools. And AID was saying by the time--that is a matter of staff, too--by the time they contract the military already built the schools. But then there are those who will tell us that they, as you mentioned with the CAP program in Iraq, that they can operate perfectly well without the military assistance. I mean assistance from, work with. Ms. Lindborg. The greatest value that the military can provide in complex development environments is everything possible to increase security, ambient security, security that enables both the people to invest in their own future who are living there and development actors, including NGOs, to assist them to do that. And the challenge in insecure environments is that, especially when you have got U.S. troops playing both a combat role and a counterinsurgency role, is that it can actually undermine our ability to work by being associated with military troops. There is an example recently in Afghanistan with a colleague agency where they built a clinic and, despite efforts to stop it from happening, the PRTs built a clinic a kilometer or so away. And those are not about development needs. Those are about hearts and mind needs. But by not having better coordination and by not having the primacy of the development objective, you undercut the ability to move towards longer term development objectives, and you make more likely that the targeting will happen. Your question is that will you be targeted anyway whether you are associated with the troops or not? We think that, you know, we have to go into these situations eyes wide open. But increasingly there are methods, remote management approaches, ensuring that you---- Mrs. Lowey. What does that mean, remote management approaches? Ms. Lindborg. In places like Somalia and Iraq and Afghanistan, you can still provide development assistance where you are using primarily the local communities to drive their own development forward, which is the most important aspect of actually accomplishing those longer term development goals. There are numerous studies that show that it is this deep poverty, the deep illiteracy that is connected to conflict and keeps a lot of these countries from being able to advance more quickly, combined with many of the other factors. Mrs. Lowey. So are there ever any benefits of military-NGO coordination? Ms. Lindborg. The benefits are if you are able to stop that clinic from being built in a way that undercut the clinic that was just built by an NGO, communication, yes, for them to come visit our sites can be terribly undermining if we are then associated with the military. Our greatest value as NGOs is to be able to communicate that people-to-people support for communities to develop based on their vision, so that they own the development process. The military is inherently constrained from doing that by virtue of being associated with their own objectives. That doesn't translate into a community looking forward to its own future. Mrs. Lowey. Last year, I know that DOD in cooperation with USIP published a set of guidelines for relations between U.S. Armed Forces and NGOs in nonpermissive environments. And I have heard that a similar project to establish clear guidelines for relations between the military and NGOs in permissive environments may be forthcoming. So in just a couple of minutes, if you can just clarify for us again what is the role of the military in your judgment, if any, in providing foreign assistance in permissive or friendly environments, now that I have less than a few seconds. Ms. Lindborg. The guidelines which were produced, which were extraordinarily helpful and I think advanced the understanding and mutual respect and knowledge of the military and the NGO communities, were specifically in nonpermissive environments. The challenge that we have is they were addressing humanitarian action, lifesaving action. As we look at this complex development environments, that is yet a different set of goals. The third is the permissive environments, the kinds of activities that go on in AFRICOM that Gordon mentioned, where it is 100 percent hearts and minds approaches, there is no--there are plenty of civilian capacity in places like Uganda and parts of the Horn of Africa where you at the same time have AFRICOM actors digging wells and building schools. I would argue that we need to rethink the role of the military doing any kind of development assistance in permissive environments because it fundamentally undercuts the long-term objectives that are an important goal for supporting fragile countries. Mrs. Lowey. I am going to turn to Ms. Granger. But I think the question still is the nonpermissive environments and how do you coordinate effectively, and what are the guidelines. So we can get back to that. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. There are so many questions. But I think that everyone up here and I think you all agree that there needs to be a rebalancing, that we would all agree with that. In that rebalancing, what priorities do we begin with? In other words, we could start arguing over, that the military should do this or not, but what are the priorities? And Dr. Hamre, I will start with you but anyone can answer that. Mr. Hamre. Well, forgive me for taking people back to this framework that we developed, but would you put this in the record, please? I think you should, and the reason why, have somebody go through and say who does these various boxes? I mean they all need to be done. Mrs. Lowey. So ordered. Mr. Hamre. There are several hundred tasks that need to be done in the transition from a nonpermissive environment to a permissive environment. And who should be doing these things? Department of Defense shouldn't be doing these things. Department of Defense doesn't want to do these things. And the problem is this very long extended nonpermissive environment that has evolved with insurgency wars. Nancy and I are very good friends, and I respect what she said. I do want to say one thing. The military has a very valid role to play in using construction things during a nonpermissive environment to start establishing working relationships with local leaders. It is part of what they have to do. It is getting out of this kinetic world into a nonkinetic solution. And there is a role for that. That is why the commander's response funds are so important. And so the priority would be, ask people to sit down, ranking member, and look through all the tasks and say, who is doing these things? And I think what you are going to find is too many people arguing about authorities and not enough people saying what do we do? Let's try to figure out what do we have to get done and who is really doing these things? I think you will be surprised to find we have got gaping holes in the government. Mr. Moose. Thank you. I have a slightly different take on this, but it begins with I think the core of the problem is one of lack of capacity in the civilian agencies to manage the kinds of tasks that we would like them to perform. What we have seen in consequence is kind of a downward spiral; that is to say, in recognition of the lack of capacity in the State Department, USAID, political leaders eager, desperate sometimes to find solutions to problems, have looked to the places where there are resources and what better place but the Defense Department, which has billions of dollars. And that has become a downward kind of a spiral in terms of the response of the political leadership. It has to begin, I think as our colleagues last week said, with the effort to rebuild the capacity of the State Department. As one of Gordon's colleagues from the Stimson Center said yesterday, the construct is a three-legged stool. We have one leg on that stool that is like 4 feet tall and the others are like nubs. And so we have to begin to rebuild those capacities. If you were to turn to the State Department today and say, assume responsibility for the management of the $50 billion in programs that have been developed under the Defense Department over the last decade or so, they could not do it. They don't have the personnel resources. They don't have the staff. I will give you a particular example, which is AFRICOM. In my conversations with my colleagues at State as well as with General Ward and his colleagues out in the field, one of the things that is absent in that construct is somewhere, some place back here in Washington that actually brings together these various capabilities that AFRICOM has said it wants to incorporate into its structure. Now I happen to think that is probably not a bad idea for them to do that, but I also happen to believe that absent some mechanism back here in Washington that ensures that the activities of the command are indeed fully integrated and fully consistent with our overall policy goals, that is not going to happen. But the State Department currently has no means, no capacity, no staff, no structure to undertake that important coordination function. It is not a function the NSC realistically should be asked to assume. It is a function that I believe belongs in the State Department, but until and unless there is the staffing, and frankly going into the report that Gordon referred to, you know, I strongly endorse the recommendations in that report but I frankly think it understates the actual capacity needs and staffing needs and training needs of the Department if indeed the Department is to resume its responsibility, reassume its responsibility for the central coordinating and integrating function. Mr. Adams. I have my little checklist here, what to start with and where to go, because and I agree very much with what George has just said. Number one priority, oddly enough, is a relatively small one, and this is a congressional responsibility in part as well, as well as an executive branch responsibility, and that is to act now to ensure that whatever authorities are in place do not become part of permanent law, an absolutely critical, near term step because if the Department of Defense comes up in this administration, I have no idea whether they will or not, and seeks, as they have for the past 3 years, permanent law status for things like CERP and section 1206, then you have institutionalized the problem that we are focused on in your hearing today. So it is a relatively small step but a very important signal that says we understand that there is a problem of capacity in State, in USAID. We understand that we have military deployed forward in the field and cooperating NPRTs. What we want to do though is figure out what the right rebalanced relationship needs to be, not institutionalize those authorities. So that would be my number one near-term, relatively small but important to buying the time for figuring out two other things. Second, what are we doing? As I suggested earlier, if the question is an operational one, and I put John Hamre's statement in the operational category, how do we associate civilians with U.S. military operations in combat environments, that is a particular type of dilemma. It may not be of the size of Iraq or Afghanistan, but it may be a real problem that we need to solve in which Department of Defense needs permanent authorities to do very specific kinds of things, but very specific in very specific environment, not very broad, with a lot of funding and a lot of people doing things they probably shouldn't be doing. So we need to answer the strategic question in order to know what it is we are trying to solve. If the problem is, as an alternative, what goes within the range of what Nancy Lindborg does for a living to problems of government, failed states, fragile states, and development, then what we really need to focus on is the civilian capacity, to upgrade that capacity. So that is a second priority. Third priority is human resources at State. George has been eloquent on this subject. But both State and USAID need human resources. John's contracting problem is rampant at USAID where many of the staffers are now contract managers because most of the actual in-the-field work has been handed to contractors given the weakness of the institution. That is a trend that we argue in the report that George referred to needs to be reversed in the State Department. Fourth, the highest priority needs--I think this is longer term I would say, I don't know if George would agree with me on that, but revamping and reforming the Foreign Service of the United States. Our civilian engagement needs to be populated, in my view, with people who know more than report, negotiate and represent. Those are very important skills. They also need to know about program development, program management, program implementation. They also need to know about strategic planning, about budgets. So there is a training and recruitment issue, and there is a question of ensuring that the career path for those people takes them to Department of Defense, takes them to Justice, takes them to the NSC so that they have actually populated different experiences, takes them to AID as a development officer so they learn those skills and can walk and chew gum at the same time. And finally, I think the appointment of a second Deputy Secretary of State here is a critical first step on this one, is integrating strategic planning and budgetary planning professionally at the senior level in the State Department so you can build the kind of capacity that George is calling for but you can do it right at the top of the building with somebody responsible for it. The absence of strategic and budget planning capacity at the top of the State Department is one of the biggest weaknesses that undergirds some of these other institutional problems. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here. I wanted to just share some thoughts and get your reaction because, Dr. Adams, I might put the order of what you suggested in a different form, and that is I would think the first thing that we have to do is build State Department's capacity. Because right now the capacity to do a lot of things in terms of our government only inhabits the Defense Department because we have allowed State to atrophy and we are not going to be able to turn responsibilities over to State if they don't have the capacity. So I would think the first thing we need to do is build up the State Department's capacity, Foreign Service, USAID. Then I think we need to redefine Department of Defense's mission. I think you are right. Department of Defense doesn't want to do a lot of things we are asking them to do, and I don't think it is good for the DOD to do them because it overstresses and strains the military. They do some things extraordinarily well, and I think we have some tough questions to answer about whether we want to try to develop a parallel capacity at State for some things that the military does really well. The immediate relief in the face of the tsunami, for example, in Indonesia. They have the logistical capability to move in quickly to remote areas and provide aid in a way that may be prohibitively expensive to develop at State, but you may not need to develop it at State as long as you define the military's mission in the initial stages of disaster relief and figure out what is most appropriately done, what is most cost effectively done. And I think we need to look at all these things. Authorities that you mentioned, 1206, I am a little concerned by the DOD Directive 1404, which is as of last month, and that seems to be continuing potentially down the wrong direction. And I think we have an opportunity to do that in the context of the budget for the Defense Department. The President has indicated, you know, nothing is going to be sacrosanct anymore. We have some hard fiscal choices to make, and maybe the best way to approach redefining DOD's mission is to do it in the budget context when they need to find money to do the things that are more part of the core military mission and can't afford to be doing the State Department's job as well. The other aspect that was brought to my attention when I had a meeting at the State Department last year is that while we need to expand State Department's capacity, there are other departments that need to be deeply involved also. And we don't necessarily want to replicate at the State Department what the Department of Agriculture does. But right now there isn't a career path for people at the Department of Agriculture to go and spend a couple of years in Afghanistan and come back to ag and know that their job is still not only there but has been advanced by being in Afghanistan. Other departments have that tradition. Department of Agriculture may not, and the Department of the Treasury may not and Department of Commerce may not and other people that we may need to pull into this. So it may not just be rotating State Department through other agencies as in tapping the expertise of other agencies. Probably the hardest part of this I think, Madam Chair, is going to be our own responsibility and trying to wrestle with our friends at the Defense Subcommittee and so we have our own jurisdictional difficulties. But anyway I would love to get your reaction in the remaining time I have left. Mr. Adams. I will take the first cut and others will certainly respond. Since you suggested that our order of priorities is different, the only reason I put the authorities first is that I think it is right now timely to stop the trend in order to buy the time for what was my second order of priority, and I fully agree with you on that, which is building the capacity at State and USAID because it takes time to build the capacity. You have to recruit, you have to change the recruitment process, you have to recruit the right people. We have to do more with mid career accessions which is not always favored by the career people who are currently in the Foreign Service. We have to look at how we assign people on rotations that incentivize them to gain a wider range of experience. We have to look at the Foreign Service human resources process to ensure that that is right. We have to look carefully, and this I would definitely emphasize, we have to look carefully at what capacity we are building. I think you are right at State. I have my own doubts that building the capacity we are now building through SCRS is the right capacity in the right place at State and USAID. And as I say in my testimony, I would urge very strongly a step back and a relook at the balance between NSC, SCRS, regional bureaus and USAID with putting a reinvigorated USAID much more in the role of being the recruiters, trainers, deployers and operators of the civilian capacity, properly sized for the kinds of strategic decisions we made. I think you are quite right. There are a lot of things that need to happen. I also agree with you that the military very clearly has a role. The military has done remarkably effective work in disasters, as you underlined, and should because they have the lift and supply capacity. There is no reason to build an airlift capacity at State and USAID to do what the Department of Defense does. What begins to concerns me is when we look at the humanitarian and disaster relief authorities in the Department of Defense and note that as part of its legislative package, the Defense Department seeks to expand that humanitarian and disaster relief authority to cover stabilization. That is an issue that I think the committee, both the authorizers and appropriators, need to take a close look at, because that is a further extension of mission in that capacity that they do so well, adding to burdens, detracting from responsibilities on the civilian side, and with implications on how we engage overseas, as I said in my statement. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Mr. Israel. Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Like the ranking member, I don't know where to begin. Let me first commend to the subcommittee's attention a statement that Ms. Lindborg made in her testimony that really stood out for me, and that is there are more service members in military bands than there are Foreign Service officers at the Department of State and USAID. That is a pretty compelling indicator of where we are. I served for 4 years on the House Armed Services Committee, and I had to give that up to come to the State Foreign Ops Appropriations Subcommittee. So I have my own perspective on this, having been a defense authorizer and now a State Department appropriator. I just want to share one of the more insightful experiences that I had as a lead-in to my question. Congressman Jim Marshall from Georgia and I when we were on the HASC visited two very remote fire bases in Afghanistan in the Helmand Province, fire base Ties and fire base Robinson. These fire bases were near a small village called Musikalia. Musikalia had changed hands between the Taliban and Coalition Forces three or four times. While we were there, Special Forces was planning yet another operation to take Musikalia back. So I was meeting with a small group of special forces personnel. I asked is Musikalia supportive of the Taliban, are they supportive of us? How come it keeps switching hands? The answer was, sir, they are not supportive of the Taliban, they are not supportive of us, they are good betters. They hedge their bets. Here is the problem, Congressman. The problem is we are going to go into Musikalia tomorrow, and we are going to go in shooting. We are either going to kill the enemy or send him into the mountains. We are going to build a bridge and a health clinic. We are going to help construct a local governing council, and then we will leave. And then the bad guys are going to come back in and blow up the bridge and the health clinic, and kill the people on the governing council that we helped elect. Then somebody said we talk a lot about hearts and minds. That is something that I heard in your testimony. We hear a lot about hearts and minds as a strategic doctrine of the United States, and I say this as a good friend and strong supporter of General Petraeus. But one of the actual fighters said, sir, people's hearts harden and their minds change. And until we can get used to the notion of permanence, give people an alternative and then protect the alternative through NGOs and security, we are never going to get where we want to be. Here is my question. In the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s there was a lot of talk about joint rivalries in the service departments, and we finally had something called Goldwater and Nichols, and the byword was jointness, jointness, jointness. This hearing has focused on the details of what we need to do in order to promote coordination and whether the military has the right mission or the NGOs have the right mission or the State Department has the right mission. But those are details. In terms of permanence, do we need a new Goldwater II that sets a new architecture of interagency coordination between the military and the NGOs and the Department of State? Jump ball for anybody who wants to take it. Mr. Moose. With all due respect to Nancy, I think the first time I heard the anecdote used about the military bands and the size of the State Department was actually from my boss, Ron Spiers back in 1986 when he had been charged with George Schultz to do exactly what the committee is trying to do today, which is make the argument for a substantial reinforcement of the capabilities of the State Department. So one of his anecdotes was 7,000 members in the band outnumbering the number of State Department people, and the other was the cost of two B-2 bombers was roughly the equivalent of the operational budget of the State Department. I think we do need perhaps not a Goldwater Nichols II, but clearly it seems to me even if you say that Iraq and Afghanistan are the exceptions to the kinds of operations that we are going to be dealing with in the world in the future, I think there is clear recognition that the kinds of security threats and foreign policy challenges that we face require us to have a better way of integrating our military, our diplomatic and our development capabilities. That is going to require some thought how you structure that. I think that is what general Jones is trying to do as he is thinking through right now how he structures the national Security Council. And one of the challenges is how do you ensure a model that not only draws on the traditional security and foreign affairs agencies, but admits to the need to involve other agencies of our government so that they can, in fact, contribute to the solution to these challenges. Now I have not a clue as to what that solution might be. That is something ultimately that this committee and others in Congress are going to have to address. But I do think within that construct if one does not focus on the role, the central role in my view of the State Department handling the traditional responsibility that it has had for serving as that focal point for coordination with the military and other agencies of government, building their capacity to do that, and I absolutely agree with Gordon, it is going to require not only more people, it is going to require different kinds of people with different kinds of skillsets and different kinds of mindsets about how you do that. But that to me is key to the whole problem. Mrs. Lowey. I am now going to turn to Mr. Kirk and then Mr. Jackson and Mr. Rothman to see if we can get the first round in before the vote. I think the problem with this hearing is we can all talk about it for 6 hours. Mr. Kirk, I have been trying to keep everyone to the 5 minutes. Mr. Kirk. Thank you. I really want to echo my friend Mr. Israel's comments that I think we do need a Goldwater Nichols for the State Department. I think I have a unique perspective since I am one of the only Members of Congress that was in the State Department, in the World Bank, in the military, and in the Congress, sometimes all at the same time. The Assistant Secretary of State should be basically the de facto pollad for the combatant commander, that their empires should be aligned exactly alike so these two people have to get along. We have reoriented things. We finally moved AID into the State Department. That was from our experience from El Salvador when one of the factions of the rebel movement, the RN, came out the bush and said we are going to bag this war, just bring in some electrification into the village of Santa Marta. And so our ambassador went to the AID mission director and said I need an electrical line into Santa Marta, and the AID mission director told him to go to hell, it wasn't in his budget, it wasn't in his program to end a war. So it was off that experience that we rolled AID into State. I think AID should work for Secretary Clinton, but the AOR lines are not properly aligned, and should. I have a lot of friends in here. We have 150 billion years of experience in foreign aid in this room because I see everyone that I have worked with in the past. We have a lot of expertise. Secretary Hamre and I coauthored this report taking on this, and I know how difficult the environment is. Nancy at Mercy Corps, we lost Dr. Kastani just the other day in Afghanistan, showing just how difficult this environment is. And I just finished an active duty tour in Afghanistan in December in which I was in Kandahar and Lash Kagar. And I think southern Afghanistan is the center of gravity for the Obama administration on conflict. It is the war the President has signed up to. He has committed 17,000 troops, and every national media organization is going to send reporters there, so this is the key focal point. I think it was in 2004 the Taliban as it reconstituted saw a weakness and attempted to whack an employee of Kamonics who was leading the counternarcotics effort for Helmand, Helmand being the end all to be all to narcotics in Afghanistan. Half of the entire crop is produced in that one river valley. When Kamonics saw the threat, they bugged out. Under the old organization of the State Department, U.S. Foreign Assistance Agency, the moment the contractor bugged out, the mission stopped for a year. So obviously the U.S. military had to step in because AID couldn't deploy its contractors in the area. But having just come out of the big green machine, we do things in a pretty dumb way. We roll people in there for an 11-month deployment, and then lobotomize the command as everyone rotates out. It is better than what AID wanted to do which is not be there at all. I think there is a crying need, one, to realign the AORs exactly along DOD lines, and that would actually increase the authority of the State Department; and, two, to develop a civilian corps that brings technical expertise that is there a lot longer than a combat tour and most importantly doesn't bug out. People are going to get hurt and some people are going to get killed. But if you let that collapse the mission, then that is the first person that the Taliban is going to whack, is the contractors to collapse the program, and that can't happen. John, I remember in Kosovo when we had this problem under your watch. Mr. Hamre. If I may just say one thing. The great problem that we have and the reason DOD gets a lot of these missions is it has mobilizable capacity. The civilian organizations have no mobilizable capacity. Mr. Kirk. And they also bug out. Mr. Hamre. It is a tough situation, and a lot of the people in the civilian agencies don't feel that they have signed up to for an insecure situation. I agree that we need to provide the security for an environment like that, but we need to have partners that will stay with us, too. But we need mobilizable capacity. Mr. Kirk. If we look at the Fatwa in north and south Yurgistan right now, and I believe the hunt for Osama bin Laden is a theological mission of the United States, but if you talk to the mission director in Islamabad right now and say tell me your assets and your programs going on right now, he can't deploy anything in that AOR. Mrs. Lowey. Can you answer in 30 seconds? Ms. Lindborg. I think that greater coordination between the civilian and military sides of the house is critical particularly in those kinds of area. Mercy Corps has worked in Helmand and Lash Kagar and Kandahar for 15 years. Who doesn't bug out are the local communities. The degree to which you can build local community capacity to continue their development as a part of the solution is critical, and better focus the military capacities to do what we need them to do, the security sector reform, to do a better job of the interdiction of the poppy crops. Early on there was an abdication of any role of the military in helping on that. And not to focus your civilian capacities on the poppy trade, but rather on the development of alternatives. It is a long term goal to get the poppy eradicated and to provide alternatives. So you need to have mechanisms that can stay, can continue past a shorter term mission or past the possible threat of instability. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chairman for holding this hearing. I also want to build upon the very thoughtful analogy of my colleague Mr. Israel, who I think touched upon the crux of the problem, at least in the field. That is the analogy of the tug of war between our military power in a specific village pushing the Taliban back and building the infrastructure, withdrawing the military power, the Taliban or some force regaining control and undermining the infrastructure that was put in place, and this kind of tug of war that actually takes place in the battlefield. It appears to me that some of this discussion, Madam Chairman, is the appropriate balance between our hard power and soft power, and that soft power almost can't exist unless it is surrounded by the bubble of hard power. The civilian agencies can't enter to engage in the kind of civilian reconstruction that needs to occur unless it is occurring in a secure environment, and then how do you maintain that secure environment so that State Department and other agencies under its auspices can secure sustainable development in a country or in a region so that the efforts are not undermined and we find ourselves engaged in this tug of war. With that said, I wanted to raise a question about AFRICOM. The White House's stated mission for AFRICOM is that it ``will strength our security cooperation with Africa, and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa. AFRICOM will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.'' More narrowly, AFRICOM's own mission statement states that ``it will conduct sustained security engagement through a range of military-to-military programs and military activities and in concert with interagency and international partners in support of U.S. policy and a stable and secure Africa.'' I certainly think that it makes sense to have AFRICOM conduct and manage security assistance, but do you have a sense of the rationale behind AFRICOM's support to humanitarian and development assistance? And do you believe that this is an example of something more rationally implemented through USAID and does this exhibit a lack of clarity about the command's mandate? Secondly, in your observation of AFRICOM to date, do any of you have any sense that it fits into a broader strategy for foreign policy in Africa? And lastly, AFRICOM has a 1,300 person command in Stuttgart, Germany, while USAID has just under 279 technical experts employed across the entire continent of Africa. What is your assessment of this balance? Mr. Moose. If I might begin, I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about, talking about and engaging with people at AFRICOM. I do think that the original statement of AFRICOM's mission which actually took place a year and a half before it got its new commander, was an extraordinarily ambitious mandate for the command. I don't think there was any ill-intention about it, but I think that statement of AFRICOM's mission was informed by a desire to better integrate the capabilities of our diplomacy and our development and our military. Unfortunately, however, and this goes to something that Gordon said earlier, the impression that was left here in the United States and I would say particularly abroad was that somehow AFRICOM was going to become the new face and the new voice and the new center for the formulation of U.S. policy towards Africa, and I think that has enormous negative consequences. To his credit, I think General Ward has tried to if you will reframe the nature of AFRICOM's mission and in particular to recognize that in those areas where the military clearly lacks competency and capability, that the intent is to put AFRICOM's capabilities in the service of our broader foreign policy and development goals. That, I think, in terms of a philosophical orientation is the right formulation. The further issue, however, is how you actually achieve that. And how given, and I know that Jim Kunder mentioned this last week, this imbalance in resources. I have been to Stuttgart, and I have seen the resources there and you do have this large establishment, and an establishment relative to State Department and AID resources is huge and cannot help but impress people when the general gets on his plane and flies off, and it does give a distorted perception of who is in charge of American foreign policy and who is in charge of achieving this sort of balance and coordination and integration of the instruments of our policy. That is the challenge that I think remains. I believe AFRICOM, and that the military generally, has important capabilities and capacities that they need to be contributing to the solutions of the problems that we face in places, many places across Africa. There was the mention of the military's potential contribution to security sector reform. If you look across Africa, there are many opportunities for that to happen. So there is a role, but that role needs to be carefully defined, carefully targeted, and it needs to be done in a way that it is at the service of our larger foreign policy and development agendas. Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This is a very important hearing. Mrs. Lowey. I apologize in advance for cutting everyone off, including myself. Mr. Rothman. I have read everybody's testimony and I agree with your conclusions about rebalancing, focus and resources, et cetera. But let me make you a little uncomfortable. I haven't read all of the studies that were cited in the footnotes to some of the remarks, but with that in mind, you say that the military does not have the core competency to carry out some of these missions that State and NGOs can do better, that there is an inherent negative in having a ``military face'' on reconstruction efforts and other things. Now I do get my friend and colleague's story about the failure of the military, building the infrastructure but not having sufficient local population ownership to survive and defend the infrastructure reconstruction from the insurgents. But the main argument was this is different than the past when State and NGOs had responsibilities, that there is an inherent negative quality to a military face on things. And I agree with a rebalance, but here is the uncomfortable part. Was there any problem that was a source of legitimate motivation to the Defense Department and past administrations in terms of the reliability of the State Department in cooperating and identifying with the goals and mission established by the respective administrations and the Department of Defense? Or was it simply an accidental reduction in resources to the State Department that then had to be made up by the Defense Department? Do you follow my question? Was there any ``there'' there? Was there any good reason why the Defense Department decided to crowd out the State Department? Mr. Adams. My view on that is yes, indeed. We have a lack of capacity, and we have had a lack of capacity and declining capacity for some time at State and at USAID. See, the Cold War was different than the hot war. Mr. Rothman. Let me make it more pointed. Some of my colleagues to the right of me would say that there was resistance on the part of the State Department to following the goals that they, when they were in power, wanted to pursue. Therefore, they reduced the funding. Mr. Adams. I would rather let George address that specifically, but when you are dealing with deployment of a kind of Iraq and Afghanistan, you are not working in the Cold War environment and the fold the gap. You are working where insurgencies are real, and response time requirements are real. And, frankly, in Iraq, we ended up going in with no plan and no-built capacity. Mr. Rothman. I get all that. So you are saying these preconceptions were out of date by the time we got to Iraq and Afghanistan? Mr. Adams. Yes. What I am saying is this is the danger of fighting last post war. The risk in fighting last post war is to say okay, what we are going to do throughout the future is deploy at the speed and with the mission that we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so what we need to build on the civilian side is the capacity to do that. That is what I am raising the question about. Mr. Moose. I wanted to say that I addressed this briefly in my testimony, but there has been an assault, a rather sustained assault on the State Department and Foreign Service alleging that the department and its members were not reliable partners in the administration in the execution of the President's foreign policy. I defy anybody to come up with any kind of objective analysis that would demonstrate that. I think it has been a canard. I think it has done a tremendous disservice to the people at the State Department. If anything, I find that my colleagues in the State Department are too malleable, too eager to serve, and too eager to carry out the instructions and the guidance from the White House. That is what they exist for. They like nothing better than to be used. Mr. Hamre. There was a decision made before the war that DOD would have the soul responsibility for the after action, assuming it was going to be a sweet and short. I don't think DOD properly understood what they were getting in for, and I think State Department was offended and frankly sat back. And I think both of those things happened at the same time. That sentiment was then, I think, distorted when the security environment deteriorated. And DOD, you know, didn't really have the capacity to do all of the things that it was trying to do and didn't really have a viable and up to date security model about what they were facing. And State, at that stage, was overwhelmed and couldn't get into a much less secure environment than existed for the first 3 months. So I think there were unique historical circumstances that made this worse. Now are people in the State Department cowards? No, not at all. The implications some people would like to give that is the case, that is wrong. Mr. Rothman. Clearly that was not mine. Mr. Hamre. I know, sir. But I have heard it from other people. I think that is absolutely wrong. Does State have an operational culture and do a plan in the kind of cycle, no, it doesn't. I think this is one of the problems. We need to have in that kind of a tough environment the same kind of operational dynamic as a partner in the field, and they don't currently have it. They do not have the resources to do the kind of training for this kind of operation. There is only a half of one percent overhead float of personnel in the State Department. We have 10 percent in the officer corps. So a lot of this is resources. But we need to step past this anger of the last 6 years that is distorting clear thinking about this problem that we are facing, and you brought that up very appropriately. Mr. Rothman. I was going to what the ambassador hit on the nose, and there was no there there. It was a canard, as you say. Mr. Moose. The State Department does have some pedigree here in dealing with difficult situations. I started my career in Vietnam. I spent 3 years in Vietnam. Some of us think that we were doing transformational diplomacy for a very long time, and doing it in some very hard places. Some of the places where I have served in Africa are as difficult, not as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is not as if there is not a tradition, but there is a need to bolster the capacity to do that and to train the people in the Department to assume that responsibility. Mr. Rothman. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I just want to follow up before we have to go on a similar line of questioning. You said there is the expertise at the State Department. Let's talk about the field for a minute. Now the ambassador has overall responsibility for the programs. The military follow their own chain of command, so I guess my question would be now is it that the chief of mission ambassador provides the overall strategic leadership in a host country, and is this really the case? As things currently stand, the ambassador is the final decider on issues of U.S. Government policy in a host country; is that really the case? And how does the mix of roles between the military and the civilian leadership and development of diplomacy translate to the application of United States foreign policy? What should the chain of command be? Is there a chain of command right now, or is the military doing their thing and the ambassador and the chief of mission doing their thing? What comes down from Washington? Perhaps you can comment on that. Mr. Moose. I think this again illustrates one of the core problems we have at the moment because I think the reality is that the chief of mission authority in both its concept but also in its operation has been eroded significantly over the past decade. Mrs. Lowey. Comment on the work around, too. I guess that is the lingo that the people are using at the embassy. Mr. Moose. I don't know that I can do that directly, but let me say what I can say. We certainly saw in the aftermath of 9/11 a situation where the perceived nature of the threat, and I am again speaking mainly from my knowledge and experience of Africa, the perceived nature of the threat, and in that situation political leadership called for extraordinary solutions and responses. Part of that was to give authorization, whether legally or not, in writing or not, to our military commands to expand their activities and their operations in order to identify, root out, perceived terrorist threats in Africa. That was done in a way that had little coordination and little cognizance of chief of mission authority, and one of the battles that the State Department waged in 2003 and 2004 was to reestablish the primacy of the chief of mission in knowing about and then having some authority over activities that were taking place in his or her country. I would argue that in the best of circumstances that still is inadequate because if you look at our missions in Africa, they are small missions. They have very few people. They have limited capacity really to appreciate not only what is happening in their country, but many of these activities are regional. And they have no say nor authority about what is going on next door; although what is happening next door may have tremendous affects on what they are doing. That is why I think it requires a different kind of paradigm construct back in Washington to ensure that the Department, and particularly the regional affairs bureaus, have some visibility as to what these activities are. Under the current circumstances, I don't have any reliable assurance that is taking place. Mr. Hamre. Just briefly, the legal situation is this: The State Department and the ambassador is the authoritative representative of the President in every country unless there is a deployment order signed by the President that puts the chain of command through the military. And we have that in certain circumstances. In the days after 9/11 there was kind of a global war on terrorism deployment order that created this ambiguous situation. The Defense Department is not trying to take over control from the State Department. It does want to have chain of command when it has a deployment order, when it has a task that is assigned to it. I think this is a very easy problem to fix, and I think the historic model is valid. Mrs. Lowey. Do you have any closing comments? Ms. Granger. I have just one. I want to thank Nancy Lindborg for appearing today. With the expulsion in Sudan, I know there is great concern about your staff and their safety, and I want you to know that we understand that also. Thank you very much. Mrs. Lowey. In closing, I had the former head of the F process before our subcommittee, and I had just opened the Wall Street Journal that day and none of us on the committee nor the staff that knows everything was aware of what General Abizaid was doing throughout Africa, and it was upwards of $700 billion. I remember turning to the gentleman and I said what is the coordination because he was just doing development work, typical USAID work, upwards of $700 billion throughout Africa. That's not my responsibility, we were told. Mr. Moose. I would like to make it mine. Mrs. Lowey. Let me say that on behalf of all of us we truly appreciate your input, and we know that we just scratched the surface so we hope that the dialogue will continue between this committee and all of you. I know the dialogue is continuing in the community and in the White House. We really appreciate your appearing here before us today. This concludes today's hearing on the Role of Civilian and Military Agencies in the Advancement of America's Diplomatic and Development Objectives. The subcommittee on State foreign operations and related operations stands adjourned. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.166 Wednesday, February 25, 2009. BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY WORKFORCE WITNESSES HON. THOMAS PICKERING, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION PRUDENCE BUSHNELL, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLICS OF KENYA AND GUATEMALA, RETIRED FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, AND MEMBER OF THE 2006 COMMISSION ON ``THE EMBASSY OF THE FUTURE'' JAMES KUNDER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey Mrs. Lowey. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order. Before we begin, I would like to welcome my colleague Kay Granger as the Ranking Member of this committee, and I do believe it is the first time not just on Appropriations but in the Congress where there are two women as Chair and Ranking Member of a subcommittee. So I am delighted to welcome Ms. Granger. We look forward to all working together on the many challenges that we have ahead. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs has come to order for our first hearing of the session. I am pleased to open our first hearing of the year on a subject that is very much on everyone's mind: the need to strengthen the capacity of our diplomatic and development personnel of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Strong leadership and expertise are necessary to confront the extensive global challenges facing our Nation and the world, and we have much to be concerned about. As Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence recently noted, ``The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications,'' which include growing instability and extremism. For the first time in my 20 years in the Congress, diplomacy and development are considered key components of our national security. In a November 2007 speech at Kansas State University, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, ``What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security, diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development.'' I wholeheartedly agree, and I welcome the growing support for civilian capacity. However, we need to do more than just add diplomats, development staff and foreign aid dollars to truly transfer our foreign policy institutions to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We must increase and enhance the skills and knowledge of our diplomatic and development staffs to effectively interact with the communities in which they serve. They must get outside the embassy walls, engage in people-to-people diplomacy, work hand-in-hand with partner governments and civilian society as part of a comprehensive, integrated U.S. Government strategy to meet the diplomatic and development needs of the host nations. This committee has already begun to expand and strengthen the Foreign Service, and with the resources provided in the 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act and in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2009, USAID and the Department of State will be able to hire approximately--I am going to interrupt myself to welcome Ambassador Pickering, and I apologize for keeping you waiting on those long lines. Mr. Pickering. I apologize to you. Mrs. Lowey. Next time, call and one of us will come and get you. I thought you were so important they would understand immediately they needed to let you through. The committee has already begun to expand and strengthen the Foreign Service and with the resources provided in the 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2009, USAID and the Department of State will be able to hire approximately 450 new core development workers and 638 diplomatic personnel. However, as our witnesses--and again I thank you for being here--will testify today, there is still much more to be done and we must ensure that both agencies have the capacity to effectively and rapidly absorb, deploy, and manage this expanded workforce. This need to rebuild our diplomatic and development capabilities has been recognized and embraced by the Obama administration, and Secretary Clinton reiterated this message during her confirmation hearing earlier this year when she stated, ``I don't think there is any substitute for having seasoned, experienced professionals and experts leading our efforts on diplomacy and development and working, where possible, in partnership and coordination with the private sector and the not-for-profit sector.'' A quick review of the facts clearly demonstrates the weaknesses that have developed in our civilian agencies since the end of the Cold War. And as the October 2008 American Academy of Diplomacy report entitled ``A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future'' observed: Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the diplomatic capacity of the United States has been hollowed out. A combination of reduced personnel, program cuts, and sharply increased responsibilities has put maximum pressure on the capacity of those U.S. agencies that are responsible for the missions of core diplomacy, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, reconstruction and stabilization under the 150, the international affairs account. By September 11, 2001, the overseas staffing shortfall in the State Department had approached 20 percent, with a larger gap at USAID. USAID currently has 8,000 employees, half the number the agencies had at its peak in the 1970s. Only 1,000 are Foreign Service officers, the technical experts and voice of the U.S. Government in missions around the world. While USAID has experienced staffing ups and downs over the past 20 years, foreign assistance funding has increased dramatically. In 1998, USAID conducted approximately 2,990 transactions, obligating a total of $2.5 billion. And in 2007, USAID conducted 10,613 transactions obligating a total of $10.3 billion, a fivefold increase. And to manage this workload, USAID has turned to new funding mechanisms--as we know, contractors--often transferring oversight responsibility, vetting and implementation to its contractors. It is clear we need to expand the number of qualified Foreign Service officers at USAID. Today, we are fortunate to have with us several individuals who have examined and led reform efforts to address the lack of core development and diplomatic personnel. A report entitled ``A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future: Fixing the Crisis in Diplomatic Readiness'' was released by the the American Academy of Diplomacy in October 2008, and we are pleased to have with us the chairman of the advisory group, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering. A year earlier, the Center for Strategic and International Studies began the dialogue on the need to strengthen civilian agencies, with the publication of the findings of the Embassy of the Future Commission, and today we are also joined by former Ambassador Prudence Bushnell who served on that Commission following a distinguished career in the Foreign Service. Finally, USAID began efforts to strengthen its internal capacity with the launch of the Development Leadership Initiative in 2008, and former USAID Deputy Administrator Jim Kunder, who supported this important effort, will provide perspective on this important initiative, as well as recommendations for future staffing growth at USAID. All of these reports call for increased support and focus on the civilian agencies that champion our foreign policy priorities. Now is the time for Congress and the Obama administration to respond to these calls. We must strengthen our development and diplomatic capability in order to relieve the stress on an overused and overburdened military. My efforts to halt the erosion of the Department of State and USAID's diplomatic and development capacity, to build up a robust reconstruction and stabilization capability, and to expand USAID and Department of State's staffing are just the first steps in what must be a multiyear effort to rebuild the civilian instruments of national security that Secretary Gates called for in November 2007. So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today as we explore this critical issue, and to working with Secretary Clinton to rebuild our foreign policy infrastructure with a workforce prepared and equipped to address the global challenges of the new century. But before I turn to our witnesses, I would like us to hear from our new Ranking Member of the committee, Congresswoman Kay Granger. Opening Remarks of Ms. Granger Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your warm welcome and also for holding this hearing today, the first in our subcommittee of the 111th Congress, and it is a topic that is so important in building the USAID and State Department's workforce of the future. This is critically important for our U.S. diplomacy. This is my first hearing as the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, so I want to thank the Chair for convening this panel and look forward to working closely with her. We just returned from a very productive visit to Mexico, Colombia and Peru. I applaud that wonderful trip and the information that we got as we move forward. I also want to thank Ranking Member Jerry Lewis for putting me in this position, and I look forward certainly to hearing from a very distinguished panel this morning. There is a growing recognition that emerging threats to U.S. interests around the world must be confronted with smart power, a combination of military strength and civilian engagement. I have been serving on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and so I look forward to seeing how that works and how we arrive at what is the right balance in our military strength and civilian engagement and smart power. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly have demonstrated the importance of building a civilian capacity to quickly respond to post conflict situations. Developing a civilian response capacity to rapidly bring stability to these very volatile situations is a topic that we will be examining in upcoming hearings. Our civilian agencies, the Department of State and USAID, are experiencing difficulties carrying out their functions, let alone emerging challenges such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will have to work on this together, and that is how we will be successful. As a result, some of the traditional roles of development and diplomacy have been taken up by the military, placing a burden on our armed services and Armed Forces that may undermine their ability to focus on their primary security responsibilities, and Chairman Lowey talked about the numbers. They speak for themselves. In 1990, USAID had 3,500 personnel to administer approximately $5 billion in development assistance. Today that number is over $8 billion, but they only have 2,200 staff. The State Department and the Congress recognize the need for additional staff, and in 2001 we supported the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative launched by Secretary Powell by adding more than a thousand new personnel. Additional staff increases were provided for critical diplomatic security and consular affairs initiatives. And we supported Secretary Rice's transformation diplomacy effort, which further bolstered the Department's ability to shift personnel resources to the most complex and highest-priority regions and issues. All of these State Department staffing initiatives were made in the context of heightened security risks and the increased costs of placing more American staff overseas. As we move forward and as we listen, I say to this very distinguished and experienced panel, I look for guidance as a new member on this subcommittee as to how we can arrive at the right numbers so that we can be most effective. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Congresswoman Granger. Ambassador Pickering, we are delighted you are here and we are happy to place your full testimony into the record. And if you would like to summarize your statement, I am sure many of my colleagues have questions and we would like to have time to put the questions forth and get as much information from you as possible. Please proceed. Opening Statement of Mr. Pickering Mr. Pickering. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be here and I will attempt to provide a summary. Thank you, Congresswoman Granger, as well, for your statement and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am pleased and honored to join Ambassador Prudence Bushnell and former Deputy Administrator James Kunder on this panel to provide you our views on this critical and important issue which both of you have so well outlined. I come before you at a time when funding for the conduct of diplomacy is obviously something less than the only budget priority we face as a country. I also come before you, I realize, against the background of relatively recent jurisdiction of this subcommittee in some of this territory and the competing demands with supportive U.S. constituencies across the board. Indeed, I apologize for being late here today. I had an opportunity to meet with the Foreign Minister and Defense Minister of Colombia, and the Congress has become so popular that the lines outside, while not rivaling the Super Bowl, do make it harder to get in than I normally expected. My deep apologies to all of you. I also come before you as a committed internationalist with what I believe is a very clear message. We urgently need to begin rebuilding our diplomatic capacity, and we can either pay the financial price of doing that now, or pay a much higher price later in the likely costs of humanitarian, reconstruction and perhaps even military responses. Events of the past decade have produced obvious shifts in U.S. national security posture. One of these in particular now merits urgent reconsideration. Our post Cold War equation of military deterrence, diplomatic activism, foreign aid and human intelligence work has become seriously and, I think, counterproductively distorted. Rebalancing this formula rates a place among the early action items for the new administration and the 111th Congress, and that is why we are here. In fact, the period since the fall of the Berlin Wall has seen U.S. diplomatic staffing constraints in most countries abroad, as the chart over here clearly illustrates. You too have recognized in your opening statements this particular point. But these findings were a key output of the recent report to which you all referred, ``A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future,'' and which I believe you are familiar with, in which the American Academy of Diplomacy cooperated with the Henry L. Stimson Center in producing. I was very privileged to chair the advisory group for this report, and we would request that a copy of the report be placed in the record. The report's principal findings include the fact that during the 1990s, overseas diplomatic staffing has been consistently constrained. Second, more than 1,000 new State Department diplomatic positions were established between 2001 and 2004 by Secretary Powell. These increases, however, were quickly absorbed by the diplomatic surges in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries. Third, since 2004, core diplomatic staffing deficits have in effect returned to pre-2000 levels. There will be an increasing need for pre- and post-conflict stabilization efforts in many parts of the world, which we believe should be managed by civilian leadership, and that puts again an additional burden on current staffing. Finally, effective implementation of U.S. foreign policy will require, in the words of the report, 4,735 direct hire American staff increases by 2014, and the increased funding for function 150, totaling $2 billion above the fiscal year 2014 CBO current services estimate by the end of the 5 years to support that increase. As the subcommittee considers its priorities for the 111th Congress, I would strongly recommend support for the more field-first staffing orientation that has been developed in the report and was begun under Secretary Rice's tenure. In compiling the report referred to, we believe its conceptual owners saw that the following principles ought to be central to the end of our diplomacy and, indeed, to the staffing requirements for the future. First, what we call universality. Simply that the U.S. should have resident presence in every country with which it maintains a national government-to-government relationship and at every multilateral organization of which it is a member. Second, expanded engagement. That the State Department will need significantly to expand interaction with nongovernmental actors, requiring concomitant staffing increases across the board. This includes academia, the NGO community, and the private sector. Third, location and configuration. To this end, the Department will need to extend the U.S. presence in capitals and outside of capitals. We have to get out of the compound. To quote the report of the Embassy of the Future Commission, of which Ambassador Bushnell was a member, this extension would be manifested by, among other things, the establishment of branch offices, American presence posts, American centers and by the use of traveling circuit riders, among other techniques. Fourth, security. To speak plainly, it can be anticipated as we proceed that physical threats to U.S. Government personnel abroad will continue. They will likely grow with dispersal, and they may grow in any event. In our opinion, this is a risk which now comes with the territory. It is part of the job, unfortunately. The alternative is starkly inadequate management of U.S. global policy demands, and the report makes some important recommendations on moving to be able to find ways to deal with risk rather than totally submit ourselves to compoundization as a way to deal with the problem. Specific to core diplomacy, State Department staffing remained static during the 1990s at a time when workload demands were growing significantly. My next chart illustrates these trends. Again, specific to core diplomacy, the report we referred to recommended staffing increases in the core area totaling 1,099. In other words, staffing growth averaging 4 percent a year for the next 5 years, and a total underlying budget growth of $510.5 million by fiscal year 2014 to sustain this effort. One uplifting thing I can say about core diplomatic capacity is that it has fared marginally better than its public diplomacy counterpart. A number of significant analyses have documented public diplomacy's declining fortune in the post- Cold War era, notably the report of the Smart Power Commission of the CSIS, of which I had an honor to be a member, which cited a 30 percent real dollar decline in spending between 1994 and 2008, illustrated in the chart again to your left. It is interesting that this chart shows a real decline in real money terms between 1994 and 2008 as depicted on the chart by the yellow line. At the admitted risk of stating the obvious, we noted the not uncommon 1990s' assumption that a strong public diplomacy effort was no longer needed after the fall of communism and, in fact, the end of the division of the world. To some, public diplomacy in those days looked like an easy kill during a time of overall U.S. Government fiscal constraint. At the risk of stating something that is obvious, I think it is safe to say that this represented a really bad job of looking around corners. The plain fact was that there was a new generation of hearts and minds in the world to win, a new competition for them in a technologically exploding new Information Age with new technologies, new techniques and new opportunities. At the same time, our reaction to physical security threats and budget constraints has included closing on a serious bases of facilities abroad, many of which were important to public diplomacy efforts, and the concentration of personnel in compounds which I just talked about sometimes really distant from the centers of our interest and the centers of population. Whatever one's views are regarding the validity of the U.S. policy message in recent years, I would argue that shooting the public diplomacy messenger served no one's interest. The fact remains that more than in any other nation, the U.S. is looked to for ideas, innovation and opportunity. In most of the world, the U.S. is viewed as the society that recognizes individual initiative and rewards talent. We need to do a far better job of capitalizing on that outlook. Our report for public diplomacy staffing shows an increase of 487,000 U.S. citizen direct hires, and 369 locally employed staff, with an underlying budget growth of $155.2 million over the 5 year period. We further propose expansion of public diplomacy programs, something that was beyond the initial scope of our report but considered so important in our minds that we had to include it in the document. This includes doubling of international exchange programs, a 50-percent increase in international visitor grants, and a 25 percent plus-up for youth exchanges at a further cost of $455.2 million over the baseline during the same time frame. Significantly, our public diplomacy recommendations also comprise the proposed opening or reopening of 40 freestanding American cultural centers and three new media hubs abroad. This is of course something that returns us to the question again of physical security which I touched on earlier. The past year has seen an unusual set of milestone anniversaries in the ongoing evolution of international terrorism, some largely unmarked, but all of them significant. Among these were the 30th anniversary of the onset of the Iranian revolution in 1978 and 1979; the 25th anniversary of the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Beirut and Kuwait; the 10th anniversaries of the attempted bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which Ambassador Bushnell played a major role. The terrorist activity of which these events are emblematic has produced, obviously and continuingly, shifts in U.S. diplomatic deployment. Secretary Rice some time ago recognized the downside impact of these changes, committing to move our diplomatic presence out of foreign capitals and to spread it more widely across countries to work on the front lines of domestic reform. Reinforcing this 2 weeks ago, Senator Lugar introduced a bill specifically citing the budgetary and security pressures which have resulted in the drastic downsizing or closure of most American cultural centers and endorsing the goal of their reestablishment. Former Secretary Albright in my view had it right 10 years ago when she said that job one is to ensure effective promotion of U.S. interests and values around the world. Expanding diplomatic activity is imperative to this work, and entails a greater risk to diplomatic personnel which I, and I believe most of us will say, is worth the return as long as we take the necessary steps to ensure that our people are well prepared, well trained, knowledgeable and understand not only the risks but the adequate steps that have to be taken in every way to avoid those risks and to identify them. Madam Chairwoman, as I mentioned earlier, our report also comprised significant findings and recommendations in areas relevant to training and assistance diplomacies, issues which my co-panelists are with me here today to address but which our report strongly supports. It is my understanding that an upcoming hearing will examine issues relevant to security assistance authorities and staffing, at which our report's principal contributor in this particular area, Gordon Adams, will testify. But simply stated, we believe that some $780 million worth of security assistance, currently supervised and allocated by the Department of Defense, should be reallocated to the traditional pattern of behavior; that is, that the Secretary of State would be responsible for defining the amounts in the budget and signifying the countries to which it is devoted, while the Secretary of Defense, as always, carries out those programs. I realize, of course, that some of our recommendations, specifically in the area of expanded training, will likely be partially addressed in fiscal year 2009 appropriations as the cycle is now concluded, and I am heartened by your signification of the fact that it does include some significant personnel for the State Department. I am also aware that the outline of the President's budget for the 2010 fiscal year is expected to be before you in a day or two. It is my hope, based on what the administration has been saying publicly, that the President's request for overall State Department operations will be ambitious and we hope in line with the recommendations we are making. I also realize that prioritizing among request components has never been what one would call the strong point of the State Department. What our report has put forth is a collection of what we consider to be the top operational priorities for consideration by your subcommittee. We do so humbly, but we do so on the basis of lots of experience and knowledge and we strongly urge their favorable consideration by your committee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I, along with the others, look forward to your questions. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Ambassador Pickering. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.176 Mrs. Lowey. I am going to turn to Ambassador Bushnell, but I just want to say when we get to the questions, you talked about hope and optimism, and I would like to know, and, if you don't have the figure, get the information as to what all of your hopes and dreams reflected in your statement will cost. Mr. Pickering. It is $3.286 billion. Mrs. Lowey. Everything? Mr. Pickering. Yes. Chump change. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Now we will turn to Ambassador Bushnell and we will place your statement into the record. Welcome. Opening Statement of Ambassador Bushnell Ms. Bushnell. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and Congresswoman Granger. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to follow up on Ambassador Pickering's testimony. My name is Prudence Bushnell. I am a retired Foreign Service officer and former Ambassador to the Republics of Kenya and Guatemala, and member of the 2006 Commission on the Embassy of the Future. My remarks will reflect those experiences, and I hope that the Commission's report can be placed in the record. The Foreign Service attracts people who are fiercely patriotic and deeply committed to making a difference. While their capacity to perform remains outstanding, their jobs have become increasingly complex and dangerous. According to a 2004 survey, over 87 percent of those with 15 years of service had confronted significant crises, and that number is probably much higher today. Having experienced the impact of the Rwanda genocide, suffered the wounds of the al Qaeda attack in Kenya, and witnessed the violent legacy of the 35-year conflict in Guatemala, I understand the difficulties in balancing security concerns and policy objectives. Over the past few years, the former has trumped the latter in our efforts to keep people safe. I applaud the impulse, but I also believe that it is possible to accomplish both: the work of our Nation overseas and manage risk sensibly. It requires more staff, better technology, innovative strategies, and training, and a greater emphasis on taking care of people. We could, for example, staff and operate embassies according to strategic interests instead of past tradition, limiting the presence to agencies and Americans who really need to be at a post. Foreign Service nationals and locally employed staff could be trained, delegated and rewarded to assume more professional roles. Everyone, including family members, could be prepared through training, crisis exercises, and vigilant leadership to confront danger. As Ambassador Pickering suggested, we could put a virtual American presence, without risk to people, in all kinds of new places through American corners, resource centers operating in libraries and other venues. We already know that with adequate resources these centers work very well. We could also increase our influence and outreach through more American presence posts, operations staffed by a single Foreign Service officer and local employees to accomplish specific and limited objectives in cities other than the capital. With the capabilities to produce video conferences, pod casts, blogs and other virtual links, Foreign Service personnel could reach people, NGOs, and businesses across time, distance, and danger. Program management and greater language skills could bolster these opportunities even further. With appropriate, secure, hand-held communications equipment, written work could be accomplished outside the confines of our embassy fortresses. Imagine the possibilities were our embassies to have the backup of department-run centers to implement innovations, state-of-the-art technology, and modern business practices. Think of the new ideas employees could conceive if they had access to more sophisticated information and research links, formal communities of practice, and interagency blogs. Consider how much better embassy decisions regarding security would be if ambassadors and emergency action committees were privy to intelligence analyses still too often confined to Washington and the few considered in the need to know. Should the worst happen, think of what we could learn if our accountability review boards sought lessons and not just blame. And suppose we considered post-traumatic stress and other psychological wounds to be just that, wounds to be healed instead of weaknesses to be suppressed or stigmatized. What a more healthy and better-prepared workforce we would have. A recent Foreign Service Association poll noted employees' willingness to work in dangerous and difficult places. In return, they would like greater attention to family concerns and single sex partners, equitable assignments and salaries, and improved leadership. By that they mean bosses who care about people as well as policy, with the courage to stand up for them to secure the necessary resources and programs they need to do their jobs effectively. I witnessed the extraordinary performance of which they are capable during the difficult months following the al Qaeda attack on our Embassy in 1998. A thousand pounds of explosives detonated in a small, confined area, left half of the occupants of our chancery dead or severely wounded. Outside, hundreds more were killed and thousands were injured. With no 911, or any of the services we take for granted in the United States, Kenyan and American employees had no choice but to move from victim to rescue force. In later weeks and months, notwithstanding the deaths, destruction and trauma, this community stayed in place, overcoming one challenge after another to reconstruct their organization, assist Kenyan victims and businesses, and help one another to heal. Despite the toll on themselves and their families, they put the U.S. Government back in business within hours of the bombing and never lost sight of its interests. Not for one day were we closed, and it showed in the policy objectives we achieved against great odds. Now, imagine what people of this caliber could achieve if they were given the kinds of resources, technology, training, innovations and leadership we discussed today. Thank you for listening. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Aren't we fortunate to have people of your caliber here, and we thank you again. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.180 Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Kunder, we will be happy to place your full testimony into the record. Opening Statement of Mr. Kunder Mr. Kunder. Thank you, Madam Chair. I made four basic points in the testimony, and I would like to summarize them briefly. Just to put some meat on the bones of this personnel issue for the committee, the committee asked me to draw a little bit on my field experience, and I would like to make a couple of comments. Why is it important to have these folks? Why is it so critically important to our national security? I would like to give you a quick example at the tactical level and at the strategic level. When I was in Afghanistan in 2002, immediately we started creating these provincial reconstruction teams to reach out and assist with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We followed on in Iraq with the same approach. Our military colleagues learned very quickly that when they were out in the hinterlands in Afghanistan and Iraq, they needed exactly this kind of diplomatic personnel that the ambassadors have been talking about, or the development specialists at AID. You needed health officers and agricultural officers, and you needed folks who knew how to rebuild a government that had been torn apart. And we simply ran out of bodies. As one report pointed out, there are shortages in filling these provincial reconstruction teams even today in Iraq and Afghanistan, not because folks don't want to serve or because they lack courage, but simply, practically, we have run out of bodies to meet our country's national security interests. If you move to the strategic level, it is more of an invisible effect but equally critical to our national security. All of you know about the so-called ``Green Revolution'' where American technology during the 1960s and 1970s allowed--through the application of technology and new agricultural techniques, we had agricultural production around the world growing at 3 or 4 percent a year. So we were able to stay ahead of population growth around the world. During the 1980s and 1990s, we cut back on American investment in teaching people how to grow food abroad. We cut back on the number of technical experts at USAID, as both the Chairman and Ranking Member have said. And what happened? Agricultural growth, agriculture productivity growth in the developing world, in the poor countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, stopped growing at 3 or 4 percent a year and started growing at 1 percent a year, which doesn't keep up with population growth in those countries. So what do you have over 20 years? You have less and less food, prices going up. And for the so-called ``bottom billion,'' the bottom billion of our fellow citizens in the world who live on less than a dollar a day and who spend almost all of their money on food, all of a sudden they can't afford food. And also, I might add, they are not very good customers for American exports when they can't afford a basic livelihood. So what happens, you have a billion potential recruits. A billion hungry people who no longer have faith in the future. I think both at the tactical level and at the strategic long-term level, it is not just some abstract question of ``State needs more people'' or ``USAID needs more people;'' our country really needs these kinds of strategic effects in our national security interest. I make four points in my statement, and you all have a copy of this PowerPoint called ``USAID in 2012'' that summarizes USAID's staffing needs and its plans. I would just call your attention to slide number 7, which is the one that shows the growth in our nation's foreign aid dollars over the last 20 years, the blue vertical bars, and then the little yellow triangles are the decline in our nation's technical experts overseas. So, one, we are not getting the kind of bang for the buck that we should be getting with our foreign aid dollars and the taxpayers are not getting the kind of oversight that they deserve when we spend this kind of money overseas without enough staff. I do want to thank the committee very much for the support that it has given to USAID for this ``Development Leadership Initiative,'' and we are starting to rebuild that technical capacity that served America well over the decades. We hope that the committee will sustain that effort in the coming years. Second, reinforcing what Ambassador Pickering's and Ambassador Bushnell's studies have said, it is not just a question of hiring more people. These numbers for our diplomats and our development experts abroad are so small compared to our military forces that we ought to look at these folks as ``Special Forces troops'' that need to be maximally equipped with the best technology America has to offer. I like to give the example that our nation recently reemphasized the importance of instability and possible terrorism in Africa. We created AFRICOM at the Department of Defense. I have served in uniform and I have nothing against the U.S. military, and I have the greatest respect for our uniformed services. We have 1,300 people at AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. We have 279 technical experts working for USAID, scattered across all of Africa. Something is wrong with these numbers. We need to rebuild the numbers and we need to equip these folks with the best technical capacity and communications capacity that they could possibly have. I say this as a former military officer. By the time folks reach the ambassadorial level that Ambassador Pickering and Ambassador Bushnell received, if you were a military-equivalent general officer, you would have achieved, as I know Mrs. Granger knows, you would have had 2\1/2\ years of training provided by the U.S. military, cohort training at the lieutenant colonel level, at the Army War College or Navy War College level, 2\1/2\ years of training. A similar State or AID officer would be lucky if over a 20-year career they had 2\1/2\ weeks of organized training. We have got to carve out the training ``float'' for State Department and USAID so people are going off to school to learn Arabic and Urdu and Farsi and the critical languages. And I have to tell you that our senior State and AID officers are not being given the computer skills and the management skills that our military officers are being given. And it is not because they are not smart. They are smart and highly educated. But we are not carving out the training, because as these numbers show you, there is no training float. If I have a warm, sentient, competent body, I send that person to Anbar Province. I point out in my testimony, there are some hidden assets in this system. At USAID, we have about 8,000 employees. About 5,500 of those are Foreign Service Nationals. Ms. Granger was just in Peru and probably saw this. If you go to a place like Lima, we probably have 10 American AID employees and about a hundred Peruvian experts who speak Spanish and know the culture. We don't allow those folks to be transferred internationally and we don't really give them the kind of compensation needed in terms of the value they provide to the United States of America. So I suggest one of the things that this committee might look at in terms of the title of this hearing, ``Creating the Workforce of the 21st Century,'' we need to hire more folks who are Americans and give them technical skills, but we also need to look at maximizing our Foreign Service National workforce at State and USAID and see if we can't get more productivity out of these folks as well. Third, I address security. I cannot rival what Ambassador Bushnell said, but I believe we are on a collision course. By law we are still compacting our platforms abroad. We say we want to grow our diplomatic presence and our development presence, but I don't believe the lines cross. We are continuing to solidify, compact our diplomatic platforms, and we are continuing to shut down USAID offices and bring them within the embassy compounds. And then we are trying to figure out, as Ambassador Pickering said, how to do better public diplomacy. It is very hard if you are a farm cooperative leader in some Third World country, or a women's group or a lawyer's group leader, it is very hard to get into a U.S. embassy. You used to be able to walk over to the AID office and talk to your American colleagues. But today it is very hard to get through security. I would request that the committee take a hard look at this area because, driven by these horrible events that Ambassador Bushnell experienced firsthand in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam 10 years ago, our platforms are shrinking. Instead, we have to grow and meet and reach out to more people, and the lines are just not crossing. We have all of these wonderful projections of more people and I don't know where we are to put them. It is a great idea, but it doesn't comport with the law in terms of embassy security. My fourth point is somewhat abstract but I think is the single most critical one. All of us on State and USAID have worked on what kind of formula do we need to build our staff. And there has been some good work done. But I argue here that we are nowhere near where we should be in creating a mechanism something like the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review. We need a ``quadrennial diplomatic review'' and a ``quadrennial development review.'' We need to link our staff explicitly with the threat we are trying to address. The Quadrennial Defense Review is not a perfect document, but at least it attempts to lay out our nation's strategic threat and then build a force that will meet that threat. This is hard stuff to do. It is similarly hard to do this in the diplomatic or development work, but it can and must be done. And I believe the Congress should mandate that State and USAID develop such quadrennial reviews that identify clearly our development objectives over the next 4 years, and then force the personnel planners at State and USAID to present you with these kinds of numbers to accomplish the mission that we have been assigned. Those are the four points I have made. I appreciate the committee taking on this difficult task. And again, as Ambassador Pickering said, we are all American citizens and taxpayers, and we understand that a lot of our fellow citizens are hurting in the current economic crisis, and we very much appreciate the courage of the committee in recognizing that reforming foreign aid is also an important part of meeting the taxpayers' priorities. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.187 Mrs. Lowey. First of all, let me thank you all for your incredibly valuable testimony. We really are so appreciative and we certainly know that the Secretary of State and her staff is focused on thinking through many of these issues. I am hoping that you all have input and you have certainly made some recommendations because we appreciate it on this committee. Before we proceed to questions, I just want to say that I have received written testimony from the American Foreign Service Association. The Association represents the members of the U.S. Foreign Service, an important voice as we examine workforce issues at the Department of State and USAID, and I ask unanimous consent that their written statement be made part of the record. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.192 Mrs. Lowey. I would also like to make it clear that I will be calling on members based on seniority of the members present when the hearing was called to order, and I will alternate between majority and minority. Each member is requested to keep questions to 5 minutes per round. I would like to follow up, and again I want to thank you on your expert testimony. I would like to follow up with Ambassador Bushnell. I can't believe it. I was not aware of it, that the intelligence analysis is confined to Washington, so you as an ambassador in the field do not have access to the whole picture. Is that what I heard you say? Ms. Bushnell. At the time I was Ambassador, that was correct. We had an al Qaeda cell in Nairobi. I was aware of that fact. I was also aware of the fact that our Intelligence Community was intercepting telephone calls both in Nairobi and with Osama bin Laden. We took, that is to say the FBI and CIA, took the computers of the head of the cell in Nairobi, and I never received any information as to what was on the computer because--and this gets back to what my colleagues have been saying, is we continue to follow the tradition of the Cold War which is ``You will know if you need to know it.'' But if it is about Osama bin Laden and we think his activities are in the Near East, you, Ambassador in Kenya, don't need to have that information. I think things have gotten somewhat better, but I don't believe that ambassadors are in the information chain because the Intelligence Community and the State Department still see Washington as the client, not overseas chiefs of mission. Mrs. Lowey. That is extraordinary. This is a basic question, that the ambassadors have the highest clearance but the intelligence officers just choose not to provide you the information. So it is not that you don't have the highest clearance, they are just choosing not to give you the information? Ms. Bushnell. I don't want to leave you with the impression that chiefs of station or others are choosing not to give ambassadors information. The fact of the matter is that ambassadors are not privy to the information that goes from a station chief back to Washington because of issues of methods and sources. So yes---- Mrs. Lowey. So yes, you do not have access? Ms. Bushnell. Correct. But it is not because anyone is saying I don't think I am going to give my ambassador the information; it is because they are not allowed to give the ambassadors the information. Mrs. Lowey. By whose law are they not allowed? Ms. Bushnell. You know, I don't know. Do you know, is it a law or a regulation? Mr. Pickering. I think we are getting into a sensitive subject, but the Intelligence Community's internal directives are such that they are required to protect sources and methods in situations where individuals either have a need to know because they are directly engaged in the case; that is, how and in what way and from whom they collected information, and individuals who don't in the view have a direct role in the collection need to know. Now I, as Ambassador, was briefed by my station chief very frequently on activities and operations that they were conducting because when they blew up, they inevitably knew I would be on the hot seat. And so they gave me prior warning. And the best of them did that for me. I think in Prudence Bushnell's case, the failure to provide information on the operation of the cell as opposed to just the presence--and she is in a better position to judge this--was a huge error because it didn't permit her to take the active steps she would have to in defense of the embassy to deal with the issue at hand. I am not sure that is generalized, but it happened; and it shouldn't happen again, in my view. Mrs. Lowey. Let me just say as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am very aware of the need to know. If you don't ask the question, you are not going to get the information, and you need the information often to ask the question. But I will follow up. I think it is important that we have a classified briefing on this very essential issue. Ms. Bushnell. Thank you very much. Mrs. Lowey. I have 15 seconds left. I just wanted to follow up on the technology issue as well. Do you currently--whoever wants to answer--do you currently have the technology to support your work outside the embassy? Is it a money issue or you don't have the technology? Do you need the technology? Can you comment on that as well? Ms. Bushnell. Very briefly, we have some technology. We do not have adequate technology, particularly compared to the private sector. And yes, we need it; and yes, it requires resources. Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, and I will turn to Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you. I am intrigued by the suggestion of a quadrennial review type of program because I think it could help guide us as we look at these personnel, equipment, and other issues. Doubling the number of Foreign Service officers by 2012 can't be a goal itself. What do they do? What do we accomplish? What are our goals? So I would ask you as a panel what specific goals do you think that State and USAID should establish that would more clearly justify the request that we are getting? Mr. Pickering. Perhaps I could take the first shot at that, and I know the others will have it. With respect to the point that Mr. Kunder made, I would recommend that you look at this report called ``Forging a New Shield'' done by the Project on National Security Reform. The central piece of this report, but it covers the wide inadequacies of our Washington-based national security system, is precisely the points he made. And in fact, a fairly elaborate system of preparing both guidelines and budgets for the longer term in the national security area, and it makes recommendations with respect to those, as well as a lot of other recommendations which I think would be important for the committee to know about in terms of the future organization of national security. Two of the current new appointees, General Jones, the National Security Adviser, and Admiral Blair, were on the report staff that did this. It was not exclusively an ex- military staff. There were a lot of the rest of us who worked on it. I think in addition, let me if I can, cover what the people in the core diplomatic area will be doing. The others we have to--Mr. Kunder recommended doubling AIDS Foreign Service officers. We are not recommending doubling across the board, but we are recommending the increases I had in my statement. But some examples are, for example, to deal with multilateral diplomacy, an additional 100 staff. To deal with international law, which we see as a major asset to the United States, that the international rules can be made in an open and fair basis, which is obviously very much in harmony, in tune with our system; the creation of an additional staff of 20. Economics, where we have very few people, 8 percent of our people are expert in economics. And I don't have to tell you the number one crisis today is economics; an additional 80 officers to deal with economics. Science and technology, something we have left behind. We currently have 35 people around the world dealing with science and technology. We recommend an additional 70 staff, public- private partnerships that outreach, that I talked to you all about, in terms of one of the principles that we have adopted as guidance for this report. We think an additional 100 people are needed to deal with those. Interagency coordination, again back to Mr. Kunder's very, I think, salient point. Planning, developing and executing policies and budgets in Washington and across the board and staffing regional planning hubs overseas, we recommend 175 additional staff. In addition, there is, as you all know, no allocation of people to do training, certainly not in the core diplomatic area, so that everyone we train is pulled out of the front line. We don't have any units at rest. We don't have one up and two back. Everybody is in a full-time job. In order to train, we have to take people out of a full time job. That means other people have to cover that person's full-time job. So we are recommending a significant number, up to 1,000 training spots and spots for people who are in movement, so in the end we don't leave critical positions in the front line of diplomacy uncovered. And that basically constitutes the bulk of the 1,099 core people I recommended, and some of the 4,735 that the report recommends as a total in public diplomacy, in aid, in stabilization and reconstruction, in addition to core diplomacy. Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kunder. May I point out briefly this gets into--I reread the CRS, latest CRS report on foreign aid reform, and your question gets into I think the fundamental question that all of us are grappling with, which is, what do we want our foreign aid program to accomplish? We are spending $25 billion across all agencies. What do we hope to get for that? And this requires a much larger hearing, and I don't want to take a lot of your time now, but the question of whether we are essentially doing this because America is good-hearted and we want to keep starving people alive, or whether we are doing this for national security interest or whether we are doing it for commercial interest. The short answer is, for those of us who read the Foreign Assistance Act and try to follow the law, we are told to do all of the above. And hence, when you layer in additional earmarks--I am not here to insult the committee, I'm here at your request, but obviously we are told to do a lot of very specific things in malaria, in AIDS, and a whole bunch of other topics. And at the end of the day, the very bright officers we send off to carry out our nation's foreign policy are torn in 100 different directions in terms of what they are supposed to accomplish in Malawi or Peru or Bangladesh. And so, this is a fundamental question. If we were a corporation we would have gone out of business a long time ago because we are in every line of business known to mankind. And so this question of should we do something similar to what DOD does every 4 years, and refresh the system and say what we really want to do the next 4 years out there in these 85 developing countries is focus on democracy or agriculture or women's rights, whatever it is, and give them some honest guidance. They will do the job you tell them to do. But right now they are just pulled all over the place by trying to read a 45-year-old law that is now very thick. Mrs. Lowey. Before I turn to Mr. Israel, I just have to follow up, if I may, because your comments are puzzling. And I wonder, with my great respect for you, whether it is a matter of who is the leader at the top. Is it really working so that the country team puts together a plan? Look, we all work. I work on food allergies and then I work on asthma and then I am chair of this committee and then I do homeland security. Life is complicated. And it is more complicated when you have to deal with a whole range of issues in a country. But that is what you are supposed to do in establishing a country team plan. And it is frankly it would seem to me any new leader is going to put together a plan and give some directives. And if the procedure works with the country team putting together a plan with an ambassador, and staff knows what they are going to do, they are going to send a plan up. And then, obviously, the Secretary of State and the President have the responsibility to say, Well, I think you should do it this way or I think you should do it that way. But it is hard for me to believe--I don't want to say there hasn't been really strong leadership--but it is hard to believe that you need a Foreign Assistance Act to determine goals and priorities and get the job done. So if I can take the liberty and give you a minute or two to answer and then turn to my colleague, Mr. Israel, because your comment was just confusing to me. Mr. Kunder. The world is a complex place. And I am not going to suggest there are only three things we ought to do or we ought to use. As we don't need what the military calls a 6,000 mile screwdriver from Washington, and tell our staff in Malawi precisely what they should do. But I think the system suffers, honestly Madam Chair, from the lack of an overall conceptual framework globally that says ``our goal is to do the following.'' If you told us our goal was to meet the Millennium Development Goals, eliminate illiteracy in the next 20 years, and AID was told I don't care if you give the money to Pakistan or Cameroon; there is not going to be any pressure to put more money in Pakistan; and I don't care if you put the money in the Ministry of Education or build schools with it, I don't care if you help the poorest people or get the technical experts paid, you eliminate illiteracy in the next 20 years, I believe that the State Department and USAID working with our international partners would eliminate illiteracy in the next 20 years. But as soon as somebody comes in with a plan to eliminate illiteracy, we say I am sorry, we don't have money in that category; would you like some AIDS money or malaria money, because that is what he have. Mrs. Lowey. This is a long discussion and I don't want to deprive my colleagues of asking questions, but I think we should have more discussion on this issue. Mr. Israel. Mr. Israel. Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Kunder, I was actually going to ask the panel about the Civilian Response Corps, but you triggered something and so I am going to address something that you said and ask for your comments. You talked about the Green Revolution of the sixties and seventies and how that was an effective promotion of American strategic policy through agriculture. I want to ask you about a different kind of diplomatic Green Revolution. I will tell you about a model I heard of and ask you whether you believe it should be integrated more fully into the State Department and USAID. I spend most of my time on energy issues and was in India several years ago and met with Dr. Pachauri who runs the Energy Research Institute of Delhi and received the Nobel Peace Prize, and shared it with Vice President Gore for his work on climate change. And he was showing me, he was torturing me with an abundance of PowerPoint slides on energy resources. And I was with our colleague, Congressman Tim Ryan, and just as we were on the verge of falling asleep, I respectfully asked Dr. Pachauri if he could put the PowerPoints aside and give me one game changer in U.S. foreign policy on green energy, something that was really changing the game. And he said to me, ``Well that would be the six women of the Sunderbans.'' I said, ``What is that?'' He said, Well, the Sunderbans is a delta in a delta region, no connectivity, no infrastructure, but there are six women who have a solar panel and they use the solar panel to charge solar lanterns and they rent the solar lanterns to the population. And that in the global war on terror, we have everything we need, we have the empowerment of women, we have the development of a sustainable small business, we have light. And I said, ``Well what State Department program funds that? Is that a USAID program?'' He said, ``Oh no, that is a $35,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.'' Do you believe that that kind of program would be more suitable as a USAID function or somewhere in the State Department? Do you believe that the State Department, in order to effectuate good national security policy and foreign policy, are to be embracing more of those clean energy micro-financing programs? Is that the modern day Green Revolution? Mr. Kunder. I am sure Ambassador Pickering and Ambassador Bushnell will want to comment on this as well. The point you make is an example of what is happening, the transformation of the development field. Fifty years ago, the only people really who cared about what was happening in the small villages of the developing world were a few folks at State and AID. But now we have a large NGO community, we have large private sector investment, we have many parts of the U.S. Government, as you just suggested, that are involved. And part of what is behind these PowerPoints in the training recommendations I am making is the notion that our diplomats and our aid professionals have got to be less operators and more ``symphony directors'' of the many, many players who are out there. Private sector investments from America and remittances from America, American immigrants, exceed our foreign aid account in most countries of the developing world. So the answer is yes, it is more than just micro- enterprise, I would argue. It is mobilizing all of these private sectors, for-profit and not-for-profit resources, because there is a lot going on out there, more than just our technical experts. But they have got to be trained to think that way and to be seen as synergistic players in the broader arena. I hope that is helpful. Mr. Pickering. Mr. Israel, it is nice to see you again and thank you for asking what I think is a very trenchant question, and I certainly would echo the ``yes.'' I think Mr. Kunder has pointed out that he is engulfed in a sea of legislative restrictions. And, indeed, the history of the aid program is that we have passed 20 restrictions to stop every mistake we ever made. And when we do that, of course, we end up with no aid program. And he has shown you some of the frustration in his comments that the legislative boundaries or the legislative bindings are very difficult. We do need I think new foreign assistance legislation. We need to find a way for you to tell us, in general terms, go and do something that is innovative that will help people lift themselves out of the mire and the morass of poverty and get engaged in growth. Use technology, which is something I think we are very weak on. Aid over the years has generally shied away from technology or contracted it out. But technology is very important because it is the wave of the future and we do see how things like technology in your example, the six women of the Sunderban, or indeed how we see innovative ideas, micro- lending, can provide empowerment and innovation. Now, we don't have to do it all. I agree with Mr. Kunder entirely. There is a huge community out there. But one of the things that has happened in our own government is we now have 22 or 26, whoever counts, different centers of aid activity. And one of the problems is that they all might be simply splendid, but who is coordinating and where are the priorities? And so in some sense we need to find a way to pull this together. I would be strongly in favor, if it looks like aid and involves aid, pull it in; but keep the mission agencies with their innovative skills and with their technology linked to the process so we don't end up finding a kind of single solution that eliminates the innovation. And we have to find ways to think about that. I will just make one other point because I could go on forever. Mrs. Lowey. We all could. Mr. Pickering. One of the ideas in this report is that we do not use what I would call empowered network task force activities in our national security ideas, writ broad, to pull together and develop the kind of ideas, whether they are policy ideas or development ideas or public diplomacy ideas, that we could. We have a very rigid structure, and the same people consider everything, and we are not well linked up and we have lots of bureaucratic stovepipes that don't work well together. And so moving in a cross-cutting whole-of-government approach to some of these problems is, in my view, something that is very important in the wave of the future. And I think it fits with what we are talking about now. And it certainly fits with AID and its focus and where we are going. And for goodness' sake, let's adopt, adapt, and use and empower people outside who have all these wonderful ideas, who could make these happen, and we need new ways to do that. So we are on the cusp, I think, of discovering that we have a striking series of very interesting capabilities out there from all over. And our job together is how do we empower this and get it working in our common interest to do the kinds of things that obviously you and the Congress tell us are high priorities for you as we move ahead. And on one final point, don't change the priorities every 5 years. Mr. Israel. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. I am tying to figure out, how many minutes? In the meantime, Mr. Crenshaw, do you want to begin while we are figuring out? I see there is a vote--how many more minutes? I just have to say, Mr. Ambassador, you haven't convinced me, and I support the rewrite of the act, and Howard Berman is aggressively working on it, and we consult. But I still believe with strong leadership and direction you can get the message out. But I don't want to take Mr. Crenshaw's time. Let me ask my distinguished witnesses--I am willing to come back. We still have a question from Mr. Chandler and Mr. Crenshaw. What is your time like? We have three votes. Mr. Chandler, do you want to come back or submit a question for the record. Mr. Chandler. I hate to make them wait just for my questions. Mr. Crenshaw. Same. Mr. Chandler. I have a lot of questions but I hate to make them wait for them. Mrs. Lowey. Why don't we do this, then, because I think your input is so valuable. Perhaps we can orchestrate an additional--not an additional hearing, but additional discussions so that we can pursue this, because I hate to keep you waiting a half hour, I guess, while we go and vote. So I am going to, instead of recess--this is very difficult for me because I would like to hear more of your outstanding advice and testimony--I am going to adjourn the hearing so we don't keep you waiting a half hour. And I do hope--I know you have all been in to see many of us--we have the opportunity to continue this discussion. So thank you so much. The hearing is adjourned. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5951B.295 W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Adams, Dr. Gordon................................................ 521 Baldo, Suliman................................................... 463 Bent, R. G....................................................... 285 Bushnell, Prudence............................................... 613 Clinton, Hon. H. R............................................... 1 Fulgham, A. L.................................................... 57 Garner, Rodger................................................... 339 Hamre, Dr. J. J.................................................. 521 Haugaard, Lisa................................................... 387 Hernandez, A. P.................................................. 387 Johnson, David................................................... 339 Kunder, James.................................................... 613 Lew, Jacob....................................................... 163 Lindborg, Nancy.................................................. 521 Moose, Ambassador George......................................... 521 Naland, J. K..................................................... 650 Olson, Joy....................................................... 387 Pickering, Thomas................................................ 613 Prendergast, John................................................ 463 Shannon, Thomas.................................................. 339 Shinn, David..................................................... 463 Walsh, T. J...................................................... 231