[Senate Hearing 109-335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-335, Pt. 3
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
2007
109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 5522
PART 3
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations, 2007
(H.R. 5522)--Part 3
S. Hrg. 109-335, Pt. 3
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5522
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 3 (Pages 1-113)
Department of State
Nondepartmental Witness
United States Agency for International Development
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-506 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama TOM HARKIN, Iowa
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
officio) officio)
Professional Staff
Paul Grove
Tom Hawkins
Robert Lester
Tim Rieser (Minority)
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
Jennifer Park (Minority)
Administrative Support
LaShawnda Smith
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Page
Department of State: Office of the Secretary..................... 1
Thursday, June 8, 2006
United States Agency for International Development............... 39
Nondepartmental witness.......................................... 91
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, at 2:17 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators McConnell, Bond, Bennett, Brownback,
Leahy, and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE
opening statement of senator mitch mc connell
Senator McConnell. The hearing will come to order.
Madam Secretary, I apologize for holding you up. Today's
hearing will examine the fiscal 2007 budget request for your
Department and Foreign Operations, and affords us an
opportunity to learn more about transformational diplomacy and
foreign assistance reform. I expect there will also be a
question or two on matters falling under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction regarding the fiscal 2006 supplemental request.
My opening statement will be brief. The President's request
totals $33.8 billion, $23.7 billion in Foreign Operations and
$10.1 billion in State Department operations and related
programs. This represents an increase of $2.8 billion and $600
million respectively above last year's enacted levels. As in
previous years, significant resources are targeted toward the
Middle East, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and
combating HIV/AIDS.
The President is to be commended for his commitment to
advancing democracy worldwide, as reflected in the National
Security Strategy and through his words and deeds. According to
the Office of Management and Budget, the fiscal year 2007
request includes $1.7 billion for democracy, governance, and
human rights programs, an increase of $400 million above the
fiscal 2006 estimated levels. As this subcommittee has long
been a strong supporter of democracy abroad, most recently
demonstrated in the creation of a new Democracy Fund account in
the bill last year, it would be helpful to hear your views on
why democracy promotion is such a priority to this
administration. Is there a connection between good governance
and poverty alleviation? What role do democracy programs play
in the war against terrorism? Should more activities be
targeted toward Asia and the former Soviet Union, where
countries like Belarus and Russia seem to be heading in the
wrong direction?
As you were recently in Southeast Asia, I would appreciate
hearing more about your trip, particularly any insights you may
have with regard to the Burma problem. Let me also state for
the record that I recognize your strong support for the
struggle for freedom in Burma and the aggressive efforts of the
State Department to encourage other governments to take that
posture as well and to support Aung San Suu Kyi's cause.
I am hopeful that the administration can again urge the
United Nations Security Council to debate the security threat
Burma poses to the region. This year we need a formal debate
and a resolution on Burma at the United Nations.
Let me close by reiterating my concern with terrorism in
Southeast Asia. I note that the request includes $32 million in
military assistance for countries in that region, a decrease of
$6 million below the previous fiscal year, and $9.8 million for
military training programs. While I support the increase in
military aid to Indonesia, whose democratic achievements since
1998 have been remarkable, I hope you will clarify the $12
million cut to the Philippines. Many of us remain concerned
with the ongoing conflict in the southern Philippines.
Again, Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. Let me
turn to Senator Leahy and then we will get right to your
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, always good to have you here. This is
probably the first and last time we are going to hear from you
on the fiscal year 2007 budget request until we get our 302(b)
allocation and our bill is on the floor of the Senate. At that
time the game is pretty much over because we usually lose
ground in conference with the House. Programs that are
important to you and to us are cut further.
These hearings are useful, but I think you and the State
Department could mount a far more effective effort. You have
allies with Senator McConnell and myself, but there are many
people who are not allies, and we have to convince them, too.
Now, I believe your transformational diplomacy initiative has
much to recommend it. We discussed this before. I commend you
for it. But I think the funds requested fall short of what you
need.
It is one thing to deploy your staff more strategically and
plan and coordinate foreign aid programs effectively. I think
that is important. But I think ``transformational'' suggests
something more far reaching.
This budget cuts many of USAID's core programs to promote
democracy and fight poverty. It is true that in the aggregate
it represents an increase, but that's only because of funding
for AIDS and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We are
providing hundreds of millions of dollars to the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, but a lot of that goes to tiny countries
which really do not have any significant security importance to
the United States.
But in doing that, again the money--it is a rob Peter to
pay Paul thing. You cut programs that have bipartisan support,
proven results and that fund everything from girls education to
providing clean water and improving agriculture.
It is going to be a difficult year for this subcommittee.
You will not find two stronger supporters than the chairman and
myself, but a lot of domestic programs are being cut this year
and it is going to be hard to say why we have to put more into
foreign aid. You have to convince the chairman and ranking
members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
I have some other concerns which are not only related to
appropriations. There is the image and the reputation of the
United States, which has obvious importance to our security.
After 9/11 we had almost all of the countries in the world,
with two or three exceptions, behind us, an outpouring of
sympathy from every corner of the globe. Now we are seen by an
alarming and growing number of people as an aggressive,
occupying bully who locks up innocent people indefinitely,
humiliates and physically abuses them, and denies them the
right to even know what they are accused of.
We get regular reports of Iraqi civilians, including women
and young children, who have been mistakenly killed by U.S.
soldiers. We spend billions on grossly overpriced
reconstruction projects that are poorly designed, may never get
finished, but have made some U.S. contractors rich. That does
not make us safer, especially when we are such a good and
generous country.
Then there is U.N. peacekeeping. The United Nations is
operating 18 different peacekeeping missions. One of them, in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is trying to provide
security for the first democratic elections in a half a
century. At the same time, it is coping with armed militias and
every possible logistical challenge in a destitute country the
size of Western Europe, but one with virtually no
infrastructure. That is just one example.
Darfur will be next. It involves similar challenges and
costs. We vote to send U.N. peacekeepers to some of the world's
most dangerous places, but then we underfund these missions. I
might point out that, in underfunding them, they together cost
in a year less than our military spends in a week in Iraq.
PREPARED STATEMENT
It is time for us and the other nations who do not
contribute troops to support these missions the way we would
expect our own soldiers to be supported.
I will put the rest of my statement in the record. I look
forward to hearing from you and I have already discussed with
you a couple of the questions I will ask.
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. This is be the first and
last time we hear from you on your fiscal year 2007 budget request,
until after we receive our 302b allocation and our bill is on the floor
of the Senate. At that point the game is pretty much over since we
usually lose ground in conference with House, when programs that are
important to you and to us are cut further.
Hearings like this are useful, but they are far from sufficient.
You need to mount a far more effective effort than you have in the past
to get the funding you need, because the party in the Majority in
Congress, with the exception of a few allies like Chairman McConnell,
will want to cut your budget.
While I believe your transformational diplomacy initiative has much
to recommend it--and I commend you for it--I am afraid that the amount
of funds you are requesting falls far short of what you would need to
implement it effectively.
It is one thing if all you hope to do is deploy your staff more
strategically and plan and coordinate foreign aid programs effectively.
But to me, ``transformational'' suggests something significantly more
far reaching.
This budget, contrary to the President's promise, cuts many of
USAID's core programs to promote democracy and fight poverty. It is
true that in the aggregate what you propose represents an increase, but
that is only because of funding for AIDS and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
While we are providing hundreds of millions of dollars from the MCC
to tiny countries with little if any foreign policy or security
importance to the United States, you would cut funds for programs that
have bipartisan support, proven results, and that fund everything from
girls' education to providing clean water and improving agriculture.
Chairman McConnell and I are among your strongest supporters here,
but with the cuts the President is proposing to so many domestic
programs this is going to be a very difficult year for this
subcommittee.
You may have big plans, you may have great policies. But if you
don't have the funds to implement them they won't amount to much. They
certainly won't be transformational. Unless you can convince the
Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, much of what you hope to do will not be possible. I want to
mention a few issues of special concern to me, and I will have
questions on other topics as well:
--First, is the image and reputation of the United States, which has
obvious importance to our security. After 9/11 there was an
outpouring of sympathy from every corner of the globe. Today,
we are seen by alarming numbers of people as an aggressive,
occupying bully that locks up innocent people indefinitely,
humiliates and physically abuses them, and denies them the
right to even knowwhat they are accused of.
We get regular reports of Iraqi civilians, including women and
young children, who have been mistakenly killed by U.S. soldiers. We
have spent billions on grossly over-priced reconstruction projects that
were poorly designed and may never get finished, but which made U.S.
contractors rich. This is not making us safer.
--Second, is U.N. peacekeeping. The United Nations is operating 18
different peacekeeping missions. One of them, in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, is trying to provide security for the
first democratic elections in half a century, while it copes
with armed militias and every possible logistical challenge in
a destitute country the size of Western Europe with virtually
no infrastructure. This is just one example. Darfur may be
next, and it will involve similar challenges and costs.
Yet while the Administration votes to send U.N. peacekeepers to
some of the world's most dangerous places, we under-fund these missions
which together cost in a year less than our military spends in a week
in Iraq. It is time for us and the other nations who don't contribute
any troops, to support these missions the way we would expect our own
soldiers to be supported. Yet, again, your budget does not do that, and
it is going to cause serious problems.
--Third, is Latin America. It has been sorely neglected by this
Administration, despite protestations by State Department and
White House officials to the contrary. Senator DeWine has noted
it. Senator Coleman has noted it. There is no end to the
interests we share with our southern neighbors--immigration
being just one--and yet your programs and policies are a mere
shadow of what they should be. It is a missed opportunity and
this budget continues business as usual.
Madam Secretary, I voted for you because I felt you have the
qualities to do a good job. I know you are trying and I think you have
outstanding people here and in our missions around the world. But I
have to say I think the foreign policies of this Administration have
too often been misguided and harmful to our national interests.
I am sure you disagree, but I do not believe this country is safer
because of these policies, and I do not believe the budget you are here
to support is nearly adequate to protect our interests in today's
increasingly divisive and dangerous world.
Senator McConnell. Madam Secretary, I assume you have a
prepared statement. If you do, we will make that a part of the
record, you can make some observations, and then we will go to
questions.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. CONDOLEEZZA RICE
Secretary Rice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Leahy. I thank you very much for this opportunity. I will ask
to enter my entire statement into the record, but I will just
make a few comments so that we may have ample time for
discussion and questions.
I do want to thank the members of this committee for the
tremendous support that you have given to our need to support
our men and women who practice diplomacy. The funding requested
by the President for the State Department and for foreign
operations, of course, does more than just support diplomacy,
because it is really strengthening our national security. The
challenges that we face are of course sometimes military, but
overwhelmingly they are political and economic, and they are a
matter of helping to create a cadre of states that are well
governed and that are democratic.
America is of course a Nation at war and we are engaged in
a conflict against terrorists and violent extremists. Across
the world our Nation's men and women in uniform and the members
of the foreign and civil supervisor, as well as our foreign
service nationals, are shouldering great risks and
responsibilities in advancing America's diplomatic mission,
working in dangerous places far away from friends and family
and loved ones. They are performing with courage and fortitude
and heroism, and I would just like to take this opportunity to
honor them, particularly those who have given their lives, and
to recognize the courageous public servants and their families
who endure long times of service abroad.
Mr. Chairman, the President's budget is in support of a
number of core missions: first of all, of course, to defeat the
extremism and terrorism that we face in the world. You will see
that there is support for coalition partners and for front-line
states that are literally on the front lines against
terrorists. But of course we know that it is not enough to have
a short-term solution to terrorism, that is defeating the
terrorists who on a daily basis plot and plan to destroy
innocent life, but also to deal with the creation--with the
circumstances that created those terrorists. We believe that
the ideology of hatred which they espouse can only be met by
advancing liberty and democracy. That is the goal that we have
in the support for the young democracies of Iraq and
Afghanistan, for a broader Middle East initiative that seeks to
press authoritarian regimes throughout a region that for 60
years has had an absence of freedom, to press for change in
that region. Change is coming. It comes with turbulence, it
comes with difficulty, but change in the Middle East is coming.
Of course, our democracy agenda is not limited to the
Middle East, but also to continuing to press for the
democratization of those places that are still not democratic
in Europe. In Asia, you mentioned Burma, Mr. Chairman, and we
have been very active in that front, but also to press for
change--for the stabilization of democracy in places that have
already had democratic elections, for instance in Latin
America.
We face global challenges. HIV/AIDS--the President's
emergency plan for AIDS is to have an effect on those afflicted
with AIDS and on those who might be afflicted with AIDS. We
fight the counter-drug fight with allies around the world, and
of course we have taken on recently the new challenge of the
possible pandemic of Avian flu.
Finally, we are engaged in working with transformational
states. Those are the states that we believe have the capacity
to make a great leap forward. They are states that are very
poor, where poverty is still a problem, but where they can be
recognized for their democratic tendencies, for their good
governance, for their desire to fight corruption. It is really
a new paradigm for the delivery of foreign assistance and the
President's Millennium Challenge Account has been a real tool
in pressing countries to deal with the kinds of problems that
retard development and that retard the development of state
capacity, so that American foreign assistance is not simply a
crutch, but rather an enabling mechanism for states to one day
become independent of foreign assistance and to be able to
attract trade and investment, which is after all how states
really grow.
Let me say that we have a number of initiatives under way
in the Department, what we have called transformational
diplomacy, and I would only mention two. That is that we have
done a good deal now of global repositioning. We have
repositioned 100 people from posts that are, we believe, posts
that can afford to have fewer personnel, to reposition them to
front-line posts in places like India and China where we really
need more people.
We are also requesting more positions, but I just want the
committee to know that we have made a commitment that we will
also reposition existing resources, that we will not just ask
for new resources, that we will indeed make the hard choices
about changing our global posture, which still looks more like
the 1980s and 1990s than it should in 2006.
Finally, we have also made changes in our foreign
assistance under the authorities that are granted to me for the
direction of foreign assistance, with the creation of a post in
the Department which will help us to better align the programs
of USAID and the State Department. That is about 80 percent of
all foreign assistance. We believe that, with this program,
which I have asked Randy Tobias to take on, and should he be
confirmed by the Senate he would also be the USAID
Administrator--the point here is to make sure that we make the
best use of the very precious resources that we are given.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We recognize that the American people have been generous in
their support of the diplomatic mission, of foreign assistance.
We recognize that the American people want to be generous
because we are compassionate when we look to helping developing
societies, when we deal with humanitarian crises. But we also
recognize that we have an obligation of stewardship and
efficient use of those resources, and we believe that this new
structure should give us better opportunity to do so.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Condoleezza Rice
Chairman McConnell, ranking member Leahy, members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget for State Department, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs and agencies. I appreciate this opportunity to address
the members of the subcommittee and to talk about America's role in
meeting the unprecedented challenges of our world today. I look forward
to working closely with Congress to ensure that America's diplomacy has
the necessary resources to secure our interests, advance our ideals,
and improve people's lives around the world. In all of these mutual
efforts, of course, we must remain committed to our responsibility to
be good stewards of the American taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.
The President's fiscal year 2007 International Affairs Budget for
the Foreign Assistance Programs, Department of State Operations, USAID
and other foreign affairs agencies totals $35.116 billion. This total
includes $23.72 billion for Foreign Operations and $10.078 billion for
State Operations, as well as $1.317 billion in Public Law 480 Food Aid,
and reflects a funding increase of $3.539 billion from the level
appropriated last year.
As I did last year, I want to emphasize that it is important to
maintain a balance of resources between State operations and foreign
assistance. The diplomatic platforms that we have--our people, our
ability to operate in the field, our facilities--are the platforms from
which we conduct our diplomacy and we are especially concerned that our
people have the training, technology and facilities that they need, all
with the requisite security. These vital components are necessary to
the success of our diplomatic efforts and foreign assistance programs.
Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage
the members of this committee to continue to provide their full support
and leadership in passing the fiscal year 2006 Emergency Supplemental
request that is before you now. This urgently needed funding will
support immediate political, economic, humanitarian, and operational
requirements that will allow us to meet new challenges--and seize new
opportunities--to build a better, safer, and freer world.
Mr. Chairman, the funding requested by the President for State
Department and Foreign Operations will do more than support our
diplomacy; it will strengthen our national security. America is a
Nation at war. We are engaged in a conflict against terrorists and
violent extremists. Across the world, our Nation's men and women in
uniform and the members of our Foreign and Civil Service, as well as
our Foreign Service Nationals, are shouldering great risks and
responsibilities advancing America's diplomatic mission--often working
in dangerous places far away from their friends and loved ones. They
are performing with courage, fortitude and heroism. Today, I want to
honor those who have given their lives in this cause and to recognize
the courageous public servants and their families who endure long
periods of service abroad.
America's enemies remain eager to strike us, but our actions in the
past 4 years have weakened their capability. Our diplomacy plays a
vital role in defeating this threat. We are building partnerships with
traditional allies and with new partners that share our perception of
the threat. Most importantly, we are working directly with foreign
citizens who wish to build thriving free societies that embrace
democratic values and freedoms.
This is indeed an extraordinary period. It is a time that is unlike
any other since perhaps the end of World War II, when the United States
took on the mantle of creating a stable and democratic Europe. Europe
at that time was weak and divided. Today it is free and at peace. We
learned from that experience that if we are faithful to our democratic
values we are safer and more secure. When democracy and freedom are in
retreat, we are more vulnerable, which we learned in a very graphic and
painful way on September 11, 2001.
The President has said that the only way to deal with the
ideologies of hatred that we face in the world today is to present the
world with the antidote, which is the spread of liberty and freedom.
The men and women of our diplomatic service work daily in this cause.
In his Second Inaugural Address, President Bush laid out the vision for
American leadership in the world today: ``[I]t is the policy of the
United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of
ending tyranny in our world.'' The President's vision stems from the
recognition that we are living in a time of extraordinary change, where
the prospect of violent conflict among great powers is more remote than
ever. Nations are increasingly competing and cooperating in peace, not
preparing for war. Democratic reform has begun in the Middle East. The
United States is working with our democratic partners in every region
of the world to build global stability through a balance of power that
favors freedom and advances liberty.
At the same time, other challenges have assumed new urgency. The
greatest threats today emerge more within states than between them, and
the fundamental character of regimes matters more than the
international distribution of power. It is impossible to draw neat,
clear lines between our security interests, our development goals, and
our democratic ideals in the world today. Our diplomacy must integrate
and advance all of these goals, through a strategy that is rooted in
partnership, not paternalism--in doing things with people, not for
them. This is the objective of our diplomatic efforts today and in the
future.
TRANSFORMATIONAL DIPLOMACY
Mr. Chairman, the 2007 budget represents what we call
transformational diplomacy. The objective of transformational diplomacy
is to work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain
democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of
their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system.
We must transform old diplomatic institutions to serve new
diplomatic purposes, and we must empower our people to practice
transformational diplomacy. With the generous support of the Congress,
my good friend and predecessor, Colin Powell, brought American
diplomacy into the 21st century. Now, my leadership team and I are
building on this strong foundation and beginning the generational work
of transforming the State Department and USAID. This will not only
strengthen national security, it will improve our fiscal stewardship.
We are committed to using American taxpayers' dollars in the most
effective and responsible way to strengthen America's mission abroad.
In the past year, we have begun making changes to our organization
and our operations that will enable us to advance transformational
diplomacy. We are forward-deploying our people to the cities,
countries, and regions where they are needed most. We are starting to
move hundreds of diplomats from Europe and Washington to strategic
countries like China, India, South Africa, and Indonesia. We are
supplying our people with additional training and language skills in
order to engage more effectively with foreign peoples. Our national
security depends, in part, on the ability of American diplomats to
speak and master critical foreign languages. We must improve our
communication skills in critical foreign languages such as Arabic,
Farsi, Mandarin, Hindi, and Urdu to promote our national security,
foster greater economic integration, and further the agenda of freedom.
Consistent with our language and education initiative, the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget includes proposals to manage for results. We
are enabling our diplomats to work more closely with America's
servicemen and women creating the most cohesive and unified diplomatic
team in our history.
To ensure better coordination of our financial resources I have
announced the creation of the new position of Director of Foreign
Assistance. This essential reform will sharpen our capability to use
foreign assistance more efficiently and effectively to: further our
foreign policy goals; bolster our national security; encourage
prosperous, democratic and lawful societies that join us in overcoming
the forces of terror; reduce poverty; and improve people's lives around
the world.
We are making these initial changes using our existing authority.
The additional funding we are requesting in the fiscal year 2007 budget
will help us to implement our vision to transform the State Department
to meet the challenges of the 21st century. For this purpose, we are
requesting $9.3 billion for State Department operations.
Transformational diplomacy begins by ensuring that our people are in
the right places, with the necessary tools and training to carry their
mission. We are requesting $23 million for 100 new positions on the new
frontlines of our diplomacy: key transitional countries and emerging
nations in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. These new
positions will complement the 100 positions that we are already moving
as part of our ongoing effort to best balance our global diplomatic
posture. This repositioning effort will require a renewed commitment to
secure and to modernize many posts overseas, and we are seeking $1.5
billion for security-related construction and rehabilitation of our
diplomatic facilities.
More and more, we are calling on our diplomats to leave their
families and serve overseas in unaccompanied assignments, or ``hardship
posts''. With your help, as part of our effort to modernize the Foreign
Service, we will institute a new pay-for-performance system that fairly
compensates our men and women working abroad. New training will also
make full use of dynamic new technologies, and we are asking for $276
million to provide for our workforce the latest information technology
and to support professional training needed for success.
These new tools and training will better enable our Nation's
diplomats to tell America's story to the people of the world, and in
turn, to listen to the stories they have to tell. We have heard the
legitimate criticisms that have been made of our public diplomacy, and
we are re-engineering how we do business. I have stressed that public
diplomacy is the responsibility of every single member of our
diplomatic corps, not just our public diplomacy specialists. We are
creating forward-deployed, regional public diplomacy centers. These
centers, or media hubs, will be small, lean operations that work out of
our embassies or other existing facilities, enabling us to respond
quickly to negative propaganda, to correct misinformation, and to
explain America's policies and principles. The $351 million that we
seek will be essential to continue to revitalize our public diplomacy.
To complement our public diplomacy, we must ensure that America
remains a welcoming place for tourists, students, and businesspeople,
while at the same time protecting our homeland from terrorists and
criminals who would exploit our open society to do us harm. The State
Department, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security,
has taken new steps in the past year to realize the President's vision
of secure borders and open doors. Our request of $1.1 billion will fund
the Border Security Program and enable us to hire 135 new consular
officers and passport staff to meet the growing demand of foreign
citizens seeking to travel to America, while maintaining its
fundamental commitment to serve each and every American citizen who
travels abroad. At the same time, we are seeking $474 million to
support educational and cultural exchanges, which increase mutual
understanding between our citizens and the peoples of the world.
Finally, we must continue to enable our Nation's diplomats to work
effectively with our partners in the United Nations and other
international organizations. The United States takes its international
obligations seriously, and we remain committed to strengthening the
financial stability, efficiency, and effectiveness of international
organizations. We seek $1.6 billion to fund assessed and voluntary
contributions to international organizations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, America's purpose in
this young century is to fuse our democratic principles with our
dramatic power to build a more hopeful world. Our purposes are
idealistic, but our policies are realistic. The men and women of the
State Department have risen to the challenge of transformational
diplomacy with enthusiasm and courage and are helping our partners
around the world to build a future of freedom, democracy, and hope.
Realizing the goals of transformational diplomacy will require a
sustained effort over the course of a generation. Most importantly, it
will require a strong partnership with the Congress. We will do our
part to use our existing authority to make foreign assistance more
effective and to enhance our ability to serve as responsible stewards
of the American taxpayers' money. Our goal in establishing the new
position of Director of Foreign Assistance is a first step. We welcome
a dialogue with Congress about how we can work together to improve
further America's foreign assistance, enabling us to respond more
quickly and more effectively to the world's development challenges.
DEFEATING TERROR
When we speak about the Global War on Terrorism, we first think of
what our military is doing in the mountains of Afghanistan or the towns
and cities of Iraq. But we also need to think of the important role of
our foreign assistance and diplomatic presence in places beyond
Afghanistan and Iraq and in the array of states that are now fighting
side-by-side with us in the Global War on Terrorism. As they are
supporting us, we need to support them. In this budget we are
requesting $6.2 billion to strengthen the coalition partners who are
standing shoulder to shoulder with us on the front lines in the fight
against terrorism. Our assistance empowers our partners to practice
more effective law enforcement, police their borders, gather and share
essential intelligence, and wage more successful counterterrorism
operations. In many nations, our assistance will also help to bolster
thriving democratic and economic institutions reducing the societal
divisions that terrorists exploit for their own ideological purposes.
Our fiscal year 2007 request includes $739 million for Pakistan, $560
million for Colombia, $154 million for Indonesia, $457 million for
Jordan, and $335 million for Kenya.
Essential to winning the war on terrorism is denying our enemies
the weapons of mass destruction that they seek. We must develop new
tools for counter-proliferation to confront and dismantle the networks
involving rogue states, outlaw scientists, and black market middlemen
who make proliferation possible. We are building on the achievements of
the Proliferation Security Initiative, the G-8 Global Partnership, and
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540. We are working to stop Iran and
North Korea from succeeding in their quest for weapons of mass
destruction, and we continue to do everything in our power to deny
terrorists access to the world's most dangerous weapons, including
conventional weapons like MANPADS. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes
to increase funding for the State Department's efforts to help
countries counter the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials.
ADVANCING LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY
In December over 12 million Iraqi people voted in free elections
for a democratic government based on a constitution that Iraqis wrote
and adopted. Iraq is on a track of transformation from brutal tyranny
to a self-reliant emerging democracy that is working to better the
lives of its people and defeat violent extremists. The President's
request of $771 million, along with the supplemental request, is an
essential part of our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. The
funding for the Department's operations and programs is a critical
counterpart to the efforts of our troops in the field as we pursue
integrated security, economic, and political tracks to success in Iraq.
The supplemental request will fund programs that are integral to our
counter-insurgency campaign and to the operation and security of our
diplomatic mission, while the fiscal year 2007 request supports
capacity development essential for Iraq's transition to self-reliance.
Our work also continues in Afghanistan. Four years after the United
States, along with our Afghan allies and others, removed the Taliban
regime, the Afghan people have established a democratic government.
Millions of men and women have voted freely for the first time. Today,
Afghanistan has a democratic constitution, an emerging free economy,
and a growing, multi-ethnic army. Despite this dramatic progress, there
is still much hard work to be done. The President's request of $1.1
billion for Afghan reconstruction, along with supplemental funding,
will allow us to continue working with the people of Afghanistan to
meet the remaining political, economic, and security challenges they
face.
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are helping to lead the
transformation of the Broader Middle East from despotism to democracy.
This is a generational challenge. Elections are an important and
necessary beginning and the freedom to choose invests citizens in the
future of their countries. But one election does not complete the
fulfillment of democracy. Successful democracies are characterized by
transparent, accountable institutions of governance; a thriving civil
society that respects and protects minority rights; a free media;
opportunities for health and education; and the renunciation of
terrorism and ideologies of hatred. On this last point especially, we
will continue to insist that the leaders of Hamas agree to the
conditions of the quartet to reject terrorism and work toward peace
with Israel.
Helping the nations of the broader Middle East to make progress in
building the foundations of democratic societies is the mission of the
Middle East Partnership Initiative, for which we are seeking $120
million. We are also requesting $80 million for the National Endowment
for Democracy to continue its work in promoting lasting democratic
change around the world.
Progress in the broader Middle East offers hope, but the region
still faces determined enemies, especially the radical regime in
Tehran. Through its aggressive and confrontational behavior, Iran is
increasingly isolating itself from the international community. In
recent months, our diplomacy has broadened the international coalition
to address Iran's nuclear ambitions. This issue is now before the U.N.
Security Council.
The Iranian people should know that the United States fully
supports their aspirations for a freer, better future, which is why the
President requested $75 million in supplemental funding for democracy
promotion activities. As we aim to isolate the government of Iran
because of its defiance of the international community over its nuclear
program, it is all the more important that we make clear to the Iranian
people our commitment to their well-being. The funds we are requesting
in the supplemental will enable us to expand considerably our direct
communication with the Iranian people through public diplomacy,
educational and cultural exchanges, and expanded broadcasting.
MEETING GLOBAL CHALLENGES
Like terrorism and nuclear proliferation, many other challenges in
today's world are global and transnational in nature. These threats
breach all borders and affect all nations. Today's global threats
require global partnerships, and America's diplomats are helping to
transform our relationships with countries that have the capacity and
the will to address shared global problems.
One major global threat comes from disease, especially the scourge
of HIV/AIDS. This pandemic affects key productive members of society:
the individuals who drive economies, raise children, and pass on the
customs and traditions of their countries. The United States is
committed to treating people worldwide who suffer from AIDS because
conscience demands it, and also because a healthier world is a safer
world. The hallmark of our approach is the President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief.
The Emergency Plan is rooted in partnership. Our approach is to
empower each nation to take ownership of the fight against HIV/AIDS
through prevention, treatment, and care. The results to date have been
remarkable. In the past two years, the Emergency Plan has expanded
life-extending antiretroviral treatment to 471,000 people worldwide,
400,000 of whom are located in sub-Saharan Africa. As of last year, the
Emergency Plan has extended care to more than 1.2 million orphans and
vulnerable children. The President's 2007 Budget requests $4 billion,
$740 million more than the current year, to continue American
leadership in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. Additionally, the 2007
budget includes $225 million to fight malaria, which is a major killer
of children in sub-Saharan Africa. These funds respond to a pledge to
increase United States funding of malaria prevention and treatment by
more than $1.2 billion over five years.
The United States is also playing a key global role in preparing
for the threat of a possible avian influenza pandemic by providing
political leadership, technical expertise, and significant resources.
The most effective way to protect the American population from an
influenza outbreak abroad is to contain it beyond our borders. The 2007
budget provides resources to continue these activities in countries
already experiencing outbreaks of influenza and in other countries on
the cusp of infection.
Another key global challenge is to curtail the illicit drug trade
and to dissolve the relationships between narcotic-traffickers,
terrorists, and international criminal organizations. The 2007 budget
requests $722 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, which
advances the President's goal of strengthening democracy, regional
stability, and economic development throughout the hemisphere. The
Initiative provides funding for law enforcement, security programs, and
alternative livelihood assistance for those at risk from the trade of
illicit narcotics.
The United States remains the world's most generous provider of
food and other emergency humanitarian assistance. We are also helping
refugees to return to their countries of origin. Where that is not a
viable option, the United States leads the international community in
resettling refugees here in the United States. The fiscal year 2007
request of $1.2 billion for humanitarian relief, plus $1.3 billion in
food aid, will ensure that we are prepared to extend the reach of
American compassion throughout the world.
BUILDING STATE CAPACITY
Many states cannot meet the basic responsibilities of sovereignty,
including just and effective control over their own territory. It is
critical to American security to build state capacity where it does not
exist, to help weak and poorly governed states to develop, and to
empower those states that are embracing political and economic freedom.
We must anticipate and prevent the emergence of failed states that
lead to regional instability and which become havens for terror and
oppression that threaten America's security. The Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization has been established
to address complex and challenging situations around the globe. The
2007 budget proposes to strengthen planning efforts for countries and
regions of greatest concern. We seek to coordinate the deployment of
United States resources to prevent the emergence of failed states, and
to respond quickly and effectively to states emerging from conflict
around the world. With an early and effective response, we can reduce
the need for a more robust and costly military commitment. This budget
request includes $75 million for the conflict response fund.
HELPING DEVELOPING STATES
Where the basic foundations of security, governance, and economic
institutions exist, the United States is advancing bold development
goals. The President has embarked on the most expansive development
agenda since the Marshall Plan, including new debt relief initiatives,
the doubling of Official Development Assistance since taking office,
and performance-based funding for international financial institutions.
Development is an integral pillar of our foreign policy. In 2002, the
President's National Security Strategy for the first time elevated
development to the level of diplomacy and defense, citing it as the
third key component of our national security. States that govern
justly, invest in their people, and create the conditions for
individual and collective prosperity are less likely to produce or
harbor terrorists. American diplomacy must advance these development
principles.
Our development assistance focuses on building the tools for
democratic participation, promoting economic growth, providing for
health and education, and addressing security concerns in developing
nations, as well as responding to humanitarian disasters. Such
investments are crucial to improving the lives of people around the
world and enhancing our own national security. We seek to provide the
necessary tools and incentives for governments to secure the conditions
for the development of free and prosperous societies.
Relieving the burden of heavily indebted countries is essential to
ending a destabilizing lend-and-forgive approach to development
assistance. At the Gleneagles summit last July, the G-8 agreed on a
landmark initiative to provide 100 percent cancellation of qualifying
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries' debt obligations to the World Bank,
the African Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
United States leadership was instrumental in securing this agreement.
We estimate that a total of 42 countries will receive up to $60 billion
in debt relief as a result of this initiative. The Budget that I
present to you today supports the United States share of the
multilateral debt forgiveness provided by the G-8 proposal.
We are also seeking support for our share of the G-8's assistance
package for Africa. This package will fight malaria, HIV/AIDS, and
corruption and help to create an environment where democracy and
economic opportunity can flourish. Specifically, the 2007 budget
supports the President's commitment to double assistance to Africa
between 2004 and 2010. In addition, the request supports our commitment
to help African countries to build trade capacity; to educate their
citizens through a $400 million Africa Education Initiative; and to
combat sexual violence and abuse against women through a new Women's
Justice and Empowerment Initiative.
Although Africa is a primary focus of our efforts to reduce poverty
and invest in people and reform, it is by no means the only continent
on which our resources are directed. We seek a total of $2.7 billion
for worldwide Development Assistance and Child Survival and Health
funds.
EMPOWERING TRANSFORMATIONAL STATES
We also seek to empower those states that are governing justly. The
flagship of our efforts is the Millennium Challenge Account, which is
helping states that are making measurable progress to achieve
sustainable development and integration into the global economy.
In 2002, in Monterrey, Mexico, the nations of the world adopted a
new consensus on reducing international poverty. Developed nations
agreed to increase their assistance to developing countries, and
developing countries committed to making progress toward good
governance, economic freedom, and investments in the health and
education of their people. In response to this Monterrey Consensus, the
Administration and the Congress created the Millennium Challenge
Account, which targets new development assistance to countries that
meet benchmarks of political, economic, and social development. This
innovative approach partners with and invests in low and lower-middle
income countries that take ownership of their own economic development.
In the past year, we have accelerated our efforts to negotiate and
sign development compacts between transformational countries and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. To date, the MCC has identified 23
countries eligible for development compacts, and has approved compacts
worth a total of $1.5 billion with eight countries: Armenia, Benin,
Cape Verde, Georgia, Honduras, Madagascar, Nicaragua, and Vanuatu. Nine
eligible countries have prepared proposals totaling $3.1 billion, and
another six will soon submit proposals. We are seeking $3 billion of
new funding in the fiscal year 2007 budget, with the goal of approving
up to 10 new compacts.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, realizing the goals
of transformational diplomacy will require a sustained effort over the
course of a generation. Most importantly, it will require a strong
partnership with the Congress. We at the Department of State will do
our part to use our existing authority to make our diplomatic
initiatives and our foreign assistance programs more effective and to
enhance our ability to serve as responsible stewards of the American
taxpayers' money. I look forward to working with the subcommittee.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Even though it is arguably only indirectly related to your
budget, I would like to start off with the biggest issue
confronting the State Department, the administration, and the
country, and that is Iraq. Yesterday, I had in my office a
Kentucky soldier who was in Iraq for a year. He left in
January. This is a soldier who is completely apolitical, who
gave me a report on his own initiative of his observations of
what had happened during his year there. He served with a
transportation company that was frequently squiring vehicles
around the country and had a number of experiences, including
80 IED attacks on his convoys.
During the course of the year his company lost two
soldiers. This soldier went on to say that extraordinary
progress had been made in Iraq in every aspect that he could
witness, and he also expressed his complete and total
frustration that nobody in this country seems to know anything
about this progress.
I know that there is a tendency to teach in journalism
school that only bad news is news, but in a place like Iraq, I
find a lot of soldiers completely frustrated by the fact that
almost nothing that they are doing is being characterized as
good work and almost no visible signs of progress seem to get
out.
IRAQ
Could you itemize for us some of the progress you see being
made? Three successful elections last year; I think everybody
thinks that that is a good thing. But what are some of the
indicators of progress that are not being written about and
therefore not being learned about by Americans here at home?
Secretary Rice. Thank you, Senator McConnell. I would start
with the political news because it is indeed very difficult
when you see the bombings every day or the violence on TV. It
is a harder story to tell of the political progress that is
being made. I also recognize that at times it seems that the
Iraqis are engaged in argumentation and debate and they cannot
get this formed and they cannot get that formed. I would remind
people that in fact these are people who are for the first time
in their entire history, and really one of the only times in
this entire region, that people who are very, very different--
Sunnis, Shia, Kurds--sitting down to try and solve their
problems politically, not by violence and not by repression.
Of course it is difficult and of course it is contentious.
But that is the process of democracy. The forming of a
government of national unity, which we have encouraged that
they do it as quickly as possible, but it is not surprising
when they have existential issues, like resource allocation or
how to deal with the Baathists who repressed people in the
past, that it is going to be contentious and difficult.
The good news is all elements of Iraqi society are now
engaged in that and they are moving ahead. As you said, they
have had three elections. The last one, 11 million Iraqis
voted. That demonstrates that the Iraqi people want a political
course, not a course of violence.
Second, it is true that the reconstruction has in some
places been slower than we would have liked. But there is also
very good news about reconstruction. The United States has been
able with reconstruction funds to improve the capacity of an
electrical grid that only had 50 percent of the generating
power that the country needed. It was true that Baghdad was
getting power most of the day, but most of the country was
getting none. Now it is true that the power in Baghdad has been
less than at the time of the war, but in part that is because
the power is being spread over the entire country. We are
increasing the capacity and expect that by the end of the year
we would have increased that capacity significantly so that the
country will have a more even distribution of power.
Schools and clinics and children going to school are really
the result of the reconstruction funds that this Congress has
appropriated to the Iraqi people. Probably most importantly,
the Iraqi people now on any day recognize that the time will
come when there will be a government elected by them governing
them, over which they have a say and where repression will not
be the case.
I would mention just one other thing and that is that the
security forces of Iraq have improved quite substantially over
the last year. During this most recent uptick in sectarian
violence, the Iraqi army performed very well indeed. The Iraqi
army is now often in the lead in counterterrorism operations
and in stability operations. They have taken territory. They
themselves are in control of 50 percent of the Baghdad area.
We are making progress then in creating security forces, in
helping to improve the infrastructure of a country that had a
completely deteriorated infrastructure, of getting schools and
clinics and hospitals either refurbished or built, and in
supporting the Iraqis in a political process that is going to
lead to a dramatically different Iraq. That is the good news
story against obviously a backdrop of significant violence.
Senator McConnell. So what are the next important
milestones that we should expect in the next few months?
Secretary Rice. The next important milestone is the
formation of a government, the national unity government. Then
we would expect that they will issue a program on which they
will govern.
If you do not mind, I will just take one moment to clear up
something. I hear a great deal of the time that the Iraqis are
slow in forming this government because they are haggling over
jobs. That is the way that it is sometimes put. In fact, they
are developing a program on which the national unity government
would govern. They are developing the rules by which they will
actually govern, what will be the responsibilities of the
deputy prime minister, what will be the relationship of those
ministers to subordinate ministries. And they are working on
who will actually take certain positions.
So you can see that it is a much more complicated set of
negotiations that they are in than if they were just haggling
over who was going to take the prime ministership. That said,
we are pressing that they should finish this work as soon as
possible. That is the next major milestone, Senator. After
that, I think there will be milestones in Iraq security forces
taking responsibility for larger and larger pieces of territory
in Iraq.
Senator McConnell. What are the Iranians doing in the
country and in what way is that impeding progress for the new
government?
Secretary Rice. Well, the Iranians are not helpful in the
south. We believe that there are indications that they may be
supporting troublemakers, militias and the like, in that
region. We also are concerned that they are not always
transparent in relations with people in Iraq about trying to
influence the direction of Iraq.
We believe that--the Iraqis disagree, and we do not
disagree, that Iran has to be a good neighbor, that they ought
to have a good relationship with Iran. The British, of course,
have been concerned that Iranian technology has showed up in
some of the IEDs that are so devastating to personnel in Iraq.
So there are several elements of Iranian policy that we find
deeply troubling.
Should Zal Khalilzad exercise the authority that he has to
meet with the Iranian ambassador, an authority he has had for
several months, these are some of the issues that we would
intend to bring up with Iran in what would be a very limited
set of discussions about Iraq.
Senator McConnell. Two more questions before I turn to
Senator Leahy. Am I correct that American casualties are
substantially down in recent months, and is that--if I am
correct--a reflection of just what you were talking about
earlier, that the Iraqis are taking on more and more of the
burden of being on the point and dealing with the security
issues?
Secretary Rice. Senator, the trends are as you noted. Of
course, every casualty is one that we mourn, but the trends are
in that direction. Some of it may indeed be as a result of the
fact that the Iraqis are more on the front line. There are some
who believe that the insurgents or the terrorists have also
taken a different tactic in who they are actually going after.
But whatever the case, we would hope that as Iraqis step
forward more and more that in fact they are going to have to do
the brunt of the fighting. That is only as it should be because
Iraq is their country.
Senator McConnell. Finally, what did you make of the
reports that the Russians were providing information to Saddam
Hussein as we began the war?
Secretary Rice. I have gotten my hands on the document,
which I wanted to do, and I have talked with the Russian
foreign minister and asked them to look into this and to take
it very seriously. We take very seriously any implication that
someone might have been passing information that endangered the
operation at the outset of the war and we will look for an
answer back from the Russian Government once, hopefully, they
have had a chance to look into it.
Senator McConnell. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Will we be able to find out what that answer is?
Secretary Rice. Absolutely. We have wanted not to conclude
before we have the discussion, but it is obviously a very
serious matter and we are taking it up with the Russians.
SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE
Senator Leahy. Madam Secretary, while we were waiting
before the hearing began I discussed a matter with which I have
a great deal of concern. That is the matter of Charles Taylor.
A number of us had urged Nigeria for years to transfer Charles
Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. We asked the
State Department for a strategy to get Taylor to the court. We
have not got that.
Finally, last week Liberia and Nigeria cleared the way for
getting Taylor to the court, which was good news. But then,
rather than turn Taylor over, Nigerian President Obasanjo told
Liberia to just come and get him. Now we find out according to
reports that he has escaped and may no longer be in Nigeria,
escaped from the villa where he was sitting and involving
himself with matters in a number of countries.
Now, if after all that time he has been sitting there, for
all that time nothing happened, finally they said, okay, now we
will turn him over, and now they let him escape, that boggles
the imagination. It is totally outrageous. President Obasanjo
has for years thwarted attempts to get Taylor to a court. I
believe he bears responsibility for letting him escape.
I understand he plans to meet with President Bush at the
White House tomorrow. I would urge you to cancel that visit,
cancel that visit until Taylor is in custody of the court where
he belongs. I think it would send the wrong message if he
escapes one day and the next day the person who had him in
custody and let him escape is greeted at the White House.
Do you want to comment on that?
Secretary Rice. Thank you, Senator. I certainly believe
that the Nigerian Government has a responsibility, has a
responsibility to transfer Charles Taylor safely to Liberian
custody so that he can be brought to the court. I cannot
confirm at this point what has happened to Charles Taylor,
whether or not he has escaped. But obviously it would be a
matter of the utmost seriousness if that did indeed take place.
The Nigerians indeed did take Charles Taylor, at the behest
of the international community, but I think there was an
understanding that he would be monitored and that he would be
at some point, President Obasanjo said when there was a
Liberian government, turned over for prosecution on the court,
and we were on course for that. If we are no longer on course
for that, then we will have to examine why this happened and
have consequences accordingly.
Senator Leahy. You said two things: one, he would be
monitored; and second, when there is a government in Liberia he
could be turned over. Now, they do have a democratically
elected president. She was here just recently visiting, a very
impressive person. I think it was known that Taylor was being
monitored and he was involved in activities outside Nigerian
borders. So the monitoring broke down if there was any
monitoring.
So they had a couple strikes against them. One, that broke
down. Two, he wasn't turned over. There was a court prepared to
take him in Sierra Leone. He could have gone there. Now, if he
has escaped, I think after the monitoring failed, after getting
him to a court failed, after keeping him in custody failed, I
really think it would be a mistake to have President Obasanjo
here with the kind of imprimatur of the United States on that
visit that a presidential meeting would bring.
Secretary Rice. We consider it a very serious matter,
Senator, if he has indeed escaped, very serious.
Senator Leahy. Do you agree with me that Charles Taylor is
a threat----
Secretary Rice. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. To security in that region?
Secretary Rice. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. Many of us consider him a mass murderer too,
for what he did before.
Secretary Rice. I think that it was really the President
who at one point when he was in Africa insisted that he step
down. We then supported the Liberians to end the violence
there, in fact at one point having marines help in ending that
violence. We believe now that we have a great deal at stake
also in the success of the new Liberian Government.
So I strongly agree with you, Senator, it is a very serious
matter.
Senator Leahy. In that regard, considering what it cost
when we did intervene, let us be willing to spend a fraction of
that money now to help the new president succeed. Sometimes
success is a lot less expensive than trying to clean up the
mess afterwards, as you know.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
The State Department has a program called the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative that was enacted in the
Intelligence Reform Act. This was one of those ideas that kind
of zips through without a great deal of debate. Now the
Department of State and Homeland Security have to implement it.
We are talking about how to control the Canadian border and the
Mexican border. It is almost treating them as though they are
both the same thing. They are not.
Canada is our largest trading partner. We have got a huge
trade surplus with them, which we do not have with many
countries. The State Department has a prototype of the card but
there is no agreement on what format the card will be. Congress
has authorized you to begin hiring staff to meet demand.
Homeland Security still cannot figure out what technology it
wants to use nor identify what kind of border crossing cards.
The new Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Michael
Wilson, strongly opposes the proposed card. I think we are on
our way to a real train wreck here. I live an hour's drive from
the Canadian border. I see the travel back and forth. I see
families that go across. There is a tremendous amount of
commerce with the border States.
Your Department has devoted a lot of time to meet the
deadline. Are you just going to implement a law and then tell
Canada to catch up? Or are you working with Canada? You have a
lot of people in Canada who think that they are under attack.
Secretary Rice. Well, Senator, we are working with both
Canada and Mexico on this issue. There is a law that requires a
standard document for passage on the two borders and we
recognize that these borders are borders on which there is a
great deal of commerce, a great number, a lot of people. I can
tell you that the first thought was that we would require
passports and----
Senator Leahy. I am sorry? I did not get that.
Secretary Rice. I said the first thought when this law came
out was that we would require passports.
Senator Leahy. Which would be crazy.
Secretary Rice. I was going to say that the first objection
to that came from the former Governor of Texas, the President,
who said that that would of course not work on borders where
people move so easily. So we went--he asked us to go back to
the drawing board. We did, and Mike Chertoff and I have worked
to come up with an inexpensive but standard card that could be
used for passage on those borders.
We are working with both Canada and Mexico. We have gotten
favorable response to the initiative that Mike Chertoff and I
have taken, and we will try to make it as----
Senator Leahy. Favorable in Canada?
Secretary Rice. Favorable from--my Canadian counterpart at
the time--of course there is a new government in Canada, but my
Canadian counterpart at the time and Mexican counterpart
understand that we have the law and they want to help us
implement it in a way that is as helpful as possible.
Senator Leahy. You said it is in the law. Has the
administration considered delaying this for a while or perhaps
look at it again? If a family of four, for example, from Canada
is going to have to spend about $250 to come down and visit the
United States, they are not going to come down to the United
States to spend money.
Secretary Rice. Well, it is our hope that, Senator, we can
have an answer that is in fact inexpensive and that is perhaps
a one-time issuance, where people can go back and forth who go
back and forth often. I do think that we need to recognize that
the law was put there because we did have in fact very porous
borders on both sides prior to September 11 and there were a
number of problems on both borders, even on the Canadian
border, prior to September 11.
Senator Leahy. There is one store in Vermont with a line
painted down the middle because, since they changed the border,
half of it is in Canada, half in the United States. Are we
going to say, Joe, can you get me that box of Rice Krispies
over there? I am sorry, I will toss it to you because I do not
have a passport. I mean, it is going to get that ridiculous.
Secretary Rice. Well, we will try to make it as simple as
possible for the people, Senator.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome. I too have had the recent
experience of going to Southeast Asia and I can report that it
is fun to go to a country where they like Americans. I was with
Senator Durbin in France. We did not quite have that sense
while we were there. It is fun to go to countries that not only
like Americans, but want to become like Americans themselves,
want to participate in the international economy, and want very
much to trade with us.
I congratulate you on the diplomatic efforts of the people
we met there. The people you have on the ground there are some
of our very finest. We do not often give them the sort of
public accolades that they deserve. But the various Ambassadors
and other State Department personnel that we met through this
trip--we were in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. Then
we made a fueling stop in Kyrgistan, which turned into an
evening when they were not able to fix the airplane. So we saw
more of Kyrgistan than we had anticipated, but that was
interesting too.
On a more parochial note, there are several matters from
the fiscal 2006 appropriations bill in which my office has an
interest. I will not raise them specifically here, but I would
like to send you some paper on both of these and would
appreciate whatever help you can give us in nudging these
things forward a little. They have gotten lost in the pattern.
MICROENTERPRISE
You are aware, I am sure, of my continuing support of
microenterprise activities. This is something that I pushed
since I have been a Senator and particularly since I have been
a member of this committee. Can you focus on that for us just a
minute as to what is included in the 2007 budget and what you
see for that kind of activity?
Secretary Rice. Yes, absolutely, Senator. I can try to
break out the numbers for you. I will send you the numbers, but
let me just say that we have had a very strong emphasis on
microenterprise in a number of places around the world. In
Africa in particular, we have had a strong microfinancing,
microenterprise approach.
I would note that I have visited personally several places
that are, for instance, women-owned businesses, where just a
very small loan allows essentially a cooperative of women to
get together and make goods that they can sell on the market.
We have been very supportive of microenterprise.
I also visited in Mexico very recently--it was actually
when I was first Secretary, I think in my first couple of
weeks, a trip to Mexico--a place that was not doing
microlending, but actually a kind of small credit union that
was helping communities to do microlending. So we feel very
strongly that, particularly for the empowerment of women,
microenterprise tends to be a very important tool that we can
use.
We used it, as you know, as well in Eastern Europe. So we
have used it effectively all over. The United States has a good
deal of this kind of activity, but we have tried to encourage
it, not just in the United States but also in the international
development banks, to have a focus on microlending, because it
really does do wonders and it does so for a very small amount
of money.
But I will get for you a breakdown of the complete picture
on how much is in this current budget.
Senator Bennett. I would appreciate that. My experience has
been that there are at least some elements in the State
Department that are less than enthusiastic about this. I
understand the nature. Bureaucrats do not like money they do
not control. I have not run into that during your
administration. That comes out of previous efforts on this
issue. As I say, I have been interested in it for the last
dozen years.
So I would appreciate it if you and your leadership would
continue to focus on this. Like you, I have a piece of
embroidery in my office purchased from a woman in Morocco, who
had I believe a $50 loan that allowed her to buy the cloth and
the thread necessary to produce this. She was working on one
when I was in Morocco and I said: Can I buy that from you? She
said: No, this one is already sold. So she did another one for
me and sent it to me, and I keep it as a memento of how
important that program is.
UNITED NATIONS
Let us talk about the United Nations. The United Nations
has had some rough times. The Oil for Food scandal I do not
think has played itself out yet, although we may have most of
the problem out as a result of the Volcker report. Secretary
Bolton--Ambassador Bolton has been very forceful in insisting
on some changes and reforms in the United Nations and at least
on the surface U.N. officials have expressed support for these
fundamental changes.
Can you describe to us where you think we are on that and
whether or not that is going to impact future budgets?
Secretary Rice. Absolutely, Senator. We have been very
strong advocates of U.N. reform, and of course there has been
complete bipartisan support for pushing that agenda and coming
even out of the commission that was headed by Senator Mitchell
and Newt Gingrich. It was a very good road map in a sense for a
lot that had to go on in the United Nations.
We have had some progress. There are small things, like for
instance there is now an ethics office, which one would have
thought would have been useful some time ago, but we did
finally get that. There is a peace-building commission, which
should help with the process of creating peacekeeping forces
and the infrastructure of stability support for countries that
are going through post-stability operations. We think that is a
very--post-conflict operations. We think that is a very useful
new element.
As you know, the Human Rights Council, which will replace
the Human Rights Commission, we supported very strongly that
there should be a replacement for the Human Rights Commission.
We did not think that the Human Rights Council quite lived up
to what it needed to be. So----
Senator Bennett. You mean the commission?
Secretary Rice. After the commission--when the Human Rights
Council was put forward, the new Human Rights Council----
Senator Bennett. I see, okay.
Secretary Rice [continuing]. We still thought there were
considerable problems with it. So we did not vote for it. It
did go through and we have agreed that we will do everything
that we can to make it work because we think it is important to
have a Human Rights Council.
The problem with the Human Rights Commission was at the
time that Sudan was being accused of genocide it was actually
sitting on the Human Rights Commission. It makes a joke of the
notion of a Human Rights Commission. So we are hopeful that the
new Human Rights Council will be better, although we are
concerned about some of the aspects of it.
On management reform, which to us is really the key, that
is improving the secretariat and the way that it functions,
improving and being able to streamline personnel decisions,
being able to create efficiencies in management, and perhaps
most importantly, oversight of things like peacekeeping
missions, some of which have had some very bad things happen
within them, or something like the Oil for Food program.
The secretariat needs to be reformed and there needs to be
management reform. We have been the leaders on that. We have
been very clear we agreed to a 6-month budget this time because
we were not going to agree to an annual budget until these
management reform issues are addressed.
So we are working cooperatively, but we have also made very
clear that we have to be able to--I have to be able to come to
you and say that the American taxpayer dollar is being spent
well in the United Nations and that the current structures do
not allow us to have the kind of oversight and transparency and
accountability that we need. So we will continue to press this
reform agenda very hard.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
I just close with a comment I just received in a
conversation this morning. Senator McConnell talked about his
conversation with the GI from Kentucky. A very prominent figure
who has experience in this whole area said to me that the new
parlor game in Europe, he said, after everybody has had a nice
dinner and a few drinks and the uninteresting guests have gone
home, they sit around and they play this parlor game, which is:
What if, and then you fill in the blank with another country's
name, had the power and influence that America has? And they
speculate, what would the world be like if, France, Germany,
China, India, fill in the blank, had the kind of influence and
control that America has.
He said in every case, regardless of how they play it, the
result is a disaster compared to the kind of world we have. You
have an enormous responsibility, Madam Secretary, for the
entire world, not just this country, and we appreciate the
competent way in which you handle it.
Secretary Rice. Thank you, sir.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. Madam Secretary,
last year an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Senate
voted 79 to 19 that 2006, this year, would be a year of
transition in Iraq; change would take place. The Iraqis would
assume more responsibility for their own future. The United
States would start looking to the day when we could leave
successfully. We would hold the Iraqis responsible for good
governance and protecting their own country and the President
would report to us on a timely basis the progress that we are
making.
Many of our colleagues have just returned from Iraq. They
spent the last year there--pardon me, last week there. Some of
them came back to our luncheons today with reports that were
not encouraging. Though it may be true that the number of
American soldiers being killed on a daily basis has gone down,
the fact is that the killing in Iraq has increased. Some
suggest we are in the midst of a civil war, of sectarian
violence. This week, of course, American troops were used in an
attack with Iraqi soldiers on a Shiite mosque, or at least near
a Shiite mosque, involving the Sadr militia.
IRAQ
The question I would like to ask you is this. For the last
several weeks, the President has been counseling patience to
the American people. In fact, last week when the President was
asked when the day would come when there would be no U.S.
forces in Iraq, he said: ``That will be decided by future
Presidents,'' suggesting at least 2.5 more years that we would
see American ground troops in Iraq.
Is that not exactly the wrong message to be sending the
Iraqis? Should they not at this point in time believe that we
plan on leaving, that they have the responsibility to protect
their own country? Is not the real test of the success of your
policy when Iraqi soldiers will stand and fight and be willing
to die for their own country so that American soldiers can come
home, a day that we have not seen yet?
Secretary Rice. Thank you, Senator. I do not think there is
any doubt that it is the responsibility of the Iraqis to secure
their democracy. The United States and the coalition of willing
partners liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. But I think the
Iraqis themselves understand that the creation of a functioning
democracy is in fact their responsibility.
What we are there to do is to help them to get the tools
and the capability to defend that democracy. They have a very
difficult task because it is a country in which, first of all,
in which that has never been done, in which the politics was
always by either repression or violence. They are now trying,
on the basis of the three elections and the constitution, to
form structures of government and habits of governance that are
indeed democratic and therefore require compromise and
politics.
They need our support in doing that. That is the kind of
support that Ambassador Zal Khalilzad is giving them. It is the
kind of support we intend to give them as we help them to make
their ministries more capable, so that their ministries can
deliver. It is the kind of support that we intend to give them
in helping their provisional leaders to become more capable.
Senator Durbin. But I guess the point I am asking you is,
should they not sense the feeling that I feel as I travel
around the State of Illinois? The people I represent are
impatient--2,316 of our best and bravest have died. 15,000,
16,000, 17,000 wounded. Should not the Iraqis know that we are
not going to stay there forever, sit by patiently while they
work out their governmental difficulties? Should they not know
that we want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible?
When the President says be patient, is that not the wrong
message?
Secretary Rice. Senator, I think they do know that we want
to come home. Indeed, I think the great majority of them want
us to come home because they want their own responsibility. We
are training their security forces. Their security forces are
standing up and dying in the line of fire in Iraq. We mourn
every one of our own deaths, but Iraqis are dying. They are
taking that responsibility.
Many brave Iraqis are dying because they are willing
against terrorists to speak out for the need for democracy and
for justice, judges for instance who have been killed because
they were willing to try people. So the Iraqis are taking
responsibility. They just do not have at this point the tools
to fully secure themselves.
We have helped other----
Senator Durbin. For 2 years--go ahead.
Secretary Rice. I am sorry. We have helped other states to
have those tools. I think that the patience that the President
was referring to is the need to be willing to give them the
tools or to help them develop the tools, not the patience to
continue to shoulder the responsibility ourselves. I think they
are doing it.
I would just suggest on the government formation that we
are pressing them that this needs to get done and get done very
soon. But they are doing something very difficult. Sunnis were
not a part of the political process until very recently and
they have now been brought into the political process. They are
really dealing with some of the hard issues that they must deal
with in order for this government to function.
Senator Durbin. I would just say, Madam Secretary, we have
given them over the past 3 years many things, including a lot
of American lives and American soldiers risking their lives,
billions of dollars. Support that we have never given to other
countries in the past we have given to them. We have stood by
them, deposed their dictator, tried to bring them to the point
of self-governance.
My suggestion is if this is descending into a civil war, as
Mr. Allawi suggested, if we have opened Pandora's box, as our
own ambassador, Mr. Khalilzad, has said with the sectarian
violence there, that there ought to be a clear message from our
Government to their government that now is the time for them to
accept responsibility. For 2 years we have been told, we are
training soldiers, we are training policemen, things are going
along just fine. Yet the American soldiers are still there. The
National Guard units are still being rotated into Iraq. The
families back home are going through the stress of separation.
That still continues to this day.
I just do not sense the feeling in the administration, as
we voted in the Senate, that this is truly going to be a year
of transition, that we will see American troops coming home.
That is why the President's message I think does not make it
clear and may send a mixed signal at a time when we should be
extremely clear.
Secretary Rice. Senator, the President's message I think,
first of all, was to a very particular question. But he has
been very clear that we will come home when the Iraqis are
capable of performing these functions themselves. I think
General Casey has testified that we--it will all be conditions-
based, but we anticipate that there can be reductions of
American forces.
But I think we have to remember why we are in Iraq. I know
that there were disagreements about whether or not it was time
to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. But by dealing with
the threat of Saddam Hussein, by taking out the most murderous
and aggressive dictator in the region, we have helped to create
conditions in the Middle East in which it can be a different
kind of Middle East, a Middle East in which you are not going
to have the kind of ideologies of hatred that led people to fly
airplanes into buildings on September 11.
That is a long-term project, is to leave a Middle East to
our children and to our grandchildren that is not going to be
poisonous in the way that the Middle East is currently
poisonous. So I think when we think about what support we are
giving to the Iraqis or the Afghans or to the broader Middle
East initiative, that we think about it not just in terms of
how it will make their lives better, but in terms of how it
will make our lives more secure. That is why we are in Iraq.
Senator Durbin. You mentioned the coalition that came
together for the invasion, the coalition of the willing, as the
administration called it, primarily the British and others who
were supporting us, but the British larger in number than
others. That coalition has dwindled, has it not, over the
years? It has really become more and more an American force,
with few allies actually on the ground risking their lives.
What does that tell us about the world view of what we are
trying to achieve in Iraq?
Secretary Rice. Well, in fact the coalition with a few
exceptions has stayed relatively stable. We have had troops
from as far away as South Korea. The South Koreans just agreed
to re-up on their presence there. Poland just agreed to re-up
on their presence there. Some forces have been taken out, but
the countries have gone to other kinds of missions. For
instance, the Dutch, who removed their forces, are now very
integrally engaged in the training process for Iraqi forces.
So I think you would find that if you went down the list of
coalition members, with a few exceptions, we have lost very few
and we have lost almost none in terms of support for the Iraqi
enterprise, even if their forces are no longer on the ground.
Senator Durbin. I do not question that many nations have
sent something, and we thank each one of them for doing that.
But it clearly is an American undertaking, with the help of
some coalition partners, and it has become more American by the
day as they have reduced their numbers and our troops have had
to stand alone, or, I should say, stand more to themselves and
not with the broader coalition that initially started.
I think that is a troubling development. It suggests that
if the goals you describe, which sound so good as you speak
them, were so clear to the rest of the world, they would be
joining us, and they have not.
Secretary Rice. Senator, I just think--and I can get you
the numbers, but I think with very few exceptions the numbers
of states actually represented on the ground is substantially
as it was when we started. The difference is that we are using
more Iraqi forces. That has allowed us to rely less on some
coalition forces. There are places that are now stable where
coalition forces can actually be removed because those places
are stable.
But yes, the United States bore, really commensurate with
our size and military power, most of the weight of the military
operation. Britain of course was the second largest and there
have been contingents from others. But I think it is important
not just to focus on the numbers. The commitment of all of
these countries to actually send their soldiers into harm's
way--Japan for the first time since World War II to send its
forces from the Asian continent; South Korea, to send its
forces into Iraq; small countries like Estonia and Lithuania
and Latvia to send their forces into Iraq, because they
understand the price of freedom--I think is something we ought
to applaud.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Rice. Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Glad to see you here and congratulations
on a lot of initiatives you have going. You have got a lot of
irons in the fire and I am appreciative of them.
IRAN
I want to talk about, if I could, Iran and Sudan and Chad,
and then finish up on North Korea, just to give you kind of the
sequence of things I would like to talk about. First, I
appreciate your request for the $75 million on Iran and
democracy-building in the supplemental, the bulk of that
request for broadcasting purposes. I wondered if you could
outline for us your current state of thinking of how we address
the issue of Iran, the lead sponsor of terrorism, the lead
state sponsor of terrorism in the world, apparently seeking
nuclear technology for weaponizing purposes. I do not know that
anybody knows that for sure. But I would appreciate your
thinking about how do we go at Iran?
Secretary Rice. Thank you, Senator. I think there is no
doubt that Iran is the single biggest threat from a state that
we face. As you have put it, it is the fact that they are
seeking, we believe, a nuclear weapon, indeed they are
seeking--or at least they are seeking under cover of civil
nuclear power to acquire the technologies that would make them
capable of creating a nuclear weapon. They are the central
banker for terrorism in the Middle East and problems in Iraq,
problems in Lebanon through Hezbollah, problems in the
Palestinian territories through some of the arms that they use
of terrorism, and of course it goes without saying an unelected
few who repress the aspirations of the Iranian people.
So we have built an international coalition--the diplomacy
I think has gone relatively well--to tell the Iranians that
they will be isolated from the international community if they
continue to seek the weapons, the nuclear activities that they
are seeking, that could lead to a weapon.
We need now to broaden that thinking and that coalition,
not just to what Iran is doing on the nuclear side, but what
they are also doing on terrorism. Those are some of the
discussions that I have with these same states, that we cannot
on the one hand talk about the need for a peace agreement in
the Middle East and turn a blind eye to what Iran is doing in
the Palestinian territories. We cannot talk about getting rid
of Syrian influence in Lebanon and having democracy in Lebanon
without thinking about what the Iranians are doing for
Hezbollah.
So we have a number of tools I think at our disposal,
including in sharpening the contradiction between the Iranian
people and a regime that does not represent them through our
democracy activities, through broadcasting, through support for
nongovernmental organizations there, through highlighting the
Iranian human rights record, and if necessary within the U.N.
Security Council going to other measures that, should the
Iranians not turn around on their nuclear effort, going to
other measures that would further isolate the Iranian
Government.
So we have a full program, but I think diagnosing the
problem is the most important, and it is that Iran is a problem
not just on the nuclear side, but also concerning terrorism and
its human rights record at home.
Senator Brownback. Are you getting cooperation from the
Europeans to a fair degree on this? It seems like we are
getting a lot more--I hear of a lot more, but I am not seeing
the actions by the Europeans.
Secretary Rice. We have been very united with the Europeans
on the nuclear issue, completely united. Indeed, we have been
able to bring the Russians along to a degree, but we have had
to work harder on that and on the Chinese. The Europeans also
increasingly note the problems with the Iranian regime. In this
regard, the rise of President Ahmadinejad, who talks in very
clear, shall I say, ways about the ambitions of the Iranian
regime, has made it clearer to allies who thought, I think,
that the Iranian regime was just a normal regime whose
interests could be accommodated, to really worry about the true
nature of the Iranian regime. When you have a president of a
country saying that another country should be wiped off the
map, that is just not right in civilized company in the
diplomatic arena, and I think it has helped crystallize what
kind of regime Iran really is.
SUDAN AND CHAD
Senator Brownback. I want to speed into other topics
quickly. On Sudan and Chad, it looks like the genocide in Sudan
is spreading to Chad and many of the same tools being used. I
am hopeful that we can get NATO involved in this operation. The
United Nations, the African Union has worked some and been
somewhat helpful, but it has not stopped it at all, and it
appears to be starting back up again.
Do we have a decent chance of getting NATO involved in the
Sudan-Chad border area?
Secretary Rice. Well, I think we certainly have a very good
probability of getting NATO involved in support of first the
African Union mission. NATO is there, as you know, providing
some support. But perhaps in a more robust way logistically.
One of the problems is mobility for the African Union forces,
so you can imagine NATO more helpful on some of the mobility
issues so that the monitors can go out to places, which when
there is monitoring the violence is less. It is just that it is
a very, very big area.
We also expect that when there is a U.N. force, which will
be more stable and more capable, that NATO can contribute also
to the effectiveness of that force. The President talked with
NATO Secretary General Yabu Skeffer when he was here last week.
I have also had conversations, Senator, just very recently with
the head of the AU and with the Nigerians, who have great
influence in the AU, because the AU needs help. Sometimes they
send mixed signals about whether they want help because the
government of Sudan sends mixed signals.
We are all for a peace process going forward and we are
working very hard on that peace process. But we also have to be
sure that the violence does not worsen in the meantime. You
rightly note that western Darfur, where the troubles in Chad
threaten to really create a really bad situation, we have got
to deal with that, and we can only deal with that with more
robust security forces.
Senator Brownback. Well, I think we are really going to
have to step it up. I applaud what the President has done on
it, but people are still dying and they are dying now spreading
into Chad. I appreciate what you have done. I appreciate
particularly what the Assistant Secretary has done, being over
there four times. The President is very aware of it. But the
genocide continues and it is spreading now into another
country. I would really implore you to step it up further.
NORTH KOREA
I noted in one of your testimonies recently you were
calling for North Korean refugees to be admitted to the United
States. Thank you. It is in the North Korean Human Rights Act,
to allow that to take place. I talked with Secretary Chertoff
about allowing them into the United States. That has been the
holdup before, has been the Department of Homeland Security. So
I am really hopeful we can.
I think it really would send a strong signal to the North
Koreans that we are serious about this and that the human
rights issues are at the core of the violations of what this
regime has done in North Korea. In 2 weeks we will have a
group, a North Korean rally here on Capitol Hill with a number
of refugees. I hope, if your schedule would allow it, you or
even the President could meet with some of these refugees. They
have incredible stories to tell of what they have experienced
and the difficulty that they have had.
But I do think us going not just at the nuclear questions
on the Six Party Talks, which I think is good and important,
but to expand the debate into the human rights area, where the
North Koreans are amongst the world's worst, if not the world's
worst on human rights violations--and you have got a lot of
people coming out now to talk. They can tell real stories
about, this is what I experienced there. It would be very
useful and an important thing to tell on what this regime is.
Secretary Rice. I agree completely, Senator. We also, as
you know, have a human rights envoy in Jay Lufkowitz, who is
trying to spread the word also around the world. We think one
of the important elements here is to mobilize public opinion
internationally about the human rights situation in North
Korea.
AID TO AFRICA
Senator Brownback. We are working on a bill on African aid,
mirrored after the malaria effort that the President did last
year. When we dug into this topic, we found that about 90
percent of our malaria funding was going to conferences and
consultants, and most of the African leadership was saying: We
know what to do here; we do not have any money to do it with.
So they wanted assistance for bed nets, sprays, drugs, and they
said that will really help. The President redirected the
funding.
What I have noticed in the African aid area the times I
have been there is that we have put millions, billions of
dollars into aid in Africa and there are many countries that
are worse off today than 20 years ago. A lot of the money is
scatter-shot. A lot of the money is spent on conferences and
consultants and in capitals, and the problem is outside of the
capitals and it is not needed for another building in the
capital city.
So I would like to see us--and we are working on this--to
go at this approach, where we get, let us say half of the aid
that goes to Africa goes for things or training Africans to do
things, like doctors or teachers, rather than conferences and
consultants. We will be working further with your office on
that.
Secretary Rice. Well, thank you, Senator. We will be a
willing partner in that, because I think building capabilities,
not building dependency, is part of this. I think also making
sure that we are getting out and really touching people's lives
is very important. Randy Tobias will I think be a focal point
for that should he be confirmed.
Senator Brownback. I have already met with him. Thanks.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I just returned from meeting with a lot of
your people in Seoul, Korea, and in Delhi, in New Delhi. Some
of the things just seem to make sense to me, that we ought to
be using some of that malaria money for DDT spraying. That
would save a whole lot of lives with minimal risk.
But in North Korea the anecdotes we had, I tell my
colleague from Kansas, what they told us: They rescued a full-
grown man from North Korea who had fallen in the river. They
outfitted him--it was easy to outfit him because the full-grown
man was 5 foot 1 and weighed 120, because of the near-
starvation diets they live on.
They have got a great project, an industrial park, just
over the line in North Korea. The stories we hear is that the
North Korean Government would be paid $50 a month for the
labor, the laborers, and the laborers may get a whopping $5 or
$6 a month out of it. That obviously, I concur with Senator
Brownback on the extreme problems there.
I want to commend your operations in India. I had a
thorough briefing with your USAID Director there and they seem
to be doing the proactive things, bringing in all the different
resources that are needed to help India with its tremendously
overwhelming poverty issue in so many of the rural areas.
One of the things I particularly commend them is their
participation in the President's agricultural knowledge
initiative in India. The USAID office there is going to U.S.
land grant colleges, which makes a whole lot of sense to me,
and they will bring in the ag econ experts, they will bring in
farm credit resources, and they also need to bring in food
processors.
AFGHANISTAN
Now, India is going to have to wake up and lift some of the
regulatory redtape burdens on businesses. I told them that we
are more than willing to help if you have a system under which
U.S. businesses can come in and provide assistance. But I
recall the question I have asked you previously, because when I
returned from Afghanistan I learned from the president of
Afghanistan and people over there, including our uniformed
officers, that they are not getting the agricultural assistance
that they need. It was apparently a contractor had not been
able to provide those resources.
It was my recommendation that USAID reprogram a small
amount of that money and work in concert with our very able and
dedicated land grant colleges to bring extension service
personnel over. I wonder if there are funds that could be
reprogrammed, because it is critical in the effort to stabilize
Afghanistan when we--when, let us say, not ``we,'' but when the
poppy fields are destroyed, the poppy farmers have an
alternative source of income and some way of getting back on
their feet, whether it is pomegranates or other crops that they
raise.
Is there some way that money could be reprogrammed? Or what
can you do on that?
Secretary Rice. Well, we do have a substantial alternative
livelihood program going in Afghanistan to try to support the
anti-drug efforts there. I think, Senator, at one point we
talked about needing to have a strong agricultural program in
Iraq as well. Of course, we, as you say, have this new
initiative in India.
As I understood your intervention the last time, you were
asking, though, more about the structure of what we are doing
than just are we spending money; in other words, the use
perhaps of extension programs and of the land grant colleges.
We will take a look at whether our programs are able to fully
deliver. I am actually a big fan of the land grant colleges. I
know the good work that they have done in agricultural
extension. They are very popular because of what they have done
in India during the Green Revolution and going forward.
Again, it is something that we will certainly want to look
at with our Afghan people. I do not know about the
reprogramming of moneys that have already been dedicated to
what is a substantial program on alternative livelihoods, but
it is something we would certainly want to look at in the
structuring of our programs. So I think it is a very useful
thought.
Senator Bond. I have done a lot of inquiry about the
effectiveness of our agricultural efforts in Afghanistan, both
from knowledgeable experts in agriculture from the United
States, our leaders in that part of the world, and from the
Afghan leadership itself. The simple answer is it is not
working, and I can give you more details if we have a face to
face discussion. But it is not working and we are just trying
to make sure it works, because I think everybody realizes if we
cannot wean the Afghan agriculture off of its poppy production
then we are going to have continuing problems.
It should not be that hard once you give the farmers on the
ground an alternative crop. They are not getting that much from
poppies. It is the warlords who are making the money off of it.
But indigenous agriculture, if brought back, ought to be able
to give them the livelihood, and we need to deal other ways
with the warlords to get them out of the production business.
Well, let me leave it at that.
Secretary Rice. I would like to--we should talk about that,
Senator. I would like to hear what you have heard.
Senator Bond. If you would give me a call----
Secretary Rice. I will do that, absolutely.
Senator Bond. I would be happy to discuss that with you.
Secretary Rice. Thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and we
appreciate, Madam Secretary, all you are doing. I would say
that as I have traveled around the world your efforts and the
President's efforts have really inspired people in many
countries. India is one of the most enthusiastic countries.
They talked about the nuclear initiative that the President
proposed. That was new to me, but I have done my due diligence
and I agree with the President and will strongly support the
President in his proposal that can provide the energy that
India needs to begin to bring its population up, particularly
in the rural areas. Thank you.
Secretary Rice. Thank you, Senator.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Bond.
BURMA
Thanks to the leadership of the President and you, the
world's list of pariah regimes is slightly smaller than it was
when you came to office. We can safely remove from the list
Iraq and Libya. Regretfully still on the list is a country that
I have a great deal of interest in, that you and I have
discussed on numerous occasions, and that is Burma.
Nothing ever seems to change in Burma since the democratic
election in 1990, which was swept by Aung San Suu Kyi's party,
the National League for Democracy. Shortly after the election
Suu Kyi was put under house arrest and, except for a brief
period a couple of years ago, she has remained there for 16
years.
I am told the Malaysian foreign minister went to the
country recently. I do not know whether he requested to see Suu
Kyi or not, but he did not. In fact, he did not even see Than
Shwe, the top general.
What in your view could the United Nations do to begin to
squeeze this regime? What are you and the administration doing
to try to move the United Nations in that direction? If we are
having problems increasing pressure against the regime, who is
preventing progress toward shedding the kind of light on that
regime that it well deserves and is the only way that gives us
a chance to change it down the road?
Secretary Rice. Thank you, Senator. Well, absolutely Burma
is one of the very worst regimes in the world. We have
succeeded over the last year in getting a discussion of Burma
at the Security Council. We finally were able to remove the
blocks to doing that and I think that did raise the profile for
a lot of countries that perhaps did not focus as intensely on
what was going on in Burma. For instance, a number of my
European colleagues told me that after that discussion they
went back and looked at what they had been doing on the Burma
human rights dialogue and that they are now increasing their
activities concerning this. So that is very helpful.
But the truth of the matter is we need more help in the
region. We need from the Southeast Asians and from ASEAN, which
has from time to time told us that they would engage in quiet--
--
Senator McConnell. Other than canceling the ASEAN meeting
which was originally going to be in Rangoon this year, have any
of the ASEAN countries developed greater interest in this
problem?
Secretary Rice. ASEAN actually issued a reasonable
statement on Burma and asked that the Malay chair go to Burma.
I think that the thought was that they would see Aung San Suu
Kyi. I guess that that did not happen, but they continue to
press to see Aung San Suu Kyi. That is a good thing.
We have pressed very hard--the Indonesian president went to
Burma and I know that he did talk very directly with the
Burmese about their isolation. We need actually China to be
more active on this front. We have our human rights problems--
--
Senator McConnell. India as well, I suppose.
Secretary Rice. India as well.
We have our human rights problems with China, but it is not
like Burma, and we would hope that they would raise some of
these issues. India is a democracy and of course should raise
this, and the president of India assured us that he would. So
we are working the diplomacy. We have gotten a couple of good
statements. I think we have gotten renewed interest from the
Europeans.
Of course, we are sanctioning everything concerning Burma.
We do not allow travel and the like. So we have taken those
steps.
Senator McConnell. I was the author of that bill.
Secretary Rice. You were, and we use it to its fullest.
Senator McConnell. We both know it is not likely to do much
good unless we get more cooperation.
Secretary Rice. That is what we are trying to do.
I do think that we have, by raising the profile, we have
brought other countries on board. Frankly, I think the ASEAN is
somewhat embarrassed by Burma and is therefore somewhat more
active.
I found myself in an unusual position up at the United
Nations, Senator, during the U.N. General Assembly. We had an
ASEAN meeting and I suddenly realized the Burmese foreign
minister was in attendance. He launched into a discussion about
how the biggest problem that was faced was drugs. I was glad
actually at that point that I did have a chance to confront him
directly about Burma's human rights record. So I think we have
to continue to do that and we have to continue to press
countries in the region to take an active and more public line
concerning Burma. Places outside of the region, places like
Europe, can make a difference.
Senator McConnell. When you meet with the Chinese and the
Indians, is Burma your agenda?
Secretary Rice. Absolutely, every time. Not just my agenda.
It is on the agenda for the President. He raises it as well.
BELARUS
Senator McConnell. One other country I would like to
discuss. I had a chance on a trip last summer to meet with some
of the potential opposition from Belarus. What do you make of
the status of the opposition in the wake of the unfair election
that occurred recently, and do you have any hope that that
regime might change from within.
Secretary Rice. Well, I am glad that there was opposition
this time, Senator. I think that is an achievement in a place
that is the last really bad dictatorship in Europe. The
Lukashenka Government is beyond the pale in comparison to
anybody else in Europe.
The fact that there was actually a single opposition
candidate was in large part thanks to efforts that we and the
Europeans and the Lithuanians had made to encourage the
opposition to find a single focal point around which to rally,
and they did that. I was with them in Lithuania and at that
time they were very fractured. They came together. They were
able to put forward a single candidate. He actually did get
double digits in the vote, which is extraordinary given how
unfair this election was.
Senator McConnell. I assume there were no international
observers?
Secretary Rice. There were. The OSCE was there and they
declared it not free and fair. But there were observers there.
That is a step forward. I am told that, despite the unfair
playing field, there was a lot of press coverage, even some
underground press about what is going on there. I noted today a
little news item that Lukashenka has for some reason decided to
put off his inaugural for a few days. We do not know the reason
for that, but I do know that the opposition is planning to put
up posters that continue to challenge him. People stood in the
streets. They were arrested. They are still fomenting against
the regime.
So it is the nascent, incipient stages of opposition in
Belarus. But it is far more lively than, frankly, I would have
guessed a year ago when I met with what was a very fractured
opposition in Belarus. I do not believe that Lukashenka under
these circumstances and under greater isolation--you know that
the Europeans have put forward some further sanctions. We also
will put forth some further sanctions.
I think he has been surprised at the opposition and the
fact that there is opposition to him. I think it is a good
thing.
REFORMS IN UKRAINE
Senator McConnell. Finally, I had a chance also to be in
Ukraine last summer, and we have all followed with interest the
elections there. Ukraine seems to be shifting back in the
direction which it shifted away from during the Orange
Revolution. I am curious as to what your observations are about
that election and what it portends for the reform movement in
Ukraine, a country desperately in need of genuine reform.
Secretary Rice. Well, Yanakovic, the deposed leader the
last time around as a result of the Orange Revolution, did win
the single largest vote count, but it was not large enough to
form a government by any means. In fact, Team Orange, the two
separate parts of it--part of the problem was that there was a
split in the people who led the Orange Revolution. But if you
put those numbers together they actually have greater vote
count than Yanakovic did. Tomoshenko and Yoshenko together have
a greater vote count than Yanakovic did.
So I think it is probably fair to say that the expectations
of what the Orange Revolution could deliver probably were out
of line with what they were actually able to deliver. They did
have some splits, personality differences, policy differences,
that weakened their united effort. But we will see now what
happens in government formation.
I am encouraged by the fact that you still had, despite all
the problems that the reform movement has had, that you still
had more votes on that reform side than you had on the side of
the Party of Regions, which is the Yanakovic----
Senator McConnell. Under their system, what does that mean,
that the reformers will have a majority in the parliament?
Secretary Rice. Well, it means that now you have separate
blocs and they will now have to form a government. So some
combination of blocs have to come together in order to appoint
the prime minister.
I should say that of course we will work with whatever
government comes into being there. It is our hope that whatever
government comes into being, whether that is the bloc that
includes Team Orange or if it is the Yanakovic bloc, is going
to be respectful of what the Ukrainian people have clearly
spoken for, which is reform, independence of Ukrainian policy,
and a desire to have good relations with the West.
So we will see how this turns out, but that is what is now
happening. There were several blocs of parties, several parties
that got votes. They now have to form a government and no
single party has enough to form a government on its own.
Senator McConnell. Well, Madam Secretary, thank you so much
for being here today.
ADDITIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE QUESTIONS
There will be some additional questions which will be
submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing.]
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf addressed a Joint Session
of Congress 2 weeks ago, and met with Congressional leaders and the
President to discuss her reform agenda for Liberia. Africa's first
woman president made a very positive impression on many of us in
Washington.
After decades of civil war, Liberia has no shortage of problems.
Given America's historical ties to that country and support for
President Johnson Sirleaf's reform efforts, the House included an
additional $50 million for assistance for Liberia in its supplemental
bill.
Madam Secretary, do you support additional funding for Liberia--a
democracy dividend, if you will--and is it in America's security
interests to improve governance in Liberia?
Answer. Thanks to strong Congressional support in fiscal years
2004, 2005, and 2006, the United States has been able to play the
leading role in helping Liberia begin recovery from 14 years of civil
war, generations of corruption, and a near-total absence of government
services and of respect for human rights and the rule of law. This
funding is key to helping the new government of Liberia establish the
conditions for consolidating the peace and building prosperity.
Our fiscal year 2006 programs, in addition to the Administration's
fiscal year 2007 request of $89.945 million for Liberia, will
accomplish our goals of reconstructing schools, hospitals, and
government buildings; expanding primary health care and post-war
rehabilitation and reconstruction activities; providing civilian police
to the U.N. mission to monitor, mentor and reform the Liberian National
Police; supporting security sector reform to create a professional,
capable and fiscally sustainable Liberian military; supporting the
return and reintegration of Liberian refugees and internally displaced
persons; and many other activities.
We plan to sustain the long-term, multi-year commitment necessary
to support Liberia's reconstruction efforts by maintaining programs and
funding levels to meet Liberia's needs. We have ongoing discussions
with the Liberian government about the country's needs and will
continue to consider those needs in conjunction with our policies and
budget priorities. We will, of course, work closely with Congress in
formulating and pursuing these priorities.
As for the impact on America's security interests of improving
governance in Liberia, the connection is clear. Liberia's civil
conflict was driven in large measure by a history of poor governance,
exclusion, and corrupt misrule. Improved governance will enhance
Liberia's stability and prevent conflict; help address the needs and
aspirations of Liberians; and set the foundation for investment and
economic growth. Accomplishing these goals will clearly advance
America's security interests in West Africa.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Reports of executions in Iraq continue to grow. The New
York Times this weekend, described a pet shop owner, a Sunni, seized by
gunmen. His body was found the next morning at a sewage treatment
plant. He had been hog-tied, his bones broken, his face and legs
drilled with power tools, and finally he had been shot. In the last
month, hundreds of men have been kidnapped, tortured, and executed in
Baghdad. The city's homicide rate has tripled from 11 to 33 a day,
according to military reports. The period from March 7 to March 21 was
typically brutal: at least 191 bodies, many mutilated, surfaced in
garbage bins, drainage ditches, minibuses, and pickup trucks.
Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said, ``If this is not civil
war, then God knows what civil war is.'' Prime Minister Jaafari has
blamed ``foreign terrorists'' for these attacks on Sunni civilians
rather than Shiite-militias; but he depends on the political support of
those militias.''
Where does the Administration draw the line between sectarian
violence and civil war? Whichever term you prefer, how does this
growing violence, these waves of executions, affect U.S. policy in
Iraq?
Answer. The increase in sectarian violence is a major concern to us
and is one of the prime issues raised at every level with Iraqi
governmental and political leaders. Nonetheless, we do not see this as
a civil war. In Iraq, only terrorist leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and
his Al-Qaida in Iraq organization is calling for civil war.
Given the large turnout in Iraq's elections and the broader support
expressed for the efforts to form a government inclusive of all Iraqis,
we believe that Iraq can and will overcome its ethnic and religious
differences. Indeed, Iraq's political leaders are committed to a
government of national unity. Progress on the formation of that
government of national unity continues despite an upsurge sectarian
violence that began with the February 22, 2006 bombing of the Golden
Mosque in Samarra. Those who attacked the Golden Mosque sought to
exploit divisions among the Iraqi public and the political leadership
to foment and prolong sectarian strife. Iraqi government and religious
leaders alike, in a demonstration of national unity, condemned the
attacks, called for an end to sectarian unrest, and for security forces
free from sectarian and militia loyalties.
The United States and international community joined Iraqis in
denouncing the attacks and underscored the importance of national unity
and defying the terrorists and extremists who seek to provoke such
conflict. The USG has been in touch with Iraqi leaders to urge calm and
will do our utmost to support the Iraqi government's efforts to achieve
it.
The violence in Iraq only underscores the importance of our mission
there. Helping the Iraqi Security Forces develop their capacity to
secure their own country while carrying out a campaign to defeat
terrorists and neutralize the insurgency is and continues to be our
objective.
Question. Russia has become an increasingly difficult partner for
the Administration, in Europe, in the countries Russia thinks of as its
``near abroad,'' and beyond. The Administration has worked to
strengthen ties with Russia, but the effort seems to have turned sour.
What went wrong? The Russian government has tightened its grip on non-
governmental organizations at home. It has a mixed record in dealing
with Iraq and Iran, and Russian authorities may have passed sensitive
military information to Saddam's government before the start of
military operations in Iraq. These are matters of serious concern, as
are Russia's outreach to Hamas, and its support for the undemocratic
regime in Belarus. How does the Administration intend to face these
challenges? What trajectory do you see the U.S.-Russian relationship
following today? Does Russia still merit a place at the table with the
members of the G8?
Answer. The United States is deeply concerned and candid about
problems in United States-Russia relations and United States-Russia
differences. These include the direction of Russia's internal
evolution, including democracy, and many aspects of Russia's relations
with its neighbors.
In discussions with Russian officials, we have been frank about our
differences and concerns. For example, we made clear our concerns about
the new NGO law, through both diplomatic channels and public fora as
the bill was considered by the Russian Duma. We believe that our
attention moved the Government of Russia to modify that bill. Now that
the bill is law, we remain concerned about its potential impact on
Russian civil society. We have pushed for fair, transparent, and
consistent implementation of the law and intend to monitor the law's
implementation closely. We will continue to press for robust democratic
development in Russia more broadly.
On Belarus, the United States has acted in concert with our
European partners to press for democratic elections and to protest the
fraudulent ballot that took place March 19 and the subsequent crackdown
against opposition leaders and other Belarusian citizens. We have also
expressed our disappointment with Russia's defense of these fraudulent
elections and its condemnation of the performance of the OSCE
Monitoring Mission, which documented that the elections were not free
or fair. We have urged Russia to take a more constructive approach by
pressing Belarus towards democratic reform and urging it to fulfill its
OSCE commitments.
President Bush has emphasized the importance of historical
perspective: history is on the side of freedom. Speaking at Freedom
House March 29, he reminded us that the 11advance of freedom is the
story of our time,'' and that ``it's an interest of a country like
Russia to understand and welcome democracy.'' That is why President
Bush is committed to maintaining a frank discussion with Russia, aware
that this path may not yield immediate solutions, but remains far more
promising than seeking to isolate Russia.
In this context, we continue to believe that attending the G8
Summit, a forum in which we advance our interests on major global
issues such as energy security, is the right course of action. As
President Bush has said: ``I think that it would be a mistake for the
United States not to go to the G8. . . . I need to be in a position
where I can sit down with [President Putin] and be very frank about our
concerns.''
A balanced and honest view of United States-Russian relations must
recognize areas of progress, too. It is in our interest to continue to
seek cooperation with Russia, including on counter-terrorism,
nonproliferation, Iran and the Middle East.
On Iran, Russia has joined the international community in seeking
an end to Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, most recently by joining
other members of the U.N. Security Council in issuing a March 31
Presidential Statement that expresses support for the IAEA's call on
Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities and return to
negotiations.
On Iraq and the possible compromise of military information, I have
made clear to Russian officials, both publicly and privately, that the
United States takes these reports seriously, we hope Russia does also,
and will respond to our inquiries with a serious answer.
Question. A growing body of literature points to the importance of
nutrition in preventing progression from HIV to AIDS and in supporting
the care of AIDS patients. Seven out of 15 focus countries under the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) are food insecure.
PEPFAR has begun implementing 6-month bridge programs for individuals
receiving ARVs, but their nutritional needs will likely persist or
reappear after this 6-month period. What is the U.S. strategy to
integrate food security and nutrition programs with our HIV/AIDS
treatment programs? How are we coordinating with the World Food
Programme, USAID's Food for Peace, and private voluntary organizations
to integrate food and ARV programs?
Answer. The areas that are affected by HIV have long been plagued
by systemic and chronic food insecurity. Food insecurity and consequent
nutritional problems do play a role in every aspect of the Emergency
Plan. However, factors contributing to the resolution of food
insecurity are extremely complex, and largely beyond the scope of the
Emergency Plan. Other organizations and international partners have a
strong comparative advantage in the area of food assistance,
agriculture and food security. Therefore, a key precept of
interventions supported by the Emergency Plan is to remain focused on
HIV/AIDS and the factors that may increase food/nutrition needs for
people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and thus to provide support for
food only in limited circumstances, while leveraging other resources
when possible.
The Emergency Plan is committed to evidence-based best practices in
providing food and nutritional support for PLWHA receiving care and
treatment. Recognizing that this is too large and complex a problem for
any one agency to handle on its own, the Office of the Global AIDS
Coordinator (S/GAC) will partner with other U.S. Government agencies,
namely USAID, USDA, HHS, and Peace Corps, as well as relevant U.N.
agencies and the private sector, to leverage resources to carry out
targeted, therapeutic and supplementary feeding, micronutrient
supplementation, and food security and livelihood support.
Interventions to address the food and nutrition needs of PLWHA work
at multiple levels and involve a variety of partners. The Emergency
Plan strategy considers specific objectives, such as: to improve
quantity and quality of diet among PLHWA and Orphans and Vulnerable
Children (OVC); build or replenish body stores of nutrients; prevent or
stabilize weight loss; preserve and gain muscle mass; prevent diarrhea
and other infections; speed recuperation from HIV-related infections;
and prepare for and manage AIDS-related symptoms that affect food
consumption and nutrient utilization.
We have established an inter-agency working group to identify
program models and comparative advantages in this area. Membership
includes USAID, USDA, HHS, and Peace Corps. And we are consulting with
potential partners, such as the World Food Program, Food and
Agriculture Organization, WHO and UNICEF, as well as PVOs and others
from the private sector. A report to Congress detailing the Emergency
Plan food and nutrition strategy is currently in development, and will
be published in May 2006.
Question. Secretary Rice has said that the Department of State will
forward deploy officials to high priority cities and countries. How
does the Department plan to provide adequate security for these
forward-deployed officials, particularly in ``presence posts'' where it
will establish only minimal infrastructure?
How are the departments of State and Defense providing for the
security of personnel serving in provincial reconstruction teams in
Afghanistan and Iraq? Are these teams getting the ``force protection''
support they need to do their jobs effectively?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is currently
participating in an inter-departmental working group that is studying
the concept of American Presence Posts (APP) and developing guidelines
and procedures for opening APPs. The Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act (SECCA) of 1999 (Public Law 106-113) requires that
any new diplomatic facility meet collocation and 100-foot-setback
statutory requirements. The collocation, setback, and waiver
requirements uniformly apply to embassies, consulates, and American
Presence Posts (APPs). Once a post has identified a potential APP site,
the Regional Security Officer (RSO), in coordination with DS
Headquarters and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO),
will conduct a physical security survey of the location to determine
security requirements. APP sites must adhere to or be in the final
stages of compliance with the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB)
standards prior to occupancy. Additionally, waivers to SECCA and
exceptions to OSPB standards must be obtained for any site deficiencies
that cannot be remedied.
The Department of State continues to provide security for
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) based in Regional Embassy
Offices (REOs) throughout Iraq. The substantial security features of
REOs include, but are not limited to, perimeter security in the form of
``T-walls,'' access control measures, anti-ram barriers, mylar on
office windows, sandbags on housing trailers, and bunkers for use
during sustained attacks. The amount requested in the Iraq supplemental
under consideration by Congress will provide funding for perimeter
security upgrades and overhead cover for housing and common use
facilities. Extensive local guard programs, protection details, and an
armored vehicle program support State Department personnel in the
execution of their mission off compound. The Department of Defense is
responsible for security at PRTs established on U.S. military forward
operating bases (FOBs) and incorporates similar security programs for
the protection of PRT personnel.
At the present time, there are at least 752 U.S. military and
civilian personnel assigned to 23 PRTs located throughout Afghanistan.
There are currently nine PRTs under International Security Assistance
Forces (ISAF) responsibility and fourteen under the responsibility of
Operation Enduring Freedom (U.S./Coalition Forces). Force protection
for U.S. civilian personnel assigned to PRTs is the responsibility of
the military commander of the PRT. Force protection and security
responsibilities for U.S. civilian personnel assigned to PRTs under
U.S. military control are outlined in an MOU between Combined/Joint
Task Force-180 (CJTF-180) and the U.S. Department of State signed in
2002.
No formal force protection/security agreement exists for U.S.
civilian officers assigned to ISAF/NATO controlled PRTs. However,
informally it is understood that U.S. personnel receive the same level
of force protection as required by the host nation's senior civilian
PRT staff.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator McConnell. Thank you all very much. The
subcommittee will stand in recess to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. on
Thursday, June 8, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear
testimony from the Honorable Randall L. Tobias, Administrator,
United States Agency for International Development.
[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., Thursday, March 28, the subcom-
mittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, June
8.]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 3:04 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators McConnell, Brownback, and Leahy.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDALL L. TOBIAS, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MITCH MC CONNELL
Senator McConnell. Okay, why don't we get started?
Welcome, Ambassador Tobias. As you wear two hats these
days, as the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development and director of Foreign Assistance at the State
Department, this hearing will examine the President's fiscal
2007 budget request for USAID and the administration's efforts
to reform foreign assistance.
I know my colleagues are keen on asking questions on
specific programs and activities, and will, therefore, make
only a few brief opening observations.
Let me begin by expressing this subcommittee's support for
your efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
U.S. foreign assistance programs and activities. We're aware of
the significant achievements of the President's emergency plan
for AIDS relief under your leadership, and I expect you have
the gratitude of millions of HIV-positive people across the
globe for getting that important initiative up and running.
This was certainly no small achievement, and we wish you
similar success with your new responsibilities.
According to the budget justification materials, the fiscal
2007 request for USAID programs and activities totals $3.9
billion, a decrease of $371 million below last year's enacted
level. As I'm sure you're aware of the strong congressional
interest in health and development programs, it would be
helpful if you could explain the rationale for the decrease in
the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund and Development
Assistance accounts. I'm specifically interested in the impact
the reduction will have on USAID's democracy activities and
programs that promote economic growth, agriculture, and trade.
With respect to foreign aid reform, the subcommittee would
appreciate an update on the administration's efforts up to this
point. We've tried, over the years, to underscore the
importance of foreign assistance programs to U.S. security
interests overseas. Our country learned, at great cost, that
ungoverned spaces, such as those that allowed al Qaeda to train
in Afghanistan, pose great risk to our way of life, and that
all elements of our national power--military, economic, and
diplomatic--must be integrated if we are to prevail in the long
struggle against Islamic extremists.
Be it through assistance to countries at risk of increasing
acts of terrorism, like Indonesia or the Philippines, or
assisting representative governments that will directly
contribute to regional stability, such as in Afghanistan and
Iraq, the allocation of our assistance resources should support
strategic objectives.
It is important to underscore two basic assumptions
underlying any foreign aid reform effort.
First, programs must support policy. For this reason, the
Senate recommended a new Democracy Fund account last year, the
purpose of which was to consolidate all democracy programs and
activities under a single account. I'm pleased that the
President made the expansion of freedom abroad a major
component of America's foreign policy, but, to succeed, USAID
and the State Department will need to coordinate all of our
programs and policy in support of the national security
strategy to a degree this subcommittee has, frankly, yet to
see. I hope, under your leadership, that will be the case.
Second, given limited resources, our assistance must be
prioritized to those countries important to U.S. national
interests. Frankly, this is sometimes out of kilter in the
budget request. For example, in fiscal 2007, only $733,000 is
requested for democracy and government programs in the People's
Republic of China, while $4 million is requested for similar
programs in the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Need I say
more? I can assure you that democracy programs for China will
be significantly increased as the legislative process moves
forward.
So, thank you for being here today, Mr. Ambassador. With
that, I'll turn it over to my friend and colleague Senator
Leahy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Tobias, you had a nice writeup in the Wall
Street Journal yesterday. I think you deserved it. We're going
to spend an hour or so to cover the entire world of USAID's
programs, so I'm going to put most of my statement in the
record.
I join the chairman in welcoming you to this subcommittee
for the first time as both USAID Administrator and Director of
Foreign Assistance. I also want to thank you for the job you
did as the Global AIDS Coordinator. My impression is that you
got that program off to a good start, despite some less-than-
helpful constraints in the law. Fighting AIDS is different from
other problems you're going to face now: reforming
dysfunctional judicial systems, building potable water systems,
responding to famines or hurricanes, stopping deforestation,
supporting nascent political parties, providing economic
alternatives for opium growers, and building democratic
institutions and market economies. Your new role will require
more interaction with Congress. While the chairman and I tried
to bring out a bill that had strong bipartisan support, we
still have 100 different views here. Then you go across the
street to the House, and there's another 435. The President's
priorities are often ours, but not always. So, you have to
balance presidential priorities and congressional ones.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I will put the rest of my statement in the record, because
I really would like to hear from you, and then I'll have some
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Ambassador Tobias, we have 90 minutes to cover the entire world of
USAID's programs, so I will be very brief.
I join Chairman McConnell in welcoming you to this Subcommittee for
the first time as USAID Administrator and as the Director of Foreign
Assistance. I also want to thank you for the job you did as Global AIDS
Coordinator. My impression is that you got that program off to a good
start, despite some less than helpful constraints in the law.
Yours is a heavy responsibility. While your previous role involved
some of the same countries and problems, fighting AIDS is different
from reforming dysfunctional judicial systems, building potable water
systems, responding to famines or hurricanes, stopping deforestation,
supporting nascent political parties, or providing economic
alternatives for opium growers.
Building democratic institutions and economic systems that offer
real opportunities for people to improve their lives within a just
society, presents unique, long term challenges and opportunities.
Your new role will also involve more interaction with the Congress
than you are accustomed to. Some of it may not always be welcome,
because in the Senate we have 100 different points of view of what's
wrong in the world and what USAID should do about it. And you also have
to deal with the House.
I hope you understand that the way we get this bill passed is by
balancing the President's priorities with the Congress's priorities.
They are often the same, but not always. Let me give you some friendly
advice: don't forget who pays the bills.
You have already discovered that USAID has outstanding people. But
its staff is a fraction of the number that are needed to effectively
manage programs in so many countries with so many problems. It is also
plagued by burdensome and self-defeating procurement and contracting
procedures that one might expect to find in Russia, but not here. I
want to know--not today but soon--how you plan to fix these problems.
I have long believed that the United States needs a Director of
Foreign Assistance. We need far better coordination, and I only wish
your oversight extended to the international programs of other agencies
besides State and USAID, like the Departments of Agriculture and
Energy, the U.S. Foreign Service and the CDC. At the same time, there
are good reasons for USAID's autonomy, and we want to protect it.
I am concerned that there has not been nearly enough consultation
with the Congress about your position or the Secretary's
``transformational diplomacy'' initiative. Your testimony today does
not give us much more than the vague generalities we have heard
already. One thing we have learned over many years is that when it
comes to foreign policy and foreign assistance, real reform is
difficult and it doesn't happen unless the Congress is fully on board.
We know what the problems are and there is a lot we can do to make
our foreign assistance programs more effective. But we have to work
together, from the beginning, which has not been the practice of this
Administration. I hope this will be different because there is a lot at
stake for all of us.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ambassador Tobias for being
here.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Mr. Ambassador, why don't you tell us what you think we
need to know without reading a very lengthy statement--that
would be appreciated--and we'll get to the questions.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. RANDALL L. TOBIAS
Ambassador Tobias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today.
I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to you, Mr.
Chairman and to Senator Leahy, for your guidance and support in
my former role as U.S. Global AIDS coordinator, and to thank
you for your commitment both to that and to our foreign
assistance programs. I look forward to working with both of
you, and with the other members of the subcommittee, in my new
capacity.
My first couple of months as USAID Administrator have
reinforced my belief that the men and women of the Agency are
motivated by a true sense of mission and commitment, and I'm
eager to do all that I can to sustain their dedication and
ensure that their experience and capabilities are fully engaged
as we embark on reforming our approach to foreign assistance.
I have submitted a more detailed statement for the record,
but I would like to focus some very brief opening remarks on
the administration's reform of foreign assistance for fiscal
year 2007 and beyond. Beyond the discussions that we're going
to have in a few minutes, my staff and I certainly stand ready
to address any detail of the fiscal year 2007 budget request
with you or your staff as we go forward.
Secretary Rice launched her Transformational Diplomacy and
Development Initiative in January to address the incoherence
and lack of focus in our foreign assistance programs. In doing
so, she noted that both the content and the organization of
foreign assistance require adjustment to meet the new
challenges of today's world. The Secretary noted that ``The
current structure of America's foreign assistance risks
incoherent policies and ineffective programs, and perhaps even
wasted resources. We can do better, and we must do better.''
Today, I want to commit to you that we will do better.
In our current environment, the locus of national security
threats has shifted to the developing world, where poverty,
oppression, and indifference are exploited by our foes to
provide haven for terrorists and the preparation of terrorist
acts. As you have recognized with your attention to democracy
programs, Mr. Chairman, foreign assistance can be an effective
tool for countering these new threats. For this reason and
others, foreign assistance has become a foundational pillar of
our new national security architecture.
As you know, under the reform initiative, the President has
appointed me to be the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, in
addition to my Senate-confirmed position as Administrator of
USAID. The President and the Secretary have assigned me the
task of bringing greater strategic coherence to our planning,
our budgeting, and our implementation of foreign assistance. I
intend to do this first by focusing on our three greatest
challenges: the lack of strategic focus in our programs, our
fragmented budgeting process, and our inability to adequately
track, transparently and in sufficient detail, where our
funding goes, all problems that I know the Congress has
recognized for some time.
First, as your staffs have been briefed, we have begun to
introduce a new strategic framework to bring focus to the
foreign assistance funding appropriated to both the Department
of State and to USAID. The framework establishes a set of broad
objectives for foreign assistance that will help transform
countries into better, more effective partners to create a
safer and more just international system.
On the country level, this framework serves as a roadmap,
guiding programming to help us achieve our overall goals. Here
in Washington, with essential input from Congress, the
framework will more clearly establish the goals toward which
foreign assistance will be directed, and the measures by which
we will track progress. Under the leadership of each of our
ambassadors, U.S. Government country teams in the field will
define the activities for which funds will be used to most
effectively pursue those goals. These plans will then be
reviewed in Washington for their consistency with overall goals
and expectations, with funds allocated only after the plans are
approved. It is my expectation that this approach will not only
help us better manage foreign assistance, but will also help
Members of Congress perform their oversight responsibilities
more effectively.
Second, with this framework in place, budgetary decisions
and program funding proposals will be weighed against how they
contribute to the overarching goal the Secretary has set for
helping countries become more effective partners.
Finally, we will track where the money goes, including the
results it is producing. As you know from your experience in
working with me on the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, I have placed a great deal of emphasis on transparency
for our funding, and I want to do the same for all of foreign
assistance.
It is our intent to produce joint country plans for 35
countries for fiscal year 2007 that we can share with you in
February. By August 2006 we aim to have our new information
system in place to begin to collect and track this data.
Beyond this more strategic approach to planning and
budgeting and the transparency we intend to provide, I also
want to improve our responsiveness at USAID to the Congress in
other ways. So, beginning today, I want to commit that USAID
will provide answers to you for your information requests
within 48 hours, and to formal letters within a week, or when
that is not possible, we will be in touch with your offices
within those timeframes to explain the reasons why and to work
with you to establish a reasonable schedule that we will then
meet. Along the same lines, I want to also commit to delivering
congressional reports on time to enable you to do your
necessary oversight to make our programs stronger.
As articulated by both President Bush and by Secretary
Rice, we are entering a new era of foreign assistance where our
resources will be better aligned with our strategic priorities.
We will be more accountable to the American taxpayers, and use
their resources more efficiently and effectively.
None of this will be easy. But, in recognition of the fact
that our future as Americans is inextricably linked to those we
seek to assist, we must be certain that our investments are
producing the greatest results at the lowest cost to the
taxpayers, and we will need the help of the Congress to achieve
this aim.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, as you know, Abu Musab al-
Zarqawi was killed in Iraq yesterday by U.S. Armed Forces.
President Bush noted that ``The ideology of terror has lost its
most visible, aggressive leader.'' What I want to note here is
that in 2003 al-Zarqawi was convicted in absentia and sentenced
to death by a Jordanian court for masterminding the 2002
assassination of Laurence Foley, a USAID official in Jordan.
The death of Laurence Foley was but one of al-Zarqawi's many
awful crimes, but I can think of no better way to articulate
the deep connection between foreign assistance and our Nation's
fortunes in the world. The people who carry out our foreign
assistance programs are literally on the front lines in the
battle between hope and darkness. We must all take very
seriously the responsibility to enable them to manage the best
and most efficient programs possible.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
addressing your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Randall L. Tobias
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today on the fiscal year 2007 USAID budget.
I want to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you,
Senator Leahy, for your guidance and support in my former role as U.S.
Global AIDS Coordinator and to thank you for your commitment to our
foreign assistance programs. Your attention to strengthening democracy,
Chairman McConnell, and your commitment to augmenting the voice of the
disenfranchised, Senator Leahy, have helped citizens hold their
governments more accountable across the globe. I look forward to
working with you both, and with the other Members of the Subcommittee,
in my new capacity as Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and
Administrator of USAID.
My first couple of months as USAID Administrator has reinforced my
belief that the men and women of the Agency are motivated by a true
sense of mission and commitment. I am eager to do all that I can to
sustain their dedication and to ensure that their valuable experience
is brought to the table as we embark on reforming our approach to
foreign assistance.
I just returned from two weeks of travel through Pakistan, then
Afghanistan, and Iraq--where hundreds of brave USAID employees put
their lives on the line every day in an effort to help people in
nascent democracies build a free and prosperous future for themselves.
As I traveled through the region, the full range of USAID programming
was on display, from the humanitarian intervention in societies ravaged
by natural disasters to the reconstruction of societies ravaged by
tyranny and war; from efforts to secure peace and security to efforts
to invest in people and help them build richer fuller lives for
themselves.
The message I took to President Musharraf of Pakistan and President
Karzai of Afghanistan, as well as to President Jalal Talabani, Prime
Minister Nuri al Maliki, and the newly-formed government of Iraq was of
our commitment to a long-term strategic partnership between the United
States and their countries.
Democracy is taking root in Afghanistan and Iraq and the leaders I
met are committed to a new direction for their countries. We are seeing
some economic progress and through programs like Afghans Building
Capacity--a multi-year investment of up to $125 million that amounts to
the largest and most comprehensive such USAID effort in perhaps 20
years anywhere in the world--we will assist the Government and the
people of Afghanistan as they develop the physical and human capacity
in the public sector, private sector and civil society to sustain
growth both in Kabul and the provinces.
I recognize that my testimony this afternoon will be somewhat
different from traditional budget testimony. I will briefly review the
fiscal year 2007 budget request for USAID, but will focus my testimony
on the Administration's reform of foreign assistance for fiscal year
2007 and beyond. In addition to the discussion we are going to have
today, my staff and I stand ready to address any detail of the fiscal
year 2007 budget request with you and/or your staff after this hearing.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
The fiscal year 2007 program budget continues efforts to build
democracy, good governance and economic growth in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and requests funds in support of other frontline states in the Global
War on Terror. USAID will play a critical role in the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams that will be deployed throughout Iraq and
Afghanistan. In Sudan, we are well on our way to standing up a mission
in Juba. This will enhance our influence in helping move the country to
peace, reconciliation and a better future.
USAID is requesting $3.15 billion for its fiscal year 2007
programs. In addition, we anticipate working with the Departments of
State and Agriculture on joint programs that total $5.4 billion in
Economic Support Funds (ESF), Assistance for the Independent States of
the Former Soviet Union (FSA), Assistance for Eastern Europe and the
Baltic States, the Andean Counternarcotics Initiative and Public Law
480 Title II. We will also manage a portion of the $2.9 billion
requested for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative by the Global AIDS
Coordinator and a portion of the $3 billion for the Millennium
Challenge Corporation. USAID is requesting a total of $679 million for
Operating Expenses and $132 million for contributions to the Capital
Investment Fund.
ENHANCING THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE: REDUCING INEFFICIENCIES AND
INCOHERENCE
Secretary Rice launched her Transformational Diplomacy and
Development initiative in January to address the incoherence and lack
of focus in our foreign assistance programs. In doing so, she noted
that both the content and organization of foreign assistance require
adjustment to meet the challenges of today's world. The Secretary
noted, ``The current structure of America's foreign assistance risks
incoherent policies and ineffective programs and perhaps even wasted
resources. We can do better and we must do better.'' Today, I want to
commit to you we will do better.
Under the previous USAID and State organizational structure, each
agency maintained independent budgeting and planning offices to focus
on their own part of foreign assistance. This required two staffs to
develop multiple and parallel iterations of their individual budgets in
the same program areas, two staffs to agree to and integrate a set of
numbers, two staffs to brief the Hill, and a myriad of programs that
may be redundant--or worse, at cross purposes. While each agency
collaborated with the other, in spite of the best efforts of the people
involved, it was done at great cost in time, personnel, and impact.
Of great concern to me--and I know to many of you--is the inability
of our Washington information systems to capture ``all-spigots''
funding levels across sectors or in a variety of other dimensions--
information that is vital to the oversight work of both Congress and
the Administration. I know it will not be easy, but we need to bring
transparency and accountability to explaining the use and result of our
foreign assistance funds.
I realize that as I outline the challenges we face, I do not need
to convince you this afternoon of what we need to do. Congress has
consistently called for improved transparency in the way budgets are
put together and funds expended--and vastly improved accountability for
the results. I simply want to emphasize that I, too, am focused on that
goal, and that I look forward to working with you in achieving it.
In our current environment, the locus of national security threats
has shifted to the developing world, where poverty, oppression, and
indifference are exploited by our foes to provide haven for terrorists
and the preparation of terrorist acts. As I know you have recognized
with your attention to democracy programs, Mr. Chairman, foreign
assistance is an effective tool for countering these new threats. For
this reason and others, foreign assistance has become a foundational
pillar of our new national security architecture.
OUR APPROACH: WE WILL DO BETTER
As you know, under the reform initiative, the President has
appointed me to be Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, in addition to
my Senate-confirmed position of Administrator of USAID. The President
and Secretary Rice have assigned me the task of bringing strategic
coherence to our planning, budgeting and implementing of foreign
assistance. I intend to do this first by focusing on our three greatest
challenges: the lack of strategic focus in our programs, our fragmented
budgeting process, and our inability to track, transparently and in
sufficient detail, where our funding goes--all problems I know that
Congress has recognized for some time.
First, as your staffs have been briefed, we have introduced a new
Strategic Framework for foreign assistance appropriated to both the
Department of State and USAID. This framework establishes a set of
broad objectives for foreign assistance that will help transform
countries into better, more effective partners to create a safer and
more just international system. We believe that this goal of
transforming countries can be accomplished if we focus on five
objectives: achieving and maintaining peace and security; helping
improve governance and democratic participation; contributing to and
promoting investments in people; helping engender economic growth; and
maintaining our commitment to respond to humanitarian disasters.
At the country level, where the ``rubber of our programs meets the
road,'' this Framework serves as a ``roadmap,'' guiding programming to
help us achieve our overall goals. My intent is that we here in
Washington--with essential input from Congress--will more clearly
establish the goals toward which our foreign assistance will be
directed and the measures by which we will track progress. Then, under
the leadership of each of our Ambassadors, country teams in the field
will define the activities for which funds will be used to most
effectively pursue those goals.
With their expert knowledge of country circumstances, our staff in
the field will produce better integrated, more coherent country
operational plans that indicate, for each activity, the partner, the
amount of money, the expected outputs, and ultimate outcomes that will
contribute most effectively to achieving the established goals.
The country operational planning approach differs from the status
quo in that all assistance agencies in country will work together as a
country team to identify unified resources, both human and financial,
to bring to bear on the goals and performance targets of each sector of
assistance planned to drive country reforms. This process produces a
single USG document detailing our approach to assistance guided by
strategic goals.
These unified plans will be reviewed in Washington for their
consistency with overall goals and expectations, with final allocation
decisions made only after plans are approved. By requiring detailed and
specific planning up-front, directly before fiscal year 2007 funds are
appropriated, we hope to improve the strategic focus of our programs
sooner and increase the speed their implementation.
Second, with the Framework in place, budgetary decisions and
program funding proposals will be weighed against how they contribute
to the overarching goal the Secretary has set of helping countries
become effective partners. To ensure that our budget staffs at USAID
and State allocate funds according to this goal in an integrated and
consistent way, I have joined them into one budget, performance
planning and results monitoring organization, under my direction. By
bringing this staff together into one office, we have begun to
streamline processes, improve efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce
the burden that redundant functions place on our field staff.
Finally, we will track where the money goes, including the results
it is producing. As you know from your experience in working with me on
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, I have placed a great
deal of emphasis on transparency for our funding. To bring that same
level of accountability to the rest of our foreign assistance spending,
we are in the process of building a new strategic information system
for USAID and State funds that will tell both you and me exactly who is
receiving our funds, what they were doing with the money, what is
expected as a result, and how that result will help us reach our goals.
These changes represent a substantive shift in the planning,
allocation, and programming of foreign assistance resources, including
new responsibilities for both Washington and the field. Accordingly,
this effort will remain a work in progress for some time, but we are
moving as quickly as we can. It is our intent to produce joint country
operational plans for USAID and State funds for 35 countries for fiscal
year 2007 that we can share with you in February. By August 2006, we
aim to have our new information system in place to begin to collect and
track this data.
Beyond this more strategic approach to planning and budgeting and
the transparency we intend to provide, I also want to improve our
responsiveness to the Congress in other ways. Beginning today, I want
commit that USAID will provide you with answers to your informational
requests within 48 hours and to formal letters within a week; or, when
that is not possible, we will be in touch with your offices within
those timeframes to explain the reasons why, and to work with you to
establish a reasonable schedule for getting the information to you.
Along those same lines, I also commit to delivering Congressional
reports on time to enable you to do your necessary oversight to make
our programs stronger.
CONCLUSION
As articulated both by President Bush and by Secretary Rice, we are
entering a new era of foreign assistance where our resources will be
better aligned with our strategic priorities. We will be more
accountable to American taxpayers and use their resources more
efficiently and effectively.
None of this will be easy. But in recognition of the fact that our
future as Americans is inextricably linked to those we seek to assist,
we must be certain that our investments are producing the greatest
results at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. We will need the help of
Congress to achieve this aim.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
I appreciate your reference to the big news of the day.
There has not been a whole lot of good news in Iraq recently,
but certainly the death of al-Zarqawi and the appointment of
the defense and interior ministers gives us some hope that
progress will continue to be made.
HEALTH PROGRAMS
I want to shift to another subject entirely, and that's
health programs. I've been a strong supporter of polio
eradication programs, along with Senator Leahy and other
members of this subcommittee. I was curious as to why the
budget request includes no funding at all for programs related
to polio eradication in Nigeria, a country which the World
Health Organization has identified as of concern with respect
to polio.
Ambassador Tobias. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that
we had significant polio eradication activities in fiscal years
2004 and 2005 in Nigeria. We spent about $10.5 million. In
2006, we developed a number of concerns about both
mismanagement and corruption in the system, although we did
continue to fund programs using some money that was carried
over. A number of changes have been made in Nigeria to tighten
up the system. So, in 2007 we expect that USAID Nigeria will
receive polio funds. The level will be decided later in the
year. We will take into account the epidemiology, the current
pipeline, the scope of USAID's role, what other donors are
doing, what the Government of Nigeria is doing. But it's
clearly a very serious issue there, and one that we need to be
addressing.
BURMA
Senator McConnell. Thank you. I'm glad you're moving in
that direction. I also want to turn to another country that I
have a longstanding interest in, and that's Burma. I think we
all know what the humanitarian situation is there, from
significant HIV/AIDS infection rates to avian flu and now the
potential for polio to re-emerge. While negligent in providing
for the welfare of the Burmese people, the military junta that
runs the place, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC),
is guilty of human rights abuses against ethnic minorities,
including murder, torture, and rape.
Now, we all understand the solution to Burma's humanitarian
problems is political in nature; namely, reconciliation between
Aung San Suu Kyi, and her political followers, who won the
election in 1990, and the SPDC. In the wake of all this, what
can the international community do to effectively address these
Burmese health crises?
Ambassador Tobias. Well, I think there are a lot of things
that we can do, but we need to be sure that the things that we
are doing are really supporting the people in need, and that
we're doing it separate from the government in power there.
Senator McConnell. They're basically running the NGOs out,
aren't they? Denying them space----
Ambassador Tobias. We have to find NGOs with whom we can
work, who are working with Burmese both inside and outside the
country. We're doing a number of things there, some from
Thailand along the Thai/Burma border. But this is a situation
that calls for creativity when the governments of countries are
oppressing their people and not willing to step up to meet the
needs of their people, and we have to find organizations that
we can work with. That's exactly what we're trying to do.
Senator McConnell. Are there some?
Ambassador Tobias. Yes, I think there are. I'm certainly
not an expert yet on the circumstances there, but I believe
there are some organizations that we are working with, and can
work with.
IRAQ
Senator McConnell. You mentioned Iraq. What is your
perception of progress in Iraq, as measured by USAID programs,
and the likelihood of such programs achieving some level of
success?
Ambassador Tobias. I just came back from Iraq about 2 weeks
ago, and there is real progress being made, but there's a great
deal more that can be done.
Senator McConnell. You met with the Prime Minister, did you
not?
Ambassador Tobias. I met with the Prime Minister. I met
with the President. I met with all of our military and civilian
leadership on the ground. I'll tell you, one interesting
experience I had was sitting in a room one day in a town 40 or
50 miles south of Baghdad with a group of about seven or eight
leaders of Iraqi NGOs. Now, just think about that in the
context of somebody trying to start an NGO in the time of
Saddam Hussein. These people were enthusiastically explaining
what their organizations were doing. They had already figured
out that if they created an association among themselves they
could have more influence on the provincial government that was
being put in place. It was the beginning of democracy really
happening there.
But one of the things that we need to do with our USAID
programs, and I took some steps both while I was there and
since coming back to do this, is, certainly, to be focused on
the long term, but we also need to be focused on what I refer
to as short-interval scheduling. So, what I have asked my
people to do is take it 90 days at a time. What can we do, in
the next 90 days, that can demonstrate real progress and
demonstrate our support to the new Iraqi Government?
I had a great conversation with General Corelli, the
commander of the ground troops, about ways in which USAID and
the military can collaborate in going into neighborhoods,
starting in Baghdad, working on the last mile of connecting
electric lines, water, sewer, cleaning up the garbage, trying
to get neighborhoods back to a more habitable circumstance,
where people can get back to their lives.
Our people there are working under extraordinary
circumstances. The security requirements are enormous just to
move around. I'm very impressed and very proud of what they're
doing. But I think there's more that we can do by focusing on
some smaller projects more quickly.
AFGHANISTAN
Senator McConnell. One more question, and then I'll turn to
Senator Leahy.
Bring me up to speed on how you feel you're doing in
Afghanistan. Let me just say that when I first went there, in
the fall of 2003, I had the typical country-team briefing. I
never met a more enthusiastic bunch of Americans about, (a) the
way they were being greeted, and (b) how successful they were.
That was almost 3 years ago. Now we read reports that there's
some backtracking, and that the Taliban are more of a problem
than they were previously. So, I'm interested in whether the
enthusiasm level is still high for your people there, and
whether they still think they're making great progress.
Ambassador Tobias. It is very high. I'm, again, very
impressed with the morale and the commitment that our people
there have. But I think it's a situation that could tip either
way, and we need to ensure that we're continuing to do the
things that need to be done.
I met with President Karzai. I met with all of our own
people, of course. I had some interesting experiences on the
ground, including a meeting with a group of former poppy
farmers, who, somewhat to my surprise, talked to me about how
growing poppies is contrary to the teachings of the Koran and
how they were eager to progress with our alternative-
livelihoods program. These were people who were being taught
skills like pruning fruit trees and getting orchards back into
shape and growing other crops. But it's more than that, it's a
need for roads--probably that's the greatest need--and the need
to develop markets. I also visited a USAID program where we are
training people, who are going to all have jobs when they leave
this training program, in some very basic construction skills
of plumbing, working with electricity, building concrete-block
walls, and some of those kinds of things.
Senator McConnell. In that regard, during my trip to
Afghanistan we had extensive discussions with Karzai and others
about the need to get trees planted. Afghanistan has basically
turned into a desert, because all the trees have been cut down.
Has any reforestation effort been initiated? I know there are a
number of American foundations that are interested in this
issue.
Ambassador Tobias. There's work going on in reforestation,
which is a very pressing issue.
There is a lot of focus on building new government capacity
and capacity in the private sector, and getting citizens to
understand the role that they can play in a democracy. I saw,
for example, the program that we're sponsoring with Voice for
Humanity, which is using new technology to communicate with
people in rural areas. I think that's making some progress. We
need to try new things.
Senator McConnell. Good.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TRANSFORMATIONAL DIPLOMACY INITIATIVE
I understand that the Director of Foreign Assistance
position was created as part of Secretary Rice's
Transformational Diplomacy Initiative, in an attempt to better
coordinate foreign policy priorities with foreign aid programs.
But there's a lot of concern that this may strip USAID of
decisionmaking authority over what little remains of its
budget. What is your response to that?
Ambassador Tobias. That's not the case. In fact, as I have
said to a number of people at USAID, what now happens is that
the person who is the Administrator of USAID has a seat at the
senior-most tables in the decisionmaking processes at the State
Department that no Administrator has ever had before.
Senator Leahy. Is that the most transformational part of
it?
Ambassador Tobias. No, but it's something that will help in
the beginnings of bringing USAID's efforts in foreign
assistance, and the Department of State's efforts in foreign
assistance into sync so that we're moving forward together in a
more strategically aligned way. We are beginning to make good
progress as we put processes in place.
Senator Leahy. What is the most transformational part of
this initiative?
Ambassador Tobias. Well, the first thing that we've done,
Senator, is to take the USAID people who are engaged in policy
planning, budgeting, and monitoring and evaluation of programs
and the people in the State Department who have been engaged in
those same functions, and put them together into an integrated
staff. They have all focused on foreign assistance, but they've
been operating totally separately--they haven't even been on
the same planning calendars. As we go forward, our intent is
not to have a USAID budget or a State Department budget, but a
Foreign Assistance budget that will make all of it more
coherent in a way that I think all of us can better understand.
I think you're going to be in a better position to make your
decisions.
Senator Leahy. Well, we'll be anxious to see what is done
with the budget and how it will be structured. I would hope
that there would be discussion with us as that goes along.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
In your statement, you speak of your strategic framework
for foreign assistance. Let me make sure I have this right. You
have five objectives: achieving and maintaining peace and
security; helping improve governance and democratic
participation; contributing to, and promoting, investments in
people; helping to engender economic growth; responding to
humanitarian disasters. What is new here? What is USAID doing
today that does not already fit into one of these five
objectives?
Ambassador Tobias. I don't know that there is, but at USAID
today there are 1,400 strategic objectives. We need to bring
focus and coherence to the way in which we are doing these
programs so that we are looking at them on a country-by-country
basis across all of the programs, so we can get a total picture
of what are the objectives we're trying to achieve on the
ground.
Senator Leahy. But you're not suggesting that one size
would fit all?
Ambassador Tobias. No, quite the contrary. To some degree
there are 154 countries where we're currently doing some type
of foreign assistance. I think there are buckets or categories
that certain countries with similar characteristics will fit
into that will have similar kinds of programs, and that's also
a part of this framework. But we intend a process here where
the Secretary is going to be able to provide specific guidance
to the field, to each country, that will be very country
specific.
Senator Leahy. Well, I think you'll probably find a lot of
those 1,400 objectives will be in many of those countries. I'm
not suggesting it's not a wise thing to reexamine our strategic
objectives and determine how to make them more relevant. I
would not want to change simply for the sake of change. But no
matter what you do, if you don't have the money, it's not going
to make much difference. We spend a very small part of our
budget on foreign aid, especially for a country that's our size
and much less than a lot of other countries do as a percentage
of their budgets.
FOREIGN AID BUDGET
As you've talked about refocusing foreign aid, have your
inter-agency discussions included a discussion of the need to
significantly increase the budget for anything other than HIV/
AIDS and Millennium Challenge Corporation, or are we going to
have cuts in next year's budget similar to cuts that we've had
this year to many key USAID programs?
Ambassador Tobias. The amount of foreign assistance, from
the beginning of this administration to the present time, has
almost tripled. It has been, obviously, the partnership of the
administration and the Congress that has made that happen.
Senator Leahy. Well, except that in this year's budget, the
President cut global health programs by about 15 percent, $136
million; and yet, one of the places we show the good face and
generosity of our country has been in these programs. But
that's been cut.
Ambassador Tobias. But there's still significant money in
those programs.
Senator Leahy. Do you think there's enough?
Ambassador Tobias. I don't think it's ever enough.
Senator Leahy. Well, is $136 million less than last year's
level enough?
Ambassador Tobias. If there was more I could probably find
a way to effectively spend it. But my real focus, at the
moment, is to ensure that we are spending the money that we
have as efficiently and as effectively as we possibly can. I
don't believe we're doing that.
Senator Leahy. Well, we've----
Ambassador Tobias. I think we can generate some more funds
by doing it all more efficiently.
Senator Leahy. We've cut the contribution of the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria by $250 million. We spent
almost twice that this week alone in Iraq. Actually it's $350
million, if you count the additional $100 million taken out of
the Labor, Health, and Human Services bill. In countries where
USAID works, there are few doctors, and hospitals are often
crumbling cement structures built in the 19th century. As
someone who understands the crisis in public health, why would
you cut these funds?
If we are spending roughly a billion dollars or more a week
in Iraq, and we want to win the hearts and minds of people, I
might suggest to you that the work we do on Global Fund to
Fight AIDS and global health is probably winning more hearts
and minds. These global health programs are the faces of
America that are most welcome around the world.
Ambassador Tobias. We shouldn't lose sight of the size of
the base in these programs. You mentioned HIV/AIDS. We're
increasing the financial commitment to our very successful
PEPFAR programs in order to meet the commitment that the
President made at the beginning of that. That's been a very
successful use of resources. We do need to support the Global
Fund, but not at the expense of our bilateral programs.
Senator Leahy. I understand, but at the same time the
President's budget would cut family planning and reproductive
health programs from $425 million to $357 million--an 18
percent cut. By the President's statement, he said he knows
that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing
quality, voluntary family-planning services. Yet, despite the
administration's strong opposition to abortion, they want to
cut a program that would primarily reduce unintended
pregnancies and abortion and reduce child mortality. This
defies logic.
My time is up, but you know, I have a great deal of respect
for your background and what you have done. I have no question
in my mind of your commitment. I worry, as an American, that we
have not just financial and security issues, but we have great
moral issues to care about. Since we have so much more than
most people, there's a certain moral obligation to give back. I
look forward to sitting down and chatting about this.
I appreciate having you here today.
Ambassador Tobias. I'd be happy to do that, Senator.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, welcome. Good to see you here.
Ambassador Tobias. Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Thank you for meeting with me on some of
these topics previously. I also want to congratulate you on the
announcement, I guess even just this morning, on inclusion of
new countries in the President's Malaria Initiative--Malawi,
Mozambique, Rwanda, and Senegal. I think that's an excellent
move forward.
I want to talk with you about a couple of idea areas that
I'm curious about, and, you know, get your thoughts on them. It
sounds like we're tracking on the same line on this. The last
trip I took, with Senator Durbin, to--went to Congo, Rwanda,
and Kenya--it was very striking to me the breadth of programs.
It looked like, what you were saying, that we had 1,400
different strategic initiatives, when you can only probably get
a couple of these accomplished. In eastern Congo, where people
are striving to just live, it seems like, to me, you've got a
hierarchical set of needs, and you need to hit those first,
that they need food, agriculture, they need water, they need
healthcare and education, and you've--you get past that, that
pretty much is going to eat up most of your efforts--and
should, because that's what, you know, people need to survive,
to start off with.
I hope you can get this honed down to a few areas. We're
working on a bill in my office to take the assistance programs
to Africa and, in a blunt-instrument approach, just say, ``Half
of this money has to go in one of these four areas, and it has
to go for either commodities in these fields or training of
people on the ground in those countries.'' As we saw in the
malaria program, when we were studying that, that only 7
percent of our malaria money--this is 2 years ago--was going
for actual commodities of bed nets, sprays, or medicine, and 93
percent was going for conferences and consultants and who knows
what else. We had a hard time figuring out just what the money
was going for. But the African leaders we met with said, ``We
know what to do with malaria, we just don't have the money to
do it with.'' The same with drilling a water well; you know,
it's a pretty simple piece of equipment if you're not going too
deep, not particularly sophisticated to operate, but they've
got to have it. If they don't have it, there's not clean water
in your--we may be behind the eight ball in a lot of places.
So, I applaud that effort, and we're trying to do a similar
bill to address those areas, in particular.
I want to applaud your effort on AIDS. The President's
initiative on HIV/AIDS is saving lives, and lots of them.
That's one I hope the President and you are very proud of,
because people are alive today because he went out on a limb to
do that. I believe we're going to do the same with malaria.
In suggestion areas, there's an emerging group of new NGOs
and private groups that want to help out, particularly in the
continent of Africa. I think there's a real opportunity here
for you and your office to help point the way. Gates Foundation
is doing beautiful work in the health field. I met with some
people associated with another great company the other day that
want to put significant money into Africa. I've heard of
another group today. They're--you've got a great opportunity to
help point people in the right direction and marry them with
local NGOs. I would urge you to host a private donors summit,
AID to host it, and to bring in some of these key new players.
I think everybody knows the people that have been in the field
for some period of time, and don't ignore 'em, because, you
know, God bless 'em for the work they've done for years. But
you've got a number of emerging new players that have
significant new resources and new energy, and just a hosting,
really, of a private donors conference, like we do public donor
conferences for Iraq or Afghanistan, of these groups, and have
your targets of, you know, ``Okay, one of our key targets is
water-well drilling or orphans in Africa''--I think people
would respond to it.
If you could see fit--and you may not, on this one--but
there's a burgeoning youth movement. There was 140 places
across the United States, about a month ago, that walked on a
night walk for the ``Invisible Children'' of northern Uganda.
This is a college-student movement that a group of college
students went over there, did a film, spread it around here,
and then started chapters around the country. Then, I had a
young man in my hometown last Sunday night sit down with me,
saying, ``I want to go to northern Uganda and help these kids I
just found out about.'' He's never left the United States. He
may not have been out Kansas previously. But he'd like to help
these kids in northern Uganda. I'm seeing a lot of that. I
think there's a moment you can harvest, if you had a targeted
set of programs of what young activists could be a part of. I
don't know how you would do that. You've got great minds that
could help out with that. I think you've got a great moment to
be able to harvest some of those activities and marry 'em
together, and you've got a left/right coalition that's coming
together to sponsor that.
Hope those are things you're looking at. I don't know if
you could comment, for a minute or two, about that.
Ambassador Tobias. Senator, I think those are wonderful
ideas. As part of the malaria event that we had this morning
that the First Lady hosted and that you referred to, we had a
group of people from the private sector and foundation
representatives who are interested in partnering with each
other, and with the President's Malaria Initiative, to leverage
what we're all doing together on the ground. When I was running
the AIDS initiative, we started a New Partners fund where we
set aside $200 million that was only available to organizations
that have done less than $5 million with the Government on HIV/
AIDS work in the last 5 years in order to create an opportunity
to bring new partners in. Part of that program is to train them
and give them the skills to work their way through the
contracting and procurement process with the Government.
But there are other organizations out there. As you and I
talked before, large churches, for example, have the resources
and the wherewithal, but they don't know quite where to go.
Senator Brownback. Don't know where to go. I----
FOREIGN AID COORDINATION
Ambassador Tobias. I've got people working to create kind
of a clearinghouse.
Senator Brownback. If you've got the people on the ground I
don't mean to butt in, but you've got people on the ground, and
they've taken me to a number of just phenomenal facilities. You
know, Dick Durbin----
Ambassador Tobias. Right.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. I went to an orphanage in
Rwanda--600 kids in this orphanage--and they asked Dick and I--
we said--we asked, ``Can we help?'' And they said, ``Yeah, we
need a cow.'' ``Okay,'' you know, ``we can help with that.''
But I was just thinking, your people knew about that, and if
there was some clearinghouse you had here, and then somebody
here that contacts a big church in Kentucky or Kansas, saying,
``We've got this orphanage in eastern Rwanda, and 600 kids,
and, frankly, they need help. Would you adopt them?''--I think
these guys would jump all over it. Or a small corporation. Or a
foundation. But you've got expertise on the ground that none of
them have. If they could feed it here, and then you network
with people here, it would be a--it would be a beautiful thing
and really help people here who want to do that sort of thing.
But you're probably the only clearinghouse possibility we've
got, to do that.
Ambassador Tobias. Frankly, I think part of what happens is
that our people on the ground who have ideas like that, or
people outside the Government who want to be involved, sort of
look at the bureaucratic challenges, and they sort of give up.
Part of what we have to do--and I think we can--is to get past
that and make it easy, or make it sufficiently easy, for
organizations to find the front door, to find the right place
here, to get the information that we--that we can have, and----
Senator McConnell. May I----
Ambassador Tobias [continuing]. Put them in touch.
Senator McConnell [continuing]. Interject on that point?
Senator Brownback is right on the mark. I run into that all the
time----
Ambassador Tobias. Yeah.
Senator McConnell [continuing]. Particularly with churches,
who have both the interest and the wherewithal to help, but
limited experience with Government bureaucracy. I think Senator
Brownback is really onto something in suggesting that if you
could harness those interested groups and people, you could
magnify your impact exponentially.
Ambassador Tobias. It also has the impact of building
greater grassroots support among the American people for----
Senator Brownback. Right.
Ambassador Tobias [continuing]. Our whole foreign
assistance program----
Senator Brownback. Yeah.
Ambassador Tobias [continuing]. And understanding why
America needs to do what we're doing. I do, I think it's a
wonderful idea, and----
Senator Brownback. Well, if you could----
Ambassador Tobias [continuing]. We'll pursue all these
things.
Senator Brownback. If there's any way I can help out with
that, I'd love to do it, because----
Ambassador Tobias. Thank you.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. You know, we think we're
going to have, what, 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa, and
I've been to some of these places, and it's just enormous. It
looks like, to me, what you're going to end up with is a lot of
these children matriculating to towns, and then they're going
to get trafficked or involved in crime or whatever, because
their village structure is blown up and it's not just not going
to happen, and the sooner we can get people to hook into there
and help--and they would, but they need--they need your door--
--
Ambassador Tobias. Right.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. That you could do that.
Then, finally--I'm past my time, but if you could
personally host some of these corporate chieftans, and maybe
just go to meet with them, with the CEO of Pfizer, others, and
just say, ``Hey, you know, there's a great thing you can do
here, and I've got a specific project for you.'' It may not be
something they are interested in, but some of these guys that
I've met with, they'd really like to help, and--but you've got
to--I think, frankly, too, you've got to get 'em on the ground
there to do that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator McConnell. Senator Brownback, I have a meeting I'm
going to have to make, but would you like to continue--if the
Ambassador has a little more time--and then wrap the hearing
up?
Senator Brownback. Good. If you wouldn't mind, I'd
appreciate that.
Senator McConnell. Thank you very much for being here, Mr.
Ambassador.
Ambassador Tobias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. You're doing a wonderful job, and we're
proud of you.
Ambassador Tobias. Thank you very much.
Senator Brownback [presiding]. Mr. Ambassador--I don't mean
to drive you overtime, but we've got you here--have you thought
about that, a meeting with some of these business leaders?
You've come and been in that environment, and personally taking
some to some of these places that you would host 'em?
Ambassador Tobias. Yes. Back in 2003, when I first came
onboard as the AIDS Coordinator, then-Secretary Thompson of HHS
had organized a trip to Africa that included a number of
business leaders that I thought that was very successful. Many
of them got very motivated. The problem was, at that point in
time we weren't really in a position to say, ``Okay, now that
we've got your interest, here's how we can harness that. Here's
what you can do.'' We do have a program in USAID that is
specifically focused on trying to find partnerships with the
private sector. One of the most successful that has come to my
attention recently is a program where we spent about $10
million over 5 years in Rwanda helping about 40,000 farmers who
were engaged in growing coffee, but hadn't really been growing
it in a commercial way. They were helped to do a better job of
cultivating and sorting and cooperatives were formed. The
bottom line is that there are now 4,000 Starbucks stores in the
United States that are carrying a premium brand of Rwandan
coffee that came out of that project. USAID is out of the
picture.
That's what development is all about. There are skills that
the private sector, in this case, Starbucks, can bring to bear
in a whole variety of ways. I agree with you, having been a
CEO, that there are ways in which we can harness that expertise
and skill.
Senator Brownback. Or even contacting 'em, saying, if
they're interested in going on their own, which I think a lot
of 'em would want to--say, ``You know, I've got the wherewithal
myself to go. It'll be a time issue,'' but that if you can make
it easy for them to see some of these front-line orphanages,
healthcare clinics, I think----
Ambassador Tobias. Right.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. People, once they see it,
they're just dramatically different. I think that's what
happened to Bill and Melinda Gates when they went to
Mozambique.
Ambassador Tobias. I think it's a very under-utilized
resource, and we should not only be encouraging the private
sector on what it can do on its own, but ways in which we can
partner. I saw a program in Africa a couple of years ago in the
AIDS prevention area for young people, where Coca-Cola was
loaning marketing people, the same marketing people who do
focus groups and test marketing. They were testing prevention
messages in the same way they would market a new soft drink to
determine what are young people really going to pay attention
to, what are they really going to hear? Those are the kinds of
things that historically have been done mostly by public health
professionals rather than marketing professionals. I think
there are a variety of ways in which we can bring those
resources together, and it is something I intend to pursue.
Senator Brownback. Good, because I just--there's a real
interesting moment right now that there's a lot of energy to do
this, left and right, young and older. I think as we engage
those in these difficult situations, if we'll engage the poor,
they'll save our souls in the process, because----
Ambassador Tobias. Yeah.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. We get changed in the
process, because we get changed doing it, and it's a----
Ambassador Tobias. Right.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. It's just been beautiful,
what I've seen, thus far.
I want to thank you and congratulate you. We will--as I
say, we're working on a particular bill, and we'll be working
with your office about that, because sounds as--like, from what
you've described, that we're on some of the same track.
I do hope, as a final thought and point, that, on the
water-well drilling, in particular--I've worked with groups on
drilling water wells that--they say they're not getting the
support out of your office that has been funded by the
Congress. I've sent a letter on this, and I know this is one of
the strategic initiatives that's needed, because the AIDS
money, it doesn't go as far if you don't have clean water and
good food--or it does--isn't as effective if a person's
drinking bad water. Same with malaria. It just weakens the
system. There are quite a few groups out there willing to drill
private water wells, and I think they--we can extend our money
through them a lot of times, that they'll match it, at least
one to one, if not higher. I'm hopeful that's something you can
look at on getting more water wells drilled in some of these
parts of Africa, in particular.
Ambassador Tobias. The quest for water is what consumes
most of the day for people--going someplace to get clean water
and carrying it long distances. Access to clean water has to be
a high priority.
Senator Brownback. Good. Thank you very much. Godspeed.
Mr. Ambassador, appreciate it. Appreciate the thoughts that
you've shared here today.
Ambassador Tobias. Thank you, Senator.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Brownback. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REFORM
Question. What do you see as Congress's role in foreign assistance
matters, generally, and with respect to foreign assistance reform,
specifically?
Answer. Congress' role is essential to the success of our foreign
assistance programs and, specifically, foreign assistance reform. I
support the checks and balances system of our government that allows
the executive branch to present a budget to Congress and for Congress
to use its best judgment to direct how that money should be spent. We
need to do our part to present Congress with a well-justified budget
that clearly lays out our proposal for the way foreign assistance
dollars should be spent, and transparently outlines the tradeoffs
associated with diverging from this proposal. Our former foreign
assistance budgeting practices did not clearly lay out these tradeoffs,
leaving Congress with only one option--to use the best information they
had available to earmark funds.
The budgeting practices I am establishing with this reform will
provide Congress with more detailed, timely and accurate information.
In doing so, Congress will be better positioned to make informed
decisions about how their budgeting priorities fit into a comprehensive
picture of U.S. Government foreign assistance. We haven't been able to
do this before.
I see the reform as a collaborative effort on the part of the
executive and legislative branches.
Question. There have been significant political changes in Central
and South America over the years--best characterized as a lean to the
left. For years, Congress has advocated increased assistance to
countries in those regions, but the administration has not included
significant increases in its annual budget request.
In your opinion, what countries in the Western Hemisphere are most
important to U.S. national security interests, what are those
interests, and how is U.S. assistance used to further our security
objectives?
Please answer the same question with respect to Africa, East Asia,
the Pacific, the Near East, Europe and Eurasia, and South Asia?
Answer. U.S national security interests require that we seek to
expand freedom, prosperity, energy security, peace and stability in the
Europe and Eurasia region, not just to provide for our own security but
to improve the security and prosperity of the world as a whole, with
which our future is linked. To achieve our objectives, we use a range
of diplomatic and assistance tools in cooperation with our partners and
other donors, and we also seek to empower and strengthen the
capabilities of key multilateral institutions like NATO the OSCE, and
OECD, and to strengthen the U.S.-EU relationship.
In Southeast Europe, the United States continues to have a
compelling national interest in helping break the circle of violence
that plagued the countries of Southeast Europe in the 1990s and support
their path to Euro-Atlantic integration. Our top priorities for the
Balkans are to reach a settlement this year on Kosovo's future status
without isolating Serbia, to help Serbia become stable and democratic,
and to ensure the success of Bosnia and Herzegovina's efforts to build
a more integrated modern state that will be able to function without
strong international supervision. To achieve our objectives, U.S.
assistance focuses on promoting democratic development and a viable
market economy that offers opportunities to all, and putting the region
firmly on the path of integration with Euro-Atlantic institutions.
Also highly important to maintaining stability and promoting growth
and democracy in the region is U.S. assistance to Macedonia, Albania,
and the newly independent Montenegro. U.S. assistance is helping to
achieve U.S. objectives by increasing local level stability through
community development activities, supporting tolerance and multi-ethnic
democratic pluralism, and promoting market-driven economic growth.
U.S. interests also extend to Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia. More
than a decade of U.S. assistance has facilitated progress in the
economic, democratic and social sectors, although shortcomings remain
in some areas. Bulgaria and Romania are in the final stages of
qualification for EU membership, and Croatia is in consultations with
the EU on its future accession.
In Eurasia, U.S. interests and assistance focus on supporting the
sovereignty of post-Soviet states, as well as their democratic
development, economic growth and energy security. Where possible, such
as in Ukraine and Georgia, Euro-Atlantic integration is also a
principal U.S. objective. Armenia and Georgia have achieved enough
progress in their transition to have concluded compacts for Millennium
Challenge Corporation assistance, while Ukraine, Moldova, and
Kyrgyzstan are MCC threshold candidates. In Central Asia, U.S.
assistance also aims to ease pressures stoking Islamic extremism. In
the South Caucasus region, U.S. efforts are helping to foster stability
and democratic practices. Regional conflicts threaten regional security
and impede the full democratic and economic development of the South
Caucasus and Black Sea region. The United States is working to promote
just, lasting, and peaceful resolutions to the separatist conflicts in
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria. U.S.
efforts also seek to mitigate ongoing conflict in Chechnya and the
North Caucasus. Throughout Eurasia we are continuing intensive counter
narcotics efforts, as well as the fight against the epidemics of HIV/
AIDS and multiple drug resistant tuberculosis. In addition, our
assistance programs address cross-border threats from terrorism,
weapons of mass destruction proliferation, trafficking in persons and
narcotics, and other criminal activity.
The United States is interested in ensuring that Central Asia does
not produce another Afghanistan and continues to provide its critical
support to the Global war on terrorism. Repression, corruption, poverty
and isolation make the region a breeding ground for terrorism and
extremist ideologies. Through our assistance, we are working to
mitigate those conditions by supporting nascent democratic development,
ensuring successful economic reform, enhancing border security, and
furthering regional integration in trade and energy.
In Belarus and Uzbekistan, the United States supports the
democratic aspirations of the people, with a focus on increasing access
to information and supporting the growth and capacity of civil society
groups and independent political parties.
U.S. relations with Russia, of course, are highly important, with
elements of cooperation as well as areas of disagreement. We remain
actively and constructively engaged bilaterally, regionally and
multilaterally on key issues from counterterrorism to stopping
trafficking in persons. We work together to cut off terrorist
financing, share law enforcement information, improve transportation
security, and prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We
are actively assisting with recovery and development in the North
Caucasus region. As Co-Chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group, we cooperate
closely with Russia to promote a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict. We also urge Russia to cooperate constructively on
peaceful resolutions of the Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria
conflicts that respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and Moldova
within their internationally recognized borders. We encourage Russia to
support reforms in Belarus and Uzbekistan, whose leaders have set these
countries on courses of repression. The United States works with our
NATO Allies and the EU to continue to urge Russia to fulfill remaining
Istanbul commitments relating to withdrawal of its military forces from
Georgia and Moldova. Fulfillment of the Istanbul commitments is a
prerequisite for the United States to move forward with ratification of
the adapted CFE Treaty.
We are concerned about democratic backsliding in Russia. Russia's
new NGO law, which went into effect in mid-April, is a particular
object of our attention. The United States worked closely with our
European and G-8 allies to communicate our concerns about this
legislation while it was still under Duma consideration. We believe
this law will chill and deter independent civil society in Russia. We
have pledged, together with our European allies, to closely monitor the
law's impact on civil society. Our assistance programs will continue to
support NGOs and activists working to promote democracy in Russia.
AUTHORITY OVER OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Question. As Director of Foreign Assistance, do you have authority
over foreign assistance activities run by other government agencies--
such as Treasury, CDC, and the MCC?
Answer. As Director of Foreign Assistance, I maintain authority
over foreign assistance funds allocated to the State Department and
USAID, which include approximately 80 percent of the foreign assistance
dollars appropriated by Congress. I will serve in a coordinating role
for all foreign assistance, including that delivered through other
agencies and entities of the U.S. Government.
DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
Question. How has the new position of Director of Foreign
Assistance been received by the various bureaus at State and USAID--
have you been welcomed, or are you seen as threat?
Answer. My new position as Director of Foreign Assistance has been
embraced by various bureaus at State and USAID. As expected with any
proposed change to status quo, there are those who would prefer the old
way of doing things. Those bureaus in support of the change recognize
the need to reform the way we plan, implement and measure the impact of
our foreign assistance resources to be more coherent and strategic.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Question. Have you had an opportunity to review the budget
justification materials that the Committee receives each fiscal year,
and if so, do you find them adequate? Are you contemplating any changes
to these materials for the fiscal year 2008 request, or in the account
structure of the budget request?
Answer. Our fiscal year 2008 budget justification to Congress will
differ markedly from previous justification materials. For fiscal year
2008, USAID and State will present one united budget justification that
will include all foreign assistance funds and USAID operating expenses.
In the near future, my staff will be consulting with appropriations
staff to review our proposal for justification material. At this time
we are not proposing changes to the account structure for fiscal year
2008. As the reform process evolves, if we encounter a need to
recommend changes to account structure, we will work closely with your
staff to explain the benefit of proposed changes.
TRANSFORMATIONAL DIPLOMACY
Question. What is your definition of ``transformational diplomacy''
and how does the fiscal year 2007 budget request support this concept?
Answer. ``Transformational diplomacy'' is defined by the Secretary
as, ``To work with our many partners around the world to build and
sustain democratic, well governed states that will respond to the needs
of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system.'' The fiscal year 2007 budget request aims to provide
assistance to our partners to continue economic growth, support
democracy, and expand individual opportunity.
REGIONAL PRIORITIES
Question. There have been significant political changes in Central
and South America over the years--best characterized as a lean to the
left. For years, Congress has advocated increased assistance to
countries in those regions, but the Administration has not included
significant increases in its annual budget request.
In your opinion, what countries in the Western Hemisphere are most
important to U.S. national security interests, what are those
interests, and how is U.S. assistance used to further our security
objectives?
Answer. The Western Hemisphere region as a whole is vital to U.S.
national security interests. Those interests include U.S. efforts to
defeat terrorism, to promote freedom, to fight the war on illegal drugs
and to develop strong trading relationships. Allow me to highlight our
assistance programs in five key Western Hemisphere nations: Bolivia,
Colombia, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
--Bolivia.--Evo Morales and his Movement toward Socialism (MAS) party
have continued to waver on its commitment to free market
economic policy, pluralist democracy, and counternarcotics--key
U.S. national security interests. Among other activities, the
U.S. Government is focusing assistance to Bolivia on programs
that strengthen vibrant and effective democracies, including
the support of counterweights to one-party control such as
judicial and media independence, a strong civil society, and
educated local and state level leaders.
--Colombia.--The key U.S. national security interest in Colombia is
to reduce the production and flow of illicit drugs to the
United States. The U.S. Government's alternative development
program creates an environment for sustainable and equitable
economic growth to create permanent licit alternative income-
generating opportunities in areas vulnerable to drug production
and trafficking. The program stimulates increased private
investment and creates the policy and institutional conditions
required to sustain and accelerate private investment-based job
and income creation. U.S. assistance also encompasses
strengthening democratic institutions, expanding access to
justice and the rule of law, anti-corruption and the promotion
of human rights.
--Haiti.--The installation of Rene Preval's administration marks the
resumption of constitutional governance in Haiti. The U.S.
Government is committed to working with the new government of
Haiti to help build a stable and well-governed state that is
responsive to the needs of its people. Mindful of the need for
economic development, the United States is supporting the
provision of short-term emergency jobs while helping create the
conditions for longer term growth and improved health and
education services. We will work with the newly elected Haitian
Parliament to strengthen institutional capacity and encourage
participatory democracy as a counterbalance to centralized
patronage politics. In the critical rule of law sector, our
focus will be to reform the justice system and improve access
to justice.
--Nicaragua.--The highest priority in Nicaragua for the United States
is ensuring free and fair elections. Elections will be held on
November 5, 2006 for president, vice president, members of the
National Assembly and delegates to the Central American
Parliament. There is a continuing lack of public confidence in
the Supreme Electoral Council's handling of the electoral
process and in whether or not presidential elections will be
handled impartially. In coordination with a variety of
international donors and organizations--including the
Organization of American States and local nongovernmental
organizations--U.S. assistance provides support for voter
education activities, updating voter registries, delivering
voter identification cards, and domestic and international
election observers. U.S. funding is also helping to establish
mediation centers nationwide to help alleviate congestion in
the court system, improve access to justice, and enhance public
confidence in the justice system.
--Venezuela.--The dismantling of democratic institutions by President
Hugo Chavez and increased control by the Venezuelan executive
branch over the country's five branches of government threatens
the continuation of representative democracy in Venezuela, a
key U.S. national security interest. Presidential elections
will take place in December 2006, and opposition groups have
raised serious concerns over the fairness and transparency of
the government-controlled electoral process. The U.S.
Government's work in Venezuela is handled through the Office of
Transition Initiatives. The objectives are to provide
assistance to strengthen and reinvigorate independent
democratic voices and reverse democratic backsliding by
enhancing civil society dialogue, supporting constitutional
processes, and strengthening democratic institutions.
COUNTRIES MOST IMPORTANT TO THE U.S. IN AFRICA
Question. In your opinion, what countries in Africa are most
important to U.S. national security interests, what are those
interests, and how is U.S. assistance used to further our security
objectives?
Answer. The Africa region as a whole is vital to U.S. national
security interests. Key areas of critical importance throughout the
continent include counter-terrorism and the implications of extractive
industries; establishing peace and security; and cross-cutting issues
of governance, gender, the impact of HIV/AIDS, urbanization and youth.
Allow me to highlight our assistance programs in Somalia, Ethiopia,
Eritrea, Sudan, Nigeria, and Liberia.
The U.S. Government (USG) interests in Sudan are of both a security
and humanitarian nature. Our goals in Sudan are to successfully
implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, ending the crisis in
Darfur and integrating all Sudanese regions into the Government of
National Unity. Our assistance focuses on the displaced populations in
Darfur, as well as on vulnerable populations in other regions of the
country. We support resettlement activities for refugees and displaced
persons and promote activities to protect civilians, especially the
prevention of violence against women. Looking to the longer term, we
are also raising local capacity to increase livelihood opportunities
and strengthen community resilience and local economies.
Liberia is a cornerstone in our strategy to promote regional
stability and to inhibit the activities of illegal traffickers and
terrorists in West Africa. After the signing of the Peace Agreement,
the USG played a leading role in helping Liberia maintain the peace and
begin the national reconstruction and rehabilitation process. In
November 2005, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was elected as Africa's first
woman head of state in an election deemed free and fair by the
international community. Current U.S. assistance is focused on
solidifying the transition process by enhancing democratic governance,
supporting agriculture and livelihoods, ensuring stability and security
by taking the lead in reforming the armed forces and police,
reintegrating refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, infrastructure
development, and supporting the provision of essential social services.
The Horn of Africa, Somalia in particular, is critical to U.S.
national security interests, given the potential for harboring and
spreading extremism. U.S. assistance helps reduce poverty and related
lack of access to social services (education in particular) to help
lift people out of despair and provide options to extremism. It also
helps stabilize and strengthen governance institutions that allow for
peaceful resolution of domestic and regional problems. We are also
providing food assistance to avert famine and building the region's
long-term capacity to ensure food security.
In Nigeria, our interests are to fight corruption, counter
increasing Islamic radicalization, and ensure stability in the energy
sector. The USG is working with the Government of Nigeria to strengthen
its governance institutions and reestablish military-to-military
relationships. We are building partnerships to counter terrorist
organizations, implementing recommendations to stabilize the energy
sector, and working to expand formal financial systems. Our assistance
is also being used to promote U.S. private sector involvement in the
key sectors of agriculture and aviation to stimulate economic growth
and trade.
GLOBAL FUND
Question. If you can put your AIDS Coordinator hat back on for a
moment, what level of funding is appropriate for the Global Fund in
fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The U.S. Government [USG] is by far the largest contributor
to the fight against global HIV/AIDS. In fiscal year 2004, the USG
provided approximately one-half of the world's commitment to
international HIV/AIDS support. The U.S. Government has dramatically
increased its commitment in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, while the rest
of the world, so far, has not. With the $4 billion request for fiscal
year 2007, the disproportion between the U.S. commitment and that of
the rest of the world will likely continue to grow.
Each country needs to find the right mix of bilateral and
multilateral contributions to get the most immediate results from its
investment. For the USG, the 20-year history of its bilateral programs
means that these programs can move much faster in the focus countries
than the Global Fund. Other governments have made similar
determinations to invest heavily in bilateral efforts rather than
multilateral options.
The Global Fund remains an important part of the Emergency Plan
strategy, and the U.S. Government remains by far its largest single
contributor of funds. The Emergency Plan originally anticipated
allocating $1 billion to the Global Fund over five years. However, we
are now on track to provide over $2 billion to the Fund in just the
first three years of the Emergency Plan, through fiscal year 2006. The
President's fiscal year 2007 request for focus country bilateral AIDS
programs funding--$2.717 billion within Foreign Operations and $2.776
total--is, in part, an attempt to recover from the effects of the
redirection of almost $527 million from focus country programs to the
Global Fund and other components of the Emergency Plan over PEPFAR's
first three years. If focus country budgets are not fully funded again
in fiscal year 2007, the capacity needed for a dramatic expansion of
services in fiscal year 2008 will not be possible--and no increase in
fiscal year 2008 spending could undo this setback. Without the fiscal
year 2007 level of funding for the focus countries, it will not be
possible to meet the 2-7-10 goals of the Emergency Plan--especially the
goal of supporting treatment for 2 million.
If the Global Fund maintains its core mission and a model that
Congress supports, and as the Fund's performance improves in the years
to come, there will be opportunities to reassess the level of U.S.
Government funding for it. For fiscal year 2007, however, it is crucial
that the USG continue to concentrate its resources on focus country
programs.
DEMOCRACY
Question. What is the total funding level for democracy, governance
and rule of law programs in the budget request?
Answer. The USAID request for funding for democracy, governance and
rule of law programs for fiscal year 2007 is $856,175,000 (including
DA, ESF, SEED and FSA).
FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET SUMMARY BY ACCOUNT FOR DEMOCRACY,
GOVERNANCE & HUMAN RIGHTS \1\
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
Account 2006 2007
estimate request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Operations............................ 1,281.1 1,573.4
Development Assistance.................... 190.1 168.6
Economic Support Fund..................... 655.7 756.3
USAID-implemented Programs............ 422.4 502.4
State Department/Global Programs...... 233.4 253.8
MEPI.............................. 99.0 120.0
Iraq.............................. 55.4 87.3
South Asia Regional............... 1.0 2.0
EAP Women's Issues................ 1.0 1.0
Laos.............................. ........... 0.3
House Democracy Assistance Program 1.0 ...........
Trafficking in Persons............ 11.9 8.5
UNHCHR Nepal...................... 1.5 ...........
Human Rights & Democracy Fund 62.6 35.0
Program (DRL) \2\................
Assistance for E. Europe & Baltics (SEED). 114.5 78.2
State Department Programs............. 37.2 22.8
USAID-implemented Programs............ 77.3 55.4
Freedom Support Act....................... 165.4 140.3
State Department Programs............. 40.9 32.1
USAID-implemented Programs............ 124.5 108.2
Democracy Fund (excluding UNDEF and HRDF). 23.6 ...........
National Endowment for Democracy...... 15.1 ...........
Country Programs...................... 8.5 ...........
Inter-American Foundation: Local 5.2 6.2
Governance & Democracy...................
INCLE..................................... 50.4 322.8
Women's Justice Empowerment Initiative ........... 9.5
Trafficking in Persons................ 5.0 7.0
Administration of Justice/Rule of Law/ 45.5 306.3
Anti-corruption......................
Andean Counterdrug Initiative............. 64.2 62.7
Administration of Justice/Rule of Law/ 29.0 27.9
Anti-corruption......................
USAID................................. 35.2 34.8
IO&P...................................... 11.9 38.4
U.N. Democracy Fund \2\............... 7.9 10.0
OAS Fund for Strengthening Democracy.. 2.5 2.5
U.N. Voluntary Fund for Technical 1.5 1.5
Cooperation in the Field of Human
Rights...............................
UNDP Democratic Governance Thematic ........... 24.5
Trust Fund...........................
State Operations.............................. 74.4 77.7
Related Appropriations.................... 74.4 77.7
The Asia Foundation \3\............... 8.5 6.5
National Endowment for Democracy \4\.. 65.9 71.2
-------------------------
GRAND TOTAL......................... 1,355.5 1,651.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table excludes: (1) funding for programs that support victims
of war and victims of torture that is sometimes categorized as ``human
rights''; (2) funding categorized as ``conflict management'',
including all Transition Initiatives (TI) funds, some DA and ESF
funding, and USG support for the U.S. Institute of Peace; (3) funding
for educational and cultural exchanges and public diplomacy programs
funded through State Operations that promote democracy.
\2\ Fiscal year 2006 funds were appropriated in the Democracy Fund.
\3\ Excludes portions of budget that are used for operating expenses and
non-democracy grant programs.
\4\ Excludes portion of budget that is used for operating expenses.
TAB 1.--USAID DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 estimate 2007 budget request
Operating unit Appropriation code -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy Democracy
Rule of Political Civil Governance and Rule of Political Civil Governance and
law process society governance law process society governance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Africa Regional......................... DA............................ 3,550 288 3,166 6,590 13,594 288 1,368 2,734 5,962 10,352
ESF........................... ......... ......... 4,000 4,613 8,613 ......... ......... 9,000 9,250 18,250
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Regional Total................. .............................. 3,550 288 7,166 11,203 22,207 288 1,368 11,734 15,212 28,602
Angola.................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 550 500 1,050 ......... ......... 2,482 1,586 4,068
ESF........................... 250 1,850 270 .......... 2,370 200 1,500 200 .......... 1,900
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angola Total.......................... .............................. 250 1,850 820 500 3,420 200 1,500 2,682 1,586 5,968
Benin................................... DA............................ ......... ......... 400 .......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .......... 400
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benin Total........................... .............................. ......... ......... 400 .......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .......... 400
Burundi................................. DA............................ ......... 99 288 393 780 ......... 223 220 350 793
ESF........................... ......... 611 1,200 1,200 3,011 ......... 250 1,000 750 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burundi Total......................... .............................. ......... 710 1,488 1,593 3,791 ......... 473 1,220 1,100 2,793
Democratic Republic of the Congo........ DA............................ ......... 1,316 1,000 .......... 2,316 1,000 ......... 1,356 1,000 3,356
ESF........................... 1,000 ......... 1,950 2,000 4,950 1,000 ......... 1,000 3,000 5,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Republic of the Congo Total...... .............................. 1,000 1,316 2,950 2,000 7,266 2,000 ......... 2,356 4,000 8,356
Ethiopia................................ DA............................ 573 ......... ......... 1,000 1,573 600 ......... ......... 1,000 1,600
ESF........................... 460 ......... 1,000 1,000 2,460 500 ......... 1,000 1,000 2,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethiopia Total........................ .............................. 1,033 ......... 1,000 2,000 4,033 1,100 ......... 1,000 2,000 4,100
Ghana................................... DA............................ ......... ......... 292 200 492 ......... ......... 250 250 500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghana Total........................... .............................. ......... ......... 292 200 492 ......... ......... 250 250 500
Guinea.................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 569 .......... 569 ......... ......... ......... 579 579
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guinea Total.......................... .............................. ......... ......... 569 .......... 569 ......... ......... ......... 579 579
Kenya................................... DA............................ ......... ......... 400 1,475 1,875 ......... ......... 500 1,402 1,902
ESF........................... ......... 1,200 1,520 250 2,970 ......... 1,200 1,805 250 3,255
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenya Total........................... .............................. ......... 1,200 1,920 1,725 4,845 ......... 1,200 2,305 1,652 5,157
Liberia................................. DA............................ 1,000 ......... ......... 2,684 3,684 1,447 ......... 1,300 1,000 3,747
ESF........................... 500 ......... 5,000 8,000 13,500 6,000 ......... ......... 7,500 13,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberia Total......................... .............................. 1,500 ......... 5,000 10,684 17,184 7,447 ......... 1,300 8,500 17,247
Madagascar.............................. DA............................ ......... ......... 492 400 892 ......... ......... ......... 400 400
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madagascar Total...................... .............................. ......... ......... 492 400 892 ......... ......... ......... 400 400
Mali.................................... DA............................ ......... 100 429 600 1,129 ......... 100 448 600 1,148
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mali Total............................ .............................. ......... 100 429 600 1,129 ......... 100 448 600 1,148
Mozambique.............................. DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 992 992 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mozambique Total...................... .............................. ......... ......... ......... 992 992 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
Namibia................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 490 272 762 ......... ......... 465 310 775
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Namibia Total......................... .............................. ......... ......... 490 272 762 ......... ......... 465 310 775
Nigeria................................. DA............................ ......... 132 1,318 1,846 3,296 10,352 ......... ......... .......... 10,352
ESF........................... ......... 4,950 ......... .......... 4,950 ......... 5,000 ......... .......... 5,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nigeria Total......................... .............................. ......... 5,082 1,318 1,846 8,246 10,352 5,000 ......... .......... 15,352
REDSO-ESA............................... DA............................ ......... ......... 836 1,000 1,836 ......... ......... 867 1,000 1,867
ESF........................... ......... 300 500 .......... 800 ......... 200 800 .......... 1,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDSO-ESA Total....................... .............................. ......... 300 1,336 1,000 2,636 ......... 200 1,667 1,000 2,867
Regional Center for Southern Africa..... DA............................ ......... 500 483 .......... 983 ......... 1,000 850 .......... 1,850
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Center for Southern Africa .............................. ......... 500 483 .......... 983 ......... 1,000 850 .......... 1,850
Total.
Rwanda.................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 1,000 629 1,629 ......... ......... 1,000 648 1,648
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rwanda Total.......................... .............................. ......... ......... 1,000 629 1,629 ......... ......... 1,000 648 1,648
Senegal................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 263 720 983 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senegal Total......................... .............................. ......... ......... 263 720 983 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
Sierra Leone............................ DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 2,041 2,041 ......... ......... ......... 2,076 2,076
ESF........................... ......... ......... ......... 5,940 5,940 ......... 500 500 1,500 2,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Leone Total.................... .............................. ......... ......... ......... 7,981 7,981 ......... 500 500 3,576 4,576
Somalia................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 1,545 .......... 1,545 ......... ......... 1,571 .......... 1,571
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somalia Total......................... .............................. ......... ......... 1,545 .......... 1,545 ......... ......... 1,571 .......... 1,571
South Africa............................ DA............................ 2,178 ......... 1,565 1,430 5,173 ......... ......... 1,752 3,504 5,256
ESF........................... 1,000 ......... 287 .......... 1,287 1,300 ......... ......... .......... 1,300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa Total.................... .............................. 3,178 ......... 1,852 1,430 6,460 1,300 ......... 1,752 3,504 6,556
Sudan................................... DA............................ ......... 2,100 1,749 300 4,149 ......... 2,100 1,749 300 4,149
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sudan Total........................... .............................. ......... 2,100 1,749 300 4,149 ......... 2,100 1,749 300 4,149
Tanzania................................ DA............................ ......... ......... 264 800 1,064 ......... ......... 310 764 1,074
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanzania Total........................ .............................. ......... ......... 264 800 1,064 ......... ......... 310 764 1,074
Uganda.................................. DA............................ ......... 1,218 500 660 2,378 ......... 1,000 1,419 .......... 2,419
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uganda Total.......................... .............................. ......... 1,218 500 660 2,378 ......... 1,000 1,419 .......... 2,419
West African Regional Program (WARP).... DA............................ ......... ......... 4,280 600 4,880 ......... ......... 6,354 600 6,954
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West African Regional Program (WARP) .............................. ......... ......... 4,280 600 4,880 ......... ......... 6,354 600 6,954
Total.
Zambia.................................. DA............................ ......... ......... 300 450 750 ......... ......... 300 450 750
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zambia Total.......................... .............................. ......... ......... 300 450 750 ......... ......... 300 450 750
Zimbabwe................................ DA............................ ......... 376 500 500 1,376 ......... ......... 700 700 1,400
ESF........................... ......... 900 570 1,500 2,970 ......... ......... 1,000 2,000 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zimbabwe Total........................ .............................. ......... 1,276 1,070 2,000 4,346 ......... ......... 1,700 2,700 4,400
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Total.......................... .............................. 10,511 15,940 38,976 50,585 116,012 22,687 14,441 43,332 51,731 132,191
===================================================================================================================================================
Asia and Near East:
Afghanistan............................. DA............................ 7,500 ......... ......... 22,500 30,000 12,000 7,000 ......... 6,000 25,000
ESF........................... ......... 3,000 8,000 47,000 58,000 ......... 3,000 9,000 124,000 136,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan Total..................... .............................. 7,500 3,000 8,000 69,500 88,000 12,000 10,000 9,000 130,000 161,000
ANE Regional............................ DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 2,028 2,028 ......... ......... ......... 3,225 3,225
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANE Regional Total.................... .............................. ......... ......... ......... 2,028 2,028 ......... ......... ......... 3,225 3,225
Bangladesh.............................. DA............................ 1,238 ......... ......... 1,336 2,574 ......... ......... ......... 1,550 1,550
ESF........................... 1,000 2,000 ......... 1,752 4,752 1,000 2,000 ......... 2,000 5,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh Total...................... .............................. 2,238 2,000 ......... 3,088 7,326 1,000 2,000 ......... 3,550 6,550
Cambodia................................ DA............................ ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... 237 ......... ......... 673 910
ESF........................... 6,113 3,485 817 960 11,375 4,595 4,160 975 2,770 12,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia Total........................ .............................. 6,113 3,485 817 960 11,375 4,832 4,160 975 3,443 13,410
China................................... DA............................ 2,475 ......... ......... .......... 2,475 ......... ......... ......... 733 733
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Total........................... .............................. 2,475 ......... ......... .......... 2,475 ......... ......... ......... 733 733
East Timor.............................. ESF........................... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 6,000 1,500 1,400 ......... 1,100 4,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Timor Total...................... .............................. 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 6,000 1,500 1,400 ......... 1,100 4,000
Egypt................................... ESF........................... 17,060 6,020 14,850 47,575 85,505 17,605 6,310 12,415 50,125 86,455
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt Total........................... .............................. 17,060 6,020 14,850 47,575 85,505 17,605 6,310 12,415 50,125 86,455
India................................... DA............................ 326 ......... ......... .......... 326 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
ESF........................... 200 ......... ......... .......... 200 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
India Total........................... .............................. 526 ......... ......... .......... 526 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Indonesia............................... ESF........................... 5,200 7,000 3,400 14,850 30,450 1,975 3,464 ......... 14,175 19,614
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia Total....................... .............................. 5,200 7,000 3,400 14,850 30,450 1,975 3,464 ......... 14,175 19,614
Iraq.................................... ESF........................... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 25,000 25,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Total............................ .............................. ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 25,000 25,000
Jordan.................................. ESF........................... 3,000 3,000 5,000 3,000 14,000 3,000 2,000 4,000 3,000 12,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Total.......................... .............................. 3,000 3,000 5,000 3,000 14,000 3,000 2,000 4,000 3,000 12,000
Lebanon................................. ESF........................... ......... ......... 2,000 5,000 7,000 8,000 ......... 1,000 1,000 10,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon Total......................... .............................. ......... ......... 2,000 5,000 7,000 8,000 ......... 1,000 1,000 10,000
Mongolia................................ ESF........................... 2,000 100 ......... 300 2,400 1,500 ......... ......... 400 1,900
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongolia Total........................ .............................. 2,000 100 ......... 300 2,400 1,500 ......... ......... 400 1,900
Morocco................................. ESF........................... ......... 2,900 600 2,940 6,440 ......... ......... 1,000 7,000 8,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morocco Total......................... .............................. ......... 2,900 600 2,940 6,440 ......... ......... 1,000 7,000 8,000
Nepal................................... DA............................ 1,485 ......... ......... .......... 1,485 1,500 ......... ......... .......... 1,500
ESF........................... ......... 990 ......... .......... 990 ......... 1,000 ......... .......... 1,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nepal Total........................... .............................. 1,485 990 ......... .......... 2,475 1,500 1,000 ......... .......... 2,500
Pakistan................................ DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 3,597 3,597 ......... ......... ......... 3,000 3,000
ESF........................... ......... 12,600 ......... 7,400 20,000 ......... 8,000 ......... 19,000 27,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan Total........................ .............................. ......... 12,600 ......... 10,997 23,597 ......... 8,000 ......... 22,000 30,000
Philippines............................. DA............................ 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 2,000 ......... 651 ......... 250 901
ESF........................... 3,000 ......... 2,500 1,000 6,500 1,000 249 ......... 6,500 7,749
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippines Total..................... .............................. 4,000 ......... 2,500 2,000 8,500 1,000 900 ......... 6,750 8,650
Regional Development Mission Asia (RDM- DA............................ ......... ......... 491 .......... 491 ......... ......... 640 .......... 640
Asia).
ESF........................... ......... ......... 3,564 .......... 3,564 ......... ......... 3,500 .......... 3,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Development Mission Asia (RDM- .............................. ......... ......... 4,055 .......... 4,055 ......... ......... 4,140 .......... 4,140
Asia) Total.
Sri Lanka............................... DA............................ ......... ......... 1,233 .......... 1,233 ......... ......... ......... 750 750
ESF........................... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... 250 250 800 1,300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sri Lanka Total....................... .............................. ......... ......... 1,233 2,000 3,233 ......... 250 250 1,550 2,050
West Bank and Gaza \1\.................. ESF........................... 19,922 3,000 8,300 5,628 36,850 4,000 ......... 6,000 15,500 25,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Bank and Gaza Total.............. .............................. 19,922 3,000 8,300 5,628 36,850 4,000 ......... 6,000 15,500 25,500
Yemen................................... ESF........................... 644 ......... 465 .......... 1,109 263 ......... 50 1,685 1,998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yemen Total........................... .............................. 644 ......... 465 .......... 1,109 263 ......... 50 1,685 1,998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia and Near East Total.............. .............................. 75,163 44,095 51,220 172,866 343,344 58,175 39,484 38,830 290,236 426,725
===================================================================================================================================================
Europe and Eurasia:
Albania................................. AEEB.......................... 1,200 500 2,127 2,100 5,927 1,000 300 1,554 1,935 4,789
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albania Total......................... .............................. 1,200 500 2,127 2,100 5,927 1,000 300 1,554 1,935 4,789
Armenia................................. FSA........................... 431 2,292 4,156 6,721 13,600 389 387 4,021 5,163 9,960
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armenia Total......................... .............................. 431 2,292 4,156 6,721 13,600 389 387 4,021 5,163 9,960
Azerbaijan.............................. FSA........................... 1,143 1,885 4,335 1,486 8,849 672 1,422 4,040 1,000 7,134
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azerbaijan Total...................... .............................. 1,143 1,885 4,335 1,486 8,849 672 1,422 4,040 1,000 7,134
Belarus................................. FSA........................... 414 970 3,732 .......... 5,116 390 906 4,641 .......... 5,937
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belarus Total......................... .............................. 414 970 3,732 .......... 5,116 390 906 4,641 .......... 5,937
Bosnia and Herzegovina.................. AEEB.......................... 3,500 1,700 3,230 4,206 12,636 2,450 1,600 2,300 3,002 9,352
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bosnia and Herzegovina Total.......... .............................. 3,500 1,700 3,230 4,206 12,636 2,450 1,600 2,300 3,002 9,352
Bulgaria................................ AEEB.......................... 4,315 ......... 1,104 3,446 8,865 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulgaria Total........................ 4,315......................... 1,104 3,446 8,865 .......... ........... ......... ......... .........
Croatia................................. AEEB.......................... ......... ......... 2,125 3,711 5,836 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Croatia Total......................... .............................. ......... ......... 2,125 3,711 5,836 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Eurasia Regional........................ FSA........................... 130 65 330 65 590 140 65 490 65 760
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurasia Regional Total................ .............................. 130 65 330 65 590 140 65 490 65 760
Europe Regional......................... AEEB.......................... 265 108 704 118 1,195 216 95 1,104 103 1,518
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe Regional Total................. .............................. 265 108 704 118 1,195 216 95 1,104 103 1,518
Georgia................................. FSA........................... 2,055 722 809 6,007 9,593 1,537 659 706 5,993 8,895
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Total......................... .............................. 2,055 722 809 6,007 9,593 1,537 659 706 5,993 8,895
Kazakhstan.............................. FSA........................... 856 397 3,864 .......... 5,117 ......... ......... 4,238 .......... 4,238
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kazakhstan Total...................... .............................. 856 397 3,864 .......... 5,117 ......... ......... 4,238 .......... 4,238
Kosovo.................................. AEEB.......................... 5,575 2,175 3,575 2,730 14,055 6,297 1,925 2,646 5,150 16,018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kosovo Total.......................... .............................. 5,575 2,175 3,575 2,730 14,055 6,297 1,925 2,646 5,150 16,018
Kyrgyzstan.............................. FSA........................... ......... ......... 2,644 1,800 4,444 1,000 200 3,180 1,676 6,056
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyrgyzstan Total...................... .............................. ......... ......... 2,644 1,800 4,444 1,000 200 3,180 1,676 6,056
Macedonia............................... AEEB.......................... 2,687 1,612 1,931 3,996 10,226 2,615 1,000 1,807 2,546 7,968
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macedonia Total....................... .............................. 2,687 1,612 1,931 3,996 10,226 2,615 1,000 1,807 2,546 7,968
Moldova................................. FSA........................... 1,645 1,138 1,644 2,599 7,026 1,696 1,825 2,384 173 6,078
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moldova Total......................... .............................. 1,645 1,138 1,644 2,599 7,026 1,696 1,825 2,384 173 6,078
Montenegro.............................. AEEB.......................... 1,200 560 1,028 .......... 2,788 300 ......... 600 1,250 2,150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montenegro Total...................... .............................. 1,200 560 1,028 .......... 2,788 300 ......... 600 1,250 2,150
Romania................................. AEEB.......................... 450 1,400 2,700 950 5,500 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Romania Total......................... .............................. 450 1,400 2,700 950 5,500 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Russia.................................. FSA........................... 4,162 5,565 25,418 3,105 38,250 3,155 3,615 18,299 3,815 28,884
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia Total.......................... .............................. 4,162 5,565 25,418 3,105 38,250 3,155 3,615 18,299 3,815 28,884
Serbia.................................. AEEB.......................... 1,805 1,400 3,000 1,000 7,205 4,027 1,400 3,500 1,000 9,927
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serbia Total.......................... .............................. 1,805 1,400 3,000 1,000 7,205 4,027 1,400 3,500 1,000 9,927
Tajikistan.............................. FSA........................... ......... 350 2,100 1,636 4,086 ......... ......... 2,554 1,692 4,246
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tajikistan Total...................... .............................. ......... 350 2,100 1,636 4,086 ......... ......... 2,554 1,692 4,246
Turkmenistan............................ FSA........................... ......... ......... 1,090 .......... 1,090 ......... ......... 1,100 .......... 1,100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkmenistan Total.................... .............................. ......... ......... 1,090 .......... 1,090 ......... ......... 1,100 .......... 1,100
Ukraine................................. FSA........................... 1,041 3,746 7,088 6,360 18,235 3,207 1,446 4,593 9,391 18,637
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine Total......................... .............................. 1,041 3,746 7,088 6,360 18,235 3,207 1,446 4,593 9,391 18,637
Uzbekistan.............................. FSA........................... 500 ......... 2,710 .......... 3,210 1,002 ......... 2,580 .......... 3,582
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uzbekistan Total...................... .............................. 500 ......... 2,710 .......... 3,210 1,002 ......... 2,580 .......... 3,582
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and Eurasia Total.............. .............................. 33,374 26,585 81,444 52,036 193,439 30,093 16,845 66,337 43,954 157,229
===================================================================================================================================================
Latin America and Caribbean:
Bolivia................................. ACI........................... 2,970 ......... ......... 400 3,370 2,000 ......... ......... .......... 2,000
DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 2,574 2,574 ......... ......... ......... 2,466 2,466
ESF........................... ......... 1,000 1,356 1,109 3,465 ......... 1,000 1,000 1,100 3,100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolivia Total......................... .............................. 2,970 1,000 1,356 4,083 9,409 2,000 1,000 1,000 3,566 7,566
Caribbean Regional Program.............. ESF........................... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... 1,000 ......... ......... .......... 1,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribbean Regional Program Total...... .............................. ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... 1,000 ......... ......... .......... 1,000
Colombia................................ ACI........................... 13,750 ......... 2,621 9,198 25,569 13,806 ......... 2,694 8,522 25,022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colombia Total........................ .............................. 13,750 ......... 2,621 9,198 25,569 13,806 ......... 2,694 8,522 25,022
Cuba.................................... ESF........................... ......... ......... 7,650 .......... 7,650 ......... ......... 6,500 .......... 6,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba Total............................ .............................. ......... ......... 7,650 .......... 7,650 ......... ......... 6,500 .......... 6,500
Dominican Republic...................... DA............................ 280 1,350 ......... 350 1,980 900 950 ......... 150 2,000
ESF........................... 1,000 ......... ......... 980 1,980 2,000 ......... ......... .......... 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominican Republic Total.............. .............................. 1,280 1,350 ......... 1,330 3,960 2,900 950 ......... 150 4,000
Ecuador................................. ACI........................... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 3,400 3,400
DA............................ 690 ......... 300 .......... 990 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
ESF........................... 600 400 780 200 1,980 150 550 400 1,078 2,178
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuador Total......................... .............................. 1,290 400 1,080 2,200 4,970 150 550 400 5,478 6,578
El Salvador............................. DA............................ 1,387 ......... 500 1,840 3,727 ......... ......... ......... 250 250
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Salvador Total..................... .............................. 1,387 ......... 500 1,840 3,727 ......... ......... ......... 250 250
Guatemala............................... DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 1,485 1,485 ......... 100 ......... 2,991 3,091
ESF........................... 1,891 396 ......... 2,168 4,455 1,850 ......... ......... 1,150 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala Total....................... .............................. 1,891 396 ......... 3,653 5,940 1,850 100 ......... 4,141 6,091
Guyana.................................. DA............................ 310 780 440 450 1,980 1,000 ......... 1,000 .......... 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guyana Total.......................... .............................. 310 780 440 450 1,980 1,000 ......... 1,000 .......... 2,000
Haiti................................... DA............................ ......... 795 791 2,350 3,936 ......... 2,850 4,150 2,000 9,000
ESF........................... 5,650 5,250 1,309 16,591 28,800 ......... ......... 5,700 10,000 15,700
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haiti Total........................... .............................. 5,650 6,045 2,100 18,941 32,736 ......... 2,850 9,850 12,000 24,700
Honduras................................ DA............................ 600 ......... ......... 1,380 1,980 600 ......... ......... 1,848 2,448
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honduras Total........................ .............................. 600 ......... ......... 1,380 1,980 600 ......... ......... 1,848 2,448
Jamaica................................. DA............................ 1,014 ......... 1,261 200 2,475 1,687 ......... 150 .......... 1,837
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamaica Total......................... .............................. 1,014 ......... 1,261 200 2,475 1,687 ......... 150 .......... 1,837
LAC Regional............................ DA............................ 506 500 90 8,299 9,395 ......... ......... 2,326 1,000 3,326
ESF........................... 3,000 ......... 2,960 1,000 6,960 ......... 1,500 1,995 1,600 5,095
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAC Regional Total.................... .............................. 3,506 500 3,050 9,299 16,355 ......... 1,500 4,321 2,600 8,421
Mexico.................................. DA............................ 2,610 ......... ......... 790 3,400 1,700 ......... ......... 300 2,000
ESF........................... 2,083 400 2,100 1,533 6,116 3,000 ......... 2,000 1,200 6,200
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico Total.......................... .............................. 4,693 400 2,100 2,323 9,516 4,700 ......... 2,000 1,500 8,200
Nicaragua............................... DA............................ 2,750 2,000 ......... 2,398 7,148 2,116 ......... ......... 2,116 4,232
ESF........................... ......... 3,366 ......... .......... 3,366 ......... 1,500 1,500 .......... 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicaragua Total....................... .............................. 2,750 5,366 ......... 2,398 10,514 2,116 1,500 1,500 2,116 7,232
Panama.................................. ESF........................... ......... ......... ......... 990 990 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama Total.......................... .............................. ......... ......... ......... 990 990 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Paraguay................................ DA............................ 980 ......... ......... 1,000 1,980 250 ......... 250 1,330 1,830
ESF........................... ......... 980 1,000 .......... 1,980 250 250 250 1,250 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraguay Total........................ .............................. 980 980 1,000 1,000 3,960 500 250 500 2,580 3,830
Peru.................................... ACI........................... ......... ......... 1,200 2,960 4,160 ......... ......... 1,000 3,400 4,400
DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 1,287 1,287 ......... ......... ......... 1,740 1,740
ESF........................... ......... 1,090 ......... 890 1,980 ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peru Total............................ .............................. ......... 1,090 1,200 5,137 7,427 ......... 1,000 1,000 6,140 8,140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin America and Caribbean Total..... .............................. 42,071 18,307 24,358 64,422 149,158 32,309 9,700 30,915 50,891 123,815
===================================================================================================================================================
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance:
Office of Democracy and Governance...... DA............................ 2,227 19,800 3,366 2,723 28,116 2,500 7,150 3,500 2,750 15,900
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Democracy and Governance .............................. 2,227 19,800 3,366 2,723 28,116 2,500 7,150 3,500 2,750 15,900
Total.
Office of Private and Voluntary DA............................ ......... ......... 891 .......... 891 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Private and Voluntary .............................. ......... ......... 891 .......... 891 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Cooperation Total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian .............................. 2,227 19,800 4,257 2,723 29,007 2,500 7,150 3,500 2,750 15,900
Assistance Total.
===================================================================================================================================================
Office of Global Development Alliances:
Office of Global Development Alliances.. DA............................ ......... ......... ......... 1,880 1,880 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Global Development Alliances .............................. ......... ......... ......... 1,880 1,880 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Global Development Alliances .............................. ......... ......... ......... 1,880 1,880 ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
Total.
===================================================================================================================================================
Program and Policy Coordination:
Bureau for Policy and Program DA............................ 80 80 80 80 320 78 79 79 79 315
Coordination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau for Policy and Program .............................. 80 80 80 80 320 78 79 79 79 315
Coordination Total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program and Policy Coordination Total. .............................. 80 80 80 80 320 78 79 79 79 315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACI Sum....................... 16,720 ......... 3,821 14,558 35,099 15,806 ......... 3,694 15,322 34,822
AEEB Sum..................... 20,997 9,455 21,524 22,257 74,233 16,905 6,320 13,511 14,986 51,722
DA Sum........................ 34,759 31,434 32,122 85,629 183,944 38,255 24,571 39,122 62,682 164,630
ESF Sum....................... 78,573 66,788 82,948 192,369 420,678 61,688 46,283 73,840 317,683 499,494
FSA Sum....................... 12,377 17,130 59,920 29,779 119,206 13,188 10,525 52,826 28,968 105,507
IDA Sum....................... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... ......... ......... ......... .......... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total--USAID Democracy & .............................. 163,426 124,807 200,335 344,592 833,160 145,842 87,699 182,993 439,641 856,175
Governance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notional--program under review.
TAB 2.--USAID HUMAN RIGHTS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 estimate 2007 budget request
Operating unit Appropriation code -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victims Trafficking Total Victims Trafficking Total
Victims of in human Victims of in human
of war torture persons rights of war torture persons rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Africa Regional................. DA.................... 2,950 2,778 1,966 7,694 3,000 2,825 2,000 7,825
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Regional Total......... ...................... 2,950 2,778 1,966 7,694 3,000 2,825 2,000 7,825
Ethiopia........................ ESF................... ......... ......... 300 300 ......... ......... 300 300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethiopia Total................ ...................... ......... ......... 300 300 ......... ......... 300 300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Total.................. ...................... 2,950 2,778 2,266 7,994 3,000 2,825 2,300 8,125
===================================================================================================================
Asia and Near East:
Bangladesh...................... DA.................... ......... ......... 891 891 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh Total.............. ...................... ......... ......... 891 891 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
Cambodia........................ DA.................... ......... ......... 2,331 2,331 ......... ......... ........... .........
ESF................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia Total................ ...................... ......... ......... 2,331 2,331 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
India........................... DA.................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... 374 ........... 374
ESF................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... 270 ........... 270
India Total................... ...................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... 644 ........... 644
Indonesia....................... ESF................... ......... ......... 1,400 1,400 ......... ......... 386 386
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia Total............... ...................... ......... ......... 1,400 1,400 ......... ......... 386 386
Iraq............................ ESF................... 5,000 ......... ........... 5,000 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Total.................... 5,000................. ......... ......... 5,000 ......... ......... ......... ...........
Nepal........................... ESF................... 301 ......... ........... 301 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nepal Total................... ...................... 301 ......... ........... 301 ......... ......... ........... .........
Pakistan........................ DA.................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan Total................ ...................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000
Philippines..................... ESF................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 250 250
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippines Total............. ...................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 250 250
Regional Development Mission-- DA.................... 743 ......... ........... 743 ......... ......... ........... .........
Asia (RDM-Asia).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Development Mission-- ...................... 743 ......... ........... 743 ......... ......... ........... .........
Asia (RDM-Asia) Total.
Sri Lanka....................... DA.................... 1,000 ......... ........... 1,000 1,000 ......... ........... 1,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sri Lanka Total............... ...................... 1,000 ......... ........... 1,000 1,000 ......... ........... 1,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia and Near East Total...... ...................... 7,044 ......... 4,622 11,666 1,000 644 3,636 5,280
===================================================================================================================
Europe and Eurasia:
Albania......................... AEEB.................. ......... ......... 1,530 1,530 ......... ......... 1,343 1,343
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albania Total................. ...................... ......... ......... 1,530 1,530 ......... ......... 1,343 1,343
Bosnia and Herzegovina.......... AEEB.................. ......... ......... 800 800 ......... ......... 1,905 1,905
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bosnia and Herzegovina Total.. ...................... ......... ......... 800 800 ......... ......... 1,905 1,905
Bulgaria........................ AEEB.................. ......... ......... 145 145 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulgaria Total................ ...................... ......... ......... 145 145 ......... ......... ........... .........
Eurasia Regional................ FSA................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 80 80
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eurasia Regional Total........ ...................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 80 80
Europe Regional................. AEEB.................. ......... ......... 673 673 ......... ......... 275 275
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe Regional Total......... ...................... ......... ......... 673 673 ......... ......... 275 275
Georgia......................... FSA................... ......... ......... 222 222 ......... ......... 220 220
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Total................. ...................... ......... ......... 222 222 ......... ......... 220 220
Kazakhstan...................... FSA................... ......... ......... 680 680 ......... ......... 242 242
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kazakhstan Total.............. ...................... ......... ......... 680 680 ......... ......... 242 242
Kosovo.......................... AEEB.................. ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 200 200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kosovo Total.................. ...................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... 200 200
Kyrgyzstan...................... FSA................... ......... ......... 350 350 ......... ......... 170 170
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyrgyzstan Total.............. ...................... ......... ......... 350 350 ......... ......... 170 170
Moldova......................... FSA................... ......... ......... 972 972 ......... ......... 777 777
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moldova Total................. ...................... ......... ......... 972 972 ......... ......... 777 777
Russia.......................... FSA................... ......... ......... 750 750 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia Total.................. ...................... ......... ......... 750 750 ......... ......... ........... .........
Tajikistan...................... FSA................... ......... ......... 510 510 ......... ......... 28 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tajikistan Total.............. ...................... ......... ......... 510 510 ......... ......... 28 28
Ukraine......................... FSA................... ......... ......... 1,218 1,218 ......... ......... 1,195 1,195
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine Total................. ...................... ......... ......... 1,218 1,218 ......... ......... 1,195 1,195
Uzbekistan...................... FSA................... ......... ......... 600 600 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uzbekistan Total.............. ...................... ......... ......... 600 600 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and Eurasia Total...... ...................... ......... ......... 8,450 8,450 ......... ......... 6,435 6,435
===================================================================================================================
Latin America and Caribbean:
Ecuador......................... ACI................... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... ......... ........... .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuador Total................. ...................... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... ......... ........... .........
Haiti........................... DA.................... ......... 1,400 1,000 2,400 ......... 1,000 ........... 1,000
ESF................... ......... ......... ........... ......... ......... 300 1,000 1,300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haiti Total................... ...................... ......... 1,400 1,000 2,400 ......... 1,300 1,000 2,300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin America and Caribbean ...................... ......... 1,400 1,100 2,500 ......... 1,300 1,000 2,300
Total.
===================================================================================================================
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance:
Office of Democracy and DA.................... 4,504 4,505 ........... 9,009 4,000 4,000 ........... 8,000
Governance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Democracy and ...................... 4,504 4,505 ........... 9,000 4,000 4,000 ........... 8,000
Governance Total.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy, Conflict and ...................... 4,504 4,505 ........... 9,009 4,000 4,000 ........... 8,000
Humanitarian Assistance Total.
===================================================================================================================
ACI Sum............... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... ......... ........... .........
AEEB Sum.............. ......... ......... 3,148 3,148 ......... ......... 3,723 3,723
DA Sum................ 9,197 8,683 6,188 24,068 8,000 8,199 4,000 20,199
ESF Sum............... 5,301 ......... 1,700 7,001 ......... 570 2,936 3,506
FSA Sum............... ......... ......... 5,302 5,302 ......... ......... 2,712 2,712
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total--USAID Human ...................... 14,498 8,683 16,438 39,619 8,000 8,769 13,371 30,140
Rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRACY, GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS FUNDING (ALL-SOURCES)--NEAR EAST,
EAST ASIA PACIFIC, AND SOUTH ASIA (INCLUDING CENTRAL ASIA)
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
2006 2007
estimate request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary--Near East and Asia
Development Assistance........................ 49,431 40,209
ESF........................................... 489,011 600,472
USAID implemented......................... 299,426 390,152
State/Global Programs..................... 189,585 210,320
FSA--USAID & State Programs............... 40,384 34,303
Democracy Fund (excl. HRDF)............... 12,673 ...........
INCLE..................................... 27,590 286,425
The Asia Foundation....................... 8,500 6,500
-------------------------
TOTAL................................... 627,589 967,909
=========================
Bilateral Detail
Development Assistance (DA):
Afghanistan............................... 30,000 25,000
ANE Regional.............................. 2,028 3,225
Bangladesh................................ 3,465 2,550
Cambodia.................................. 2,331 910
China..................................... 2,475 733
India..................................... 326 ...........
Nepal..................................... 1,485 1,500
Pakistan.................................. 3,597 4,000
Philippines............................... 2,000 901
RDM-Asia.................................. 491 640
Sri Lanka................................. 1,233 750
-------------------------
DA Subtotal............................. 49,431 40,209
=========================
Economic Support Fund (ESF)--USAID
implemented:
Afghanistan............................... 58,000 136,000
Bangladesh................................ 4,752 5,000
Cambodia.................................. 11,375 13,500
East Timor................................ 6,000 4,000
Egypt..................................... 85,505 86,455
India..................................... 200 ...........
Indonesia................................. 31,850 20,000
Iraq...................................... ........... 25,000
Jordan.................................... 14,000 12,000
Lebanon................................... 7,000 10,000
Mongolia.................................. 2,400 1,900
Morocco................................... 6,440 8,000
Nepal..................................... 990 1,000
Pakistan.................................. 20,000 27,000
Philippines............................... 6,500 7,999
RDM-Asia.................................. 3,564 3,500
Sri Lanka................................. 2,000 1,300
West Bank and Gaza \1\.................... 36,850 25,500
Yemen..................................... 1,109 1,998
-------------------------
ESF Subtotal--USAID..................... 298,535 390,152
=========================
Economic Support Fund (ESF)--State/Global
Programs:
Iraq...................................... 55,440 87,270
S. Asia Regional.......................... 990 2,000
MEPI...................................... 99,000 120,000
Laos...................................... ........... 250
EAP Regional Women's Issues............... 990 800
UNHCHR Nepal.............................. 1,485 ...........
HRDF...................................... 31,680 ...........
China................................. 19,800 ...........
Muslim--outside Middle East \2\....... 11,880 ...........
-------------------------
ESF Subtotal--State/Global.......... 189,585 210,320
=========================
Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union (FSA)--USAID implemented:
Eurasia Regional.......................... 590 840
Kazakhstan................................ 5,797 4,480
Kyrgyz Republic........................... 4,794 6,226
Tajikistan................................ 4,596 4,274
Turkmenistan.............................. 1,090 1,100
Uzbekistan................................ 3,810 3,582
-------------------------
FSA Subtotal--USAID..................... 20,677 20,502
=========================
Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union (FSA)--State implemented:
Eurasia Regional.......................... 8,038 7,410
Kazakhstan................................ 555 538
Kyrgyz Republic........................... 6,200 2,349
Tajikistan................................ 1,390 1,497
Turkmenistan.............................. 680 810
Uzbekistan................................ 2,844 1,197
-------------------------
FSA Subtotal--State..................... 19,707 13,801
=========================
Democracy Fund:
NED programs:
China................................. 2,970 ...........
Tibet................................. 248 ...........
N Korea............................... 990 ...........
Other Country Programs:
Thailand.............................. 1,980 ...........
Iran and Syria........................ 6,485 ...........
-------------------------
Subtotal Democracy Fund............. 12,673 ...........
=========================
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
(INCLE):
Afghanistan............................... 26,500 38,000
Indonesia................................. 515 525
Iraq...................................... ........... 247,600
Philippines............................... 350 300
Thailand.................................. 225 ...........
-------------------------
INCLE Subtotal.......................... 27,590 286,425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notional--program currently under review.
\2\ Programs may also be implemented outside of Asia.
STATE DEPARTMENT/USAID DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAMS
Democracy and governance programs are technical assistance and
other support to strengthen capacity of reform-minded governments, non-
governmental actors, and/or citizens in order to develop and support
democratic states and institutions that are responsive and accountable
to citizens. They also include efforts to promote democratic
transitions in countries that are not reform-minded.
Programs are organized around core concepts considered the key
building blocks of democracy. Democracy programs promote the rule of
law and human rights, transparent and fair elections coupled with a
competitive political process, a free and independent media, stronger
civil society and greater citizen participation in government, and
governance structures that are efficient, responsive and accountable.
COORDINATION OF DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS
Question. Within USAID and State, who specifically has authority
over democracy programs, and how do USAID and State currently
coordinate to ensure that democracy programs support U.S. policy
objectives? How about coordination with the National Endowment for
Democracy? What are your plans to improve this coordination?
Answer. The Director of Foreign Assistance has authority over all
foreign assistance, including democracy programs. State and USAID are
reforming foreign assistance processes to ensure that they advance the
Secretary's transformational diplomacy goal of, ``Helping to build and
sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs
of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system.'' The reform has identified five primary objectives toward
achieving this goal, of which one is supporting states to ``govern
justly and democratically.'' All State and USAID programs in democracy
will advance this objective in a manner that supports the Secretary's
goal. At present, coordination with the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) is performed in Washington primarily through State's
Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, through which the NED
receives its Congressional appropriation as well as additional
Washington funds. Coordination in the field is done through the
respective embassies and USAID missions. USAID works closely with the
NED core institutes, such as the International Republican Institute
(IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) both on policy issues
and field operations with respect to the programs USAID manages.
DEMOCRACY FUND
Question. Last year, Senator Leahy and I created a new ``Democracy
Fund'' account as a first step to improve the conduct and management of
democracy, governance and rule of law programs by consolidating
activities under a single account. Do you support the Democracy Fund?
Answer. I support the objective of the Democracy Fund. I concur
that we need to improve the conduct and management of democracy,
governance and rule of law programs, in addition to programs in other
sector areas. As Director of Foreign Assistance, my aim is to bring
increased coherence, accountability and transparency to the use of our
foreign assistance resources. I look forward to sharing with the
Committee our progress in this regard.
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAMS IN CHINA
Question. Understanding you inherited the fiscal year 2007 budget
request, how do you justify the inadequate request of $733,000 for
democracy and governance programs in China?
Answer. I agree we should be taking every reasonable opportunity to
advance democracy in China. State's Bureau for Democracy Human Rights
and Labor supports a $20 million/year democracy promotion program in
China--USAID's request was to continue a modest Development Assistance
(DA) funded program with universities (and possibly expanding to NGOs).
The $733,000 allocated to democracy and governance, out of a total of
$5 million in DA for China, was allocated with the additional $20
million in ESF for democracy in mind.
BRANDING
Question. What is USAID's branding policy with respect to democracy
assistance? Would you agree that there should be exceptions to
branding--such as assistance provided to support elections?
Answer. USAID's branding policy for assistance awards was
established by federal rulemaking, including solicitation and
adaptation of comments by USAID grantees, and is published at 22 C.F.R.
226.91. The published regulation anticipated Congress's concern by
including seven ``presumptive exceptions'' under which branding is not
required for programmatic reasons, including several that may apply to
democracy programs, and one specifically that provides an exception if
marking would ``compromise the intrinsic independence or neutrality of
a program or materials where independence or neutrality is an inherent
aspect of the program or materials, such as election monitoring or
ballots, and voter information literature; political party support or
public policy advocacy or reform; independent media, such as television
and radio broadcasts, newspaper article and editorials; public service
announcements or public opinion polls and surveys.''
USAID PERSONNEL
Question. A number of key positions at USAID remain unfilled,
including the Assistant Administrator for Management, the Assistant
Administrator for Europe and Eurasia, and the Inspector General.
Do you have a timeframe for when these positions may be filled?
Answer. I share your concern. These positions are critical to the
success of our new strategic framework. I expect that we will be able
recommend nominees to the President's staff in the coming weeks.
Donald Gambatesa was sworn in as Inspector General on January 17,
2006.
CONTRACTORS
Question. USAID relies on a number of institutional contractors at
USAID who provide support services to bureaus and programs.
Do you believe a conflict of interest exists for contractors
working at USAID, and how do you ensure that they represent the
interests of the Agency and not their employers?
Answer. In the absence of appropriate safeguards and vigilance,
there could be the potential for a conflict of interest. At USAID we
take this issue very seriously and have worked to fully comply with the
letter and spirit of the Federal Acquisition Regulation on
Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (FAR 9.500) which
limits certain activities that are vulnerable to such conflicts. Since
1999 USAID has applied the FAR standards to organizations performing
designs, evaluations and audits. When mitigation of a potential
conflict is not feasible, USAID restricts follow-on work. These
policies include solicitation and contract clauses as well as non-
disclosure agreements to assure contractors are aware of limitations.
Contractors have a strong incentive to hew closely to the rules, as
they are aware that any deviation could endanger their ability to
compete on future contracts.
Our best guard against these issues is awareness of the rules. We
accomplish this through our annual ethics training as well as regular
outreach trainings conducted by our General Counsel. While we expect
our contractors to have corporate codes of conduct, our supplementary
training helps sensitize contractor employees to unique vulnerabilities
under Federal contracts. These include assuring that contractor
employees are not privy to sensitive internal Government information.
In addition to training and contract clauses, USAID Cognizant
Technical Officers monitor vulnerabilities to conflicts of interest.
The Ombudsman for USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance can
address concerns raised by contractors and their employees. Finally,
the Inspector General maintains a hotline that can be used if someone
is concerned about an apparent conflict of interest.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
TUBERCULOSIS
Question. Tuberculosis [TB] is the leading cause of death among
people who are HIV-positive, because of their weakened immune system.
One-third of the more than 40 million people with HIV/AIDS are also
infected with TB. In areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, up to half of
AIDS related deaths are caused by TB.
In fiscal year 2005, 1.8 percent of PEPFAR's funding was directed
toward TB/HIV activities. In fiscal year 2006 this number grew to about
2.5 percent of PEPFAR's budget. Given that TB is the leading cause of
death of those infected by HIV/AIDS, do you plan to devote a larger
portion of the PEPFAR budget towards programs designed to combat the
threat caused by TB in the fiscal year 2007 budget?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, $19.3 million went to supporting TB-
related activities in the fifteen focus countries. That amount is
planned to increase to $40.1 million in fiscal year 2006. In addition,
$91.5 million in additional funds are planned to support other
bilateral country programs in fiscal year 2006. Focus country funding
is expected to increase in fiscal year 2007 as well. Fiscal year 2007
Country Operational Plans are currently being produced and will be
submitted for review in late 2006; these plans will set forth planned
spending levels for TB/HIV activities in fiscal year 2007.
The President's budget request also includes $91.3 million in
fiscal year 2007 for support of TB activities in other bilateral
countries. In addition, the U.S. Government is the largest donor to the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, contributing one-
third of the Fund's resources. The Global Fund finances essential HIV
and TB programs in resource-limited settings. The Emergency Plan
emphasizes TB care and treatment for co-infected patients be included
in the country level plans, and it is considered and priority program
area in guidance that has been provided to the countries in
establishing their operational plans. The Emergency Plan supports
programming that includes diagnosis of latent TB infection, treatment
to prevent development of active disease, and general TB-related care.
Because of the high rate of co-morbidity between TB and HIV/AIDS, we
are also urging the counseling and testing facilities the United States
supports to offer HIV testing to those who present with TB or other
infectious diseases. The Emergency Plan has developed ``basic
preventive care packages'' that include key support and preventive
therapies. These packages include the tuberculosis treatment therapies
mentioned above.
The Emergency Plan will continue to work with its partner USG
implementing agencies that have programs focusing on TB and malaria,
coordinating those programs with the Emergency Plan efforts focusing on
HIV/AIDS.
BLOOD SAFETY
Question. Another problem facing in the developing world is the
inability of medical providers to test blood to be used in blood
transfusions for AIDS and other potentially deadly diseases. This
problem is particularly acute in many sub-Saharan countries.
PEPFAR is making tremendous efforts to address this problem in the
program's fifteen focus countries. However, tainted blood is still a
major problem in many non-focus countries in sub-Saharan Africa. What
efforts do you propose to address this problem in non-focus countries,
particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa?
Answer. With the knowledge that turning the tide against global
AIDS requires a global fight, the Emergency Plan supports HIV/AIDS
programs in 108 countries in addition to the 15 focus countries. The
Emergency Plan strategy is to develop lessons learned from the rapid
scale-up of national integrated prevention, treatment, and care
programs in the focus countries, and have the greatest impact possible
in the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS. These lessons learned are
being applied to non-focus countries, including those in sub-Saharan
Africa, in an effort to put into practice the most successful and
comprehensive programs.
PEPFAR supports international blood safety organizations to partner
with host countries in the development of comprehensive systems that
include low-risk blood donor selection, blood banking, and blood safety
training. The goal of these programs is to increase blood supply
through donor recruitment. The programs also work to ensure blood
safety through proper screening of donors and donated blood. Currently,
the Emergency Plan supports:
--National programs to improve the quality of blood supplies through
improved policies;
--The establishment of laboratory facilities and commodity
procurement; and
--Healthcare worker training and management for technicians needing
blood safety expertise.
The Emergency Plan also provides technical assistance to support
countries in implementing the foundational components of effective
national blood transfusion services.
PERU COCA PRODUCTION
Question. In April this year, I traveled to Latin America on a
CODEL. While in Peru, I met with Susan Keogh, Director of Narcotics
Affairs in Peru. Ms. Keogh informed me that approximately 400,000 acres
are being deforested annually for the cultivation of coca and other
plants. On average, there are approximately 40,000 to 100,000 coca
plants per two acres, which require about two tons of chemicals to be
used for their production.
Since coca is very vulnerable to diseases, coca growers cover the
coca with pesticides which are very deleterious to the environment.
Some portions of these chemicals almost always find their way into
rivers and streams, as coca must be cultivated close to a water supply.
When I asked what efforts the Peruvian Government is taking to
combat these problems, Ms. Keough remarked that the Peruvian government
hardly focuses on this issue of cocaine and its effects on the
environment.
I noticed your fiscal year 2007 Budget Justification notes that,
``Limited government presence in the highlands and jungle allows
illegal coca cultivation . . . to flourish'' and that ``USAID
strengthens state presence through programs to reduce coca
cultivation.'' Could you elaborate on your efforts in Peru?
Answer. As in so much of the South American region, the
deforestation rates in Peru are abysmal, and while coca production does
play a role in this, many analysts believe it is by far less a
contributing factor than illegal logging and agriculture expansion. The
relationship between coca cultivation and deforestation in Peru has
declined rapidly in recent years as profitable legal crops have
expanded the agricultural frontier. This has resulted in a legal
agricultural market that dwarfs the illegal coca market in terms of
total land use. Furthermore, according to the latest statistics, Peru's
total coca crop, 120,000 acres, is declining.
The primary threat of deforestation deriving from coca farmers, and
other colonizers, is driven by poor agricultural practices that result
in the complete loss of soil nutrients in just a few years. USAID/
Peru's Alternative Development Program directly addresses this threat,
as described below in response to the last question. A lesser threat
related to coca farming is posed by new farmers wishing to colonize new
areas to grow coca. Nevertheless, compared to years past, the ``new
colonizers'' are responsible for much less deforestation than 15 years
ago. Andean Counterdrug Initiative [ACI] funding also addresses this
issue by consolidating the Government of Peru's efforts to protect
national parks and strengthen the sustainable forestry concession
program as described below. Dissuading colonizers is also an important
byproduct of programmed eradication and interdiction activities.
Peru's coca production thrives in areas that present development
obstacles and where the government has a very limited presence. In
these neglected and generally impoverished areas, coca production and
processing brings violence and lawlessness and provides a source of
financing for remnants of terrorist groups that inhabit them. Given the
charged and threatening atmosphere of narco-trafficking in coca-growing
areas, traditional state services and development projects cannot rely
on police presence which means that education, health, and private
investment projects are very costly and difficult to implement. USAID
strengthens state presence in these areas through a multi-pronged
approach, supporting activities to reduce coca cultivation and promote
licit alternatives, complemented by actions in local government
strengthening, health, education, economic growth, and environment.
A key component of the USG's comprehensive counter-narcotics
strategy, USAID/Peru's Alternative Development Program operates in
concert with other U.S. Government agencies, including the State
Department's Narcotics Affairs Section and the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, as well as the Government of Peru [GOP], to reduce
illegal coca production in Peru in a sustained manner. USAID pursues
this goal principally through ``voluntary eradication,'' where coca-
growing communities sign an agreement with the GOP to pursue a licit
lifestyle and destroy their own coca plantings. The GOP and USAID then
support the community's transition to a licit lifestyle by providing
development assistance based on the community's priorities. This
assistance often takes the form of infrastructure (bridges, roads,
schools, and health clinics). Many of the specific investments in
communities are leveraging State presence where it did not exist
previously. A school brings the Ministry of Education; a health center,
the Ministry of Health; a bridge or a road forces the local governments
to maintain the infrastructure. Alternative Development-supported
projects provide an opening for government ministries to establish
themselves in the communities and begin to provide traditional services
to the local population.
USAID interventions also assist coca producers in moving towards
high-paying export crops like coffee, cacao, and palm oil production.
These productive activities are catalyzing interest the private sector,
making national and international businesses stakeholders in the
Alternative Development Program. All activities are closely coordinated
between local governments and community members, thereby reestablishing
local governments' role as an effective and transparent governing body
that addresses the needs of its constituencies. In addition, USAID
interventions must pass an environmental review which works to mitigate
any further degradation, and all USAID projects are required to use
``best practices'' in land and agricultural management, as well as,
minimize the use of pesticides. All forestry projects must be designed
to be sustainable, to reduce future environmental problems.
Question. What efforts is USAID involved in to combat not only
coca, but the adverse impacts production of that illicit crop has on
the environment?
Answer. Fragile eco-systems are threatened by coca production and
the rampant illegal logging in Peru. USAID promotes licit livelihoods
through the reduction of poverty, the conservation of biodiversity and
the implementation and enforcement of existing environmental legal
frameworks in Peru. USAID interventions are also held to a strict
standard including an environmental assessment before any projects
begins and required environmental planning as the project is
implemented. Most logging of Peru's precious timber stock is illegal
and is often carried out in concert with narco-traffickers, as log
trucks are often used to carry hidden stashes of drugs. Given that the
forest sector is one of Peru's largest, untapped sources of jobs and
export revenue, USAID's Environment Program is helping to formalize the
forest sector. Activities include support to communities living in the
coca growing areas to substitute coca cultivation with forest
certification activities and increase their sales of licit certified
wood products in Peru and the rest of the world. This includes efforts
to not just protect forest land, but make it sustainable for the
future.
In nationally protected areas and parks, USAID programs work with
local communities and the GOP to protect the eco-systems and develop
natural resource management strategies that improve livelihoods while
protecting these areas. Additionally, the program fosters greater GOP
presence in protected areas by enabling municipal authorities to assume
their roles in the implementation and enforcement of existing
environmental legal frameworks that will prevent further expansion of
coca into protected areas. USAID is also aware of the impacts to water
quality that occur due to coca refinement. While the Mission does not
have any programs in this area, it is aware of the Embassy in Bolivia's
work to address it.
Question. USAID's fiscal year 2007 request for Environment and
Natural Resource funds for Peru is $3.070 million which is a 24.4
percent decrease from fiscal year 2004. Further USAID's fiscal year
2007 request for Alternative Development is down 14.5 percent over that
same period. Can you explain this trend?
Answer. Since 2001, overall development assistance to Latin America
and the Caribbean has increased from $862,452,000 in fiscal year 2001
to $1,696,841,000 in fiscal year 2007. The funding levels for the
Andean Counterdrug Initiative have remained consistent between fiscal
year 2004 through 2006. USAID recognizes the intrinsic relationship
between the environment and coca production though and has therefore
supplemented the environment programs with $2.8 million in fiscal year
2005 and 2006 ACI funding.
Question. I note that the Andean Counterdrug Initiative funds from
Agriculture and Environment have increased from $2.9 million to $35.1
million over this period of time--representing a 1,077 percent
increase. Are any of these funds being used to mitigate the harm being
done to the environment due to coca production?
Answer. The appearance of the enormous increase in the agriculture
and environment sectors with ACI is due to a definitional change in the
funding codes during this last reporting period. Previously, we
attributed the bulk of ACI funds to the economic growth sector under
the ``other economic growth code''. A change in the code's definition
last year made it necessary to attribute our ACI funds to the
agriculture sector with the codes corresponding to ``Rural
Development'' and ``Agriculture Production and Productivity.'' All ACI-
related activities remain the same.
All of our agricultural and infrastructure activities follow strict
standards designed to protect the environment and must undergo
environmental impact assessments, including the use of integrated pest
management techniques and organic production whenever possible. Farmers
are taught to use sustainable agricultural practices that maintain the
viability of their land and permit permanent cultivation, therefore
eliminating the need to clear-cut jungle regions to access fertile
land. The sustainable cultivation of long-term and profitable crops,
combined with other social benefits, has been successful in preventing
a return to coca cultivation and encourages these young and unstable
communities (often they are `communities' in name only) to stay put and
develop, linking up with local government rather than migrating deeper
into the jungle and clear-cutting virgin forest for new coca fields.
Over the last 4 years, ACI funding has helped prevent colonization
by supporting sustainable forest management and park protection
activities managed by USAID/Peru's Environment Program. These
activities are specifically designed to prevent both illegal logging
and coca colonization into delicate and still intact ecosystems in the
upper and mid-Andean jungles where coca cultivation is focused.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine
WESTERN HEMISPHERE FUNDING
Question. Mr. Administrator, how do you justify the dramatic 21.6
percent cut in Development Assistance and Child Survival and Health
funding from the fiscal year 2006 appropriated levels for the Western
Hemisphere? Even if you compare fiscal year 2007 to the fiscal 2006
request, it's still a cut of approximately 18 percent.
Answer. Overall U.S. Government assistance levels for Latin America
are not expected to decline in fiscal year 2007. Foreign assistance for
the region has nearly doubled since the start of the administration,
rising from $862 million in fiscal year 2001 to a planned $1.7 billion
in fiscal year 2007. Reductions in the Development Assistance and Child
Survival and Health requests are partially offset by increases in the
request for ESF, which is $31 million more than the fiscal year 2006
level. For additional consideration is the complete picture of U.S.
Government resources going to the region. The Millennium Challenge
Account will be providing significant resources, through Compact
agreements, to Nicaragua ($175 million) and Honduras ($215 million), as
well as through Threshold Country Program funding to Paraguay ($37
million). The Millennium Challenge Account projects compliment our
efforts by supporting economic growth, infrastructure, and other
projects where USAID has been active in the past.
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
Question. The President's request includes $3 billion for the
Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC]. While the MCC does not fall
directly under the authority of the Director of Foreign Assistance, the
MCC consults with your office and you sit on the board as
Administrator. Please explain your strategy for determining levels of
other assistance if a country is MCC eligible. For instance, if a
country receives a compact for a major infrastructure project, will
that country be eligible to receive the same amounts of Development
Assistance they had before becoming MCC eligible? I've heard concerning
rumors that a blanket policy would be applied and it seems to me you
may want to look at these issues on a country by country basis.
Answer. My role in relation to the Millennium Challenge Corporation
[MCC] as Director of Foreign Assistance is to coordinate the work of
the MCC with other U.S. agencies involved in foreign assistance.
Millennium Challenge Corporation staff participate on the country core
teams where their programs are active. These country teams are meeting
now to review country allocation levels and establish priority program
areas for each recipient country. MCC participation with these teams
allows for collaboration between the work the MCC is doing and other
U.S. Government agencies. Their participation aids in assuring that the
work of U.S. Government agencies complements each other in helping to
achieve the Secretary's transformational diplomacy goal of, ``Helping
to build and sustain well governed states that will respond to the
needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the
international system.'' The final allocation of State and USAID funding
will take into account the work of the MCC to ensure that our programs
complement one another in achieving the Secretary's goal. We have not
set guidance to preclude or include considerations of funding from one
account or another as the country teams allocate their budgets. Their
guidance directs them to develop a plan that will help the country
advance in achieving the Secretary's goal, taking into account all U.S.
Government foreign assistance resources, including MCC funds.
HAITI FUNDING
Question. As you may know, I worked to include $40 million in
additional funding for Haiti in the Senate passed fiscal year 2006
supplemental. The conference report includes $20 million. As Director
of Foreign Assistance and USAID Administrator, what are your plans for
Haiti in the short-term? Have you met with the USAID Mission Director
or the Ambassador yet?
Answer. The U.S. Government will use the supplemental funds to help
Haiti reduce internal conflict and provide the basis to rebuild by
addressing key sources of stress and conflict in social, economic, and
political spheres, notably through increasing access to primary health
services and basic education, creating employment and rebuilding assets
for sustainable livelihoods, and fostering improved rule of law and
responsive governance. All interventions will be undertaken to achieve
short-term visible and measurable results while still developing the
capacity of institutions to sustain results.
I would look forward to any opportunities in the near future to
meet with both our Ambassador and our Mission Director.
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER AND FAMINE ASSISTANCE
Question. The International Disaster and Famine Assistance Account
request for fiscal year 2007 is cut by $62 million from the fiscal year
2006 enacted levels (including the supplemental funds). As you know,
these are the emergency funds that save lives. In addition, there is
evidence that the use of these funds in emergencies are some of our
best PR efforts overseas. For the past few years, we've been relying on
supplemental funding for these core humanitarian activities. I believe
doing so is dangerous fiscal planning that limits critical activities
that respond to the large number of natural and man-made disasters. Do
you believe $349 million is sufficient to address the emergencies we
know about such as Sudan, northern Uganda, Congo, and Indonesia as well
as the unforeseen emergencies to come in fiscal year 2007.
Answer. We have confronted a series of major disasters over the
past several years. Supplemental appropriations have been essential to
an effective response. At this point, we believe the requested level
will be adequate and will allow us to respond effectively.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION
Question. Congress has iterated its support for programs
administered by the U.S.-Ukraine foundation, but USAID's decisions
regarding funding for these programs has not reflected Congress'
support. Is this lack of targeted funding for these programs a
reflection of the general draw down of ESF funds for Ukraine, or have
USAID country officials made these decisions for other reasons?
Answer. First, before I answer your question, let me state for the
record that our programs in Ukraine are funded predominantly through
the Freedom Support Act (FSA) and not through ESF funds.
USAID has funded the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation [USUF] since July
1997, when USUF was awarded a non-competitive grant. This grant has
been extended several times and the total award amount has increased to
its current level of $22,245,918. The final extension to this grant has
been made, taking it to July 2007, in accordance with the 10-year limit
on USAID assistance instruments. During the period of this grant,
USAID's funding level in Ukraine has dropped four-fold, from $163
million in 1997 to $41 million in 2006. Nevertheless, USUF's average
funding level has remained fairly consistent at about $2.2 million per
year.
USAID recognizes the importance and value of Ukrainian Diaspora
groups and we hope to continue benefiting from their participation in
the USAID assistance program. Since there are currently many active and
capable Diaspora groups, we expect to select a future program
implementer via a competitive process.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
RUSSIA
Question. In July, the United States and other nations will be
meeting in St. Petersburg for the annual G8 summit. Increased attention
has been paid to this year's summit because Russia is hosting it.
The irony of this gathering of democratic nations in Russia is that
Russia is becoming increasingly un-democratic. It has been 2 years
since President Putin won reelection with no opposition. Since then,
the Kremlin has opposed the democratic movement in Ukraine, supported a
blatantly manipulated election in Belarus, rolled back democratic
reforms in Russia, and continued its heavy handed policies in Chechnya.
The latest crackdown on democracy is a law requiring civil society
groups in Russia to re-register with the Justice Ministry in order to
exert greater control of their activities and finances.
The President proposes to cut aid to Russia from $80 million in
fiscal year 2006 to $58 million in fiscal year 2007. Almost none of
this goes to the government. Shouldn't we be doing more, not less, to
support democracy in Russia through civil society and the media?
Answer. We are doing a great deal to support the democratic process
in Russia. U.S. assistance in Russia supports democracy programs that
encourage volunteerism and civic responsibility through support to a
wide variety of both Russian and American non-governmental
organizations. Programs help Russian citizens, especially young people,
better understand and apply democratic values and more proactively
exercise their civic rights and responsibilities. In particular, the
United States supports Russian human rights organizations, independent
media outlets and good governance watchdogs. The proposed fiscal year
2007 budget level for Russia reflect the impact of competing priorities
in a resource constrained environment.
Our relationship with Russia will always be important for the
United States. In the coming years, we intend to use foreign assistance
to further our strategic partnership with Russia on areas of common
interest such as countering terrorist financing, mitigating conflict in
the North Caucasus, advancing implementation of Russia's local self
governance law and strengthening the Russian judiciary. We also intend
to support Russian reformers to help the country complete its
transformation to an open, democratic society.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
DISPLACED CHILDREN AND ORPHANS FUND
Question. In fiscal year 2006, $3 million was appropriated for
USAID in the State and Foreign Appropriations bill. The funds were to
be used as a pilot project for orphans, displaced, and abandoned
children. To date, I haven't seen any evidence the funds have been put
to use.
What has happened to these funds and please outline in detail what
has been done with the funding for this very important project?
Answer. It is the explicit mandate of USAID's Displaced Children
and Orphans Fund [DCOF] to directly address the concerns outlined in
the language of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill.
This office is charged to prevent child abandonment, address the needs
of orphans, displaced and abandoned children and provide permanent
homes through family reunification, guardianship and domestic
adoptions. USAID will meet or exceed the $3 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2006.
Of the earmarked $3 million, $1.5 million will be used to reduce
the abandonment and separation of children in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. This program integrates two coordinated efforts that: (1)
combine poverty alleviation, training of social workers, promotion and
support of children's rights, and communications and outreach, and (2)
ensure minimum care standards and increase the reinsertion of separated
and abandoned children with their families through support and training
to local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government
institutions.
The additional $1.5 million will be used to support programs in
Ukraine and Georgia. The goal of the Ukraine program is to build a
continuum of family care services for children who are at risk or
outside of family care. This program includes activities designed to
strengthen and develop systems of family preservation, foster care, and
adoption. The DCOF program in Georgia is targeted to assist vulnerable
families to improve their ability to care for their own children as
well as strengthening and expanding local NGO and government capacities
to promote the physical, cognitive, emotional and psychosocial well
being of at-risk children.
Question. In your new position, you will direct all foreign
assistance. How will you use your position to advance the causes of
orphans, displaced, and abandoned children in the developing world?
Answer. Hundreds of thousands of children are separated from their
families or are in danger of becoming combatants as a result of civil
war. Millions of children work or live on the streets; and as many as
40 million children will be orphaned in HIV/AIDS affected countries by
2010.
--I will work in the coming months with the Special Advisor on
Orphans and Vulnerable Children, who is located within USAID,
to implement a strategy that calls for a more effective and
coordinated U.S. Government response. Our initial findings will
be reported to the Congress in the next several months.
--We need to collaborate closely with UNICEF and leading non-
governmental organizations to formulate our response, and to
ensure that in countries that have completed National Plans of
Action for Orphans and Vulnerable Children, that resources are
made available and that results are monitored and documented.
--The U.S. Government currently implements a number of effective
programs that make a huge difference in the lives of millions
of highly vulnerable children around the world. Programs are
located in Africa, Asia, Europe and Eurasia, and Latin America.
Activities include:
--Expanding care and support programs for children affected by HIV/
AIDS at the community level in countries hardest hit by the
epidemic;
--Helping reintegrate child soldiers back into their families and
communities, and providing psychosocial support for these
children;
--Providing vocational and educational opportunities for street
children and other displaced children;
--Expanding effective community-level support for orphans;
--Preventing increased disabilities through treating and preventing
blindness, and education and testing related to other
disabilities; and
--Food from Public Law 480 and donations from the United States to
the World Food Program bring life-sustaining food to
millions of children annually.
CHILDREN IN CONFLICT AND CRISIS
Question. What has happened to these funds and please outline in
detail what has been done with the funding for this very important
project?
Answer. It is the explicit mandate of USAID's Displaced Children
and Orphans Fund [DCOF] to directly address the concerns outlined in
the language of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
This office is charged to prevent child abandonment, address the needs
of orphans, displaced and abandoned children and provide permanent
homes through family reunification, guardianship and domestic
adoptions. USAID will meet or exceed the $3 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2006.
Of the earmarked $3 million, $1.5 million will be used to reduce
the abandonment and separation of children in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. This program integrates two coordinated efforts that: (1)
combine poverty alleviation, training of social workers, promotion and
support of children's rights, and communications and outreach, and (2)
ensure minimum care standards and increase the reinsertion of separated
and abandoned children with their families through support and training
to local non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and government
institutions.
The additional $1.5 million will be used to support programs in
Ukraine and Georgia. The goal of the Ukraine program is to build a
continuum of family care services for children who are at risk or
outside of family care. This program includes activities designed to
strengthen and develop systems of family preservation, foster care, and
adoption. The DCOF program in Georgia is targeted to assist vulnerable
families to improve their ability to care for their own children as
well as strengthening and expanding local NGO and government capacities
to promote the physical, cognitive, emotional and psychosocial well
being of at-risk children.
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
Question. Despite significant scientific advances, millions of
children and their mothers still die from treatable and preventable
causes in the developing world. Each year, more than 10 million
children under age 5 die--40 percent of these deaths occur within the
first month of life. More than half a million women die from pregnancy-
and child birth-related causes each year. Although the United States
has played a critical role in providing the funding and expertise that
has saved lives in past, funding for low-cost, low-tech interventions
has stagnated.
Under your leadership, how would the U.S. Government address the
millions of preventable deaths of children under 5 and their mothers?
Answer. USAID will focus its efforts in countriesthat continue to
have a high burden of preventable maternal and child mortality to
maximize our impact on health. We will work with host country
governments and partners to scale-up country-appropriate packages of
high-impact interventions, such as childhood immunizations, oral
rehydration therapy, household water disinfection, vitamin A, antenatal
care, and active management of the third stage of labor. By
coordinating closely with other USG initiatives, such as the
President's Malaria Initiative, and with other donors, such as the
United Nations Children's Fund [UNICEF] the Global Alliance for
Vaccines and Immunizations [GAVI], and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria, we will be able to complement other funding
in such a way that maximizes impact on maternal and child survival,
health and nutrition. Finally, we will concentrate our new investments
in emerging areas, such as neonatal health, in order to accelerate the
decline in infant and child mortality.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. That concludes our
hearings.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., Thursday, June 8, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold a
hearing on the nondepartmental witness. The following statement
was submitted for the record:]
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) urges the Committee to continue its
strong tradition of support to international conservation by
appropriating, in fiscal year 2007, $165.5 million (the President's
request) for conservation of biodiversity within the Development
Assistance account of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID); $107.5 million for the Global Environment facility (GEF), the
same level as in recent years; $20 million for the Tropical Forest
Conservation Act (TFCA) debt-for-forest program (the same level as in
recent years); and $8 million for international conservation programs
within the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account at
the Department of State. The Conservancy urges the Committee to provide
firm legislative direction to USAID, to keep Parks in Peril funded and
operating in fiscal year 2007 at its recent average level funding of $7
million, while negotiations proceed to expand and enhance this valuable
program.
The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants,
animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life
on Earth, by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Our
work in the United States and abroad is closely related. For example,
it is not possible to protect migratory birds in their summer ranges,
inside the United States, without also taking care of their winter
ranges in Latin America and the Caribbean. A healthy natural
environment is a key element in genuinely sustainable economic and
social development around the world. Too often, short-term
considerations drive bad choices, whose results can be catastrophic for
both the natural world and for the people who live with and by means of
that world. A healthy and sustainable environment promotes peace and
security.
We support local conservation groups in the developing world that
work to raise the effective level of protection at parks and nature
preserves established by the local governments. We work with local
communities to increase the constituency for conservation. We support
sustainable development projects to create jobs and improve the
productivity and standard of living of rural people living in and near
protected areas. We work cooperatively with landowners to promote
conservation on private lands. We are a private, non-profit
organization. Our last private capital fund campaign raised more than
$1 billion, $120 million of that for our international work. We are
planning a new private campaign, which will raise even larger sums for
international conservation.
About 83 percent of our operating budget is raised from non-
governmental sources, but government grants fill a critical need. For
example, the assistance we receive through our cooperative relationship
with USAID is vital to our international operations. It is difficult to
raise private dollars for international operating (as distinct from
capital) expenses. Without USAID's support, these programs would be
damaged.
Our Parks in Peril (PiP) program is widely regarded as among the
most successful and respected in the tropical world. PiP has brought
real protection to 45 major ``sites'' (parks and nature preserves)
comprising more than 40 million acres, in 17 countries of Latin America
and the Caribbean. The PiP methodologies have been applied at many
other sites, and millions of additional acres, that never received
USAID funding. In recent years, USAID has supported PiP with about $7
million. The leverage on the U.S. investment in PiP is high--more than
$400 million raised by us and by our local partners for conservation
work at or near the PiP sites.
Your Committee has praised Parks in Peril in its past reports. We
urge you to do so again and to add language directing USAID to fund the
program at $7 million in fiscal year 2007 while design continues for an
enhanced and global version of this effort. If funding is allowed to
lapse for even 1 year, some of the achievements of the program will be
disrupted. Furthermore, such a lapse would waste funds; it would cost
more money to restart the program from a complete stop, as compared to
continuing it during the design phase for a global effort.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) is also funded within
Foreign Operations. The Administration has included the TFCA in its
request for broader debt relief, and has indicated that it anticipates
spending $8 million on TFCA in fiscal year 2007. We recommend that TFCA
be given a separate line item and funded at $20 million, the same level
as in recent years. TFCA has shown good results and good leverage on
the Federal investment. TNC alone has donated $5 million to TFCA deals.
TNC is a donor to TFCA deals, not a financial beneficiary, but the
cause of international conservation benefits greatly. TFCA deals are
likely over the next year or two in Guatemala, Paraguay, Botswana,
Belize, Jamaica, and Brazil.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the largest single source
of environmental funds (including conservation) in the world. The U.S.
Government contributes 22 percent, which is leveraged nearly 4 to 1 by
other governmental donors, then further leveraged at least 2 to 1 by
local ``match,'' so that ultimately every dollar of U.S. money is
leveraged by at least 10 to 1, and sometimes up to 20 to 1, for on-the-
ground environmental projects. The Administration's request level for
fiscal year 2007 is $56.25 million, barely half the pledge level of
recent years. This request appears to assume that current talks within
the GEF for administrative changes (favored by the U.S.) to enhance
efficiency, will fail. We are concerned that the low request number
will, if adopted, make failure nearly inevitable. We urge the Committee
to instead appropriate at least the level of recent years--$107.5
million--in fiscal year 2007. Some portion of that $107.5 million could
be made conditional upon successful adoption of changes in the GEF
acceptable to the U.S. delegation.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, question
submitted by................................................... 88
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, question
submitted by................................................... 33
DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio, questions submitted
by............................................................. 86
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, questions
submitted by................................................... 34
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana, questions
submitted by................................................... 89
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
Opening statements........................................... 2, 40
Prepared statements.......................................... 3, 41
Question submitted by........................................ 88
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky:
Opening statements........................................... 1, 39
Questions submitted by....................................... 58
Rice, Hon. Condoleezza, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of State............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Summary statement............................................ 5
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, questions
submitted by................................................... 83
Tobias, Hon. Randall L., Administrator, United States Agency for
International Development...................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Summary statement............................................ 42
The Nature Conservancy, prepared statement....................... 91
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Subcommittee Questions................................ 33
Advancing Liberty and Democracy.................................. 10
Afghanistan...................................................... 29
Aid to Africa.................................................... 28
Belarus.......................................................... 32
Building State Capacity.......................................... 11
Burma............................................................ 30
Defeating Terror................................................. 9
Empowering Transformational States............................... 12
Helping Developing States........................................ 11
Iran............................................................. 25
Iraq.............................................................13, 22
Meeting Global Challenges........................................ 11
Microenterprise.................................................. 19
North Korea...................................................... 27
Reforms in Ukraine............................................... 32
Special Court for Sierra Leone................................... 16
Sudan and Chad................................................... 26
Transformational Diplomacy....................................... 8
United Nations................................................... 20
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative............................. 17
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Additional Committee Questions................................... 58
Afghanistan...................................................... 49
Authority Over Other Government Agencies......................... 59
Blood Safety..................................................... 84
Branding......................................................... 82
Burma............................................................ 47
Children in Conflict and Crisis.................................. 89
Congressional Budget Justification............................... 60
Contractors...................................................... 83
Coordination of Democracy Programs............................... 82
Countries Most Important to the U.S. in Africa................... 61
Democracy........................................................ 62
And Governance Programs in China............................. 82
Fund......................................................... 82
Director of Foreign Assistance................................... 60
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund.............................. 89
Enhancing the Impact of Foreign Assistance: Reducing
Inefficiencies and Incoherence................................. 45
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget.......................................... 45
Foreign:
Aid:
Budget................................................... 51
Coordination............................................. 54
Assistance Reform............................................ 58
Global Fund...................................................... 62
Haiti Funding.................................................... 87
Health Programs.................................................. 47
International Disaster and Famine Assistance..................... 87
Iraq............................................................. 48
Maternal and Child Health........................................ 90
Millennium Challenge Corporation................................. 87
Our Approach: We Will do Better.................................. 45
Peru Coca Production............................................. 84
Regional Priorities.............................................. 60
Russia........................................................... 88
State Department/USAID Definition of Democracy and Governance
Pro-grams...................................................... 81
Strategic Framework for Foreign Assistance....................... 50
Transformational Diplomacy....................................... 60
Initiative................................................... 50
Tuberculosis..................................................... 83
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation.......................................... 88
USAID Personnel.................................................. 83
Western Hemisphere Funding....................................... 86
-