to thank everyone for being here as it happens we are doing a markup of a bill that could conceivably involve trillions of dollars over and financial services and so by myself the ranking member and some other members of the subcommittee may are engaged in a global war on terror or whatever we're calling it this week the support for foreign aid is relatively weak among the people of the united states i think foreign aid the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do but we go back and tell our constituents that foreign aid is a critical part of the global war on terror or the effort for national security would certainly help if that were true the more true it is the more those of us who go to town halls will be able to explain that foreign aid is not just charity is not a quote waste of money but is as important to our national security as any aircraft carrier for that presentation will work better if it's actually true now there is no shortage of projects for us to provide foreign aid to  generosity does not match the need doesn't come close so even if we were to ignore certain opportunities to provide aid and concentrate on others we would have no difficulty finding excellent development projects so even if we confine our aid to those projects that are consistent with our global national security effort we will do just as much good as if we ignore our national security effort and only focus on our development objectives and so i believe that we should look at our global war on terror objectives or national security objectives when we select which country to aid select what program decide on the methodology of the program you just distribute food or do you put the flag on the bag and finally that the public resource the public diplomacy effort that goes along with the foreign aid effort to what extent do you resource that effort and what strategy now i know the purists would say we should only do good and only do the most good we can without ever trying to seek any any credit for it i realize that philosophers and the who have focused on charity have said that the highest level of charity is when you provide aid and and you do it anonymously but the same advocates of purity internationally are happy to tell members of congress to go home and lie to our constituents for a good cause and to tell our constituents that our foreign aid program or our carefully calibrated to meet our national security objectives when in fact here in washington they resist that very effort now i know that a large portion of our aid currently is going to iraq and afghanistan and they are part and parcel of our national security effort but those are temporary programs for the most part i guess we may be providing aid to afghanistan decades from now after our national security interest is over iraq is an oil rich country but in any case my focus here is not on our iraq and afghanistan but our ongoing development efforts now deputy secretary armitage made substantial efforts in this area with his national security strategy in two thousand and four he insisted literally on the flag on the bag and graphics from the american people he face considerable opposition he succeeded american foreign aid can help improve the image of the united states for example we provide very massive aid to egypt but have only a twenty seven percent approval rating in two thousand and three the advisory group on public diplomacy for the arab and muslim world issued a report stating that too few people in the arab and muslim world knew the extent of u s foreign assistance efforts if people don't know about our aid one wonders how that can be part of an effort to gain popularity for the united states and our values a positive element was seen in indonesia when in two thousand and four seventy nine percent of indonesian said they had a more favorable view of the united states as a result of our aid in the wake of the tsunami in recent surveys in pakistan it was found that more than six out of every ten pakistanis advocating that we take the flag off the bag and they are seeking to do that with by persuading the administration should realise that this is not only a good policy it's the last section two zero two of the food for peace act and section six forty one of the foreign assistance act require branding to the fullest extent practicable i should note that in the area of foreign affairs sometimes this administration of the prior to administrations simply  ignore statute for example the iran sanctions act but i would hope that those who are advocates of development in democracy in foreign countries would believe in democracy in the united states and whether they think the flag on the bag is a good policy for the united states not a proper respect for the rule of law would call call upon them to ask the administration to adhere to the law while it's on the books the administration has not been able to provide us with a witness here today this shows a tragic lack of focus on the issue we're talking about if we had a division that didn't have a general for ten months it would be a national scandal but who can say the usa id is less important to american national security than a single division of the united states army yet we do not have a head of usa id and in fact we don't have anybody over there who feels that they can come here and explain how our foreign aid policy juxtaposes within coordinates with our national security policy do you think that there's a single general who can't describe how his division juxtaposes with our national security policy  and yet i think that our foreign policy is more important than any aircraft carrier group to our national security so whether it's country selection projects selection project methodology or public diplomacy all of these need to be tailored to meet our national security objectives it has this is important for our national security and has the additional advantage of allowing us to go back and advocate foreign aid and to do so truthfully if we can show that our foreign aid is tailored to our national security efforts then we might well see our foreign aid efforts funded at tsunami clearly indicated that it had a beneficial effect in indonesia and certainly we saw some of the aftermath of the two thousand and five earthquake in pakistan and presumably goodwill translates into indonesian and pakistani government policies that are more aligned with our including combat in terrorism korea and testified for the tom lantos human rights commission he shared with us the result of the foreign aid the food aid that went into north korea and explain how that aid ends up supporting the north korean military as a matter of fact there was one particular example where the was so insistent that they go along took the aid where they always which is the military and i did ask him does it always end up in the hands of the military no it turns out the french n g o s were right some of it ends up on the food exchange in the nation's capital where it's sold for hard currency but one way or the other none of it gets into the hands suffice it to say that this in his view it was propping up the regime and it had for years and on top of that it had the added benefit from the standpoint of north koreans helping give them the hard currency so that they could develop three stage i c b m s along the way help them a little bit in terms of their efforts of developing a nuclear weapon and he explained to us how they're now working t miniaturize those nuclear weapons delivery capability but when asked about this kind of a he said why wouldn't you instead give us medicine that they couldn't have sold in at least that could be done you know you  clear that the malnutrition is affecting the ability of children to think and conceptual why not that kind of aid the type of aid that ends up getting into the hands of the regime why aren't we more cautious about this well i think part of it is we never check our premise on that we never ask ourselves how are these to tarry and utilizing this agent for what purpose and i think at the end of the not there are exceptions which are why if branding threatens the lives of a providers certainly but which are to me issues we should guard against falling into self absorbed that out the world especially the muslim world are mainly determined by what we do and this is something i would caution our witnesses because i've more and more seen a tendency for us to think this way in the mindset that if only we do this or only we do that differently than we do now the situation on the ground overseas is magically going to improve countries struggle with their own many including despotism that goes far far back to create a dysfunctional society and it's not play activity that we around the world a very intolerant version of islam that gravely threatens the united states abroad and i think the fort hood massacre underscores that for their society women are battered in the slightest offense to the orthodoxy can end up meaning death schools where thirteen boys were decapitated in central asia because  they rejected jihad in the madrassa so a gulf state custom was suddenly imposed the the taleban certainly are already here in this philosophy and this jihad thinking has been around for a long time it's going to continue its hostility to our country regardless of us foreign policies i'm afraid from what i've seen and no matter how much aid we trumpet i think the mcgraw says are going to continue to turn out young m who who have this ambition where radical islam rules i would say do not expect to be loved flag or no flag on the back and i thank you mr chairman for holding this hearing at this point are there other opening statements mr chairman mr chairman thank you for holding today's hearing what i believe to be a vital component of our effort to revive the mission and identity of the united states agency for international development developing a defense review which will provide the short medium and long term blueprint for our diplomatic development efforts soon after that the president authorized a presidential study directive on global development policy these assessments are at best adequate first steps but we the nomination of current agriculture secretary rod is encouraging but the administration must equip them with the tools and freedom to hit the ground running if we're to succeed in reviving the agency and its mission effective development requires a strong usa id and experience development professionals in the field or they can benefit noble causes women's empowerment poverty reduction disease reduction and it ought to be centralised not micro manage i know the committee will address this issue on a larger scale in coming months and i thank the chairman for his leadership and pointed reform there is a misconception that development is based on short term charity that notion is false the true goal of development is to empower local populations to gain skills and build institutions that improve their lives and the lives of generations in turn helps united states by promoting economic and social stability it also can help spur goodwill and improve our relations with a myriad of other nations while there are circumstances in which we or our partners may not want to push the u s and id brand it's clear we are not seizing strategic opportunities with the aid we do provide if the united states plans has pointed strategy properly investment and that aid will return to us many times over just look at the strides already made in education for example the agencies american schools and hospitals abroad program has assisted two hundred thirty seven institutions in more than seventy countries it's bacillus headed the development sustainment of superior libraries schools and medical centers in africa asia europe asia europe latin america caribbean and the near east we need a robust reinvigorated us development agency one which consolidates and coordinate the disparate initiatives such as the millennium challenge corporation the president's emergency program for aids relief sir ponding and the expanded bilateral program with pakistan just to name a few in addition i believe usa id ought to have a seat in the national security council to pour the cement its mission and voice as the lead agency in this government on international development matters moving forward our foreign opening statement the gentleman from florida i thank the chairman and ranking member for this important hearing as the full committee is engaged in a discussion about how to make foreign aid more effective and efficient this discussion comes at an opportune time and very timely as we begin this process foreign aid is one of many important ways that we can express our foreign policy priorities and with the right strategies america can advan leadership and values i'm glad this hearing will focus on whether or not we claim credit for the funds we distribute which is already been discussed but i also want to make sure to mention that whether or not we promote the american role in the aid it is the taxpayers money and tax payers have every right to hold our partners accountable this means appropriate and sensible vetting this also means flexibility to respond to events that happen around the world and this means implementing robust monitoring strategies we must know where our equipment and funds and up and obviously from time to time we hear the stories about it ends up in the wrong hands americans are rightfully upset just last week the new york times reported that in the middle of what could be a proxy war between saudi arabia and iran yemeni extremist groups quote do not seem to need military supplies from outside the country they have no trouble buying or stealing them from yemen's military close quote which receives supplies from united states so i look forward to this conversation and the opportunity to learn more from our guests today and i thank the witnesses for being here and for their thoughts and i will back the balance of my time as  gentleman from virginia and i look forward to coming back to go when it's time for me to ask questions defense university i would say to all of our witnesses we have your full statement which will be including the record so if you could summarize your testimony that would be most welcome thank you very much i'd like to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for extending t to me to testify in foreign assistance in the struggle against terrorism for almost a decade the united states has been involved in a confrontation with their forces overseas and at home during these years huge amount of foreign aid has been whether problem opposition and using foreign aid that we encounter resistance when we were engaging the policy of the short answer yes they were and yes they are based on the thirty years of experience before the cold war after the end of the cold war and after nine eleven engaging ideologues who basically refuse the idea of american foreign aid interaction with european lawmakers and experts who have a parallel experience  extending foreign aid and the resistance to it and of course have to having consulted on strategic communications across u s defense national security and diplomacy since nine eleven i would raise five point related to the issue and make my recommendations point one is the use of eight point two is do we have the resources once we are there forces countering our messaging point for what is the state of our strategic communications in response to that challenge point five what  use and smartly avoid future confrontation want to do we have the resources we have a vast amount of the agencies and resources in the existing agencies my estimate is that what we have now is what we need to counter the narrative so the question is how come we fail there are two answers one has to do with the forces that are countering the u s messaging and sagen the failure  communication in assisting and messaging the forces countering u s messaging are simply wide global interconnected and focused on rejecting the message that goes along with u s aid they are regime organizations and there are media that are coming together in an effort global effort not always coordinated effort to basically sink our message among the regimes that have been openly involved in countering the u s message that comes with us aid are totally sold on iran and syria i have examples i could use in the q and a section among the organizations that have been able to count r the u s message comes with u s aid you have two types those that are in control of area specific areas and those that are influential in those specific areas one example  the band in the pakistani held areas inside the northwestern provinces an example also in some of the actual jihad in those areas and i could expand on that later these organizations have been able to deploy a vast array of means and ways to either counter the message or appropriate the message that on to control the distribution system other organizations that are not dominant in their areas or their countries such as some of us knew your hobbies deal bundy's in multiple countries and i would indicate the most weakest countries would be this last have areas in africa stretching from chad to synagogue have been also very effective in countering our message so basically the strategic a global success of the united states depends on the one hand collaboration between the various us forces in indonesia and the intense activity by media that counters our message basically killed the progress that was made same could be said about  three options one is to not brand at all and that would give the adversaries the ground blind branding that is to put the flag but not the message and that would return to not branding i would recommend strong strongly to use the strategy or the option of strategic branding branding but of course have a strategic messaging that would go with thank you samuel worthington has been president and c e o of interaction the nation's largest alliance of u s best for the u s global leadership campaign and the alliance and hunger welcome us to w the thank you very much for this opportunity to address you today and to talk a little bit about foreign assistance and the role that the u s and geo community plays in spreading generosity around the world as mentioned interaction is the largest coalition of u s non profits involved in relief and development we have more than one hundred eighty five members operating in every developing country and many ways with one hundred six thousand staff many of them mostly local working to overcome poverty exclusion and suffering our community support the marking and branding of u s born assistance we recognize that as an important tool of america's image overseas we routinely mark from the american people on the programs we're engaged in partnership with the american government we proud to express the compassion of the american people and it's important to note this engagement of americans that most of the resources receive from our community over seventy percent come only from private contributions we are engaged in villages and communities overseas in many ways thanks to a pouring of outpouring of the american people the current marketing and branding policy of the us government represents a workable and fair balance to ensure porn assistance is properly credit to a source at the same time with our members of our staff killed threatened or kidnapped we do not want to compromise the safety of u s citizens our national staff or partners as they operate and work on the ground particularly with local groups und regimes there are situations to establish exemptions in these areas and it's important to recognize that in those countries that have authoritarian regimes the ability to rest to and and gauge in aid depends on our ability of have a workers on the ground these are rare exceptions there are waivers that however are critical to the safety of our staff this is a very real danger in two thousand and eight two hundred six humanitarian aid workers were killed kidnapped and seriously injured twenty eight of those were employees of our member organizations i saw this firsthand when i visited our members programs and who are traveling to the center of town with a large no gun symbol on on our vehicle in this kind of situation is not just the american flag that will draw a hostile criminal attention but any flag of any wealthy nation and just some six points in conclusion the members of interaction believe that marketing and branding of u s government funded programs overseas is important and vital to shaping the goodwill and generosity of american cities and they're sharing that with the populations we try to reach at the same time we see that we have an important responsibility for the safety of our employees and recognize that there are circumstances where a population may receive something with feel afraid to be attacked by a third party if it is marked and brand in these this is where the marking of goods and programming is distinctly american places the lives of our employees an additional risk we will take advantage of these rare exceptions provided by the us government regulations to have waivers for these requirements it is crucial as organizations that operate in the world's most dangerous places that we do not see the dangerous streets of this world to extremists and see the utility of programs that we run as powerful tools and fostering a positive view of the american people in many ways non profits operating overseas are a face of america operating in the most difficult circumstances and this type of humanitarian assistance or development aid programs overseas are two very powerful weapons and what has been known as the war on terror marking a branding important are important but they are simply one tool in ensuring that this presence of non profits overseas exists and that as we as a community of americans often of our own resources try to show our nation's character and bought values in very difficult circumstances are able to operate thank you thank you mr worthington can balance ken ballen as the president of terra freedom are there more than twenty years of experience in international relations he's advised members of congress on policy initiatives regarding crime prevention and security intelligence oversight and select national security measures welcome mr b thank you very much mr chairman and thank you for holding this hearing trying to get at the facts behind what occurs in other countries and set policy based on those facts that's what we've been doing since two thousand and four our mission at terror free is to understand why people support extremism and why they might oppose it we've conducted over thirty public opinion surveys in muslim majority nations interviewed more than one hundred extremists my focus today however is not on why an individual may become a terrorist or extremist but how public opinion matters there are three issues one why people support al qaeda or extremism what can the united states do about it and third why does it matter and i would agree with the ranking member sometimes we have too much of an american centric view on these matters and oftentimes public opinion in other nations is driven by internal factors having little to do with the united states nonetheless we must act and that brings up an important point when people in survey say they're sympathetic to bin ladin are al what does it really mean is that support deeply held ideological beliefs or is it more in the nature of a protest are they saying they're unhappy with their own government or they're unhappy with american foreign policy their own condition intensely felt as it is than any kind of deep ideological commitment and what we find when we've asked people what would change their view supporting extremism as mentioned  earlier sherman we found in pakistan through for nationwide survey that six added ten people who support al qaeda support ben ladan would change their point of view if american aid was directed to pakistani people themselves now course not everyone's going to change their point of view i mean there are some people that no matter what the united states does it makes no difference what so ever they are die hard dead enders qaeda and the extremists point of view we have seen two examples where we did the first polling both in pakistan and indonesia after the tsunami and after the earthquake where american aid made a substantial difference now some people have said that has to do with the fact that it was an emergency and the tragedy was vast that is true but i submit what we found in our surveys based on the evidence that what drove the change of opinion towards the united states w the fact that american went directly to the people in the countries involved and directly help them did not go to a corrupt government where it was siphoned off or non popular government and that's the lesson that we should take from those experiences not that american aid cannot change opinion and not opinion the change in opinion cannot be sustained because it can be sustained it's that type of aid that's delivered and how it's delivered and it's important also to remember both in pakistan and in egypt that it was a united states that carried the message of our aid it was the local media inside the country that was trusted by people viewing it that is an important distinction too so it didn't come across as propaganda or his message but are valuable lessons that we should take we can make an impact on the support for extremism around the world the people who indicate support for that extremist are not much different from their contemporaries they want economic development they want more success stories in indonesia and in the philippines where american policy working together in the country delivering aid on the ground and in a sensible fashion achieves a real victory in the war on terror we can add more victories called any minute and there are going to be at least four votes and it's probably going to be about forty minutes on the floor so we're going to have to interrupt the hearing and i hope you'll be able to indulge us and stay we don't remember the subcommittee don't control the schedule otherwise we would postpone these votes for this hearing so bear with us thank you if i can begin with you mr beilin i'm very intrigued with what you just said and what we've learned that what creates a popular legislation every year and frankly and to the folks at the state department all to walk away satisfied with writing big checks to the central bank to keep a client state happy when the folks are they id we're actually trying to do the more difficult task of actually developing and developing project it seems to me that what you suggest we've learned is project has much to commend i think you're absolutely right that is the point i mean it was earlier so tied to about egypt when we give large amounts of aid to a government that is basically in deeply unpopular inside the country i don't know how we can expect brand that eight or nine people  win us any points among the pakistani people and i think it's a cold war model i think it's you know we used to buy off client state and it was just a matter of giving the government you know that's over with we're in a different kind of struggle the struggle against extremism comes from the ground up and we're going to start to affect it with our foreign assistance that we got affected from the ground up and not from the top down and point to what you're saying too that i is it goes way beyond the issue of labeling oh yes absolutely i think that's not the fundamental issue the fundamental issue is the type and then if we do that i think the message will get out i think the idea that we can somehow madison avenue marketing or branding or whatever i think that's foolish i don't think it's effective and i think it can be counterproductive but if we're delivering aid in a meaningful way in the way that people from m nonprofit community has learned is that the only way to make a difference in the lives of people people involved in their own development process they have to be engage in change that benefits their children their families their community and it's not just targeting the people but it's the front line of government is that interface between a community and that local municipal government is enabling that government to provide services to a people that's what our community has been doing for decades and we've primarily been doing it with private resources that are donated by the american people able to cross the border hamas or dominant organizations i mentioned in my testimony first concern basically is not the actual physical logistical aid that would welcome back aid that would basically want to distributed themselves it's the nationality and geographical frontiers we now have fort hood so i was going to movement driven by much more than opposition to u s foreign about the changing of the culture that their culture is being changed to gulf states here primarily through through the draw says that spring up there especially when they decapitate the man for believing in the the future of these proceedings the first day i think at least one witness commented that we don't want to be perceived as being selfish in the reasons for we why we give out aid let me assure you that no matter how pure we are even if we will be perceived as being selfish no one in the world is going to think that we're doing something and not keeping in mind our own interests even if the truth be that we're not second i want to echo the ranking member and his comment about tammany hall those of us who hold elective office who hold some degree of power in the united states government understand that one of the key things to maintaining that power is bringing home the bacon a ribbon cutting is perhaps the most significant political activity and i realize bringing home the bacon is not how well it's also not kosher but it is critical to any government staying in power when so the question then is do we have examples of when our aid has gone through hostile governments where the anti american flag on the bag when we went into pakistan after the earthquake we were competing with local radical and extremist advocates of foreign aid so please don't tell my constituents about the world bank loans to or and please don't tell them about these examples of usa going to front organizations are we spending enough on public diplomacy the natural tendency is to take every development dollar and spend it on development i would argue that you should spend a certain percentage on it telling people when i see private corporations do good they put advertisements on my t v i sometimes think might be seventy five percent of the money is going to tell me how much good the twenty five percent is doing i'll go to go down the list maybe a quick yes no are we spending enough to publicize putting aside assuming we let you control the dollars that is being spent on public diplomacy are there enough dollars probably i would say yes i mean where that than enough dollars yes or no will get the strategy later a country to aid in a project to fund the question here is in the foreign aid decisions that we make now is that number one or tied for number one as a criteria for selecting names of our member organizations because it's too dangerous ultimately it comes down to you're feeding someone and i've seen organizations of islamic organization handing out a bag that's clearly marked from the american people  and showing that partnership between islamic organizations and from the american people being handed out to help people in a place like darfur i think is a powerful message