U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–758PDF 2017

MAINTAINING U.S. INFLUENCE IN SOUTH ASIA:

THE FY 2018 BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 7, 2017

Serial No. 115–76

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TED S. YOHO, Florida, Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Alice G. Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South 

and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 6

Ms. Gloria Steele, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, U.S. 

Agency for International Development .............................................................. 22

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

The Honorable Alice G. Wells: Prepared statement ............................................. 9

Ms. Gloria Steele: Prepared statement .................................................................. 24

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 46

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 47

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 48

Written responses from the Honorable Alice G. Wells to questions submitted 

for the record by: 

The Honorable Ted S. Yoho ................................................................................. 50

The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada .......................................................................................................... 55

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 56

(1)

MAINTAINING U.S. INFLUENCE IN SOUTH 

ASIA: THE FY 2018 BUDGET 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Yoho (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. YOHO. The subcommittee will come to order. Members 

present will be permitted to submit written statements to include 

in the official hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record, subject to length limitation in the rules. 

Well, good morning. The subcommittee assembles today to discharge our responsibility to conduct oversight of the administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request for South Asia. Today, we 

will discuss requests for Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Nepal, 

and Sri Lanka, reserving Afghanistan and Pakistan until next 

week when we will convene jointly with the Subcommittee on the 

Middle East and North Africa. 

It goes without saying that South Asia is an increasingly consequential part of the globe. For a long time, the world’s center of 

gravity has been shifting to the East, and the Indian Ocean region 

is a major part of this trend. The five nations we will discuss 

today—Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka—

have about 1.5 billion residents combined, comprising nearly 20 

percent of the world’s population. 

These nations are located along, or on top of, vital global sea 

lanes through the Indian Ocean which grows more strategically important by the day. Connecting vital straits and rising Asian economies in the East with the rest of the world and its energy to the 

West, the Indian Ocean has significant implications for security 

and trade across the globe. 

Despite the immense strategic economic importance of these nations, this year’s State and Foreign Operations Congressional 

Budget Justification shows the administration tends to slash our 

commitments to them by 48 percent. Under the administration’s request, this region is the hardest hit by cuts after Europe and Eurasia. 

2

As I stated during the subcommittee’s last budgetary oversight 

hearing, I commend the administration’s efforts to increase fiscal 

responsibility, but I am concerned that cutting the budget to an arbitrary dollar amount has been prioritized over the actual value of 

the individual programs. It is worth reiterating that even before 

this year’s foreign operations budget was slashed by 30 percent, it 

accounted for just 1 percent of annual Federal outlays. 

Dramatic cuts to foreign aid are not the way to rein in our outof-control government spending, especially if they undermine U.S. 

interests. Sound business logic dictates that we should continue 

projects that deliver a good return on investment, but this year’s 

request seems to de-fund a number of initiatives that significantly 

benefit our national interest. 

In Sri Lanka, for example, U.S. foreign assistance will be cut by 

92 percent, mostly from accounts that have supported programs to 

promote the rule of law, democratic reforms, post-Civil War reconciliation, and related efforts. These programs are cost-effective 

ways to contribute to Sri Lanka’s transformation while pursuing a 

partnership in strategically critical locations. Even at their height 

in 2016, U.S. assistance commitments to Sri Lanka were about 

42.5 million, and that is a bit less than half the cost of a single 

F-35 fighter jet. That seems like a reasonable investment to gain 

a friend in one of the world’s most critical sea lanes. 

While we are forming a large Millennium Challenge Corporation 

compact with Sri Lanka, the MCC will focus on economic activities. 

I am concerned that by changing course so drastically we want to 

make sure that we are not throwing away the investments we have 

already made in Sri Lanka, leaving a gap in the democracy and 

governance programs Sri Lanka badly needs and potentially forcing 

the closure of our USAID mission. 

Requests for other nations in this region raise similar questions. 

Assistance of the Maldives which faces seriously security risks will 

be cut by 87 percent. Assistance to India and Nepal will each be 

cut by about 60 percent. Amid the rising strategic and economic 

importance of the Indian Ocean region, these numbers raise a serious risk of sending the wrong message about our understanding of 

the region and our commitment to stay engaged. 

As in any business, it is important to look at what investments 

are competitors are making. As we reduce our commitments in 

South Asia, China is expanding there like never before leveraging 

huge infrastructure projects to rapidly become the preferred partner in locations across the Indian Ocean. We have all heard the cliche that nature abhors a vacuum. 

This morning as we discuss the fiscal year 2018 budget requests 

for these five nations, I am interested in hearing from the witnesses how the reductions of our commitments will affect U.S. security and economic interests in the Indian Ocean and how our 

partnerships will fare. I also hope our conversation will answer a 

comparatively simpler question: Does this budget represent a step 

forward in our partnership in South Asia? 

Without objections, the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the hearing, and I now turn to the ranking member for 

any remarks he may have. 

[The opening statement of Mr. Yoho follows:]

3


26758d-1.eps
4


26758d-2.eps
5

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had this brilliant 

opening statement to talk about the budget cuts. You, unfortunately, already laid it out in a level of eloquence that I would not 

try to match. 

Mr. YOHO. I read your notes before you got here. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to associate myself with your comments 

that this is not the time to be cutting our foreign operations, particularly in the South Asia area. 

My district includes most of the studios. I love actors. We have 

before us an acting assistant secretary and an acting assistant administrator, but on this one occasion I would prefer not to be talking to actors. The idea that is this the fault of the Senate and the 

confirmation process, I am always in favor of blaming the United 

States Senate. I have done it in this room many times. But the 

folks have not been nominated yet. 

The Senate is controlled by Republicans and they have changed 

their rules so it takes only 50 votes, only Republican votes, to confirm. This is not a confirmation problem, this is an appointment 

problem. The Secretary of State and I have talked about this. He 

says, but the acting people are doing well, doing spectacularly well, 

to which my response has been fine, Ambassador Wells should be 

given the job permanently. 

And I don’t have a response. I didn’t single you out, actually. But 

in general, the people he praises ought to be given the job on a permanent basis. The idea that we go from Obama appointees to acting and then to other appointees, perhaps all in 1 year, puts our 

foreign policy in disarray. 

With regard to reaching out to the people of South Asia, I think 

it is critically important that we look at broadcasting. I will be asking just how involved you are, Ambassador Wells, in talking to the 

folks that control our international broadcasting. I think they try 

to match our foreign policy objectives in selecting which countries 

to broadcast to and in which languages, but I think they often don’t 

get much guidance from the State Department. 

But what is worse is this committee has urged them to start 

broadcasting in the Sindhi language and other languages of Pakistan, starting with Sindhi, and they have always found a reason 

not to do so even though the cost would be, I think, less than it 

costs to operate an aircraft carrier for 11⁄2 minutes. 

So I think we will learn from your testimony just how problematic the situation in Pakistan is. You are dealing with a nuclear 

state that is not always consistently friendly with the United 

States and apparently, even in its military city of Abbottabad, can’t 

find a compound inhabited by Osama bin Laden. And yet we are 

only reaching out in Urdu, the language the government might prefer us to broadcast in, but not the language used by thousands and 

thousands of businesses who try to reach out to consumers. They 

know what they are doing when they try to sell soap; we should 

be in the same language. 

India, Afghanistan—the President and I know from other 

sources, has doubled down on this idea of encouraging India to be 

involved with Afghanistan. India, it is a poor country, but one 

question is whether it should have a foreign aid program at all. If 

it doesn’t have a foreign aid program it has immediate neighbors 

6

like Nepal and Bangladesh whose needs far exceed India’s capacity 

to provide, and yet India is spending foreign aid money in Afghanistan. It is a geopolitical effort to deal with Pakistan, and one that 

we should not encourage. 

The Durand Line, between the border between Afghanistan and 

Pakistan, has not been recognized by the Afghan Government and 

we ought to condition our aid to Afghanistan on the recognition of 

that line. I realize that is tough, they will say oh, don’t. But the 

fact is, as long as Afghanistan leaves open the idea that they are 

claiming Pakistani territory, it is going to be very hard to get the 

Pakistanis involved as we need them involved in controlling the Afghan Taliban. 

Certainly Pakistan sees its enemy as India, and the idea that 

India would have a close relationship with an Afghanistan that 

hasn’t recognized the border and with whom they share the 

Pashtun ethnic group, shows that this particular foreign aid program of India should not be on the top of our list when we talk 

to the Indians about how they can use their scarce resources to 

help the most desperately poor people in the world. 

So I look forward to talking about these issues, and trade, as the 

questioning begins. 

Mr. YOHO. I thank the ranking member. And I know you will be 

excited that next week we will have the hearing on Afghanistan 

and Pakistan with the full committee and so we will fulfill that. 

We are thankful to be joined today by the Honorable Alice G. 

Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, and I appreciate your time yesterday with the briefing; and Ms. Gloria Steele, 

again back talking to Us, Acting Assistant Administrator for the 

Bureau for Asia in the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

And with that we are going to let you go ahead and give your 

statement. Your statement, you will have 5 minutes, red light, you 

know, turn your red light on so that the microphone is on. You will 

have your timer there. And Ambassador Wells, if you would, your 

opening statement. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALICE G. WELLS, ACTING 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL 

ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador WELLS. Thank you Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman, and Representative Brooks. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify on the fiscal year 2018 foreign assistance priorities for 

South Asia, and in my oral remarks today I will briefly summarize 

my written statement which has been submitted for the record. 

It is an honor to appear before the subcommittee as both, Acting 

Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia and as Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The reintegration of the State Department’s policy offices for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South Asia is improving coordination and will enable us 

to more effectively advance U.S. national security interests across 

the region. 

Today, a quarter of the world’s population, 1.7 billion people, live 

in South Asia. It is the fastest growing region in the world with 

almost half the population under the age of 17. This drives ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:48 Nov 30, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\090717\26758 SHIRL
7

nomic growth, expected to be above 7 percent from 2018 onwards, 

along with unprecedented opportunities for trade. Nowhere are 

these opportunities greater than in the growing road, air, and sea 

links between India, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, and Sri Lanka 

and the rapidly expanding ASEAN economies. 

Seventy percent of the infrastructure required to sustain and 

support the India of 2030 has yet to be built. This will be an enormous opportunity for U.S. companies that have the technology and 

expertise. For example, Boeing alone foresees a market for 2,000 

commercial aircraft in South Asia over 20 years. The region’s 

growth has the potential to create 1⁄2 billion new customers for U.S. 

businesses in consumer goods, financial services, technology, infrastructure, the health sector, energy, education, tourism, and more. 

In 2014, the United States exported more than $22 billion worth 

of goods to Southeast Asia, making us the region’s number one 

trading partner. These exports support thousands of jobs and as 

the region rises thousands more are likely to be created as a result. 

India is one of our most important strategic partners and a country of growing political and economic importance globally with 

which our values and national interests increasingly align. U.S. assistance to the Indian Government contributes to meeting the basic 

needs of the Indian people, helping India to devote more attention 

to the regional and global leadership roles to which it aspires and 

which the United States supports. 

Bangladesh is a key partner for the United States. Despite its 

development and security challenges, Bangladesh sustains global 

peace with over 7,000 police and armed forces deployed to ten U.N. 

peacekeeping operations. It contributes to global food security and 

can provide a moderate alternative voice to countering violent extremism. In recent weeks, Bangladesh has also demonstrated its 

continuing commitment to host large numbers of Rohingya refugees. 

U.S. assistance will continue to strengthen Bangladesh against 

the threats of radicalization, support Bangladesh as a global model 

and humanitarian in development and poverty reduction, and promote a trade and investment environment conducive to U.S. companies. And in one of the poorest countries of the world, our assistance to Nepal helps strengthen democracy and improve transparency and accountability. With an MCC compact expected to be 

signed shortly, we will assist the Nepali Government in transforming its energy and transportation sectors. 

Since Sri Lanka’s historic January 2015 elections, the United 

States has been partnering to make its workers more skilled, citizens more empowered, while ensuring that the government continues its ambitious reform agenda. As Sri Lanka implements its 

reform objectives and in accordance with limits set by Congress, 

our modest military-to-military engagement has expanded slowly 

and incrementally. Our 2018 requests support security and maritime cooperation and enhance strategic trade controls. 

In the Maldives we have real concerns about the status of rule 

of law and democracy. Maritime security is also a great concern 

due to threats posed by narcotics trafficking, piracy in the Indian 

Ocean, and seaborne trade in illicit materials of potential use for 

8

terrorist activity. Our foreign assistance request continues targeted 

support for maritime security cooperation. 

South Asia remains among the least economically integrated regions in the world and non-tariff barriers are a major cause. Their 

regional programs will target the elimination of non-tariff barriers 

and the facilitation of regional trade and investment. 

In conclusion, South Asia is at the crossroads of the Indo-Pacific 

region whose sea lanes are critical to the security and prosperity 

of the United States. By promoting a common vision of economic 

growth, transparent development, accountability, and regional integration, the policies and programs supported by our fiscal year 

2018 request will ensure that the United States continues to be a 

leader in advancing regional unity and stability. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

working with you and your staff. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Wells follows:]

9


26758a-1.eps
10


26758a-2.eps
11


26758a-3.eps
12


26758a-4.eps
13


26758a-5.eps
14


26758a-6.eps
15


26758a-7.eps
16


26758a-8.eps
17


26758a-9.eps
18


26758a-10.eps
19


26758a-11.eps
20


26758a-12.eps
21


26758a-13.eps
22

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your opening statement, Ambassador 

Wells. 

Ms. Steele? 

STATEMENT OF MS. GLORIA STEELE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. STEELE. Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman, Representative Brooks, Representative Connolly, thank you for inviting 

me to testify on the President’s budget request for development assistance in South Asia. The President’s budget request for USAID 

in the South Asia region is approximately $190 million. This request supports activities in Bangladesh, Nepal, and India—three 

countries in vastly different stages of development. 

In Bangladesh, the country finds itself at an important crossroads in its democratic evolution and economic growth. USAID has 

a diverse program helping to address the underlying factors that 

impede the country’s progress and stability. Much hinges on the 

success of Bangladesh’s secular democracy in preventing violent extremist attacks. The budget request supports USAID’s program to 

strengthen citizen participation and government accountability. We 

are intensifying efforts to address the threat of violent extremism 

and recently awarded a new flagship project that will work to prevent recruitment of members of vulnerable groups by confronting 

key drivers. 

Advancements in agriculture have helped to drive poverty reduction and inclusive economic growth in Bangladesh over the past 

decade. 

But to continue this progress the country needs to shift to highvalue agriculture. USAID is promoting crop diversification, market 

access, and modern farming practices to help farmers make this 

transition. We are also supporting improved disaster preparedness 

and natural resource management to sustain these gains amid frequent natural disasters and competition for scarce resources. On 

health, the budget request supports our continued efforts to improve maternal and child health, mitigate the spread of tuberculosis, and prevent chronic malnutrition and undernutrition. 

In Nepal, more than 10 years following the end of its civil war, 

the government is hampered by constant leadership changes and 

unresolved drivers of conflict. These include limited inclusion of 

traditionally marginalized populations and weak governance to 

meet public demand for quality services. The 2015 earthquake was 

a significant setback for Nepal, pushing an additional 800,000 people into poverty. 

This budget request supports USAID’s efforts to help fortify Nepal’s fragile democracy, shore up its economic growth, and address 

persistent challenges in education, maternal and child health, and 

nutrition. So far this year, our support for the Government of 

Nepal has been critical in holding two phases of credible, broadly 

participatory local elections, the first in 20 years. 

USAID assisted with nine election-related bills as well as voter 

education initiatives and political party candidate training for 

women and members of other traditionally marginalized groups. 

The elections mark a historic devolution of power and resources to 

23

the local level, giving the people a stronger voice. As we support 

Nepal’s transition to a democratic state with functioning local governance, we continue to support the combined national and provincial assembly elections scheduled for November 26th and December 

7th. 

With 80 percent of Nepalis engaged in subsistence agriculture, 

USAID is working to modernize farming methods in order to improve productivity and increase incomes. At the same time, we are 

working to catalyze economic growth through agricultural commercialization and increased agribusiness competitiveness. Our agricultural programs contributed to a 36 percent decrease in poverty 

in the targeted areas where we worked in the past 3 years. 

In India, although significant development gains have been made 

the country is still home to one-fourth of the world’s extremely 

poor. Inequities abound particularly in health. More than 40 million Indians, a population equal to that of California, are pushed 

into poverty each year because of health care costs and illness-induced low productivity. Moreover, India accounts for roughly onefifth of global maternal and child deaths and one-fourth of the 

world’s new TB cases. 

Given its population of 1.3 billion, India’s capacity to effectively 

respond to its pressing health challenges has proved understandably challenging. With a focus on improving maternal and child 

health and preventing the spread of TB, the budget request enables 

us to demonstrate high-impact models and approaches that more 

efficiently and effectively direct India’s own resources to save lives. 

For example, India now uses a cloud-based patient feedback system 

that USAID helped them to develop in order to ensure better accountability and governance of services in hospitals. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sherman, committee members, 

thank you for your support. Investing in global development 

progress remains in our national interest. In supporting the world’s 

most vulnerable populations and in helping to build more stable, 

open, and prosperous societies, we strengthen our own security and 

help to generate new economic partners. Our efforts are both from 

and for the American people and reflect core American values of 

freedom, democracy, and stability. Thank you, and I look forward 

to your counsel and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Steele follows:]

24


26758b-1.eps
25


26758b-2.eps
26


26758b-3.eps
27


26758b-4.eps
28


26758b-5.eps
29

Mr. YOHO. I have to commend both of you. You were right on 

time, under the marker. That is good. 

I find this so important that we are talking about this today. 

Outside of India which is the largest democracy, and us being the 

oldest democracy, I see the South Asia region being a fledgling democracy area. When I look at Sri Lanka going through the civil 

war that they did, they had for 30-some years, now that we have 

a democracy in place, a fledgling one since what, 2015. The insight 

that we have coming from the business world is not to put good 

money after bad. 

We wanted to make sure that the investment we made stays, 

and the long-term benefit of that is there in the long term so that 

we can make sure there is rule of law and democracies that continue to foster those relationships in trade, economics, security, and 

cultural exchanges. It is so important that we do that. 

I know we are going through some fiscal challenges in our country, there will be austerity measures as we have seen, but that 

doesn’t mean you move away from the investments we have already made. We want to make those stronger. And so as we move 

from some of the maybe cuts from 96 percent, but we see MCC 

coming in there and investing what is it, $500 million, roughly, in 

Sri Lanka, that we invest in the roads and the infrastructure and 

we build an economic base for those countries to build upon and 

it is so important that economic connectivity gets built upon. 

And for Ambassador Wells, it is unclear that in the fiscal year 

2018 budget the amount of funds that are requested to further the 

Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor initiative, could you give us a 

breakdown of the amount of funds that you think are necessary for 

this initiative to be successful? 

Ambassador WELLS. Thank you. I just returned from Sri Lanka 

where I had an opportunity to meet with the President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and leadership, and we had a very good 

conversations on Sri Lanka’s need to continue along the road of 

reconciliation, what is a fragile post-conflict society, the important 

commitments that the government made with our assistance to the 

United Nations and our determination to help Sri Lanka meet 

those commitments. 

I heard firsthand from the Sri Lankan leadership that they understood that they needed to intensify, that they are now starting 

to operationalize mechanisms like the Office of Missing Persons. 

They undertook the constitutional reform was going to continue 

and move forward. I think our role, our diplomatic role in ensuring 

that that reconciliation process continues is critical and we are 

deeply engaged with the Sri Lankan leadership in that conversation and have been since the dramatic formation of the national 

unity government. 

In terms of the reductions in assistance, I mean there has been 

again a rationalization of our assistance across the board. But what 

I would emphasize is that ironically in Sri Lanka we are the largest grant provider of assistance. China is providing nonconcessional loans that promote unsustainable debt burdens which 

I think are increasingly now of concern to the Sri Lankan people 

and the government, but what we bring to our relationship are 

multiple tools. 

30

And so when I stand back and look at the totality of the relationship, how we have begun to engage incrementally on military-tomilitary engagement—we are going to have our first naval exercise 

in October—we have provided excess defense article equipment so 

that the Sri Lankans can perform more effectively as a maritime 

nation. We are starting an IMET program, moving from the enhanced IMET to a traditional professionalization courses IMET. 

Then you add to that our negotiation of a compact, we are actually 

close to, with congressional notification, a compact in Nepal. 

The Sri Lanka compact is in the process of being negotiated. We have allocated a little over $7 million this year to continue that 

process of defining what an MCC compact would look like and we 

would like to reach a compact by 2018. But that is, the kind of assistance that we bring is thought out, transparent, involves the 

public-private sector, has buy-in for civil society. The kind of investment that we make in Sri Lanka, I think, is deeply valued by 

both the government and the people. When I met with civil society 

representatives, including the leader of the Tamil opposition, they 

very much want to see a U.S. role and welcome our commitment 

to expanding both the economic as well as the diplomatic portion 

of our relationship. 

So I recognize that there has been a significant percentage reduction in the ESF, but I think outside of ESF we are using our tools 

to reinforce a message of reform and to bring Sri Lanka into a 

space where they too will institutionalize the principles of the IndoPacific. Freedom of navigation, transparency, non-militarization, 

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief at its core, and I think 

we are making good progress there. 

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate you bringing that up because it is so important, because we see how China has invested and it is loans, 

and they get them to where they are unsustainable and then they 

get into a situation where we saw the 99-year lease in Sri Lanka. 

And the investment that we want to do, we want them long term 

and it is to grow their economy, their economic base, the jobs for 

their youth. You said half the population in South Asia is under 

the age of 17. 

I found it astounding that you said 70 percent of the infrastructure needed by 2013 is yet to be built. I think with our business 

model, our relationships in investing in their country for their economic development is the way to go versus funding or loans as 

China does, and we see that all over the world. And it is important 

the jobs that both of you do, all of our diplomatic core as they represent the United States of America to concentrate on that economic development, because if it is the economic development they 

have they are going to guard it, they are going to protect it, and 

it is going to make our alliance stronger. So I commend you. 

I am out of time, and I know, Ms. Steele, you had something to 

say, but hopefully we can come back to you. I am going to turn to 

the ranking member. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again you have 

shown brilliance by starting your questioning regarding Sri Lanka. 

I will imitate that brilliance. 

As I understand it Ambassador Wells, we are talking about a 92 

percent decline in our aid to Sri Lanka. Does this request include 

31

any support for reconciliation and reform efforts in Sri Lanka, and 

what signal are we sending with a 92 percent reduction? Ambassador? 

Ambassador WELLS. I turn to my colleague to discuss the specific 

USAID programs, but again I recognize the severity of the percentage decline in the ESF but I would point to the totality of our programs. On the reconciliation side, diplomatically, we have always 

been the leading partner in driving the original agreement with 

Geneva which produced the government’s historic——

Mr. SHERMAN. So we do a great job of talking, which is what diplomats and congressmen do, but in my world money talks and a 92 

percent decline in money cannot be covered up by eloquence or 

good offices or even the art of the deal negotiations. 

Ms. Steele, we are talking about $3.3 million. That is basically—

I hesitate to ask you about the aid for Sri Lanka because it has 

basically been zeroed out. I am sure Congress will not do that. But 

can you support reconciliation reform with $3.3 million? 

Ms. STEELE. Mr. Sherman, we have invested $70 million since 

2015 and we worked in reconciliation, economic growth, and good 

governance. We have been using those resources which continue to 

be still available, some of them, to build their capacity to continue 

to be able to do what we started out to do. 

Mr. YOHO. Ms. Steele, thank you. I do want to go on to the next 

question. 

I am sure Ambassador Wells, you are well aware of the 

Rohingya. As additional background, America saved the people of 

Kosovo by bombing a Christian country. We saved the Muslims of 

Bosnia. So my question is twofold. First, are we going to cajole or 

pressure Aung San Suu Kyi and the Government of Burma, 

Myanmar, to start respecting these people’s rights, to change their 

legal structure so that groups that have been there for 100 years 

and longer are given citizenship; and secondarily, what are we 

going to do so that Muslims around the world know that we saved 

the Muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia, and here we are playing in a 

major role or what I hope will be a major role, in saving those of 

Southwest Burma? 

Ambassador WELLS. Thank you. When I was in Bangladesh it 

was at the onset of the refugee influx. At that time it was about 

20,000. It is now over 160,000, I believe, and the human tragedy 

is compelling. What we have worked to do is both to assist Bangladesh in responding to the crisis we are waiting——

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, the easy thing is to just throw 

money at refugees in Bangladesh. 

Ambassador WELLS. In addition——

Mr. SHERMAN. How tough are we going to be on the Burmese 

Government? 

Ambassador WELLS. In addition to the assistance we will provide 

to the—are providing and will continue to provide to the Bangladesh Government, the U.N. had a—Kofi Annan went out and 

did a report on the situation which produced several recommendations including recommendations like a joint commission on border 

management. We are working to see how we can have both countries sit down and implement some of those recommendations. But 

32

I agree with you that this is a crisis and there needs to be both 

a humanitarian and a political response to it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But does Aung San Suu Kyi recognize her debt to 

those of us and millions and millions of Americans who worked for 

democracy in her country and are now watching the government 

over which she has significant influence carry out these atrocities? 

Ambassador WELLS. I am afraid I am not able to speak for my 

colleague, Acting Assistant Secretary Susan Thornton, but 

from——

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. So your jurisdiction does not include——

Ambassador WELLS. It does not. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. And if I can sneak in one more question, 

when a business asks for the help of the State Department and 

says it is important, do you look at how many jobs are involved in 

the project or could you end up working just as hard because a big 

business looking for a foreign supplier to be helped, looking to license IP, looking to do things that are very profitable for the company but involve very few jobs? Do you have a jobs analysis that 

guides you in determining how much effort to put into an economic 

request? 

Ambassador WELLS. Our goal is always to support American 

business and analyses are done of the individual proposals and 

their effect on creation for U.S. jobs. Companies have to petition to 

the U.S. Department of Commerce in order to receive advocacies, 

specific advocacy for that company, in which case they have to be 

the only American company competing to have specific recognition. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But if you have two projects, one in one industry, 

one in another industry, they are the only American companies—

one, they both will produce $100 million worth of profit for the 

companies, but one will produce a lot of jobs and one is just IP licensing, what mechanism do you have to prioritize the jobs profits 

over the licensing profits? 

Ambassador WELLS. We will advocate for all U.S. companies 

under that circumstance. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Yeah, we will probably do three rounds. The wisdom 

of Congress is that we book all of our meetings at the same time 

and so people who are on the Judiciary—and you know how it goes. 

Anyways, let’s move on. 

I would like to talk about the Maldives. Being an island nation 

of 393,000 people, roughly, it represents a growing terrorist threat. 

They are one of the largest sources of ISIS fighters per capita in 

the world operating abroad. Knowing that, what is the administration’s reasoning for nearly eliminating the already modest U.S. assistance commitment to the Maldives? Ms. Steele? 

Ms. STEELE. We recognize that violent extremism is a very important issue in the Maldives and we are in the process of putting 

together an assessment team to take a look at what we can do to 

help address the drivers of violent extremism in the Maldives at 

this time. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Ambassador Wells, do you have any comment 

on that? 

Ambassador WELLS. We are also assessing how we can enhance 

our information sharing relationship with the Maldives in order to 

33

counter terrorism, counter violent extremism while at the same 

time recognizing that the government, the President, has consolidated control, has stripped the authority of many democratic institutions. There are complications and challenges in working with 

the Government of the Maldives. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay, let me ask you both because we hear about the 

cuts for Sri Lanka but we don’t talk about the investment of MCC 

of $500 million, roughly. Are the other countries, are we at a point 

where MCC is going into Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nepal, have 

we looked at business models? Because the way we invest on those 

we hold the countries accountable with the metrics that are set up 

in those and it is more of an investment in the infrastructure and 

business. 

What are your thoughts on that, say, for the Maldives? Have we 

looked at that? 

Ambassador WELLS. The MCC has very rigorous standards and 

criteria for countries to be eligible for compacts. Currently, within 

the South Asia region it is Nepal and Sri Lanka who are, Nepal 

is at the end stage of negotiating the compact and Sri Lanka is at 

the beginning. So the criteria will still need to be applied so there 

is no movement at this stage to consider a compact for the 

Maldives. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And in your experience in the countries that 

have used the MCC business model do you find that more effective 

than just foreign aid through USA—through some other form 

versus, you know, just giving money out and doling it out like we 

have done in the past in other countries? 

Ambassador WELLS. I think they are very complementary and I 

will turn to Gloria. But my personal experience is that the MCC 

and its ability to do public-private partnerships, to tap in the government and the business community, and to implement gender-related components to it has been very useful in multiple compacts. 

But it doesn’t substitute for all the other assistance work that we 

do. Gloria? 

Ms. STEELE. Yes. When I was in the Philippines, I was Mission 

Director in the Philippines before coming here and we had an MCC 

compact there as well as a robust Partnership for Growth program 

run by USAID, and they are complementary. They don’t actually—

they don’t substitute for one another. We work on very specific 

issues that are of the time important to them. We did an analysis 

with them to identify what areas they wanted to work with and 

they complement what MCC does. 

But MCC’s analyses of the programs they do are put together 5 

years before because it is a 5-year compact and so we focus on the 

constraints they face at the time. They are complementary but they 

don’t substitute for one another. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay, thank you. With President Trump’s speech, I 

think it was a week or two ago where he was talking about our 

pivot with Afghanistan and Pakistan and India’s more increasing 

role with Afghanistan and we saw India’s willingness to stand up 

to China in the Northern Territory and then we saw the resolution 

of that peacefully. Thank God. Are there provisions in the proposed 

budget that could help deepen the U.S-India security partnership 

34

which could be beneficial in checking China’s unwarranted territorial claims through the rest of Asia? 

Ambassador Wells, you brought up the mil-to-mil cooperation between the United States Navy with Sri Lanka. What are your 

thoughts on that dealing with India and how can we strengthen 

that relationship? 

Ambassador WELLS. The United States supports peaceful and 

stable relations globally among all countries, including India and 

China, and our goal ultimately in the Indo-Pacific region is, you 

know, every nation should be able to work together to uphold international norms and to prosper. While we strongly support, we obviously strongly support a prosperous India that plays a leading global role, both China and India are leading powers but our relationship with India really stands on its own. It stands on its own because it is based on democratic values, on close political and economic ties. 

If you look at the military relationship between the United 

States and India, it is an extraordinary story over the last 10 years 

where we went from zero in military sales to $15 billion. We are 

currently holding the largest military exercise with India and 

Japan, the Malabar exercise that brings together 10,000 personnel 

and our largest carriers. We are with India as a major defense 

partner. 

We are able to now offer advanced technologies, and during the 

visit of Prime Minister Modi with President Trump in June we had 

the unprecedented offer of the nonlethal Sea Guardian UAV for 

maritime security. Now we want to build on that military partnership. India over the next 7 years is projected to spend $30 billion 

in military modernization. Our companies like Boeing and Lockheed with the F-18s and the F-16s are natural competitors and 

would deeply enhance our interoperability with India. 

But then how do we build that relationship further outward? So 

we are already working with Japan. There are opportunities to 

work with Australia. How do we as democratic nations that share 

values enshrine those values? And again freedom of navigation, demilitarization, you know, working together on disaster response, 

humanitarian assistance, setting a standard for the region. 

I think when I was at this conference in Colombo which brought 

the countries of the region, really, from the Seychelles to Singapore 

together I was impressed by the unity of purpose. People seek that. 

They want that. We have an opportunity to create this working relationship. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. 

Mr. Sherman, round two. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to pick up where I was on prioritization 

of two different companies that would like your assistance. You 

don’t have unlimited resources, so one possibility is that advocacy 

for a U.S. company consists of just sending a letter or rubberstamping a document in which case you do have unlimited resources. You could send out 1,000 letters a year, but I would hope 

that you are doing more than that. 

If you have to prioritize between—I mean, do you have unlimited, I know you don’t have unlimited resources. Are there significant resources being used to advocate for U.S. businesses? And 

35

given the fact that your resources are limited, how do you prioritize 

which companies to put a lot of effort behind? 

Ambassador WELLS. I mean in countries where you have a vibrant trade relation and foreign direct investment relationship 

then yes, I mean the bigger deals where we are eligible and allowed under U.S. regulation to lobby specifically for a company 

those projects that deliver more jobs for Americans are going to occupy the attention. 

Mr. SHERMAN. How are you certain that your—because we talked 

privately in my office. I brought to your attention the fact that an 

ambassador was advocating for German-built cars, not in your region I might add. So how do you, do you get a report as to okay, 

I have limited resources. I could put a little more time in this 

project or that project, do you get any report as to how many U.S. 

jobs are involved? 

Ambassador WELLS. When countries apply——

Mr. SHERMAN. Or is it just the size of the deal? Because they 

both could be $100 million deals but one is $100 million of licensing 

as the one that is $100 million of product. So they both, if you just 

say how big is the deal they are the same size deal, but what do 

you do to prioritize jobs to know how many jobs are behind the 

project? 

Ambassador WELLS. No, I am speaking now from my personal 

experience as a former Ambassador to Jordan. And there what you 

receive from the Commerce Department, and I would have to defer 

to my Commerce colleagues, you receive an analysis of what the 

deal is and an understanding of the——

Mr. SHERMAN. I would urge you to insist for the Department of 

Commerce that jobs be the first line. Not how many profits, not 

how big is the deal, how many jobs. 

I want to go on to Sindh. We have seen disappearances, both of 

those who advocate for the Sindhi-speaking community and those 

who advocate for the Muhajirs. These two groups don’t tend to get 

along but it seems like their political activists are disappearing. I 

look forward to working with you to make official inquiries of the 

Pakistani Government of political activists who have just disappeared including the brother of a friend of mine. 

I know that we have a Web site from the consulate in Karachi 

in the Sindhi language. We do some public diplomacy which means 

the State Department has determined that reaching out in the 

Sindhi language makes sense. Have you communicated that over to 

the broadcasting board of governors saying, hey, we are reaching 

out to people in the Sindhi language, you should too? Or more importantly, what do I do to get you to do that? 

Ambassador WELLS. You have just inspired me to reach out. But 

I would note that in countries like Sri Lanka, for instance, our Embassy is doing programming in seven languages and its seven different markets. We are often confronted in places like Pakistan and 

India where there are multiple languages that have deep reach at 

the state level or even lower where there is a need to target information. So I absolutely take your point——

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask questions about Sri Lanka. It is very important. Pakistan has an undisclosed number of nuclear weapons and 

three or four major languages and it is important that we reach out 

36

beyond just Urdu. The State Department has done that and my inspiring you will inspire the board of governors of the broadcasting 

operation to do the same. 

Let’s see. Oh, you mentioned airplane exports to India either in 

our private conversations or here. That may be our biggest single 

export to India. We are in competition with Europe. They have an 

export finance authority. We have the EXIM Bank. Without the 

EXIM Bank we are at a distinct disadvantage in selling planes to 

India. 

Have you found the EXIM Bank to be helpful and do you think 

that we would have an even bigger trade deficit with India if we 

didn’t have an EXIM Bank? 

Ambassador WELLS. I can’t comment on what motivates individual companies. I mean over the course of my career of course 

I have appreciated the work of EXIM in supporting U.S. exports 

and particularly in the aircraft sector, but I would note that in our 

trade relationship with India these exports are continuing regardless. During the Prime Minister’s visit in June we had the announcement of a $23 billion plane sale and planes, commercial aircraft as well as military aircraft, are a key sector for exports in the 

future. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I hope that the President will appoint people 

to the board of directors of EXIM Bank that will carry out its duties. Otherwise, you may be back here assuming that you—well, assuming that Rex Tillerson takes my advice and makes you the permanent assistant secretary. 

Do you have a plan to reach balanced trade with the major countries in our area? Because if I share one thing with the President 

it is a real focus on the trade deficit numbers because those numbers translate into real jobs, real lives, lives that can be ruined, 

lives that I have seen being ruined. We have this trade deficit. You 

are doing a few things about it. But do you have a goal? Do you 

have a strategy designed to achieve a particular goal and is a balanced trade relationship the goal? 

Ambassador WELLS. It is a clear priority for the Trump administration, absolutely. During the visit of Prime Minister Modi with 

President Trump, this was discussed. And I think that——

Mr. SHERMAN. Was it discussed in the nature not of, well, we 

would like to sell more to India; was it discussed in the idea we 

want to achieve balance in the trade? Because when I first got to 

Congress, an administration official said yes, if we could expand exports by $1 billion and expand imports by $2 billion that would be 

great because we would have $3 billion more in trade. And so is 

the goal just, is there a strategic goal to reach balance with India 

and with Bangladesh? 

Ambassador WELLS. The administration is doing an assessment 

of the top countries with trade deficits and the goal is to equalize 

and reduce those trade deficits. In the case of India there are obvious areas where we can work to improve IPR protection, to reduce 

non-tariff barriers. We have several high-level, serious dialogues 

through USTR and the Department of Commerce to tackle specific 

sectorial issues. We have used the WTO in the case of our chicken, 

our poultry and egg exports, where we expect India to implement 

the WTO ruling and this is a major part of our dialogue. 

37

Mr. SHERMAN. I have got to interrupt for one more question because I promised you I would ask this. Is India going to change its 

liability laws to put America nuclear plant builders on the same liability footing as those entities that have sovereign immunity such 

as those from China, France, and Russia? 

Ambassador WELLS. India took three actions. They joined the 

convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. 

It is a multilateral treaty. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Did they sign the additional protocol? 

Ambassador WELLS. The additional protocol of the IAEA? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think there is a particular—please continue. 

Ambassador WELLS. So they joined this multilateral treaty that 

lays out a framework for liability and then they announced guidance that its nuclear law, domestic nuclear legislation, was in conformance with that law. Then the third thing they did was they set 

up a domestic insurance pool for operators and vendors for liability 

from nuclear accidents. Those three steps are designed to increase 

confidence in the domestic and foreign companies in the nuclear industry. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are companies——

Ambassador WELLS. All I can say is that Westinghouse found 

them sufficient. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Westinghouse. Now if they could just move their 

jobs back to the United States I would be more happy with them. 

I yield back. 

Ambassador WELLS. Can I respond to——

Mr. SHERMAN. I didn’t even mention global warming. We talked 

about the Maldives. 

Mr. YOHO. No. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I didn’t mention the ex-Maldive island. 

Mr. YOHO. I said tax reform. 

Ambassador WELLS. But the $10 billion in U.S. content, in export 

content in the nuclear deal, potential in the nuclear deal, we believe would generate 50,000 jobs. 

Mr. YOHO. 15,000? 

Ambassador WELLS. Yeah. 

Mr. YOHO. No, I want to build on that. When we look at what 

China’s done with the One Belt One Road, there is over $1 trillion 

invested, roughly, that they have invested through loans from other 

countries and they have such a strong presence. Do you feel the 

business model that we are working with our foreign aid as small 

as it is, but more importantly with the relationships we are developing with like-minded democracies, is enough to offset that? And 

our mil-to-mil cooperation with India and with Sri Lanka, what are 

your thoughts on that? Is that enough to fend off the encroachment 

of China with their investments? 

Ambassador WELLS. I mean our priority has been to increase 

interregional connectivity. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Ambassador WELLS. If you look at the region, their interregional 

trade comprises only 2 percent which is the lowest in the world. A 

lot of what we bring to the table is the soft assistance, helping with 

regulations and frameworks and how do you do customs and how 

do you streamline procedures. And that assistance has proved, I 

38

think, very useful for countries like Bangladesh and India, where 

in my written remarks I note it takes 20 permits to export something from one side of the border to the other. So how do we break 

down those barriers? How do we use MCC to promote, you know, 

electricity trade between Nepal and India? 

Mr. YOHO. Right, with the hydroelectric investment. 

Ambassador WELLS. Exactly, and also the road maintenance 

component of it, so you actually have the infrastructure that can 

support the trucks that can support the trade. And so, you know, 

these are very specific sometimes and targeted regulatory reforms, 

other times they are major investments in infrastructure. But I 

think we are seen as an extremely credible and valuable partner 

in this effort. Gloria? 

Mr. YOHO. Ms. Steele, can you add to that? 

Ms. STEELE. Yes, I think that what we are doing in all of Asia 

I would say is trying to level the playing field for American companies to be able to come in. In many of the countries in which we 

work, we work with the governments to be able to do public-private 

partnerships so that they don’t have to go into debt but rather attract investments leveraging their own funds. And that I have 

found, this has also helped to keep more investments from other 

countries including China to come in. It has worked there effectively in East Asia in particular where we have done that. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay, thank you. I am going to ask something, it 

could be a little controversial. But a potential challenging in the 

U.S.-India relationships and partnership is the rise of the Hindu 

nationalist politics which detract from the India’s traditional, inclusive, multi-faith democracy. A less harmonious India raises human 

rights concerns and endangers our growing partnership. What are 

the administration’s priority regarding human rights in India? 

Ambassador WELLS. India provides the highest constitutional 

protections for religious minorities, and our goal is to work with 

India and to encourage India to meet the goals that it sets for itself 

in its own constitution and its laws. There are cases obviously of 

religious, as we detail in both the Human Rights Report and the 

International Religious Freedom Report, of infringements and 

there was the tragic murder of a journalist just this week who was 

often the subject of nationalist criticism. 

These are challenges for any democracy, but India is a democracy 

and it is a vibrant democracy and we have respect for Indian institutions and ability to rise and meet these challenges, and we certainly in all of our engagements at senior levels encourage the Indian Government to do so. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Ms. Steele, I am going to ask you something 

because Dr. Bera is on his way down, I heard, and this probably 

doesn’t get asked a lot of people in your situation or your position, 

but what is it that you could see from the United States Congress 

that if we changed in our policies or directions would help facilitate 

what you do? 

I know appointing people would be a good thing or getting them 

through the Senate. I will bring it up to—I will agree with my colleague here that there have been a lot of positions appointed but 

they haven’t been passed through the Senate. I know that would 

39

be something—and I see you guys both writing things down so this 

will be good. 

I will let you direct these at Mr. Sherman—no, both of us because so many times we get the information, and I know there are 

things that you have said, man, if they would have asked this, or, 

you know, if there is something that we should have asked that we 

didn’t, I would like to hear your thoughts if you are comfortable 

doing that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And don’t hesitate to say that the President’s 

budget requests are completely wrong and that we should be providing far more money especially for Ms. Steele’s efforts. 

Mr. YOHO. If you do that do it in the third person. I am not saying this, but somebody else told me this. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. I will add that to the question. Do you know 

intelligent people who believe that the President’s budget requests 

are completely wrong and that higher amounts should be spent? 

Ambassador WELLS. I just want to say I am very honored that 

the Secretary Tillerson has trusted me as a senior career officer of 

28 years’ experience to lead the Bureau at this time and I think 

it is a mark of his faith in the institution that he has done so. 

There is a very ambitious and I think very credible and inclusive 

discussion of reform of the State Department that is underway. It 

is coming to its conclusion and I know we all look forward to its 

results. I would say that I am sitting here before you because Secretary Tillerson trusts the colleagues, the career colleagues that he 

is working with. 

I interpreted your question a little bit differently on what Congress can do. I mean what I would encourage, I really encourage 

congressional visits. Many of these issues are so complicated to understand the dynamic in Sri Lanka, to understand India’s rise and 

the complexity of India as a democracy, and the challenges that a 

democratic government in India has to navigate is best seen firsthand. In my experience as a Foreign Service Officer and as an ambassador, having congressional visits really built the strength and 

the foundation for a relationship. 

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate you saying that because I just got back 

from a codel to South Korea and Taiwan and we hear the same 

thing there, you know, congressional delegation visits, the higher 

up the better because it shows that cooperation and alliance. 

Ms. Steele, do you want to add to that? 

Ms. STEELE. Yes. Especially at this time when resources are 

more limited, we would like to be able to build a more trusting relationship between you and us so that flexibilities, a little bit more 

flexibilities will be available to us to be able to use resources, the 

limited resources that we have. 

Mr. YOHO. Maybe we should visit the State Department then? 

Ms. STEELE. No, we will come and visit you more often and provide information, because I think that the relationship built on 

more trust will enable us to be more responsive and agile on the 

needs of, vis-a-vis the needs of the countries, and this is particularly important when resources are limited. 

Mr. YOHO. It really is and that trust builds on the relationships 

built on that trust and I think it so important. So many times I 

feel like when people like you come into a hearing you feel like it 

40

is a to-get-you type and it is not. Our goal is to make our relationships with the countries and the regions that we represent stronger 

and we rely on your information. 

With that I am going to turn over to Dr. Bera who I just had 

the pleasure to be in South Korea and Taiwan. Doc. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a very timely hearing, obviously, as we think about the U.S. role in the world 

the important mission of USAID and the emerging importance and 

dynamism of South Asia. Let’s think about it in a couple ways. 

I know we will be having a hearing on Afghanistan but the interconnected nature between Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan was 

highlighted in the President’s comments, I guess it was a week ago, 

last week. As we look at our continuing mission in Afghanistan I 

know USAID has had a role, but the President—and I would actually support the President’s statement that the importance of India 

continuing to have a role in helping build infrastructure, helping 

build stability and then the complexity of Pakistan there in terms 

of harboring some of the groups that are creating an instability 

there creates this complication, Pakistan’s concern when the more 

India is involved in Afghanistan the more Pakistan seems to get 

concerned as well. 

I would just be curious, Ambassador Wells or Ms. Steele, how 

you would think about that in terms of kind of negotiating and 

navigating that with the desire of creating that stability in Afghanistan and how it interrelates with India and Pakistan. 

Ambassador WELLS. Well, just as Pakistan has very real and legitimate security interests in Afghanistan so does India. We would 

like to see, and appreciate constructive economic investments, investments in Afghanistan’s stability and institutional stability, and 

so if you look at India, by 2020 they have pledged to spend $3 billion. Some of the projects they have already funded include the 

Parliament House, an important dam, training in India for experts 

and in agro experts very vital programs that and Afghanistan is 

going to need. 

In that instance, I think the more international partners we can 

bring to bear who do constructive investments again in the economic sphere and in the development sphere we are very supportive of. 

Mr. BERA. All right. 

Ambassador WELLS. I have nothing to offer. 

Mr. BERA. Okay. And as we think about that role we will continue to have a presence there trying to provide training and security and we have made significant investments in Afghanistan in 

terms of educating a generation of girls. You are seeing a younger 

generation that is now as they enter adulthood does give Afghanistan this possibility of creating those civil institutions and we 

would hate to lose some of that. 

Shifting to some of the projects in India that I have had a focus 

on in terms of empowering women and girls in India, I do have 

some real reservations about the proposed budget cuts that would 

decimate some of these programs, some of the cuts to UNFPA. 

Again, I don’t think this is a time for the United States to be stepping out of that void, especially as India historically has been a recipient nation. As it is starting to develop, it also is developing into 

41

being a donor nation and partnering with us to do some interesting 

things as we go into third countries into Africa and so forth. 

I guess again whoever it is appropriate to, Ambassador Wells, 

maybe you want to touch on the importance of maintaining some 

of those investments that we have in India. 

Ambassador WELLS. We really see our relationship with India 

transitioning. As India itself becomes an increasingly important 

provider of assistance in the region, we are moving away from 

India as a donor recipient to India as a partner, as you said, in 

third countries. 

We have done interesting work in Africa. There are opportunities 

for us to do joint training in Afghanistan. And so what we have 

tried to do, and I will refer to Gloria here, is to really prioritize the 

remaining funding in those areas where we think we can provide 

the best multiplier effect or assist Indian private sector and government in being able to tackle a problem more creatively and effectively. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Ms. Steele, do you want to——

Ms. STEELE. In following up on the theme of prioritization, the 

health situation in India, we have prioritized working on the health 

situation in India. It is probably one of the worst problems and 

where we can be better partners and where our dollars will make 

a bigger difference. They have more incidence of TB than any in 

the world. They have one-fourth of the maternal and child mortality in the world. And so with the limited resources we have, we 

have prioritized funding in India around health, TB prevention and 

cure, and maternal and child health. 

Mr. BERA. And obviously if we could get you more funding then 

you could have a bigger impact; so thank you. 

Ms. STEELE. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for that. 

Next, we will go to Mr. Connolly from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. Great to see you both again. I will say you 

have got a job to do and God bless you for trying to do it. But when 

we talk about South Asia perhaps it is the most effective region in 

the world with respect to the retrograde policies of the Trump administration. Ripping up TPP, ripping up our participation in the 

Paris climate accord and of course slashing AID’s budget especially 

in this region, all those things probably have the most effect, the 

most intense effect in South Asia than anywhere else on the planet. 

To that end, correctly debating, and I know my friend, the chairman of this committee, he is going to defend Trump, but I also 

know that Ted Yoho has really reflected on how important a foreign assistance program is. It is a modest investment. It is a modest part of our diplomatic machinery to keep America great and I 

really applaud the chairman of the subcommittee for articulating 

that position. 

I know that was not his original position when he first got elected to Congress, but like all of us we learn. We come to appreciate. 

I certainly hope that happens in the administration because the 

cuts being proposed, the retreat being proposed, I think is profoundly deleterious to U.S. interests and simply opens the way to 

another power in Asia that is only too happy to walk through that 

42

opening. That is not making America great again, that is making 

America weak again. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Steele, and feel free, Ambassador Wells, to 

comment. I am not asking you to comment on what I just said because that would impolitic for both of you. In fact, I am going to 

say for the record you both vehemently disagree with everything I 

just said, defending the Trump administration. 

But South Asia, we have got the heaviest monsoon rains in 40 

years, 1,400 dead, hundreds of thousands of homes damaged or destroyed, 41 million people directly affected, and a third of an entire 

sovereign nation, Bangladesh, underwater. How well prepared are 

we to respond to that crisis, Ms. Steele? 

Ms. STEELE. We are prepared to respond to the crisis when and 

if they request for our assistance. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sorry, I can’t hear you. 

Ms. STEELE. When they request for assistance we will be there. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You mean Bangladesh has not requested any assistance? 

Ms. STEELE. No, not on the flooding. Nepal has, but Bangladesh 

has not. They have not right now, but we are poised and prepared 

to assist when they do. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could the fact that a third of an entire sovereign 

nation, Bangladesh, being underwater, could it have anything at 

all to do with, I don’t know, the warming of the climate? Hmm, all 

right. 

Ambassador WELLS. Could I just add another dimension to——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course. 

Ambassador WELLS. In our military-to-military cooperation we 

have done extraordinary work in disaster assistance, humanitarian 

response, including with Bangladesh and with Nepal. In fact, we 

tragically lost seven of our own in Nepal in a helicopter accident 

in the wake of the earthquake response. And so in Bangladesh 

where we have built over 500 cyclone shelters, we have worked on 

how you manage water resources, there has been a significant U.S. 

investment in that effort and an ongoing commitment to increase 

the capacity of Bangladeshis to respond. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I appreciate that Ambassador Wells, but the fact 

of the matter is the Trump budget slashes health for these three 

countries by 50 percent and this flooding is now leading to a mass 

outbreak of diarrheal related diseases, malaria, Dengue fever, and 

possibly cholera. How can we in good conscience cut our health 

budget to these countries in half in light of what is happening in 

front of our faces? How can we justify that? How can we make 

those programs efficacious with a 50 percent cut? 

Ms. STEELE. On humanitarian assistance and disaster response, 

these are not bilaterally allocated. We have a central fund for humanitarian assistance. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Connolly, we 

are prepared to respond when they request for our assistance and 

they have not done so. And I believe as my colleague Alice said, 

we have invested in helping them mitigate the impacts of disasters 

and we are ready. The budget that you see that is allocated for 

these countries does not reflect the humanitarian assistance budget 

that we have centrally. 

43

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me just one followup question with respect to Bangladesh? 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. Why hasn’t Bangladesh asked 

for our help? I am puzzled by that. I mean maybe the phone is underwater with the rest of the country. 

Ms. STEELE. I do not know the response to your question and I 

will follow up and ask, but we have not received——

Mr. CONNOLLY. And Ambassador Wells, do you have any idea? 

Yeah, thank you. I am sorry. I just, I don’t want to—I am running out of time, so I didn’t mean to be abrupt. 

All right. Well, if anyone is listening, Bangladesh, please call. 

Got a phone number? No? All right, State Department, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. Dr. Bera would like to have another shot 

at some questions if you guys are okay. 

Mr. BERA. Yeah, I actually just wanted to make a statement. You 

know, listening to my colleague Mr. Connolly as well as being a 

classmate of Chairman Yoho and serving on Foreign Affairs with 

Mr. Sherman, this is an incredibly important time for the United 

States with everything going on around the world and in South 

Asia to continue to stay engaged and involved. 

Both Ambassador Wells and Ms. Steele, you guys are doing the 

best you can within the circumstances and the resources that are 

being provided, and I think it is important to make a statement 

about the public servants who serve us within the State Department and represent our country around the world. Again I just 

want to make a statement on how much as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a Member of Congress we appreciate 

their service. We understand they are doing what they can and I 

think it is important for us to let them hear how much we as Members of Congress as well as the public and the citizens of the 

United States appreciate that service and representation, so thank 

you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I so appreciate the individuals who work at the State Department. I married one of 

them. 

Mr. YOHO. Well said on both counts with both of you, because I 

was going to end that way. 

Ambassador Wells, Ms. Steele, as you go forward, as our State 

Department goes forward in these economic times that we are having in our country and as we are having some challenges here, we 

may be cutting some programs, but we are going to replace it with 

the goodwill as you said the humanitarian assistance. You are the 

spokesmen for the United States Government as you go to these 

countries and we rely on you to instill into those countries the belief that we are here with them. We will stand with them. We will 

work through our challenges, but we are there to provide that assistance. 

So I do appreciate it. This committee, I think, speaks as a voice 

of unity in saying that same thing, and again I can’t tell you how 

much we appreciate you coming in, being up front and just very engaging. Thank you both. This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

46

f


26758n.eps
47

f


26758m.eps
48


26758c-1.eps
49

f


26758c-2.eps
50


26758e-1.eps
51


26758e-2.eps
52


26758e-3.eps
53


26758e-4.eps
54


26758e-5.eps
55


26758e-6.eps
56


26758e-7.eps
57

Æ


26758e-8.eps