U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

56–775 PDF 2010

REBUILDING HAITI’S COMPETITIVENESS 

AND PRIVATE SECTOR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY 

POLICY AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 16, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–111 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

March 16, 2010 ................................................................................................. 1 

Appendix: 

March 16, 2010 ................................................................................................. 35 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010 

Birdsall, Nancy, President, Center for Global Development ................................ 12 

Boisson, Pierre-Marie, Chairman, Sogesol ............................................................ 8 

D’Sa, Mark, Senior Director, Sourcing & Production, Gap Inc. ........................... 10 

Fairbanks, Michael C., Founder, SEVEN Fund .................................................... 5 

Skrobiszewski, Francis J., Associate, VisionAmericas LLC ................................. 15 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Meeks, Hon. Gregory ........................................................................................ 36 

Birdsall, Nancy ................................................................................................. 40 

Boisson, Pierre-Marie ....................................................................................... 46 

D’Sa, Mark ........................................................................................................ 60 

Fairbanks, Michael C. ...................................................................................... 62 

Skrobiszewski, Francis J. ................................................................................. 74 

(1) 

REBUILDING HAITI’S COMPETITIVENESS 

AND PRIVATE SECTOR 

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gregory W. Meeks 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Meeks, Waters, Watt, 

Driehaus; Miller of California, and Paulsen. 

Ex officio present: Representative Bachus. 

Also present: Representatives Clay and Maloney. 

Chairman MEEKS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade will come to order. 

For the record, and without objection, all members’ opening 

statements will be made a part of the record. 

What I will do is open up with an opening statement at this 

time. Before I begin, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, 

Representative Miller from California, the ranking member of this 

subcommittee, for his help in planning this hearing, and to express 

again my gratitude for our ability to work in a truly bipartisan 

manner in seeking solutions to the critical situation in Haiti. 

This hearing is the second in a series of hearings on the situation 

in Haiti, and I was so thrilled to see such strong bipartisan support 

last week for the Haiti debt relief bill, which passed with unanimous support out of the full House, following its passage out of this 

subcommittee. 

Finally, I want to reiterate my sincere thanks to the chairman 

of this committee, Barney Frank, and the ranking member, Spencer Bachus, for their continued support for Haiti and the work of 

this subcommittee. 

I want to give a special thank you to Representative Bachus for 

his touching remarks on the plight of Haiti on the House Floor last 

week in support of the bill, where he reiterated how Haiti from 

even its very beginnings, its own independence, was riddled with 

debt because they had to pay for that independence. He was very 

eloquent on the Floor of the House last week. 

I would like to thank our panel of witnesses for appearing here 

today and for sharing their thoughts and experience on rebuilding 

Haiti’s competitiveness and private sector. 

2 

Haiti’s recovery will happen in my opinion in three distinct if not 

overlapping phases. Phase one consists of the crisis response, focused on basic survival needs which began in the hours immediately following the devastating earthquake of January 12, 2010. 

Phase one is likely to be ongoing for some time, particularly for the 

most vulnerable groups in Haiti. 

Phase two, which is in its very early stages of development 

today, consists of rebuilding the basic physical and governance infrastructure of Haiti. This phase will take several years to complete, but must get under way quickly, and it is critical to allowing 

the government and the people of Haiti to get back to work and to 

retain some minimal sense of normalcy. 

Phase three, the plan which is being developed today and for 

which this hearing is trying is cover, is a continuation of the extensive work already underway prior to the earthquake. It consists of 

implementing a long-term economic strategy for Haiti, allowing it 

to grow prosperous and to move beyond the dependency on aid 

which has characterized the country for decades. As our witnesses 

will address here today, much of the preparatory work for phase 

three was already being done prior to the earthquake under the 

leadership of President Preval. 

These plans have been modified as a consequence of the earthquake, but not fundamentally changed. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing and the testimony of our panel 

of witnesses will shed some light on how we can empower the Haitian institutions and the private sector to enable the successful and 

rapid progression of Haiti from phase one, crisis response mode, 

where it is today, to phases two and three, of long-term economic 

planning in a manner that lays the foundation for a new sustainable, stable, and prosperous Haiti, providing hope and opportunity 

for all its population and not just the privileged elite. 

You cannot rebuild without the private sector. It has to be that 

joint venture between the public and the private sector. We know 

how important that is. 

I look forward to hearing about how we can ensure the effective 

coordination of the multitude of development efforts including especially the multilateral and international development institutions 

under the leadership and stewardship of the Haitian people themselves. 

Eventually, we have to move so that the Haitian people can lead 

and govern as they build a future for themselves and according to 

their plans, their culture, and their vision for a resurgent Haiti. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the 

ranking member, my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. I 

would like to associate myself with your comments regarding the 

cooperation of processing the previous bill that we experienced on 

the Floor last week. 

You have been an effective and strong voice for the needs of the 

Haitian people and I want to publicly commend you for that. I 

know it is a passion for you and it is a good effort we have undertaken. 

3 

I would like to thank you for holding this hearing to discuss 

ways American resources can be leveraged to more effectively help 

Haiti recover from the massive earthquake that devastated the 

country and economy. 

I was pleased when this committee and subcommittee of this 

Congress were able to pass legislation last week supporting the 

international debt relief effort in Haiti. I am currently working on 

legislation that we discussed previously to involve American labor 

and American expertise in the process of rebuilding Haiti. Because 

we are going to be expending American tax dollars, we should be 

looking also at how do we employ American workers, who have the 

expertise, in benefitting and helping to recover from the impact in 

Haiti. 

Last week, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation originating from the subcommittee requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the U.S. executive members of the IMF, the World 

Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and other multilateral development institutions to seek immediate and complete cancellation of all debts owned by Haiti to such institutions. 

Unfortunately, this is only part of the recovery effort that must 

be undertaken in Haiti. The IDB estimates a total cumulative construction cost of at least $14 billion, which is double Haiti’s national GDP. According to State Department figures, an estimated 

230,000 people died, which included up to 40 percent of the country’s civil service. Further, 28 to 29 government ministry buildings 

were destroyed, 70 percent of the population is unemployed, and a 

third is illiterate. 

At present, international aid efforts are focusing on meeting Haiti’s basic survival needs. Haiti’s long-term economic recovery rebuilding will need to rely on public/private partnerships and internationalists to supply the nation with heavy equipment and technical expertise needed to clear the estimated 78 million cubic yards 

of rubble to begin rebuilding an infrastructure that can more effectively withstand disaster in the future. 

Impeding efforts to rebuild are lack of uniform building standards, mistrust in the government by Haitian people, a high perception of government corruption, and a total lack of heavy machinery 

and equipment needed to undertake a task of this proportion. 

Recently, the Washington Post quoted Haiti’s largest contractor, 

who estimated the entire nation of Haiti has nearly 100 excavators, 

nowhere near the amount needed to clear the public rubble they 

have experienced. If you took the rubble that we are facing in Haiti 

and stacked it 727 feet on the Mall, that is equivalent to what we 

have to move with 100 pieces of equipment. 

We need to effectively make sure that the resources are there 

needed to deal with this impact and the American labor force who 

need to be employed are also put there, and I think at that point, 

we can benefit the people of Haiti. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MEEKS. Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding 

this important hearing. This is the second hearing that the subcommittee has held on Haiti. I applaud you and Mr. Miller and 

other members of the committee for your continued efforts to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:00 Jul 06, 2010 Jkt 056775 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56775.TXT TERRIE
4 

spond to the distress and suffering citizens of this devastated country. 

If you picked a capital in any country in the world that could 

least deal with an earthquake, it would be Port-au-Prince, Haiti. 

The human tragedy following the January 12th earthquake is overwhelming, and as Haitians seek to rebuild, we must stand alongside them. 

The House took the first step to provide assistance last Wednesday, agreeing to legislation which I was proud to support, that 

helps address Haiti’s national debt. 

Haiti was born into debt. The French upon leaving Haiti imposed 

a heavy debt on the Haitian people and they have suffered under 

that debt and additional debt for their entire history. I think that 

explains to some extent why they have never had the funds to 

achieve any type of economic independence. 

Rebuilding Haiti will not be an easy task. Some estimates place 

reconstruction costs as high as $14 billion. Such a challenge will 

require a comprehensive coordinated effort. 

The United States and Haiti cannot afford to have resources stolen or wasted on redundant efforts by various groups working completely independent of one another without any coordination whatsoever. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, this effort must have the buy-in and 

support of both the Haitian Government and the Haitian people. 

The goal must be to break the cycle of aid dependency that has 

kept Haiti mired in poverty for generations. Rather, we should provide the tools for Haiti to become a competitive, self-sustaining 

country. That is really what the Haitian people desire. 

To bring this about, the private sector should be an important 

engine towards sustainable growth. International aid can take the 

Haitian economy only so far. 

Achieving this goal will require consultation with the Haitian 

Government and its people to ensure that aid is delivered in a 

transparent and fair manner and to those in need. We must make 

certain that the policies implemented are not undermined by corruption that siphons off limited resources and disenfranchises the 

Haitian people. 

The United States has always been a benevolent and caring 

country. Even during our current economic challenges, we have not 

lost our compassion. In fact, our present travails have in some respects, I believe, given us a greater appreciation for the desperation 

and suffering of those facing challenges and hardships, although 

the hardships and challenges that Haiti faces are almost unimaginable for most Americans. 

Providing assistance to a nation devastated by a natural catastrophe is consistent with our principles. We can lead by example 

while we lend a helping hand. 

Mr. Chairman, I again commend you and Mr. Miller for your 

commitment to this matter. You have assembled before us today a 

distinguished group of panelists, each of whom will be able to provide us with unique insights into how to help the Haitian people 

to realize their potential and achieve sustainable development. 

5 

This legislation is important to help the people of Haiti get back 

on their feet, and I look forward to working with you and other 

members of this committee going forward. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Bachus. Before you got here, 

I mentioned that I wanted to publicly thank you for your eloquent 

statement you just made on the record on the Floor of the House 

as we passed the Haiti debt relief bill. 

At that time, Chairman Frank and the gentlelady from California, Maxine Waters, also just talked about how for a long time 

you have been working collectively in a bipartisan manner with 

them to try to overcome poverty and debt problems to help Haiti. 

I just want to thank you for your commitment and your hard 

work in this endeavor. We really appreciate you. 

Without objection, each witness’ statement will be made a part 

of the record. You will be recognized for a 5-minute summary of 

your testimony, but your written testimony will be considered part 

of the entire record. 

First to testify, we have with us Mr. Michael Fairbanks. Mr. 

Fairbanks is the co-founder of SEVEN, a philanthropic foundation 

run by entrepreneurs whose strategy is to produce films, books, 

and original research to markedly increase the rate of diffusion of 

enterprise solutions to global poverty. 

He is the founder and chairman emeritus of the OTF Group, a 

strategy consulting firm based in Boston, and the first venturebacked U.S. firm to focus on developing nations. He was a U.S. 

Peace Corps teacher in Kenya. 

His most recent projects include advising the president of the 

Inter-American Development Bank on opportunities for the majority initiative, working for the president of Rwanda to improve the 

competitiveness of that nation’s tourism, coffee, and agro industry 

sectors, and advising the minister of finance of Afghanistan on private sector reforms. 

He has co-authored many books, including the Harvard Business 

School’s landmark book on business strategy in emerging markets, 

‘‘Plowing the Sea, Nurturing the Hidden Sources of Advantages in 

Developing Nations,’’ which Business Magazine said, ‘‘points the 

way towards creating prosperity in developing nations.’’ 

He co-conceived and contributed to the global bestselling book, 

‘‘Culture Matters, How Value Shape Human Progress,’’ and I just 

finished reading his most recent book entitled, ‘‘In the River They 

Swim: Essays from Around the World on Enterprise Solutions to 

Poverty,’’ which was released, I believe, last year. 

With that, let me welcome Mr. Michael Fairbanks. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. FAIRBANKS, FOUNDER, SEVEN 

FUND 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss enterprise 

solutions to poverty and the United States’ aid policy in Haiti. 

I would like to start with a couple of foundational concepts, and 

I am going to build on those towards the end. 

The first thing I want to talk about is prosperity. It is the ability 

of an individual, group or nation to provide shelter, nutrition and 

6 

other material goods that enable people to live a good life according 

to their own definition. 

Prosperity helps to create the space in people’s hearts and minds 

so that unfettered by the everyday concern of the material goods 

that are required to survive, they might develop a healthy emotional and spiritual life, again, according to their own preferences. 

There’s another definition of ‘‘prosperity’’ that is equally important, and that is using the stock view of prosperity. This is in regard to the enabling environment. In every country, whether it is 

Haiti or the United States or anyplace else in the world, this country has seven types of wealth. 

There are natural resources. There is man-made capital. There 

is financial capital. These are the easy to see, easy to measure 

forms of wealth that exist in every nation. 

The more important types of capital are the ones that are difficult to measure, impossible to see sometimes, and these are what 

I call the ‘‘higher forms of capital.’’ Institutional capital, like rules 

of law and democracy, both of which are very positively correlated 

with economic growth. 

Knowledge capital, like databases and ideas. International patents would represent a robust level of knowledge capital. 

Human capital, which is skills and abilities and insights that are 

basically knowledge capital with legs. It can leave the country, and 

this is very pertinent to the case of Haiti. 

Finally, we have the most important type of capital, which is cultural capital. Not just the explicit articulation of culture, fashion 

and music and design, food and language, but the ideas and the attitudes, the beliefs, the assumptions and the goals of people who 

can either promote innovation and prosperity or can diminish innovation and prosperity. 

With that as a foundational base of my comments, I would like 

to make several further points. First of all, most foreign aid never 

achieves its desired impact. This is according to one of the most 

prominent aid organizations on the planet Earth whose leader 

showed me their internal report before he had to shelf it because 

if he were to make these findings public, he would not be able to 

do his job any more. 

According to him, and it is a name we all know, 80 percent of 

all the foreign aid around the world never achieves its desired impact. In fact, there are reasons to believe the opposite. 

Aid largesse can distort private initiatives, stifle democracies, 

amplify ethnic based patron/client relationships, and promote corruption. 

The former Finance Minister of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, who 

is known to everybody in this room, is short-listed to lead the 

United Nations, short-listed to lead the World Bank, observes that 

aid can even ‘‘sever the sovereign relationship between people and 

their leaders.’’ 

What I want to talk about today is the microeconomic foundations of growth, how growth really occurs, where do taxes come 

from, where does employment come from. 

The greatest quote that I have ever heard with regard to this is 

that every farmer in Haiti is the private sector. Every fisherman 

in a little boat off the Haitian Coast is the private sector. Every 

7 

kid selling chiclets or Coca-Cola on the street corner is the private 

sector. 

We should not think of the private sector as monolithic familyowned conglomerates that engage in rent-seeking activities, monopolistic access to government favors, raw materials, and markets. 

The private sector is the farmer. We need to keep that in mind. 

Nations that do not create wealth for their citizens share much 

in common. Our evidence suggests that they are overreliant on natural resources, including cheap labor, and they believe in simple 

advantages of climate, location, and government favors. 

My recommendations for Haiti are to build modern institutions 

on top of traditional values, to find new segments of the market in 

which to cooperate, and my recommendation for the United States 

Government is to consider focusing on our own values and attitudes and what we can do better, not what the Haitians can do, 

and to focus very particularly on USAID procurement services. It 

is the most non-competitive aspect of the American economy. 

The consultants we send overseas are mediocre. They are underappreciated. They are overpaid. The fact is what we are finding is 

that the vendors to USAID are really nothing more than head 

hunters who extract a rent for providing a service to the U.S. Government. They have no intellectual property. They do not train 

their consultants. They do not understand the needs of the countries in which they work, and their real client is the United States 

Government, not the poor nations of the world. 

I ask you very much to look at my written comments for some 

support of those. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today, 

and I hope you and your staff will rely on me for further briefings 

as you may require them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fairbanks can be found on page 

62 of the appendix.] 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Pierre-Marie 

Boisson. Mr. Boisson is the founder of Sogesol, Haiti’s largest 

microfinance company and a 50 percent owner of the subsidiary, 

Sogebank, Haiti’s largest commercial bank. 

He is also an economic advisor to Sogebank’s executive committee and was the bank’s chief economist for 15 years. 

Sogesol was created 10 years ago and is a long-term partner of 

ACCION International. 

Mr. Boisson is also vice president of the Board of Sodaphetees, 

a private development finance corporation, and secretary of the 

board of E-Power, an independent power producer. He is a member 

of the Presidential Working Group on Competitiveness and the Private Sector Economic Forum, and sits on executive committees of 

both groups. 

Before joining Sogebank in 1991, he led USAID-sponsored reorganization of Haiti’s professional banking association in 1990. 

He is a former staff member of the World Bank’s IFC, where he 

spent 2 years, and he also worked a total of 9 years with the Haitian public sector. 

He holds an MBA from Harvard University and an MSM from 

Arthur D. Little’s Management Education Institute, and a BS in 

civil engineering from the State University of Haiti. 

8 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PIERRE-MARIE BOISSON, CHAIRMAN, 

SOGESOL 

Mr. BOISSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the House Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, thank you for inviting me to talk to you 

about the Haiti reconstruction effort and especially the precious 

role that the private sector can and should play in that country’s 

rebirth. 

Two months ago, Haiti suffered one of the most terrible catastrophes ever to hit a nation. Over 200,000 people died and 1.2 million got displaced and millions more are still traumatized. 

Beyond suffering, however, lies a real opportunity to build a better Haiti, more prosperous and more equitable. Haiti has a real 

chance to create over a million jobs and attract $5 billion worth of 

private investments over the next 5 years. 

The Presidential Working Group on Competitiveness, with the 

help of the OTF Group, and following extensive international dialogue, identified five priority clusters where we could spur inclusive 

growth and generate tax resources. 

The Group is supported by the Private Sector Economic Forum, 

which includes the main business associations and major financial 

groups. The Forum believes that the private sector must partner 

with government and civil society to create a new social compact 

for all. 

Granted, Haiti’s poverty and cultural mistrust raises doubts 

about social commitment to private led growth and public/private 

corporations. The good news is that Haiti was already moving toward removing such doubts way before the earthquake. 

In fact, 2009 was the fifth consecutive year of growth with a 2.9 

percent mark even in the midst of a world recession. Inflation had 

been in retreat and more than $700 million of private investments, 

including FDIs, were recorded over the last 5 years. 

Many signs of public/private corporations emerged as well, including the creation of the Commission itself, which reflects serious 

efforts by President Preval to partner with civil society. 

I have listed a lot of examples of corporations over the last 10 

to 15 years in my written remarks. Those are maybe considered 

episodes of goodwill but they reveal serious change in the mentality 

of Haitians. They reveal profound mutations of Haitian society including the growth of the Diaspora itself. 

I am confident that the earthquake itself will urge Haitians to 

unite against fatality and reinforce our will to build partnerships. 

The vision of both the Group and the Private Sector Forum is 

that without economic growth and increased fiscal revenue, popular 

demand for subsidies and welfare will always be the domain of 

donor and this is as Professor Fairbanks has explained, and we 

agree with that, a mixed blessing for Haiti. 

We are encouraged that the private sector will be more responsive to social needs and really to be disciplined taxpayers, but in 

fact, the most important thing is to really build growth which is 

the basis for the revenues that the state will have to do the needed 

social redistribution. 

9 

We have identified five clusters where significant investment can 

be done to empower the private sector to really act for the common 

good. 

We listed the food and tubers’ sector, which is agriculture, where 

we could create 300,000 jobs over the next 5 years with investment 

of $190 million in post-harvest centers, crop insurance, etc. 

Animal husbandry, where we could create 400,000 jobs, also with 

$180 million of investment that I have listed in my written remarks, including sea ports, quality assurance, laboratory, dairy cooperatives, etc. All of those are in my written remarks. 

The garments sector has already benefitted from significant U.S. 

help in the form of the HOPE II legislation. There, we can create 

a lot of jobs and help, because one of the things the earthquake has 

taught us is that it is very important to have a more balanced 

growth in Haiti. 

Fourth is tourism, facing a lot of challenges, but a sector also 

that could be really powerful in creating jobs and attracting investments and boosting Haiti’s image. 

Lastly, the earthquake really brought housing and urban development as a major growth sector for the next 5 years. It is really 

a place where we will need more foreign aid. This is not something 

that we can do alone. We will not have enough to provide for the 

$4.5 billion that will be necessary for rebuilding 250,000 units of 

housing. 

We will need to avoid the crowding out of private investment 

that can be consequential to the huge amount of dollars that will 

enter the economy because of that. 

On the governance, we really support the creation of an entity 

that will really better coordinate foreign aid and better coordinate 

also the insurgence of policy making into the exercise. That is already approved in fact by the government itself, but it needs to be 

approved by the parliament, but we think this kind of governance 

instrument will be necessary to manage this huge flow of foreign 

aid and dollars, regardless of the real impact it will have on the 

economy. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I once again thank you for this opportunity to address such a crucial matter for my country. I will be 

happy to answer your questions and contribute to your thoughts 

about how the United States can help restore our nation and the 

dignity of our people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boisson can be found on page 46 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you very much. Next, we have Mr. 

Mark D’Sa, who is the senior director of sourcing and production 

for Gap Inc. His responsibilities include directing product development, placement strategies, and procurement in North, Central, 

and South America and parts of Asia. 

He is currently located in Miami from where he leads a team 

that oversees price negotiations, placement, execution, quality, 

product integrity, logistics, and other supply chain operations related to the product made for Gap Inc. in the Americas. 

10 

He has 38 years of global experience in the textile and apparel 

industry, having lived and worked in India, Thailand, Canada, 

Singapore, and the United States. 

He has previously worked with several brands including Polo, 

Ralph Lauren, and Levi Strauss & Company. 

In the 1980’s, he was a consultant to the Government of Thailand for quota negotiations, and more recently he was actively involved in Gap’s efforts to support the passage of ATPDEA. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARK D’SA, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SOURCING & 

PRODUCTION, GAP INC. 

Mr. D’SA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members 

of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this 

discussion today. 

Gap Inc. has been sourcing product in Haiti for a number of 

years and we remain committed to continue doing business there. 

Even before the tragedy, we were exploring internal recommendations to improve the business environment and how we could encourage more investment to come to Haiti so that companies might 

want to establish a footprint in that country and help build out the 

infrastructure. 

Prior to the earthquake, we had determined that it made good 

sense to source out of Haiti because of the quality, the competitiveness, the efficiency of the factories, the workforce, and the proximity to the United States. 

As you may know, goods shipped from Haiti can reach the 

United States in 3 to 4 days, as compared to 5 to 6 weeks from 

some of the locations in Asia. 

Despite the recent devastating tragedy, we are committed to 

Haiti resuming its rightful place in the sourcing community. Our 

staff is working with Gap Inc.-contracted factories to facilitate a 

full return to business while working with the Haitian Government 

and Departments of the U.S. Government to explore some of the 

ways that the environment might be improved in order to attract 

potential investors to that country. 

Haiti needed help before the earthquake and it needs it more 

than ever now. The apparel industry employed approximately 

28,000 people before the earthquake and we believe more sustainable jobs could be created in textiles and apparel if the current 

trade legislation were amended to allow a wider mix of product 

from Haiti to have duty free access to the United States. 

My colleagues and I have met with people in the various committees with jurisdiction over trade policy and we are hopeful that 

some of the current legislation can be more liberalized in order to 

make the environment more conducive to investors to want to come 

into Haiti. 

Currently, there are investors standing in the wings looking critically at what we are doing at this point in time. 

Haiti is important to U.S. retailers from a supply chain perspective. Its geography and its workforce are its two major strengths. 

The workforce is motivated, dedicated, and friendly. The resilience 

of the people came across stronger than anything else after the 

earthquake. 

11 

Despite their personal losses and tragedies, people were back at 

the factories 72 hours after the earthquake. 

I remember one of our vendors telling me that he spoke to his 

workers offering them time off but people said no, we have lost our 

houses, we have lost our near and dear ones, but we need to work. 

They live from day to day and that is their situation. 

Another strength of that country is its proximity. In order to leverage the proximity and human capital, we need to ensure that 

the legislative environment that currently exists, the HOPE II 

agreement, which is largely underutilized because of the way it is 

constructed and because of some of the exclusions under the tariff 

preferential limits need to be re-examined and made more userfriendly and more applicable to the industry as it stands today. 

We have encouraged both the Haitian and United States Governments to focus on infrastructure development which would benefit 

both local and foreign companies as well as the Haitian people 

themselves. 

Improvements to the ports and roads, power supply and communication, as well as urban transportation are critical to long-term 

sustainable development. In the short term, of course, progress 

must continue to be made in ensuring delivery of food and the provision of better shelter for the Haitian people. 

One thing we have to be cognizant of is there are large communities of people today living in tents. They are out in the open. 

There is no drainage and sewage. 

In a couple of months, the rainy season will start. That could 

bring on a number of health problems. Something has to be done 

immediately to help and remediate that situation. 

Following the earthquake in Haiti a few months ago, our company and our employees joined forces and have made donations to 

Mercy Corps, which works on short-term efforts as well as longterm reconstruction for the country. At the same time, the factory 

that makes our clothes was among the first to be able to put Haitian employees back to work and continues to provide them with 

food, clothing, and shelter. We also continue to explore other ways 

that the company might be able to help. 

I want to thank the U.S. Government for taking such strong and 

proactive action in the aftermath of the earthquake as well as for 

their commitment to supporting a real recovery in the textile and 

apparel production sector, which can continue to create more sustainable jobs for Haiti. 

We appreciate the swift action and encourage this committee to 

work with your colleagues here in Congress and all the relevant 

governmental agencies to coordinate an effort that can be lasting 

and sustainable for the investment environment in Haiti. 

Gap Inc. remains committed to sourcing in Haiti and we continue 

to explore how we can increase our sourcing over time with a goal 

of fostering the sustainability and growth of the industry over the 

long term. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for 

your commitment to and interest in Haiti, and thanks again to you 

and the committee for inviting me to be a part of the discussion 

today. 

12 

[The prepared statement of Mr. D’Sa can be found on page 60 of 

the appendix.] 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. Next, we have Ms. Nancy Birdsall, 

who is the Center for Global Development’s founding president. 

From 1993 to 1998, she was executive vice president of the InterAmerican Development Bank, the largest of the regional development banks, where she oversaw a $30 billion public and private 

loan portfolio. 

Before that, she worked for 14 years in research, policy, and 

management positions at the World Bank, including as director of 

the Policy Research Department. 

She is the author, co-author or editor of more than a dozen books 

and over 100 articles in scholarly journals and monographs. Shorter pieces of her writing have appeared in dozens of U.S. and Latin 

American newspapers and periodicals. 

She received her Ph.D. from Yale University and her MA from 

Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 

Prior to launching the Center, she served for 3 years as senior 

associate and director of the Economic Reform Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where her work focused 

on globalization, inequality, and the reform of the international financial institutions. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY BIRDSALL, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR 

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. BIRDSALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Meeks, Ranking 

Member Miller, and other members of the subcommittee. As always, it is a great privilege to have this opportunity to speak with 

you. 

I would like to set out three principles for how the United States 

might follow up on the tasks you have set out so well in Haiti, and 

suggest three specific actions that I hope this subcommittee will 

support. 

First, the three principles. The first is that it is about more than 

aid, you said this yourself, Chairman Meeks. It is about all the 

other ways the United States can support Haiti—trade, investment, support of the Diaspora—and I will return to that issue in 

a minute. 

The second principle is about coordination. I think there is endless discussion of the need for donor coordination. We just cannot 

let the ideal be the enemy of the good. 

It is true that it is not going to be easy in Haiti until the government itself is ready to coordinate the donors. That could take some 

time. It is good that the initial step Mr. Boisson mentioned has 

been taken, but we have to recognize that prior to the earthquake, 

the government was weak on this issue compared even to some 

countries in Africa which are becoming more assertive in taking 

charge. 

What can the United States do? I think as one of the largest single donors, it can lead on pushing the other donors, including the 

United Nations, to set out who is the lead donor on key sectors. 

13 

For example, on reconstruction, is it the IDB or the World Bank? 

On social sector provisioning in the short run, who is it? Is it the 

British? Is it the Canadians? Is it USAID? And so forth. 

More important, I urge this committee to push USAID in particular to set the tone on transparency of what it is doing and what 

the other donors are doing. The only way to create accountability 

to Haitian taxpayers, Haitian citizens, and to U.S. taxpayers is to 

maximize the information about what each donor is doing in a 

timely way to all of you and to civil society groups in Haiti. 

How to do that, it means thinking through what should be published on a Web site, whether there can be a platform that all donors would use for monthly information about their plans, their 

commitments, their actual disbursements. 

The third principle has to do with the way we organize ourselves 

in this government, and that is the need to make it very clear that 

USAID is not only the lead agency, as the President designated Dr. 

Rajiv Shah, the administrator, for humanitarian relief, but is the 

lead agency for this medium-term development challenge that you 

all have emphasized in your opening remarks. 

And that USAID should take the lead, at least for its own activities, and the activities of other U.S. agencies on planting now the 

seeds of good, rigorous evaluation and a process of learning as the 

aid program and Haiti’s own development programs evolve, so that 

adjustments can be made, so there is a dynamic process of evaluation, and an openness to innovation and new ways of doing things. 

Let me go to the three actions. The first has already been referred to indirectly, but let me try to be as clear as possible. 

This subcommittee, this committee, could push hard for provision 

of duty-free/quota-free access for Haitian exports, including apparel, and making that access permanent. Already, we see the benefits of the recent rounds of legislation on opening up the U.S. market to Haitian exports before the earthquake. 

The issue now is to take further steps to encourage investment 

even more than has been the case so far. First, to lift the current 

quota on Haitian apparel exports, which may be discouraging potential investors. Gap is going ahead. There might be more without 

the current quotas that are imposed. 

Second, there should be full product coverage, as Mr. D’Sa mentioned. Third, change the program rules to allow the broadest possible sourcing of fabric and other inputs rather than restricting key 

imports. This would get the Haitian preference closer to what we 

have in the African Growth and Opportunity Act. 

Finally, make these preferences permanent. There could be an 

opt-out for the Congress or the U.S. Administration in the case of 

a coup or human rights’ violations that were egregious in some future government of Haiti. 

This, by the way, would have minimal effects on U.S. textile production. 

Action to create more flexibility in our immigration policy to 

allow in more Haitians. I would refer you to the written testimony 

for more clarity on this, but the idea could be to have a numbers 

neutral improvement that is substituting again some of the other 

existing ways to get in, and allow something like 10,000 more Haitians a year to come here. 

14 

This would reduce greatly the embarrassment that I see in the 

future and that colleagues of mine see when we are turning back 

boats of Haitians in the next year or more. 

An action to take every possible step to channel as many of the 

U.S. resources as can be reasonably channeled through the multilateral development banks, through the trust fund that Mr. Boisson 

mentioned. 

I do not know which bank, IDB or World Bank, maybe both of 

those. In particular, the IDB has the multilateral investment fund 

which was a George H.W. Bush initiative in the late 1980’s, works 

on the private sector, and would make a lot of sense. 

Let me also add that these two banks, as you know, are now 

seeking capital increases, and I think one of the big reforms that 

could be encouraged is that they develop more insurance and risk 

management instruments. 

Haiti benefitted from an $8 million payout against a very small 

insurance program that the World Bank had set up. It should and 

could be more because these small, very poor nations are subject 

to all kinds of weather and other external shocks. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Birdsall can be found on page 40 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. Last, but far from least, we have 

Mr. Skrobiszewski, who has 30 years of experience spanning investment fund management, socioeconomic development, crises 

communications, public affairs, government agency reform, and 

strategy development working in the United States, Europe, Africa, 

Asia, and the Middle East. 

For much of his career, he has been called upon to conceive and 

implement innovative solutions to extraordinary challenges. At the 

outset of communism collapse in 1989, he was called to the White 

House by President Bush to discuss strategies for the redevelopment of the Polish economy, and later to meet Lech Walesa within 

days of the fall of the Berlin Wall. 

In 1990, he prepared a forward-looking U.S. Labor Department 

strategy anticipating the fall of the remaining Soviet bloc regimes. 

He was recruited to draft a business plan for the Polish-American Enterprise Fund, a successful private equity firm conceived by 

the President and the U.S. Congress to promote development of the 

Polish private sector and the institutional foundation for a market 

economy. 

He served initially as an officer of the PAEF and later in its sister enterprise fund in Hungary, where he conceived and managed 

the latter’s cutting edge, high-tech VC fund. 

He is also director of portfolio management of a Polish privatization fund, advised on the establishment of the Eurasian Development Bank, and serves today on the Investment Committee for the 

Polish National Capital Fund, financing new high tech VC funds 

in Poland. 

Welcome. 

15 

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS J. SKROBISZEWSKI, ASSOCIATE, 

VISIONAMERICAS LLC 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of 

the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to describe my experiences as an officer of the Enterprise Funds in Poland and Hungary 

and to discuss how this model could be instrumental in today’s rebuilding of Haiti. 

The Miami Herald’s Jacqueline Charles recently observed that 

the prospects of massive spending already has groups jockeying for 

roles in Haiti’s revival. For such spending to be effective, we must 

address fundamental questions of what are we doing to empower 

the Haitian people to help themselves? How do we support the Haitians in revitalizing their own country and give the little people a 

chance they never had before? 

In building back better, an enterprise fund designed for Haiti 

would focus beyond relief and reconstruction, provide in a deliberate and prudent manner essential financing Haitian businesses 

need, to create jobs that are sustainable and offer genuine opportunity for the Haitian people at the grassroots level. 

In 1989, the enterprise fund was an innovative vehicle conceived 

by visionaries in the U.S. Congress and the first Bush Administration to support Central and Eastern Europe’s unprecedented transformation by jump starting the local private sector. 

Congress recognized that capital would be the catalyst to building private businesses and to be effective, that capital had to be 

professionally deployed. Financial investors were not ready to take 

unknown risks and enter those markets. 

Thus, through the SEED Act of 1989, Congress authorized the 

establishment of initial enterprise funds with publicly sourced capital of $240 million for Poland and $60 million for Hungary to be 

privately managed by bipartisan boards of investment and other 

professionals appointed by the President, with the mandate to provide financing and related support to viable private businesses. 

In following years, Presidents Bush and Clinton created additional enterprise funds under the SEED Act and for countries of 

the former Soviet Union under the Freedom Support Act. 

Later, without the benefit of congressional legislation, the Clinton Administration also created a modified form of enterprise fund 

chaired by Ambassador Andrew Young for post-apartheid empowerment of local SMEs in Southern Africa. 

Such an innovative business-to-business approach applied to a 

developmental mission was driven by private sector strategic thinking, decision-making and risk taking, and was executed by employing sound operational standards and established commercial disciplines, subject, of course, to appropriate public oversight. 

This model proved exceedingly effective in terms of achieving 

Congress’ primary development objectives but also performed beyond expectations in financial terms. This is illustrated by the detailed results outlined in my written materials. 

The enterprise funds put their publicly sourced capital to work 

financing tens of thousands of local businesses, those little people, 

the little farmers, the entrepreneurs, the small people and acrossthe-board to larger enterprises. 

16 

They established banks and other institutions to extend their 

reach and created underpinnings of market economies, and in the 

aggregate, diligently grew their assets through prudent investment 

decisions. 

Thus, on the completion of their missions, the enterprise funds 

in the CEE region are in varying degrees returning their capital to 

the U.S. Treasury, and with the residual investment proceeds, they 

are establishing charitable foundations in their host countries to 

carry on developmental work. 

For example, the Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund with an 

initial capital base of only $55 million from Congress returned its 

public funding and established a $400 million foundation in Bulgaria. 

Most Central and Eastern European enterprise funds have also 

raised private capital, enabling them to expand their operations 

while returning their public capital. 

The Polish-American Enterprise Fund’s now independent investment team has raised over $1.8 billion in a series of private funds, 

and in doing so, they demonstrated to global investors the opportunities that existed in Poland and attracted competing funds with 

billions of dollars more in capital. 

There is no reason a congressionally-mandated enterprise fund 

for Haiti could not likewise achieve significant private sector development objectives while maintaining the value of its assets by operating in a commercially disciplined manner as its predecessor enterprise funds have demonstrated is possible. 

To do so would take one, a critical mass of capital that can be 

freely and flexibly deployed, for example, providing long-term equity financing for businesses, capitalizing SME and microenterprise 

loan facilities to provide working capital, creating modern financial 

institutions for mortgage banking, ag financing, leasing, traditional 

commercial lending, and related institutional infrastructure. 

Two, appointment of a bipartisan board comprised of investment 

and knowledgeable professionals who understand their fiduciary 

responsibilities and are allowed to freely employ private sector approaches unencumbered by bureaucratic constraints as could be 

mandated by Congress. 

Three, a commitment by donors to sustainable development 

through financing local Haitian businesses, which create real sustainable jobs and will empower a new Haitian middle class of private entrepreneurs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and subcommittee members. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skrobiszewski can be found on 

page 74 of the appendix.] 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you all. Thank you for your extremely 

well-informed testimony. 

Let me start with Mr. Boisson. One of the things that I hear 

often is the situation in regards to Haiti about Haiti’s long-term dependency on aid and the fact that we have over 9,000 NGOs which 

things are going through in Haiti. 

There seems to be a general sense among the general population 

and among Haitian government institutions that the model of 

17 

NGOs basically governing things must change after the earthquake. 

What is your opinion on that and how do you think we could be 

of assistance there? 

Mr. BOISSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My answer to that 

would be the large number of NGOs working in Haiti reflect a perception that Haiti needs to be assisted, that it is a poor country. 

What I have observed myself is there are many Haitians who on 

profitable businesses can build productive capacity, it is just a matter of giving them the proper environment. 

The more you mistrust the private solutions, the more you handicap them. One example is because there is so much money coming 

from aid and charity and NGOs, that crowds out completely the incentive to create private enterprise. That crowds out even the economic signal. The attention of the government is completely out of 

private investors, out of businessmen. 

NGOs are necessary but just to supplement, not to replace private enterprise and the real support to create a viable economy. 

Chairman MEEKS. Mr. Fairbanks, let me ask you really quick, 

Mr. Watt and I traveled not too long ago to Rwanda. We had a 

chance to speak with President Kagame and go see what was going 

on over there with the microenterprises. 

What are the key success factors that are observed in Rwanda 

and other places that you think Haiti will have to implement so 

that it can be the success story that basically we were seeing taking place in Rwanda? 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. Thank you for that question. Rwanda is the 

greatest success story in the history of Africa in terms of its economic growth, justice, and participation of women in government. 

Paul Kagame will go down in history with President Nyerere, 

President Mandela, and others as the greatest leaders in Africa. 

He did two or three things that nobody ever thought he could do. 

The first thing was he built modern institutions on top of traditional values. 

If there is one thing we take away from my part of this discussion, it is that when he needed to get something done, he did not 

listen to the multilaterals, he did not listen to fancy academics, and 

frankly, he did not listen to me, and what he did was he went deep 

into the history of his culture and he found the historical almost 

archaeological mechanisms and to upgrade and improve and he 

made them modern, and that improved the receptivity to the entire 

nation to do something. 

For example, when he wanted to clean the country, he found the 

notion of Umaganda, which was something the villagers used to all 

go out once a week and clean their villages. He made Umaganda 

a national phenomenon, and then he role-modeled this by going out 

the third Saturday of every month and sweeping the sidewalk in 

front of his own house. 

Gacaca courts, which I am sure you heard about when you were 

there, was a traditional village system of justice that was actually 

more adaptable to trying hundreds of thousands of perpetrators of 

the genocide than any modern court system that could be imported 

from any other part of the world. Paul Kagame found a way to rely 

on traditional values to solve modern problems. 

18 

The second thing, in his relationship with the multilateral system and the bilateral system, Paul Kagame insisted on four things. 

Number one, there be a shared vision between the provider and the 

recipient. You do not get to do the strategy, I do. I am the elected 

president of the country and you should be willing to be guided by 

my vision and if you are not, then you have to go. 

Number two, disbursement has to be made through national and 

indigenous institutions. He is very upset with USAID and he loves 

DFID because DFID will work with him in that way. 

Number three, he wanted investment to increase competence beyond applying for more aid. This is what was being discussed a few 

minutes ago. An entire nation will turn its attention and configure 

to receive more aid rather than build the private sector, build the 

academy and build civic institutions, and he will not let that happen. 

Finally, there were no parallel donor structures that undermine 

all of the above. Right now, we are talking about a big reconstruction institution in Haiti. I think that is probably appropriate when 

the population is vulnerable to natural disasters, but it is never 

going to build the nation. 

It has to be given a very finite timeframe, like 36 months, a 

short timeframe, where it can work to alleviate the suffering of vulnerable populations, but then the locus of responsibility for building a nation has to put on the shoulders of the Haitians. You know 

what? Whether they are ready for it or not. 

The 5 or 10 percent of leakage through corruption is worse than 

the 40 percent of leakage through the insufficiency of aid bureaucracies. 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. One more question and then we 

are going to go another round. I want to ask Ms. Birdsall a question. We always talk about capacity building and the need to build 

capacity, especially human capacity. In the earthquake, Haiti has 

lost almost 40 percent of its public servants. 

I was wondering if you had any ideas of where the international 

community should invest mostly in rebuilding local and human 

capital and if there are any models you know of that can help that 

happen quickly. 

Ms. BIRDSALL. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. I think there is a 

model that was developed at our Center for Global Development on 

the basis of a gift that our chairman made to the President of Liberia. 

It is a model under which young people are recruited, people who 

are in their early 30s, and go to work in the public service of the 

government, and through being special assistants to key ministers, 

actually provide unimaginably important service to those ministers 

who are completely beleaguered and overwhelmed. 

In the case of Haiti, for some time it is not going to have very 

much support within their own ministries, partly because so many 

Haitians will be going to work for all the NGOs and for all the donors who are now flooding into Haiti. 

I think Mr. Boisson mentioned not only does this influx of aid 

from so many different players crowd out private sector initiatives, 

it actually can undermine the ability of the government itself to 

manage the donors and to manage its own expenditures. 

19 

This is one example of a model which I think could be built on 

to have maximum use and deployment of the very skilled Haitian 

Diaspora, particularly in this country, if there were any arrangements set up, say by USAID or another agency with encouragement from the Congress, that made it easier for members of the 

Haitian Diaspora to go for 6 months, for a year, for 2 years into 

public service in Haiti, then that would be part of building up the 

capacity of that public service. 

This has worked very well in the case of Nigeria, in the case of 

Malawi, in the case of other countries in Africa where there has 

been some mechanism by some private donor often to create a 

channel that provides a framework for people to go into the public 

service at different levels. 

The model we have, I think, is a very low-cost one which does 

not take away management functions from the key ministers because people go when they are young and they are special assistants. They do many of the things that no doubt you have staff help 

on yourself and your colleagues have here on Capitol Hill, which 

can be very important, and which can be part of a larger process 

of gradually recruiting and building up local Haitian capacity in 

key functions that are very nitty-gritty, not glamorous. 

Just to give you a feel, we had as many as a dozen of these special assistants in Liberia being paid $30,000 to $35,000 a year, 

which was far more than most of the public servants but far less 

for most of them than they might have been earning here. Half of 

the people who applied to do this activity were Liberians themselves and several have ended up as vice ministers and in other offices of the government. 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing today was based on some conversations we had in 

the previous hearing and my concerns with what we have to do in 

Haiti. I really enjoyed all the testimony today. 

If we are looking at long-term development of an economy, that 

is one issue. We are dealing with the immediate impact to a disaster today in Haiti. 

If you just look at the 78 million cubic yards of rubble that have 

to be dealt with, the entire nation has about 150 excavators, we are 

not talking about what you would see on American construction 

sites. We are talking about old, worn-out, antiquated units sold off 

to that country by many contractors in the United States and other 

countries, and they are not capable of doing the work. 

They do not have the technical expertise within the labor force 

and the construction industry to deal with the infrastructure needs 

of electrical, roadways, bridges, sewers, storm drains, and if that 

is debatable, go look at what they had, and it will tell you clearly 

they do not have that expertise. 

The United States is going to be the largest donor helping Haiti, 

no doubt about it. As I talked to the chairman and other members, 

we need to look at providing the ability to rebuild this country. 

I really enjoyed the comments of Mr. Fairbanks where you were 

saying that 80 percent of the aid never gets to the purpose intended, and Haiti is prolific with corruption, as many countries are, 

20 

because you have a disaster today of $14 billion with a GDP of half 

of that. 

We are going to have a tremendous amount of money going into 

Haiti in a very short period of time, and for that reason alone, I 

think we need to take the responsibility as the United States Government if we are going to provide this aid, let’s provide the expertise. 

With 15 million people unemployed in this country and tremendous labor force in the construction industry who have the expertise to immediately deal with the impact on this nation and the reconstruction of this nation, we should do that. 

Mr. D’Sa with Gap, you have done a great job. You employ people. You put them to work. In order to do that, you have to have 

everything in place to do that. 

Haiti has an ability we do not have in this country as far as environmental standards and labor standards. They do not have to deal 

with things American labor deals with, and we are going to deal 

with trade issues and investment issues later, and when we do 

that, we need to look at the impact we have on American industries in the future, too. 

Like China has a tremendous benefit over the United States’ 

workforce and businesses as far as trade standards. They have virtually wiped out the manufacturing industries and the furniture interests, specifically in North Carolina and California and other 

States in our Nation. They no longer can compete with China. 

We do need to look at helping the Haitian people without a doubt 

once reconstruction occurs, but we have to reconstruct immediately. 

My concern and the chairman’s concern is throwing money into 

a nation and thinking 80 percent of it or 50 percent or 40 percent 

could disappear based on corruption, putting the dollars in the 

hands of individuals who are not used to dealing with these types 

of dollars and expending that amount of currency in a very short 

period of time to deal with the immediate impact and disaster that 

we are facing over there. 

None of my comments should be taken in a negative term. It is 

not meant that way. 

We need to help these people. The best way to help these people 

is to provide the expertise, talent, and the resources necessary to 

immediately mitigate the impact on this country. I believe if we do 

not take some oversight over it based on the American tax dollars 

we are investing in it, we will not be doing a service to the Haitian 

people and there is a tremendous labor force available in Haiti, 

manpower to get out and do specific jobs, but they do not have the 

expertise, and that is not impugning the people, they do not have 

it. 

One hundred and fifty pieces of equipment, that would be an embarrassment on an American construction site. In fact, these units 

would not even be allowed on American construction sites because 

they do not meet the standards and the environmental requirements placed on them by the government here. 

Mr. Fairbanks, I would like to let you respond and maybe if you 

think I am incorrect in some way, I would like to have you expand 

on that. 

21 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. No, sir. I think what you are saying is a very 

valuable perspective on the short-term needs versus the long-term 

requirements. 

I think our points of view reconcile around the way that the work 

is procured. I would make two suggestions. The first one that I 

would hazard a guess we would agree on and the second one, we 

will not agree on, but I would like to put it out anyway. 

The first one is as we go out to procure services through USAID, 

we should envision contracts where the vendors are punished for 

poor performance and rewarded for superior performance. 

Right now, what we are seeing is too much responsibility in the 

proposal process and too little responsibility over the outcomes. 

That is the way to characterize aid vendors right now. 

In the proposal, they can do anything. You have a problem, I can 

fix it. You have a problem, I already solved it somewhere else. Six 

months later, 2 years later, I could not do it because the people are 

stupid. I could not do it because the government is corrupt. 

We go from too much responsibility to too little responsibility. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. If we invest American expertise in 

our companies, combined with Haitian labor, the result will be 

what we need it to be, and that is beneficial to the people of Haiti 

and it will be done in a proficient way, done properly, and the resources that are there when we leave are going to be long-term resources. They are not going to be substandard electrical systems, 

substandard bridges, substandard highways, substandard sewer 

systems. They will be done in a fashion that they should be done 

in and the Haitian people can build upon that when we pull back 

out. 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. That is correct, sir. In fact, you get development 

twice. You move the rubbish and you leave behind skilled people. 

That is a great vision. 

What I want to focus on is the procurement process to make sure 

the contracts are done right so that the incentives are— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I agree with you 100 percent on 

that. 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. That is really broken right now. The vendors get 

away with murder. 

The second comment I would like to make which I do not think 

we will agree upon but I would love the opportunity to test it with 

you, is that I think eventually USAID needs to go to untied aid, 

which means we have to give aid that is not tied to American suppliers. 

I know this is not the time in our Nation’s economic cycle to have 

that discussion. The fact is other countries already do this, Japan 

and the United Kingdom. They are much more accepted as development partners around the world. You also get development twice. 

If we were to put out a contract that procured services from the 

Dominican Republic or governance consultants from Rwanda, we 

would also get development twice because we would be helping the 

Haitians solve a problem and we would be helping the other countries to develop that capacity. 

This is not the time or place for that argument, but some day, 

it has to happen. 

22 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. In closing, we are dealing with an 

immediate disaster. I cannot think of any group more capable of 

dealing with that than the American workforce and American contractors, in combination with Haitian labor. 

When that immediate disaster is dealt with, we pull back out, 

the Haitian Government takes control of their own destiny, and 

hopefully at that point of time, the infrastructure is in a situation 

and modernized enough where it really will benefit the Haitian 

people in the future, plus it gives the Haitian people a matrix that 

they can look at on how things should be done. It gives Haitian 

contractors an opportunity to work with American companies to realize how things can better be produced for the long-term benefit 

of their people. 

I feel strongly, Chairman Meeks, we need to look at that. We 

need to not only be concerned about the Haitian people. We also 

need to be concerned about the American workforce and how that 

American labor in conjunction with labor of the Haitian people can 

resolve the impact on these people immediately, deal with the disaster, and move on and then let their country take over. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MEEKS. Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the chairman for convening the hearing. It has been a very interesting hearing. 

Mr. Miller’s questions actually helped me try to reconcile some 

of the things the panelists were saying, particularly Mr. Fairbanks. 

When I first heard his testimony, your oral testimony, not having 

read the written testimony, I was a little concerned that we were 

going to read too much into it, but then I went back and skimmed 

quickly what you said in your written testimony, and just wanted 

to make sure that we do not overread what you were saying. 

It sounded like initially you were saying, let’s do away with this 

aid and not bother with it. You are more concerned about how it 

plays itself out. I think that is a concern that Mr. Miller expressed 

and all of us are concerned about. 

Let’s make sure that we are just not providing fish, we are really 

teaching or supporting the ability to learn how to fish, so there is 

a longer-term impact. That is really what you are saying, I think. 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. I would take it even further, Congressman, by 

suggesting that we should be teaching the Haitians how to export 

the world’s most sophisticated fishing rods to the world’s most demanding fishermen for the highest possible price points. 

Mr. WATT. Gotcha. I would not argue with that as a general 

proposition. I do not think any of us would. 

There is some notion that we are really better-positioned to do 

that with Haiti than in some other locations because we really 

have never had a direct or for a while we have not had a direct 

relationship with the Haitian Government because of the U.S. concerns about corruption and what-have-you. 

A lot of the infrastructure that is there that we have worked 

through has been through NGOs that give the capacity to have a 

different relationship with non-government organizations, although 

I am not sure Mr. Miller or any of us would think building up and 

23 

supporting a more robust and honest and transparent government 

is not also necessary. 

This is somewhat a philosophical discussion about very concrete 

needs and some of these things can by necessity be done more effectively through government structures than through private sector or non-government organizations. 

I guess what we are trying to figure out here is how you appropriately balance those things in somewhat of an emergency situation and play it out long term so there are some skills left at the 

end of the day. 

Any arguments with any of that—the gentleman whose name did 

not roll off your lips either—I was kind of hoping at some point 

Stephane, who has that French flavor to his presentation might do 

some of these introductions. I think a lot of these names might 

have been done a better service. 

I think at the end of the day, it sounds to me like everything that 

all five panelists are saying is reconcilable and perhaps maybe 

more so in Haiti than in some other settings. 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Thank you, sir. We had capital and we came 

into Poland with the capital in the early days, and we worked with 

the government when it was appropriate to work with the government to influence policy change, influence development of institutions, but at the same time, our focus was on developing the private sector by providing capital to build businesses. 

In building those businesses, you build the fundamentals and on 

that basis, you create the ecosystem from the bottom up. 

Mr. WATT. Basically, what you are suggesting is we follow the 

same or a similar approach in Haiti? 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Commerce is taking place every day in Haiti 

by the little people and those little people need capital to grow. By 

helping them build their businesses, you also help build the other 

institutions that support those businesses. 

Mr. WATT. I am not arguing with that. I agree with you. I do not 

want us to walk away from here with the message that I thought 

I was hearing first from Mr. Fairbanks, and I came full circle when 

I read it, that this can be done solely through that mechanism as 

opposed to supporting a robust, honest, transparent government 

that has an important role to play. 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. It is one piece of a large pie, exactly. In the 

SEED Act in 1989, there were a range of traditional aid programs 

and the enterprise fund, which was an innovative unprecedented 

approach. 

Mr. WATT. I think I have heard that message and I do not disagree with it. I think we need to be cognizant of that. I thank the 

gentleman for recognizing me and for convening the hearing, and 

I yield back. 

Chairman MEEKS. Ranking Member Bachus had a number of 

questions that he wanted to ask, and we talked about how he had 

been instrumental before, and he left the questions, so I am going 

to allow Mr. Miller to ask the questions of Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Mr. Skrobiszewski? Correct? 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Correct. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I did that pretty good for a German. 

24 

Mr. WATT. You did not do all that well either. 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I was going to give you a lesson in 

that but I said not to my friend. 

His question, first of all, is how did the enterprise funds avoid 

local government corruption, private enterprise corruption? 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. As I stated to mention to the previous question, it takes two to tango. We had the capital. If we smelled anything, we did not put the capital into the particular venture. We 

had the local authorities, we had the national authorities working 

closely with us because they wanted to see— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You also kept control of it, it sounds 

like. 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Pardon me? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You also kept control. 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. We kept control of the money. We had control. We took a disciplined approach. If we smelled anything of corruption, we did not do it. We did not put the money out. Money 

talks. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I agree. What are the fundamental 

reasons for the enterprise fund’s success in helping rebuild the private sector of Central and Eastern Europe? 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. I would say first and foremost, the professional management that was appointed to bipartisan boards and 

the professionals they hired that were able to take a disciplined approach in putting out the capital. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Qualified expertise. 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Exactly. They were primarily American 

driven. We brought over our capabilities, and of course, we had the 

benefit of a lot of Polish Diaspora that came to the United States 

during the marshal law period, as there are many Haitian Diaspora here today. 

We also had the freedom to operate freely. That is we did not 

have to go back and ask permission. We made commercial decisions 

because we had provisions in the legislation that allowed us to do 

that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I think that is a great pattern for 

American investment, too, in the future. 

Mr. Fairbanks, you point out that, ‘‘Aid largesse can distort private initiatives, stifle democracies, amplify ethnic based patron/client relationships and promote corruption.’’ 

Given the amount of aid that is likely to flow into Haiti, how do 

you prevent such negative side effects? 

Mr. FAIRBANKS. All of those side effects are going to occur, so it 

is a question of balancing the benefits with these disadvantages. 

Any time you put a lot of money into a situation, you get Dutch 

disease, which is inflation to the local economy. You also get the 

leadership distracted, as Mr. Boisson had mentioned very eloquently, and you also promote cultural values that are anti-innovation, paternalism, looking at wealth as a series of bureaucratic relationships and so on. 

These things are unavoidable and you still need to go ahead and 

do it, as you pointed out, sir, in the short run, to alleviate catastrophe. 

25 

The important point is we decide at what point in the near future we are switching from dealing with acts of God and starting 

to deal with acts of man. 

My own sort of swag at this is it is very short, 36 months. At 

that point, the budget is declining. The locus of decision-making is 

moving from the metro polls of North America, Europe and Asia 

onto the Haitians themselves, and that they know about this. 

That we set up punishment and reward systems, allocate decision rights, and look at very clear metrics of performance, and then 

we get out of the way. 

There will still be problems, but it will promote, if you excuse 

this paternalistic phasing in itself, the maturation of that society. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I agree with you 100 percent. A general overall question for the panel, whomever would like to respond 

to it. He says, how can the United States navigate through the 

tricky waters of helping Haiti rebuild speedily without seeming to 

take jobs away from the Haitians and are there some instances in 

which speed of reconstruction is more important than maximum 

employment of the Haitian workers and if so, who would make that 

determination? 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. BOISSON. I would like to address your question and complete 

what Mr. Fairbanks was saying. I think that what we need to do 

is two things. First of all, we have to build a new Haiti, not only 

in response to the emergency, but build a new Haiti. 

That means if we lose sight of that, we are going to provoke a 

catastrophe because the catastrophe was partly manmade. It was 

bad governance, for example, with there was a complete lack of 

control of the construction center, it was because of bad government. Yes, we have to respond to the emergency but we have to 

build human capacity and its institutions. 

As the private sector is concerned and the importance of buying—using Haitian resources, there must be almost an obligation 

of U.S. companies, be they competent as they are, to build local capacity. There also must be an obligation of multilateral and bilateral donors to build capacity. 

That means, for example, if you have a rubble contract, yes, its 

expertise lies with the U.S. company, but there is nothing that prevents them from sourcing from some of the manpower in anything 

they can source from Haiti and building capacity so that in 2 to 3 

years time, you may have a Haitian firm ready to do any job of 

that sort. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We have trained them. 

Mr. BOISSON. Train them. In a sense, this is exactly the same 

image we should use for the international community. 

If you have, for example, that big unit that is going to manage 

and you do not address the issue of institution and political institution in Haiti, and how that society can control their government 

and avoid corruption, you just are pouring money, you may just increase the corruption. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You are; yes. 

Mr. BOISSON. Building institution and being able to provide public or private services, we must have a result where there is as 

much competition as possible, and that is what Mr. Fairbanks was 

26 

saying. I support it. I think by having—the reason why the private 

sector works, be it in Haiti, the United States or anywhere, is because private entrepreneurs are penalized, they disappear, when 

they do not manage well. That does not happen somehow in providing international aid supported public services, and that is bad 

for the economy and that is bad for the society. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman MEEKS. I would just want to say this, if there is anyone who has been focused on Haiti through all of its time, up’s and 

down’s and around, the person who has been focused on Haiti and 

making a difference and keeping Haiti on the forefront here in the 

United States Congress, one of those individuals is the gentlelady 

from California, who was the writer of the debt relief bill that we 

passed unanimously in the House last week, and I yield to the 

Honorable Maxine Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly 

appreciate the leadership that you are providing on this issue and 

the fact that already you have held two hearings and not letting 

this issue die after the crisis is focused on for a few weeks or so, 

and your commitment to have a redevelopment plan, a national 

plan for Haiti. I think that is very important. 

I am sorry that I was not here to hear all of the witnesses this 

morning, but I have quickly glanced at some of the testimony that 

has been given, and in going through the testimony, I see that a 

lot of what has been said seems to be basically a growing consensus 

about the direction that all of the funding agencies and donors and 

USAID and everybody needs to take in order to deal with the redevelopment of Haiti. 

Let me just say that on my last visit to Haiti a couple of weeks 

ago, we organized about 130 would-be business people who are basically lawyers, doctors and educated people in Haiti who have not 

been involved in business per se in Haiti, not been involved necessarily in government. I think it is typical of the middle class that 

has been left out and the middle class that has not been developed 

for Haiti. 

I am convinced that we have to develop through our work a middle class in Haiti. That, I think, can be done in a number of ways. 

One of the testimonies that I glanced through talked about the investment in education and all of that in order to develop this middle class and the creation of jobs, etc. 

I think that is all true. I want to say that USAID is working 

very, very hard. The U.N. is working very, very hard. They are 

working despite the fact they have lost some of their own personnel, etc. 

But it is very frustrating to see that the only way that services 

can be delivered in Haiti is through the NGOs. I hear numbers 

anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 NGOs in Haiti, and while I agree 

that there are a lot of social services that must be delivered and 

work that must be done, I get this feeling that increasingly some 

of the NGOs are taking over what should be business in Haiti. 

That is frustrating. 

I want to give you an example of that. I have some pictures we 

took, Mr. Chairman, and I will pass them down to you, of the temVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:00 Jul 06, 2010 Jkt 056775 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56775.TXT TERRIE
27 

porary shelters that are being built in some locations. This is very 

slow getting off the ground. 

As a matter of fact, they are disseminating the plastic sheets to 

provide some kind of shelters. The need is so great until even these 

temporary shelters, not many of them are going to be built, and the 

NGO that is kind of responsible said maybe they might get 20,000 

of them built, I doubt it. 

This is a business. This should be done by business people. This 

should not be done by a nonprofit. I talked to the persons who were 

working on it and the guy who really knew how to do it, who was 

on payroll, really should have been the business that owned this 

operation and providing this temporary shelter. 

I think we have a job to do working with the government to try 

and do everything that we can in this crisis to help create some 

small businesses, and to help get people who have some expertise 

in contracting, in building, and doing some things into some new 

business opportunities rather. 

I invited USAID to send over the contracting officer with the 130 

business persons that I organized, and he was very generous and 

he came over. He brought with him basically the requirements for 

doing business with USAID. 

The first thing is, it was all in English, it was not in Creole, not 

even in French. We had interpreters there. We had people, a lot of 

them could speak English, but when you start to use terminology 

that people may not be familiar with, you really have to translate 

it, even for some of the English-speaking people. 

Everybody started to laugh at one point when he said that for 

unsolicited proposals, you need to have 3 years of audited receipts. 

We were talking to people whose homes and everything else was 

blown away and everything they owned. Even the government 

downtown in Port-au-Prince, the government buildings, all their 

papers are still on the ground. 

This young man was great. He was intent on talking about how 

to do business with USAID, but I had to talk with him and say this 

will not cut it, this will not do it. 

That is one of the problems we have. It is a problem. It is an innocent problem. It is not a contrived problem. It is an innocent 

problem. A lack of knowing how to understand the culture and deal 

with the people you say you want to help. 

There are several things that we have to do. First of all, all of 

the clusters in Haiti, local people are not involved. The NGOs run 

them. You have health clusters, education clusters. They meet 

every day. It is a secured operation. Local people cannot get into 

the clusters where the planning is going on for the very people who 

they are planning for. 

The other thing is, just reverting a little bit back to what is going 

on now, many of the camps that have opened up are not getting 

serviced. 

I was in a camp of 650. They have tarps. They still need latrines 

and some of those things. The way it works, the camp has to be 

identified by an NGO. The camp has to organize its little committee with who is going to be in charge of some things. Then they 

cannot get the tarps, they cannot get the food, they cannot get the 

water and they cannot get the latrines until the NGO gets to them. 

28 

This crisis, they should have these plastic sheets on some flatbed 

trucks rolling around putting them everywhere they can put them 

and not the organizational structure that ensures the NGO is running it and in charge. I think that is important. That is something 

that can come, but the way that it works, until again the NGO 

identifies the camp, they have to sit there and wait. 

I was in a camp that had nothing. They had been building 

frames for the tarps to go over, and we finally went to USAID and 

brought them out there on a Sunday and met with the people who 

had already formed the committee, etc. 

The point of all this is there is a lot of room for business. Not 

only the big business that some of us are talking about, but small 

business that Haitians could be doing, that would help them not 

only to earn money but to become better at being business persons. 

I just think that we cannot have redevelopment without Haitian 

involvement and Haitian ownership. That is really important. The 

development of the middle class, Haitian ownership, and I would 

like to see—I have talked with the chairman about this—credits 

given to American firms, any other firms that come in to do business that have included in that proposal a way that they are going 

to include people on the ground in Haiti. I think they should be 

given credits for that. 

I think American firms, firms from Canada or France, everybody 

has a role to play. We cannot play that role in the absence of involvement and ownership of the Haitian people. 

Just yesterday, there was a meeting that was put together by the 

Inter-American Development Bank, some of you may be aware of 

it, in Haiti, with the international community. 

I talked with the director and I said I want to know if you think 

you have some people who are smart enough to be in business, Haitians, who are invited to this conference, and not just the same, for 

lack of a better description, five families. 

We know where people turn because this is what people know 

and understand about Haiti, that which is referred to as kind of 

the business elite, etc., that is involved in all the export/import, 

etc., and the fact that this emerging middle class or would be middle class have not been involved. 

They said no, we gave them 10 names because they were almost 

at capacity, to invite some of the business people that we had at 

the meeting of the 130 where USAID had come out and they have 

agreed to come to some other meetings that we will be setting up 

with the middle class or emerging middle class. 

In all that we do in the redevelopment of Haiti, encouraging 

those firms who really want to do good business, and you are right, 

we are not talking about shoddy business, who really want to do 

good business, to come in and include joint ventures and participation on the ground and maybe not even joint venture ways, but 

some ownership ways that can be created. 

Unless we do that and we have an appreciation for the culture 

and we have Creole that is used in the explanation of how our culture works and what we expect, we are going to make the same 

mistakes that I think we have made historically in Haiti. 

I just want to thank all of you for your expertise and your background and for what you had to offer, but let us all collectively 

29 

work very hard to do it and do it right, and to make sure that 

working with USAID and with the U.N. and with the Inter-American Development Bank and others that we include the kind of approaches and training and development of those that we want to 

understand what we are talking about with how to do business 

with USAID. 

I cannot do business with USAID. Many of the minorities we represent cannot do business with USAID. We cannot follow this so 

we cannot comply with it. 

We have to undo the mystery of it and get right down to getting 

it done. 

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back and I appreciate it. 

Chairman MEEKS. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Clay be 

permitted to participate in today’s hearing. Without objection, it is 

so ordered. 

Mr. WATT. Can I object? Oh. 

[laughter] 

Mr. WATT. Can I reserve the right to object, just long enough to 

tell Mr. Fairbanks that he probably has been surprised at how entrepreneurial and community-oriented we are on this panel. Sometimes, we get accused of being anti-business. I think you could relate to the comments that Representative Waters made in a special 

kind of way. 

With that, I will not object to my friend participating in this 

hearing. 

Mr. CLAY. I thank my friend from North Carolina and let me say 

Amen to what Ms. Waters said and thank the chairman for conducting this hearing and allowing me to be a part of it. I appreciate 

that. 

Let me thank all of the witnesses for their testimony and along 

the same lines as Mr. Miller and Ms. Waters, I have heard from 

several members of my church who minister in Haiti who have 

talked about some of the more immediate concerns that they have, 

especially with the rainy season here, with the situation not really 

moving like they would like to see it move. 

Let me just say I put this question out to the panel. Going forward, what should we do differently as far as rebuilding the infrastructure of Haiti, as far as involving Haitian citizens? 

Will there be groups like Habitat for Humanity involved in helping rebuild homes? Will there be new building codes for building 

these structures, to make them somewhat earthquake resistant? 

Will the Haitian people, as Ms. Waters mentioned, benefit from 

getting some skills and being able to support themselves and their 

families with a job? 

Is there a timetable for that? Can anyone try to answer? Yes, sir? 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Yes, sir. Thank you. I can respond to some 

of those questions. It is really stimulating the local Haitian private 

sector and putting capital in their hands, as we did with our first 

program at the enterprise fund addressing the very concerns that 

Congresswoman Waters was raising, that avoided the complexities 

of the USAID requirements. 

We did community lending. That was one of the first programs 

we did. Thousands of Poles lined up to get the money. They did not 

30 

understand some of the aspects. We had a small application and 

we went back and cleaned it up. It was all in Polish. Some of them 

learned more about their business than they ever knew before in 

just filling out the application, even though they might not have 

gotten the loan. That ended up making 10,000 loans over the 10- 

year period, and we did another 126,000 micro-loans. 

That establishes the foundation, and then if you are also working—it is the private sector that is making investments in these 

kinds of firms that are imposing the standards. They want to see 

construction according to certain standards, if they are making investments in that construction, because it is a longer-term return 

you are looking for. 

When we created a mortgage bank, when we invested in construction companies, we impose those kinds of standards, and then 

that filters down through the economy. 

Mr. CLAY. Yes, Ms. Birdsall? 

Ms. BIRDSALL. When I was listening to Congresswoman Waters, 

Congressman Clay, I got a little depressed. I endorse fully the remarks of Mr. Skrobiszewski regarding having these enterprise 

funds. 

I want you, because you, with all due respect, you representing 

the Congress are part of the problem of USAID’s complex arrangements. As he said in speaking, in Poland and in Eastern Europe, 

we avoided the complexities of USAID, went around them. 

I think if you want to have something happen differently in 

Haiti, one important step would be to support USAID having the 

flexibility to do the kinds of things that Congresswoman Waters 

was talking about, without having to worry so much about an accretion of rules, an accretion of procurement arrangements, the 

problems of everything being tied in terms of aid that Michael 

Fairbanks referred to. 

Mr. CLAY. Would that require some kind of legislative change or 

allowing them to waive the rules that they operate under now? 

Ms. BIRDSALL. One approach would be to say since Haiti is so 

special, it is so close to the United States, let us give the new Administrator of USAID some special period of greater flexibility and 

test it out and see what happens. 

There is a lot of eagerness at USAID to clean up and have greater capacity to do exactly the kinds of things— 

Mr. CLAY. Their hands are tied now? 

Mr. BIRDSALL. Their hands are largely tied. I think if this subcommittee could use Haiti as a vehicle for also helping our Administration get much greater value for money and work much more 

effectively with the government of Haiti on building government 

capacity, that would be tremendously good. 

The second thing I would say is it is not politically easy, I understand this, but to the extent possible, I urge the Congress to put 

some of the resources, as much as possible, through the multilateral institutions. 

Why? They have more open procurement. You reduce the problem of coordination. If every donor insists on putting her flag or her 

flag on every health clinic or every can, then you are creating this 

burden for the government of Haiti to finally take charge in the 

way that you are making it harder for the new administration in 

31 

Haiti to do what President Kagame was able to do in Rwanda, as 

other members of the panel have said. 

It is just a thought in response to the very good statements you 

are all making, that there is a way perhaps to have Haiti, a response in Haiti, be the leading wedge of a larger reform that 

should be on the agenda. 

I am sure you know that some of your colleagues in other committees are thinking about new foreign assistance legislation. 

There has not been new authorization legislation in decades. 

To support that new legislation as well, but perhaps to build 

some momentum for it by having some special interim arrangement for Haiti. 

Mr. CLAY. Any other thoughts on the panel? 

Mr. SKROBISZEWSKI. Yes. I just want to clarify that we work 

closely with USAID. They had their capabilities and we had ours, 

and ours was focused on commercial practices. That is investing 

and lending on commercial terms, according to commercial disciplines. 

That worked very well together. They brought other resources to 

bear. We had that flexibility that I mentioned because Congress 

granted it to the enterprise fund specifically in the SEED Act, that 

gave us the capability to do our investments in a way that were 

commercially responsible. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your responses. I thank the chairman 

for his indulgence. 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. Before we close out, Mr. D’Sa, let 

me just ask you a question. Gap is still doing business and pursuant to some of the questions that Ms. Waters talked about, do you 

have any examples? Are you using Haitians now? Are you still getting your shipments in and exports and imports in now? Can you 

just tell us what you are doing in regard to Haitians on the ground 

now? 

Mr. D’SA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Waters, I love the story 

you told us about USAID and the missing Creole translations. 

In one of my first visits to Haiti, when we usually walk around, 

we do an evaluation of the factories. I talked to the people on the 

floor, and the owners, of course, told me what a wonderful factory 

they had and how strong the management was, and how they could 

take care of productivity efficiency and quality. 

I speak a little bit of French, no Creole. I asked one of the Creole 

supervisors there to explain to me why he did what he did, and he 

could tell me what he did but he could not tell me why he did it. 

As I dug deeper, what I found was the management of the factory, the senior management was from Asia. The middle management was from the Dominican Republic. You had people who spoke 

English, who spoke Spanish, one or two spoke a little bit of French, 

and nobody who spoke Creole. 

Just like you had with USAID, we had disconnects 3 years ago 

in our factories as well. We have been working to change that. 

Similar stories. 

Mr. Chairman, coming to your question, we have been working 

with Haiti and with Haitian suppliers of services and some foreign 

investment as well. We had identified certain impediments to investment and challenges before the earthquake. 

32 

Since the earthquake, those challenges have only been exacerbated, but yes, we have been working with our suppliers there and 

things have been moving along, and yes, we have Haitian services 

in place. 

The one thing that Gap does in most of the countries that it 

works in is capacity building and empowerment to the labor. A few 

years ago, there was hesitation on the part of Congress and there 

was a requirement for certain elevations in the factories that we 

worked in, sustainability, social responsibility, labor standards, 

management, etc. 

With the expertise we have, the intellectual property we own 

within the company, we rolled out workshops, not just for our suppliers, but for all suppliers in several Central American countries, 

to help them elevate their standards, taught them situational leadership, enlightened management, and then for the workers, you 

have to keep in mind that in most of these countries, people who 

work in the apparel industry tend to be illiterate. They do not 

know when they are eligible for overtime or how to manage their 

own wages, etc. 

Simply teaching them not just the entrepreneurial skills but selfmanagement skills, how do you track what your earnings are, what 

are you entitled to, how do you manage your funds at home, how 

do you do budgeting, these are the kind of classes that we roll out. 

This is the kind of education that we do. 

In several countries in Asia today, Gap is involved in what we 

call the competitive literacy initiative, teaching people to read and 

write and from there on, creating career advancement opportunities. 

There is another program we have called PACE, which stands for 

personal achievement and career enhancement. To a smaller extent, some of these have already started to be rolled out in Haiti 

in cooperation with a company called TC2 out of North Carolina, 

that started with training the trainers who are Haitians, and then 

the Haitians go out and start training workers in factories to be 

able to manage their careers, to be able to manage their personal 

lives. 

That is one place where we are beginning to empower the Haitian labor, the Haitian supervisors. 

Yes, we are working with Haitian services, transportation, catering services in the factories. 

Around the apparel industry, yes, there are a number of opportunities for Haitian medium and small enterprises and it is beginning to happen and hopefully if HOPE II is reconstructed to be 

able to, as Ms. Birdsall and I have referred to, if we raise the TPLs 

and we open the product offering that is available, we should be 

able to do a lot more for the Haitian people. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MEEKS. Thank you. Let me, at this time, thank all of 

the witnesses for your testimony. I think it has been very enlightening. As I think Mr. Watt has indicated, and if there is something 

that is uniting, it has been your testimony that we need to create 

jobs for the Haitian people. 

We need to get money in their hands so they can provide for 

their families. We need to teach them how to sell that exclusive 

33 

fishing rod to us in the United States, so they can participate in 

the global economy. 

With that also comes the human capacity building of a government so that the people can gain the confidence and have confidence in it as was beginning to happen prior to this earthquake. 

We are going to stay focused. This subcommittee will continue to 

stay focused on Haiti, even when the cameras are gone. We are already preparing our next hearing on Haiti, which will be dealing 

with microenterprises, so we can make sure that there is continuing progress. 

Congresswoman Clarke, for example, she has some ideas, and I 

believe she is working with you in trying to make sure we create 

a fund. 

We will be continuing to move forward for a marshal plan for 

Haiti because as I think Ms. Birdsall said and Ms. Waters, we need 

coordinating of all this, so we know what we are doing and it is 

not one hand working against the other. We are all pulling in the 

same direction and working in the same direction for making a difference with Haiti. 

Again, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. 

I look forward to having conversations and dialogue with you in the 

near future. 

With that, the Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in 

writing, and without objection, the hearing record will remain open 

for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at approximately 12:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

March 16, 2010 

36 


56775.001
37 


56775.002
38 


56775.003
39 


56775.004
40 


56775.019
41 


56775.020
42 


56775.021
43 


56775.022
44 


56775.023
45 


56775.024
46 


56775.005
47 


56775.006
48 


56775.007
49 


56775.008
50 


56775.009
51 


56775.010
52 


56775.011
53 


56775.012
54 


56775.013
55 


56775.014
56 


56775.015
57 


56775.016
58 


56775.017
59 


56775.018
60 


56775.025
61 


56775.026
62 


56775.027
63 


56775.028
64 


56775.029
65 


56775.030
66 


56775.031
67 


56775.032
68 


56775.033
69 


56775.034
70 


56775.035
71 


56775.036
72 


56775.037
73 


56775.038
74 


56775.039
75 


56775.040
76 


56775.041
77 


56775.042
78 


56775.043
79 


56775.044
80 


56775.045
81 


56775.046
82 


56775.047
83 


56775.048
84 


56775.049
85 


56775.050