U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87–254 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–729 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 5013/S. 2499 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL 

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

Department of State 

United States Agency for International Development 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice 

Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. KIEFFER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE III, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

Professional Staff 

TIM RIESER

NIKOLE MANATT

JANET STORMES

PAUL GROVE (Minority) 

ADAM YEZERSKI (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MARIA VEKLICH

LASHAWNDA SMITH (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 Page 

Department of State: Office of the Secretary ........................................................ 1 

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 

United States Agency for International Development .......................................... 59 

BACK MATTER

List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements .......................... 119 

Subject Index ............................................................................................................ 121 

Department of State: Office of the Secretary ................................................. 121 

United States Agency for International Development .................................. 121 

(1) 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:43 a.m., in room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Landrieu, Shaheen, Coons, Graham, 

Kirk, Coats, Blunt, and Boozman. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. Good morning. Only because these guys have the 

job I always wanted to have, to be one of the photographers, I don’t 

want to call them off too quickly. 

Senator GRAHAM. It is never too late for a career change. 

Senator LEAHY. I was recently speaking to a group of prosecutors 

in Vermont, and I said the best job I ever had was as a prosecutor. 

I don’t know why I ever left it. Five hands went up in the room 

and said, ‘‘We’ll trade.’’ But I didn’t. 

I do appreciate the Secretary being here. He has a very busy and 

peripatetic schedule. The Secretary and I have been friends for decades, and I will say publicly what I told Secretary Kerry privately: 

I am extremely impressed and proud about the way he has embraced what is, especially these days, one of the most difficult jobs 

in the world. And it is hard to imagine anybody who walked into 

that job more qualified or prepared than you. I appreciate what you 

have done. I think the world appreciates what you have done. 

Senator Mikulski is on the floor right now. She is an active member and strong supporter of the subcommittee, and thanks to her 

and Senator Shelby, we got our bills done last year. We are going 

to do everything possible to get them finished this year. 

You and I have talked about how it makes it a little easier if you 

know exactly how much money you are going to have or don’t have. 

I also want to take a moment, I don’t want to create problems 

for him at home, but I want to acknowledge Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. We need to move on. 
2 

Senator LEAHY. He travels around the world to see how our programs are working or not working. He and I have a close friendship, and we have tried to keep this subcommittee as nonpartisan 

as possible. 

Senator GRAHAM. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. He has been a strong defender of the national interests that the budget protects, and we have tried to bring, each 

time, our bill to the floor with both of us voting for it. 

Obviously, today we are focused on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 

and there will be questions about that, but there is also Iran, 

Syria, Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan. It is an exhausting list. 

And, Mr. Secretary, fortunately, you are able to work 40 hours 

a day, and juggle all of this. But with all this going on, the American people have all but forgotten about Afghanistan and Iraq, two 

enormously costly military ventures that went terribly awry. We 

and the people of these countries will be paying for these mistakes 

and for the care of wounded soldiers and their families for lifetimes 

to come. 

Iraq alone will eventually cost the U.S. taxpayers $2 trillion, the 

only war this country has ever fought without a tax to pay for it. 

We just put it on a credit card. 

Around the world, we see civil society organizations and journalists harassed and persecuted, many forced to flee their countries. 

Independence of the judiciary, fundamental to any democracy and 

fragile in many countries, is under threat. Violence and discrimination against women; shortages of water, energy, food; climate 

change; religious extremism; trafficking in arms, drugs, people, and 

wildlife; there is no issue that this Secretary or subcommittee can 

ignore. 

The world looks more dangerous to many of us than it did during 

the Cold War. I don’t think anyone could say that the administration’s 2015 budget request for this subcommittee is excessive. In 

fact it is half a billion dollars, $536 million, below the 2014 level. 

I know our costs in Iraq have decreased, but there are several 

areas where I see potential problems, particularly the cut in funding for refugees and other humanitarian programs. 

And I worry about the Western Hemisphere, including Colombia. 

If there is a peace agreement to end the conflict in Colombia—and 

I support what President Santos is doing at some political risk to 

himself; I traveled there and talked to him about this—we are 

going to want to help him secure that peace. 

The many challenges that we face as a Nation, the costly mistakes since 9/11 that damaged our image and eroded our influence, 

I would like to think that when it comes to foreign policy, Democrats and Republicans can learn from history and learn to speak 

with one voice for the sake of the United States and its people. 

I would like to think that after fighting two long, inconclusive 

wars, the Secretary’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and 

with Iran would have strong bipartisan support. 

Right now, we don’t need a Democratic foreign policy or a Republican foreign policy. We need an American foreign policy that is 

rooted in our values and the example we set and which we can 

credibly ask others to follow. 
3 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I will yield to Senator Graham, and then, Mr. Secretary, the floor 

will be yours, unless the chairwoman comes and wishes to speak. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

We are here to discuss President Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget for the Department of State and foreign operations. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. I want to say how impressed I am by the way you have 

embraced what can only be described as one of the most challenging jobs in the 

world. It is hard to imagine anyone more qualified for it, and we are very fortunate 

to have you there. 

I also want to recognize our committee chairwoman, Senator Mikulski, who has 

long been an active member and strong supporter of this subcommittee. Thanks to 

her and Senator Shelby, we got our bills done last year and we are going to do everything possible to finish our work this year by October 1. 

I also want to acknowledge Senator Graham. He travels around the world to see 

how programs are working—or not working—and he has been a strong defender of 

this budget and the important national interests it protects. 

This subcommittee has produced bipartisan bills for as long as I have been here, 

and we intend to work the same way this year. 

The world today is focused on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we will have 

many questions about that. But there is also Iran, Syria, Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan—it is an exhausting list. The Secretary is juggling them all. 

Yet with everything else going on, it is almost as if Congress and the American 

people have forgotten about Afghanistan and Iraq, two enormously costly military 

adventures that went terribly awry. We and the people of those countries will be 

paying for those mistakes, and for the care of our wounded soldiers and their families, for lifetimes to come. 

Around the world, civil society organizations and journalists are harassed and 

persecuted. Many are forced to flee their countries. The independence of the judiciary, fundamental to any democracy and fragile in many countries, is under threat. 

Violence and discrimination against women; shortages of water, energy and food; 

climate change; religious extremism; the trafficking in arms, drugs, people, and 

wildlife—there is no issue that the Secretary or this subcommittee can ignore. 

The world today looks more dangerous to many of us than it did during the Cold 

War, and I don’t think anyone can credibly say that the administration’s 2015 budget request for this subcommittee is excessive. 

In fact, it is $536 million below the 2014 level. While our costs in Iraq have decreased there are several areas where I see potential problems, particularly the cut 

in funding for refugees and other humanitarian programs. 

I also worry about the Western Hemisphere, including Colombia. If there is a 

peace agreement to try to end that conflict—and I support what President Santos 

is doing, at some political risk to himself—we will want to help him secure the 

peace. 

With the many challenges we face as a Nation and the costly mistakes since 9/ 

11 that damaged our image and eroded our influence, I would like to think that at 

least when it comes to foreign policy, Democrats and Republicans can learn from 

history and find ways to speak with one voice. 

I would like to think that after fighting two long, inconclusive wars the Secretary’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and with Iran would have strong bipartisan support. 

We do not need a Democratic foreign policy or a Republican foreign policy. We 

need an American foreign policy that is consistently rooted in our values and the 

example we set, and which we can credibly ask others to follow. 

After Senator Graham makes his opening remarks Mr. Secretary the floor will be 

yours. 

We will then have 7-minute rounds of questions in order of appearance. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have enjoyed this committee. I want to compliment the members on our 

side. At a time of $17 trillion national debt and a country being fi-
4 

nancially strapped, bipartisanship has reigned when it comes to 

the 1 percent of the budget that the country has available to us to 

affect outcomes throughout the world and help people in a way that 

will help us. 

So Senator Coats is a former Ambassador to Germany. Mark 

Kirk is sort of legendary in his understanding and support for 

Israel and the Middle East. 

And when I hear at home, ‘‘If we just got rid of foreign aid, our 

problems would be solved,’’ I understand people feeling frustrated 

about the world and how dangerous it is, but this 1 percent I think 

has been well-managed, better managed over time. 

Mr. Secretary, your folks are doing a great job in Africa. I am 

spending a lot of time in Africa, and you can see what President 

Bush started, and President Clinton. But the Bush initiatives have 

been carried on by the Obama administration. I want to have a 

hearing one day about the rate of return on investment, and the 

amount of money that we set aside to fight AIDS and malaria to 

develop health care opportunities on a continent that is under 

siege. 

For people in Africa, our investment is not lost upon them. The 

Chinese are there for a different purpose. They see America and 

NGOs and the faith-based community in a very positive light. This 

is where, in many ways, radical Islam is moving in that direction. 

And we are going to cut them off. 

We are going to cut them off not just militarily. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we have a few differences, but when it comes 

to trying to keep this bipartisan and use the money wisely to help 

the American taxpayer—whether it is helping Jordan, which is 

being overrun by refugees—we work well with the State Department. 

Mr. Secretary, I don’t know how many miles a month you travel, 

but nobody can ever say that John Kerry has not been trying. You 

show up everywhere in the world where there is a conflict. 

And I want to help where I can. We will have some differences, 

but on behalf of the American people, thank you for being involved. 

And to all committee members, particularly on the Republican 

side, thank you for seeing the benefit that this account can offer 

our Nation. 

Senator LEAHY. Please go ahead, Mr. Secretary. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY

Secretary KERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And 

Ranking Member Graham and all the members of the committee, 

Senators, good friends of mine, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be able to testify here. 

Even more so, I am really grateful for each of your service on 

this committee. I was around here long enough to know the difference between those committees that are easy to translate at 

home, and this is one of the hardest. This and the Foreign Relations Committee, it is tough, because people at home don’t always 

see the connection. 

And, Senator Graham, I want to pick up on your comments on 

that in a minute, if I can. 
5 

I am going to be very brief with my opening statement. I want 

to begin by, first of all, just telling you what a privilege it is for 

me to lead this extraordinary department, the Department of State, 

USAID, and the remarkable men and women who put themselves 

on the line every single day. 

They are not wearing a uniform, but a whole bunch of them are 

taking risks in this dangerous world we live in. And they are doing 

it because of their love of country, because of their desire to try to 

change things for the better in the world, and take our values 

abroad and help to protect our interests. And they do it in amazing 

ways. 

Senator Graham just mentioned the effort, trying. I believe we 

are getting a lot of things done, and I believe we are making a difference in many places. We can talk about that in the course of the 

morning, because it really is part of what translates into the return 

on investment that Senator Graham talked about. 

And there are just so many different parts of the world where 

people don’t see how America has made the difference, but we are 

making a difference in place after place. And that people say okay, 

so what? What does that mean? It makes America more secure. 

It also opens up relationships that wind up growing economies, 

which means business for American companies, it means jobs at 

home, in every State, every district, in America. And we can show 

that. And we need to do more of showing it, and we intend to. 

But right now, I would just say to all of you that the one thing 

that struck me more than anything else in the course of the last 

year, and I say this without any chauvinism or arrogance at all, 

but it is the degree to which our leadership does make a difference. 

It is the degree to which, if we are not engaged in one place or another, bad things often happen. 

We are not the only force. I am not claiming that. We have great 

allies, great partners in these efforts. And some of them are equally 

as indispensable. But we do make that kind of difference. 

Last week, I was standing in Kiev, looking at the lampposts that 

were riddled with bullet holes, barricades made up of tires and bedposts and different detritus from homes, and an amazing film of 

burnt ash and mud on the street. And these remarkable memorials 

that have grown up spontaneously to the people who were killed 

there, flowers piled on flowers, candles, photographs of those who 

died, it was incredibly moving. 

And to talk to the people there and listen to them express their 

hopes, their desire to just be able to make choices like people in 

other countries, it was a privilege to listen to them. But I have to 

tell you, they are waiting for the world to back them up in these 

aspirations and to help them. 

And what is true in Kiev is true in so many other places where 

people look to us to be able to try to provide opportunities. South 

Sudan, a nation which many of you helped give birth to, is struggling now. It needs our support to have a chance of surviving beyond its infamy, so it doesn’t fall back into its history of being the 

longest war in Africa that has taken more than 2 million lives. 

What we do matters in the Maghreb, where the State Department is coordinating with France in order to take down Al Qaeda 
6 

there, make sure that French forces have the technology and weapons that they need. 

What we do matters in Central Asia, where we are working with 

several nations to stop the trafficking of narcotics and keep more 

heroin off our streets, and cut off financing for terrorists and extremists, all of which makes Americans safer. 

What we do matters in the Korean Peninsula, where we are 

working with our partners in the Republic of Korea, to make sure 

that we can meet any threat and to work toward the 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. I was recently, a few 

weeks ago, in China, where we had very serious discussions about 

what the Chinese can do in addition to what they are already doing 

in order to have a greater impact on the denuclearization process. 

And we are working with Japan and the Republic of Korea in order 

to make sure they don’t feel so threatened that they move toward 

nuclearization and self-help. 

Thanks to the State Department’s work, the South Koreans are 

now making the largest contribution they have ever made toward 

our joint security agreement. 

What we do matters significantly where we support freedom of 

religion, and that is true from Bosnia to Indonesia, protecting universal rights of people to practice their faith freely and working to 

bring an end to the scourge of anti-Semitism. 

And it isn’t just what we do in the budget. Mr. Chairman, you 

know this better than anybody. It is an essential part of who we 

are as Americans. 

I also know from my experience here in Congress, particularly 

under the budget constraints that you have referred to, that you 

shouldn’t tell anybody that anything that costs billions of dollars 

is a bargain. We understand this is important money to American 

citizens. 

But when you consider that the American people pay just 1 

penny of every dollar in the tax dollar for the $46.2 billion that is 

our budget, flatlined and down from where it was in 2013, I believe 

the American people are getting an extraordinary return on investment. 

Now, some Members of Congress believe we ought to have larger 

budget cuts, but I have to say to you, when I measure what is happening in the world, the challenge and the Maghreb, in the Sahel, 

the Levant, and all of the Middle East, in South Asia, the challenge 

of huge numbers of young people under the age of 30 who are 

yearning for opportunity, yearning for their opportunity to touch 

what they see and know everybody in the world has today, because 

we are such an interconnected world, when I see the possibility of 

radical religious extremism grabbing them instead of the opportunity to have an education, the opportunity to get a good job, we 

better understand that threat to us. That is real. 

And we will deal with it, one way or another, either now and get 

ahead of it, or later when it is a bigger problem. 

For me, it is no coincidence that the places where we face some 

of the greatest national security challenges are also the places 

where the governments deny basic human rights and opportunities 

for their people, and where there is very little public discourse and 
7 

accountability with any kind of free press or media or capacity for 

people to speak out. 

So that is why supporting human rights and stronger civil societies and development assistance, investing in our partnerships 

with allies, these are the surest ways to prevent the kind of horrible human tragedies that we are in the business of addressing in 

today’s very complicated world. 

I also think that we have to remember that foreign policy, in 

2014, is not all foreign. The fact is that we are, in the State Department, increasingly focused on economics, focused on building 

our strength here at home, on advancing American businesses and 

creating job opportunities. Every time I speak to the Department 

of State, I talk about foreign policy as economic policy. And every 

Foreign Service Officer today, and every civil service officer now, 

must also become an economic officer. And we have changed the 

training at the Foreign Service Institute in order to take all of our 

initial recruits and begin to structure ourselves differently than in 

the past. 

Some people express skepticism about this. But let me just tell 

you, our Embassy in Zambia recently helped create jobs in New 

Jersey. The patient advocacy of our diplomats helped an American 

construction company land an $85 million contract. They are building 144 bridges, and they have the potential to do far more. There 

may be a follow-on multi-hundred-million dollar contract. 

Our consular staff in Calcutta, they helped bring Caterpillar together with a company in India to develop a $500 billion power 

plant. When 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside of our 

market, and when foreign governments are out there extremely aggressively chasing our RFPs, requests for proposals, contracts, jobs, 

opportunities, and they are backing their companies in a very significant way, we need to understand that we are living in a different world than we were in the Cold War, when America was the 

single powerhouse economy of the world and everybody else was recovering from World War II. 

Then you feel you could make mistakes and still win. Now you 

can’t. It is a different economic marketplace. 

We believe this budget strengthens our partnerships where so 

many of our economic and security interests converge, in the East 

Asian Pacific region. And with this budget, we are bolstering our 

bedrock alliances with South Korea and Japan. And we are developing deeper partnership with Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

and others, as they assume greater security roles. 

Finally, I would just say to everybody, as we make these investments and project our values and our power in places that we need 

to in order to protect our interests, there is no way that we can 

eliminate all risk, especially in a world where our interests are not 

confined to prosperous capitals. We can and will do more to mitigate risks, and I am pleased to tell you that the budget that we 

have implements all of the recommendations of our Benghazi report and makes additional investments above and beyond those. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So it is fair to say we are doing the best we can in a difficult 

budget environment where we have caps and we had a budget 
8 

agreement. I firmly believe that, with your help, and I thank you 

for it, this committee has done an extraordinary job of helping us 

to be able to strike a balance between the need to sustain longterm investments in American leadership and the political imperative to tighten our belts. 

So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to having a discussion on these priorities. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY

I want to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Graham for their leadership, as well as each member of the subcommittee for their commitment to America’s leadership in the world. 

Of course, I was serving here with you for quite a while—29 years plus. Believe 

me, I know that choosing to be on this committee doesn’t win you many votes back 

home. The work you do here doesn’t drive fundraising. But it matters—it really 

matters—and this has never been more clear to me than over the past year—when 

I’ve seen firsthand and over and over again, just how much the world looks to the 

United States on issue after issue. 

Bringing people together and finding answers to tough challenges—that’s what 

the United States does. If we ‘‘get caught trying,’’ then we’re living up to what the 

world expects from us and what we expect from ourselves. 

I think that’s especially true in Ukraine. From the very beginning we have made 

our goal clear: to help the people of Ukraine achieve what brought thousands upon 

thousands into the Maidan in the first place. Our interest is in protecting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and with European partners and others, we absolutely have a responsibility to be engaged. 

Certainly we have to be clear-eyed about the challenges. But from the beginning, 

we’ve made it known that we are willing to sit down to try and deescalate this situation. That is why President Obama asked me to leave this evening for London and 

meet with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov tomorrow. 

I will make clear again, as we have throughout, that while we respect that Russia 

has interests in Ukraine, particularly in Crimea, that in no way—no way—justifies 

the military intervention the world has witnessed. There are many other legitimate 

ways to address Russia’s concerns. 

In my discussions with Minister Lavrov I’ll also make it clear that Russia has reasons to make the right choice. The costs for Russia’s violations of international 

law—the cost of making Russia more isolated—not just from the United States, but 

from the international community—is a cost that Russia should not want to bear, 

and doesn’t have to bear if they make a better choice. 

Congress’ support is going to be absolutely vital. Whether its loan guarantees to 

help support a free Ukraine, an assistance stream, or support for additional sanctions if that’s what we need, you give us the tools to accomplish our goals. 

So it couldn’t be any clearer, what we do here really matters. When I think about 

that I remember last week in Kiev—standing in the spot where Ukraine’s former 

president had snipers pick off peaceful protesters one by one. It was very moving 

to speak with some of the Ukrainian people and hear how much they look to us. 

The same is true far from Kiev or what’s in the headlines. What we do matters 

to South Sudan, a nation some of you helped give birth to—a nation that’s now 

struggling and needs our support to have a chance of surviving beyond infancy. 

What we do matters in the Maghreb, where the State Department is coordinating 

with France to take down al-Qaeda, making sure French forces have the technology 

and weapons they need. 

What we do matters in Central Asia, where we’re working with several nations 

to stop the trafficking of narcotics, to keep more heroin off our streets and cut off 

financing for terrorists and extremists. 

What we do matters on the Korean Peninsula, where we are working with our 

partners from the Republic of Korea to make sure we can meet any threat and for 

the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Thanks to the State Department’s 

work, the South Koreans are now making the largest financial contribution to these 

efforts in the history of our joint security agreement. 

What we do matters everywhere we support religious freedom, from Bosnia to Indonesia. Protecting the universal rights of people to practice their faith freely and 

working to bring an end to the scourge of anti-Semitism—this isn’t just what we 

do in this budget; this is an essential part of who we are as Americans. 
9 

Now, I spent enough time in Congress to know that you shouldn’t call anything 

that costs billions of dollars a bargain. But when you consider that the American 

people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in investments 

in this request, I believe the American people are getting an extraordinary return 

on their investment. 

Our base request is $40.3 billion—and that’s in line with what was appropriated 

to the Department and USAID last year. We’re making a constant effort to be more 

effective and agile, and as you well know, we’re doing that under some tight constraints. 

The additional part of our request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), 

totals $5.9 billion. OCO provides the State Department and USAID the ability to 

respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. It gives us flexibility to meet some unanticipated peacekeeping needs. OCO funds our programs in Iraq, Afghanistan and 

Pakistan, where we continue to right-size our commitments. 

I know it might be easy for some members of Congress to support larger cuts in 

this budget. What’s impossible to calculate is the far greater price our country would 

pay for inaction. What’s impossible to calculate are the dangers in a world without 

American leadership and the vacuum that would create for extremists and 

ideologues to exploit. 

For me it’s no coincidence that the places where we face some of the greatest national security challenges are also places where governments deny basic human 

rights and opportunities for their people. That’s why supporting human rights and 

stronger civil societies, development assistance, investing in our partnerships with 

our allies: these are the surest ways to prevent the kind of horrible human tragedy 

we see Syria today. 

I know some of you have looked these refugees in the eyes and seen their numbers, as I have. There is simply no way the richest and most powerful nation in the 

world can simply look away. For both the Syrian people and for Lebanon, Turkey, 

and Jordan, trying to keep their societies running and keep extremists at bay as 

they cope with a refugee crisis, our support could not be more urgent. It is both a 

moral and security imperative. 

With our assistance to the Philippines, recovering from one of the worst natural 

disasters in its history, we are also leading the way. Through a $56 million contribution from State and USAID, we are working with our partners so that hundreds of 

thousands of people can put their lives back together. We’re helping one of our oldest allies in the Pacific get back on its path to prosperity. 

Within our core budget request is also a $1.35 billion contribution to the Global 

Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The goal that President Obama has 

set today for an AIDS free generation would have been absolutely unthinkable even 

10 years ago but today that goal is within reach. Because of PEPFAR’s incredible 

success, we are now working to transition the leadership of these life-saving programs to local hands with Rwanda, Namibia, and South Africa some of the first to 

take the reins. 

Because of our leadership, children waking up today in Sub-Saharan Africa face 

a far different future than they did a decade ago. Our commitment clearly matters. 

And just as our partners in Asia and Europe made a transition from being recipients of American aid to becoming donors, that kind of transformation is now possible in Africa. 

And to make sure that emerging markets around the world make the most of 

their opportunities, we need reforms to the International Monetary Fund. Just think 

about this: Brazil, Chile, Columbia, India, Korea, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, 

Thailand—all of these nations once borrowed from the IMF. Now they are creditors 

with some of the most dynamic economies in the world. 

Ukraine’s struggle for independence, particularly its financial independence, depends on Congress ratifying reforms that will help Ukraine borrow through the 

IMF’s Rapid Financing Instrument. Our $1 billion loan guarantee is needed urgently but it’s only through the IMF—a reformed IMF—that Ukraine will receive 

the additional help it needs to stand on its own two feet. 

Our work with the IMF is vital to global economic stability. But remaining absolutely focused on creating opportunity here at home is essential. That means we 

have to be strong advocates for America’s commercial interests across the globe. And 

that’s why I’ve charged each of Foreign Service Officers with an economic mission: 

to create opportunities for Americans and work with our businesses to gain a bigger 

foothold abroad. 

I know there’s some skepticism about this kind of economic diplomacy. But it’s 

hard to argue with some of the results. Look at how our Embassy in Zambia helped 

create jobs in New Jersey. The patient advocacy of our diplomats helped an Amer-
10 

ican construction company land an $85 million contract. They’re building 144 

bridges and have the potential to do far more. 

Look at the work of our consular staff in Kolkata. They helped bring Caterpillar together with a company in India to develop a $500 million power plant. 

Look at what Embassy Wellington and Embassy Apia in Samoa are doing. Our diplomats helped a company right here on the East Coast land a $350 million contract to lay fiber optics across the Pacific. 

When 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside of our market and when 

foreign governments are out there, aggressively backing their own businesses, this 

is the kind of advocacy American workers need to compete. 

Telling our story where it matters most is vital to both the success of our businesses and the appeal of our values. With this budget’s investments in stronger people to people ties, educational exchange and countering violent extremism, we are 

shaping the debate. We are keeping traditional programs strong, like those for 

International Visitor Leadership and English language programs. At the same time 

we are revitalizing the way we engage through quick-impact investments to shape 

emerging leaders in civil society. 

We call some of these investments quick impact but you and I both know their 

lasting benefits. I can’t tell you how many times foreign leaders share their experience of studying in the United States and the permanent and positive impression 

it made. And all of you who have colleges and universities in your districts also see 

the financial impact from the $22 billion each year that international students bring 

to the U.S. economy. 

This budget also strengthens our partnerships where so many of our economic and 

security interests converge, in the East Asia and Pacific region. With this budget 

we are bolstering our bedrock alliances with South Korea and Japan. We’re developing deeper partnerships with Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and others, as 

they assume greater security roles. 

As we make these investments around the world, we can never eliminate every 

risk—especially in a world where our vital interests are not confined to secure, prosperous capitals. But we can and will do more to mitigate risks and keep our people 

safe. This budget implements the recommendations of the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) and makes additional investments that go above 

and beyond. 

My friends, I think it’s fair to say that we are doing the best we can in a difficult 

budget environment. I firmly believe that this budget strikes a balance between the 

need to sustain long-term investments in American leadership and the political imperative to tighten our belts. I believe this budget is a blueprint for providing the 

minimum our people need to carry out their mission: to enhance national security, 

to promote global stability and prosperity, and to help the American people seize 

the opportunities in a changing world. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you for a very complete review. 

U.S. SUPPORT OF UKRAINE

Fortunately, I come from a State that believes in diplomacy. We 

export more per capita, I believe, than any other State, even 

though we are a small State. We share a border with a great and 

wonderful friend, Canada. We share another border with your own 

State of Massachusetts. 

Right now, we have two different pieces of legislation on 

Ukraine, one from the House, the other from the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee, to authorize assistance for Ukraine. I think 

all of us hope we can get agreement on a bill that the President 

will sign. 

One of the things that seems to be missing from the press releases and op-eds is that it is the Appropriations Committee, and 

actually this subcommittee, in particular, that will actually decide 

what assistance and how much to provide. 

And, of course, that will depend on what happens in Ukraine 

over the coming months. 

I am sure that others have questions about Ukraine, but let me 

start with this. Many foreign policy experts, including your prede-
11 

cessors Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, have offered opinions about how to respond to Russia’s aggression in Crimea. Each of them recounts history, but then they each draw different conclusions and lessons 

from that history, and they advocate different responses, an indication that there is no unified view. 

How do you respond to former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, 

who says he does not believe that Russia will give up Crimea? Is 

there another way to resolve this, that preserves Crimea as part 

of Ukraine, but also recognizes Russia’s interest there? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Mr. Chairman, the truth is we don’t 

know the answer to that question yet. We can speculate. 

There are strong indications that could lead you to draw the conclusion Bob Gates did, and there are other thoughts out there that 

suggest that something short of the full annexation might also be 

achievable. 

Frankly, we won’t know the answer to that until I meet with 

Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow in London. I talked to him briefly today. They are meeting in Russia in Sochi today with President 

Putin, their security team. 

My hope is that they will come aware of the fact that the international community is really strong and united on this issue. 

Senator LEAHY. Suppose the people of Crimea vote to leave 

Ukraine. The Russian parliament, which will do whatever President Putin tells it to, votes to annex Crimea, how do the U.S. and 

Europe, our allies, respond at that point? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, I think the response will come well before 

that, Mr. Chairman. There will be a response of some kind to the 

referendum itself. In addition, if there is no sign of any capacity 

to be able to move forward and resolve this issue, there will be a 

very serious series of steps on Monday in Europe and here with respect to the options that are available to us. 

Now our choice is not to be put in the position of having to do 

that. 

Senator LEAHY. I understand. 

Secretary KERRY. Our choice is to have a respect for the sovereignty and independence and integrity of the country of Ukraine. 

Our hope is to have Russia join in respecting international law. 

There is no justification, no legality to this referendum that is 

taking place. It violates international law. It violates the U.N. 

charter. It violates the Constitution of Ukraine. 

And I don’t think anybody can believe that a hastily put together, rushed referendum taking place under the imprint of 

20,000-plus troops and all that has happened without debate, without opportunity, is a genuine referendum. But even if it were, I will 

just say one thing, I don’t think there is much doubt, given the circumstances, what the vote is going to be. Nobody doubts that. 

So this is not a question mark. The question mark is, is Russia 

prepared to find a way to negotiate with Ukraine, with the contact 

group, with other countries involved, in order to be able to resolve 

this in a way that respects their legitimate interests, and they have 

legitimate interests, but respects them in a way that doesn’t violate 

international law and is not at the butt of a rifle and a massive 

military imprint. 
12 

Senator LEAHY. Well, the new Government of Ukraine has made 

it very clear that they want closer ties with Europe. The Russians 

have invaded Crimea, notwithstanding the strange comments of 

President Putin that these are private people who bought uniforms 

at a store, which gave great fodder to the late-night comics. But are 

there other former Soviet republics who express interest in closer 

ties with Europe? Are they in similar danger of invasion by the 

Russian army? 

Secretary KERRY. They fear the ultimate possibility. They are not 

in danger of that as of today. 

But yes, I was talking this morning with the foreign ministers 

from the region, and they are all concerned about this rattling. 

But again, I think that the hope, Mr. Chairman, is that reason 

will prevail, but there is no guarantee of that whatsoever. The European Community is strongly united. They will meet on Monday. 

The President of the United States has made it clear he is prepared to move. He has already designated, without designating individuals, he has already issued an executive order creating the 

construct for personal sanctions, and we have a very clear list of 

those who would be included in the event that we can’t move this 

process forward. 

Senator LEAHY. I am glad you are meeting with the foreign minister. I wish you luck there. Having met with him at different 

times on other matters, I know that can be a difficult thing. 

We are working with Russia, and you helped engineer this, and 

I applaud you for it, for the removal of chemical weapons from 

Syria. We want to bring this horrible, horrible tragedy to an end 

in Syria with the continuing humanitarian disaster of refugees. 

We have negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Russia 

is involved in that. 

Is Russia’s violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine going to affect 

the removal of chemical weapons in Syria? The possibility of a diplomatic solution in Syria? And thirdly, the negotiations with Iran 

over its nuclear program? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, we hope not, Mr. Chairman, but obviously it has the potential to. It has the capacity to. 

I have talked about that with Foreign Minister Lavrov. He is 

aware, we are aware, of that being one of the ingredients in this, 

which we hope would push people toward a more reasonable path. 

But there is no way to predict it. 

And the key will be to figure out whether or not President Putin 

is serious about looking for a way under international law to move 

this process forward. 

Can I just mention one thing quickly? 

Senator LEAHY. Sure. 

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)

Secretary KERRY. You mentioned the IMF at the very beginning. 

I want to thank the committee, I want to thank the Senate, for 

being on track to do what is important here. 

We must have IMF reform. We must have a quota. And it would 

be a terrible message to Ukraine for everybody to be standing up 

talking appropriately about what is at stake, but then not to be 

able to follow through. The IMF is critical; we need that help. 
13 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Graham and I joined together to get this 

through the Senate, and we got it through the Senate with a bipartisan majority. I met with Ms. Lagarde and some House Members 

in Davos. She expressed enormous concerns that the House 

dropped it. I tried to make it very clear, we did it here in the Senate, and we are prepared to do it. And I wish they had, because 

it created enormous problems for the United States. 

It was a huge, huge blow to the United States, the fact that the 

other body did not go along with us on this. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So many places to talk about, such little time. I mean, we could 

have a second round of questions. But let us get on with the IMF. 

Do you agree, Mr. Secretary, that the IMF, from an American 

point of view, is a tool in the toolbox that has shown to be a wise 

investment? 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely. In fact, a huge number of countries 

that were IMF recipients are now donors in one way or another to 

economic initiatives around the world. 

Senator GRAHAM. And this is the one area where it is not just 

our money. You have the international community coming together 

and the loans are given to reinforce the good guys, deter the bad 

guys, and bring about reform to make countries like Ukraine more 

stable. Is that correct? 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. To my colleagues: I can understand being war 

weary. It is a natural response to being at war with radical Islam 

and other entities for a long time. But I can’t understand taking 

everything off the table. 

If never use military force—I am certain we want to do that as 

a last resort. If we don’t have foreign assistance. If we don’t want 

to be involved in the IMF. What do we do? We just hope things get 

better? 

So I am all in, in trying to pursue what the Senate Foreign Relations—— 

Secretary KERRY. Can I just say very quickly, Senator, our leadership on this is now in doubt. 

When people say the United States is retreating, we are inadvertently hurting ourselves by sending a message that we are not 

prepared to lead and step up and complete the task. 

We are the only country that hasn’t ratified this. And the implications of that are just enormous in terms of American leadership. 

The IMF is the tool that helps to bring countries into alignment on 

their transparency, their accountability, their reforms, their market 

economy, all of the things that are in our interests. 

So I could not underscore more, Senator Graham, the importance 

of what you are saying and the importance of us following through 

on this. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I have been critical, I think sometimes 

forcefully, and appropriately so, about the administration’s foreign 

policy. But the Congress needs to do some self-evaluation of where 

we are as a body, what is our role in all of this. 
14 

SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS

Let’s talk about Syria very quickly. Do you think Assad is winning right now, on the battlefield? 

Secretary KERRY. I don’t think anybody is winning, but he is not 

losing. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Secretary KERRY. And the way I would phrase it is he is doing 

better than he was doing. He has gotten somewhat of an upper 

hand, but this thing runs like a roller coaster. It is not going to 

be solved militarily. 

Senator GRAHAM. The only trajectory we are sure of is that refugees are coming into Jordan and Lebanon at a pace that is 

unsustainable. 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely true. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you reinforce to the American people, if 

this war goes on another year, and we are in this situation where 

the battlefield is basically as it is today, that Lebanon and Jordan 

are going to be in great peril? 

Secretary KERRY. Indeed, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity 

to say a word about it. 

Jordan is a critical ally to the United States. Jordan has been a 

partner with Israel, a partner with the United States, a significant 

partner in the region, for peace and for stability. 

And Jordan currently has over 900,000, close to 1 million-plus 

refugees. And what is happening is, those refugees go out into Jordanian society, and they look for jobs. They get apartments. But 

they get 10 people in one apartment paying a much higher rent, 

and it squeezes out Jordanians. 

In jobs, they are willing to work for less. They are more desperate. They, therefore, affect the marketplace. They affect the entire political fabric of the country, and it begins to destabilize. 

Likewise, in Lebanon, in Lebanon, they don’t have formal camps. 

You have almost 900,000 Syrian refugees scattered throughout 

Lebanon. I saw a map of it the other day from where it has gone 

in the last 3 years, with these few red dots up and down the coastline. Now the entire coast is red, from north to south, filled with 

refugees. 

The destabilization of that is very significant. So we have a national security interest in that. 

Also, the devastation on families, children, children not in school, 

the future problems for us in terms of potential terrorism, spread 

of terrorism, are very, very real. It is in our national security interests to try to change that. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think that is well said, but having said that, 

the President’s budget cuts aid to Jordan by $300 million. So I 

would like to try to restore that. Would you help me? 

Secretary KERRY. Senator, we have provided significant add-ons 

of aid to Jordan over the course of the last year, well over what 

was originally appropriated. And there is nobody we support more 

overall. 

But in view of some of the other things we are doing, this is a 

trade-off. We have been forced into a zero-sum game. 

Senator GRAHAM. I got you. 
15 

Secretary KERRY. I will help as much as I can, but in the end, 

you guys have the power on this one. 

Senator GRAHAM. The statement you made about Jordan I think 

is very accurate. 

RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE

On Ukraine, I don’t know what Putin is going to do. I am not 

so sure he knows what he is going to do. He is probably making 

this up as it goes, and I think we have sent a lot of wrong signals 

to him and others. 

But let’s look down the road and start talking about worst-case 

scenarios. 

The worst-case scenario for me is that he annexes the Crimea, 

that the joke of the Duma ratifies this illegal referendum, and 

somehow they say that they are answering the call of the Crimean 

citizenry, which is a complete joke coming out of Hitler’s playbook. 

And Secretary Clinton was right about that. 

What happens if they go east? What if they create friction in the 

eastern part of Ukraine, bring in paid-for thugs to create demonstrations, wanting the eastern part of Ukraine to be part of Russia. And the Ukrainians say enough already, we have a small 

army, but we will fight and we will die if necessary to protect the 

territorial integrity of Ukraine. And the Ukrainian Government 

asks NATO and us, not for boots on the ground, but for military 

hardware to help them fight the Russians, ask for weapons like 

other people have asked us in the past. 

What do you recommend we do, if that happens? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Senator, we have contingencies. We are 

talking through various options that may or may not be available. 

Our hope is, however, not to create hysteria or excessive concern 

about that at this point in time. Our hope is to be able to avoid 

that. But there is no telling that we can. 

Senator GRAHAM. See, and I—— 

Secretary KERRY. Let me just finish one thought? 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. 

Secretary KERRY. We are watching, every day, very, very carefully, the movement of troops. Under the basing act, the basing 

agreement, which permits Russians to have their forces in Crimea, 

they are permitted to have up to about 25,000 troops under that. 

There is a requirement that they not interfere in the sovereignty 

of Ukraine from that base. And, obviously, and what they have 

done in the last days, they have done that, so they are in violation 

of the base agreement. 

We guesstimate, estimate, all of our input, somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 troops there now, so they are not above the limit, 

to the best of our judgment. But we also make the judgment at this 

point that they don’t have the assets in the places necessary to be 

able to, say, march in and take over all of Ukraine. But that could 

change very quickly, and we recognize that. 

The options, according to the Ukrainians themselves, are there 

probably would not be an all-out confrontation, initially, but you 

would have a longtime insurgency/counter effort that they will 

fight. And these are people who know how to fight, and they are 

committed to that one way or another. 
16 

So there are a lot of different options, but I think before we get 

there, we have a number of options to make it clear to President 

Putin the level of isolation that he might be asking for, and the degree to which many of the people around him, if not he, himself, 

could be affected by that choice in very real ways before you get 

to any kind of troop and other kinds of evaluations. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I hope we never get there, too. 

I don’t want to take any more time. I would like to have another 

conversation with you. 

But just one final point, I really do believe that Russia is all in 

for Assad because he believes it is in their interest to keep Assad 

afloat, and they are supplying him with all the arms he needs, and 

it seems to be working. 

I just want the Ukrainian people to know that when we say we 

stand by you, that has some context. 

And I want the Russians to understand that there will be a 

point, and I don’t know when that point is reached, that you really 

will pay a price. I don’t think they believe that. But if you start 

marching eastward, and you start killing Ukrainians who are just 

asking to make their own determinations in life, apart from Russian tanks and thuggery, that that may be a point that you don’t 

want to go across because the response may be greater than you 

think. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary KERRY. Senator, just 30 seconds, I would just say to 

you that I have been impressed by how united our European allies 

are on this. And we had a conference call this morning with foreign 

ministers on the phone, all the contact group, and to a person they 

are very, very committed, to a country, to make sure that there is 

accountability. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for what you said on Jordan. There is strong bipartisan support to help Jordan. Most of us have met with the king, 

many of us have traveled there. Frankly, I don’t know how a small 

country like that handles the enormous burden put on it, but I applaud them for it. 

Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for testifying before us, and 

most importantly, thank you for your service. As a military leader, 

a Senator, and now as a Secretary, who I think is making a remarkable difference in the world with multiple challenges. 

KEYSTONE PIPELINE

I have four questions this morning. The first is on energy, and 

it relates to the Keystone pipeline and the decision that you are 

going to make, and the administration is going to make, about a 

critical, in my view, piece of infrastructure that will transport safely the cleanest barrel of oil produced in North America, contrary 

to popular belief. 

Canada is our closest and our strongest trading partner. You are 

aware that their environmental standards are in fact higher than 

ours, and among the highest in the world. 
17 

And this resource of 30 billion barrels of oil represents, I understand, the largest single free-enterprise resource in the world. 

So from my perspective, and particularly the people that I represent, it is hard for us to even understand why there is a question 

as to whether this infrastructure is in the national interest. 

Could you comment about the economic benefits, the aspect of 

the strengthening of a relationship that is really vital to our longterm interests, and what your considerations are in addition to 

those two? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Senator, I understand it is on a lot of 

people’s minds. I mean, a lot of people. The department has received and evaluated more than 1.9 million public comments. And 

the final supplemental EIS on this is 11 volumes, more than 7,000 

pages. My job now is to review it and make a determination. 

But I also have to get feedback from eight different agencies. I 

am continuing to get additional information. And if I have any legitimate questions, then I need to have those answered. 

So I am not at liberty to go into my thinking, at this point. It 

is just not appropriate, except to say to you that I am approaching 

this tabula rasa. I am going to look at all the arguments, both 

sides, all sides, whatever, evaluate them, and make the best judgment I can about what is in the national interest. 

And I will forward that to the President of the United States, 

who has ultimate authority to make this decision. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. And I am going to stay focused 

not only in my role as a Senator, but as chair of the Energy Committee on really pressing the country to understand the importance 

of becoming an energy powerhouse with cleaner energy sources requires the infrastructure, whether it is our transmission lines, our 

pipelines, our roads, our ports, our import-export. 

And it is important not only to our economy, but I do think it 

has a real bearing on our position in the world as a superpower. 

And that is what this budget reflects, basically our defense budget 

and our State Department budget sets us up to be a superpower. 

And it is very relevant. 

AID TO ORPHANS

The next two questions are on children. PEPFAR was put into 

place, as you know, in 2003. It has been touted as one of the most 

successful programs internationally in the world. I believe that it 

has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. 

I think you were helpful when PEPFAR was created, as I remember, to set aside a very small portion of the $7 billion annually 

for orphans and vulnerable children—$350 million, that is all—to 

address the fact that AIDS creates orphans. It creates a lot of sick 

people, and it results in death. But it also results in orphans, kids 

that are double orphan, both parents dying, or a single orphan, one 

parent dying but abandoned by the surviving parent. 

When we reauthorized PEPFAR this last year, out of respect for 

Senators Menendez and Corker, who did not want any serious 

amendments, I did not offer an amendment to make sure that $350 

million was going more directly to help children reconnect to families. 
18 

Would you commit to me today, and to others, that you and your 

team will work to try to meet the original objectives of that $350 

million to reconnect children that are orphaned by AIDS to families? 

Secretary KERRY. We would like to do that very, very much. 

Again, this is a reflection of just the tension in the overall budget. 

But we do believe that the way we have been able to do this, 

Senator Landrieu, will in fact meet our available funding requirements with respect to this challenge. 

We have $1.35 billion in here. This honors the President’s commitment to do $1 from us for every $2 contributed by other donors 

to the fund, up to a possible $5 billion. And this more than fully 

funds what we are seeing will be available from the pledges of 

other countries. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But the problem is, when PEPFAR was created, there were approximately 15 million orphans in the world. 

There are now 17 million. So the rate of infection is going down, 

but the rate of orphans is going up. 

This is the only money, $350 million. 

My second question, on children, is the CHIFF bill, Children in 

Families First. There are five members of this subcommittee who 

are cosponsors—Senator Kirk, Senator Blunt, myself, Senator 

Shaheen, and Senator Coons. We are very, very serious about helping you to organize and put resources in your department that can 

focus on the fundamental fact that children belong in families, children should be in families. 

It seems to be a missing component of our foreign policy. There 

are lots of components of foreign policy. We are having a hard time 

finding anywhere where it says children belong in families. 

So we are going to continue to work with you—I know my time 

is up—on this bill as it moves through Senator Menendez’s committee. 

But I do want to put into the record one of the things that is propelling us, Mr. Chairman, is that there have been no reported 

international adoptions from any country that has become a Hague 

partner with the United States since 2008. 

A letter has been sent to you. It has not been answered. Please 

answer it and let’s continue to work together to see what we can 

do to move this issue forward. 

And I thank you. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, if I could just comment quickly, first of 

all, Senator Landrieu, you know from our meeting and you know 

from our relationship—you are the champion on this whole issue 

of children and adoption, and you have done amazing work at it. 

I was struck, in the meeting that we had in the Senate, that you 

and Senator Blunt and Senator Angus King and myself are all 

beneficiaries of knowing about adoption. I have a niece who comes 

from China and has just been enormously important to our family, 

so I understand this. 

I also committed to you that the State Department needs to do 

more. It needs to do better. There is no question about it. But I 

don’t want to be the Secretary of State who takes the State Department out of the business of helping to make this happen. I want 
19 

to be the Secretary who helps get this to be more effective within 

the department and more effective overall. 

In that light, we should continue to work. I understand that 

talks have come to a little bit of a standstill on this question of jurisdiction and where it goes. 

I am convinced, as I said to you, that we can meet your needs. 

But I also know this: Embassies are holistic and they deal with all 

of the policies within a country. And sometimes there are many 

policies that affect adoption for children, which requires the ambassador and the whole of an Embassy to impact. 

I just do not believe we will advance this cause by putting it 

wholly and totally into DHS or somewhere else, where they are 

geared to handle the visa and that component of the analysis, but 

not all of the other parts that will make this policy as effective as 

it can be. 

That is what I want to do with you. So I can hope we can work 

at that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. We will continue to work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. I am not sure when votes may start on the floor, 

so we are going to try to keep close to time. And here is the list, 

we will go to Senator Coats, then Senator Shaheen, Senator Kirk, 

Senator Coons, Senator Boozman. 

So, Senator Coats. 

Senator COATS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try to be 

brief. 

Secretary Kerry, I assume you don’t get frequent flyer miles, but 

if you did, you would be set for life. 

RUSSIAN SANCTIONS

A question, Senator Durbin and I yesterday coauthored a Senate 

resolution relative to some sanctions, really not sanctions so much 

as providing some isolation. There are 15 separate items on there, 

and it passed the Senate 100-to-nothing. 

We know the big one is coming, and you are negotiating all that, 

the economic sanctions and so forth are part of that. But just two 

of those areas that I will list in the 15, and I wonder if these are 

being included in what you are negotiating right now. 

One is the participation in the G8, Russia’s participation in that. 

I don’t think they were invited in there, would have been invited 

in there, had we known that they were going to breach their responsibility in terms of invading a neighbor. 

And secondly is the relationship between NATO and the Russian 

council. 

Is there anything in your considerations, the program you are 

putting together, incorporating those two issues? 

Secretary KERRY. Actually, it doesn’t require a bill to do those, 

to be honest with you, Senator. And both of those have been talked 

about publicly by me, by the President. The President has already 

made it clear, I mean the G7 countries have made it clear that they 

are not thinking about going to Sochi under these circumstances 

and having a G8 meeting. That is step one. 

Whether there would be further steps with respect to changing 

the structure and becoming a G7 again or not, that is up for grabs. 
20 

And the NATO Russia Council has been put on hold already, so 

there are a lot of downstream impacts already to the bilateral relationship and to the multilateral relationship. 

Senator COATS. Good. Thank you. 

IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM

And let me ask you a question about Iran, while we are here. 

Back in 2007, Iran had about 700 centrifuges that were spinning 

uranium. Virtually the entire community of nations indicated that 

that is too dangerous of a situation to tolerate. The U.N. Security 

Council then began passing a series of resolutions, demanding that 

this effort stop completely. 

The United States, led in many ways by the Senate—you were 

a member there at the time—went through the careful and, I 

think, painstaking process of both diplomacy and tough sanctions, 

all aimed at explicitly enforcing the Iranian regime to end enrichment activities. And that struggle has gone on. 

Now it appears to me that in the P5-plus-1 negotiations, that 

goal has been set aside. You have a better understanding of where 

we are right now than I do, but I have not seen any reference, either by you or anyone else, to these Security Council resolutions 

and the demand that enrichment activities be completely and immediately suspended. 

Has that goal been abandoned? I guess my question is, does the 

administration still seek to force the Iranians to give up enrichment, or have we basically decided that that is not going to be part 

of our negotiations for an ongoing comprehensive agreement? 

Secretary KERRY. Senator, what date did you attach to the 700 

centrifuges? 1990? 

Senator COATS. 2007. 

Secretary KERRY. 2000-what? 

Senator COATS. 2007. 

Secretary KERRY. Yes, well, 2001, there were, I forget, it is in the 

several hundred, I think, 2002. Now there are about 19,000. That 

is where we have traveled in this ‘‘don’t talk, don’t sit down’’ journey. 

Senator COATS. Which is why sanctions probably played an instrumental role in that effort. 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely. And what has brought us to the 

table to begin this negotiation are a combination of sanctions, but 

also I think fairness requires that we say that, with the election 

of President Rouhani, there was an effort, a conscious declaration 

by Iran, that they were going to reach out and attempt to see if 

they could get out from under this cloud. 

So we are now testing that proposition. And in the first step, it 

is not an interim agreement, it is a first step toward a final comprehensive agreement, we are ratcheting them back from where 

they are. The 20 percent uranium that is enriched today has to go 

down to zero over the course of these next 6 months, now 4 months 

left. And they are reducing it. 

The 3.5 percent stockpile that they have cannot grow, so they are 

basically frozen there. 

On the Iraq plutonium reactor, they are under the requirement 

not to put in any component that could contribute to the commis-
21 

sioning of that reactor—no fuel—and they have to give us the plans 

for it, which they have done. 

In addition, we have inspectors within Fordow. We didn’t have 

any before the agreement. We have inspectors at Natanz. We didn’t 

have them before the agreement. And we have inspectors on a less 

frequent basis in the Iraq production facility. 

We also have the right to inspect their storage facilities for centrifuges. We are following and tracking their milling and mining of 

uranium, so that we are tracking from cradle to grave. And we 

have begun the process of putting in place very intrusive 

verification and so forth. 

Now, at this point in time, the U.N. resolutions are active. And 

there is a goal of trying to implement that. I can’t tell you today 

whether or not that is achievable. 

And so the goal hasn’t changed, but we are in a negotiation 

where the real goal is to guarantee that they cannot get a nuclear 

weapon and that whatever program they might have peacefully 

going forward is one where we have absolutely failsafe guarantees 

to the best of our ability to know it through the negotiating process 

and what we achieve that we will know what they are doing and 

know it well ahead of any potential of their breaking out. 

As we began this negotiation, the breakout time by most judgments, meaning the time to get sufficient uranium enriched for one 

nuclear weapon, was about 2 months. It is longer now, because of 

the first step that we have taken. 

And I can guarantee you that in order to have a final agreement 

that will be comprehensive enough to meet our standards, the 

standards of our gulf friends, of Israel, of others, it is going to have 

to grow significantly beyond where it is today. 

So we believe we are heading in the right direction. I can’t tell 

you where it is going to finally land. We don’t know. There are 

some very tough decisions the Iranians are going to have to 

make—very tough—in order to meet the international community’s 

standard for certainty as to the peacefulness of this program. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator COATS. Mr. Chairman, I will not ask another question, 

if I could just respond there. 

Despite the efforts that we are making, the Iranians have declared publicly a negotiation victory over the fact that cessation of 

enrichment, which has been in a series of U.N.-supported resolutions, Security Council-supported resolutions, that has been the determination and statements of four presidents, two Democrats and 

two Republicans, that that goal has been abandoned, and Iran has 

achieved in moving the ball toward a different kind of goal, which 

we hope will be successful. But the fact of the matter is that no 

longer is the goal. 

Keeping Iran from producing a nuclear weapon is far different 

than having the capability of doing that. It sounds a lot to me like 

what we went through with North—— 

Secretary KERRY. Senator, if I could just say to you, remember 

the U.N. resolution wasn’t that they couldn’t have any enrichment 

at some point in time. It is what they had to suspend. And the reason for the suspension requirement was because we didn’t know 

what was happening at Fordow. There weren’t any restraints. 
22 

There was no inspection. There was no certainty as to where they 

were going. 

So it is an open question, but nothing has been decided. The initial agreement, the JPOA, as it is referred to, specifically states 

nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And I can guarantee 

you there has been no giveaway on that final issue at that this 

point in time. 

But we are talking about how do you get sufficient verification, 

intrusive inspection, capacity to know what is happening, so that 

no matter what is going on, we are protected and our friends in the 

region are protected. 

Senator LEAHY. I think the most important thing is we continue 

the negotiations, and I do not think the Congress, whether responding to various lobbies or not, is a place to conduct such negotiations. Let’s let the negotiators try to work it out. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your tireless efforts to 

address so many of the crises we are facing in the world today. You 

make us very proud here. 

First, I don’t have any questions on Ukraine, because there have 

been a number of those. But I do want to point out that I hope that 

the work of the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday to come to 

a bipartisan agreement on a bill to address Ukraine that includes 

both sanctions on Russia and support for the new government in 

Ukraine will be helpful as we are trying to address the crisis there. 

I think it is very important that we do work together here in 

Congress to support your efforts. And I think that is exactly what 

the committee did. 

SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS

I want to start with Syria. I have two questions about Syria. As 

you point out in your testimony, it is one of the greatest tragedies 

we are facing in the world today. It is just horrific what has happened to the people of Syria, the destruction of their country. And 

part of that has been the chemical weapons that Assad has had. 

And there was an agreement that you helped broker to have Assad 

commit to eliminate their chemical weapons stockpile. 

He has now missed several deadlines for commitments that he 

had made. It seems like it is not realistic to think that they are 

going to meet their end of April deadline. Can you say what more 

we can do to pressure Assad to make sure that they reduce these 

chemical weapons? And then can you also address humanitarian efforts there, and what more we can do to support and to get the 

Russians to engage with Assad to make sure that humanitarian efforts get to the people who need them? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. 

Thank you for your generous comments at the beginning. 

And I do thank you, all of you. Those of you who serve on the 

Foreign Relations Committee, I thank the Foreign Relations Committee for its initiative, which is helpful. 

Syria is deeply troubling for all of the reasons that everybody on 

the committee understands. And it is also troubling for other rea-
23 

sons, not that you don’t understand them, but they are not written 

about publicly that much. 

The opposition has been sidetracked, to some degree, focusing on 

extremists. So you have had a fight between the Islamic state in 

Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, as it is called, and some of the other 

groups. And that has detracted from their focus on the Assad regime, and Assad has played that. 

In addition, you have had a certain lack of, I guess the way to 

say it is coordination between some of the support countries, and 

there are a lot of reasons for that, so that there hasn’t been as powerful of an effort as there might have been. 

Now that is changing a little bit. There have been some personnel changes within the framework of that support structure. 

And I think that there is a lot more coordinated and effective effort 

with respect to Syria beginning to take shape. 

In addition to that, the huge infusion of Hezbollah and Iran 

changed the game somewhat on the ground while the other people 

were sidetracked, focusing on the extremists. So that is part of 

what has shifted somewhat temporarily for Assad. 

But I say temporarily because I don’t believe that the support 

countries, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, et cetera, are going 

to ever stop until Assad is gone. So he may have a breather in the 

interim, but this fight is going to go on. 

And therefore, what Senator Graham was saying earlier is the 

biggest guarantee is that a whole bunch people are going to suffer. 

We were working effectively with Russia up until recently, obviously, with respect to this, and it is a question mark where that 

is going to go. 

Now Russia was extremely helpful with respect to the chemical 

weapons effort, because of their influence on the regime and their 

ties to it. And we were also helpful because the President made it 

clear that if there wasn’t some alternative, he was going to strike. 

And neither the Russians nor Assad wanted that to happen. 

So the President’s decision, coupled with the cooperation that ensued thereafter, got this regime in place to remove the chemical 

weapons. 

I would say about 30 percent of the chemical weapons, a third 

of them are now removed and under control. We have the locations 

where the rest of them are now contained in 12 different locations. 

We have to move them from there to the port in Latakia. 

And we believe that that can be done in about 35 to 40 days. We 

have put that proposal before the OPCW and before the Russians. 

The Russians were helpful in reducing the amount of time the 

Assad regime was proposing to use, which was 100 days, down to 

62. We are now on a 62-day schedule. 

We believe that can be reduced by another 20 to 25 days, and 

we would like to see that done. Whether or not we can succeed in 

getting that done will depend to some degree on the outcome of 

events that we are obviously all focused on with respect to 

Ukraine, and so forth. 

My hope is it will not interfere, that what happens in Ukraine 

will not interfere. I think Russia maintains a significant interest in 

not having these chemical weapons loose, not having them fall into 
24 

the hands of terrorists, particularly since they are proximate neighbor. And therefore, my hope is we will continue no matter what. 

But we are focused on getting them out. 

Now the end deadline for this is June, not April. So, in fact, we 

are operating within the timeframe still. I still believe it is possible 

to achieve this. And we are going to stay focused on it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

TRADE WITH IRAN

Mr. Secretary, I am almost out of time, but I wanted to raise the 

issue of Iran, because one of the things that is giving me pause, 

and I am sure others as well, is the increase in exports of their oil 

and the interest that has been professed and the delegations from 

a number of countries to Iran in this period that makes it appear 

that sanctions are going to be lifted in a way that I think is not 

helpful to the ultimate outcome of any agreement. 

So can you speak to what we are doing to discourage some of our 

European partners from sending trade delegations to Iran and how 

we keep the pressure on in this interim period? 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. And if we could have that briefly, because I have 

been alerted that we are going to have votes, and we are going to 

have to cut this off when the votes start. 

Secretary KERRY. I will move as fast as I can. 

Let me tell you that I have been personally in touch with foreign 

ministers of countries where we have heard there might be a trade 

delegation. We have made it crystal clear that Iran is not open for 

business. They have accepted that. They are not cutting deals. 

There are people who have traveled, but there have not been new 

deals. And where there have been, we have told people that if they 

transgress any component of the sanctions regime, their businesses 

will be sanctioned. They accept that. 

Now the fact is that Iran needs between $60 billion to $70 billion 

a year to finance its imports. In the entire first step agreement 

here, there are maybe $6 billion to $7 billion that will be released 

through the increase in the oil export, and that is legit under the 

process that we created. 

But no sanction has been lifted. Nothing in the architecture of 

the sanctions regime has been changed whatsoever. 

Iran’s economy contracted by 6 percent last year. It is expected 

to contract again this year. Inflation remains at almost 40 percent. 

And we are just a very, very clear that 2 months into this, very 

little additional economic impact has flowed to Iran for a number 

of reasons—because banks are uncertain how to deal with it, there 

is a lot of uncertainty about where this is going to go, our strict 

enforcement of the sanctions has in fact acted as a deterrent to 

many people deciding to get engaged. 

And we have sent very strong messages through Treasury and 

the State Department that there will be consequences to anybody 

who tries to circumvent them. 

And one last thing, we have sanctioned additional people. 

Senator LEAHY. Some Senators are not going to get a chance to 

ask questions if we don’t keep ongoing. 
25 

We are going to go to Senator Kirk, Senator Coons, Senator 

Boozman, Senator Blunt. 

Senator Kirk. 

IRANIAN FUNDING FOR HEZBOLLAH

Senator KIRK. Thank you. I will, Mr. Secretary, bring to your attention a chart that we have done on the cash flow into Iran. 

We estimate that Iran had about $20 billion ready liquid assets 

before the P5∂1, and now has about $25 billion and that is the additional oil revenues that you talked about, and money released by 

the United States back to Iran, which equals about 50 years of 

Hezbollah payments—that Iran now has. With an improving cash 

flow position, I would expect that we would see even more terrorism with this additional money available to the Islamic Republic 

of Iran. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Senator, with all due respect, the fact is 

that Iran has huge economic problems. And I am guaranteeing you 

that whatever additional flow of money there was going to them is 

not all flowing—I can’t tell you the amount—to Hezbollah because 

they have enormous challenges at home and demand on that 

money. 

There is no way Iran is better off when we are taking somewhere between $15 billion and $30 billion and putting it into a frozen 

asset fund. That is what is happening right now. 

And so they are losing. They are losing enormous sums of money, more than $100 billion that is now frozen, and growing in its 

amount, because the amount that our sanctions are depriving them 

of. 

As I have said, the release of this money—in fact, I don’t even 

agree with that figure. There is no way that the release of the 

funds under the agreement has resulted in that, and I will tell you 

why, because the funds are only released on an incremental basis, 

month-to-month. And we are only 2 months in. 

And so there is no way they have received. I don’t know what 

the total amount has, I mean, it may be $1 billion or so. 

Senator KIRK. Let me interrupt you to say that I believe the first 

payment to the Iranian delegation from the P5∂1, it is paid for 

and rented by a $400 million regular payment. 

Of course, I know why the foreign minister is there, of course I 

know why he is there, because he is being paid to be there. 

I had a long discussion along with Congressman Israel with the 

Iranian foreign minister, who is a long and eloquent Holocaust denier. Has he raised that subject with you? 

Secretary KERRY. No, but I raised it with him on one occasion. 

But we are focused on the nuclear negotiation right now, Senator. 

Senator KIRK. I would just follow up and say it is about $1.55 

billion released under the interim agreement to Iran that we estimate. 

At $100 million a year payments by Iran to Hezbollah, that is 

a lot of Hezbollah terrorism. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, if it is going to them, if they have money 

to give to Hezbollah, Senator—I mean, Senator, Hezbollah is fighting in Syria. They are paying for that. They are supporting it. No 

question about it. 
26 

But, you know—— 

Senator KIRK. Mr. Secretary, I am going to forward to you a list 

of 280 Americans who have been murdered by Hezbollah. This is 

broken down by State, including those from Illinois, Melvin Holmes 

and David Gay and John Phillips Jr., who I knew, who attended 

in my church in Wilmette, and Adam Sommerhof, and Eric 

Sturghill and Eric Walker and Eric Pulliam, were all from Illinois. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Senator, look, I am glad that we have 

designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and we have led the 

effort to make sure that Europe has followed now and labeled them 

a terrorist organization. 

And if I had my druthers, obviously, we would like to see them 

disappear. But we are working at dealing with Hezbollah and other 

terrorist organizations in many different ways. 

But I do believe that we are on the right track with respect to 

this first step agreement with Iran, because the alternatives are 

not as productive as the possibility of being able to reach an agreement through the negotiating process. 

Senator KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Graham. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your tireless engagement and focus on the challenges that we face around the world, 

but particularly at this time of real difficulty in the Middle East, 

in Crimea, and elsewhere around the world. 

I will just simply add my voice to others on this committee who 

have urged increased support for Jordan, increased focus on ensuring that we do in fact deliver on the opportunity here to remove 

CBW from Syria; commend you for your tireless focus on trying to 

resolve one of the longest standing challenges we face in the world, 

the tensions between Israel and the Palestinian Authority; and 

urge you to continue to consult closely with Congress as you continue to make good on the prospect of peace around Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program. 

I stand with many of my colleagues in ensuring that we provide 

you the resources you need in order to carry forward on any agreement delivered, and that that ultimate agreement prevent any 

pathway, whether through uranium or plutonium, to a nuclear 

weapons capability for Iran. 

I also was pleased in your opening statement that you emphasized the importance of economic engagement with Africa and the 

prospects it holds for our country for job creation as well as sustaining our vital investments in PEPFAR, in MCC, and in other 

programs. 

Given the impending votes and the number of other Senators 

waiting, let me just mention a few topics across Africa. And then 

to the extent we have time for your response, I would welcome it. 

AFRICA INITIATIVES

First, I look forward to working with you and the chairman and 

others on this committee to ensure that there are the resources 

needed to support work on fighting wildlife trafficking. I want to 
27 

commend you for taking a leadership role in co-chairing the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. And I want to make 

sure there are resources to support that national strategy. 

Second, as you referenced in your opening statement, there is a 

renewed wave of violence in Sudan, as well as in South Sudan, and 

I want to make sure that we have the resources to provide humanitarian support. There has been renewed aerial bombing in the 

Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile, and a renewal of violence by 

the Janjaweed elements within Sudan. 

There are a range of challenges in Sudan and South Sudan, and 

you have been tireless in working hard to help give birth to a 

newly free country of South Sudan. I would hate to see us miss this 

opportunity when there are so many other things going on around 

the world. 

The two things I wanted to focus on most of this list, Power Africa, a tremendous initiative, one that I think really does hold out 

great promise for the continent of Africa and for the United States. 

Yet there is no specific request for this initiative, and I am concerned that AID is funding it out of existing accounts. With a significant number of difficult elections on the continent in the year 

ahead, I hope that we are not underfunding democracy and governance efforts by state and AID. 

And if there is a way we can work together to sustain Power Africa beyond the next 3 years, to lay out a framework for its funding 

and for its continuance, I think that could make a dramatic difference in meeting development and humanitarian and strategic 

needs, and in creating real opportunity for American business in 

partnership with our allies on the continent. 

Last, the Central African Republic continues to be deeply concerning. Twenty years after the Rwandan genocide, there are 

steadily escalating incidents of violence and a division within the 

country seemingly along ethnic and religious lines. 

Given the shortfall we face in our peacekeeping accounts, I would 

be interested in hearing your views on how we can meet our obligations. I think it affects our reputation in the U.N. and globally 

when we support a peacekeeping mission, but then don’t meet our 

commitments. 

I was glad to support the work of our chair in SFRC in ensuring 

that we made our obligations around the IMF. Other members 

have spoken to that previously in this hearing. I would just love 

to hear from you what we can do to make sure that we make good 

on our commitment across all of these fields, the potential of Power 

Africa and peacekeeping, in particular. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, thanks. Because of the time thing, first 

of all, let me just say I want to thank you, Senator, for your unbelievable leadership. You are terrific in your dedication and tenacity 

with respect to all issues in Africa. The Foreign Relations Committee always had a terrific tradition of having someone who 

picked up that banner, and you have done it brilliantly, and I 

thank you for that. 

Secondly, on the issues that you raised, we really ought to have 

a longer conversation, and I am prepared to do that. 
28 

Power Africa, we believe, is adequately funded. The President 

has designated the goal of trying to get about 10,000 MW of power. 

We have identified 5,000, and we have identified funding and 

projects, 20-some projects, that will provide that. So we are proceeding forward. 

We are doing pretty well at it with existing U.S. Government resources and working the process. But I am game to think about 

how, if we can augment that, to get there faster, I am happy to do 

it. 

Senator COONS. And to be clear, my goal is not to simply expend 

U.S. Government resources. In fact, my general goal is to reduce 

our overall expenditures by making them smarter. I just think 

there are opportunities here to leverage private sector partnership 

with the public sector, over the long term. 

Secretary KERRY. Fair enough. We are currently designated to $7 

billion out of OPEC and Ex-Im Bank in order to try to achieve this. 

And private sector commitments total $14 billion, which is not insignificant. 

So I think we are on track, but let’s work at it and see how we 

can leverage it further. 

On the peacekeeping, some of the missions have reached a point 

where we can begin to close some of them, East Timor, we are looking at reduced assessments for Liberia, Haiti. But then we have 

new ones that have come on, as you know. 

We have increased by $342 million our commitments for Mali, 

Somalia, South Sudan. We put additional money beyond that into 

South Sudan, by the way, on a humanitarian basis. 

And my sense is that we have another problem, that we pay at 

I think it is 27-point-some percent, but we are being assessed by 

the U.N. at 28.4 percent, so we are behind in that regard, and we 

are going to have to think about long-term how we are going to 

meet that arrearage and deal with it. 

Senator COONS. I am eager to work with you on that. Seeing the 

press of time, thank you very much. I understand you have more 

pressing obligations. I look forward to a chance to talk through 

these issues when the current situation is resolved to some extent. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KERRY. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PEPFAR

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us. I just want 

you to comment on a couple things very quickly. We have all of 

these pressing problems going on throughout the world right now, 

but I would like for us not to lose sight of a couple programs I 

think they are working very, very well. 

PEPFAR, in fact, I think you called this the most successful foreign assistance program ever. I know that you have been very, very 

supportive, President Bush, now President Obama, lots of different 

individuals on both sides of the aisle. 

Can you just comment on it real quickly and reassure us about 

PEPFAR’s sustainability into the future? 
29 

Secretary KERRY. The answer is, we believe we have funded it. 

The global fund is slightly reduced, but actually we have plussed 

that up. 

There is no question in my mind—I am proud to say that that 

effort really began in the Foreign Relations Committee and with 

Bill Frist, when he was here. And we had support from Jesse 

Helms. We passed it unanimously in the Senate. It was the first 

AIDS legislation for global efforts. And that led to PEPFAR. 

President Bush made a tremendous commitment to it. I think 

the original $15 billion and then it got doubled, and President 

Obama has continued it. 

We are looking at the potential now of a first-time-ever AIDSfree generation of kids, as a result of where we are. We believe the 

funding is at a level, notwithstanding a slight reduction, where we 

are going to be able to not just continue it, but take it to fruition 

in its targeted goal. So I think we feel very confident about it. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. The 10-year anniversary, 1 million children born AIDS-free. I think that is something we can be very, 

very proud of. 

The Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC, again, along 

the same vein, I think it was ranked first among international 

donor organizations by an NGO that tracks transparency. Based on 

this success, can you again talk a little bit about how we can replicate this model, perhaps, and increase public accountability and 

transparency with some of our other assistance programs? 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely, Senator. 

MCC, which I am privileged to chair the board of as Secretary 

and have had several meetings, is doing a tremendous job of providing a different model for how you approach development funding. 

The President increased the funding by 11 percent. It is up $101 

million to just about $1 billion. I think the total amount of our development money is some $20-point-some billion, so we are looking 

at 1/20 of our development money done in this new metric-oriented, 

measurements, results-oriented determinative process. 

And it works effectively in certain situations. I am not saying it 

can translate into everything that we do in terms of development. 

But we have some new, since 2004, we have signed some 27 compacts. A compact we sign with a country is a certain approach, a 

certain set of expectations for what they have to do—reforms in 

government process. It is a tremendous lever for good governance, 

for transparency, for accountability. And we are very high on it and 

are trying to figure out how much more we can extend it as a significant new model tool for development on a global basis. 

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Senator BOOZMAN. And finally, CAR. This is an area that again, 

with all that is going on in the world, it has had tremendous problems. We have had to pull out our diplomatic community. Can you 

briefly touch on it and kind of give us your perspective? I know 

Samantha Power has been working hard in that regard in her 

abilities. Perhaps a plan of returning our diplomatic presence, 

where you see that going? 
30 

Secretary KERRY. Well, we are working very closely with the French, I think you know. And we are providing an additional $100 

million to assist the African Union-led International Support Mission, MISCA. We are providing strategic airlift. We are providing 

equipment and training for the forces that are deploying there. 

In the last 2 months, we have airlifted some 850 Burundian 

troops in, 860-plus Rwandan troops, so the total number is somewhere around 6,000 troops now. 

What has been missing is accountability. You have this incredible problem of young people running around with guns, tribal warfare, and so forth, and there is no enforcer, which is why we have 

pressed in the African Union, we pressed the international community, to try to support it. It is not just there. It was with M23 and 

the Great Lakes region and elsewhere. Thugs with guns who are 

running loose, and there is no countervailing government capacity. 

So what we are trying to do is to build the capacity. And we are 

grateful to the French. They have been terrific leaders in this effort, very committed, historically and otherwise. And we are doing 

our part to try to provide order through a government force that 

is present that holds people accountable for their actions and begins to lead people toward a development agenda, toward a governance agenda that is the only way ultimately to provide the stability 

necessary. 

This is an area where there are huge resources at stake, and 

that is the part of the battle. 

Unbelievably resource-rich, unexploited through a legitimate 

market of any kind, and that creates a lot of this chase for riches, 

which is at the butt of a gun. 

So we are trying to come in with some development capacity, 

governance, leadership capacity, and creating the kind of force that 

could help to provide stability, so those other things can take hold. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to you and Senator Graham for holding this hearing and all you are doing to try 

to focus on the positive impact of aid and what it can mean in creating the kind of relationships we need. 

To try to cover a couple topics quickly that I think may not have 

been talked about yet, which is pretty hard to do at the end of this 

hearing, Secretary. 

And thank you for your time and your tireless efforts in this 

great responsibility you have accepted in this job. 

CAMP LIBERTY

Could you comment a little bit on what plans we might have for 

the disposition of the 3,000, roughly 3,000, Iranian dissidents at 

Camp Liberty in Iraq, and whether our allies, others in the world, 

are willing to take some of these people? And whether we are? Can 

you give me a sense? 

Secretary KERRY. Yes, I have appointed a special adviser, special 

envoy, a very qualified lawyer, who is really tackling this on a dayto-day basis with exceptional energy and focus. 

We have been able to place, I think it is around 300 or so. The 

Albanians have graciously agreed to accept some. 
31 

Our goal is to get all 3,000 out of there, Camp Hurriya. We really 

want to get them out of there. We know that they are at risk. We 

know there are dangers. And we are trying to find the countries 

that are willing to do this. It is a tough negotiation. 

Frankly, it would be greatly assisted by our ability to make a determination about how many we are going to take, and that is 

where our focus is right now. We are making an analysis of that 

and some judgments. The sooner we can get that concluded and 

moving, I think the better opportunity we are going to have to get 

people relocated elsewhere. 

We had some problems, incidentally, in the beginning when I 

first came in, I learned that there were some problems internally 

in the camp, in the administrative process and the willingness of 

people to submit to interviews. And I think that has been resolved, 

but we have had a lot of difficulties in being able to really get the 

population properly vetted and defined, so we know who might be 

able to go where and what appropriate accommodations could be 

made. 

Senator BLUNT. It is my view that time is not our friend there. 

Secretary KERRY. I agree completely. 

Senator BLUNT. Nor for the people at the camp. And you agree 

with that? 

Secretary KERRY. I totally agree with that. 

Senator BLUNT. Whatever I can do to be helpful and whatever 

I can do to encourage your efforts to find places for these people 

to go while they still can hopefully get there would be important. 

Secretary KERRY. Absolutely. 

TURKEY AND SYRIAN RELATIONS

Senator BLUNT. Today in Turkey, there are tens of thousands of 

protesters protesting about the funeral of a 15-year-old boy who 

died after being hit by a canister, a tear gas canister, several 

months ago. It seems to me that Erdogan is not as helpful as he 

could be in a lot of areas, but one is that large Syrian border. What 

is our relationship there now? Are we able to try to encourage more 

help in solving the Syrian situation from Turkey? 

Secretary KERRY. The answer is we would like to get additional 

help. The Turks have been very forthcoming. We have been working with them very closely. 

We would like to see greater cooperation from them on the border pieces. There are too many people moving through, particularly 

in the eastern part and coming down to the northern part of Syria 

in the northeastern part. 

We have spoken to them about that. We have an ongoing, very 

healthy dialogue with people on the ground, working with them 

very closely. Their foreign minister is deeply engaged. He has been 

very, very forthcoming, very helpful to us. 

There is an election, as you know. There is a lot of political dynamic at play in Turkey right now, and it is difficult in the middle 

of that to get all the focus that you might like to have on this kind 

of an issue and to resolve some of it. 

But we are working also with Turkey, I might add, on the rapprochement with Israel, resolution of the blockade on Gaza issue 

that ran into problems with the Amorey Mulveek a few years ago. 
32 

And I think it is fair to say that, at this moment, they are pretty 

inward looking in terms of the electoral process. 

Senator BLUNT. And that is the end of this month, as I recall? 

Secretary KERRY. I beg your pardon? 

Senator BLUNT. That is end of this month? March 30, is it? 

Secretary KERRY. It is April, isn’t it? 

Senator BLUNT. It is April? But soon? 

Secretary KERRY. Yes, soon. 

Senator BLUNT. On a topic that I am sure has already been discussed, but on the view of whether Iran, and I am not suggesting 

this is your position, but whether Iran should ever be allowed to 

have the component parts that they could put together to make a 

weapon, whether they have a weapon or not, I would want to be 

strongly listed on the side they should not be allowed to have that. 

NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT

And I would like you take comment on a couple things. One, if 

they did have the capacity to enrich, is it your view that we can 

monitor that in a way that would be satisfactory? And two, how do 

you keep that capacity to enrich from proliferating to other countries that we have been holding back, that have nuclear power, but 

we haven’t let them have this capacity because of the danger that 

up until now most powers have understood was a danger if you let 

the proliferation of enrichment occur? 

So those are really my last two questions. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, most countries that have chosen to pursue some kind of nuclear power capacity have not chosen necessarily to enrich for themselves. Some have, so there is a precedent. It is not the majority, obviously. 

There are different reasons for one country or another having an 

argument that they might want to enrich, to some degree. 

My current judgment, you say, can we monitor? At this point, not 

completely, no. And that is why we are negotiating. It is to make 

sure that we can completely, ultimately. 

And how do you prevent the enrichment from leading elsewhere? 

I think that the constraints under which a country would have to 

operate if they are going to have some enrichment are really significant. I mean, we are talking about a need to know beyond reasonable doubt, not guess, but to know, what is happening on any 

given day, in any given facility. 

So this is all subject to the negotiation. This is not currently decided. 

And you asked me, I think, if we could consider at this moment 

in time that we have the ability to be able to know, or something? 

And the answer is that is actually what the subject of this negotiation is now. 

Senator BLUNT. And you think that negotiation could 

produce—— 

Secretary KERRY. Well, we hope it could. I don’t know if it can 

yet, Senator. Honestly, I don’t know. 

I know what we want to ask for. I don’t know if we can get a 

yes to it. 

But you raised the question of warheads, et cetera. It is very 

much a subject of the negotiation. It has to be. 
33 

And any of that technology has got to be part of this. Now that 

is distinct from missile, conceivably. It is a harder argument to 

make on some range of conventional weaponry that that falls under 

this. 

But certainly, R&D and warhead development or anything like 

that would very much fall squarely into the concerns that we would 

want to be talking about in negotiation. 

Senator LEAHY. We have 6 minutes left on the roll call on the 

floor. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. I am not going to ask my further questions, 

other than to note, and we should talk about this later Secretary 

Kerry, we were lobbied, Congress was, to show how tough we were 

in our support of Israel by withdrawing payments to UNESCO. 

What that meant, of course, we lost our vote in UNESCO, so we 

are not able to protect America’s interests, or Israel’s interests, 

there. All we do is watch the Russians, the Iranians, the Syrians, 

the Chinese, the Palestinians who have a vote. 

I would like to see us get back in there and do what is best in 

America’s interests. 

And we need to address the Avena court decision on the rights 

of consular access for foreigners arrested in this country. The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and Justice all 

support doing something on this. Chief Justice Roberts has. We 

should fix it. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. I know you have a meeting. A little 

bit of homework here. 

Could you inform the committee in writing, there is a debate in 

Congress whether we should sell Apaches to the Egyptian regime. 

I think, Mr. Secretary, that the Egyptian army has not met the 

goals that we all would hope. They are not transitioning to democracy in a meaningful way, in my view. 

Could you inform the committee, in your view, what kind of role 

should the Congress play regarding aid to Egypt, particularly military aid? I don’t want to send the wrong signal and undercut efforts to get the transition to democracy. 

Do you agree with the statement by the DNI that the Al Qaeda 

presence in Syria is building up and is becoming a threat to the 

homeland? 

Secretary KERRY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

When it comes to Israel, it has been our position that the Palestinians should recognize the Jewish state as part of their negotiating position, is that correct? 

Secretary KERRY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Secondly, you can do this in writing, if you 

like, do you think President Abbas has the ability to speak effectively for Hamas regarding any potential peace agreement? 

Secretary KERRY. Part of our discussion at this point in time, 

Senator, is a requirement before some kind of agreement were to 

come into effect that that issue would have to be resolved. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Secretary KERRY. Thank you very much. 
34 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

I thank the members for their questions. We will keep the record 

open until Wednesday for any further questions. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JOHN F. KERRY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. The United States recently decreased its pledge to the World Bank’s 

International Development Association—the Bank’s fund for helping the world’s 

poorest countries. This drop hurts American leverage in at the Bank, creating more 

openings for China and others who may not share our priorities. Please elaborate 

on the U.S. commitment to the International Development Association and the 

international financial institutions as a whole. 

Answer. The United States recently pledged $3.87 billion to the International Development Association (IDA)—which represented a 5 percent decrease from its previous pledge. While the administration would have liked to have pledged more, the 

$3.87 billion reflects the very difficult budget environment that we face. The U.S. 

pledge was still enough to make the United States the second largest contributor 

to the fund’s record-breaking replenishment cycle, which yielded over $52 billion in 

pledges. 

IDA, the Asian Development Fund, and the African Development Fund—the 

concessional windows at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and African Development Bank, respectively—provide grants to the world’s poorest countries and 

support key U.S. development priorities. The United States remains one of the largest contributors to these funds, and our financial contributions send an important 

signal about the U.S. commitment to alleviating poverty and fostering economic 

growth and stability to other donors and developing countries. 

Question. Countries such as China, India, Turkey, and others have been gaining 

an economic foothold in Africa, too often at American expense. With 7 out of 10 of 

the fastest growing economics in the world being in Africa, the U.S. has a great opportunity to invest while supporting domestic jobs. I was pleased that part of my 

legislative efforts to address this issue became law in December and that the administration must designate a senior coordinator to boost U.S. exports to Africa. Can 

you comment on this larger challenge in Africa and administration efforts to help 

address it? 

Answer. The Department of State shares your view that Africa represents a great 

opportunity for U.S. companies to generate economic growth both in Africa and domestically. 

Commercial activities of other countries in Africa have generally not hindered investment opportunities for our firms. 

The U.S. Government’s (USG’s) Doing Business in Africa (DBIA) Campaign encourages U.S. businesses to take advantage of the many export and investment opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa. The USG is encouraging U.S. companies—with 

a focus on small- and medium-sized businesses and African Diaspora-owned businesses—to trade with and invest in Africa. To support this initiative and in coordination with the Department of Commerce’s Advocacy Center, our Embassies and 

Consulates provide robust commercial advocacy support of U.S. firms competing in 

Sub-Saharan Africa and facilitate numerous high value trade and investment missions and deals in key sectors, such as healthcare, agribusiness, and infrastructure 

and energy. The Presidential initiatives of Power Africa and Trade Africa harness 

the efforts of many U.S. Government agencies and the private sector to increase 

trade and investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Export-Import Bank (ExIm Bank), and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) are building upon 

current assistance to U.S. business. For example, the U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Development and Finance Center opened its doors in 2013 at the U.S. Consulate General in Johannesburg, South Africa, to provide the U.S. private sector, as well as 

our Sub-Saharan African partners, with a centralized means to identify and access 

U.S. Government support for clean energy export and investment needs. 
35 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. As you know, last fall Senator Blunt, Congresswoman Granger, Congresswoman Bass, and I introduced the ‘‘Children in Families First’’ Act and have 

since gained the support of nearly 60 Members of Congress for this legislation. At 

the core of this bill is a proposal for making necessary structural changes to the 

State Department’s current approach to international child welfare. More specifically, we have proposed to unite issues related to international child welfare, including international adoption, in a single office to be housed in the State Department’s 

Secretariat for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. We believe such 

changes are necessary at the Department of State to ensure that, both internally 

and externally, international child welfare is treated as more than an immigration 

enforcement issue, which its current placement in the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

suggests that it is. We have seen the same approach of centralizing and empowering 

an office or bureau work to great effect in fighting terrorism, combatting trafficking, 

providing humanitarian assistance and resettlement to refugees, and providing 

AIDS relief and seek now to emulate that success on behalf of vulnerable children. 

It is my understanding that the U.S. Department of State opposes this effort and 

seeks to keep these functions in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which handles border security and overseas citizen services, and has no real mandate or resources to 

engage in international child welfare issues writ large, and which, in our view, has 

a less than ideal track record even in its narrow mandate of implementing the 

Hague adoption and abduction conventions. 

—Can you affirm that this is in fact the State Department’s position and help 

clarify for the members of this subcommittee why that is so? 

—Do you agree that international child welfare requires a dedicated Bureau or 

Office in the Department of State? 

—Do you agree that international child welfare is more than a consular issue and 

as such needs to be handled elsewhere in the Department than the Bureau of 

Consular Affairs? 

—In the same way that refugee resettlement is part of the Bureau of Population 

Refugees and Migration precisely because it is a tool of refugee protection, do 

you agree that international adoption is a tool of protection for children living 

without families, not simply an immigration enforcement issue? 

Answer. The U.S. Department of State helps to serve and protect children around 

the world. Our global presence ensures that we are able to support children, youth, 

and their families through programmatic support and diplomatic engagement, under 

the leadership of the Chiefs of Mission of each U.S. Embassy and supported through 

the expertise of the Department’s various offices and bureaus engaged on children’s 

issues. Such policies, programs, and diplomatic efforts help strengthen families and 

protect children. Additionally, they help to support the U.S. Action Plan on Children 

in Adversity (APCA), which aims to promote a world in which children grow up 

within protective family care and free from deprivation, exploitation, violence, and 

danger. 

Many bureaus and offices across the Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) diplomatically and programmatically engage on children’s issues, including on matters related directly to international child welfare 

and protection. This work is accomplished via multifaceted approaches to improving 

health, education, security, social and child welfare systems, capacity to provide humanitarian assistance, governance, rule of law, and the protection and advancement 

of human rights across the globe. 

This multifaceted support extends beyond the expertise and capacity of any single 

office, bureau, or portfolio. It includes U.S. support for UNICEF’s child protectionrelated efforts around the world; economic support aimed at strengthening families 

affected by HIV/AIDS to ensure that they can stay together; support for child welfare systems that includes addressing children outside of family care and promoting 

permanent family placements, made possible by the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); support for family reunification and child protection programming in humanitarian emergencies through State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID; and 

other bilateral and multilateral efforts. These are just a few examples. 

The Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, which fulfills many of the Department’s day-to-day responsibilities as the U.S. Central Authority under the Hague 

Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry 

Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention), plays an important part in these efforts by supporting other countries in their implementation 

of either or both Conventions. Protecting children and families in the intercountry 
36 

adoption process through the Hague Adoption Convention and ensuring that ethical 

and transparent intercountry adoption remains an option for children, when it is in 

a child’s best interests, are important pieces of the Department’s overall effort to 

protect children and promote healthy child development and responsive and supportive child welfare systems. 

The Department remains committed to working with Congress to ensure that U.S. 

support for children in adversity is robust, and that U.S. implementation of the 

Hague Adoption Convention is strong, effective, and transparent—without the establishment of a new, costly, and unnecessary bureaucracy. The creation of a new 

bureau or office within the Department focused on international child welfare or 

intercountry adoption will create overlapping mandates within the Department and 

with USAID. It would confuse and undermine multiple, well established roles and 

responsibilities of individual components of both agencies, and would be detrimental 

to their key relationships with U.S. and foreign governmental and non-governmental partners. A new bureau or office could also undermine existing capacities 

for effective, multilayered interventions, interfering with efforts to integrate programs across sectors so that they most benefit children, their families, and the communities in which they live. Centralizing activities under one office, with one mandate, may diminish existing activities that are not explicitly ‘‘child-focused,’’ yet are 

still fundamental for children in adversity, such as programs focusing on nutrition, 

shelter, livelihood, gender-based violence, women and girls’ empowerment, and humanitarian assistance. It would also be inappropriate for a new Department office 

with an international child welfare mandate to be singularly focused on international adoption as its sole remedy. 

The Department and USAID have taken steps over the last year to improve coordination and collaboration in order to maximize the impact of our work to improve 

the lives of children in adversity. APCA was launched at the White House in December 2012; individual agency implementation plans were published in September 

2013; programs from Department bureaus and offices that were not already consistent with the APCA’s objectives have been increasingly aligning with them in 

new and ongoing programs; and the first meeting of the Senior Policy Operating 

Group on Children in Adversity (SPOG–CA) convened in February. In the interim, 

with support from the Department’s Senior Advisor for Development, the Department created a Task Force on Children in Adversity (TFCA) to promote APCA and 

improve internal coordination and information sharing across the Department and 

with USAID. The TFCA also coordinates to identify complementary and strategic 

diplomatic, programmatic, and policy actions for the range of Department bureaus 

and offices that are already working to assist children in adversity globally. We expect that the SPOG–CA will reconvene soon under the leadership of the reformulated USAID Center for Excellence on Children in Adversity. 

International child welfare is a complex issue which requires a multitude of actors 

and responses. We believe by focusing on coordination we can enhance programming 

and best demonstrate the U.S. Government’s commitment to assisting children 

around the world. 

Question. A number of prominent organizations that support international child 

welfare and adoption wrote to you in December to request that you take immediate 

action to address shortcomings in the Department of State’s implementation of The 

Hague Adoption Convention. To my knowledge, that letter has not been answered. 

—How do you explain the fact that there have been no reported international 

adoptions from any country that has become a Hague partner with the United 

States since 2008? 

—Do you agree with the criticism in the letter that the Office of Children’s Issues 

has failed to implement a transparent and effective system for determining 

partner country compliance with the Hague Convention? 

—If so, what steps are you taking to correct the situation? 

Answer. The Department of State supports intercountry adoptions. As the U.S. 

Central Authority for adoptions, the Department’s primary goal is to ensure that all 

U.S. intercountry adoptions are ethical, transparent, and protect children and families. To accomplish this, the Department maintains strong lines of communication 

with all Hague Adoption Convention (Convention) countries in order to promote cooperation, coordination, and the best interests of children. Every year, children from 

countries that are parties to the Convention are adopted by loving U.S. families. In 

fiscal years 2013 and 2012, 46 percent and 37 percent of all U.S. adoptions were 

from Convention countries, respectively. China remains the top country of origin for 

U.S. intercountry adoptions, and last year, hundreds of children were adopted from 

Bulgaria, Colombia, India, Latvia, and the Philippines—all Convention countries. 

Since the Convention entered into force for the United States, 15 new countries 

have become party to the Convention: Cabo Verde, Fiji, Greece, Ireland, 
37 

Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Rwanda, Senegal, 

Seychelles, Swaziland, Togo, and Vietnam. The annual number of intercountry 

adoptions from the majority of these 15 countries did not change significantly after 

the entry into force of the Convention. Historically, few children immigrated to the 

United States through intercountry adoption from each of these countries, with the 

exception of Kazakhstan, Rwanda, and Vietnam. 

Several factors in all of the countries affect the number of U.S. adoptions. Five 

new Convention countries (Greece, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, and 

Seychelles) have developed child welfare and adoption systems and/or have few children in need of intercountry adoption. Ireland provides a good example. Ireland 

identifies solely as an adoption receiving country, not a country of origin. Ireland’s 

Central Authority strictly applies the Convention’s subsidiarity principle with the 

result that most Irish orphans are placed domestically, and few children are eligible 

for intercountry adoption. Adoptions from Greece, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, and 

Seychelles are similarly very rare, as they were before these countries joined the 

Convention. Family preservation resources and effective, permanent domestic placement options are available in those countries. 

Three other countries (Rwanda, Senegal, and Swaziland) have suspended all 

intercountry adoptions while reviewing their ability to implement the Convention. 

A fourth, Kazakhstan, temporarily suspended intercountry adoptions to the United 

States in August 2012, citing concerns about the welfare of adopted children related 

to a number of very grave, but isolated, cases of abuse in the United States. The 

Department had announced its ability to issue Hague Adoption and Custody Certificates in incoming Convention adoptions from Kazakhstan in May 2012. Since 2012, 

the Department and U.S. Embassy Astana have made every effort to respond to 

Kazakhstani concerns and persuade the Government of Kazakhstan to resume intercountry adoptions for U.S. families. Our efforts include multiple, high-level bilateral 

meetings in the United States and Kazakhstan, facilitation of consular access of 

Kazakhstani officials to adopted Kazakhstani children in the United States, and 

communication with U.S. parents of adopted children on the importance of meeting 

post-adoption requirements. 

On the other hand, a number of countries, including Cabo Verde and Fiji, had not 

fully implemented the Convention at the time it entered into force. Both countries 

are still developing procedures to implement the Convention and the capacity to 

carry out Convention safeguards. Under U.S. law, the Department is not able to 

process Convention adoptions for countries that have failed to develop adoption systems that uphold these safeguards. The Department continues to work with such 

countries to assist with Convention implementation. 

The Department’s efforts in Vietnam and Lesotho in this regard are particularly 

noteworthy. Following the Convention’s entry into force on February 1, 2012, Vietnam has only recently trained its central and provincial adoption officials on the 

Convention and related new laws. Resuming adoptions with Vietnam is among U.S. 

Embassy Hanoi’s highest priorities, and the U.S. Special Advisor for Children’s 

Issues has travelled to meet with Vietnamese adoption officials four times since 

2010 to advocate for successful reforms. Additionally, USAID support for UNICEF 

on adoptions has been instrumental in improving Vietnam’s legal and regulatory 

system. Currently, the Department is working towards establishing a limited adoption program for children with special needs, older children, and children in sibling 

groups. The Government of Vietnam is currently vetting U.S. adoption service providers and has indicated that it plans to authorize two. (For more information, 

please see the Department’s September Adoption Notice, available here: http:// 

adoption.state.gov/countrylinformation/countrylspecificlalertslnotices.php?alert 

lnoticeltype=notices&alertlnoticelfile=vietnaml7). The Department is hopeful 

that we will be able to announce our ability to issue Hague Certificates for adoptions from Vietnam later this year. In Lesotho, the Convention entered into force 

in December 2012. In February 2013, Lesotho lifted its suspension of intercountry 

adoptions, which had been in place as it implemented Convention procedures. We 

determined we would be able to process adoptions with Lesotho beginning March 

1, 2013. The Government of Lesotho has authorized one U.S. adoption service provider, published new procedures on intercountry adoptions fees, and is now processing adoptions. 

Additionally, three countries became party to the Convention on April 1, 2014: 

Croatia, Haiti, and Serbia. The Department has since announced positive determinations for these newest Convention partners, as well as for Montenegro, where 

the Convention entered into force in 2012. The Department has announced our ability to issue Hague Adoption or Custody Certificates for all Convention adoptions 

from these countries. 
38 

As the Central Authority for intercountry adoption, the Department must certify 

that adoptions are in compliance with the Convention. The examples provided above 

illustrate our commitment to this process. If a country’s adoption system does not 

uphold the safeguards of the Convention, adoptions finalized in that country are not 

considered to be compliant. It is therefore instrumental for the Department to assess each country’s ability to implement procedural safeguards and governing structures consistent with Convention standards. We accomplish this through review of 

a country’s laws, procedures, practices, and infrastructure. Our Web site, adoption.state.gov, provides a thorough description of our approach. 

The Department has taken several additional steps to increase transparency and 

public dialogue as this review process unfolds. The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) 

posts frequent Adoption Notices and Alerts to adoption.state.gov on changes or expected changes to a country’s adoption laws, procedures, practices, or infrastructure 

as information is made available. CA also hosts quarterly public stakeholder meetings for non-profit organizations and U.S. adoption service providers to provide updates and answer questions. 

If the Department determines that a country does not meet the required standards, we strongly encourage the country to implement the necessary legal framework and procedures to uphold the Convention’s standards and principles before becoming a party to the Convention. The Department will also encourage the country’s 

officials to consider establishing procedures to allow adoptions initiated prior to the 

Convention’s entry into force be completed through the pre-Convention procedures. 

The Department’s goal is to prevent a disruption in adoptions and ensure that there 

is no unnecessary delay in processing pending adoptions due to the Convention entering into force. 

Question. In a letter you sent to me on September 16, 2013, you indicated that 

the Department of State and USAID were moving forward aggressively to implement the Action Plan on Children in Adversity, which the White House released in 

December 2012, and which for the first time explicitly states that families for children is a priority goal of U.S. foreign policy. More specifically, you stated that you 

had recently formed a Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) made up of key players from the State Department and USAID and had directed them to lead implementation of the Action Plan. So is it fair then to say that this SPOG is the designated leader of the United States Government’s efforts to implement the Action 

Plan for Children in Adversity and if so, 

—In the 15 months since the National Action Plan on Children in Adversity was 

released, what concrete actions the Department of State taken to advance the 

Plan’s implementation? 

—How much funding did the U.S. State Department spend on programs or policies implemented in support of the Action Plan in fiscal year 2014? How much 

do you anticipate will be spent on activities related to the Action Plan in fiscal 

year 2015? 

Answer. The umbrella of the National Action Plan for Children in Adversity provides an overarching platform and a welcome lens for ongoing State Department 

programs and activities, all of which address various dimensions of children in adversity around the world. 

For instance, to support building strong beginnings for children in adversity, the 

Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) supports protection activities including health and education programming for conflict-affected 

populations through humanitarian partners including the office of the UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). 

For example, UNRWA runs one of the largest education programs in the Middle 

East, serving more than 490,000 school-age children at over 700 schools in Gaza, 

the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. PRM also supports the No Lost Generation initiative, a campaign by the United Nations, governments, and international and non-governmental organizations to address the immediate and longterm impacts of the Syria crisis on a generation of children and youth in Syria and 

the Near East region. 

In another example, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has supported family care for children by spearheading the strengthening of child welfare 

and protection systems, including the enhancement of the social welfare workforce. 

If child welfare and protection systems are strong and working, then the services 

required for children in adversity will be in place. These system-strengthening efforts therefore serve to bolster all aspects of child welfare to support all children, 

including those who are outside of family care. For example, through PEPFAR support: 
39 

—In Uganda, more than 1,100 Community Development Officers and probation 

officers have completed training and attained university accreditation in child 

protection, and now provide services to 66,000 children. 

—In South Africa, more than 2,000 para-professional social workers have been 

provided stipends and child welfare skills training. And a partnership with 

South Africa’s Ministry of Social Development has helped support 10,000 new 

Child & Youth Care Worker positions by 2017. As a result, more than 1.4 million vulnerable children will be served. 

—In Tanzania, 4,000 community volunteers provide support for vulnerable children through various implementing partners. In addition, a Twinning Center 

partnership has trained 2,408 para-social workers (PSWs) and 329 supervisors 

in 25 districts. 

Diplomatically, the Department’s Bureau of International Organizations supports 

the United Nations in promoting child survival and child development. Following 

June 2012’s ‘‘Child Survival: Call to Action conference? meeting?’’ which the U.S. 

hosted along with India and Ethiopia, the United States is pleased to see that to 

date, representatives of 174 governments, 215 civil society partners, and 221 faithbased organizations have signed pledges to take action along with UNICEF. The 

United States is glad to be a partner with UNICEF in supporting this effort, which 

is believed to accelerate progress towards Millennium Development Goal 4 and 5 

targets, and ultimately help to end all preventable child and maternal deaths. The 

United States continues to support the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports and funds programs in more than 150 countries in an effort to achieve Millennium Development Goal 5 of improving maternal health, and in turn, also reduces 

maternal and child mortality. 

Additionally, by delivering national statements in UN forums—including the UN 

General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, the UNICEF and UNFPA Executive Boards, and other UN organizations that support children—the United States 

calls on organizations and states to incorporate the needs of children in their planning and policies. The United States also emphasizes the particular needs, 

vulnerabilities, and potential of girls, and consistently raises these issues in UN forums and diplomatically with partner governments. 

The Department of State also works through diplomatic channels to strongly support intercountry adoption as an essential part of a fully developed child welfare 

system. We promote ethical and transparent adoption processes for prospective 

adoptive parents, birth families, and children involved in intercountry adoptions, a 

process that ensures that an adoption is completed in the best interests of the child 

and when a domestic placement in the child’s home country is not possible. The Office of Children’s Issues, within the Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, engages bilaterally with foreign governments and collaborates with stakeholders in the 

adoption community and with our interagency partners on intercountry adoptions 

to promote these policy objectives. The Hague Adoption Convention is an important 

tool in support of this goal. Ninety-three countries are currently party to the Convention, including the United States. 

An important element related to concrete action and policy leadership includes the 

establishment of a Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) for Children in Adversity. 

This governmentwide, interagency body is co-led by the Department of State’s Senior Advisor for Development and USAID’s Center of Excellence for Children in Adversity (USAID/CECA). The SPOG is strengthened by the day-to-day coordination 

efforts of State’s Task Force for Children in Adversity (TFCA), which works in partnership with USAID/CECA and the interagency working group led by USAID to advance the children in adversity agenda. 

For example, TFCA and USAID/CECA recently collaborated to develop a Key 

Issue, or secondary budget code in the foreign assistance budget, called ‘‘Children 

in Adversity.’’ The ‘‘Children in Adversity’’ Key Issue is formulated to match the objectives of the APCA and gives visibility to the funding of thematic areas that are 

not generally discernable in the foreign assistance budget. Going forward, the ‘‘Children in Adversity’’ Key Issue, combined with other ongoing efforts at State and 

USAID, does three things: (1) sends a signal to State and USAID that the children 

in adversity issue is being further elevated across the foreign assistance portfolio, 

(2) establishes a common definition for children in adversity within foreign assistance programming, and (3) strengthens existing efforts to thematically integrate 

children in adversity into the foreign assistance strategic planning, budgeting and 

performance management processes. 

Finally, allocations for fiscal year 2014 foreign assistance appropriations are in 

the midst of being finalized; however, programs that support the world’s most vulnerable population—children in adversity—are reflected throughout the budget. 
40 

Similarly, the fiscal year 2015 request emphasizes the United States’ continuing 

commitment to children. 

Question. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not only an attack on that country’s sovereignty but a threat to the stability of the entire region. One key aspect of Russian 

influence in Ukraine has been its energy exports, particularly natural gas flowing 

through Ukraine to the remainder of Europe. As you know, the administration recently proposed $1 billion in loan guarantees to help insulate the Ukrainian economy from the effects of reduced energy subsidies from Russia—a measure that has 

been reinforced by recently passed legislation in the House and legislation pending 

in the Senate. 

—In addition to these measures, how can the United States use its diplomatic influence and growing energy production to mitigate these threats? 

Answer. Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence is a strategic foreign policy priority for the United States, and no issue is more important than Ukraine’s energy 

security. Ukraine’s energy security, and the commitment of the United States to 

support Ukraine, was at the forefront of the U.S.-European Union (EU) Energy 

Council meeting which I chaired with EU High Representative Ashton, EU Energy 

Commissioner Oettinger, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Poneman on April 

2. 

The United States is working with Ukraine, its western neighbors, the EU, and 

the private sector to provide gas from European companies to Ukraine to offset its 

reliance on Russian imports. We are seeking to provide urgently needed international financial support to Ukraine and encouraging Ukraine to use its foreign exchange reserves to finance gas purchases. 

In addition to these short-term measures, we are working with other donors and 

the private sector to help Ukraine bridge to long-term increased self-sufficiency in 

gas by raising domestic production, through modernization of existing conventional 

fields and contracts negotiated in 2013 for unconventional gas development. 

The United States is also working closely with the Government of Ukraine to increase energy efficiency practices, which will further decrease reliance on energy imports. The $1 billion in loan guarantees provided by the United States will be available to help the Ukrainian Government ensure that increased energy costs, which 

will go into effect as early as May 1 as part of a reform package mandated by the 

IMF, will not adversely impact Ukraine’s most vulnerable energy consumers. 

Under the auspices of the U.S.-Ukraine Energy Security Working Group, the U.S. 

Special Envoy for International Energy Affairs Carlos Pascual and Ukrainian Minister of Energy Yuriy Prodan, will continue to advance these initiatives. 

Question. Last July, the full Appropriations committee voted on a narrow waiver 

to the prohibition on funding UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization). By a vote of 19–11, the full committee provided a waiver, 

as well as $700,000, to the World Heritage program at UNESCO. For no good reason at all, the House deleted this line item, and refused to include it in the Omnibus 

spending package that was approved this January. Let me explain why I am so passionate about this issue. Poverty Point is a cultural and historic gem in Louisiana. 

It is a landmark relic from prehistoric, hunter-gatherer times, and is a collection 

of magnificent earthworks that were a commercial center for the region. If the Congress does not provide waiver authority and funding for the World Heritage Program, then we hurt Poverty Point’s chances of being designated a World Heritage 

site. This would have significant economic impacts on my State. And by the way, 

there are 13 other States that are in the same situation. 

—I see that the administration once again seeks waiver authority for funding this 

and other UN entities. Given the critical U.S. interests in providing waiver authority and funding to the World Heritage program, given that this Committee 

already voted to provide that funding, and given that the Israeli Government, 

who should be most concerned about this issue, supports a narrow waiver for 

World Heritage funds, what is the administration able to do to show how critical this waiver is? 

—What can you do to educate Members of Congress on the critical economic impact for 14 States that are at stake if World Heritage funding is denied once 

again for no good reason? 

Answer. As a founding member and the driving force behind the World Heritage 

Convention of 1972, the United States remains committed to advancing the Convention’s ideals to preserve our world’s outstanding cultural and natural heritage. 

Partnering with our colleagues in the U.S. Department of Interior, the State Department strongly advocates for promoting and preserving our twenty-one inscribed U.S. 

World Heritage sites, and works diligently to advance vital U.S. economic and cultural interests by guiding the nomination process for inscribing new U.S. sites. 
41 

As you mention, the World Heritage Committee will consider the inscription of 

Poverty Point State Historic Site in Louisiana during its 38th Meeting this June in 

Doha, Qatar. We will enthusiastically champion this nomination in Doha, and will 

send a delegation of U.S. cultural heritage policy and technical experts to support 

the inscription efforts on behalf of Poverty Point. We believe the administration’s 

unwavering commitment to full engagement at UNESCO and our respected leadership on World Heritage issues will reinforce the compelling case for inscription of 

Poverty Point in 2014, and for the San Antonio Franciscan Missions nomination to 

be considered by the World Heritage Committee in 2015. 

As you rightly point out, designation as a World Heritage site can be a significant 

driver of international recognition, tourism, community pride, economic development, and long-term conservation planning and resources. For all these reasons, 

funding for the World Heritage program is, and will remain, an important priority 

for the United States. 

Withholding our assessed contributions to UNESCO led to the loss of our vote in 

UNESCO’s General Conference in 2013. More generally, withholding our support to 

UNESCO hampers our ability to advance U.S. interests in World Heritage, to sustain Holocaust education as a means to combat anti-Semitism and prevent future 

atrocities, and to promote freedom of expression, including for the press, and safety 

for journalists globally. This administration seeks a national interest waiver to 

allow the discretion necessary to continue to provide contributions that enable us 

to maintain our vote and influence within the UN and UN specialized agencies, including UNESCO. Through the waiver, the administration aims to empower the 

United States to determine how and when we engage in multilateral organizations, 

and to advance the interests of the United States and its closest partners across the 

full spectrum of policy goals. 

Experts from the State Department are available to brief you and other Members 

of Congress in more detail on our important work at UNESCO and on the World 

Heritage program should you have more questions. I appreciate your ongoing efforts 

to highlight the importance of U.S. leadership at UNESCO and to advance our national interests through World Heritage recognition of U.S. sites with outstanding 

universal value for all of human kind. 

Question. The PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act, a bill which reauthorizes 

the 10 percent set aside for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) in the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), became law last December. This 

OVC money represents a huge part of the international investment—about $350 

million per year—for orphans and vulnerable children, and supports efforts to keep 

these children in school, reduce barriers to healthcare and nutrition, and improve 

protection from abuse and neglect. However, after extensive conversations with 

PEPFAR staff at the Department of State, I was shocked to learn that none of this 

$350 million in OVC funds is spent on programs that provide alternative family care 

for those children who are unable to remain with their biological family. Simply put, 

the largest U.S. Government-funded programming for double orphans does nothing 

to help these children to no longer be orphans! In fact, the number of worldwide 

orphans is increasing. When PEPFAR was first passed in 2003, there were an estimated 15 million children orphaned by AIDS. Today there are 17 million. I originally intended to file an amendment to S.1545 that would have fixed this ironic inadequacy with the OVC program, but out of deference to Chairman Menendez and 

Ranking Member Corker and in consideration of the overall goals of PEPFAR, I set 

aside my amendment and gave consent for the bill to move for final passage. I’d 

like to take the opportunity here to ask for your input on how Congress might work 

together with the State Department to improve the OVC Set Aside. 

—Are you aware that the OVC set aside in PEPFAR does not focus on finding 

permanent families for children, other than family preservation efforts? 

—What can be done to ensure that programs funded under PEPFAR for orphans 

and vulnerable children through the 10 percent Set-Aside give priority to children who are living outside of family care and are aimed at finding permanent 

placements for children through family reunification and kinship, domestic or 

international adoption? 

Answer. PEPFAR is strongly focused on both finding families for children and on 

maintaining children in permanent families. 

WHY PEPFAR FOCUSES ON FAMILY PRESERVATION

As stated in the Action Plan for Children in Adversity, a whole-of-government 

strategic guidance on international assistance for children, efforts for Objective 2: 

Putting Family Care First ‘‘should primarily be directed to enabling the child to remain in or return to the care of his/her parents or, when appropriate, other close 
42 

family members. Strengthening families is a first priority.’’ (p.9) Stable, caring families and communities and strong child welfare systems are the best defenses against 

the effects of HIV/AIDS in the lives of children. 

While the majority of children affected by AIDS are not outside of families or 

‘‘parentless,’’ this does not mean that very large numbers are not vulnerable as a 

result of AIDS. 

The most effective approach to addressing the extreme vulnerability that children 

face in the epidemic is to ensure that the parents and caregivers who are left and 

are caring for children stay strong and healthy and have the resources and skills 

to keep the children in their care safe and thriving. 

HOW PEPFAR PUTS FAMILY CARE FIRST

PEPFAR Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) programs work to put family 

care first by engaging in activities aimed at preventing separation and keeping children in families, and where necessary, reintegrating children into family care. These 

are all core principles of APCA Objective 2. 

Moreover, PEPFAR invests in evidence-based programming that dramatically increases a vulnerable family’s ability to care for children. Household economic 

strengthening prevents the separation of children from families due to the economic 

burden of HIV. PEPFAR OVC programs have supported 10,000 savings groups in 

15 countries. As a result, approximately 1,000,000 children affected by AIDS are living in families with improved economic stability. Such programs are enhanced by 

PEPFAR OVC programs that link parents to social protection efforts such as cash 

transfers, further increasing their ability to provide for children in their care. 

PEPFAR SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF FAMILY CARE

While family preservation remains at the core of PEPFAR’s work, these efforts are 

intertwined with ensuring children outside of family care (COFC) are also supported 

as a priority within PEPFAR OVC programs. 

For example, in South Africa, PEPFAR, in partnership with the government has 

supported legislation and policies that encourage permanent family placement and 

in-country adoption specifically. The results of these efforts include a revised National Adoption Policy, which is enhanced by PEPFAR supported adoption education 

and an ‘‘Adopt RSA Kids’’ Web site, as well an updated National Action & Monitoring Plan for Children infected and affected by HIV and AIDS. In Mozambique, 

PEPFAR is supporting the placement of at least 6,000 vulnerable children deprived 

of parental care into families. These efforts will be supported by the development 

of a simplified guardianship information system to regulate placement of children 

and to ensure that a safe and monitored care placement. 

In addition, in Tanzania, an assessment of children living on the street and children within key and other vulnerable populations (e.g. sex workers and trafficked 

children) is planned for early 2015. Following on this assessment, implementing 

non-governmental organization (NGO) partners will strengthen linkages to health, 

temporary shelter, family placement/reintegration and other services for children 

living on the street or without reliable shelter and adult care. In Uganda and Ethiopia the PEPFAR supported organization Retrak works with street children by helping them to return to family (or find new families), and by ensuring those families 

have the follow up support (parental skills, economic opportunities) to ensure children can stay there. 

On a global level PEPFAR supports the development and dissemination of guidance and tools to build capacity in permanency solutions. For example, PEPFAR financially supported USAID’s Center for Excellence on Children in Adversity in the 

development of a methodology for surveillance of children living outside of family 

care and contributed to the Evidence Summit on Children Outside of Family Care. 

PEPFAR is also a long-term supporter of the Better Care Network which disseminates state of the art evidence, tools and technical assistance aimed at promoting 

permanency solutions for children globally. 

CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS STRENGTHENING

The best and most sustainable way to support children outside of family care is 

to support the child welfare systems that can ensure they are safe and placed in 

permanent family care. As stated in the APCA under Objective 4: ‘‘Effective and 

well-functioning child welfare and protection systems are vital to a nation’s social 

and economic progress,... Protection services prevent and respond to child abuse, 

both within and outside the home, and... provide appropriate care for children 

separated from their families of origin.’’ 
43 

Strengthening child welfare and protection systems is a central focus of PEPFAR’s 

OVC programming, and PEPFAR has spearheaded such efforts globally. PEPFAR 

works with governments to promote robust child welfare systems strengthening, and 

enhanced social welfare workforce capacity to prevent and respond to child abuse. 

PEPFAR partners work together to deliver high-quality child welfare and protection 

services that reduce vulnerability, ensure access to essential services—including 

those for health and HIV—prevent and respond to violence against children, and 

preserve family structures in AIDS-affected communities. Important improvements 

in child welfare systems are underway in many countries, including social protection 

through child grants, deinstitutionalization, and foster care. Addressing these needs 

requires strong child welfare systems and intentional workforce strengthening that 

facilitates access to services across sectors for vulnerable children in and outside of 

families. 

Question. The scale of the Syria crisis continues to increase exponentially. Nine 

million Syrians, approaching half of the country’s pre-war population, have fled 

their homes. Six and one-half million people are internally displaced and nearly 2.5 

million have sought refuge in neighboring countries. The suffering of Syrian civilians is alarming and overwhelming, with women and children disproportionately 

vulnerable to the violence and the effects of the war. Before the conflict, Syria was 

a middle-income country with low child mortality rates. Now, deadly diseases such 

as measles and meningitis are on the rise and vaccine programs in Syria have collapsed. Even polio, eradicated in Syria almost 20 years ago, is now being carried 

by up to 80,000 children across the country—a figure so high that medical experts 

have raised concerns about a potential international spread of the virus. Despite the 

continued expansion of humanitarian need, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget 

proposal requests $1.6 billion less in funding for the International Disaster Assistance and Migration and Refugee Assistance accounts than Congress provided in the 

fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill. 

—How can the administration’s proposed budget ensure that the U.S. continues 

to provide its fair share of contributions to respond to the Syria crisis in light 

of growing humanitarian needs? 

—What is the U.S. Government doing to provide immediate access to child-focused health services in Syria to ensure that these children do not only survive 

preventable and treatable illnesses, but are also thriving in the arms of a permanent caregiver? 

Answer. The U.S. Government is the single-largest donor of humanitarian assistance for those affected by the Syria crisis, providing more than $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid since the start of the crisis—nearly $878 million to support those 

inside Syria, and nearly $862 million to support refugees fleeing from Syria and 

host communities in neighboring countries. Support inside Syria goes through trusted international and non-governmental organizations. 

In the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Congress generously provided $2.2 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for humanitarian programs. This funding is critical to address growing humanitarian needs 

worldwide, including the Syria crisis, where the combined UN humanitarian appeal 

for Syria has nearly doubled over the last year and represents approximately half 

of the 2014 total worldwide humanitarian need of $12.9 billion. Given the significant ongoing humanitarian needs inside Syria and across the region, the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development plan to 

carry over funding from fiscal year 2014 into fiscal year 2015 to help address the 

substantial needs of the projected 11 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in 

Syria, 5 million refugees from Syria in the region, about half of whom are children 

under 18 years of age, and communities in refugee-hosting countries that are enduring strains on basic infrastructure and health and educational systems. 

U.S. health assistance inside Syria has provided training for Syrian medical workers, direct healthcare services, supplies for hospitals and clinics and support for 

polio vaccination campaigns. The United States is supporting 298 hospitals, health 

clinics, and mobile medical units across Syria, which have treated more than 1.9 

million Syrian patients and performed nearly 265,000 surgeries. These patients include innocent children caught in the crossfire as well as basic primary healthcare 

and services for those who become ill. The United States is also supporting the 

childhood vaccination efforts led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and 

UNICEF, who are working to vaccinate 22 million children across the region. The 

WHO and UNICEF have consistently reached over 2.5 million children in each of 

the last four vaccination campaigns inside Syria. Additionally, the United States 

supports disease surveillance and vaccination campaigns as part of its emergency 

primary healthcare programs throughout Syria. U.S. funding to the Office of the 
44 

High Commissioner for Refugees inside Syria has supported UNHCR’s efforts to 

provide $4.6 million worth of medicine to hospitals across Syria. 

In addition, U.S. funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been critical to ensuring continued 

care for the more than 540,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, about one-third of 

whom are children and over half of whom are displaced. Although only 14 of 

UNRWA’s 23 health centers remain operational due to ongoing conflict and access 

constraints, UNRWA has deployed nine mobile health points to reach Palestinians 

refugees in areas of displacement inside Syria. 

In addition to healthcare, the U.S. Government is helping children, mothers, fathers, and caretakers cope with psychosocial stress. We are also helping to provide 

appropriate protective care for their children and training community members in 

basic social work and case management skills so they may identify children at risk 

and connect them to available support. UNRWA is making efforts to address the 

needs of the more than 67,000 children enrolled in its schools by increasing the 

number of psychosocial counselors working across its network of schools and providing additional support to out-of-school children. 

U.S. support to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) helps improve the supply of potable water and sanitation inside Syria, benefiting and protecting vulnerable children. In 2013, 20 million people in Syria benefited from 

ICRC’s improvements to water and sanitation facilities, ten million people—in all 

14 governorates—benefited from emergency repairs to water system damaged by 

fighting, 3.1 million people benefited from a waste and pesticides program in Aleppo 

and Idlib governorates, and 810,000 benefited from water delivered by truck. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

Question. Since 1979, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill has prohibited 

the use of funds to provide abortion services for Peace Corps volunteers and trainees, without exception. Under this rider, official policy requires that volunteers pay 

out of pocket for abortion care even in cases of rape, incest, and where a woman’s 

life would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term. This is at odds with 

all other Federal employees who do receive coverage for these exceptions, and I have 

long supported healthcare parity for the women volunteers who are carrying out our 

diplomatic and humanitarian interests overseas. I appreciate that in the fiscal year 

2015 budget, the administration has allowed for the healthcare parity for Peace 

Corps volunteers, and has allowed for abortion coverage for volunteers in cases of 

rape, incest, and life endangerment. Can you comment on the importance of providing this health equity to our volunteers? 

Answer. The Department of State defers to the Peace Corps on this matter as it 

is not within the State Department’s purview. 

Question. At least 222 million women in the developing world would like to prevent or delay pregnancy but lack access to safe, effective contraception, and each 

year an estimated 287,000 women still die from pregnancy related causes. Can you 

talk about where you see opportunities for U.S. leadership to continue to make 

progress on expanding access to family planning and reproductive health information and services? 

Answer. With the help of Congress, the United States continues to be the world’s 

largest bilateral donor for international family planning. This furthers demonstrates 

the U.S. Government’s firm commitment to helping men and women across the 

globe meet their reproductive health needs. Enabling an individual or couple to decide whether, when, and how often to have children is vital to safe motherhood, 

healthy families, and prosperous communities. Family planning can reduce the economic burden on poor families and allow women more time to work outside the 

home, which leads to increased family income. These economic benefits of family 

planning contribute directly to the U.S. Government goal of ending extreme poverty 

in two decades. Research clearly shows that voluntary family planning programs not 

only improve health, reduce poverty, and empower women, but also save lives. 

When women bear children too early, too late, or too close together, there are negative impacts on their health and their children’s health. USAID-supported research 

shows that family planning could prevent up to 30 percent of the estimated 287,000 

maternal deaths that occur every year, by enabling women to delay their first pregnancy and space later pregnancies at the safest intervals. And if all babies were 

born 3 years apart, the lives of 1.6 million children under the age of 5 would be 

saved each year. 

The U.S. Government will continue to show leadership on this issue in multilateral fora such as the UN Commission on Population and Development, the UN Com-
45 

mission on the Status of Women, and the UN Human Rights Council. We persistently make the argument at these venues and elsewhere that reproductive health 

services, especially voluntary family planning, are essential to promote sustainable 

economic development, advance gender equality, and contribute to the U.S. Government’s goals of Ending Preventable Child and Maternal Deaths and Creating an 

AIDS-free Generation. 

Through USAID, the U.S. Government advances and supports voluntary family 

planning and reproductive health programs in more than 45 countries around the 

globe. As a core partner in the Family Planning 2020 Initiative, USAID is committed to working with the global community to reach an additional 120 million 

women and girls with family planning information, commodities, and services by 

2020. These services empower individuals to choose the timing and spacing of their 

pregnancies, bear children during their healthiest years, prevent unintended pregnancies, and nurture healthier families and communities. 

Additionally, the U.S. Government actively supports the UN Population Fund 

(UNFPA), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and many other development and humanitarian organizations to respond to the challenges of providing 

access to reproductive health services in crisis settings. This includes training staff, 

offering community education, establishing client follow-up, providing a variety of 

family planning methods, and maintaining a contraceptive supply chain system. Access to these life-saving interventions is linked to recovery from humanitarian and 

post-conflict situations, not just for women and girls, but also for their communities. 

Furthermore, as we focus on the ongoing 20 year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action, as well as the 

upcoming 20 year review of the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action 

and the review of the Millennium Development Goals in 2015, the U.S. Government 

will continue to work toward advancing these goals. Improving the health and wellbeing of all individuals, especially women and children, promotes political and economic stability and social and economic progress. We will seek every opportunity to 

promote the participation of all stakeholders as we discuss the appropriate inclusion 

of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, including family planning, in the Post-2015 Development Agenda and into our development and poverty 

reduction plans and policies. 

Question. Internet freedom is under assault around the globe. In Russia, the government has blocked tens of thousands of dissident Web sites. In Ukraine, sites 

have been attacked. In Iran, 16 Internet activists were arrested in December, and 

online blogs and news outlets are frequently subject to closure. In China, bloggers 

remain extremely concerned by a recent government crackdown on Internet discourse. We are also witnessing challenges to Internet freedom emerging in countries 

as wide-ranging as Pakistan, Vietnam and Turkey. 

Are you concerned about the state of Internet freedom worldwide and what do you 

believe the State Department and the U.S. Government can do to more effectively 

promote an open Internet? 

Answer. We are very concerned about the state of Internet freedom worldwide, 

and are committed to promoting the human rights of freedom of expression, peaceful 

assembly and association just as we do offline. As President Obama said, ‘‘We will 

fight hard to make sure that the Internet remains the open forum for everybody— 

from those who are expressing an idea to those who want to start a business.’’ 

The State Department seeks to promote, protect, and advance Internet freedom 

through bilateral and multilateral engagement, foreign assistance programming, 

and partnerships with civil society and the private sector. 

Bilaterally, we raise Internet freedom regularly in human rights and economic 

discussions with a wide range of countries, from China and Vietnam, to Turkey. We 

also work to advance human rights online through multilateral coordination efforts, 

such as the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), a group of 22 governments spanning 

Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East, that is committed to collaborating with each other, as well as with civil society and the private sector, to 

advance Internet freedom. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded governments we empower them to be regional leaders on Internet freedom. 

We look forward to the April 28–29 Freedom Online Coalition conference in Estonia, where we will continue to work with partners to advance a free and secure 

Internet, to ensure that the same rights that people have offline are also protected 

online, and that protection of these rights is governed by rule of law. We also work 

through the Internet Governance Forum, UN processes, and other working groups 

to preserve the multi-stakeholder character of the Internet. 

Programming is a vital tool to protect people and organizations at risk, provide 

capacity to safely communicate, push for reform of repressive policies, and improve 

technologies. With the support of Congress, we have issued grants to increase open 
46 

access to the Internet for people in closed societies, support digital activists, counter 

censorship and repression, create and leverage technological innovations, and provide training, research, and advocacy. 

Our embassies advocate on behalf of imprisoned and arrested online activists. We 

engage daily with the civil society actors who shape the future of the Internet in 

their countries. 

We keep a consistent dialogue with the private sector on issues of Internet freedom. We are encouraged by corporations that make meaningful and principled commitments to respect human rights, including through initiatives such as the Global 

Network Initiative (GNI). This is a multi-stakeholder group that brings together IT 

companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics to help corporations 

develop effective, practical responses to human rights challenges that arise while 

interacting with governments around the world. 

In sum, Internet freedom is a major policy priority, and we look forward to working with subcommittee members to advance Internet freedom worldwide. 

Question. As you know, Saturday, March 8 was International Women’s Day. In 

its honor, I introduced a resolution to the Senate recognizing that the empowerment 

of women is inextricably linked to the potential of countries to generate economic 

growth, sustainable democracy, and inclusive security, and honoring the women in 

the United States and around the world who have worked throughout history to ensure that women are guaranteed equality and basic human rights. We have made 

a lot of progress, but there is clearly still work to further the health, rights and empowerment of women worldwide. Women lag far behind men in access to land, credit 

and decent jobs, even though a growing body of research shows that enhancing 

women’s economic options boosts national economies. How can the role of women 

in the global economy be elevated and sustained, and how can we ensure the U.S. 

remains a leader on women’s economic empowerment issues? 

Answer. The Department of State has made economic empowerment a centerpiece 

of American foreign policy, and recognizes the central role of women’s economic participation. As I said last year, ‘‘The United States believes gender equality is critical 

to our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and [that is] why investing 

in women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy.’’ In order 

to achieve these goals, we need to encourage, and harness the untapped talent and 

productivity of women across the globe. These efforts also highlight the role of the 

U.S. as a leader on women’s economic empowerment issues globally. 

The Department is committed to elevating the role of women in the global economy through comprehensive efforts across regional and functional bureaus at the 

Department, and at posts worldwide. The Department’s efforts are structured to 

build upon our significant progress in integrating the importance of women’s economic empowerment into our foreign policy agenda. We do this by analyzing the 

areas where women face additional barriers to economic participation and empowerment, and addressing them. These efforts to both identify gaps and create mechanisms to address those gaps are focused in four areas: (1) access to markets; (2) access to capital/assets; (3) access to skills, capacity building and health; and (4) women’s leadership, voice and agency. 

The Department works in numerous ways to advance the economic status of 

women, and the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) leads and coordinates these efforts across the Department. One key focus is to support and 

strengthen women’s entrepreneurship initiatives and networks. The United States 

has created and expanded regional programs to provide women business owners, entrepreneurs, and leaders with training, skills, networks, and other resources needed 

to expand their businesses and increase potential. There are several efforts across 

the globe, including for example, the Africa Women’s Entrepreneurship Program 

(AWEP) and Women’s Entrepreneurship in the Americas (WEAmericas). 

A second is to integrate women’s economic participation into major regional and 

international economic fora, including the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Association of South East Asian Nations, Lower Mekong Initiative, Broader Middle East 

and Northern Africa Initiative, the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Summit of the 

Americas, the Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas Initiative, Regional Economic 

Cooperation Conference for Afghanistan (RECCA), the G–20 and the Equal Futures 

Partnership. Economic, trade, and finance ministers have reacted favorably and 

have continued to express interest in engaging on this topic. These meetings recognize the barriers women face in fully contributing to the economy and encourage 

governments and the private sector to implement policies and reforms, collect better 

data, and share best practices that will enable women to play a more active role 

in the economic sphere. 
47 

Lastly, the Department utilizes public private partnerships to address barriers to 

women’s economic participation. Current and past partnerships include partnerships 

with the private sector, universities, and international institutions. These partnerships have focused on support for specific initiatives, research, and data collection 

and analysis. 

Question. In your testimony, you mentioned the role the State Department is already playing on economic diplomacy and creating opportunities for American business overseas. I know Secretary Clinton focused on business advocacy abroad as 

well. I’ve heard first hand from businesses in my home State of New Hampshire 

the important role the State Department can play for our businesses abroad in advocating for their interests. Do you believe this budget provides you the resources 

necessary to make U.S. business advocacy a priority overseas? 

Answer. The Department of State works to advance the interests of the United 

States overseas, including our economic interests. By supporting U.S. businesses 

overseas—from knocking down trade barriers and protecting intellectual property 

rights to direct advocacy for specific U.S. firms seeking contracts with foreign governments—we expand our influence while creating jobs here at home. Business advocacy is already a priority for the Department, both in Washington and at our 

overseas posts. In fiscal year 2013 the Department recorded 971 ‘‘success stories,’’ 

defined as an export deal achieved, dispute resolved, or foreign policy changed 

through Department advocacy. Additional resources would, of course, allow us to do 

more and to generate more wins for American businesses. However, recognizing the 

current austere budget environment we face, we will continue to work with business 

and with our partner agencies, including the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, to generate the biggest return possible for the dollars we invest in supporting U.S. business overseas. 

Question. As you are aware, last year the State Department faced a growing backlog of immigration visa applications from Afghans who, at tremendous risk to their 

own lives and to the lives of their family members, assisted the United States and 

NATO as translators in Afghanistan. What is the status of the implementation of 

the new Iraqi and Afghan SIV procedures and provisions under the 2014 NDAA, 

and has the backlog been sufficiently addressed? 

Answer. The State Department and the other U.S. Government departments and 

agencies involved in the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) process have the highest respect for the men and women who have taken enormous risks while helping our 

military and civilian personnel. We are committed to helping those who—at great 

personal risk—have helped us. Over the past year, we improved processing times, 

expanded outreach to current and former employees who may be eligible, and issued 

more SIVs in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) than in any previous year. 

In the first half of fiscal year 2014, we have issued more SIVs to Afghans and 

their dependents than in all of fiscal year 2013 and have more than doubled the 

total number of Afghan principal applicants issued in fiscal year 2013 (651). In fiscal year 2014, through April 8, we have issued 3,617 SIVs to Afghans and their dependents; 1,320 SIVs of which were issued to Afghan principal applicants. All approvable Iraqi principal applicants were issued prior to the program’s temporary 

end on September 30, 2013. In fiscal year 2014, as of April 8, we have issued an 

additional 912 SIVs to Iraqis and their dependents, with 218 of these SIVs to Iraqi 

principal applicants. The relatively low number of issuances to date in fiscal year 

2014 for Iraqis reflects the success of the surge at the end of fiscal year 2013. 

We have done this while maintaining the highest standards of security for the 

SIV program. We have a responsibility to the American people to ensure all those 

who enter the United States, including SIV recipients, do not pose a threat. 

Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) fiscal 

year 2014 have allowed us to streamline some SIV procedures. Under this legislation, a credible sworn statement depicting dangerous country conditions, together 

with official evidence of such country conditions from the U.S. Government, should 

be considered in determining whether an applicant has experienced or is experiencing an ongoing serious threat; therefore, the Embassy Kabul COM Committee no 

longer assesses the serious threat qualifier for each individual SIV applicant. Instead, the SIV Unit Manager, designated as Embassy Kabul’s SIV Coordinator, now 

has authority to grant COM approval on SIV applications that clearly meet the legal 

requirements. As of March, the Embassy Kabul COM Committee reviews only those 

cases recommended for denial. 

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) employees who worked for NATO 

countries do not qualify for the SIV programs under section 1244 of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2008, as amended, and section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended. Among the requirements to qualify for these programs 

is that the applicant must have ‘‘provided faithful and valuable service to the 
48 

United States Government’’ while ‘‘employed by or on behalf of the United States 

Government.’’ ISAF employees may qualify for the SIV program under section 1059 

of the NDAA fiscal year 2006. This program’s criteria includes ‘‘having worked directly with United States Armed Forces, or under Chief of Mission authority, as a 

translator or interpreter for a period of at least 12 months’’ and, if the work was 

with a U.S. Armed Forces unit, having ‘‘supported’’ that unit. As such, an ISAF employee who can establish 1 year of qualifying work which was directly with and supporting a U.S. Armed Forces unit as a translator or interpreter could qualify under 

the section 1059 SIV program. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Question. What actions has the administration taken to secure the release of Pastor Saeed Abedini? 

Answer. The U.S. Government is dedicated to the return of U.S.-Iranian dual national Saeed Abedini. The President, the Secretary, and U/S Sherman have raised 

Mr. Abedini’s case directly with the Iranian Government. We have made clear that 

we are calling on Iran to release Mr. Abedini so he can be reunited with his family. 

At our request, the Swiss Government, in its role as our protecting power, has also 

continued to raise Mr. Abedini’s case on our behalf, as have other countries that we 

have asked to press Iran to cooperate on these cases. 

The United States has publicly called for Mr. Abedini’s release at the UN Human 

Rights Council, and has played a leading role in lobbying the UN Human Rights 

Council to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for human rights in Iran, 

a useful mechanism for addressing in international fora our human rights concerns 

with Iran, including violations of religious freedom. We will continue to pursue all 

available options until he returns home safely. 

Question. Do you have an update on [Saeed Abedini’s] health and status? 

Answer. According to media reports, Saeed Abedini was transferred to Dey Hospital on March 3, 2014, and his father has been permitted to visit him in the hospital. The Department of State remains in close contact with his family regarding 

his status, but due to Privacy Act considerations we cannot share any additional information. 

Question. What is the status of the non-governmental organization (NGO) trial in 

Cairo that has politically ensnared the International Republican Institute and the 

National Democratic Institute, among other organizations? Do you have any confidence that the Egyptian Government will resolve this issue prior to the holding 

of presidential elections? 

Answer. We continue to press the Egyptian Government at high levels for redress 

of the NGO trial verdict, including pardons for all Egyptian and international staff. 

We understand that Egypt has not pursued Interpol measures since the convictions 

in June 2013 (notices or extradition requests), and they have assured us they would 

not. Our understanding is that a general amnesty would require legislation; currently, Egypt has no parliament and will not have one until after the parliamentary 

elections tentatively scheduled for this fall. We will continue to raise the issue at 

high levels with the interim government and with future elected governments. 

Question. Can you provide assurances to the Subcommittee that proposed framework for rebidding the State Department’s Global Aviation Services Contract in 

multiple components will maintain the high standards of safety and efficiency of the 

current contract? 

Does the State Department estimate that higher costs are associated with rebidding the contract in multiple components? 

Answer. When the aviation support contract was last competed in 2004/2005, the 

Department solicited industry input. Firms expressed an interest in the Department 

breaking up its aviation requirements and being able to bid on separate functions. 

However, the Department did not have time then to consider such a division. 

Over a year ago, in January 2013, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs (INL) sponsored an Industry Best Practice and Vendor Identification Conference to identify potential business sources with the resources, capabilities, and experience to successfully deliver requisite services to sustain the Department’s Aviation Fleet. 

Market research continued that spring, and all told over 200 companies participated, with 140 firms meeting with Department representatives. These firms ranged 

from Fortune 100 companies to small businesses. The Department’s research also 

evaluated whether any of the needed services could be provided by small businesses, 

including HubZone, Service Disabled Veterans, and Woman-owned small businesses. 
49 

This market research enabled the INL program staff to identify more clearly 

which functions could be broken out for small business and which ones should be 

procured using unrestricted acquisition methods, including interoperability between 

all functional areas. 

This decision on how to divide the program areas into seven separate solicitations—four for small business set-aside and three for unrestricted competition—was 

made only after a thorough review of the extensive market research, and based on 

INL’s more than 20 years of professional expertise on the feasibility of the successful performance of this INL mission using the combinations of breakout and unrestricted awards that they had identified. 

In developing this acquisition plan, the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the 

aviation program have been paramount considerations. We are aware of the importance of this program and its impact on the safety and wellbeing of not only State 

Department personnel, but all those who rely upon us for air transportation. Our 

acquisition process is designed to ensure that we continue to provide aviation services at the same high level of safety and professionalism we have always maintained. 

We believe that the approach we are taking has the potential to save the U.S. 

Government money due to increased competition and reduced sub-contractor overhead charges. However, it is not possible to accurately predict the cost of the future 

contract arrangement compared to historical costs since this entails new solicitations that differ in terms of contract requirements, and we do not know what industry’s final cost proposals will be. We believe that this approach will increase competition and will also allow us to modernize our operations. We identified modern 

industry practices and the most cost effective methods of providing our requirements in each functional area. 

Overall, we believe that we have considered the risks and benefits of our contracting approach for this recompete, and that our contracting plan will provide 

needed aviation services safely and efficiently. 

Question. What is the status of Dr. Shakeel Afridi, and is his release a talking 

point in bilateral relations? 

Answer. Dr. Afridi was convicted of aiding the banned militant group Lashkare-Islam in May 2012, though his role in trying to locate Osama bin Laden is believed to be the reason he remains in jail. He is currently in prison in Peshawar, 

Pakistan. In March 2013, his sentence was reduced from 33 years to 22 years. The 

Department believes Dr. Afridi’s treatment is both unjust and unwarranted. Senior 

U.S. officials regularly and consistently raise his case with senior officials in Pakistan’s Government, encouraging them to resolve his case and free him, given that 

bringing Osama bin Laden to justice was clearly in the interests of both the United 

States and Pakistan. 

Question. Bolstering the Baltic Air Policing Mission was an important step to reassure Russia’s NATO neighbors that the United States takes their security concerns seriously. What additional steps can we take to provide security guarantees 

to Russia’s neighbors both NATO and non-NATO, including Georgia and Moldova? 

Answer. The United States and NATO have already taken a number of steps to 

reassure NATO Allies and partners in light of the Ukraine crisis. In addition to the 

augmentation of NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission, these actions have included expanded U.S. air exercises coordinated by the U.S. Aviation Detachment in Poland, 

maritime training in the Black Sea among the U.S. and Black Sea Allies Romania 

and Bulgaria, and the deployment of NATO AWACS over Poland and Romania to 

monitor Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian air space. NATO’s Supreme Allied Command Europe will be presenting a further package of air, land and sea reassurance 

measures in the coming weeks, and we expect Allies to fully contribute to this mission. 

In addition, at the April NATO Foreign Ministerial, Foreign Ministers agreed to 

increase practical cooperation with three of NATO’s Eastern Partners: Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. All three asked for increased engagement with NATO during recent high-level meetings. 

The United States has worked in particular to improve Moldova’s border security 

by expanding a Defense Threat Reduction Agency program. Under the program, the 

United States will give an additional $10 million this year for equipment and training to Moldova’s Border Police and Customs Service. The equipment will improve 

the overall capacity of Moldova’s border guards and help protect against the smuggling of illicit nuclear/radiological materials. The United States has also launched 

a Strategic Dialogue with Moldova to enhance the security dialogue between our 

countries. 

NATO also works with Georgia in its efforts to build strong, modern, and capable 

armed forces. Years of participation in NATO operations have made the Georgian 
50 

forces tough, skilled, and largely interoperable with Allied forces. NATO is committed to a continued program of close cooperation with Georgia via the NATOGeorgia Commission (NGC) and the activities laid out in its Annual National Program. The United States offers bilateral security assistance and military engagement with Georgia to support its defense reforms, train and equip Georgian troops 

for participation in ISAF operations, and advance Georgia’s NATO interoperability. 

Since the agreement between our two presidents in January 2012 to take steps to 

advance Georgian military modernization, reform, and self-defense capabilities, the 

U.S. European Command has been working closely with Georgia’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces to implement these new areas of cooperation. We are continuing to review implementation of this enhanced defense cooperation and identify 

opportunities to advance our strong security partnership. 

Question. What are the Department of State’s long-term plans for operations out 

of Gaziantep, Turkey? 

Answer. As you know, the Syria Transition Assistance Response Team (START) 

is an interagency team comprised of offices and bureaus from State and USAID responsible for planning and delivery of non-lethal and humanitarian assistance. It 

works with international organizations, NGOs, the Government of Turkey, and the 

Syrian opposition in order to ensure an effective and efficient response to Syria’s 

needs. START works from our Consulates in Adana and Istanbul and our Embassy 

in Ankara. 

With regard to START members’ presence in Gaziantep, we constantly reassess 

plans based on developments on the ground. Currently, the planned U.S. presence 

in Gaziantep is intended to be limited and geographically close to Syria in order to 

facilitate coordination and delivery of assistance to the Syrian opposition and Syrian 

people. 

Question. What are the priorities of the State Department on foreign assistance 

to the Great Lakes Region? 

Answer. Our foreign priorities for the Great Lakes region are focused on resolving 

the root causes of conflict and instability which means focusing first and foremost 

on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Our DRC priorities include consolidating peace and security in the country’s east, improving governance through credible elections, and professionalizing and training Congo’s security forces to protect 

its territory and citizens. 

The late 2013 defeat of the M23 rebel group in North Kivu and gains made 

against other rebel forces in eastern Congo in early 2014 provide an unforeseen opportunity for achieving sustainable stability in the DRC. The next 1-to-3 years could 

be decisive. The DRC is gearing up for local elections, its first since independence 

in 1960, and provincial and national elections before the end of 2016. Following the 

seriously flawed 2011 election, it is imperative that these next elections are peaceful 

and credible, and further the democratization of the country. Achieving this goal 

will require substantial donor assistance, including in the early stages of election 

planning. 

Another foreign assistance priority in the region is Burundi, where we are increasingly concerned about shrinking political space and the potential for political 

violence. USAID and the Department have identified an additional $7.52 million in 

immediate resources intended to support free and fair elections in Burundi scheduled for May 2015. 

Question. What actions are the State Department, USAID, or other U.S. agencies 

taking to assist the DRC in conducting successful elections? Is there adequate funding in the fiscal year 2015 budget request for this purpose? 

Answer. The DRC Government currently estimates the cost of 2014–16 elections 

at more than $950 million, with $388 million needed for local elections next year. 

The DRC electoral commission hopes the government will provide 80 percent of 

funds needed to support elections, with the remaining 20 percent coming from donors. USAID has set aside $700,000 in fiscal year 2013 funds to support elections 

programming. Allocations for fiscal year 2014 resources are not yet finalized. We 

will continue to work with others in the international donor community to support 

DRC elections. 

The United States also played a key role in revising the mandate of the UN 

peacekeeping mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) to enable the mission to provide 

much-needed logistical support for elections. MONUSCO is the only entity in the 

country with the capacity to fly ballot boxes around and provide other heavy-lift 

types of support. MONUSCO’s mandate requires the DRC Government to adopt an 

electoral cycle roadmap and budget before the mission can provide support. 

Lastly, we are actively and continuously engaging the DRC Government on the 

need for inclusive, transparent elections according to the current constitution. 
51 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK KIRK

Question. Do you agree that other than by exercising the existing national security waiver authority provided in the statute, the President may not suspend, lift 

or override the requirement to impose sanctions under Section 1245 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (Public Law 122–78) without congressional legislative action to suspend, amend or repeal the statute? 

Answer. On January 20, 2014, the administration issued a set of waivers of certain sanctions pursuant to the Joint Plan of Action between the P5 + 1 and Iran. 

These included a waiver of section 1245(d)(5) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for fiscal year 2012 (NDAA). In accordance with the law, the Secretary determined that this waiver was in the national security interest of the United States 

with respect to China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and 

Turkey, and certified these jurisdictions faced exceptional circumstances preventing 

them from reducing significantly their purchases of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran. Subsequently, on March 10, 2014, the Secretary executed a waiver 

under NDAA section 1245(d)(5) for Oman. These actions enable the current purchasers of Iranian crude oil (China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and 

Taiwan) to maintain their current average purchase levels for the 6-month period 

of the Joint Plan of Action and facilitates the repatriation in installments of $4.2 

billion to Iran of funds held in restricted accounts overseas over the 6-month period. 

Question. Do you believe the final nuclear agreement with Iran should be considered a Treaty and be subject to ratification by the Senate—why or why not? 

Answer. As we are still in the process of negotiating a comprehensive solution to 

address concerns with Iran’s nuclear program, I can’t comment on the form any 

such solution will take. However, Congress has been an important partner in this 

process, and we will continue to seek Congress’ support as we pursue a comprehensive solution. 

Question. If an acceptable nuclear agreement with Iran was reached in Vienna, 

would Iran’s financial system, including the Central Bank of Iran, still be a concern 

for money laundering and terror finance? 

Answer. We have not reached a comprehensive solution with Iran. We cannot 

speculate, therefore, on what concerns we may or may not have with Iran in a hypothetical future scenario. We are committed to continuing to utilize our various authorities to enforce those sanctions that remain in place in furtherance of our policies on both Iran’s nuclear program, as well as a range of other illicit conduct, even 

during the Joint Plan of Action period. 

Question. Do you consider the current Government of Iran to be legitimate? 

Answer. We recognize the Government of Iran. This does not mean that we do 

not have concerns with the activities of the Iranian Government. For example, we 

remain concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, its sponsorship of terrorism, destabilizing regional activities, and violations of human rights. We have also maintained 

our concerns about the electoral process in Iran. Observers have noted that polling 

falls short of international standards for free and fair elections, including the reported intimidation of activists and journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the disqualification of a large number of candidates, including all female 

candidates, for elected office by the Guardian Council, which is an unelected and 

unaccountable body. That said, we congratulated the Iranian people last year for 

participating in the political process and demonstrating the courage to make their 

voices heard. The Iranian people were determined to act to shape their future. As 

a consequence, Iran’s president was overwhelmingly elected by the Iranian people. 

Question. April 24, 2014 marks the 99th commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, the campaign of mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians perpetrated by the 

Ottoman Empire from 1915–1923. There are now only a few known living survivors 

of the Armenian Genocide, including 107-year-old Helen Paloian of Chicago, who 

lost her parents and two of her brothers. 

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, will the U.S. 

finally honor the few surviving victims like Helen Paloian and officially recognize 

the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. The administration has commemorated the Meds Yaghem, and continues 

to acknowledge as a historical fact that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or 

marched to their deaths in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. The administration supports diplomatic efforts that support the President’s call for ‘‘a full, 

frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts.’’ We will continue to support the courageous steps taken by individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster a dialogue that 

acknowledges their shared history. 

Question. According to the 2013 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) report on Turkey: ‘‘[T]he Turkish Government still controls access 
52 

and use of various religious sites such as the Greek Orthodox Su ̈mela Orthodox 

Monastery in Trabzon, the 1,000-year-old Akdamar Armenian Orthodox church on 

Lake Van, and the Syriac Mor Petrus and Mor Paulus Church in the eastern province of Adiyaman.’’ There were also reports of vandalism and violence against Christians, such as attacks against three Christian churches over Easter Week in May 

2013. 

What efforts has the U.S. Government undertaken to urge Turkey to return the 

remaining Christian properties to their rightful owners? Has the State Department 

communicated their concern to Turkish authorities about attacks against Christians 

and their places of worship? 

Answer. We recognize religious minority groups continue to face challenges in 

Turkey. We are encouraged by concrete steps the Government of Turkey has taken 

over the past year to return properties to religious communities, including the return of the Mor Gabriel Monastery and 47 acres of property surrounding Halki Seminary. The State Department regularly engages at all levels with Turkish officials 

regarding the importance of religious freedom, including the reopening of Halki 

Seminary, legal reforms aimed at lifting restrictions on religious groups, property 

restitution, and specific cases of religious discrimination. Furthermore, we strongly 

condemn violence toward all religious minorities in the strongest terms, and urge 

Turkish authorities to fully pursue investigations and bring perpetrators to justice. 

We continue to encourage the Government of Turkey to follow through on the return 

of religious minority properties and to take additional steps to promote religious 

freedom, such as allowing more religious communities to own property, register 

their places of worship, and train their clergy. 

Question. On January 21, 2014, the Iraqi Cabinet of Ministers announced that it 

agreed to create three new provinces in Iraq, including in the Nineveh Plains, which 

is home to Iraq’s vulnerable Assyrian Christians minority. Since 2003, terrorists 

have disproportionately targeted the Christian community in Iraq. The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) estimates that ‘‘half or more 

of the pre-2003 Iraqi Christian community is believed to have left the country.’’ 

Does the U.S. Government officially support the creation of the Nineveh Plains 

Province? Has the USG offered assistance to the Iraqi Government to assist in the 

creation of the Nineveh Plains province? 

Answer. The safety and rights of the Christian communities in Iraq, including security concerns and protection of their lands, are issues of long-standing concern to 

the State Department. We have provided over $83 million in assistance to organizations working with minority communities since 2008 for a variety of efforts including community stabilization, conflict mitigation, and cultural preservation. 

After the preliminary decision of the Council of Ministers (COM) January 21 to 

convert the districts of Tuz, Fallujah, and the Ninewa Plains to provinces, it referred this matter to committee for further development. In order for this proposal 

to come into effect under Iraq’s constitutional framework, the COM must review and 

approve it in the final form of a draft law and then send the draft law to Iraq’s 

Council of Representatives for its review and approval. We are monitoring this proposal closely and view it as an internal Iraqi matter. 

Question. Has the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad designated a liaison for the Nineveh 

Plains that works with the Iraqi Government, Iraqi Christian community groups, 

and the U.S. Government? 

Answer. Ambassador Beecroft, Deputy Chief of Mission Desrocher, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State McGurk (who also serves as the Secretary’s Special Coordinator for Iraq’s Religious and Ethnic Minorities), and other staff meet regularly 

with representatives of all religious and ethnic minority groups, including Christians, to discuss their concerns and how the U.S. might be of greatest assistance 

to them. They then share those concerns with the highest levels of the Government 

of Iraq. Embassy Baghdad, Consulate General Erbil, and relevant State Department 

offices have staff dedicated to understanding and addressing the most pressing 

issues facing religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and the concerns of the Iraqi 

diaspora in the United States. 

Question. On February 17, 2014, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on 

human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DRPK) published its 

final report, which detailed horrific crimes including ‘‘extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape and sexual violence.’’ It notes that ‘‘the gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel.’’ Mr. Secretary, I traveled to North Korea as a congressional staffer in the late 

1990’s and these findings are not surprising to those of us who have been following 

this country closely. What is surprising is the level of detail the Commission was 

able to document, especially given how closed North Korea has been. 
53 

What is the next step you and our Mission at the UN will take to follow up on 

this report? How will you ensure that this won’t simply become another UN report 

that becomes buried on a shelf and no action is ever taken? Have you and Ambassador Power had conversations with our allies regarding taking action on this report? 

Answer. We remain deeply concerned about the deplorable human rights situation 

in the DPRK and the welfare of the North Korean people. We strongly support the 

Commission’s final report, including its calls for accountability for the perpetrators 

of the ongoing, widespread, and systematic violations of human rights taking place 

in North Korea. In March 2013, the United States co-sponsored, along with Japan, 

the European Union, and the Republic of Korea, the UN Human Rights Council 

(HRC) resolution that established the Commission. On March 28 this year, the 

United States was proud to co-sponsor the HRC resolution that passed overwhelmingly. In the resolution, the HRC condemned the DPRK’s human rights violations, 

renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in 

the DPRK, stressed the need for accountability for those responsible for human 

rights violations, and requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights to establish a field-based mechanism to strengthen monitoring and documentation as well as maintain visibility of the situation of human rights in the 

DPRK. 

We support the Human Rights Council recommendation that the UN General Assembly forward the Commission’s final report to the UN Security Council for its consideration. We continue to work closely with a broad range of partners in the international community to sustain attention to the deplorable human rights situation 

in North Korea and to seek ways to hold the regime accountable for its human 

rights violations. Our Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights, Robert King, 

is working with these partners and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights to identify the most appropriate venue and structure for the field-based 

mechanism called for in the HRC resolution. Deputy Secretary William Burns met 

April 14 with the Honorable Michael Kirby, former chair of the Commission, to discuss the findings of the Commission. And on April 17, Ambassador Samantha Power 

representing the United States—together with French and Australian officials—convened an Arria-formula meeting for UN Security Council members with the Commissioners to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) report on the DPRK human rights situation. This meeting was a further testament to the growing international consensus that the human rights situation in the DPRK is unacceptable. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

Question. The fiscal year 2015 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs budget proposes a $32 million cut to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), 

which is a 23 percent reduction from fiscal year 2014. According to the Congressional Budget Justification: ‘‘NED makes approximately 1,200 grants per year in 

nearly 100 countries. NED’s grants advance long-term U.S. interests and address 

immediate needs in strengthening democracy, human rights, and rule of law.’’ 

With the recent democratic upheavals throughout the globe, including the Arab 

World, Ukraine and Venezuela, do you find it counterintuitive that you are asking 

Congress to significantly scale back NED funding in fiscal year 2015? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2014 congressional appropriation for the National Endow- ment for Democracy (NED) included both $100,000,000 for their core funding, as 

well as an additional $35,000,000 in directives for specific countries in lieu Economic 

Support Funds that NED received in prior years. The President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request for NED was straight lined from fiscal year 2014 and is consistent 

with past requests (chart provided). 

Funding Year Request Appropriated 

Fiscal year 2011 ...................................................................................................................... $105,000,000 $117,764,000 

Fiscal year 2012 ...................................................................................................................... 104,252,000 117,764,000 

Fiscal year 2013 ...................................................................................................................... 104,252,000 111,802,000 

Fiscal year 2014 ...................................................................................................................... 103,450,000 135,000,000 

Fiscal year 2015 ...................................................................................................................... 103,450,000 ........................

Question. The Department of State’s 2013 Human Rights Report for Afghanistan 

stated: ‘‘Although the situation of women marginally improved during the year, domestic and international gender experts considered the country very dangerous for 

women, and women routinely expressed concern that social, political, and economic 

gains would be lost in the post-2014 transition.’’ Organizations such as Human 
54 

Rights Watch have specifically expressed concerns over signs of a rollback of women’s rights in anticipation of the transition in Afghanistan. 

In your assessment, has there been a rollback in women’s rights in Afghanistan? 

What efforts are being made by the United States Government to ensure the preservation and advancement of women’s rights in Afghanistan post-2014? 

Answer. Afghan women have made enormous strides since 2001. Girls now make 

up 40 percent of enrolled students throughout the country, women are represented 

in parliament and on provincial councils, businesswomen and female entrepreneurs 

are playing a key role in the economic development of their country, life expectancy 

for women has risen from 44 years in 2001 to 64 years today and female activists 

are actively advocating for social justice and seeking a peaceful resolution to the Afghan conflict. 

While these gains remain fragile, it is important to note the growing change of 

attitudes towards women in Afghan society as it signifies the potential for continued 

advancement. Democracy International polling indicates that 92 percent of Afghans 

believe that women have the right to participate in elections. Across the country, 

illiteracy and the lack of education is identified as the biggest problem facing 

women in all regions. A 2013 Asia Foundation survey found that 83 percent of respondents agree that women should have the same educational opportunities as 

men. 

These changes were evident on election day when Afghan women turned out in 

large numbers to vote, acted as election officials, and even ran as candidates. Widespread reporting indicates Afghan women were able to participate in significant 

numbers, and the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) initial estimate is that 

35 percent of ballots were cast by women. 

As we move forward in the transition process, we will continue to promote Afghan 

women’s rights to sustain these gains. The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership 

Agreement and the 2012 Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework speak to the mutual commitments of the United States and the Afghan Government in protecting 

and promoting women’s rights and role in society. 

We have also adopted a ‘‘Gender Strategy’’ in order to continue to mainstream 

gender issues into all of our policies and programs through transition and beyond. 

This includes substantial assistance to women to build their capacity to participate 

fully in Afghan society—in the political, economic, education, health and social 

realms—and, thereby, help build their country’s future. 

There can be no progress without women’s progress, and nowhere is this more 

critical than in Afghanistan. As Secretary Kerry said at Georgetown last November, 

we view women’s rights in Afghanistan as a strategic necessity and the surest way 

to guarantee that Afghanistan will sustain the progress of the last decade. 

FLY AMERICA ACT

Question. The Fly America Act requires all Federal agencies, Government contractors, and subcontractors use U.S.-flag air carriers for U.S. Government funded air 

transportation of personnel or property. Although the Fly America Act is current 

statute and should be applied to all U.S. Government contracts regardless of whether the clauses are explicitly referenced, there have been several instances in which 

State Department solicitations do not reference the Fly America Act. There have 

also been instances of foreign air carriers being used without an authorized exception under the Act. While the State Department has published clear guidance on 

Fly America Act compliance for personnel, there does not seem to be guidance concerning contracts, subcontracts, and Part 135 Air Carriers, which are certified by 

the FAA for passenger service of up to 30 persons or cargo service of up to 7500 

lbs., and traditionally provide nonscheduled air transportation services. (Part 121 

Air Carriers are also certified by the FAA for passenger and cargo service exceeding 

30 persons or 7500 lbs., and usually provide scheduled air transportation services.) 

Does the State Department provide guidance on Fly America Act compliance? 

Does this guidance distinguish between Part 135 and Part 121 Air Carriers? Can 

you provide a copy of that guidance? 

Answer. Regarding passenger travel, the Department’s Fly America Act policy is 

defined in 14 FAM 583, Use of U.S.-Flag and Foreign Flag Carriers. The Fly America Act, 49 U.S.C. 40118, establishes as a legal requirement that all U.S. Government-financed air travel be performed on U.S.-flag air carriers, where available as 

defined by 14 FAM 583, unless certain narrow exceptions apply. The relevant Comptroller General Guidelines for implementing this Act are found in B–138942, March 

31, 1981 (see 14 FAM 583.7 for travel between two points abroad). The use of American Flag carriers is enforced using contracted travel management centers, with 

close oversight by government travel managers. 
55 

The Department’s policies for purchasing air and ocean shipping services as they 

relate to the various American Flag laws are reflected in 14 FAM 311 and 14 FAM 

314. The Department maintains a close working relationship with the Maritime Administration and the American Flag Industry to ensure maximum use of U.S. Flag 

vessels. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires the use of clause FAR 52.247– 

63 in solicitations/contracts that have possible travel requirements. The clause requires that all contractors and subcontractors comply with the Fly America Act. Enforcement is accomplished during invoice payment and subsequent Defense Contract 

Audit Agency (DCAA) audits. Unauthorized expenditures for air transport using foreign carriers are not allowed. If this happens on one of the Department contracts, 

the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or the Contracting Officer (CO) will 

take necessary action to advise the prime contractor of the clause violation. 

All Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) contracts contain the following clauses and a letter is attached to all Federal Business Opportunities, 

FedBizOpps.gov, acquisitions announcements. 

—I.79, 52.247-63 PREFERENCE FOR U.S.-FLAG AIR CARRIERS, June 2003 

—I.80, 52.247-64 PREFERENCE FOR PRIVATELY OWNED U.S.-FLAG COMMERCIAL VESSELS, February 2006 

In addition to these Department policies and authorities, there are several internal procedures that institutionalize travel rules and regulations: 

—Department personnel are required to use a designated Travel Management 

Center (TMC) to schedule their travel after receiving approved travel orders; 

—A global logistics system is used by transportation managers to monitor shipments as they move through our logistics system; and 

—A travel vouchering process provides a system to review and approve travel to 

ensure that Department rules and regulations have been followed. 

Question. What measures does the State Department take to ensure contractors 

remain in compliance with the Fly America Act requirements for all aviation transportation services paid with State Department funds? 

Answer. The COR monitors the day to day administration of the contract, to include contractor compliance with the Fly America Act. The COR or the Contracting 

Officer will advise the prime contractor of the clause violation. Additional enforcement is accomplished during invoice payment and subsequent DCAA audits should 

a violation be observed. 

Question. Are all subcontracts also required to comply with the Fly America Act? 

How are they monitored initially and is there any ongoing review to ensure compliance? 

Answer. The COR is responsible for ensuring all subcontractors comply with the 

Fly America Act and the Fly America Clause, FAR 52.247.63. If a subcontractor is 

found to be in violation of the FAR, the COR would address the matter with the 

prime contractor, as outlined above. There is no requirement to consent to every 

subcontract and there is no requirement to perform a constant on-going review. 

Question. Have foreign-owned entities ever participated as subcontractors or joint 

venture partners in airlift activities in violation of the Fly America Act? If so, please 

site the incident(s) and what steps were then taken by the DOS to ensure future 

compliance. 

Answer. The Department of State does not track such violations. Any violation 

found by a COR or CO would have been settled at that time. No data bases or reports exist that can be searched. 

Question. How does the State Department ensure that requirements written for 

subcontracts for Part 135 international aviation services are not written to purposefully exclude otherwise qualified U.S. carriers? 

Answer. Contracting Officers read the requirements documents very carefully and 

ensure that they do not violate other FAR requirements or clauses. If they note a 

requirement that would violate the Fly America Act and FAR Clause 52.247–63, 

they would have the program office remove that requirement. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BOOZMAN

Question. In your testimony, you touched on several vital ways in which the foreign affairs budget is used: supporting ongoing struggles for self-determination and 

democracy, fighting narco-trafficking across the globe, and supporting global health 

initiatives like PEPFAR. One area that you did not touch on, however, was an area 

in which would see an increase of nearly 27 percent under the requested budget: 

efforts to counter global climate change. With the ongoing conflicts in Central Africa 

and Eastern Europe, Iran’s and Syria’s continued defiance of international norms, 
56 

and many other pressing issues concerning global and national security, why have 

you prioritized climate? 

Answer. Climate change is one of the most significant global threats we face and 

addressing it is an urgent imperative. There is a pressing need to act now to assist 

developing countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while achieving economic 

growth, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and developing the technical expertise required to make and keep emission reduction commitments. Climate assistance is also an opportunity for the United States to lead efforts to reduce pollution, 

improve public health, grow our economy, and reduce poverty abroad. This budget 

requests targeted investments to help protect against rising seas encroaching on 

coastlines and coastal communities, prolonged and extreme droughts leading to food 

insecurity and threatening agriculture-dependent livelihoods, and other hallmarks 

of a dramatically changing climate. 

The requested funding investment will assist partners around the world in reducing emissions and adapting to climate change and will support U.S. diplomatic efforts to negotiate a new international climate agreement in 2015. In addition, this 

funding helps protect the significant efforts we are making at home under the President’s Climate Change Action Plan by promoting a global response so that our actions are not undermined by inconsistent actions abroad. U.S. leadership is necessary to bring nations together and forge partnerships to safeguard future generations from the dangerous and costly repercussions of global climate change. This budget request includes nearly $200 million to support clean energy programs that promote the adoption of renewable and energy efficient technologies and 

leverage private sector investment in clean energy. It also includes almost $200 million to help the most vulnerable countries adapt and build resilience to the impacts 

of climate change and over $120 million to reduce emissions from land use. 

These investments also present economic opportunities for both the United States 

and developing country partners, including increased demand for U.S. technologies. 

Question. Yesterday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved legislation 

to provide aid to Ukraine while implementing sanctions against those responsible 

for the undermining of the country’s sovereignty. With the pending illegal referendum in Crimea, can you comment on the specific steps that the administration 

is considering to prevent this attempted annexation by Russia? 

Answer. On March 16, 2014, the Ukrainian region of Crimea held an illegal referendum concerning accession to the Russian Federation. This referendum was in 

violation of the Ukrainian constitution, which states any questions ‘‘of altering the 

territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum.’’ By 

March 21, the Russian Federation Council had approved the treaty on Crimea’s incorporation into the Russian Federation. 

Since the beginning of Russia’s occupation of Crimea, the administration has engaged the international community, through organizations such as the United Nations, the OSCE, and the G–7 to demonstrate the resolute international consensus 

that such actions do not belong in the 21st century. The United States and our 

many partners have not, and will not, recognize the illegitimate annexation of Crimea. 

Concerning both Ukrainian and Russian individuals complicit in undermining 

Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, the administration has utilized, and 

will maintain, targeted sanctions against those in position to effect change in Russia’s policy and actions. Close cooperation with European and other partners has 

been, and will remain, a fundamental component of ensuring that sanctioned individuals experience full financial costs. The consequent uncertain business climate 

has already had and will continue to have costs for Russian interests. 

As events move forward, the administration will sustain its efforts with our European partners in multilateral fora to resolve the crisis in Ukraine, and encourage 

Russia to return its troop deployments to pre-crisis levels and positions. Secretary 

Kerry pursued these efforts at the Geneva quadrilateral meeting with representatives of the European Union, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation on April 17. At 

the meeting, the participants agreed that all sides must refrain from any violence, 

intimidation or provocative actions; all expressions of extremism, racism and religious intolerance, including anti-Semitism, are to be condemned and wholly rejected; all illegal armed groups must be disarmed; all illegally seized buildings must 

be returned to legitimate owners; all illegally occupied streets, squares and other 

public places in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated. Amnesty will be granted to protestors and to those who have left buildings and other public places and 

surrendered weapons, with the exception of those found guilty of capital crimes. It 

was also agreed that the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission should play a leading 

role in assisting Ukrainian authorities and local communities in the immediate implementation of these de-escalation measures wherever they are needed most. 
57 

Question. You stated in your testimony, ‘‘Our $1 billion loan guarantee is needed 

urgently but it’s only through the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—a reformed 

IMF—that Ukraine will receive the additional help it needs to stand on its own two 

feet.’’ During Secretary Lew’s testimony before the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, he confirmed the existence of programs within the IMF for extraordinary assistance, such as what is being proposed for Ukraine. In light of this, can you please 

comment on whether congressional approval of IMF reform is actually required to 

assist Ukraine? 

Answer. Ratification of the IMF reforms would support the IMF’s capacity to lend 

additional resources to Ukraine and other countries in crisis, preserve the U.S. veto 

over important institutional decisions, and do so without increasing the current U.S. 

financial commitment to the IMF. The reforms would put the IMF’s finances on a 

more stable long-term footing, which would provide the institution with more financial flexibility in lending additional resources to Ukraine, and increase Ukraine’s 

IMF quota. We are the last major economy to act and our approval is the only remaining step for these important reforms to go into effect. 

Question. I would like to shift to Afghanistan. Just last week, General Austin testified that ‘‘in the wake of such a precipitous departure, [the Afghan Government’s] 

long-term viability is likely to be at high risk and the odds of an upsurge in terrorists’ capability increases without continued substantial international economic and 

security assistance.’’ Do you agree with this assessment? Additionally, what are the 

State Department’s lessons learned from our withdrawal from Iraq, given the current instability and security situation there? 

Answer. Despite many advances in Afghanistan, we anticipate continued support 

will be necessary post-2014, consistent with the Strategic Partnership Agreement 

signed in 2012. This is why we seek to conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement 

(BSA) and why NATO is negotiating its own status of forces agreement. 

Afghanistan is different from Iraq in key respects. We have signed a Strategic 

Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan that commits us to continued security and 

economic cooperation over the long term. In 2011 the Iraqis did not want a continued U.S. presence. They did not think they needed us, and no significant Iraqi official was prepared to argue publicly for a continued U.S. military presence. By contrast, consistent polling results and the outcome of the Loya Jirga in November 

2013 show that there is broad support among political elites and ordinary Afghans 

for a continued international presence post-2014. Moreover, all of Afghanistan’s 

leading Presidential candidates have said that signing the BSA would be a top priority once elected. 

Question. You have indicated that a bad deal with Iran is worse than no deal. 

Therefore, what do you believe would constitute a bad deal? 

Answer. The administration is working with the P5∂1 and EU to reach a comprehensive solution to the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear 

program. Our goal remains to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and 

ensure that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. All of the things on which 

we will have to reach agreement in the course of the negotiations are addressed in 

the Joint Plan of Action. We are looking to ensure that we have the right combination of measures in place to ensure Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. This is 

why we agreed in the Joint Plan of Action that nothing is agreed until everything 

is agreed in a comprehensive solution. All members of the P5∂1 must agree on any 

final decision, so we will be able to ensure that an agreement meets our needs. Anything that falls short of meeting our needs would be a bad deal. 

Question. As you know, in December of 2012, the United States closed its Embassy and recalled its diplomats in the Central African Republic (CAR) due to the 

escalating conflict. Despite the seemingly successful election of an interim president, 

sectarian violence and regional instability continue to rise. Can you comment on 

whether we plan on returning our diplomatic presence? 

Answer. The United States is concerned with inter-religious violence in the CAR 

and remains committed to working with the international community to support the 

CAR transitional government in its efforts to end the violence and build a transitional political process. The Department of State is reviewing the re-opening of Embassy Bangui in light of our strong interest in better supporting the restoration of 

democratic governance in CAR. The purpose of the review is to obtain a decision 

on whether a U.S. presence in Bangui is viable in light of the level of insecurity. 

There is no firm date for a decision on whether to re-open Embassy Bangui at this 

time. While not optimal, officials continue temporary duty visits and employ other 

mechanisms to monitor events in, and implement policies toward, CAR. 
58 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LEAHY. On a personal note, I wish you luck on your trip 

tonight. 

Secretary KERRY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you for trying. Like in any diplomacy, you 

have to go down a lot of dead ends before you hit the right one. 

Thank you for keeping trying. 

Secretary KERRY. Thank for very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

privilege to be with you. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., Thursday, March 13, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 
(59) 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:17 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Landrieu, Coons, Graham, Coats, 

Johanns, and Boozman. 

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. Good morning. 

We are meeting today to hear testimony from Dr. Rajiv Shah, 

who is the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, to discuss USAID’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. Dr. 

Shah, thank you for being here. 

USAID, like every Federal agency, needs to adapt to a changing 

world, and so does Congress. If we want to do that effectively, we 

need a shared understanding of USAID’s core purpose. 

I have always assumed it is sustainable development, and I believe, Dr. Shah, you would agree with that. But today, USAID’s 

strength seems to be saving lives, and feeding people, technological 

innovation, and other such things that are unquestionably important. Many of them I strongly support: efforts to bring down the 

rate of maternal deaths, ways to help immunize more children; 

these I strongly support. 

I do not want to over generalize, but these activities are often not 

the same as building institutions and organizations, owned and run 

by foreign governments and communities which, to me, is what real 

development, sustainable development, is about. 

And while USAID’s renewed emphasis on partnership is welcome, it often seems as if USAID still tends to view NGOs, or other 

organizations, as instruments of what USAID wants to do, not as 

partners. 

I am optimistic about USAID Forward and its focus on country 

ownership, and eventually working yourselves, USAID, out of a job. 
60 

Outsiders can help. And local entities—whether governments, civil 

society, or private companies—need to be in charge and take responsibility for the results. 

There is a lot of talk about capacity, either the lack of it or the 

need to build it. Of course, it is necessary to be able to set realistic 

goals, and do the work, and keep track of money spent. But I also 

know that a lot of capacity already exists, especially if we do not 

try to do too much, too fast. 

Many local organizations may not have the clout, or the connections, or the lobbyists that big U.S. contractors or grantees have. 

All they have going for them is they are often better at getting results than we are. What they lack is the capacity to navigate the 

reams of pages of extremely technical, incomprehensibly bureaucratic USAID applications for funding. I am a lawyer. I did well in 

college. I did well in law school and I am benumbed by some of 

these applications; a lot of this is government-wide and not just of 

USAID’s making. I worry about creating a whole new industry of 

high priced, capacity-building consultants. They would love the 

idea. We have a lot of lobbyists in this town who rely on it. 

But even though there has been progress, I think after 4 years 

you would agree, USAID Forward has a long way to go. Local organizations may increasingly look for other models than USAID, if 

USAID does not make further changes in how staff is recruited, 

trained, and deployed to work with local organizations and institutions. 

Other than responding to humanitarian crises, it makes no sense 

to spend money without a coherent strategy focused on sustainability. Afghanistan is probably the most egregious example of 

what not to do, but there are others. 

Now, I say this as I also recognize that USAID has a lot to be 

proud of. I have seen some of those successes. I have seen your people in the field, sometimes in dangerous conditions, and I applaud 

you for that. But I am worried about our foreign aid programs. I 

am worried that they are not as relevant or effective as we may 

think and say they are. And we have to pay attention in this committee because it has been 25 or 30 years since we have had an 

authorization bill, so we have to do it here. 

You inherited an Agency that had lost its bearings. I told you 4 

years ago, I think I said that I did not know whether to offer you 

congratulations or condolences when you became the head of it. 

There has been progress, but we have to focus on producing sustainable outcomes. 

Now, I want to mention the recent press reports on USAID’s 

Twitter program in Cuba. I will have a number of questions about 

it. We should remember that while we debate what USAID is doing 

in Cuba, U.S. citizen Alan Gross remains in solitary confinement 

in his fifth year of captivity, solely because he was carrying out a 

USAID program which was poorly conceived and poorly implemented. 

Alan Gross is confined to his cell 23 hours of every day. I have 

visited Mr. Gross twice. On April 3rd, he began a hunger strike to 

protest his detention by the Cuban Government, and the failure— 

the failure—of the United States Government, and this Administration, to take effective steps to obtain his release. 
61 

It is long past time for the Administration and the Cuban Government to negotiate a resolution of this ordeal so Mr. Gross can 

return home. Now, I am told by the Administration, ‘‘Well, if you 

only knew all the things we are doing.’’ All I know is whatever they 

are doing has not accomplished anything. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

There is a way to resolve it, there is ample precedent for doing 

so, it is in our national interest, and it could be done immediately 

if the Administration really wants to. That is my own personal 

view. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Good morning. We are meeting today to hear testimony from Dr. Rajiv Shah, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, who will 

discuss USAID’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. Dr. Shah, thank you for being 

here. 

USAID, like every Federal agency, needs to adapt to a fast changing world. So 

does the Congress. In order to do that effectively, we need a shared understanding 

of USAID’s core purpose. 

I have always assumed it is sustainable development, and I am sure, Dr. Shah, 

you would agree. 

But today, USAID’s strength seems to be saving lives, feeding people, technological innovation, and other such things that are unquestionably important. Many 

of them I strongly support. 

I don’t want to overgeneralize, but these activities are often not the same as building institutions and organizations, owned and run by foreign governments and communities, which to me is what real development—sustainable development—is 

about. 

And while USAID’s renewed emphasis on partnership is welcome, it often seems 

as if USAID still tends to view non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other organizations as instruments of what USAID wants to do, rather than as partners in 

their own right. 

I was optimistic about USAID Forward, and its focus on country ownership and 

eventually working yourselves out of a job. Outsiders can help, but local entities, 

whether government or civil society or private companies, need to be in charge and 

take responsibility for the results. 

There is a lot of talk about capacity—either the lack of it or the need to build 

it. Of course it is necessary to be able to set realistic goals, do the work, and keep 

track of money spent. 

But I also know that a lot of capacity already exists—especially if we do not try 

to do too much, too fast. Many local organizations may not have the clout or connections that big U.S. contractors or grantees have, but they are often better at what 

they do. 

What they lack is the capacity to navigate the reams of pages of extremely technical, incomprehensibly bureaucratic USAID applications for funding. A lot of this 

is governmentwide and not of USAID’s making, but I worry about creating a whole 

new industry of high-priced capacity-building consultants. 

There has been progress, but after 4 years I suspect you would agree that USAID 

Forward has a long way to go. Local organizations may increasingly look for other 

models than USAID, if USAID doesn’t make further changes—from how staff are 

recruited, oriented, and deployed to how USAID missions get to know and work 

with local organizations and institutions. 

Other than responding to humanitarian crises, it makes no sense to spend money 

without a coherent strategy focused on sustainability. Afghanistan is probably the 

most egregious example of what not to do, but there are many others. 

USAID has a lot to be proud of. I have seen some of those successes, and I applaud you for them. But I am worried about our foreign aid programs. I am worried 

that they are not as relevant or effective as we may think and say they are. 

You inherited an agency that had lost its bearings. I told you 4 years ago that 

I did not know whether to offer my congratulations or condolences. There has been 

progress, but we need to focus on producing sustainable outcomes. 
62 

I also want to mention the recent press reports on USAID’s twitter program in 

Cuba, and I will have a number of questions about it. But we should remember that 

while we debate what USAID is doing in Cuba, U.S. citizen Alan Gross remains in 

solitary confinement in Havana in his 5th year of captivity, solely because he was 

carrying out a USAID program. 

Alan Gross is confined to his cell 23 hours of every day. On April 3, Mr. Gross, 

who I have visited twice, began a hunger strike to protest his detention by the 

Cuban Government and the failure—the failure—of his own Government to take 

meaningful steps to obtain his release. As far as I can tell, USAID has all but forgotten about him. 

It is long past time for the administration and the Cuban Government to negotiate a resolution of this ordeal so Mr. Gross can return home. Whatever past attempts have been made on his behalf have achieved nothing, and I believe in some 

respects they have made his situation worse. There is a way to resolve it, there is 

ample precedent for doing so, and it is in our national interest. 

Senator Graham. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is what oversight is all about, is it not? Asking hard questions and making people justify their action, or lack of action. 

From the committee’s point of view, $20.1 billion is what the 

USAID budget is, of about $48 billion of foreign assistance. So it 

is a big part of what we do. 

From an Afghanistan point of view, I think the elections have 

seemed to have gone very well. I know that you have people all 

over Afghanistan trying to build capacity that is sustainable. And 

I hope the American people appreciate that these elections came off 

because of a lot of sacrifice by Afghans, coalition forces, and people 

on the ground. So that is something to appreciate and, quite frankly, celebrate. We have some articles about USAID aid in Afghanistan that we would like you to comment on, Dr. Shah. 

But bottom line, 4 years ago, you did inherit, for lack of a better 

word, a mess and I think you have done, overall, a very good job 

of trying to bring the private sector to partner with the Government. As Senator Leahy said, there is more to do, particularly in 

the faith-based area. 

But the collaboration between our Government, NGOs, and the 

private sector, particularly in Africa, has unlimited ability. And I 

appreciate your willingness to reach out and form these partnerships because that makes sure that we have the highest and best 

use of the money that the taxpayer puts forward. 

Finally, from a taxpayer’s point of view, there is a strain in my 

party, I am sure all over America, quite frankly, that wants to disengage. And I just want to reinforce that the entire foreign operations budget is about 1 percent of Federal spending, and the world 

is rapidly changing. Some areas for the better; in many places, it 

is deteriorating. USAID is a way for the Government of the United 

States to have a presence without military force that, I think, can 

be a positive presence. 

So I want to continue to support Senator Leahy’s view of oversight, but also continue to support Budget Requests that make us 

stronger as a Nation. 

So on behalf of the committee, and I think the senate as a whole, 

we appreciate the dangers that your people face every day, and 

your willingness to represent our Government and the American 
63 

values we all share in some of the most dangerous, contentious 

places in the world. And I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham, members 

of the committee. 

I would like to start just by saying thank you to you, Senator 

Leahy. Your leadership on behalf of America’s engagement around 

the world on human rights, on civil society, on supporting local institutions, and on all of the things we do in health, food, agriculture, water, sanitation, have literally helped tens of millions, 

hundreds of millions of people improve their lot in life all around 

world, and to help make our country safer and more secure. 

Senator Graham, thank you for your specific leadership, especially on difficult, but important issues like Afghanistan where, I 

believe, we first had the chance, one of the chances, to meet out 

there together. And I look to you for guidance and counsel in carrying out my duties. 

I also want to thank all the members of the committee. I have 

appreciated, and continue to appreciate, your engagement, advice, 

and support as we have been trying to carry out our mission. 

Over the course of the last year, one of the things we did was 

ask 2,700 of our staff to work with us to more clearly define and 

articulate our mission. And today, we know that our core mission 

is to partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing American security and prosperity. 

For the first time in decades, it is now possible to envision a 

world without the kind of dollar-a-day poverty that robs people of 

their human dignity. You have supported, over the last 4 years, a 

significant investment in rebuilding USAID as the world’s premiere 

development institution, and I want to say thank you for that. 

Under your leadership, and with your support, we have rebuilt 

our staff; hired dozens of experts across a range of different areas; 

rebuilt our budgets in areas like food, and agriculture, and child 

survival; engaged and built a policy team that allows USAID to articulate America’s vision for partnership to address the needs of the 

world’s most vulnerable; and worked to expand our partner base to 

work with hundreds of new institutions, many local organizations, 

and most through direct new partnerships that enable them to 

drive forward success. 

You have helped us ensure that we monitor and evaluate all of 

our major programs, going from publishing a few dozen monitoring 

and evaluation reports a year, to now publishing nearly 300 a year, 

all of which are available on an iPhone app, if you have the interest, and a long plane ride. These efforts collectively have helped us 

deliver comprehensive results across our major areas of investment. 

And the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for USAID 

focuses on, and invests, in what works in global development. The 

Budget includes $1 billion for the President’s Feed the Future program that now works in 19 countries, reaches 7 million farm 

households, gets them access to new agricultural technologies, 

helps to move 121⁄2 million children who otherwise would be malnourished out of a condition of under-nourishment and towards nu-
64 

tritional sufficiency. And has already leveraged nearly $400 million 

of private investment out of the nearly $4 billion of commitments 

we have secured from more than 140 companies to co-invest with 

us. 

These efforts, together and with your support, will allow us to reduce extreme poverty in the countries where we work by more than 

20 percent, and reduce the number of children who are stunted 

from malnutrition by an equivalent amount. 

The budget asks for nearly $2.7 billion for child survival, and 

over the last decade, there has been no other area of work where 

the United States gets a better return on investment. Having gone 

from having more than 11 million children die every year to 6.6 

million this year, and well on our way to having that number be 

near 1 million in the next 15 to 20 years going forward. 

In other areas—like education, water, and energy—with your 

support, we have crafted new partnerships, new goals, created and 

put forth transparent metrics, and reported on progress in a quantitative, specific, businesslike way. 

Our efforts to promote disaster assistance have been taxed significantly over the past year, given the fact that we now have three 

Level 3 disasters around the world: In and around Syria, in the 

Central African Republic, and in South Sudan. I appreciate the 

extra efforts the committee has made to ensure that humanitarian 

funding exists for these efforts. And our work has been carried out 

to a level of excellence that we just saw in the Typhoon Haiyan response in the Philippines that was just the subject of a roundtable 

discussion with ASEAN Defense Ministers that Secretary Hagel 

and I co-chaired in Honolulu early last week. 

Our work in democracy and governance helps to improve our national security, and we are actively working to support the free and 

fair conduct of elections in Ukraine. And I am extraordinarily 

proud of our Embassy and USAID mission teams that have spent 

18 months working to ensure that the Afghan election was accessible, particularly to women, safe, carried out by institutions led by 

Afghans themselves, and had a complaints process and fraud mitigation strategy that was effectively deployed just last week as 

nearly 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. 

I look forward to our discussion on Cuba because I want to talk 

about some of our work that is more difficult to execute, and learn 

from members of the committee. 

And I want to conclude just by noting that I often worry about 

what is difficult for us. Can our country maintain a high level of 

political commitment so that we can lead the world in humanitarian development and global health efforts over the next two decades? 

In my more than 4 years in this role, I have seen hundreds of 

new partnerships with private businesses, with scientists and universities, with faith communities, with leaders from congress in 

both the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle. And I 

am convinced, especially after having the opportunity to deliver 

this year’s Prayer Breakfast Address that, in fact, America can, 

should, and if we do our jobs well, will lead the world to end extreme poverty in the next two decades. 
65 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH

Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to join you to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Four years ago, President Obama set forth a new vision of a results-driven USAID 

that would lead the world in development. We have since risen to this challenge, 

pioneering a new model of development that brings a greater emphasis on partnerships, innovation, and results. We are guided in these efforts by a new mission 

statement: we partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity. 

Although these goals are not new, they reflect a unique moment in development 

today when exciting opportunities are emerging to change what is possible. In a 

time of fiscal restraint, we are applying the new model to seize this moment and 

reach more people, save more lives, and leverage more private investment than ever 

before—delivering results for the American people and those in greatest need 

around the world. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget responds to unprecedented development 

challenges, including some of the most significant events unfolding on the world 

stage today. 

When Typhoon Haiyan swept across the Philippines, we swung into action, leading and coordinating the U.S. Government civilian and military humanitarian response and distributing life-saving aid, including highly-nutritious food products to 

feed hungry children and adults. In Ukraine, we remain committed to helping citizens realize the democratic aspirations that many spent months on the Maidan demanding. For nearly 20 years, we have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the people 

of Ukraine, putting 1.8 million land titles into the hands of farmers and helping 

civil society leaders develop recommendations, including on anti-corruption, in an 

comprehensive reform package for the government. Many of the recommendations 

are being implemented through new and revised legislation. 

In South Sudan, as citizens face a looming humanitarian catastrophe that will 

leave half the country on the brink of famine, we are racing against the clock to 

save lives. And as we saw just a few days ago, citizens in Afghanistan voted for a 

new president to lead them towards a brighter, more stable future. In support of 

the Afghan-owned election process, USAID provided extensive guidance on how to 

prevent electoral fraud, as well as capacity building support for independent domestic observers, civil society, media, and political parties to help ensure a transparent 

electoral process. 

The budget enables us to respond effectively to these events and address the underlying causes of extreme poverty through President Obama’s Feed the Future, 

Global Health, Global Climate Change, and Power Africa initiatives. It advances our 

national security by building linkages to emerging markets, strengthening democracy and human rights, and promoting broad-based economic growth. It helps vulnerable communities strengthen their resilience to crises and natural disasters. It 

facilitates strategic engagement in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as 

across the Asia-Pacific and Latin America. It also focuses our activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, ensuring that we sustain the gains we have made. 

Even though we work far from home, our work continues to realize benefits for 

our home: for opportunities we open for American businesses, the skills of our young 

people we help build, and the threats to our security that we help prevent. For less 

than 1 percent of the Federal budget, we are delivering results that shape a more 

secure and prosperous future for the American people and the world. 

A NEW MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for USAID managed or partially managed accounts is $20.1 billion, 1 percent below the total enacted fiscal year 2014 funding 

for these accounts. In this constrained budget environment, USAID is focused on 

maximizing the value of every dollar. Over the past 5 years, we have made difficult 

choices about where our work will have the greatest impact, shifting resources and 

personnel to better advance our mission of ending extreme poverty around the 

world. 

Since 2010, regional bureaus have reduced program areas by 34 percent; USAID 

global health program areas have been phased out of 23 countries; and Feed the 

Future agriculture programs have been phased out of 26 countries. We are reducing 
66 

programs in countries that have turned a corner, like Mongolia, and transitioning 

Missions to Offices. We are shifting resources to countries in critical need and where 

our work has the widest impact. 

Over the past 3 years, the USAID Forward reform agenda has touched upon every 

part of our Agency. We’ve revamped our budget to include more rigorous performance monitoring and impact evaluation, expanded the use of science, technology, 

and public-private partnerships, and improved talent management. In each area of 

reform, we set aspirational targets that have established a common language for 

success, challenged our partners, and encouraged us to step out of our comfort zone. 

Taken together, these reforms have formed the foundation of a new model of development that defines the way we work around the world. With this new model, 

we are backing cutting-edge innovation, taking advantage of fast-moving technology, 

and harnessing the vast potential of the development community to achieve unprecedented results. 

Today, all our major programs are independently evaluated, and those evaluations 

are available right now on an iPhone app—an unprecedented level of transparency. 

The quality of our evaluations has improved significantly, which is an important 

sign that we are increasingly grounding our work in evidence and data. Missions 

are reporting dozens of different ways that these evaluations are strengthening our 

programs in the field. Through an evaluation in Benin, we learned that community 

health programs naturally favored men in their hiring, which limited our ability to 

provide care to women. So we’re redesigning our recruitment to help more women 

become community health workers. 

Working closely with local leaders, governments, and organizations, we are 

strengthening the capacity of our partner countries to create stronger communities 

and brighter futures without our assistance. In 2013 alone, our emphasis on local 

solutions enabled us to support 1,150 local organizations in 74 countries. In the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, we have worked with 12 local governments to improve their tax collection, so they can afford to pay the salaries of 

teachers and health workers. As a result, they have increased revenues by 95 percent since 2009. 

We are also mobilizing a new generation of innovators and scientists to advance 

our mission. Launched last week, the U.S. Global Development Lab represents an 

historic investment in the power of science and technology to bend the curve of development. With $151 million in funding, it will generate and scale breakthrough 

solutions to complex development challenges, while attracting private sector investment to improve the sustainability of our solutions. Already, it has generated cutting-edge inventions—including the bubble continuous positive airway pressure 

(CPAP), a device from Texas that can resuscitate newborns at a fraction of the price 

of existing machines. 

To maximize the impact of the Lab, we seek new authorities from Congress. These 

include the ability to hire a diverse range of staff; to use development assistance 

funding programmed for science, technology, and innovation for all development 

purposes, including health; and to use a ‘‘pay-for-success’’ model to incentivize the 

best solutions from innovators around the world—all of which will help us catalyze 

a wave of innovation that solves the toughest development challenges on the planet. 

We are increasingly focused on engaging a wide array of partners, from our longstanding partners in the development community, to faith organizations, to multinational corporations. Through our Development Credit Authority (DCA), we unlocked a record $1.02 billion over the last 2 years alone in commercial capital to empower entrepreneurs around the world. Earlier this year, we partnered with GE and 

Kenya Commercial Bank to help healthcare providers buy life-saving healthcare 

equipment, including portable ultrasound devices and magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) machines. For the first time ever, our private sector partner is covering the 

cost of the loan guarantee—making this program virtually costless for the American 

taxpayer. To build on this success, the request seeks to increase the annual cap on 

loans under DCA guarantees from $1.5 billion to $2 billion, a measure that will enable us to ramp up high-impact projects, particularly through Power Africa. 

CORE PRIORITIES

Under the leadership of President Obama, we are applying the new model to deliver unprecedented results across our work, from expanding access to mobile money 

to empowering women and girls to strengthening land tenure rights to safeguarding 

the world’s biodiversity. 

Feed the Future 

In this request, $1 billion is devoted to Feed the Future, President Obama’s global 

food security initiative. After several years, Feed the Future has hit its stride—de-
67 

livering results that are changing the face of poverty and hunger for some of the 

world’s poorest families. 

In 2012, we reached 12 million children with programs to strengthen their nutrition and helped more than 7 million farmers increase their yields through new technologies and management practices. Reported incremental sales of farmers working 

with Feed the Future programs worldwide increased their sales from $100 million 

in 2012 to over $130 million in 2013. These results are grounded in a robust management system for gathering timely, accurate data that measures everything from 

household income to the participation of women to the prevalence of stunting. Just 

as the Demographic and Health Surveys helped dramatically expand monitoring capabilities in global health, Feed the Future’s new open data platform is transforming our knowledge and informing cutting-edge approaches. 

This year’s budget request builds on these results with an integrated nutrition approach to reduce stunting by 20 percent—a target that will prevent 2 million children from suffering from this devastating condition over the next 5 years. 

In Kenya, the reported gross margin of livestock farmers receiving training on improved management practices and support to partner with cooperatives increased 

over 45 percent from 2012 to 2013, from $371 to $541 per cow. Feed the Future activities in Kenya support rural smallholders who account for over 80 percent of the 

country’s raw milk production. Farmers in Bangladesh using new fertilizer technologies more than doubled the production of rice from 2011 to 2013. New technologies and management practices such as this also contributed to increases in the 

rice farmers’ gross margin per hectare from $431 in 2012 to $587 in 2013. Across 

Central America, Feed the Future is helping trading unions to meet international 

standards and maintain access to agricultural markets in the United States. 

Two years ago, President Obama led global food security efforts to the next stage, 

introducing the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. Today, it is a $3.75 

billion public-private partnership that is enabling reforms from 10 African governments and commitments from more than 140 global and local companies. For instance, Ghana Nuts—an agricultural business that was once an aid recipient—is 

now a multi-million dollar company employing 500 people. Under the New Alliance, 

it has committed to strengthening local supply chains, reaching 27,000 smallholder 

farmers with more than $4 million in investments. 

At the same time, the governments we work with through the New Alliance have 

committed to significant market-oriented policy reforms. Recently, Burkina Faso 

launched an electronic platform that increases the transparency and speed of their 

customs processes. Last summer, Mozambique, Cote d’Ivoire, and other New Alliance nations committed to policy reforms that will foster private sector investment 

in smallholder farmers, particularly women. 

Global Health 

With strong bipartisan support, we are providing critical health assistance more 

efficiently than ever before. We have narrowed our focus on maternal and child 

health to the 24 countries that represent more than 70 percent of maternal and 

child deaths in the developing world. Through the $2.7 billion request for USAID 

Global Health Programs—along with State Department Global Health Programs for 

$5.4 billion—we will work towards ending the tragedy of preventable child and maternal death, creating an AIDS-free generation, and protecting communities from infectious diseases. 

Around the world, we are seeing real results of global partnerships to accelerate 

progress towards these goals. Since 2010, 15 of our 24 priority countries have rolled 

out the pneumonia vaccine with Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization 

(GAVI) support; and since 2011, 8 have introduced rotavirus vaccines against diarrheal diseases. In 2013, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) protected over 45 

million people with a prevention measure. Since 2006, all the original 15 PMI focus 

countries have had reductions in childhood mortality rates, ranging from 16 to 50 

percent. 

In 2013, Saving Mothers Giving Life, a USAID-led public-private partnership, 

contributed to a 30 percent decline in the maternal mortality ratio in target districts 

of Uganda and a 35 percent reduction of maternal deaths in target facilities in Zambia. 

Since 2006, our support for neglected tropical diseases has expanded to reach 25 

countries. In the countries where we work, nearly 35.8 million people no longer require treatment for blinding trachoma, and 52.4 million people no longer require 

treatment for lymphatic filariasis. 

Since USAID’s 2012 Child Survival Call to Action, nearly a dozen countries, representing those with the highest global rates of child death, have launched their 
68 

own local calls to action, set national targets, and are creating evidence-based business plans to focus resources in acutely vulnerable regions. 

We will continue to make cost-effective interventions that save lives—from preventing the spread of disease, to providing nutrition to millions of hungry children 

around the world. 

Climate Change 

Of the President’s $506.3 million request for the Global Climate Change Initiative 

implemented in partnership with the Department of State, USAID implements approximately $348.5 million and invests in developing countries best suited to accelerate transitions to climate-resilient, low-emission economic growth. In fiscal year 

2013, USAID helped over 600,000 stakeholders implement risk-reducing practices or 

use climate information in decisionmaking. These stakeholders are impact multipliers, including meteorologists, agricultural extension workers, and disaster planners who use this information to improve the climate resilience of millions of people 

in their countries and regions. 

Across the world, we are harnessing innovation, evidence, and technology to help 

vulnerable communities anticipate and take action to reduce the impacts of climate 

change. Today, a joint venture between USAID and NASA—called SERVIR—provides communities in 29 countries with global satellite-based climate information, 

including sending frost alerts to tea growers in Kenya and fire alerts to forest officials in Nepal. 

USAID is pioneering a new approach that puts people on a path from dependency 

to resilience, while expanding broad-based economic growth. From small farming 

collectives to multi-national corporations, our partners are pursuing climate-resilient, low-emission development. In support of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020, we 

recently helped launch the Global Forest Watch, a forest alert system that utilizes 

real-time satellite data to help countries reduce tropical deforestation and enable 

companies to monitor their supply chains. 

The Global Climate Change Initiative advances practical, on-the-ground solutions 

to help developing countries contribute to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions while achieving development goals. Since 2010, USAID and the State Department have established 25 bilateral agreements with partner countries to develop and implement for low emissions development strategies. This support is helping advance the transition to lower carbon energy systems by creating enabling environments for public and private investments in efficient, clean energy sources, and 

sustainably reduce emissions from land use such as deforestation and agriculture. 

Power Africa 

The fiscal year 2015 request advances our Nation’s commitments to Africa with initiatives like Trade Africa and Power Africa. With $77 million requested in this 

budget, Power Africa represents a bipartisan approach to use public-private partnerships to double access to power on the continent and connect American investors 

and entrepreneurs to business opportunities abroad. Less than a year since launching, more than 5,500 mega-watts of power projects have been planned—putting us 

more than halfway towards our goal of expanding electricity to 20 million people 

and businesses. For every dollar that the U.S. Government has committed, the private sector has committed two—over $14 billion so far. 

With an initial set of six partner countries, Power Africa focuses on completing 

projects quickly and efficiently, while encouraging countries to make energy sector 

reforms critical to their success. In Ethiopia, for example, Power Africa is supporting the first independent power producer geothermal plant in the country, a 

project that will pave the way for future private sector investment and provide 

enough power to reach tens of thousands of people. In Kenya, Power Africa is enabling the construction of the largest privately-owned wind farm in Sub-Saharan Africa—helping millions leapfrog dirtier, unhealthier phases of development and join 

a global low-carbon economy. 

Education 

Education remains a critical focus for the Agency. Our request for Basic Edu- cation is $534.3 million, an increase of 6.6 percent over our fiscal year 2014 request. 

Through the ‘‘Room to Learn’’ program, we are intensifying our efforts in six countries—including Nigeria and Afghanistan—where endemic poverty and conflict conspire to rob children of their futures. In the Katanga Province in Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the schools we support, we have seen a 40 percent decrease in 

students repeating a grade from 2010 to 2013. The drop-out rate was also 65 percent lower than in 2010. 

From Kenya to Afghanistan, we’re seeing reading skills develop and enrollment— 

especially for girls—jump. Our strategic shift to improving primary grade reading 
69 

for tens of millions of kids brings with it a commitment to measuring results 

through student learning achievements. In Malawi, we used early grade reading assessments to evaluate students’ foundation skills—giving their parents and teachers 

a way to measure their progress. Today, second graders who receive interventions 

like these have comprehension levels four times those in control groups. 

By maintaining our focus on global education as a core development objective, we 

can brighten the future for millions of vulnerable children, including children in crisis environments. With widespread illiteracy estimated to cost the global economy 

more than 1 trillion dollars this year alone, these programs are not only advancing 

America’s standing as the world’s development leader in education, but are also energizing the global economy. 

Water 

While the world has seen tremendous progress on expanding access to safe drinking water—halving the proportion of people without sustainable access since 1990— 

a lot of work remains. This budget request continues the implementation of our 

first-ever Water and Development Strategy, which outlines a goal to save lives and 

advance development through improvements in water for health and water for food. 

The Strategy sets explicit targets of sustainably providing 10 million people with access to improved water supply and 6 million people with access to improved sanitation over the next 5 years. 

Through our Development Innovation Ventures fund, we’re partnering with the 

Gates Foundation to help bring safe drinking water to at least 4 million of the 

world’s poor. Called WASH for Life, this initiative will source and rigorously test 

great ideas to improve access to water and sanitation service. Last year, in Kenya, 

we leveraged a Development Credit Authority guarantee to extend piped water supply in Kisumu for over 1,500 piped water connections to benefit over 8,500 individuals. 

The request for WASH funding is $231 million in this budget. Budget requests for WASH programs have typically been about $230 million, and because of the 

number of program areas we engage in with water investments—from OFDA’s 

emergency response work, to resilience programs in regions of chronic crisis like the 

Horn of Africa and the Sahel, to Feed the Future agricultural infrastructure support—our actual programming for all water activities has grown to over $500 million, and we expect similar levels in the year ahead. 

SUPPORTING REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND STRENGTHENING NATIONAL SECURITY

This budget also maintains our Nation’s tremendous leadership in humanitarian response with $4.8 billion requested in State and USAID funding. In the last year, 

we have responded to unprecedented need around the world—saving lives from the 

Philippines to South Sudan. 

In Syria, we currently provide life-saving aid for 4.2 million people in all 14 

governorates across the country, as well as more than 2 million people who have 

fled the violence into neighboring countries. At the same time, we are supporting 

neighboring Jordan and Lebanon to manage the overwhelming influx of refugees 

from Syria. We have worked with local school systems to accommodate Syrian children, and in some areas, helped them adjust their schedules so that local children 

can learn in the morning and Syrian kids in the afternoon. 

Thanks to strong bipartisan support, we have begun reforms that mainly address 

our development food aid programs, allowing us to reach an additional 800,000 hungry people every year with the same resources. The need for this flexibility grows 

more urgent every day, as crises deepen from Syria to the Central African Republic 

to South Sudan. That is why this budget calls for reforms to be extended to emergency food assistance. We are seeking the flexibility to use up to 25 percent of title 

II resources for life-saving tools, like vouchers and local procurement—allowing us 

to reach 2 million more people in crises with our existing resources. 

While we remain the world’s leader in humanitarian response, we are increasingly focused on ensuring communities can better withstand and bounce back from 

shocks—like droughts, floods, and conflict—that push the most vulnerable people 

into crisis again and again. In the Horn of Africa, which suffered a devastating 

drought 2 years ago, we’re deploying mapping technology to help farming communities find new sources of water. In the Sahel, we’re partnering with U.S. Special 

Operations Command to conduct detailed analysis and geo-spatial mapping of the 

region. These efforts have given U.S. development and military professionals a deeper understanding of both the drivers of conflict and ways to build resilience. 

We are working effectively to both protect and manage the environment that supports us. In addition, we are harnessing innovation, evidence, and technology to reduce consumer demand for endangered species and stop wildlife trafficking. For in-
70 

stance, no tigers or rhinos were poached in Nepal in 2013 due to our sustained investments in community-based conservation. This past January, USAID partners 

convened 28 African and Asian countries to participate in an enforcement operation 

that resulted in more than 400 arrests and the seizure of three metric tons of ivory, 

10,000 turtles, and 1,000 skins of protected species. 

We’re pioneering a new approach that puts people on a path from dependency to 

resilience, while expanding broad-based economic growth. 

USAID and State Department are requesting $2 billion globally in the Development Assistance and Economic Support Fund accounts to strengthen democracy, 

human rights, and governance. Thanks to USAID’s rapid-response capability on civil 

society laws, we were able to take advantage of political openings in Libya, Tunisia 

and Burma to encourage early reformers to adopt consultative government-civil society processes that have led to much-improved civil society legislation, which in turn 

will pave the way for further political opening. 

In fiscal year 2015, the State Department and USAID have requested nearly $1.5 

billion to support democratic transitions and respond to emerging crises in the Middle East and North Africa. For example, in Tunisia, we worked with civil society 

and the government to implement some of the most progressive non-governmental 

organization (NGO) laws in the region. The new law passed as a result of a consultative government-civil society process and is now considered a model for the region; 

the new Libyan draft civil society organization law is based on peer consultations 

with Tunisians on their law. 

Of the President’s $2.8 billion assistance request for the Frontline States, USAID 

implements $1.8 billion for long-term development assistance, continuing to work 

closely with interagency partners—including the State and Defense departments— 

to move toward long-term stability, promote economic growth, and support governance reforms, including the rights of women. 

This request is tailored to support our three-fold transition strategy in Afghanistan, including maintaining gains in health, education, and the empowerment of 

women; promoting economic growth; and improving stability by supporting more accountable and effective Afghan governance, which is especially critical in the first 

year after the 2014 presidential election. 

Our assistance in Afghanistan has helped deliver incredible gains. Today, 77,000 

university students—a nine-fold increase from 2001—will form a new generation of 

leaders. The wait time for goods crossing the border with Pakistan has fallen from 

8 days to 3.5 hours—saving $38 million every year and opening access to new markets for farmers and entrepreneurs. The rapid expansion of mobile technology across 

the country is empowering Afghan women to demand an equal stake in their nation’s future. 

Building on our strong legacy of progress in Latin America and the Caribbean, 

we’re focusing on spurring economic growth and strengthening democracy by tackling the biggest drivers of instability, from drug trafficking to climate change. 

Today, for example, we work with a range of partners, including Nike Foundation 

and PepsiCo, to train thousands of at-risk youth in 18 countries of the region. The 

program has had an extremely high success rate, with 65 percent of graduates getting jobs, returning to school, or starting their own business within 1 year of graduation. 

In Colombia, we’ve partnered with Starbucks to improve yields for 25,000 coffeefarmers, giving them a shot at the global market and a reason to invest in their 

land after decades of conflict. In Peru, our partnership with the Government of San 

Martin has helped reduced poverty by more than 67 percent and cut coca production 

from 22,000 hectares to around 1,200. 

We’re also investing in the future innovators, doctors, and entrepreneurs throughout Latin America. For instance, in Honduras, we partnered with a telecom company to connect our network of 40 youth outreach centers—providing Internet access, online education and virtual job training to more than 17,000 people. On the 

whole, these investments produce immense gains in literacy, stability, and longterm economic growth. 

From empowering small businesses in Burma to helping eradicate extreme poverty in Nepal, we are supporting the administration’s Asia-Pacific Rebalance, renewing U.S. leadership, deepening economic ties, and promoting democratic and universal values. Today, we are bolstering regional cooperation around shared solutions 

to complex challenges through deepened engagement in ASEAN and the Lower 

Mekong Initiative. In March, we signed an agreement with the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council to help link small- and medium-sized enterprises across Asia to regional and global value chains. 
71 

USAID OPERATING EXPENSES

In recognition of development’s centrality to U.S. national security, the President’s 

National Security Strategy calls for investing in development capabilities and institutions. The fiscal year 2015 USAID Operating Expenses account request for $1.4 

billion will provide that investment—advancing U.S. interests, enhancing national 

security, and reaffirming our global development leadership. The request will enable 

USAID to maintain core operations, and to continue USAID Forward reforms—as 

well as better collaborate with partner countries and local institutions—to maximize 

the value of each dollar. 

Although an increase from fiscal year 2014, the request represents the minimum 

level of resources necessary to preserve our agency’s current services and operations 

and support the existing workforce to meet U.S. foreign policy objectives and global 

development needs. The requested funding will allow our agency to offset the projected decrease in other funding sources, such as recoveries, reimbursements, and 

trust funds that support operations. At the same time, it will restore the new obligation authority needed to maintain its current level of operations into fiscal year 

2015. 

The request reflects our agency’s focus on working through a more efficient, highimpact approach. We are continuing to reform operations to improve management 

processes and generate significant cost savings for fiscal year 2015, like real property disposals and space optimization. In addition, our agency restructured its overseas presence to strengthen its ability to meet its foreign policy and national security mission. 

CONCLUSION

Today, for the first time in history, we have new tools and approaches that enable 

us to envision a world without extreme poverty. 

This is an unprecedented moment for our Nation—one where we can again lead 

the world in achieving goals once deemed too ambitious, too dangerous, or too complex. In doing so, we can protect our national security and spur economic growth. 

But above all, we can express the generosity and goodwill that unite us as a people. 

As President Obama said in the 2013 State of the Union address, ‘‘We also know 

that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all—not only 

because it creates new markets, more stable order in certain regions of the world, 

but also because it’s the right thing to do.’’ 

As we step forward to answer the President’s call with renewed energy and focus, 

we remain committed to engaging the American people and serving their interests 

by leading the world to end extreme poverty. 

Thank you. 

CUBA

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

The U.S. provides $15 million to $20 million for so-called democracy programs in Cuba. They traditionally have been administrated 

by USAID. It is the same program that got Alan Gross arrested. 

He is in his fifth year of a 15 year sentence, which at his age is 

basically a death sentence. Last week, he began a hunger strike because he has given up waiting for any kind of a sign by this Administration they are doing anything meaningful to get him out. 

According to a recent Associated Press report, between 2009 and 

2012, USAID funded a program named ZunZuneo. They used personal data obtained overseas, secret bank accounts, a shell company to support cell phone access for Cubans who had no idea it 

was funded by the U.S. Government. The irony being if we did not 

have the embargo we have, we probably would have had ten legitimate American companies down there vying for the ability to sell 

cell phones and Internet access. 

Whose idea was it to undertake this program in this manner? 

Dr. SHAH. Senator Leahy, first let me—thank you for your question. 
72 

Let me address Alan Gross first, we believe—— 

Senator LEAHY. No, how you—first answer the question. Whose 

idea was this? 

Dr. SHAH. The program was designed in 2007 and 2008, at that 

timeframe. That said, the legislation that crafts the purpose of the 

program—— 

Senator LEAHY. No. Whose idea was it for this specific program? 

I have read the legislation. The legislation does not say anything 

about setting up a cockamamie idea in Cuba with Twitter accounts 

and all, on something that the Cubans would be so easy to discover. 

Whose idea was this specific program in Cuba? Who? It is a simple question. 

Dr. SHAH. Sir, the program was in place before I arrived. 

Senator LEAHY. Sir, do you know whose idea it was? I know it 

was in place before you arrived. But do you know whose idea it 

was? 

Dr. SHAH. I—well, first let me say, and I think this is important, 

sir, and I greatly respect your point of view. But that AP story had 

a number of critical inaccuracies—— 

Senator LEAHY. I have read—I have read—— 

Dr. SHAH. And I am, I am—— 

Senator LEAHY. I will put that in the record. I will put it in the 

record, both the AP story and USAID’s response to the AP story. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: The information below is the Associated Press 

story.] 

[From the Miami Herald, Apr. 3, 2014] 

U.S. SECRETLY CREATED ‘‘CUBAN TWITTER’’ TO STIR UNREST

(By Desmond Butler, Jack Gillum and Alberto Arce, Associated Press) 

© Copyright 2014, The Miami Herald. All Rights Reserved. 

WASHINGTON.—In July 2010, Joe McSpedon, a U.S. Government official, flew to 

Barcelona to put the final touches on a secret plan to build a social media project 

aimed at undermining Cuba’s Communist Government. 

McSpedon and his team of high-tech contractors had come in from Costa Rica and 

Nicaragua, Washington and Denver. Their mission: to launch a messaging network 

that could reach hundreds of thousands of Cubans. To hide the network from the 

Cuban Government, they would set up a byzantine system of front companies using 

a Cayman Islands bank account, and recruit unsuspecting executives who would not 

be told of the company’s ties to the U.S. Government. 

McSpedon didn’t work for the CIA. This was a program paid for and run by the 

U.S. Agency for International Development, best known for overseeing billions of 

dollars in U.S. humanitarian aid. 

According to documents obtained by the Associated Press (AP) and multiple interviews with people involved in the project, the plan was to develop a bare-bones 

‘‘Cuban Twitter,’’ using cellphone text messaging to evade Cuba’s strict control of 

information and its stranglehold restrictions over the Internet. In a play on Twitter, 

it was called ZunZuneo—slang for a Cuban hummingbird’s tweet. 

Documents show the U.S. Government planned to build a subscriber base through 

‘‘non-controversial content’’: news messages on soccer, music, and hurricane updates. 

Later when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds 

of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans 

to organize ‘‘smart mobs’’—mass gatherings called at a moment’s notice that might 

trigger a Cuban Spring, or, as one USAID document put it, ‘‘renegotiate the balance 

of power between the state and society.’’ 

At its peak, the project drew in more than 40,000 Cubans to share news and exchange opinions. But its subscribers were never aware it was created by the U.S. 
73 

Government, or that American contractors were gathering their private data in the 

hope that it might be used for political purposes. 

‘‘There will be absolutely no mention of United States Government involvement,’’ 

according to a 2010 memo from Mobile Accord, one of the project’s contractors. ‘‘This 

is absolutely crucial for the long-term success of the service and to ensure the success of the Mission.’’ 

The program’s legality is unclear: U.S. law requires that any covert action by a 

Federal agency must have a presidential authorization. Officials at USAID would 

not say who had approved the program or whether the White House was aware of 

it. McSpedon, the most senior official named in the documents obtained by the AP, 

is a mid-level manager who declined to comment. 

USAID spokesman Matt Herrick said the agency is proud of its Cuba programs 

and noted that congressional investigators reviewed them last year and found them 

to be consistent with U.S. law. 

‘‘USAID is a development agency, not an intelligence agency, and we work all over 

the world to help people exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms, and give 

them access to tools to improve their lives and connect with the outside world,’’ he 

said. 

‘‘In the implementation,’’ he added, ‘‘has the government taken steps to be discreet 

in non-permissive environments? Of course. That’s how you protect the practitioners 

and the public. In hostile environments, we often take steps to protect the partners 

we’re working with on the ground. This is not unique to Cuba.’’ 

But the ZunZuneo program muddies those claims, a sensitive issue for its mission 

to promote democracy and deliver aid to the world’s poor and vulnerable—which requires the trust of foreign governments. 

‘‘On the face of it there are several aspects about this that are troubling,’’ said 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D–VT and chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s State 

Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. 

‘‘There is the risk to young, unsuspecting Cuban cellphone users who had no idea 

this was a U.S. Government-funded activity. There is the clandestine nature of the 

program that was not disclosed to the appropriations subcommittee with oversight 

responsibility. And there is the disturbing fact that it apparently activated shortly 

after Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who was sent to Cuba to help provide citizens access to the Internet, was arrested.’’ 

The Associated Press obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents about the 

project’s development. The AP independently verified the project’s scope and details 

in the documents—such as Federal contract numbers and names of job candidates— 

through publicly available databases, government sources and interviews with those 

directly involved in ZunZuneo. 

Taken together, they tell the story of how agents of the U.S. Government, working 

in deep secrecy, became tech entrepreneurs—in Cuba. And it all began with a half 

a million cellphone numbers obtained from a Communist Government. 

ZunZuneo would seem to be a throwback from the Cold War, and the decadeslong struggle between the United States and Cuba. It came at a time when the historically sour relationship between the countries had improved, at least marginally, 

and Cuba had made tentative steps toward a more market-based economy. 

It is unclear whether the plan got its start with USAID or Creative Associates 

International, a Washington, DC, for-profit company that has earned hundreds of 

millions of dollars in U.S. contracts. But a ‘‘key contact’’ at Cubacel, the state-owned 

cellphone provider, slipped the phone numbers to a Cuban engineer living in Spain. 

The engineer provided the numbers to USAID and Creative Associates ‘‘free of 

charge,’’ documents show. 

In mid-2009, Noy Villalobos, a manager with Creative Associates who had worked 

with USAID in the 1990s on a program to eradicate drug crops, started an instant 

messaging (IM) chat with her little brother in Nicaragua, according to a Creative 

Associates email that captured the conversation. Mario Bernheim, in his mid-20s, 

was an up-and-coming techie who had made a name for himself as a computer whiz. 

‘‘This is very confidential of course,’’ Villalobos cautioned her brother. But what 

could you do if you had all the cellphone numbers of a particular country? Could 

you send bulk text messages without the government knowing? 

‘‘Can you encrypt it or something?’’ she texted. 

She was looking for a direct line to regular Cubans through text messaging. Most 

had precious little access to news from the outside world. The government viewed 

the Internet as an Achilles’ heel and controlled it accordingly. A communications 

minister had even referred to it as a ‘‘wild colt’’ that ‘‘should be tamed.’’ 

Yet in the years since Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother Raul, Cuba 

had sought to jumpstart the long stagnant economy. Raul Castro began encouraging 

cellphone use, and hundreds of thousands of people were suddenly using mobile 
74 

phones for the first time, though smartphones with access to the Internet remained 

restricted. 

Cubans could text message, though at a high cost in a country where the average 

wage was a mere $20 a month. 

Bernheim told his sister that he could figure out a way to send instant texts to 

hundreds of thousands of Cubans— for cheap. It could not be encrypted though, because that would be too complicated. They wouldn’t be able to hide the messages 

from the Cuban Government, which owned Cubacel. But they could disguise who 

was sending the texts by constantly switching the countries the messages came 

from. 

‘‘We could rotate it from different countries?’’ Villalobos asked. ‘‘Say one message 

from Nica, another from Spain, another from Mexico’’? 

Bernheim could do that. ‘‘But I would need mirrors set up around the world, mirrors, meaning the same computer, running with the same platform, with the same 

phone.’’ 

‘‘No hay problema,’’ he signed off. No problem. 

After the chat, Creative hired Bernheim as a subcontractor, reporting to his sister. (Villalobos and Bernheim would later confirm their involvement with the 

ZunZuneo project to AP, but decline further comment.) Bernheim, in turn, signed 

up the Cuban engineer who had gotten the phone list. The team figured out how 

to message the masses without detection, but their ambitions were bigger. 

Creative Associates envisioned using the list to create a social networking system 

that would be called ‘‘Proyecto ZZ,’’ or ‘‘Project ZZ.’’ The service would start cautiously and be marketed chiefly to young Cubans, who USAID saw as the most open 

to political change. 

‘‘We should gradually increase the risk,’’ USAID proposed in a document. It advocated using ‘‘smart mobs’’ only in ‘‘critical/opportunistic situations and not at the 

detriment of our core platform-based network.’’ 

USAID’s team of contractors and subcontractors built a companion website to its 

text service so Cubans could subscribe, give feedback and send their own text messages for free. They talked about how to make the Web site look like a real business. 

‘‘Mock ad banners will give it the appearance of a commercial enterprise,’’ a proposal suggested. 

In multiple documents, USAID staff pointed out that text messaging had mobilized smart mobs and political uprisings in Moldova and the Philippines, among others. In Iran, the USAID noted social media’s role following the disputed election of 

then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2009—and saw it as an important 

foreign policy tool. 

USAID documents say their strategic objective in Cuba was to ‘‘push it out of a 

stalemate through tactical and temporary initiatives, and get the transition process 

going again towards democratic change.’’ Democratic change in authoritarian Cuba 

meant breaking the Castros’ grip on power. 

USAID divided Cuban society into five segments depending on loyalty to the government. On one side sat the ‘‘democratic movement,’’ called ‘‘still (largely) irrelevant,’’ and at the other end were the ‘‘hard-core system supporters,’’ dubbed 

‘‘Talibanes’’ in a derogatory comparison to Afghan and Pakistani extremists. 

A key question was how to move more people toward the democratic activist camp 

without detection. Bernheim assured the team that wouldn’t be a problem. 

‘‘The Cuban Government, like other regimes committed to information control, 

currently lacks the capacity to effectively monitor and control such a service,’’ 

Bernheim wrote in a proposal for USAID marked ‘‘Sensitive Information.’’ 

ZunZuneo would use the list of phone numbers to break Cuba’s Internet embargo 

and not only deliver information to Cubans but also let them interact with each 

other in a way the government could not control. Eventually it would build a system 

that would let Cubans send messages anonymously among themselves. 

At a strategy meeting, the company discussed building ‘‘user volume as a 

cover... for organization,’’ according to meeting notes. It also suggested that the 

‘‘Landscape needs to be large enough to hide full opposition members who may sign 

up for service.’’ 

In a play on the telecommunication minister’s quote, the team dubbed their network the ‘‘untamed colt.’’ 

At first, the ZunZuneo team operated out of Central America. Bernheim, the 

techie brother, worked from Nicaragua’s capital, Managua, while McSpedon supervised Creative’s work on ZunZuneo from an office in San Jose, Costa Rica, though 

separate from the U.S. Embassy. It was an unusual arrangement that raised eyebrows in Washington, according to U.S. officials. 
75 

McSpedon worked for USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a division 

that was created after the fall of the Soviet Union to promote U.S. interests in 

quickly changing political environments—without the usual red tape. 

In 2009, a report by congressional researchers warned that OTI’s work ‘‘often 

lends itself to political entanglements that may have diplomatic implications.’’ Staffers on oversight committees complained that USAID was running secret programs 

and would not provide details. 

‘‘We were told we couldn’t even be told in broad terms what was happening because ’people will die,’’’ said Fulton Armstrong, who worked for the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee. Before that, he was the U.S. intelligence community’s most 

senior analyst on Latin America, advising the Clinton White House. 

The money that Creative Associates spent on ZunZuneo was publicly earmarked 

for an unspecified project in Pakistan, Government data show. But there is no indication of where the funds were actually spent. 

Tensions with Congress spiked just as the ZunZuneo project was gearing up in 

December 2009, when another USAID program ended in the arrest of the U.S. contractor, Alan Gross. Gross had traveled repeatedly to Cuba on a secret mission to 

expand Internet access using sensitive technology typically available only to governments, a mission first revealed in February 2012 by AP. 

At some point, Armstrong says, the Foreign Relations Committee became aware 

of OTI’s secret operations in Costa Rica. U.S. Government officials acknowledged 

them privately to Armstrong, but USAID refused to provide operational details. 

At an event in Washington, Armstrong says he confronted McSpedon, asking him 

if he was aware that by operating secret programs from a third country, it might 

appear like he worked for an intelligence agency. 

McSpedon, through USAID, said the story is not true. He declined to comment 

otherwise. 

On September 20, 2009, thousands of Cubans gathered at Revolution Plaza in Havana for Colombian rocker Juanes’ ‘‘Peace without Borders’’ concert. It was the largest public gathering in Cuba since the visit of Pope John Paul II in 1998. Under 

the watchful gaze of a giant sculpture of revolutionary icon Ernesto ‘‘Che’’ Guevara, 

the Miami-based Juanes promised music aimed at ‘‘turning hate into love.’’ 

But for the ZunZuneo team, the concert was a perfect opportunity to test the political power of their budding social network. In the weeks before, Bernheim’s firm, 

using the phone list, sent out a half a million text messages in what it called 

‘‘blasts,’’ to test what the Cuban Government would do. 

The team hired Alen Lauzan Falcon, a Havana-born satirical artist based in 

Chile, to write Cuban-style messages. Some were mildly political and comical, others 

more pointed. One asked respondents whether they thought two popular local music 

acts out of favor with the government should join the stage with Juanes. Some 

100,000 people responded—not realizing the poll was used to gather critical intelligence. 

Paula Cambronero, a researcher for Mobile Accord, began building a vast database about the Cuban subscribers, including gender, age, ‘‘receptiveness’’ and ‘‘political tendencies.’’ USAID believed the demographics on dissent could help it target 

its other Cuba programs and ‘‘maximize our possibilities to extend our reach.’’ 

Cambronero concluded that the team had to be careful. ‘‘Messages with a humorous connotation should not contain a strong political tendency, so as not to create 

animosity in the recipients,’’ she wrote in a report. 

Falcon, in an interview, said he was never told that he was composing messages 

for a U.S. Government program, but he had no regrets about his involvement. 

‘‘They didn’t tell me anything, and if they had, I would have done it anyway,’’ he 

said. ‘‘In Cuba they don’t have freedom. While a government forces me to pay in 

order to visit my country, makes me ask permission, and limits my communications, 

I will be against it, whether it’s Fidel Castro, (Cuban exile leader) Jorge Mas 

Canosa or Gloria Estefan,’’ the Cuban American singer. 

Carlos Sanchez Almeida, a lawyer specializing in European data protection law, 

said it appeared that the U.S. program violated Spanish privacy laws because the 

ZunZuneo team had illegally gathered personal data from the phone list and sent 

unsolicited emails using a Spanish platform. ‘‘The illegal release of information is 

a crime, and using information to create a list of people by political affiliation is 

totally prohibited by Spanish law,’’ Almeida said. It would violate a U.S-European 

data protection agreement, he said. 

USAID saw evidence from server records that Havana had tried to trace the texts, 

to break into ZunZuneo’s servers, and had occasionally blocked messages. But 

USAID called the response ‘‘timid’’ and concluded that ZunZuneo would be viable— 

if its origins stayed secret. 
76 

Even though Cuba has one of the most sophisticated counter-intelligence operations in the world, the ZunZuneo team thought that as long as the message service 

looked benign, Cubacel would leave it alone. 

Once the network had critical mass, Creative and USAID documents argued, it 

would be harder for the Cuban Government to shut it down, both because of popular 

demand and because Cubacel would be addicted to the revenues from the text messages. 

In February 2010, the company introduced Cubans to ZunZuneo and began marketing. Within 6 months, it had almost 25,000 subscribers, growing faster and drawing more attention than the USAID team could control. 

Saimi Reyes Carmona was a journalism student at the University of Havana 

when she stumbled onto ZunZuneo. She was intrigued by the service’s novelty, and 

the price. The advertisement said ‘‘free messages’’ so she signed up using her nickname, Saimita. 

At first, ZunZuneo was a very tiny platform, Reyes said during a recent interview 

in Havana, but one day she went to its Web site and saw its services had expanded. 

‘‘I began sending one message every day,’’ she said, the maximum allowed at the 

start. ‘‘I didn’t have practically any followers.’’ She was thrilled every time she got 

a new one. 

And then ZunZuneo exploded in popularity. 

‘‘The whole world wanted in, and in a question of months I had 2,000 followers 

who I have no idea who they are, nor where they came from.’’ 

She let her followers know the day of her birthday, and was surprised when she 

got some 15 personal messages. ‘‘This is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen!’’ she told 

her boyfriend, Ernesto Guerra Valdes, also a journalism student. 

Before long, Reyes learned she had the second highest number of followers on the 

island, after a user called UCI, which the students figured was Havana’s University 

of Computer Sciences. Her boyfriend had 1,000. The two were amazed at the reach 

it gave them. 

‘‘It was such a marvelous thing,’’ Guerra said. ‘‘So noble.’’ He and Reyes tried to 

figure out who was behind ZunZuneo, since the technology to run it had to be expensive, but they found nothing. They were grateful though. 

‘‘We always found it strange, that generosity and kindness,’’ he said. ZunZuneo 

was ‘‘the fairy godmother of cellphones.’’ 

By early 2010, Creative decided that ZunZuneo was so popular Bernheim’s company wasn’t sophisticated enough to build, in effect, ‘‘a scaled down version of Twitter.’’ 

It turned to another young techie, James Eberhard, CEO of Denver-based Mobile 

Accord Inc. Eberhard had pioneered the use of text messaging for donations during 

disasters and had raised tens of millions of dollars after the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti. 

Eberhard earned millions in his mid-20s when he sold a company that developed 

cellphone ring tones and games. His company’s Web site describes him as ‘‘a visionary within the global mobile community.’’ 

In July, he flew to Barcelona to join McSpedon, Bernheim, and others to work out 

what they called a ‘‘below the radar strategy.’’ 

‘‘If it is discovered that the platform is, or ever was, backed by the United States 

Government, not only do we risk the channel being shut down by Cubacel, but we 

risk the credibility of the platform as a source of reliable information, education, 

and empowerment in the eyes of the Cuban people,’’ Mobile Accord noted in a 

memo. 

To cover their tracks, they decided to have a company based in the United Kingdom set up a corporation in Spain to run ZunZuneo. A separate company called 

MovilChat was created in the Cayman Islands, a well-known offshore tax haven, 

with an account at the island’s Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Ltd. to pay the bills. 

A memo of the meeting in Barcelona says that the front companies would distance 

ZunZuneo from any U.S. ownership so that the ‘‘money trail will not trace back to 

America.’’ 

But it wasn’t just the money they were worried about. They had to hide the origins of the texts, according to documents and interviews with team members. 

Brad Blanken, the former chief operating officer of Mobile Accord, left the project 

early on, but noted that there were two main criteria for success. 

‘‘The biggest challenge with creating something like this is getting the phone 

numbers,’’ Blanken said. ‘‘And then the ability to spoof the network.’’ 

The team of contractors set up servers in Spain and Ireland to process texts, contracting an independent Spanish company called Lleida.net to send the text messages back to Cuba, while stripping off identifying data. 
77 

Mobile Accord also sought intelligence from engineers at the Spanish telecommunications company Telefonica, which organizers said would ‘‘have knowledge 

of Cubacel’s network.’’ 

‘‘Understanding the security and monitoring protocols of Cubacel will be an invaluable asset to avoid unnecessary detection by the carrier,’’ one Mobile Accord 

memo read. 

Officials at USAID realized however, that they could not conceal their involvement forever—unless they left the stage. The predicament was summarized bluntly 

when Eberhard was in Washington for a strategy session in early February 2011, 

where his company noted the ‘‘inherent contradiction’’ of giving Cubans a platform 

for communications uninfluenced by their government that was in fact financed by 

the U.S. Government and influenced by its agenda. 

They turned to Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter, to seek funding for the 

project. Documents show Dorsey met with Suzanne Hall, a State Department officer 

who worked on social media projects, and others. Dorsey declined to comment. 

The State Department under then-Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton thought social media was an important tool in diplomacy. At a 2011 speech at George Washington University, Clinton said the U.S. helped people in ‘‘oppressive Internet environments get around filters.’’ In Tunisia, she said people used technology to ‘‘organize and share grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to 

revolutionary change.’’ 

Ultimately, the solution was new management that could separate ZunZuneo from 

its U.S. origins and raise enough revenue for it to go ‘‘independent,’’ even as it kept 

its long-term strategy to bring about ‘‘democratic change.’’ 

Eberhard led the recruitment efforts, a sensitive operation because he intended 

to keep the management of the Spanish company in the dark. 

‘‘The ZZ management team will have no knowledge of the true origin of the operation; as far as they know, the platform was established by Mobile Accord,’’ the 

memo said. ‘‘There should be zero doubt in management’s mind and no insecurities 

or concerns about United States Government involvement.’’ 

The memo went on to say that the CEO’s clean conscience would be ‘‘particularly 

critical when dealing with Cubacel.’’ Sensitive to the high cost of text messages for 

average Cubans, ZunZuneo negotiated a bulk rate for texts at 4 cents a pop through 

a Spanish intermediary. Documents show there was hope that an earnest, clueless 

CEO might be able to persuade Cubacel to back the project. 

Mobile Accord considered a dozen candidates from five countries to head the 

Spanish front company. One of them was Francoise de Valera, a CEO who was vacationing in Dubai when she was approached for an interview. She flew to Barcelona. At the luxury Mandarin Oriental Hotel, she met with Nim Patel, who at the 

time was Mobile Accord’s president. Eberhard had also flown in for the interviews. 

But she said she couldn’t get a straight answer about what they were looking for. 

‘‘They talked to me about instant messaging but nothing about Cuba, or the 

United States,’’ she told the AP in an interview from London. 

‘‘If I had been offered and accepted the role, I believe that sooner or later it would 

have become apparent to me that something wasn’t right,’’ she said. 

By early 2011, Creative Associates grew exasperated with Mobile Accord’s failure 

to make ZunZuneo self-sustaining and independent of the U.S. Government. The operation had run into an unsolvable problem. USAID was paying tens of thousands 

of dollars in text messaging fees to Cuba’s communist telecommunications monopoly 

routed through a secret bank account and front companies. It was not a situation 

that it could either afford or justify—and if exposed it would be embarrassing, or 

worse. 

In a searing evaluation, Creative Associates said Mobile Accord had ignored sustainability because ‘‘it has felt comfortable receiving United States Government 

(USG) financing to move the venture forward.’’ 

Out of 60 points awarded for performance, Mobile Accord scored 34 points. Creative Associates complained that Mobile Accord’s understanding of the social mission of the project was weak, and gave it 3 out of 10 points for ‘‘commitment to our 

Program goals.’’ 

Mobile Accord declined to comment on the program. 

In increasingly impatient tones, Creative Associates pressed Mobile Accord to find 

new revenue that would pay the bills. Mobile Accord suggested selling targeted advertisements in Cuba, but even with projections of up to a million ZunZuneo subscribers, advertising in a state-run economy would amount to a pittance. 

By March 2011, ZunZuneo had about 40,000 subscribers. To keep a lower profile, 

it abandoned previous hopes of reaching 200,000 and instead capped the number of 

subscribers at a lower number. It limited ZunZuneo’s text messages to less than 1 

percent of the total in Cuba, so as to avoid the notice of Cuban authorities. Though 
78 

one former ZunZuneo worker—who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was 

not authorized to speak publicly about his work—said the Cubans were catching on 

and had tried to block the site. 

Toward the middle of 2012, Cuban users began to complain that the service 

worked only sporadically. Then not at all. 

ZunZuneo vanished as mysteriously as it appeared. 

By June 2012, users who had access to Facebook and Twitter were wondering 

what had happened. 

‘‘Where can you pick up messages from ZunZuneo?’’ one woman asked on 

Facebook in November 2012. ‘‘Why aren’t I receiving them anymore?’’ 

Users who went to ZunZuneo’s Web site were sent to a children’s Web site with 

a similar name. 

Reyner Aguero, a 25-year-old blogger, said he and fellow students at Havana’s 

University of Computer Sciences tried to track it down. Someone had rerouted the 

Web site through DNS blocking, a censorship technique initially developed back in 

the 1990s. Intelligence officers later told the students that ZunZuneo was 

blacklisted, he said. 

‘‘ZunZuneo, like everything else they did not control, was a threat,’’ Aguero said. 

‘‘Period.’’ 

In incorrect Spanish, ZunZuneo posted a note on its Facebook page saying it was 

aware of problems accessing the Web site and that it was trying to resolve them. 

‘‘¡Que viva el ZunZuneo!’’ the message said. Long live ZunZuneo! 

In February, when Saimi Reyes, and her boyfriend, Ernesto Guerra, learned the 

origins of ZunZuneo, they were stunned. 

‘‘How was I supposed to realize that?’’ Guerra asked. ‘‘It’s not like there was a 

sign saying ‘Welcome to ZunZuneo, brought to you by USAID.’ ’’ 

‘‘Besides, there was nothing wrong. If I had started getting subversive messages 

or death threats or ‘Everyone into the streets,’ ’’ he laughed, ‘‘I would have said, 

‘OK,’ there’s something fishy about this. But nothing like that happened.’’ 

USAID says the program ended when the money ran out. The Cuban Government 

declined to comment. 

The former Web domain is now a placeholder, for sale for $299. The registration 

for MovilChat, the Cayman Islands front company, was set to expire on March 31. 

In Cuba, nothing has come close to replacing it. Internet service still is restricted. 

‘‘The moment when ZunZuneo disappeared was like a vacuum,’’ Guerra said. ‘‘People texted my phone, ‘What is happening with ZunZuneo?’ ’’ 

‘‘In the end, we never learned what happened,’’ he said. ‘‘We never learned where 

it came from.’’ 

[CLERK’S NOTE: The information below is USAID’s response to 

the Associated Press story.] 

[A Blog From the United States Agency for International Development, 

Apr. 7, 2014] 

EIGHT FACTS ABOUT ZUNZUNEO

(Posted by Matt Herrick, Spokesperson) 

On Thursday, April 3, the Associated Press published an article on a social media 

program in Cuba funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The article contained significant inaccuracies and false conclusions about ZunZuneo, which 

was part of a broader effort that began in 2009 to facilitate ‘‘twitter like’’ communication among Cubans so they could connect with each other on topics of their 

choice. Many of the inaccuracies have been re-reported by other news outlets, perpetuating the original narrative, or worse. 

The article suggested that USAID spent years on a ‘‘covert’’ program to gather 

personal information to be used for political purposes to ‘‘foment’’ ‘‘smart mobs’’ and 

start a ‘‘Cuban Spring’’ to overthrow the Cuban Government. It makes for an interesting read, but it’s not true. 

USAID’s work in Cuba is not unlike what we and other donors do around the 

world to connect people who have been cut off from the outside world by repressive 

or authoritarian governments. USAID’s democracy and governance work focuses on 

strengthening civil society, governance, and promoting human rights. 

Here are eight claims made by article, followed by the facts: 

(1) The story says the ‘‘program’s legality is unclear’’ and implies the program was 

‘‘covert.’’ 
79 

FACT: USAID works in places where we are not always welcome. To minimize 

the risk to our staff and partners and ensure our work can proceed safely, we must 

take certain precautions and maintain a discreet profile. But discreet does not equal 

covert. 

The programs have long been the subject of congressional notifications, unclassified briefings, public budget requests, and public hearings. All of the Congressional 

Budget Justifications published from 2008 through 2013, which are public and online, explicitly state that a key goal of USAID’s Cuba program is to break the ‘‘information blockade’’ or promote ‘‘information sharing’’ amongst Cubans and that assistance will include the use or promotion of new ‘‘technologies’’ and/or ‘‘new media’’ to 

achieve its goals. 

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office—the U.S. Government’s investigative arm—spent months looking at every aspect of USAID’s Cuba programs. GAO’s 

team of analysts had unrestricted access to project documents, extended telephone 

conversations with Mobile Accord (ZunZuneo) and even traveled to Cuba. The GAO 

identified no concerns in the report about the legality of USAID’s programs, including ZunZuneo, and offered USAID zero recommendations for improvements. 

(2) The article implies that the purpose of the program was to foment ‘‘Smart 

Mobs,’’ funnel political content and thereby trigger unrest in Cuba. 

FACT: The ‘‘USAID documents’’ cited in the article appear to be case study research and brainstorming notes between the grantee and the contractor. The specific 

reference to ‘‘Smart Mobs’’ had nothing to do with Cuba nor ZunZuneo. The documents do not represent the U.S. Government’s position or reflect the spirit or actions taken as part of the program in Cuba. The project initially sent news, sports 

scores, weather, and trivia. After which, the grantee did not direct content because 

users were generating it on their own. 

(3) The story states there was a ‘‘shell company’’ in Spain formed to run the program. 

FACT: No one affiliated with the ZunZuneo program established a private company in Spain as part of this program. The project sought to do so if it was able 

to attract private investors to support the effort after USAID funding ended. Private 

investment was never identified and thus no company was ever formed. 

(4) The story implies that the United States Government (USG) tried to recruit 

executives to run ZunZuneo without telling them about USG involvement. 

FACT: A USAID staff member was present during several of the interviews for 

candidates to lead ZunZuneo. The staff member’s affiliation with USAID was disclosed and it was conveyed that the funding for the program was from the U.S. Government. 

(5) The article states that private data was collected with the hope it would be 

used for political purposes. 

FACT: The ZunZuneo project included a Web site, as is typical for a social network. Users could voluntarily submit personal information. Few did, and the program did not use this information for anything. 

(6) The article says that the funding was ‘‘publicly earmarked for an unspecified 

project in Pakistan,’’ implying that funds were misappropriated. 

FACT: All funds for this project were congressionally appropriated for democracy 

programs in Cuba, and that information is publicly available. 

(7) The story stated, ‘‘At its peak, the project drew in more than 40,000 Cubans 

to share news and exchange opinions.’’ 

FACT: At its peak, the platform had around 68,000 users. 

(8) The article suggests there was an inappropriate base of operations established 

in Costa Rica outside of normal U.S. Government procedures. 

FACT: The Government of Costa Rica was informed of the program on more than 

one occasion. The USAID employee overseeing the program served under Chief of 

Mission Authority with the U.S. Embassy, as is standard practice. 

Dr. SHAH. Okay. 

Senator LEAHY. Having said that, do you know whose idea it 

was? 

Dr. SHAH. I do not specifically, but I will say this, that working 

on creating platforms to improve communication in Cuba, and in 

many other parts of the world, is a core part of what USAID has 

done for some time and continues to do. 

Senator LEAHY. Did—— 

Dr. SHAH. Part of the Administration’s policy is to continue to 

support efforts to allow for open communications. To the extent 
80 

that the AP story, or any other comment, creates the impression 

that this effort, or any other, goes beyond that for other ulterior 

purposes, that is simply inaccurate. 

Senator LEAHY. Was it a covert program? 

Dr. SHAH. Absolutely not. It was conducted—— 

Senator LEAHY. Was anyone at the U.S. Interests Section, at either the Department of State or the White House, aware of the 

facts of this program? 

Dr. SHAH. This program has been notified publicly in congressional budget justifications dating back to 2008—— 

Senator LEAHY. I have read those and you are talking about 

bureaucratese. If you could figure out that it meant this, you are 

a lot better than most of us. 

Now, Alan Gross—— 

Dr. SHAH. Well, sir, may I speak to that? 

The notifications point out that we are working to increase the 

free flow of information and support civil society and engagement 

using new technology. They specifically highlight work to reduce 

Internet restrictions to information. They highlight using new digital methods to increase information flow in and out of the island, 

and they talk about work on Internet freedom. More detailed conversations took place in staff briefings. 

Senator LEAHY. And we have spent millions of dollars, for example, on the Martı ́ program even though we just made a lot of people 

wealthy, but it has not done much of any good whatsoever, but it 

makes people feel good to spend the money. 

Alan Gross was arrested in December of 2009. Did USAID consider what the possible discovery of this program by the Cuban 

Government, did anybody consider what that might have meant for 

Alan Gross? 

Dr. SHAH. Look, Alan’s detention is wrong. The responsibility for 

his detention rests with Cuban authorities. And our administration 

has worked, and since you mentioned it, I should highlight that the 

State Department has led an aggressive effort to help Alan secure 

his release. And specifically, Under Secretary Sherman has worked 

this issue at the highest levels, it has been addressed. 

Senator LEAHY. I have seen some nice press releases, but I have 

not seen any steps that would actually get him out. 

Dr. SHAH. We can share that with you in a private setting, I am 

sure. She would be eager to do that. 

Senator LEAHY. Okay. 

Dr. SHAH. Because I know that—— 

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you this—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. There is a lot of focused work on behalf 

of the Gross family, whom we think about and care about deeply. 

Senator LEAHY. Is the program that Alan Gross was sent down 

there to carry out, did USAID consider the fact that if he was discovered in that program that he would be arrested? Was that ever 

a consideration of USAID? 

Dr. SHAH. Yes, these programs are conducted more discreetly 

precisely because of a recognition that providing Internet access in 

an authoritarian environment—— 

Senator LEAHY. Then why has—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. Exposes partners to certain risks. 
81 

Senator LEAHY. There are USAID people who are doing wonderful things that you and I would applaud all over the world, many 

at great risk to themselves because of the places they are in. And 

they are constantly faced with the suspicion ‘‘You are not here to 

help us. You are really a spy.’’ And they have to say, ‘‘Well, no. We 

do not work for the CIA. We work for USAID.’’ 

Did you not worry that having a USAID employee do this, knowing how the Cuban secret police and informants work, that he 

would be discovered? Does that not taint all USAID employees 

around the world as spies? I mean, we are already getting emails 

from USAID employees, current and past, saying, ‘‘How could they 

do this and put us in such danger?’’ 

Dr. SHAH. Sir, we support civil society. We support and implement the fiscal year 2014 appropriations language that directs us 

to improve access to information and Internet freedom in many 

parts of the world. We do it transparently and with public notifications. The fact that we are discussing it in this hearing highlights 

the reality that these are publicly notified programs. 

Senator LEAHY. Where are some other countries where you do it 

openly? 

Dr. SHAH. Literally, around the world. And we have had efforts 

in Kenya to support the Yes Youth Can—— 

Senator LEAHY. Have they always been done with—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. Movement student groups. 

Senator LEAHY. Has it always been done with full knowledge and 

support of our U.S. ambassadors in those countries in every instance? 

Dr. SHAH. That is the aspiration. 

Senator LEAHY. Is that the reality? 

Dr. SHAH. I think for the major ones that I am most familiar 

with, absolutely. There are things we review. There are things that 

our Embassy teams are more than aware of. 

And, in fact, the Yes Youth Can program in Kenya is a great example. They can work. Sometimes they help lean and tip the scales 

towards protection of communities and rights, allowing people to 

gain access, promoting democratic transitions from one administration to the next, supporting safe participation in elections, and we 

have seen it time and time again. They do not always work, and 

I will be the first to admit that, but often they do. 

Senator LEAHY. This one had, this one from the get-go had no 

possibility of working. That is my problem with it. 

Senator Graham. 

AFGHANISTAN

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is an article, I think, in ‘‘USA Today,’’ April the 2nd. The 

title was, ‘‘AID Agency Accused of Cover Up in Afghanistan.’’ The 

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction issued a 

report asserting that USAID kept information from congress and 

the American people regarding Afghan ministries unable to account 

for cash and other assistance. And the concern was that some of 

this money was going to suppliers and beneficiaries of the funds 

that have links with terrorist organizations. 

Could you comment on that article? 
82 

Dr. SHAH. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for the opportunity, 

Senator. 

First I will say that we have been fully open with all of these 

documents. These are assessments that we conduct in order to 

mitigate the risks of all of our partners, whether they are Government partners or others. We have made those full documents open 

without any redaction whatsoever to anyone who wants to be a 

part of an in-camera review, and that has taken place in the past. 

We have also made documents that were jointly redacted by the 

USAID and State available externally, in terms of moving the documents forward to, I think in that case, it was the House Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee where personally identifiable 

information and other things that were deemed national security 

sensitive were redacted. 

But the full, open documents are open. And, by the way, I am 

proud of these documents. These documents show that our teams 

are doing careful assessments, they assess 13 or 16 ministries. 

They found some deficiencies in the controls, and procurement, and 

financial management systems. So instead of moving money directly to those ministries, they used a mechanism called the Afghan Reconstructions Trust Fund run by the World Bank, and a 

different central bank mechanism that allows us to carefully monitor and measure where our resources are going, and only expend 

them when we know costs have been incurred. 

And the final thing I will say about this, sir, is that, for 2 to 3 

percent of the cost of this war, USAID has helped 8 million kids 

go to school, nearly 3 million girls. We have helped support elections over the past weekend. We have seen the fastest reduction in 

maternal and child death anywhere in the world in Afghanistan 

over the last decade, and the 44 year increase in women’s longevity 

in Afghanistan is not something that I made up. It is actually coming from a properly conducted demographic and health survey 

which is the gold standard for data collection in these types of efforts. 

The 2,200 kilometers of road have allowed real economic growth. 

And to the extent that Afghanistan has a shot at a secure and 

prosperous future, in large part, I believe, retrospectively people 

will see this 2 to 3 percent of our total investment as a very important part of giving that country a chance and of supporting American security interests in the long term. 

Senator GRAHAM. I would agree with that assessment. 

FEED THE FUTURE

Let us now go to Africa. Genetically modified organisms, GMO’s: 

what role do they play in our Feed the Future initiative? How are 

you integrating them into Africa? And very briefly, could you tell 

me, are we making progress with our European partners regarding 

GMO’s utilization in Africa? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you, sir. And I want to thank the committee for its support for the Feed the Future program. 

When we launched Feed the Future, at the President’s direction 

at the beginning of the first term, the goal was to help African institutions develop their own seeds, fertilizers, improved agricultural technologies that could help millions of people move beyond 
83 

needing food assistance, and become self-sufficient in their own 

right and commercially prosperous. Part of that transition is testing the use of all different kinds of technologies. 

And so, we have engaged in a series of partnerships to develop 

improved, drought-resistant or water efficient corn for east Africa; 

improved, bio-fortified products for west Africa and southern Africa. And these products are being developed, tested and introduced 

based on the regulations and the science norms in those countries. 

I think we are making tremendous progress. The fact that we 

have gone from virtually nothing to reaching 7 million farm households in a 4-year period, I believe, is an extraordinary effort. And 

the fact that we have motivated private companies to join us, most 

are local, African companies to make nearly $4 billion of commitment—— 

Senator GRAHAM. And the goal—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. And $48 million of investments is a big 

step forward as well. 

Senator GRAHAM. And the goal is to create some disposable income in these farming families so they will have some purchasing 

power, building roads to get their crops to the market, and having 

some trade agreements in Africa to further advance farming. Is 

that correct? 

Dr. SHAH. That is exactly true, sir. And the goal is, furthermore, 

to recognize that when these countries and their economies stand 

on their own two feet, they become trading partners. That creates 

jobs and security, trade and prosperity for the United States as 

well as Ghana, or Tanzania, or Mozambique, or Bangladesh. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

HEPATITIS C

Egypt has, I think, one of the highest levels of Hepatitis C infection in the world; over 12 million people infected. There is—I do 

not know if it is a new drug—but a drug available that can actually 

cure the disease. 

Would you be willing to talk with this committee about a pilot 

program where we, the United States, could supplement what the 

Egyptian Government is doing in terms of treating people who are 

infected with Hepatitis C and try to leverage some of the Sunni 

Arab countries who provide aid to Egypt to put some of their 

money into this program, and see if we can turn this around? 

Dr. SHAH. I would be eager to learn more about it, sir, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think it is an opportunity for the committee 

and the congress to really weigh-in and help the Egyptian people 

with a huge problem, which is Hepatitis C infection that creates a 

lot of drain on their economy, and health problems that have to be 

addressed. 

UKRAINE

On Ukraine, do you have a presence in Ukraine? 

Dr. SHAH. We do. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Where is it located? 

Dr. SHAH. In Kiev. 

Senator GRAHAM. I am very concerned that what you see in the 

east is a precursor to more Russian advancement that is pretty ob-
84 

vious that Putin is setting up a scenario where he is coming to the 

aid of ethnic Russians in the east, justifying a further incursion 

into Ukraine. 

Do you share those concerns? What purpose is our money being 

spent on? And is there any chance that the money that we are investing in Ukraine can yield results? And if we need to invest 

more, what would you advise the committee to do? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you, Senator and we have already significantly increased the investment just over the last few weeks in the 

Ukraine. 

Our investment serves two major purposes. One is to support the 

elections and civil society and democratic processes, so they are implemented effectively. And the second is economic—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you believe that Putin is trying to undercut 

this election? That the actions in the east are trying to, basically, 

dismember the country according to the Prime Minister of 

Ukraine’s statement that that is going on before our eyes? 

Dr. SHAH. They appear significant, sir, but our role is to focus 

on supporting the economic reforms, getting the IMF package, 

which is tens of billions of dollars to help bolster the Ukrainian 

economy. 

Specifically we will be, and are, providing technical assistance to 

do everything from providing land titles to 1.8 million Ukrainian 

farmers, so they can provide commercial activity; to supporting the 

Government to make transitions in its fuel policies so that it can 

be more fiscally secure and have an economy that is more resilient 

to some of the geopolitical realities. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you for all your good leadership and 

hard work. 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much, Administrator. Thank 

you for the leadership you have provided and the partnerships that 

you have developed with other Governments, and nonprofit organizations, and businesses to leverage the money that the taxpayers 

of the United States are putting towards some of your, some of our 

very worthy goals. 

NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR CHILDREN

I have three questions today, and one is about the National Action Plan for Children. Secretary Kerry sent me a letter in September of this year and he wrote that the State Department and 

USAID were moving forward aggressively to implement the firstever U.S. Action Plan for Children in Adversity, which the White 

House released in December of 2012. More specifically, he stated, 

‘‘USAID and State recently formed a senior policy operating group.’’ 

So I have a few questions about that. 

In the 15 months since the National Action Plan on Children was 

released, what concrete actions has USAID, under the direction of 

this senior advisory committee, taken to advance the plan’s implementation? And specifically, how many people have been assigned 

and how much money has been spent in standing up this Action 

Plan for Children in Adversity? 
85 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, Senator Landrieu, and thank you for your 

strong support for USAID, for our reforms all around the world, 

and for your tremendous leadership on the issue of Children in Adversity in particular. 

As Secretary Kerry noted, we have made great strides moving 

forward. We have a coherent strategy that prioritizes birth registration efforts to move children to family care and out of orphanages, and to support efforts to help children survive and thrive as 

they grow into adolescence. 

We at USAID, to contribute to that strategy most effectively, 

have restructured our work, merging a few of our offices and moving them from global health to our humanitarian assistance bureau 

which, I think, will help take this forward. 

We have also increased our budget commitments to this area. 

The fiscal year 2015 request in addition to the 10 percent of the 

PEPFAR program that focuses on orphans and vulnerable children, 

will include additional resources specifically for this Center of Excellence. And we intend to support both new grand challenges in 

this area that will allow innovators and new partners to work with 

us in partnerships with companies like IKEA, H&M, and the 

Lumos Foundation, which was created by J.K. Rowling, to help leverage our resources and drive other people’s money into this space 

as well. 

The one other thing I would like to highlight is that because of 

your leadership, and as a result of our mutual actions, last year, 

500 kids were moved from orphanages in Cambodia, Rwanda, and 

Guatemala to family care in those settings. And our Children in 

Adversity advisor, our program partners, and certainly your office, 

have played a critical role. And for that, I want to thank you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, thank you, Administrator. 

But we have, as you know, a lot more work to be done and there 

are 5 members of this committee, and over 60 members of congress, 

that have signed on to a piece of legislation called Children and 

Families First. And you would not think that a piece of legislation 

like that would be necessary. Think about it. Children and Families First, where else would children be? 

So I tell myself every day, it is interesting that I have to try to 

pass a bill in congress because when I read your statement today, 

even though that we have made a lot of progress, and I do believe 

that you are sincere. I cannot find the word ‘‘family’’ in, on any one 

of these pages. I see ‘‘children.’’ I see ‘‘young people.’’ I see ‘‘girls.’’ 

I see ‘‘child.’’ I see ‘‘childhood,’’ on and on and on. 

But as I have tried to explain to the chairman and he is, I think, 

very sympathetic, one of my big problems in this whole State Department, whole USAID space is I cannot find the word ‘‘family.’’ 

And when you talk to regular Americans, regular Americans, 

Americans whether they are in Delaware or Louisiana or Vermont, 

the basis of society is family. Children belong in families. Families 

belong together. 

And I am sure you are aware of the studies that have been done 

by some of the outstanding doctors in our country. Are you aware 

of the Bucharest Early Intervention, Harvard Early Childhood Development, the work of Charles Zeanah at Tulane? Would you give 
86 

a minute to explain to the committee what the findings of this 

work have been? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, Senator, I do not have the specific findings in 

front of me, but the studies that I have been briefed on show very 

clearly that family care is good for kids, and my kids appreciate 

being in a family, sometimes. 

And so the reality is that you are right. We are trying to use the 

flexibilities and the capabilities we have to help support children 

to make the transition into families where that is not possible. 

I have met with kids in eastern Congo, just recently, who are 

working with our partners there to help them get placed into families, coming out of the conflict and the war that has been taking 

place there, and this should be a bigger part of what we do. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Well, let me ask you this question. Do 

you agree, then, that child welfare, particularly international child 

welfare, is more than a counselor issue? And needs to be handled 

in a way that represents or supports its importance in building 

civil societies? 

Dr. SHAH. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Because this piece of legislation, which 

will be moving through, that is exactly what it attempts to do, to 

use the models that are very effective. 

And we have, on this committee, helped to create some of these 

very effective models for combating trafficking, providing humanitarian assistance for resettlement of refugees, AIDS relief, fighting 

terrorism. I mean, those are four really extraordinary successes 

that this chairman, and we have, and our authorization committee 

have led. 

That is what we are talking about with CHIFF is focusing the 

work so that we can put our money and our strategies in line with 

our views and values that children belong in families. Keeping 

them to the one they are born into, keeping that family together. 

If they are separated, reuniting them. And if we cannot keep the 

family together or reunite, find another family for them, in-country 

preferably, and if not, inter-country adoption. 

The chair is—I am on my last 3 seconds—the chair is aware that 

our numbers for inter-country adoption have fallen from a high of 

20,000 down to 7,000. If we do not change this—20,000 just 8 years 

ago to 7,000—we will be down to zero. 

Now, what that means to me is that we are not doing the very 

best job we can to help children find families. Most of them will 

find families in their own country. But inter-country adoption is an 

important—not the only, not the first, not the central—but an important part of that equation. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support and the members of this committee will continue to work on this. My other 

questions were about the Lord’s Resistance Army and about the 

children in Syria, but I will submit those for the record. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. We will continue to work 

on this issue. Thank you very much for that. 

Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 
87 

If I might start out, I do not have any questions to follow up on 

the chairman’s comments relative to Cuba. I think those comments 

are extremely important, and I would strongly suggest that somebody in the Administration should pay attention to those comments. But here is just a general observation having worked with 

USAID as the ex-Secretary and now with you. 

I really like what you are doing, and I think you have bipartisan 

support on this committee for what you are doing. I think in many 

ways, you and your team have revitalized the image of USAID and 

I just see progress wherever I look. 

But when I think about USAID, I think about words like ‘‘humanitarian,’’ ‘‘caring,’’ ‘‘road-builders,’’ people who are really trying 

to get in the midst of very difficult situations, some of the worst 

poverty in the world, for example, and change the course of that 

country. 

I cannot imagine why USAID would want to be involved, or even 

should be involved—maybe that is the more appropriate comment—in something like going into a country and dealing, and trying to get Internet access for people opposing the regime or some 

other. Not to say that that is not an important mission. But why 

would we put that mission in USAID? Why would you not look at 

some other part of the Federal Government to place that mission? 

And you do not have to comment on this, Dr. Shah, but to me, it 

seems crazy. It just seems crazy that you would be in the middle 

of that. That is just my observation. 

FOOD AID

Let me, if I might now, turn my focus to something that everybody on this committee cares very deeply about, and that is food 

aid. Just within the last few days, on April 4th, I wrote a letter 

to Mark Pryor, Senator Mark Pryor, the chairman of the subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related 

Agencies, and to Senator Roy Blunt, who is the ranking member. 

The letter was my opportunity to urge them to do this and that on 

their appropriation. 

I am going to read something to you that I put in that letter, and 

I would ask you comments on it. ‘‘Over the past decade,’’ I say, 

‘‘Funding has declined in Public Law 480—Title II as commodity 

prices have gone up. This has meant fewer commodities have been 

made available while global hunger has remained at alarming levels. While I know the committee has competing priorities, food aid 

can literally save the lives of hungry people around the world, generating good will towards the United States.’’ 

And then I say, ‘‘This request that I am making would simply restore the average of funding levels over the past decade.’’ So it 

would boost funding to the average. I could make, I think, a very 

compelling case that it should be higher than that. What is your 

reaction to that request? And is that a request that you would support, the Administration would support? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you for your strong 

advocacy for food aid reform that is carried out responsibly. 

On face value, just hearing that for the first time, I am supportive of the basic idea that you are articulating, which is if we 

can reform the way we provide our food assistance, we can update 
88 

and modernize our programs, save more lives, reach more children 

and families in critical need, and do that without costing the Federal Government extra resources. And that was the motivation behind President Obama’s budget proposal last year. It continues to 

be his motivation behind this year’s request for some additional 

flexibility in the program. 

I will say one additional thing, which is the farm bill combined 

with some efforts that you, personally, engaged in and that Senator 

Pryor and others supported, will allow us in fiscal year 2014 to 

reach 800,000 additional children whom we otherwise would not 

have because of partially adopting the President’s proposal. 

That is 800,000 kids at a time when in and around Syria, in and 

around the Central African Republic, in and around South Sudan, 

we are going to have needs that far outstrip our capacities in terms 

of humanitarian response. And that is a real, in my view, step forward we can all jointly take pride in. 

Senator JOHANNS. I will make sure you get a copy of this letter. 

I am hoping that the chairman and ranking member of this committee will also take a look at it. You are almost never going to see 

me come down to a subcommittee hearing and say, ‘‘We need more 

funding.’’ It is not in my DNA, typically. 

But having said that, again, based on my experience in looking 

at what you are dealing with Syria, Sudan, etcetera, I do not think 

there is any other conclusion to that. I think the resources are just 

disappearing and, of course, we went through a very difficult time 

where prices were extremely high. That has changed a little bit 

here, but I just think at the end of the day, we are trying to stretch 

the rubber band too tight and at some point, it breaks. 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, sir. 

Senator JOHANNS. Let me, if I might, ask about the proposal that 

the Administration has made on the Food for Peace Title II program. It is scaled back from last year’s proposal. You are still supportive of local and regional purchases. And, as you know, I have 

got some history with that proposal too. In fact, I think you have 

used the same proposal that I made when I was Secretary. 

Talk to us about local and regional purchases, what you are trying to do here, and why you think that could be a difference-maker. 

And that will wrap up my questions. 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you. And I will just say we have been 

really recognized for the strength, speed, and effectiveness of the 

response in the Philippines. 

Almost all of the food that you saw provided in the first few 

weeks, and even months, were the result of local and regional purchased and prepositioned food stocks with the American shipped 

foods then coming in 8 to 12 weeks later. And your leadership as 

the Secretary of Agriculture helped make that possible, helped feed 

those kids. 

We have a lot of data from that program that shows that we can 

do this at a lower cost, more effectively buying the types of food 

products that have more nutrition value, can be delivered quicker, 

safer, are more preferred for communities. And, frankly, can help 

communities then get back on their feet because we are buying 

from those local environments, creating incentives for local farmers. 
89 

You pioneered this effort, sir, and I think we are excited to have 

the opportunity to continue to build bipartisan support to take it 

forward. And if the Senate and the House were to adopt this year’s 

proposal from the President, we would reach another 2 million additional children at the end of this year when it is absolutely, critically needed in core and emergency environments. 

So thank you, very much, for your leadership, and I look forward 

to continuing to take your guidance. 

Senator JOHANNS. Well, thank you. It is a difference maker. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Johanns. 

I completely agree with your concept that we have got to make 

it possible for the people in the area to do things, to be able to help 

themselves. We can give them the help to help themselves. And Dr. 

Shah, I appreciate the fact that you have taken that attitude as 

strongly as you have since you have been here. 

Senator Coons, you visited many of the areas, some very 

unglamorous areas wherever the USAID has been very helpful, and 

I am glad to have you here. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for the 

opportunity you gave me to travel to Cuba with you, and to be able 

to meet Alan Gross in person, to be able to see the conditions of 

his imprisonment, and to get to hear personally how difficult his 

experience has been. I just want to say that I share and support 

the chairman’s concerns about doing everything we can to secure 

Alan’s release. 

I also have enjoyed working with my colleague, Senator Johanns, 

on food aid reform, and I look forward to continuing to work together on responsible reform that sustains our investment in food 

aid relief, but that also makes it more efficient and more effective. 

So if we can strike the midpoint that sustains our relief around the 

world, but also makes a better use of American taxpayer dollars, 

well, that would be a great outcome. 

POWER AFRICA

I recently chaired a hearing in my senate subcommittee on Africa 

about Power Africa with Senator Flake of Arizona, and I am optimistic about the potential power of this Administration initiative to 

tackle energy poverty and to really make a lasting difference as we 

work together towards your ambitious goal of ending extreme poverty and making other significant advances in development and in 

security. 

What steps are you planning to take to ensure that Power Africa 

is sustained? Some of the most significant initiatives in development today, such as PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, were started under the Bush Administration, but structured in a way that they have lasted well beyond it, and have a 

made a real difference. 

How can Power Africa be funded, authorized, and sustained? And 

have you thought of a future expansion that would allow it to function beyond the initial six countries, and that would allow it to 

have a timeline that is more appropriate for power infrastructure 

projects? 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, Senator. 
90 

Thank you for your extraordinary leadership on development. 

The depth of your knowledge, experience, and your help in connecting us to great businesses, universities, and others who can be 

part of this effort to end extreme poverty have been invaluable. 

I want to thank you specifically for the efforts you have made on 

food aid reform. I know that it is a difficult topic on which we need 

to work together, and I am very hopeful that the President’s proposal of this year is perceived as and is, in fact, an effective midpoint that can help us continue to make the kind of progress that 

people have not previously expected, but we have, with your leadership Senator, have been able to deliver. 

With respect to Power Africa, I believe this is the key to 

unlocking growth and development, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where around 550 million people still go without real, consistent power access. And we can only imagine how hard it would 

be to start a business or to create economic opportunity in your 

community if you were paying exorbitant prices for diesel that is 

trucked in and put into generators because there is no proper energy access. 

Power Africa is structured to bring a lot of different American 

agencies together. USAID coordinates the effort and the coordinator is based in Nairobi, but we work hand in glove with the 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, 

State Department and, very importantly, the Treasury Department 

that brings all the multilateral partners together in support of this 

effort. 

We are supportive of the Electrify Africa legislation in the House 

and look forward to further authorizing and appropriations language in both the House and the Senate to, in fact, codify this as 

something America can do in Africa over the long term. And we believe that it will need appropriate funding. We have committed upwards of $250 million of appropriated resources, which then 

leverages billions of dollars of private investment commitments. 

But we should not be too excited about the private investment commitments if the appropriations do not come through. 

And so, your advocacy for the Development Assistance Account, 

specifically, which funds Power Africa, as well as education, water, 

Feed the Future, and so many of our other high priority development initiatives, and is under a lot of pressure is particularly valued for the Power Africa program. 

And finally, I think with respect to partnerships, this has unlocked a new level of public-private partnership that can really dramatically improve energy access. We have seen of the 10,000 

megawatts we committed to supporting in six countries, we have 

already identified more than 5,000 of the megawatts through specific projects and programs. Those are moving forward. 

We are actively considering right now how to expand this program and also how to ensure that countries that are not formally 

Power Africa countries, but where there are businesses, and local 

leaders, and Governments that want to do the right thing, and 

allow for public-private partnerships to create low cost energy access, that we are supporting that effort as well. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 
91 

I share your concern that the Development Assistance Account is 

under significant pressure. My concern is that Power Africa and 

Feed the Future are funded out of it, but there are significant pressures on democracy, governance, and peace building around the 

world in a variety of countries addressed by other members of this 

subcommittee. 

So I frankly think it could stand to have more robust funding 

and, frankly, to have a dedicated line that makes it clear that 

Power Africa is being separately sustained for the long term. 

I have a number of other topics and relatively little time. There 

are, as you mentioned, three Level 3 crises going on in the world 

at the moment: Central African Republic and South Sudan being 

two of the three. I am worried about how we address the urgent 

short-term humanitarian needs in both countries, and the significant requirement for peacekeeping assistance, and then the requirements for USAID to provide support for stabilization and return to normalcy, if that is possible in these two countries. Let me 

just mention that as a first a question, and then a second and 

third, and give you a few minutes to answer, if I might. 

Second, the Global Development Lab; I think one of the things 

that has been the hallmark of your leadership of USAID has been 

a focus on transparency, accountability, and innovation. When we 

combine science, innovation, and entrepreneurship, we really can 

solve the grand challenges of development, and the Global Development Lab really shows promise for making this possible. 

What sort of additional legal authorities does USAID need from 

congress to maximize the efforts and the long term impact of the 

Lab? 

Then last, I am concerned about wildlife trafficking. We do not 

yet have the details of your fiscal year 2015 budget, the detailed 

congressional budget justifications, and I look forward to reviewing 

them and seeing what sort of investment there will be in combating 

wildlife trafficking, particularly in Africa. 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, Senator. 

On South Sudan, we agree with you. There, our Famine Early 

Warning System is noting that there is a very high famine risk for 

a variety of reasons, mostly due to violence. Last week, we announced $83 million of food items that will be prepositioned. But 

it is going to be very, very difficult and we will appreciate your 

support through what is a difficult period. 

With respect to wildlife trafficking, we also recognize that this is 

an important issue, and I think between fiscal year 2014 and 2015, 

we are doing some very innovative and important things, and I 

would look forward to following up with you on it. I am very excited about what the supply side and demand side efforts we are 

going to be pursuing. 

On the Global Development Lab, I want to thank you for raising 

it. We have worked for years on an effort that both President 

Obama, and Secretary Clinton, and now Secretary Kerry have been 

very enthusiastic about. We have identified 32 partners including 

private companies, research universities, student groups, NGOs. 

They have all come together to say, ‘‘Let us work together to bring 

science, technology, innovation to global development so we can 

achieve the end of extreme poverty, better, cheaper, faster.’’ 
92 

We are seeking some important, new authorities. There are some 

hiring authorities under Schedule A that we hope to pursue as part 

of this discussion. We are requesting the ability to use some 

amount of development assistance funding for health purposes so 

that we are not as sectorally focused going forward. 

We are looking forward to having some, notwithstanding, authority that might help the Lab do its work. And we are supportive of 

efforts to, over time, have the ability to own and commercialize intellectual property. 

So we look forward to working with you, but if American development institutions over the long term are going to have a DARPAlike institution that can bring high powered, high quality, well 

meaning American science and innovation to the field of development, we would, in fact, need those types of authorities. And we 

value the continued support in helping us find the partners to build 

this Lab. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you, Administrator and I value your 

tireless leadership, your personal commitment to making sure that 

USAID is transparent, is responsive to congress, and spends taxpayer money as responsibly as possible. I look forward to continuing to work with you on these very important issues. Thank 

you. 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for 

being here. We appreciate your leadership, and you and your Agency’s hard work. 

CHILD SURVIVAL

Can you talk a little bit about, there is concern about decreasing 

maternal and child health funds, and especially cuts to the bilateral programs. Talk a little bit about how that is going to impact 

child survival. 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, Senator. 

First, let me say, thank you for your partnership and support for 

child survival, for malaria, for all the issues you have fought and 

worked hard on over the years. And I know you know, but your efforts have helped generate some real successes that mean that 

more children survive in many, many parts of the world. So thank 

you for that. 

With respect to this year’s commitments in maternal and child 

health, they do represent a small increase in our commitment relative to the fiscal year 2014 request level. And I, of course, always 

want more resources in general from the U.S. Government, from 

private partners, from countries themselves that still pay for the 

bulk of this, to help accelerate the end of preventable child death. 

We have worked aggressively with more than 170 countries now 

to have everyone commit to an evidence-based, results-oriented approach to end preventable child deaths. In 24 countries specifically, 

we have restructured our programs to invest in the most cost-effective ways to save children’s lives. Those 24 countries account for 

just over 70 percent of the 6.6 million children that die every year 

unnecessarily. 
93 

I am confident that these resources, especially if we can continue 

the successful track record we have had of getting companies, faith 

institutions, NGOs, and just as importantly, the countries themselves to put more in, will allow us to be successful to achieve our 

goal. 

NUTRITION

Senator BOOZMAN. In relation to that, talk a little bit about the 

U.S. Global Nutrition Strategy, which I know that you are working 

very, very hard to develop. We appreciate your leadership in that, 

and talking about that as a roadmap to achieve some of the goals 

that we want to achieve. 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you, Senator. 

As part of both Feed the Future and our global health efforts, we 

have seen a lot of new science that shows that children who are 

malnourished early in their lives are stunted and have less effective and full brain development that then affects their capacity to 

contribute to society for the rest of their lives. 

We also know that there are targeted, specific ways to prevent 

that kind of disastrous consequence of large scale child malnutrition. So we are leading an interagency process to create a U.S. nutrition strategy. 

Last year at the G8 meeting, I committed on behalf of the United 

States, that we would make significant investments in health and 

agriculture that focus on child and maternal nutrition in particular. We are the world’s largest funder of nutrition efforts with, 

over a 3 year period, nearly $1 billion going to specifically child and 

maternal nutrition efforts according to our analysis. 

And our strategy will show a very clear way to set a target, 

which will be reducing stunting by 2 million kids, to measure outcomes in the countries where we are going to focus, and to bring 

together public-private partnerships and NGOs to expand the resource commitment in this area. 

But this, I think, is the one area where we work in this space, 

in which the science has evolved tremendously over just the last 

few years. And so, our ability to produce new and improved food 

products as part of our food assistance programs; our ability to target women, pregnant women with clean water interventions to ensure that they avoid disease during a period of time when they are 

at high-risk; and our ability to support child nutrition during pregnancy, but also just after, with specific, low cost, supplemental 

feeding can really help change the trajectory for some of these 

countries that have 40–50 percent child stunting rates. 

CHILDREN’S VACCINES

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Again, along the same vein, the 

GAVI Alliance, Global Assistance Vaccination, for those that are 

listening that are not familiar, but do you feel our contribution is 

being leveraged to the maximum to get the results that we need? 

And, the other thing is what more can we do, what more can the 

United States do—and it does a tremendous amount—to ensure 

that our work with GAVI countries has the high rate of success 

that it has enjoyed? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you. 
94 

The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a $200 million commitment 

for the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization. We, like Bill 

Gates and so many others, who have invested in this effort, believe 

this is one of the most cost effective ways to save children’s lives 

and that is why we are proposing a unique increase in our commitment. 

We also recognize that GAVI helps low income countries reach 

children with new vaccines that they simply would not get otherwise. By doing deals with pharmaceuticals and vaccine manufacturers, they secure the vaccines at lower prices for those countries 

than they would otherwise gain access to. 

USAID then works to supplement GAVI’s work in countries to 

help train health workers, to help provide some infrastructure, 

whether it is motorbikes or bicycles or refrigerators to make sure 

that those vaccines can get to where they are most needed. 

One of the most hopeful moments I have had in this role was 

walking through a refugee camp in Dadaab during the Somali famine and seeing that these emaciated Somali children were actually 

getting a world-class pneumococcus vaccine because of the efforts 

of GAVI and the United States together. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That is great. 

Finally, and I think this is really important, but last year, you 

announced USAID would be scaling back and winding down missions in certain countries in order to focus its resources on areas 

with the most potential impact, and USAID has recently closed 

some countries. You also noted that USAID could graduate at least 

seven countries from assistance by 2015. 

What progress have you made in moving more countries beyond 

aid and, as you like to say, putting yourself out of business? Which, 

again, is really what this is all about, and you have done a great 

job, I think, in moving the Agency in that philosophy. 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you, Senator. We absolutely believe our 

mission should be to work to end extreme poverty, but do it in a 

way that builds local capacity, so we do not have to be there over 

the long, long term. And in that context, I am proud to have supported this effort to close out of certain programs and missions. 

Over my tenure, we have taken down 34 percent of our total programs around the world in order to be able to focus resources in 

food, Feed the Future, in child survival, in the kinds of programs 

that we think deliver the best return on investment for the American taxpayer in terms of supporting the world’s most vulnerable 

people. And we are on track to fulfill our commitments that we 

made to change our mission structures and downscale in some of 

the places we highlighted by the end of fiscal year 2015. 

Sometimes those mission close outs cost us a little money in 

terms of staff transitions and programmatic transitions. We are 

cognizant of trying to find local partners to pick up the costs of 

some of the programs that are ongoing because they are effective 

programs the countries value. So we are trying to do this in a very 

responsible and sensitive way. 

But over my tenure, I have felt that this approach was the only 

way to, in a largely budget-neutral environment, have the flexibility to invest in the things that we think will make the biggest 
95 

difference in terms of serving the world’s most vulnerable people. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

CUBA

Let me ask about a couple of these other things. You said the 

Cuban Twitter program was not a covert program, it was just a 

discrete program. Is that correct? 

Dr. SHAH. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. It was U.S. Government activity, correct? 

Dr. SHAH. We supported the program, but it is no longer active. 

Senator LEAHY. And its purpose was to influence political conditions abroad by gathering information about Cuban cell phone 

users to encourage opposition to the Cuban Government. Is that 

correct? 

Dr. SHAH. No, that is not correct. The purpose of the program 

was to support access to information and to allow people to communicate with each other as we do in many other parts of the world. 

The program was not—— 

Senator LEAHY. And were the people—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. For the purpose that you just articulated, 

sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Were those people told that this was a U.S. Government program? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, the platform was built and then people were able 

to communicate on the platform, and some 48,000-plus people did. 

Senator LEAHY. Did they know that it was a U.S. Government—— 

Dr. SHAH. I do not believe so, no. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Dr. SHAH. That was part of discretion. 

Senator LEAHY. And, in fact, there were quite a few efforts made 

to conceal the fact that it was a Government program. Is that correct? 

Dr. SHAH. Well—— 

Senator LEAHY. Using shell companies and others? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, the program was conducted discreetly. Some of 

the details to which you are referring, sir, in the AP story were inaccurate. There was no shell company, or Spanish company—— 

Senator LEAHY. So, there was no—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. And there was no Pakistan money involved. We put out a point by point rebuttal, but—— 

Senator LEAHY. Did we tell them it was U.S. Government money 

and a U.S. Government program? 

Dr. SHAH. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? 

Senator LEAHY. Did we tell the people in Cuba that this was a 

U.S. Government program? 

Dr. SHAH. No. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, who did we tell them this was coming 

from? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, we conduct programs in lots of different places 

without branding—— 

Senator LEAHY. On this particular one—— 
96 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. Or advertising USAID. 

Senator LEAHY. You know, on this particular one, where were 

they told the program was coming from? 

Dr. SHAH. I do not know. We did not advertise that this was a 

U.S. program just as we, as you know, sir, provide—We have provided 250,000 surgeries inside of Syria, and we do not disclose or 

highlight that those are American programs providing them medical support because—— 

Senator LEAHY. Did we tell them it was a Spanish company that 

was doing it? 

Dr. SHAH. To be honest, we can go back and get you the details, 

sir, but I know that there was no Spanish company created, and 

that was one of the inaccuracies in the AP story. 

Senator LEAHY. But there had to be somebody who was doing it. 

Dr. SHAH. Well, I will—— 

Senator LEAHY. And they had to be told it was from somebody. 

Is that correct? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, when you create a platform and then people 

would use the platform, we did not advertise that that platform 

was supported by the U.S. Government. So that is an inaccurate 

representation. 

Senator LEAHY. If we did not have our embargo, you would have 

so many American companies down there, fighting for the chance 

to do this and very openly doing it, it would have accomplished a 

lot more than this program did. 

Dr. SHAH. Sir, that—— 

Senator LEAHY. And probably put a lot fewer people at risk. 

Dr. SHAH. Sir, let me speak to that because it highlights a reality 

that we struggle with. This is a program that we are specified to 

do and the restrictions on it are quite clearly specified as well. And, 

of course, as you are aware, sir, USAID does not define the full extent of that policy. 

My goal is to make sure that we are implementing the program 

consistent with the law and managing it well. And if you look at 

the GAO report that came out in 2013, I believe the title of the report was ‘‘USAID Significantly Improves Management Over This 

Program.’’ And you compare that to the 2008 or 2006 GAO reports 

that, I think, the title of those reports were, ‘‘USAID Needs to Improve Management Over This Program.’’ 

Senator LEAHY. I think everybody on this panel, both democrats 

and republicans, have praised you for improving—— 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, sir. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. As have I, but on this particular 

one, we are talking about Alan Gross. He was in Cuba. He was carrying out a USAID-funded program. He was given very little training about the enormous personal risk. He was arrested. He is now 

facing, in effect, a life sentence. I am told by everybody in the Administration, ‘‘Oh, we are working so hard on this,’’ but I do not 

see where they have achieved anything. He does not either. That 

is why he started a hunger strike. 

Have you done anything specifically, personally, to get him 

home? 

Dr. SHAH. I have, sir, but the responsibility and the leadership 

for this rests with the State Department, and the Secretary, the 
97 

prior Secretary, Under Secretary Sherman, and President Obama 

have all been involved in efforts to secure Alan’s release. 

And again, that is not something I can speak about publicly, but 

I am certain that Wendy Sherman or others that are responsible 

for that body of work would be, would appreciate the opportunity 

to disclose what they have done to you in the right setting. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, I have asked—— 

Dr. SHAH. And I would also say—— 

Senator LEAHY. Let me read you what another USAID contractor 

wrote to me this morning about Alan Gross. He said, ‘‘I always 

held out the hope that maybe the silence by the USAID was an effort to find a quiet, diplomatic solution to secure Alan’s release. 

Now, with the revelation of the Cuban Twitter program, it seems 

that the Agency was never very concerned with Alan’s fate and 

their silence was really a reflection of callousness. I think the 

Agency and Congress need to think through the U.S. Government’s 

moral responsibilities to any American, even a lowly contractor, 

that it puts into harms way by ordering them to engage in programs that are illegal under the host country’s law. Either USAID 

needs to refrain from these programs entirely,’’ he says that is preferable to him. ‘‘Or if it is going to run these types of programs, it 

needs to take steps to ensure in the event something goes wrong 

that it is ready to take a level of responsibility for the people hurt.’’ 

What about that? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, sir, three things. 

The first is we do care about work on behalf of and support Alan, 

and his family, and Judy and, we think about them all the time. 

But more importantly than thinking about him, we have a very, 

very sophisticated leadership team led out of the State Department 

that has been, has tried a number of things to secure his release. 

Second, his incarceration is offensive and completely inappropriate, and entirely the responsibility of the Cuban authorities that 

are holding him for simply carrying out an effort to help people 

gain access to the Internet. 

And third, I would like to just point out, because this was reflected in the letter you just read. There are environments like 

Uganda right now, where it would be inconsistent with their new 

law to try to find and provide antiretroviral drugs to people who 

are homosexual. We do that anyway and we do that because it is 

a reflection of our values and it is a part of our programmatic responsibilities. 

So, these are difficult issues. I have struggled with the challenges of managing these efforts, but we are doing them better 

than they have been done in the past. We have external validation 

that has been pretty comprehensively assessed. Not just some desk 

review of what USAID is doing, but the GAO went, interviewed the 

partner, interviewed the sub-grantee, had access to all the documents, and highlighted and complimented our improved management performance in the title of their report. 

And I think about Alan every day, but I also know that I am buffeted by a State Department that takes the lead in these types of 

issues, and they are highly sensitive and I would defer to them to 

be able to explain to you in the appropriate, private setting or classified setting what—— 
98 

Senator LEAHY. I have had private—— 

Dr. SHAH [continuing]. Has taken place. 

Senator LEAHY. I have had private settings with them; I have yet 

to hear any explanation whatsoever. 

Thank you for mentioning Uganda. I struggle with that because 

of the absolutely irresponsible position taken by their government; 

unfortunately promoted by an American missionary and those associated with him. I struggle with whether we should cut off aid to 

Uganda or not. You do not want to hurt the people, but I question 

sending money to a country that would do something like that. 

Senator Graham, thank you for coming back. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You bring up a 

good point, and you are in countries where women, young girls, are 

basically denied opportunity for an education. Afghanistan, obviously, is trying to move forward. 

We have to be somewhat practical in our aid, but also not abandon our values, and one of our values is people should be able to 

freely communicate. You should be able to get drugs when you are 

in a lethal situation regardless of your sexual orientation and regardless of your gender. You should be able to have access to 

schools and that is what we believe in as a Nation, so it is a complicated world. 

Let us go to the West Bank right quick. President Abbas, of the 

Palestinian Authority, signed letters of accession for 15 international conventions and treaties. They are threatening to try to 

seek membership at different levels in the United Nations, going 

around the peace process. We have legislation cutting off funds if 

they continue to seek membership in the U.N. and become an independent State without negotiating with their neighbor Israel. 

How do you see these actions of President Abbas? Do you believe 

it violates existing law? And what would the effect be if we had to 

terminate our aid programs in the West Bank and Gaza? 

Dr. SHAH. Well, thank you, Senator, for your comment about 

women and girls in Afghanistan and Uganda. 

With respect to the West Bank, and I appreciate the question. 

Immediately, the signing of those particular documents did not 

trigger any of the concerns with respect to specific U.N. organizations and American funding for them. 

With respect to our work in the West Bank, and I was just there 

with Secretary Kerry a few—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you consider these letters provocative? 

Dr. SHAH. I will let Secretary Kerry best characterize the reaction to that. 

Senator GRAHAM. I do. 

Dr. SHAH. I know he is working very, very hard and the whole 

team is working hard to abide by and try to honor the fact that 

both parties have said they want to continue to be a part of negotiations. 

Now, with respect to what we do in the West Bank, we provide 

a significant amount of resources to the authority there to help provide basic services and support for its communities. We have public-private partnerships that help create some economic opportunity 

and micro enterprise. 
99 

I had a chance to visit many of the farmer co-ops and things that 

we have, where we provide support, and I personally think it would 

be a significant step back for the people of the West Bank if our 

support were to go away. In addition to all of the direct support 

we provide, we are their lead partner in trying to mobilize international private investment commitments should the economy open 

up. And Secretary Kerry and Tony Blair have announced a $4 billion investment package from a series of companies. This puts all 

of that, of course, at risk and I think those are important steps. 

Senator GRAHAM. Let me just make it clear. This Administration’s position is the Palestinians should negotiate with the Israelis 

and vice versa—— 

Dr. SHAH. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. Before they try to seek independent State status at the U.N. 

Dr. SHAH. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. That is the congress’ decision. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, certainly, I have, you can imagine, other 

questions, but I also understand the constraints you have in answering some of them. 

You have, incidentally, a terrific record on child survival, for 

which I have applauded you both publicly and privately. 

Have you considered working with the Cuban Government on 

child survival programs, something that could be done openly? 

Dr. SHAH. Sir, my understanding of the Helms-Burton legislation 

is that we would not. We would be precluded from engaging in 

those kinds of—— 

Senator LEAHY. So the Helms-Burton Act would make sure that, 

to show how tough we are, we could not help Cuban children who 

have health needs. 

You know, I kind of, you do not have to answer this, but I look 

at some of these programs and the money we waste on Radio Martı ́

and other things, and I would like to see free markets in Cuba. I 

would like to see an openness there. I would like to see an end to 

the repression of people who speak up for their rights in Cuba. I 

am not blind to things that every one of us could disagree with in 

Cuba. 

But I have to think that some of these programs, somebody dusts 

off a memo that says, ‘‘If we had just carried this out, we would 

get rid of those Castro’s.’’ And they strike out the fact of who that 

memo was given to, first, to President Eisenhower, and then to 

President Kennedy, and then to President Johnson, and then to 

President Nixon, and then to President Ford; you get the drift of 

where I am going. 

And of course, the Castro’s are still there. I often think, ‘‘What 

would have happened if we had tried the kind of direct engagement 

as we have with other countries that have been historically repressive or communist?’’ But when we have flooded them with American tourists, and students, and exchange programs, and programs 

that improve health, and education, and other things, how much 

they have changed afterward. 

I think if we had had that kind of a non-embargo, you would 

have had, as I mentioned earlier, so many telecommunication com-
100 

panies from the United States to set up the things that you were 

trying to set up clandestinely. And that Cubans would have no 

more ability to cut that off than Turkey had to cut it off when they 

wanted to cut off Twitter accounts. 

There will come a time, I suppose, when we will move from the 

1950’s maybe to the 1970’s or even the 1980’s, and the United 

States would be better off for it. We know how it is reflected in the 

rest of Latin America. 

Here we are, the most powerful Nation on earth, and we act as 

if we are afraid of a tiny island country, a country where, when I 

visited there, most of the people would love to be able to communicate more with the United States, eager to hear about life here. 

I would like to be able to see you doing the things you do so well. 

I mention child health, and that is something that you can be 

proud of, and you have done so much personally around the world; 

just think how great it would be if we were doing that in Cuba. 

You do not have to answer, but I have no further questions. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

I will keep the record open for written questions until Friday. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. RAJIV SHAH

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Question. Development Experience. I wonder to what extent significant experience 

in overseas development is a requirement for working at USAID? I am struck by 

the fact that few if any of USAID’s senior officials appear to have that background. 

They are very experienced in their own specialized fields, but it is not the same as 

sustainable development—meaning, extensive field work building relationships with 

local organizations and institutions in a way that helps them achieve their goals. 

Can you respond? 

Follow Up. Since 2008, USAID’s Development Leadership Initiative has hired 820 

new permanent Foreign Service Officers increasing USAID’s permanent Foreign 

Service corps by 80 percent. How many of these recruits have strong backgrounds 

in development? 

Answer. The Development Leadership Initiative (DLI) hiring from 2008 through 

2012 capitalized on the low rate of hiring by USAID during the previous decade, 

which created an eager and well qualified group of applicants for almost all of the 

specialty areas (backstops) needed by USAID. The combination of minimum requirements of a master’s degree in most backstops and strong competition resulted in a 

talented and experienced group of new Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) who have already made valuable contributions to the Agency since joining USAID. Additional 

qualifications are required for specific backstops, such as law degrees and accounting majors. 

The average of about 3 years of relevant overseas experience for the entire group 

does not adequately capture the range of experience and skills that all of the new 

officers have brought to the Agency. Thirty percent (246) of the new FSOs have 

Peace Corps experience as volunteers and/or staff. A majority of the new hires also 

brought relevant foreign language skills to the Agency which helped them meet the 

mandatory language requirements before deployment. 

The smaller group of mid-level DLI hires had considerably more overseas experience as contractors or working in other capacities with USAID, other development 

agencies, or non-governmental organizations. Our estimate is that the group of midcareer DLIs has an average of over 10 years of development experience, most of 

which is overseas. 

Question. Local Organization Capacity. I recently learned about a $600 million 

‘‘Indefinite Delivery—Indefinite Quantity Contract’’ for capacity development of national and sub-national governments, private sector entities, and non-governmental 
101 

organizations (NGOs). The performance period of the contract is 2013 through 2020. 

The implementers are mostly the usual big U.S. contractors. Is this an example of 

USAID Forward? 

Answer. A key element of USAID Forward is increasing the Agency’s work directly with local governments, NGOs and private sector—and building those actors’ 

ability to perform without U.S. assistance. The Agency’s Human and Institutional 

Capacity Development (HICD) initiative is a model of structured and integrated 

processes designed to identify fundamental causes of performance gaps in host country partner institutions, address those gaps through a wide array of performance solutions in the context of all human performance factors, and enable cyclical processes of continuous performance improvement through the establishment of performance monitoring systems. 

The ultimate goal of HICD is to help USAID’s partners improve performance in 

critical areas leading to measurable results in achieving the organization’s goals and 

objectives. In undertaking HICD initiatives, USAID missions will strengthen their 

partner organizations’ abilities to more effectively perform for their constituents and 

stakeholders and will increase the effectiveness of ongoing technical assistance provided by the United States Government and other International Donors. 

HICD is implemented through two mechanisms: the Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICDpro) indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract 

(IDIQ) and HICDpro for Critical Priority Countries (CPCs) IDIQ. 

The HICDpro IDIQ is a mechanism under which all awards were reserved for 

small businesses. This 100 percent small business mechanism has a maximum ordering limitation of $300 million over a 5-year ordering period for programs worldwide. 

The HICDpro for CPCs IDIQ provides an overarching framework for capacity development programs. Under the HICDpro IDIQ for CPCs, there is a maximum ordering limitation of $500 million over a 5-year ordering period. Two of the five 

prime awards were reserved for small businesses, increasing competition and further contributing to the diversification of contractors doing business with USAID. 

Task orders under HICDpro and HICDpro for CPCs are subject to a comprehensive review involving the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment’s Office of Education (E3/ED) and mission technical staff, technical offices 

throughout the Agency, and both mission and headquarters senior management who 

are well versed in best practices of implementing USAID Forward initiatives. These 

safeguards help ensure that USAID funding directly impacts local organizations and 

host country governments. 

All six awards under the HICDpro IDIQ were made to U.S.-based small businesses, including one minority-owned firm. Under the HICDpro for CPCs IDIQ, two 

(2) of the five (5) awards were also made to U.S.-based small businesses, one of 

which is a minority-owned, SBA-certified 8(a) disadvantaged, and woman-owned 

firm from an Historically Underutilized Business Zone. These eight HICDpro prime 

contracts ensure maximum practicable small business participation in HICDpro activities and are in full support of the Agency’s mission for small and disadvantaged 

business utilization. This exemplifies another aspect of USAID Forward, which is 

broadening the Agency’s partner base. 

Building on already existing capacity of host country governments and local organizations, technical design features and required outcomes of the HICDpro model 

include: 

—Transferring HICD knowledge and expertise to local key performers and other 

local staff for the organization’s own internal use and functionality. 

—Sub-contracting or otherwise outsourcing HICDpro technical expertise and services to local organizations. 

—Host country governments and local organizations designating engaged and 

participatory leaders and key staff to coordinate and provide HICDpro activities, expertise, and performance solutions. Most institutional performance solutions are internal business changes and can only be implemented by each organization itself. 

—Host country partner organizations institutionalizing an internal performance 

monitoring system that enables the host country partner to regularly monitor 

its own organizational performance for its own evidence-based management and 

reporting. 

USAID is confident of the HICDpro model’s contribution to USAID Forward objectives and principles. The HICDpro model equips host country governments and local 

organizations with methodologies and tools designed to strengthen each organization’s capability of providing quality services and products to their constituents and 

stakeholders. 
102 

Question. Follow Up. For years, I have been asking why USAID ‘‘Requests for 

Proposals’’ are so mind-numbingly technical and bureaucratic and impossible for 

anyone but a USAID procurement officer or U.S. contractor to understand. It makes 

it very hard for local organizations to compete. What is being done about this? 

Answer. USAID appreciates your support for our efforts, under the Local Solutions (LS) initiative, to increase the use and participation of local organizations 

where prudent and appropriate. We also share your desire to make our Requests 

for Proposals (RFP) and other solicitations comprehensible to all potential partners, 

including local ones. 

As you know, this is a key goal of the Agency’s LS initiative and we have taken 

a number steps to make things easier for local organizations. For example, we have: 

—created Webinars, e-learning modules that explain USAID contract and grant 

making procedures to potential new partners; 

—encouraged two-step application processes that start with submission of a concept paper followed by a full proposal that often include how-to information sessions; 

—translated procurement documents and standard agreement provisions to the 

extent the law allows (see below) into local languages; 

—conducted in person, pre-award conferences to explain procurement procedures 

to local organizations, as well as answer questions raised about the RFPs or 

other Agency solicitations; and 

—offered post award, new partner conferences which explain in local working languages USAID’s standard form agreements, including terms and conditions of 

the award that may be difficult for speakers of English as a second language 

to understand. 

To further facilitate our work with local organizations, USAID conducts outreach 

to current and potential partners through training, industry days, and other events. 

As part of the LS initiative, we are also establishing a feedback mechanism to spot 

and address further instances where red tape or overly technical communications 

frustrate our attempts to work more with local partners. 

More broadly, USAID has developed ‘‘Principles of Plain Language’’ and related 

training courses to promote clear government communications that the public can 

understand and use, and requires all Agency guidance to be written in plain language. While we acknowledge that this is a work in progress, we understand that 

clarity of communications and to the extent possible, in local working languages, is 

critical to the success of our Agency’s mission. 

That said, there are some limitations on what we can do under current law. 

USAID’s RFPs and other solicitations for contracts must comply with the Federal 

Government’s laws and regulations applicable to government contracts, including 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR Parts 1–53) for all acquisitions 

using appropriated funds. 

The FAR requires that Contracting Officers use the Uniform Contract Format 

(UCF) when drafting RFPs. The FAR prescribes forms and approximately 580 possible solicitation provisions and contract clauses. These are used to prepare 8 of the 

13 sections required by the UCF. To comply with the FAR, a typical RFP may contain more than 100 prescribed FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses. 

Due primarily to new and amended Federal legislation and Executive orders, the 

number of FAR provisions and clauses continues to grow each year. For example, 

FAR Part 52 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses now requires over 600 

pages to set out these often complex provisions and clauses. 

The FAR also limits the use of languages other than English; FAR 52.214–34 explicitly provides that all offers in response to contract solicitations must be in 

English and those in other languages must be rejected. 

USAID does have more flexibility in designing Requests for Applications (RFA) for 

assistance awards (cooperative agreements and grants), which is where the bulk of 

USAID awards to local organizations are occurring, as the FAR does not apply to 

grants and cooperative agreements. 

However, in accordance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 

USAID may only use an RFA when the anticipated purpose of the relationship between USAID and the cooperative agreement or grant recipient is to transfer something of value (such as money, property, or services) to the recipient to carry out 

a public purpose authorized by U.S. law. An RFP for a contract must be used when 

USAID seeks to acquire, by purchase, property or services for the direct benefit or 

use of the Agency in achieving its mission. 

Question. Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has identified lessons learned from USAID’s programs in Afghanistan based on 

the numerous audits and inspections that the Inspector General has conducted since 

2008. 
103 

According to the Inspector General, USAID programs must take into account the 

recipient country’s ability to afford the costs of operating and sustaining completed 

projects. SIGAR’s recommendation comes 2 years after USAID’s budget justification 

for Afghanistan said this: ‘‘The United States has structured its partnership with 

Afghanistan to be sustainable, durable, and realistic in terms of funding levels.’’ 

Over the past dozen years, USAID has obligated more than $18 billion for Afghanistan. Do you think those amounts were realistic and sustainable? 

Answer. In 2001, Afghanistan was a country wracked by decades of conflict and 

a safe haven for terrorists from which emanated the attacks of 9/11 on the United 

States. The United States’ core policy objective in Afghanistan is to ensure that the 

country is never again a safe haven for terrorists who threaten the United States 

or our allies. Over the past 13 years, civilian assistance has supported our national 

security objective by investing in improvements in governance, the provision of basic 

services, private sector-led economic growth, and the strengthening of civil society, 

starting from a very low level in 2001. In addition, through multi-sectoral, mutually 

reinforcing investments, the U.S. has made a concerted effort to prioritize the advancement of the political, social, and economic rights of Afghan women and girls. 

Since 2001, Afghanistan has made remarkable development gains across multiple 

sectors, as a result of the investment and programming provided by the United 

States and other donors, along with our international partners, the Afghan Government and the Afghan people. In recent years, USAID has made a concerted effort 

to ensure the sustainability of these investments. 

Weaning Afghans from extraordinary levels of assistance is necessary for us, and 

essential for them. To achieve this goal without triggering a crisis that could ensue 

should U.S. and related donor investment precipitously decline, the U.S. seeks to 

continue to provide assistance in areas critical to Afghan development and stability, 

and to request the resources needed to establish a funding glide path to a more sustainable level of annual funding. Following on the issuance of the June 2011 Administrator’s Sustainability Guidance for USAID in Afghanistan, utilized in the Fiscal 

Year 2012 Appropriations Act, USAID has regularly reviewed and adjusted its programs in an ongoing effort to ensure that they are achievable and sustainable. 

The effort to promote sustainability has several facets. USAID performs regular 

portfolio reviews of USAID programs, both internally and coordinated with the Afghan Government. Through portfolio reviews, USAID has oriented its programming 

to support the development of Regional Economic Zones that cover major population 

centers and promoted regional trade and economic opportunities—especially with regional markets in Central and South Asia. In addition, through technical assistance 

and direct government-to-government assistance that is subject to stringent safeguards, USAID is building the capacity of the Afghan Government to implement 

programs, provide services, and preserve key development gains, as well as raise the 

revenue necessary to financially support services. 

Throughout our efforts, we are applying important lessons from the past 12 years 

in Afghanistan, as well as from other high-risk environments in which USAID has 

worked. As USAID navigates through the 2014 transition period and looks to 2015 

and beyond, we are committed to expending every effort to safeguard taxpayer funds 

and ensure that the remarkable development progress in Afghanistan is maintained 

and made durable, in order to secure our overall national security objectives. 

Question. For fiscal year 2015 you are requesting hundreds of millions of dollars 

in additional aid for Afghanistan. Since sustaining our investment there seems to 

depend on continuing to spend large amounts of U.S. funds, how is that sustainable? 

Answer. Weaning Afghanistan from unsustainable levels of assistance is necessary for us, and essential for them. To achieve this goal without triggering a crisis, we believe it is essential to continue to provide assistance in areas critical to 

Afghan development and stability. We are making tough decisions and prioritizing 

investments that have the greatest potential for long-term sustainability. 

USAID has placed an overriding emphasis on promoting sustainability across all 

of the Agency’s programs in Afghanistan, outlined in the Administrator’s 2011 Sustainability Guidance which emphasizes the principles of (1) increasing Afghan ownership and capacity; (2) contributing to stability and confidence; and (3) effective 

and cost-efficient programming. 

In Afghanistan over the past 3 years, USAID has shifted the focus of its programs 

from stabilization and infrastructure to creating the basis for sustainable, long-term 

development. USAID’s strategy in Afghanistan is threefold: 

—Maintaining and making durable the gains made in health, education, and for 

women; 

—Supporting continued economic growth and employment through a focus on the 

agriculture sector and private sector development, operations and maintenance 
104 

of infrastructure investments, and responsibly developing the extractives industry, all key to ensuring future fiscal sustainability; and 

—Fostering legitimate and effective Afghan governance, the rule of law, and a robust civil society. 

a. USAID is also promoting sustainability by conditioning a significant percentage of its assistance to the government on progress toward economic 

and governance reforms. This process was formalized by the international 

donor community and agreed to by the Afghan Government in the 2012 

Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework, which outlined reform indicators 

in areas such as elections; governance, rule of law, and human rights; public finance and commercial banking; government revenues, budget execution and sub-national governance; and inclusive and sustained growth and 

development. 

b. USAID will use fiscal year 2015 funds to continue support for economic 

growth and employment through the agriculture sector and private sector 

development; work with the Afghan Government on commercialization and 

cost recovery so it will be able to fund operations and maintenance of infrastructure investments; and assist them in responsibly developing the extractives industry for the benefit of all Afghan citizens. These efforts will 

help foster economic growth, connect Afghanistan to its neighbors, improve 

the functioning of government, and reduce dependence on international assistance, while helping the Afghan Government increase revenue generation to mitigate the impact of the troop drawdown. 

Question. SIGAR has brought to my attention a study USAID contracted for in 

1988 which reviews 30 years of U.S. assistance programs in Afghanistan from 1950 

to 1979. The study makes one wonder how many times we have to repeat the same 

mistakes. Here are some of the findings: 

—USAID’s assistance programs in Afghanistan after 1955 were overly ambitious 

in scale and timing, and were larger than could be effectively administered by 

the U.S. or Afghan Governments. The U.S. expectations of the time required to 

achieve effective project results were generally unrealistic; 

—The U.S. placed too much confidence in the applicability of technical solutions 

and U.S. values to complex social and economic development issues in Afghanistan; 

—Infrastructure projects were too often done before planning for institutional adaptation in the use of the facilities and the training of personnel; 

—U.S. government-to-government assistance programs were at a disadvantage because the Afghan Government was overly centralized, largely ineffective, and 

out of touch with the local communities; and 

—The use of assistance for short-term political objectives tends to distort sound 

economic rationale for development and weaken the longer-term political interests of the U.S. 

Does any of that sound familiar? Were you aware of this 1988 study and did it 

inform any of the approaches to USAID programs in Afghanistan? How can these 

and future lessons learned be incorporated into the culture and management of 

USAID so that they are not forgotten? 

Answer. USAID is aware of this study and, along with the project files of the earlier USAID programs in Afghanistan, utilized this information and lessons learned 

in the development of the USAID reconstruction program in 2001 and continues to 

incorporate these lessons in the implementation of the Agency’s strategy in Afghanistan. 

USAID’s development assistance, which represents approximately 3 percent of the 

total military and civilian financial cost of the war, has helped Afghans achieve extraordinary gains for a country that in 2002 had virtually no access to reliable electricity, roads or modern telecommunications, and disadvantaged almost half of its 

population—women and girls—by prohibiting them from contributing fully to Afghan society and the economy. Specific examples include: 

—Health: Life expectancy has increased from 42 years to over 62 years since 2002; 

the maternal mortality rate has declined by 80 percent from 1,600 to 327 deaths 

per 100,000 births; and child mortality decreased by 44 percent from 172 to 97 

deaths per 1,000 live births. 

—Education: In 2002, there were approximately 900,000 Afghan children in 

school, and virtually none were girls. Today, approximately 8 million children 

are registered to attend school and more than one-third of them are girls. 

—Mobile Technology: In 2002, there were few fixed telephone lines and making 

calls outside of Afghanistan required a satellite phone. Today, the combined 

phone network covers 90 percent of the Afghan population. Eighty-five percent 

of women have access to a mobile phone. The telecommunications sector is Af-
105 

ghanistan’s greatest source of foreign direct investment, largest remitter of 

taxes to the government, and biggest licit employer, providing jobs for over 

100,000 Afghans. 

USAID’s current program is putting assistance on a more sustainable footing, focusing on operations and maintenance of infrastructure, and increasing Afghan capacity, including through direct government-to-government assistance. 

USAID’s Development Strategy for Afghanistan 

In Afghanistan over the past 3 years, USAID has focused our programs on creating the basis for sustainable, long-term development. We have seen the dire consequences of neglect and disengagement play out in this region before, and the 

Obama administration is committed to not letting history repeat itself. 

USAID’s strategy in Afghanistan is threefold: 

—Maintaining and making durable the gains made in health, education, and for 

women; 

—Supporting continued economic growth and employment through a focus on the 

agriculture sector and private sector development, operations and maintenance 

of infrastructure investments, and responsibly developing the extractives industry, all key to ensuring future fiscal sustainability; and 

—Fostering legitimate and effective Afghan governance, the rule of law, and a robust civil society. 

Sustainability 

In June 2011 USAID implemented Sustainability Guidance for Afghanistan which 

includes the principles of increasing Afghan ownership and capacity, contributing to 

stability and confidence in the Afghan Government, and designing effective and 

cost-efficient programming. In line with this guidance, USAID also conducts annual 

portfolio reviews internally within the U.S. Government and then with the Afghan 

Government, to ensure USAID programming is fully aligned with U.S. Governmentwide priorities and with Afghan priorities. 

Infrastructure 

USAID has made a concerted effort since 2011 to reduce new infrastructure investments, while increasing efforts to build Afghan Government capacity to maintain the recent investments in critical road and energy infrastructure. This effort 

includes the planned Road Sector Sustainability project, designed to strengthen the 

capacity of the Afghan Government to perform operations and maintenance (O&M). 

This support will include short-term O&M emergency operations, medium-term capacity-building activities, and a longer-term effort to establish a road authority and 

road fund that will equip the Afghan Government with the necessary tools to manage its transportation infrastructure in a sustainable way. 

Government-to-Government Assistance 

USAID has worked to responsibly increase on-budget assistance through Afghan 

Government mechanisms as an integral component of the Agency’s strategy to build 

the government’s capacity and enhance accountability. For example, in 2003, 

USAID, in partnership with the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and other donors, 

created an Afghan-led Grants and Contract Management Unit (GCMU) in the 

MoPH to procure, manage, and oversee donor-funded health contracts. Since 2009, 

the GCMU has worked to ensure proper procedures are followed for procurement 

of services, contract and financial management, monitoring and evaluation, and coordination with other donors and ministry stakeholders, including USAID’s Partnership Contracts for Health Services Program. This includes issuing solicitations and 

contracts on behalf of the MoPH. 

Utilizing Local Solutions 

USAID believes that utilizing local solutions is integral to the sustainability of development efforts in Afghanistan, particularly in our efforts to build the capacity of 

the Afghan Government to be able to deliver goods and services to the Afghan people. USAID has incorporated local solutions across our portfolio, including through 

the World Bank-managed Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, direct assistance 

mechanisms, and by awarding grants and contracts directly to local organizations. 

During fiscal year 2014, approximately 45 percent of USAID’s obligations were to 

mechanisms comprising local solutions. 

Question. How do we respond to constituents—as well as to Afghans—who complain that we are supporting a government of thieves who have enriched themselves 

and their relatives and friends thanks to us? 

Answer. Although there are inherent risks in conducting development programs 

in a country like Afghanistan, USAID prioritizes the effective and accountable use 
106 

of taxpayer dollars and does not assume any level of acceptable fraud, waste, or 

abuse. The Agency approaches oversight as a stringent process that involves continual re-examination of ongoing efforts and flexibility to adjust to new oversight 

needs as they arise. Tolerance of waste, fraud or abuse not only would run counter 

to our responsibility as stewards of U.S. taxpayer resources, but would undermine 

our development goals in Afghanistan. Accordingly, USAID views robust oversight 

as an essential component of our development programming in Afghanistan. In designing oversight measures, USAID has learned important lessons over its 12 year 

engagement, and has drawn on experiences in other challenging environments, including Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and Colombia, to ensure strong oversight of 

U.S. assistance funds. 

In addition to standard USAID oversight measures implemented worldwide, 

USAID has implemented the Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan (A3) initiative, 

designed to prevent funds from being diverted from the development purpose to malign actors. Some of the approaches USAID employs in Afghanistan under A3 include: 

1. Award Mechanisms.—We rely less on large agreements and have increased the 

number of smaller and more flexible agreements. We are also utilizing assistance 

awards that provide the most visibility on project costs, such as cost-reimbursable 

contracts and limiting layers of subcontracts to two. 

2. Partner Vetting.—The USAID Mission established a Vetting Support Unit in 

February 2011. The unit conducts checks on non-U.S. companies and non-U.S. key 

individuals for prime contractors, sub-contractors, grant recipients and sub-grantees 

to minimize the risk that the Mission’s programs might support, even inadvertently, 

malign entities or individuals. As of April 2014, we have kept over $49 million from 

being awarded to those who did not meet our vetting requirements. 

3. Financial Controls.—We are enhancing controls on project funds, such as using 

electronic funds transfers in lieu of cash payments, utilizing independent financial 

monitors to verify appropriate usage of funds, ensuring close review of recipients’ 

claims prior to payment, and performing audits of locally incurred costs. 

4. Project Oversight.—USAID uses a multi-tiered monitoring approach that includes, as appropriate, independent monitoring contractors; observation by U.S. 

Government staff; reporting by implementing partners, local non-governmental organizations and civil society; and use of technological tools, such as time- and datestamped photos. By using multiple sources of monitoring data, USAID can compare 

information received from separate sources to ensure the greatest degree of oversight possible. Approximately $283 million out of $14.4 billion dollars (or approximately 2 percent) disbursed by USAID has constituted direct government-to-government assistance to the Afghan Government, and there are stringent safeguards on this funding. 

USAID implements risk mitigation measures in order to ensure proper oversight of 

direct assistance funds, which may include: 

—Establishing a non-commingled, separate bank account for each project; 

—Regular review and reconciliation of the bank accounts; 

—Disbursement of funds only after the ministry has achieved a performance milestone or USAID has verified incurred costs; 

—Regular audits by a USAID OIG-approved firm; 

—Substantial involvement and oversight by USAID staff in procurement processes; and 

—Technical assistance to increase the capacity of ministries while addressing priority vulnerabilities or weaknesses identified in the assessments. 

USAID requires that all direct assistance with the Afghan Government be in compliance with USAID accountability and oversight procedures, including site visits to 

ministries by USAID staff or independent contractors, as well as regular reporting. 

If Afghan ministries fail to adhere to these measures, the agreements are subject 

to immediate suspension or termination. 

For instance in 2012, USAID suspended the $24.5 million District Delivery Program (DDP), an on-budget program implemented by the Independent Directorate for 

Local Governance (IDLG) due to non-compliance with requirements for receiving 

USAID direct assistance. At the time of suspension, USAID had obligated $4.9 million for the program and disbursed $2.3 million. Following a USAID-conducted financial audit of the program, USAID submitted a bill to the Government of Afghanistan for $703,884 to recover funds lacking supporting documentation. 

USAID also actively engages in training Afghan entities to ensure they have the 

capacity to properly manage and account for all funds. Our efforts to strengthen 

these institutions include capacity building for legal and judicial institutions in 

order to improve application of rule of law and access to justice; capacity building 

in other Afghan Government institutions, particularly those involved in revenue col-
107 

lection, financial supervision, and accountability and transparency—thereby reducing the space for corrupt practices; and direct engagement with Afghan civil society 

organizations in their efforts to address corruption in the provision of public goods 

and services and hold government accountable to its people. 

In addition, audits provide useful oversight and discipline, and complement and 

reinforce USAID’s own efforts to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used effectively 

and efficiently. There are currently over 100 on-going audits of USAID programs in 

Afghanistan. In fiscal year 2013, the USAID Office of Inspector General, the Special 

Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office completed over 65 financial and program audits in Afghanistan. 

Question. One thing everyone seems to agree about is the need to do whatever 

we can to protect the important progress that has been made for Afghan women, 

however limited it may have been for many who continue to face discrimination and 

abuse. Do you agree that this should be a top priority, and what are your plans? 

Answer. Afghanistan will not be able to achieve sustainable peace, reconciliation, 

stability, and economic growth if Afghan women are not empowered. Though many 

challenges remain for Afghan women, Afghan women and girls have achieved dramatic progress over the last 12 years through the engagement and support of the 

United States, our international partners, and courageous Afghan women and men. 

With substantial assistance from USAID, more than a third of all school children 

in Afghanistan are now girls compared to virtually none in 2002. More than 120,000 

young women have finished secondary school and 40,000 are working on university 

degrees. Over the last decade, Afghanistan has seen one of the most rapid declines 

in maternal mortality anywhere in the world and an increase in overall life expectancy of 15–20 years. Women have entered the business and political arenas with 

women comprising more than 25 percent of the Afghan Parliament. 

Sustaining and maintaining these gains is a key objective of USAID’s work in Afghanistan now and in the future. USAID’s programming includes two women-specific programs as well as integration of gender into all sectors of programming. 

USAID’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy requires consideration 

of gender equity and female empowerment in all USAID project design and implementation across all sectors. Over 40 gender analyses have been done in Afghanistan, the findings of which help to ensure that opportunities arising from USAID 

investments are equitable. Our work in each sector supports women’s progress. 

Similarly important for the preservation of gains for women and girls is the overall level of funding sought in the President’s budget request for civilian assistance 

to Afghanistan. That funding request is intended to provide resources for programs 

in Afghanistan that support the provision of security, justice, and basic services to 

women and men. 

USAID has two projects that are designed specifically to advance women in Afghanistan. The Promoting Gender Equity in National Priority Programs (‘‘Promote’’) 

project that is expected for award later this year will be USAID’s largest gender program in the world. The 5-year program is designed to support a cadre of educated 

women ages 18 to 30 to enter and advance into decisionmaking and leadership positions in Afghanistan’s public, private and civil society sectors. The program has four 

components: (1) Women’s Economic Empowerment, (2) Women’s Rights Groups and 

Coalitions, (3) Women in Government, and (4) Women’s Leadership Development. 

The project will increase women’s contributions to Afghanistan’s development by 

strengthening women’s rights groups, boosting female participation in the economy, 

increasing the number of women in decisionmaking positions within the Afghan 

Government, and helping women gain business and management skills. The project 

will help 75,000 women between 18 and 30 years of age who have at least a secondary education. USAID plans to allocate up to $216 million with the potential for 

other donors to contribute $200 million in additional funding. 

In addition, the ongoing Ministry of Ministry of Women’s Affairs Organizational 

Restructuring and Empowerment (MORE) project is designed to strengthen the Afghan Government’s capacity to develop and implement its National Action Plan for 

Afghan Women. This project works directly with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs 

to implement national and provincial level ministerial restructuring and to improve 

public relations, awareness raising campaigns and women’s rights. 

In addition, USAID will continue to focus on increasing and improving primary 

healthcare, safe childbirth, healthier adolescent girls and women, and training and 

job opportunities in health for women. Strengthening women’s economic opportunities is planned to be pursued through reinforcing women’s land rights and providing 

a full range of business development services to existing and women-owned enterprises. In agriculture, USAID will target opportunities from micro/household- to 

macro/financial institution-strengthening, expanding women’s income-generating po-
108 

tential, improving access to markets, and addressing constraints that disproportionately affect women. 

USAID is also supporting quality education through teacher training and placing 

emphasis on access to formal and community-based education for boys and girls. 

USAID’s programs additionally focus on increased literacy and inclusive educational 

opportunities in basic and higher education, and technical and vocational educational training. Democracy, rights and governance projects will continue to support women’s participation in democratic governance and political processes through 

investment in women’s civic leadership; support to women journalists and media 

professionals; judicial training and outreach programs; access to justice and legal 

rights awareness; and activities to ensure informed participation of Afghan women 

as voters, candidates, elections administrators and observers. 

Question. Partner Vetting. There is a lot of concern among U.S. non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) about USAID’s vetting of local partners. While steps need to 

be taken to prevent U.S. funds from ending up in the hands of a terrorist or terrorist organization, you also need to protect sensitive relationships with the local 

organizations we depend on to implement programs. 

What is the status of this? Are you still in the pilot phase? What happens next? 

Answer. The USAID Partner Vetting System (PVS) pilot program is in the implementation phase. USAID has completed PVS public rule making for acquisitions, 

identified contract actions in the pilot missions, and added notice of potential vetting of awards to pilot mission contract solicitations. USAID is completing public 

rule making for assistance awards under PVS. PVS pilot award applicants and their 

organizations will be vetted in accordance with established vetting protocols. USAID 

plans to analyze data collected from the pilot program, as well as from existing vetting programs, including those for West Bank/Gaza and Afghanistan, and produce 

a joint report to Congress with the Department of State in accordance with the requirements of Public Law 112–74, Section 7034(i). 

USAID makes it a priority to consult with its partners about vetting and recognizes the importance of regular dialogue and feedback from partners about the impact of vetting on partner operations and effectiveness. USAID seeks to make adjustments where possible while maintaining the effectiveness of the vetting programs. For example, in the PVS pilot program, USAID has agreed to test direct vetting in certain pilot missions. Direct vetting is a concept proposed by implementing 

partners that involves direct communication between USAID and sub-awardees for 

purposes of vetting, rather than through prime awardees. Likewise, in the Afghanistan vetting program, the Mission Order on vetting has been updated to put in place 

certain modifications to the vetting process to accommodate requests of implementing partners, including the exemption of certain routine commercial transactions from vetting. We will continue to stay in touch with USAID’s implementing 

partners and seek to accommodate requests, while maintaining the effectiveness of 

vetting as a means of ensuring U.S. taxpayer funds are used for their intended purpose. 

Question. Many people have the same name and there have been many examples 

of personal information in U.S. databases being stolen or unintentionally released 

to the public. Do you tell individuals and organizations how information about them 

will be used and stored by the U.S. Government, including how a ‘‘positive match’’ 

would be handled and how to appeal such a match? 

Answer. USAID has engaged in several public notices and rule makings that have 

provided the public with notice on the planned use of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for vetting. These public notices and rule makings include: 

Partner Vetting in USAID Assistance 

—Proposed Rule—August 8, 2013 

—Correction—November 21, 2013 

Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions 

—Final Rule—February 14, 2012 

—Proposed Rule—June 6, 2009 

Paperwork Reduction Act—Partner Information Form 

—June 6, 2011 

Privacy Act 

—December 12, 2012 

—February 2, 2009 

Public Briefings 

—August 8, 2011 

—April 4, 2008 

USAID has established procedures for the use of PII for vetting under the PVS 

pilot program. PII on key individuals of organizations applying for USAID funds, 

either as a prime awardee or as a sub-awardee, is entered into a secure USAID 
109 

database that is housed within USAID servers. Access to this data is strictly controlled and provided only to authorized U.S. Government staff with vetting responsibilities. Authorized U.S. Government personnel who have been assigned roles in 

the vetting process are provided role-specific training to ensure that they are knowledgeable in how to protect personally identifiable information. Access to this data 

is further restricted through role-based limitations. 

Using the data provided by the applicant, USAID analysts search for any possible 

matches between the applicant organization or key individuals associated with that 

organization and one or more names contained in U.S. Government law enforcement 

and intelligence databases. Where a possible match is found, USAID staff will thoroughly analyze all available and relevant data to determine the likelihood of the 

match, and make a recommendation regarding the eligibility of the organization to 

receive USAID funding. In those instances where there is a positive match, USAID 

will update the existing public or non-public database records for those organizations or individuals with any pertinent data provided by the organization or individual. 

The above process is also followed in the Afghanistan vetting program. Additionally, in an effort to improve the consistency of Afghanistan vetting among U.S. agencies, USAID participates in an Interagency Vendor Vetting Working Group facilitated by the U.S. Embassy. At these working group meetings, USAID shares its ineligible determinations and identifies significant assessments. USAID and the Embassy also participate in a weekly Vendor Vetting Advisory Panel convened by the 

Department of Defense regarding Afghanistan eligibility recommendations. 

In the event of an ineligible determination by USAID under the PVS pilot program, the applicant will be notified of the decision and may request reconsideration. 

Once USAID reviews any additional information provided by the applicant in the 

PVS pilot program, USAID will make a final determination and communicate such 

determination to the applicant, as appropriate. In the case of vetting programs, 

USAID may reconsider ineligible determinations and has done so in particular cases 

when it had reason to conduct such reconsideration. 

Question. Do you have the ability to waive the vetting requirement in order to 

avoid delays in responding to humanitarian crises? 

Answer. USAID may approve awards without pre-award vetting that ordinarily 

would be required for a program, including the PVS pilot program, if pre-award vetting would impede the delivery of emergency aid to an immediate humanitarian crisis. In such cases, USAID may conduct post-award vetting following the response 

to the crisis or once emergency aid has moved to the reconstruction phase of the 

relief effort. USAID’s policy of allowing approval of awards without pre-award vetting in order to avoid delays in responding to urgent humanitarian crises is documented in the PVS pilot mission order. 

Question. Are USAID’s partner vetting procedures the same as those used by the 

Department of State and other agencies implementing programs with overseas partners? What about the Department of Defense, which has gotten deeply involved in 

the foreign aid business in recent years? 

Answer. Both USAID and the Department of State (State) conduct searches of 

public and non-public databases for vetting programs. There are some differences 

in USAID and State vetting procedures and systems, including for reasons related 

to their differing procurement models. USAID’s procurements are often executed at 

the Agency’s overseas missions, while State’s procurement function is centralized in 

Washington, DC. As a result, in the PVS pilot program, USAID has staff at the pilot 

missions and in the Washington, DC area that work together on the vetting process, 

whereas State vetting is conducted out of Washington, DC. The same State and 

USAID approaches to the vetting process are maintained for Afghanistan vetting. 

Regarding interagency coordination, USAID coordinates the PVS pilot program with 

State. USAID coordinates its Afghanistan vetting program with State and the Department of Defense (DOD), as noted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in SIGAR Audit 13–14. We respectfully refer detailed 

questions regarding vetting procedures at State and DOD to those agencies. 

Question. Disaster Relief Budget Request. Your request for International Disaster 

Assistance is $1.3 billion, which is $500 million below the fiscal year 2014 appropriations level of $1.8 billion. What is that cut based on? Do you have reason to believe that the needs of victims of war and natural disasters will be significantly less 

in 2015, or was this just an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decision unrelated to reality? 

Follow Up. We cannot assume that we there will be less humanitarian need in 

fiscal year 2015 than in 2014. Syria and the Central African Republic are the best 

examples of that. It means that Congress will have to make the hard choices. Are 
110 

there any programs which you regard as lower priority than disaster assistance that 

we should shift money from? 

Answer. The administration remains dedicated to providing robust support for humanitarian programs worldwide. The President’s fiscal year 2015 request includes 

$1.3 billion for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account. The United 

States Agency for International Development plans to carry over fiscal year 2014 

IDA funding into fiscal year 2015 to support humanitarian assistance needs. The 

President’s request also includes $1.4 billion in Title II to respond to development 

and emergency food assistance needs and $2.097 billion for the Migration Refugee 

Assistance and the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance accounts. The administration has additional authorities, if needed, to draw upon to respond to humanitarian needs. Taken together, we anticipate having the funds needed to support 

our humanitarian assistance goals in Syria, Africa, and elsewhere. However, this is 

contingent upon avoiding a further deterioration in any of the current major emergencies, and no new large-scale emergencies before the end of the fiscal year. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 request reflects the administration’s ongoing commitment to humanitarian programs, while taking into account the current constrained budget environment. 

Question. Global Health Budget Request. You propose cuts in several global health 

programs, from maternal and child health to neglected diseases, tuberculosis, vulnerable children, and nutrition. The overall cut in USAID’s health programs below 

the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level is $89 million. Was this OMB’s decision, or 

do you think we are spending too much on global health? Should we be spending 

less, the same as 2014, or more? 

Answer. The administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for USAID’s global 

health programs reflects difficult choices made in a constrained budget environment. 

USAID has undertaken an ambitious review of every dollar the Agency spends in 

order to identify inefficiencies and accelerate reductions in child and maternal mortality in 24 countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, which account for 70 percent of child and maternal deaths and half of the unmet need for 

family planning. Our goal of ending preventable child and maternal deaths will be 

achieved through increasingly effective efforts to link diverse health programs—in 

maternal and child health, malaria, family planning’s contribution to the healthy 

timing and spacing of pregnancy, nutrition, HIV/AIDS, and sanitation and hygiene 

improvement—and through global cooperation. 

Our nutrition programs are effectively contributing to both the goals of Feed the 

Future and of ending preventable child and maternal deaths. On May 22, 2014, 

USAID released its new Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy which aims to reduce the 

number of chronically malnourished or stunted children by at least 2 million over 

the next 5 years and hold global acute malnutrition below the agreed emergency 

threshold of 15 percent in places with humanitarian crises, like South Sudan and 

the Central African Republic. 

USAID’s approach will focus on the 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child’s second 

birthday—the most critical time for a child’s cognitive, intellectual, and physical development. Poor nutrition during these first 1,000 days can have negative, life-long 

impacts on children that prevent them from reaching their full potential. The strategy’s new approach will bolster support for ongoing child and maternal health commitments, which aim to reach 500 million pregnant women and children under 2 

years of age with improved nutrition, avert 20 million additional cases of stunting, 

and prevent 1.7 million deaths due to poor nutrition and health—goals laid out in 

the Global Nutrition for Growth Compact. 

Further, USAID is a global leader in large-scale implementation of integrated 

treatment programs for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), focusing on the scale-up 

of mass drug administration to target the control or elimination of lymphatic filariasis, blinding trachoma, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, and intestinal worms. The 

program currently supports 25 countries and regional programs in Africa and the 

Americas to reach treatment targets and monitor and evaluate the programs to document achievement of control and elimination goals. As a result of the support provided by USAID, 59 million people now live in areas where they are no longer at 

risk of acquiring lymphatic filariasis and treatment can be stopped, and 35 million 

people live in areas where active trachoma is no longer a public health problem. 

Over the past 7 years, the U.S. Government has leveraged $6.7 billion in donated 

medicines, resulting in the delivery of more than 1 billion treatments to approximately 467.9 million people. 

In part because of the USG’s efforts, the rate of new TB cases has been declining 

for the past decade and the world is on track to meet the Millennium Development 

Goals of reversing TB incidence, along with a 50 percent reduction in the mortality 
111 

rate by 2015, compared to 1990. Since 1990, TB treatment has saved the lives of 

more than 22 million people. 

There are 22 high-burden countries, which account for 80 percent of the world’s 

TB cases. Five of these countries, which account for almost 50 percent of the TB 

cases—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—have the ability and capacity 

to increase domestic funding to address TB. All of these five countries are now providing development assistance to other countries. For example, Russia has increased 

funding for its National TB Control Program from less than $500 million annually 

in 2007 to more than $1 billion annually beginning in 2010, and Brazil has increased annual funding to its National TB Control Program and will provide an additional $7.3 million in 2014. 

The Global Health Programs-USAID request for TB does not represent the totality of the U.S. Government response to this disease. USAID collaborates with other 

agencies and the Global Fund to integrate and expand TB health services and 

strengthen delivery platforms, and with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS 

Relief (PEPFAR) on TB/HIV co-infection interventions. It is important to note that 

three-quarters of annual international donor funding for TB is provided by the Global Fund, and the U.S. Government remains the largest donor to the Fund. 

Through the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund, USAID supports programs 

in 14 countries to prevent family separation, promote family-based alternatives to 

institutional care for children and strengthen the capacity of families, communities 

and governments to care for children. As a result of our assistance, more than 

14,000 child protective service providers were trained in fiscal year 2013 to provide 

comprehensive, sensitive care. In turn, these providers have directly reached more 

than 92,000 children and their family members, improving protection and wellbeing 

for vulnerable children. 

Follow Up. For many years, United States law, known as the Hyde Amendment, 

has permitted Federal funding of abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the 

health of the mother. That was most recently reaffirmed in the fiscal year 2013 Defense Authorization Act. Does USAID provide funding for this purpose, particularly 

in places like Eastern Congo where rape is widely used as a weapon of war against 

women and girls? If not, why not? 

Answer. USAID is committed to saving women’s lives and advancing their health 

by investing in voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs, including in conflict settings and humanitarian emergencies. These programs have improved the health of women worldwide by helping to prevent unintended pregnancies, reducing the number of abortions and lowering the number of maternal 

deaths related to complications of pregnancy and childbirth. 

USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy stipulates that 

USAID will strive to reduce gender-based violence and mitigate its harmful effects 

on individuals and communities. USAID provides a range of health services for victims of sexual violence, including reproductive healthcare, emergency contraception, 

psycho-social counseling, family mediation, socio-economic assistance, and referral 

for legal services. USAID does not provide funding for the performance of abortion. 

Question. USAID Operating Costs. The USAID fiscal year 2015 request for operating costs are almost double what they were in fiscal year 2007. This trend is not 

sustainable. What is USAID doing to reduce its operating costs and bring them into 

line with the current budget environment? What impact has this increase in operating costs over the past 8 years had on improving the delivery and effectiveness 

of U.S. foreign aid? 

Answer. Our mission to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing the Nation’s security and prosperity could not be achieved 

without the operational resources to support the delivery of our foreign assistance. 

The increase in operating costs since fiscal year 2007 was necessary for USAID to 

achieve its mission by rebuilding civilian capacity, improving development results 

and sustainability, regaining global development leadership, and supporting critical 

operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan vital to national security interests. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2008, recognizing that development is key to national security, Congress appropriated funding to launch the Development Leadership Initiative (DLI) to rebuild the Agency’s human capital capacity to meet the stewardship 

and technical demands of implementing the National Security Strategy. With continued bipartisan support, the Agency received funding for an additional 820 permanent Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) under DLI, allowing USAID to align human 

capital resources strategically with foreign assistance goals and increased program 

funding. 

The main drivers of increases from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015 include 

the following: 
112 

—The U.S. Direct Hire (USDH) workforce grew by 81 percent, reflecting the hiring of 820 new FSOs under DLI and Civil Service staff to support USAID Forward reforms, the Presidential Initiatives, and the expanded overseas workforce. 

—The cost for Afghanistan and Pakistan operations increased significantly to support a ramp-up in USAID’s presence in these Frontline States. 

—Mandatory International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) 

costs, excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan, from the Department of State increased by 351 percent due to challenging security environments overseas. 

As a careful steward of taxpayer dollars, especially in this fiscally constrained environment, USAID strives to be more efficient and effective in its worldwide operations. The Agency continues to implement ambitious operational reforms to improve management processes and achieve efficiencies through real property disposals, in-sourcing, travel, conferences, information technology, and space optimization that generate cost savings and avoidance. USAID has achieved cost savings and 

avoidance of $57.6 million in fiscal year 2011, $92.6 million in fiscal year 2012, 

$17.8 million in fiscal year 2013 and $12.6 million thus far in fiscal year 2014. Further, USAID has restructured its overseas presence to realign resources with policy 

priorities, strengthening its ability to meet its foreign policy and national security 

mission. 

Over the past 8 years, the increased budget for operating costs has allowed 

USAID to improve the delivery and effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance through 

its new model of development. With the expanded workforce, USAID has been able 

to reform policy, harness innovation, and leverage private capital, thus maximizing 

development impact. 

The results the Agency has achieved in recent years to end extreme poverty and 

promote democratic, resilient societies would not have been possible without the 

human and financial resources made available to recruit, hire, train, deploy, and 

equip USAID’s talented staff. The chart below illustrates the Agency’s recent foreign 

assistance achievements. 

Corporate Priorities 

Funding Level 

2006–2009 v. 

2010–2013 

Result Cost-Effectiveness and Leverage 

Feed the Future ............ ∂206% Helped 6.7M farmers grow more food 

and improved nutrition for 12.7M 

children in 2013.

Cost-benefit analyses show an average rate of return of 32% for Feed 

the Future investments. 

Child Survival ............... ∂42% Helped achieve 8% reduction in 

under-5 mortality in our 24 priority 

countries in 2 years alone, saving 

560,000 lives.

Helping Babies Breathe Alliance leveraged $3 for every $1 we invested, raising an additional $23M 

for this lifesaving partnership. 

AIDS-Free Generation .... ∂29% With PEPFAR, we provided 

antiretroviral treatment to 6.7M 

people with HIV/AIDS in 2013—a 

four-fold increase since 2008.

The Global Fund raised $2 for every 

$1 pledged by the U.S. Government, leveraging billions for 

HIV/AIDS. 

Power Africa ................. ∂420% 2,500MW of power projects have financially closed; another 5,500MW 

are in the planning 

stages—together enough to light 

over 10M homes.

For every $1 the U.S. Government has 

committed, the private sector has 

committed $2—over $14 billion so 

far. 

Resilience ..................... ∂$451M Reduced disaster risk for 27M people 

and strengthened resilience for 

3.4M in targeted zones in the Horn 

of Africa in 2013.

Each $1 of investment in resilience 

yields $2.9 in development gains, 

avoided livestock losses, and 

unneeded aid. 

Education ...................... ∂28% Expanded education opportunities for 

19M students in 2013.

All Children Reading: A Grand Challenge for Development matched $1 

for every $1 we invested. 

Water ............................ ∂38% Provided 38M people with access to 

water and 17.7M with access to 

improved sanitation since 2006.

Securing Water for Food: A Grand 

Challenge for Development leveraged roughly $2 for every $1 we 

invested. 

Question. Development Assistance Budget Request. Your request of $2.6 billion for 

Development Assistance is $113 million above the fiscal year 2014 appropriated 

level. Where do you plan to use the bulk of these additional funds? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 DA request of $2.6 billion is designed to achieve the 

goals outlined in Presidential Policy Directive–6 (PPD–6) by supporting programs fo-
113 

cused on sustainable development, economic growth, democratic governance, development innovations, sustainable systems for meeting basic human needs, and building resilience. 

The bulk of the additional resources of $113 million will support the Presidential 

Initiatives for Global Climate Change and Feed the Future and further development 

goals in the areas of education, water, governing justly and democratically as well 

as empowering women. 

Question. Follow Up. Do you expect higher or lower amounts in the countries of 

Central America, where poverty and violence are driving people to leave their homes 

and come to the United States? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 request prioritizes the countries of Central America 

with a $26.0 million increase in funding for the region as compared to the fiscal year 

2014 Estimate. 

[$ in thousands for all items] 

Fiscal Year 2014 Estimate Fiscal Year 2015 Request Increase/ 

Decrease 

El Salvador ..................................................................................... 19,281 25,000 5,719 

Development Assistance ....................................................... 19,281 25,000 5,719 

Guatemala ...................................................................................... 57,789 70,387 12,598 

Development Assistance ....................................................... 42,789 57,387 14,598 

Global Health Programs—USAID .......................................... 15,000 13,000 ¥2,000 

Honduras ........................................................................................ 36,700 44,326 7,626 

Development Assistance ....................................................... 36,700 44,326 7,626 

Nicaragua ....................................................................................... 7,400 8,000 ¥400 

Development Assistance ....................................................... 7,400 8,000 600 

USAID Central America Regional ................................................... 19,891 19,391 ¥1,500 

Development Assistance ....................................................... 11,500 11,000 ¥1,500 

Global Health Programs—USAID .......................................... 8,391 8,391 — 

TOTAL ................................................................................ 141,061 167,104 26,043 

In addition, through the Central America Regional Security Initiative, the fiscal 

year 2015 request includes $60.0 million of ESF for Central America, the majority 

of which will be managed by USAID. 

Question. Indigenous People. As you know, USAID now has an Advisor on Indigenous Peoples Issues, a position I established some years ago. This is important because many of the countries where USAID has programs have indigenous populations whose survival is threatened, particularly from extractive industries and the 

encroachment of agriculture and unchecked development. What steps is USAID taking to incorporate indigenous people as partners in the sustainable development 

process, to ensure that their rights and traditions are protected and their needs addressed? 

Answer. USAID recognizes the important role that indigenous peoples play in sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and adapting to—and mitigating 

the effects of—global climate change. For several years we have worked to incorporate the issues and concerns of indigenous peoples into our work in many countries, including Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Now, 

with the appointment of our new Advisor on Indigenous Peoples Issues, USAID is 

taking steps to ensure that all of USAID’s projects, programs and policies are designed and implemented to include indigenous peoples as partners in the entire development process, including: 

A. Integrating Indigenous Peoples’ Issues into USAID Programs, Policies and 

Projects: 

—Evaluating the impact of USAID’s projects and programs on indigenous communities 

—Developing a USAID policy on Indigenous Peoples 

—Integrating Indigenous Peoples’ Issues into other USAID Policies (Internally 

Displaced People Policy, Biodiversity Policy, etc.) 

—Integrating Indigenous Peoples’ Issues into USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategies 

B. Enhancing USAID Staff Capacity to Integrate Indigenous Peoples into Programs 

and Projects: 

—Developing a USAID Training Program on Indigenous Peoples’ issues 
114 

—Developing a series of issue papers on Indigenous Peoples 

—Incorporating Indigenous Peoples into USAID’s Democracy Human Rights and 

Governance (DRG) Strategic Assessment Framework to ensure that the situation of indigenous peoples is assessed when a country’s primary DRG challenges 

are identified, to support USAID missions in developing strategies for addressing them, and to guide resources to areas where investments will have the 

greatest impact. 

C. Improving Coordination: 

—Strengthening Intra-Agency Coordination 

—Enhancing Inter-Agency Coordination (Department of State, Treasury, USUN, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, White House) 

—Engaging International Financial Institutions on policy and project issues 

(World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, African Development Bank, 

Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) 

D. Engaging Indigenous Peoples: 

—Coordinated consultations with indigenous leaders at the 13th session of the 

U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in May 2014. 

—Planning for the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, a high-level plenary 

meeting of the United Nations General Assembly that will take place September 22–23, 2014 at the UN headquarters in New York. 

—Providing funding for indigenous peoples’ issues through USAID’s Human 

Rights Grant Program. In the first round of grants since the Advisor has been 

at USAID, a grant for $750,000 was awarded to support the economic inclusion 

of Guarani farmers in Paraguay. The next call for proposals will go out in the 

next 2 weeks and, because of outreach undertaken by the Advisor, we expect 

a minimum of three proposals for indigenous peoples’ projects. 

—Organizing meetings between USAID staff and indigenous leaders from Indonesia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru 

—Serving on the planning committee of the World Summit of Indigenous Funders 

that will be held in September 2014. 

Question. Columbia. The Colombian Government is trying to negotiate a peace 

agreement with the FARC, which if successful will end decades of civil war. That 

may be the easy part. If there is an agreement, securing and sustaining the peace 

will be extremely difficult. 

What plans is USAID making, if any, and how is it reflected in your fiscal year 

2015 request for Colombia—which is decreasing—to help Colombia? Is this something you are anticipating for fiscal year 2016, rather than this year? 

Answer. USAID has been planning for nearly 2 years to ensure that its programs 

are flexible and relevant to adapt to the needs in Colombia in the coming years. 

Specifically regarding the peace process, USAID has been in close contact with the 

government about the status of the negotiations and we have encouraged them to 

inform us of any areas of anticipated support. 

USAID programs in Colombia will continue to work with the government, civil society, and the private sector to support conflict victims, reduce impunity, develop 

rule of law, bring government services to rural areas previously controlled by the 

FARC, and improve land tenure and livelihoods in rural areas. By supporting the 

efforts of the Colombian people to secure justice and good governance, we help lay 

the ground work for the accountability, stability, and reconciliation necessary for 

any peace deal to be successful. 

Question. USAID Overseas Presence. USAID proposed in the fiscal year 2014 

budget request to restructure its overseas presence by closing or downsizing 10 

USAID missions and establishing new or upgrading existing USAID offices in 10 

countries. The fiscal year 2015 budget doesn’t propose any additional restructuring 

overseas. Given the dynamic and changing situations in Ukraine, Russia, Africa, 

and the Middle East, do you continue to think that no additional restructuring is 

needed? Are you looking at other ways to maintain overseas presence in a more 

flexible manner? 

Answer. USAID monitors closely the political and security situations in the countries where it has programs to determine whether changes in presence are warranted. At the time the Agency prepared the fiscal year 2015 budget, no changes 

in USAID presence were needed. However, given the recent deteriorating security 

situations in the Middle East and Africa and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the Agency is considering additional restructuring changes that will address security concerns while maintaining overseas presence in a flexible manner. As required, the Agency will notify Congress of any proposed presence changes. 
115 

Question. Ethiopia. What steps have been or will be taken by USAID to ensure 

that no foreign aid is used to support activities that either directly or indirectly result in forced evictions? 

Answer. USAID will continue to conduct the appropriate planning, consultation, 

analysis, due diligence, and monitoring to ensure that foreign assistance does not 

support forced evictions, while continuing our important partnerships to improve 

the livelihoods of people in Ethiopia. Through consistent site visits to the areas in 

question, such as South Omo, implementing partner reports, and data quality analysis, USAID is diligent about ensuring that aid supports the intended project purposes and does no harm. In addition, USAID and other donors continue to insist 

that the Ethiopian Government conduct meaningful community consultations, offer 

appropriate grievance procedures, and allow for sufficient planning and the timely 

provision of services. 

Question. In two reports released in 2013, Development Aid to Ethiopia: Overlooking Violence, Marginalization, and Political Repression and Ignoring Abuse in 

Ethiopia: DFID USAID in the Lower Omo Valley, the Oakland Institute documented 

how officials from USAID heard first-hand accounts of forced resettlements and 

human rights abuses from villagers in Ethiopia and yet still came to the conclusion 

that the allegations of forced resettlements were ‘‘unsubstantiated.’’ They went on 

to say that no evidence exists to make the links between their programs and practices of the Ethiopian Government. What methodology did USAID use to reach this 

conclusion? 

Answer. USAID has conducted over six monitoring visits to the village sites in 

the lower Omo region since late 2011 with an additional visit ongoing presently. 

Some of these visits were jointly conducted with other donors. During each visit 

USAID has conducted numerous discussions with affected groups to assess their experience. Despite these discussions and the significant efforts expended by USAID 

on each trip to investigate alleged abuses, USAID has never encountered any evidence of the Ethiopian Government using violence to threaten or remove populations during its visits. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROY BLUNT

Question. As you know, tuberculosis is the leading curable infectious killer in the 

world, claiming 1.3 million lives per year. Worldwide, tuberculosis is the third leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. I agree that continued advances in scientific health, specifically with tuberculosis, are imperative. The United 

States has been a leader on this issue and, as a result, has helped save and improve 

the lives of millions. I know the Foreign Assistance Act allows USAID to provide 

assistance to any U.S. or non-U.S. individual or entity. I also know that we must 

weigh the expertise of entities to ensure that the government is providing resources, 

especially research and development resources, to those that are most capable of 

achieving the outcomes. However, given the history of U.S. entities in TB research, 

I am frustrated by the level of funding going to entities outside the U.S. I am also 

frustrated that Requests for Applications specifically confirm that non-U.S. based 

groups are eligible, and to my knowledge, U.S. companies are not given any weighted preference in the selection process. 

Please share with me why we have significant USAID funding for TB being 

awarded to non-U.S. entities when we have plenty of U.S. entities more than capable of meeting the requirements? 

Answer. USAID’s top priority in managing its tuberculosis (TB) program is to ensure that program operations achieve the maximum results possible in an effective 

and efficient manner. The TB program operates through a variety of mechanisms 

that are awarded based on technical excellence and cost effectiveness through a full 

and open application process. Our partners are composed of both U.S. and non-U.S. 

based entities which carry out various elements of the diagnosis, treatment, and 

prevention of TB. We are proud of the results that have been achieved through 

USAID-assisted TB programs. Since 1990, deaths from TB have been reduced 41 

percent and the overall prevalence of TB has been reduced 40 percent in USAIDsupported countries. These countries are on track to meet the Millennium Development Goal target of a 50 percent reduction in mortality by 2015. Further, more than 

1.31 million people with TB were successfully treated and more than 45,000 people 

with multi-drug resistant TB (MDR–TB) initiated treatment in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. This is a 40 percent increase in 1 year of the 

number of people initiated on MDR–TB treatment, comparing the same number of 

countries in 2011. 
116 

USAID’s record demonstrates a strong commitment to partnering with U.S. companies, with USAID TB mechanisms in both Washington and worldwide awarded 

to numerous U.S.-based entities—including University Research Co., LLC, PATH, 

FHI 360, Abt Associates, Chemonics, and MSH. In addition, USAID partners with 

a number of U.S.-based organizations—such as the TB Drug Alliance, Johnson & 

Johnson, and Cepheid, Inc.—to strengthen our TB programs. These organizations 

provide unique expertise that contributes to the Agency’s impressive TB results. In 

certain cases, non-U.S. based entities—including the World Health Organization, 

the Stop TB Partnership, the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung 

Disease, and KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation—possess a unique expertise and existing logistical access to improve TB care, treatment and prevention in a cost-effective 

manner. For example, the Stop TB Partnership’s Global Drug Facility allows for the 

pooling of procurements, thereby creating the opportunity for countries to purchase 

improved quality commodities for lower prices. 

Question. What system of priorities does USAID give to U.S. companies for TB 

funding in order to further build our domestic capabilities? 

Answer. USAID’s tuberculosis (TB) program follows the policies and procedures 

in USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS), specifically ADS Chapter 300 

which outlines policies for the procurement of goods and services through Agency 

acquisition and assistance planning. Further, USAID follows the Code of Federal 

Regulations procurement standards. Through a competitive and transparent process, USAID makes awards to partners with applications that are of the highest 

technical merit, while providing the best value for money. 

USAID partners with a number of U.S. companies to further build TB capabilities 

in the international sector, including: 

—TB Drug Alliance, a non-profit U.S.-based organization dedicated to the discovery and development of new, faster-acting and affordable TB medicines. 

USAID funding is supporting the TB Alliance to develop new, urgently needed 

TB treatments for use both in the United States and globally. With USAID support, the TB Alliance currently has multiple new TB drug combinations in clinical development. 

—Johnson & Johnson, a U.S.-based company that includes pharmaceutical products. USAID is supporting studies to evaluate the efficacy of bedaquiline—a 

drug that can be used as part of a combination therapy for pulmonary, 

multidrug-resistant TB (MDR–TB) in adults. Bedaquiline is the first drug in 40 

years with a specific indication for MDR–TB. USAID will be supporting the implementation of a clinical trial that will evaluate efficacy, as well as the safety 

of bedaquiline. Data from the study will help Johnson & Johnson meet U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration requirements for full approval of the drug. Further, USAID is supporting countries to introduce bedaquiline as part of TB 

treatment for MDR–TB and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR–TB) patients— 

information that will directly benefit U.S. MDR–TB and XDR–TB patients. 

—Cepheid Inc., a California-based molecular diagnostic system manufacturer and 

supplier responsible for bringing to market an exciting new TB diagnostic, 

Xpert MTB/RIF—a test capable of accurately diagnosing TB and MDR–TB in 

2 hours. USAID—in partnership with PEPFAR, UNITAID and the Bill & 

Melinda Gates Foundation—entered into a financial agreement with Cepheid to 

reduce the cost of one Xpert test from $16.87 to $9.98—a 40 percent reduction. 

USAID is also supporting the roll-out and scale-up of Xpert in countries through 

a comprehensive technical approach, and experience from this roll-out will inform better testing practices in the United States for persons suspected of having TB and MDR–TB. 

Partnering with international organizations allows USAID to more efficiently leverage the funds of other donors, including other government donors and the Global 

Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to develop new tools and drugs and 

reduce the price of commodities while increasing the quality. USAID also supports 

the Stop TB Global Drug Facility (GDF) to pool TB drug procurements so countries, 

including the United States, are able to access cheaper, high-quality drugs. USAID, 

through engagement with the GDF and U.S. Pharmocopeia, has contributed to the 

dramatic reduction of second-line drug costs for the treatment of MDR–TB. 
117 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Dr. Shah. 

Dr. SHAH. Thank you, Senator. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(119) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions Submitted by ...... 115 

Boozman, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 55 

Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 34 

Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 48 

Statements of ...................................................................................................... 3, 62 

Kerry, Hon. John F., Secretary, Department of State .......................................... 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 8 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 34 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 4 

Kirk, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions Submitted by ........ 51 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................... 35 

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont: 

Opening Statements of ....................................................................................... 1, 59 

Prepared Statements of...................................................................................... 3, 61 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 100 

Shah, Dr. Rajiv, Administrator, United States Agency for International Development .................................................................................................................. 59 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 65 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 100 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 63 

Shaheen, Senator Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Questions 

Submitted by ........................................................................................................ 44 

(121) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Page 

Africa Initiatives ...................................................................................................... 26 

Aid to Orphans ......................................................................................................... 17 

Camp Liberty ........................................................................................................... 30 

Central African Republic ......................................................................................... 29 

Child Welfare Systems Strengthening ................................................................... 42 

Fly America Act ....................................................................................................... 54 

How the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Puts Family 

Care First .............................................................................................................. 42 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) ...................................................................... 12 

Iranian: 

Funding for Hezbollah ..................................................................................... 25 

Nuclear Program .............................................................................................. 20 

Trade With Iran ................................................................................................ 24 

Keystone Pipeline .................................................................................................... 16 

National Endowment for Democracy ..................................................................... 53 

Fiscal Year 2011–2015 Appropriations (Chart) ............................................. 53 

Nuclear Development .............................................................................................. 32 

PEPFAR .................................................................................................................... 28 

How PEPFAR Puts Family Care First ........................................................... 42 

Support for Children Outside of Family Care ................................................ 42 

Why PEPFAR Focuses on Family Preservation ............................................. 41 

Russian: 

Aggression in Ukraine ...................................................................................... 15 

Sanctions ........................................................................................................... 19 

Syrian: 

Chemical Weapons ........................................................................................... 22 

Refugee Crisis ................................................................................................... 14 

Turkey and Syrian Relations ........................................................................... 31 

Trade With Iran ....................................................................................................... 24 

Turkey and Syrian Relations .................................................................................. 31 

U.S. Support of Ukraine .......................................................................................... 10 

Why PEPFAR Focuses on Family Preservation .................................................... 41 

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

A Blog From the United States Agency for International Development, April 

7, 2014, ‘‘Eight Facts About ZunZuneo’’ ............................................................. 78 

A New Model for Development ............................................................................... 65 

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 81 

Associated Press Story ‘‘U.S. Secretly Created ‘Cuban Twitter’ to Stir 

Unrest’’ .................................................................................................................. 72 

Child Survival .......................................................................................................... 92 

Children’s Vaccines .................................................................................................. 93 

Core Priorities .......................................................................................................... 66 

Climate Change ................................................................................................ 68 

Education .......................................................................................................... 68 

Feed the Future ................................................................................................ 66 

Global Health .................................................................................................... 67 

Power Africa ...................................................................................................... 68 

Water ................................................................................................................. 69 

Cuba .......................................................................................................................... 71, 95 
Page

122 

Eight Facts About ZunZuneo .................................................................................. 78 

Feed the Future ....................................................................................................... 82 

Food Aid ................................................................................................................... 87 

Hepatitis C ............................................................................................................... 83 

Miami Herald Story of April 3, 2014, ‘‘U.S. Secretly Created ‘Cuban Twitter’ 

to Stir Unrest’’ ...................................................................................................... 72 

National Action Plan for Children ......................................................................... 84 

Nutrition ................................................................................................................... 93

Power Africa ............................................................................................................. 89 

Supporting Regional Priorities and Strengthening National Security ................ 69 

Ukraine ..................................................................................................................... 83

USAID: 

Central America Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Priorities (Chart) ..................... 113 

Operating Expenses ......................................................................................... 71 

Recent Foreign Assistance Achievements (Chart) ......................................... 112 

Response to the Associated Press Story ‘‘U.S. Secretly Created ‘Cuban 

Twitter’ to Stir Unrest’’ ................................................................................ 78 

Æ