U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–145PDF 2006

THE ROLE OF FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN

UNITED STATES PROGRAMMING IN AFRICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

Serial No. 109–237

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/
(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, 

Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel 

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Terri Hasdorff, Director, Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office, 

United States Agency for International Development ...................................... 9

Mr. Ken Hackett, President, Catholic Relief Services .......................................... 22

The Reverend Edward Phillips, Chairperson, Eastern Deanery CommunityBased Health Care & Aids Relief Program ........................................................ 27

Mr. Ken Isaacs, Vice President of Programs and Government Relations, Samaritan’s Purse .................................................................................................... 32

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement ................ 5

Ms. Terri Hasdorff: Prepared statement ............................................................... 11

Mr. Ken Hackett: Prepared statement .................................................................. 25

The Reverend Edward Phillips: Prepared statement ........................................... 31

Mr. Ken Isaacs: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 36

(1)

THE ROLE OF FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS 

IN UNITED STATES PROGRAMMING IN AFRICA 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m. in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Honorable Christopher H. 

Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon 

everyone. Following his inauguration as President in January 

2001, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13199, creating the 

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. 

Soon after, a series of four more Executive Orders, created centers 

for faith-based and community initiatives at 10 cabinet departments and three agencies. One of those agencies was the U.S. 

Agency for International Development. In the April 2002 White 

House ceremony to promote what he called his faith-based initiatives, President Bush said that the Federal Government should not 

discriminate against faith in decisions on funding for programs to 

provide help to people in need. ‘‘When we have Federal moneys, 

people should be allowed to access that money without having to 

lose their mission or change their mission,’’ the President explained. ‘‘Government can write checks but it can’t put hope in people’s hearts or a sense of purpose in people’s lives.’’

The President’s defense of the role of faith-based organizations 

made some people uneasy about what they believed to be the principle of separation of church and state. Fears were expressed about 

government money building churches, and services provided only to 

those who participated in religious ceremonies. This fear has been 

stoked by concerns over the inclusion of a charitable choice program in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which allowed taxpayer-financed social service funding of churches in some welfare programs. However, those expressing such concerns ignored the long 

and very successful history of partnership between government and 

faith-based organizations, a history that did not include government sponsorship of religion or forced conversions. From the founding of the republic, government has worked with faith-based organizations to build and operate schools and provide other social services where government was less capable of doing so. After the civil 
2

war, the Freedoms Bureau, for example, established to provide 

services for the millions of newly emancipated African-Americans, 

went into partnership with faith-based organizations, such as the 

American Missionary Association, to build schools, supply food and 

deliver other vital services for people adapting to life after slavery. 

For more than 150 years the Young Men’s Christian Association 

has offered health and fitness programs, shelter and child care and 

other programs to people of all creeds and races. Today the 2,617 

YMCAs comprise the largest not-for-profit community service organization in America. Catholic Charities founded in 1910 has 

worked diligently to eliminate poverty, support families and empower communities across America and serve the needs of more 

than 7 million people each year. 

Catholic Charities provides such services as food banks and soup 

kitchens, educational enrichment, counseling and mental health, 

temporary and permanent housing and many other community 

interventions. And I would note, parenthetically, that in my own 

home State of New Jersey, particularly the City of Trenton, the 

work of Catholic Charities is invaluable. Without them, many of 

the poor would go unnoticed, lacking many basic services. 

Beginning in the 20th century, government engaged in partnerships with faith-based organizations on overseas programming to 

deliver famine and disaster relief, refugee aid and other assistance 

in other development programs. One such organization is Catholic 

Relief Services, one of our witnesses today, which has been providing services through government funding for more than 60 

years. 

Beginning in the 1950s World Vision, a Christian relief and development organization has concentrated on tackling the causes of 

poverty worldwide and provided food, education, health care and 

economic opportunities to people around the world. An estimated 

87 percent of World Vision funding goes directly to programs and 

not overhead. Despite this record of success, without mixing government and religion and without widespread discrimination in 

services, critics continue to express doubts about the ability of 

faith-based organizations to provide services due to limitations 

based on the very faith they profess. These doubts are expressed 

most often in terms of services provided to victims of HIV/AIDS, 

and I believe wrongly so. 

The Government of Uganda, under the leadership of President 

Museveni, has pioneered the ABC model of dealing with AIDS. 

ABC stands, as we know, for Abstinence, especially for the youth, 

Be faithful for committed couples and Condoms where sexually active people are unable or unwilling to practice celibacy or fidelity. 

In the early 1990s, an estimated 30 percent of adult Ugandans 

were HIV-positive. Through the ABC program, the rate of HIV infection declined to 12 percent by 1999, and is estimated to be 5 percent today. This past January, my staff and I visited Uganda to see 

firsthand how effective the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS 

Relief and this program in particular have been. Among the many 

impressive programs that we visited was the Mbuya Reach Out, a 

faith-based organizations working under the auspices of Our Lady 

of Africa Church in Kampala. This program cares for over 1,800 

HIV-positive clients and their families. Parent support is mainly 
3

provided by community volunteers, 70 percent of whom are HIVinfected themselves. The program has a multiplier effect in that 

those who are assisted in turn are assisting numerous other people. 

The program has multiple dimensions, including education, assistance for clients, children, a microfinance program for clients and 

skills training for unemployed HIV-infected women. Another effective program that we saw was the Uganda business coalition children AIDS fund initiative, the UBC. The UBC aims to mitigate the 

impact of HIV/AIDS among workers and in the workplace due to 

PEPFAR, the UBC business coverage scheme was expanded in 

2004 to include the provision of free care and treatment to individuals, including individuals in the community, who could not afford 

to pay or who not otherwise have access to UBC services. 

What we found in Uganda was a partnership not only between 

government and faith-based organizations but also a complementary system in which faith-based organizations concentrated on the 

behavior modifications elements of the AIDS control program in 

Uganda, the A and the B, while a secular organization handled the 

C by distributing condoms. This program works in Uganda because 

organizations are allowed to do what they do best and are not 

forced to betray their ideals or provide services in which they do 

not believe. Secular organizations that do not believe in the behavior modification elements of the ABC program and the like manner 

would be as reluctant to engage in them as faith-based organizations would be in delivering condoms. While the HIV/AIDS programs in Uganda managed by the PEPFAR program had a cooperative relationship with faith-based organizations, sadly, that was 

not and apparently is not the case with the Global Fund in Uganda 

and perhaps everywhere else. 

In Uganda, as well as other countries, the Global Fund somehow 

fails and fails miserably to fund faith-based organizations in proportion to the services they provide. In most African countries, 

faith-based organizations deliver the majority of health care services and, in some cases, more than 2⁄3 of health care services received, yet only 5 to 6 percent of the Global Fund support is given 

to faith-based organizations and that, my friends, has to change. 

USAID Administrator Randall Tobias, formerly the U.S. Global 

AIDS Coordinator, has said, faith-based and community organizations have a reach, authority and legitimacy that make them critical partners in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Faith-based organizations also have another role to play, and an integral part—they are 

an integral part of civil society in African nations. I would just note 

parenthetically that not just on the HIV/AIDS issue but a host of 

other interventions. I remember a trip I offered the amendment 

that established the child survival fund back in the early 1980s, 

putting it at $50 million to treat preventable diseases to immunize 

children around the world. 

If it had not been for the Catholic Church particularly in Latin 

America, El Salvador and in other countries, the massive vaccinations that occurred, mostly with United States money but mostly 

because of the work that was done by churches, those children 

would not have been vaccinated against ptosis, diphtheria, polio 

and a number of other diseases. I went down there myself in 1984, 

1985, and 1986, and saw that the churches provided the network 
4

not only to inform and to empower the women to bring their children to those vaccination posts and to go back even when junior 

got a little fever from the original vaccinations, which often happens which is to be expected, but to keep it up so that other children as they are being born would go back and the church gave 

that sustainability aspect to it which I found very, very encouraging and not to include that infrastructure I think is wrong and 

unconscionable and that is unfortunately in some cases the case in 

Africa and especially with the Global Fund. 

Last year Gregory Simpkins of my staff visited Zimbabwe the 

midst of one of the cruelest campaigns against a population ever 

initiated by a government. In an operation whose name translates 

to ‘‘take out the trash,’’ the Government of Zimbabwe destroyed 

tens of thousands of homes and businesses in a relentless effort to 

eliminate the informal sector. When nearly 3⁄4 of a million people 

found themselves homeless and without a means of earning a living and nongovernmental organizations were prevented from providing assistance, Zimbabwean churches took the lead in helping 

the homeless. 

In country after country in Africa, churches and mosques deliver 

services as part of their regular activities. When they and their affiliated organization receive government funds to help those in 

need, government is actually building on existing networks of service. The multiplier effect allows aid dollars to go much further than 

they might ordinarily do. Moreover as Ambassador Tobias said, 

faith-based organizations possess a reach and an authority and a 

legitimacy that makes them natural allies in any effort to provide 

help to those in need as a grassroots level. Far from being a western intrusion in African life, working with faith-based organizations in Africa is actually a means of connecting with African heritage. African nations have a long history of integrating religion and 

spiritual awareness and anyone who has spent time in Africa understands that faith is not considered outside the realm of public 

life there. 

As long as faith-based organizations adhere to the rules concerning the separation of publicly funded activities and religious 

proselytizing and do not discriminate in the provision of their taxpayer-funded programming, the alliance of government and faithbased organizations should continue and as a matter of fact, it 

should expand to continue this successful tradition. Though we 

have little, if any, empirical evidence quantifying the success of 

this public-private partnership, its very longevity attests to its success. If you just talk to people who have been well served in any 

one of our districts, and if you go travelling around the country and 

talk to people who have been well served, it makes the case that 

they have been helped because of that partnership. 

Our hearing today is intended to examine whether the President’s faith-based initiative is indeed opening public space for religious organizations or whether this initiative contains a hidden 

glass ceiling, as one of our witnesses today describes it. United 

States aid programs in Africa and elsewhere should be effective 

and compassionate. The partnership between government and 

faith-based organizations and government has historically achieved 

those goals and we need to build on it and to expand it. I yield to 
5

my good friend and colleague, Mr. Payne, for any opening comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

Following his inauguration as President in January 2001, George W. Bush issued 

Executive Order 13199, creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Soon after, a series of four more executive orders created Centers 

for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at 10 Cabinet departments and three 

agencies. One of those agencies was the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

In an April 2002 White House ceremony to promote what he called his faith-based 

initiative, President Bush said that the federal government should not discriminate 

against faith in decisions on funding for programs to provide help to people in need. 

‘‘When we have federal monies, people should be allowed to access that money 

without having to lose their mission or change their mission,’’ the President explained. ‘‘Government can write checks, but it can’t put hope in people’s hearts, or 

a sense of purpose in people’s lives.’’

The President’s defense of the role of faith-based organizations made some people 

uneasy about what they believed to be the principle of separation of church and 

state. Fears were expressed about government money building churches and services being provided only to those who participated in religious ceremonies. This fear 

had been stoked by concerns over the inclusion of the charitable choice provision in 

the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which allowed taxpayer-financed social service funding of churches in some welfare programs. However, those expressing such concerns 

ignored the long and successful history of partnership between government and 

faith-based organizations—a history that did not include government sponsorship of 

religion or forced conversions. 

From the founding of the Republic, government has worked with faith-based organizations to build and operate schools and provide other social services where government was less capable of doing so. After the Civil War, the Freedman’s Bureau, 

established to provide services for the millions of newly emancipated African Americans, went into partnership with faith-based organizations such as the American 

Missionary Association to build schools, supply food and deliver other vital services 

for people adapting to life after slavery. 

For more than 150 years, the Young Men’s Christian Association has offered 

health and fitness programs, shelter, child care and other programs to people of all 

creeds and races. Today, the 2,617 YMCAs comprise the largest not-for-profit community service organization in America. 

Catholic Charities, founded in 1910, has worked diligently to eliminate poverty, 

support families and empower communities across America and serve the needs of 

more than seven million people each year. Catholic Charities provides such services 

as food banks and soup kitchens, educational enrichment, counseling and mental 

health, temporary and permanent housing and many other community interventions. 

Beginning in the 20th century, government engaged in partnerships with faithbased organizations on overseas programming to deliver famine and disaster relief, 

refugee aid and other assistance in development programs. One such organization 

is Catholic Relief Services, one of our witnesses today, which has been providing 

services through government funding for more than 60 years. 

Beginning in the 1950s, World Vision, a Christian relief and development organization, has concentrated on tackling the causes of poverty worldwide and provided 

food, education, health care and economic opportunities to people around the world. 

An estimated 87% of World Vision funding goes directly to programs. 

Despite this record of success without mixing government and religion and without widespread discrimination in services, critics continue to express doubts about 

the ability of faith-based organizations to provide services due to limitations based 

on the very faith they profess. These doubts are expressed most often in terms of 

services provided for victims of HIV–AIDS. 

The Government of Uganda, under the leadership of President Yoweri Museveni, 

has pioneered the ABC model of AIDS. ABC stands for Abstinence (especially for 

youth), Be Faithful for committed couples and Condoms where sexually active people are unable or unwilling to practice celibacy. 

In the early 1990s, an estimated 30% of adult Ugandans were HIV-positive. 

Through the ABC program, the rate of HIV infection declined to 12% by 1999, and 
6

is estimated to be five percent today. This past January, my staff and I visited 

Uganda to see firsthand how effective this program has been. 

What we found was a partnership, not only between government and faith-based 

organizations, but also a complementary system in which the faith-based organizations concentrated on the behavior modifications elements of the AIDS control program in Uganda—the A and B—while secular organizations handled the C by distributing condoms. This program works in Uganda because organizations are allowed to do what they do best and are not forced to betray their ideals or provide 

services in which they do not believe. Secular organizations that do not believe in 

the behavior modification elements of the ABC program would be as reluctant to 

engage in them as faith-based organizations would be in delivering condoms. 

While the HIV–AIDS program in Uganda, managed through the President’s 

Emergency Program for AIDS Relief had a cooperative relationship with faith-based 

organizations, sadly, that was not the case we found with the Global Fund in Uganda. In Uganda, as well as apparently other countries, the Global Fund somehow 

fails to fund faith-based organizations in proportion to the services they provide. In 

most African countries, faith-based organizations deliver a majority of the health 

care services—in some cases more than two-thirds of the health care services received—yet only 5–6% of Global Fund support is given to faith-based organizations. 

USAID Administrator Randall Tobias, formerly the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, said: ‘‘Faith-based and community organizations have a reach, authority and 

legitimacy that make them critical partners in the fight against HIV–AIDS.’’ Faithbased organizations also have another role to play—as an integral part of civil society in African nations. 

Last year, Gregory Simpkins of my staff visited Zimbabwe during the midst of one 

of the cruelest campaigns against a population ever initiated by a government. In 

an operation whose name translates to ‘‘take out the trash,’’ the Government of 

Zimbabwe destroyed tens of thousands of homes and businesses in a relentless effort 

to eliminate the informal sector. When nearly three-quarters of a million people 

found themselves homeless and without a means of earning a living, and non-governmental organizations were prevented from providing assistance, Zimbabwean 

churches took the lead in helping the homeless. 

In country after country in Africa, churches and mosques deliver services as part 

of their regular activities. When they and their affiliated organizations receive government funds to help those in need, government is actually building on existing 

networks of service. This multiplier effect allows aid dollars to go much further. 

Moreover, as Administrator Tobias said, faith-based organizations possess ‘‘a reach, 

authority and legitimacy’’ that makes them natural allies in any effort to provide 

help to those in need at a grassroots level. 

Far from being a Western intrusion in African life, working with faith-based organizations in Africa is actually a means of connecting with African heritage. African 

nations have a long history of integrating religion and spiritual awareness, and anyone who has spent time in Africa understands that faith is not considered outside 

the realm of public life there. 

So long as faith-based organizations adhere to the rules concerning the separation 

of publicly-funded activities and religious activities and do not discriminate in the 

provision of their taxpayer-funded programming, the alliance of government and 

faith-based organizations should continue this successful tradition. 

Though we have little, if any, empirical evidence quantifying the success of this 

public-private partnership, its very longevity attests to its success. Our hearing 

today is intended to examine whether the President’s faith-based initiative is indeed 

opening public space for religious organizations or whether this initiative contains 

a hidden ‘‘glass ceiling,’’ as one of our witnesses today describes it. 

U.S. aid programs in Africa and elsewhere should be effective, but compassionate. 

The partnership between government and faith-based organizations and government 

has historically achieved these goals. We must see that this record of achievement 

is continued.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for 

calling this very important hearing on the role of faith-based organizations in United States programming in Africa. Members of the 

faith community and faith-based institutions, as has been clearly 

mentioned by the Chairman, have been at the forefront of development in Africa and in many developing nations, in Latin America 

and in the Caribbean. United States faith-based organizations, 

FBOs, have a long history of providing services in Africa. Whether 
7

it is providing safe water to rural communities or convening occasional youth training, these organizations have been directly involved in grassroots efforts to eliminate poverty and improve the 

quality of life. 

United States faith-based organizations have established themselves in Africa, filling the gap of government and international 

community organizations. They have been credited with improving 

health statistics and timely delivering of disaster and humanitarian assistance, among other things in many countries throughout the world. 

One reason faith-based organizations have been so successful in 

Africa, in my opinion, is due to the pivotal role of the church, and 

the role that the church has played in serving as an advocate for 

justice in many countries. Even during colonialization, the church 

was a beacon of hope for people who were trying to have their nations thrust off the cloak of colonialism and the church stood usually on the right side of those issues. 

As an example, the role of the church in dismantling apartheid 

was very important, and even the demonstrations led by the 

church, especially in divestment in South Africa, which really was 

led by many church organizations. The Riverside Church in New 

York and others that led the way in divestment in South Africa 

was one of the goals, one of the various means that was used to 

finally dismantle apartheid. 

Faith community can be a positive force for fostering peace, in 

fighting the war against oppression and religious discrimination. 

Christian groups in Sudan and the United States work together to 

get attention of President Bush in order to raise the level of United 

States engagement in Sudan. As a matter of fact, it was the faithbased community that led the way in the appointment of Reverend 

Danforth, the former Senator, to be the special envoy for the comprehensive peace agreement between the north and the south, that 

civil war that raged for 20 years and took the lives of 2 million people and 4 million displaced was primarily by the evangelical community and we have had tremendous support. 

Congressman Wolf, probably the single most important person in 

the struggle against Sudan for decades, and Congressman 

Tancredo and Royce, who, in the past, have really been there and 

of course our Chairman now, we have had strong support from the 

evangelical community. It was also in the evangelical community 

that I think raised the awareness of HIV and AIDS to the President of this country. When the Bush Administration came in, HIV 

and AIDS was not an overwhelming priority, and as a matter of 

fact, the office on HIV and AIDS from the previous Administration 

was dismantled and taken out of the area of the White House. But 

because of strong support from many of the evangelical community, 

especially from child to parent, parent to child transmission, and 

the retroviral drugs that were suggested, we have seen a total 

metamorphis where we have seen PEPFAR and $15 million being 

designated by the Administration to deal with HIV and AIDS over 

a 5-year period, strictly a push from the evangelical community to 

change the policy. 

And so there has been much support from Samaritan’s Purse 

that flies around in places in Africa where you can’t get to. They 
8

took me into southern Sudan recently to go to a memorial service 

for Dr. John Garang who died a year ago in July from a helicopter 

crash, and it was Samaritan’s Purse who was able to provide a 

plane to get me into Juba where there were no planes going at the 

time. So they have been involved for so many years. As a matter 

of fact, I felt very comfortable because Samaritan’s Purse, when 

they take off, the pilot comes and says a prayer. I kind of didn’t 

know whether—how to take it—but I certainly accepted it, and we 

got in and out safely. 

But there is no question that these organizations have done so 

much. And of course Catholic Relief Services has been on the scene 

forever and doing outstanding work throughout the world. I would 

also like to mention and amplify what the Chairman said about the 

YMCA. Their headquarters in Geneva—had the privilege to serve 

as chairman of the World YMCA’s Refugee Rehabilitation Committee in Geneva from 1973 to 1981, and went to many, many 

countries, including Uganda, to meet with Idi Amin about the expulsion of the Asians in 1972 from Uganda; about the fact that this 

was wrong, that a race of people would be expelled in total from 

a country. And so the YMCA is currently in about 30 countries 

doing work with refugees and rehabilitation and has been doing so 

since its founding, actually, in the 1840s. So we know the importance of faith-based organizations. Christians, Muslim, Jewish, 

whatever the faith, these organizations continue to provide essential assistance to the world’s community worldwide. 

It is important to ensure that our policies encourage collaboration and dialogue among the different organizations and communities of different faiths. We should also recognize that there are 

numerous countries in Africa where Islam is a major religion. Our 

policy should thus also reflect balanced support for all established 

faith-based organizations that give priority to poverty elimination 

and development. 

It is equally important that these organizations have a keen 

awareness of the local value system where they operate. This is especially important in their education program, such as in their 

HIV/AIDS prevention programs. These organizations have a responsibility to provide comprehensive information to their respective communities. 

I wish you the best in your development activities, and let us all 

be partners for peace, justice and the elimination of poverty. It is 

one of the millennium goals of the UN to halve abject poverty by 

2015, and I know your organizations will be very helpful in those 

goals. Thank you. 

I am going to have to leave to attend a meeting we have called 

with the Arab League dealing with Sudan. We believe that the 

Arab League has not been positive in their relations to the genocide in Darfur. I will have to leave. I hope to be back before the 

meeting is adjourned. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I have no comments. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am anxious to hear 

the testimony. I too in my travels have been very proud, especially 

being a person of faith myself, of the Catholic Church when I have 
9

traveled and seen some of the Catholic mission work in Africa. I 

used to hear about it as a little child when I would be in Mass 

sometimes. The opportunity to see that the work is still going on 

and the wonderful people who have dedicated their lives to it in Africa and I know in other places around the world. 

But, Mr. Chair, I do hope that what we also can get out of this 

hearing is a better understanding of how grants are awarded and 

how sometimes when certain groups had been ruled as not acceptable, then they still end up with a grant; and more oversight from 

Congress on what organizations have submitted grants and which 

organizations have received grants, and then follow-up as to how 

we really tracked how well the grant was lived up to. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair for having this hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to introduce our first very distinguished witness, Ms. Terri Hasdorff, who is the Director of the Center for 

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the United States 

Agency for International Development. Prior to her current position 

she worked to establish the Alabama Governor’s Office of FaithBased and Community Initiatives and served as its Executive Director. Ms. Hasdorff also served in the White House as an assistant 

to the chief liaison for the President to the faith-based community, 

and has had various positions on Capitol Hill, and that is where 

I got to know her originally; and I wanted her to know how deeply 

I respect the work she has done and the competence she brings to 

the job. Ms. Hasdorff. 

STATEMENT OF MS. TERRI HASDORFF, DIRECTOR, FAITHBASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES OFFICE, UNITED 

STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HASDORFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, as the director of 

the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, I am 

pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today and to update you on our work at the United States Agency for International 

Development with faith-based organizations in sub-Saharan Africa. 

I would like to ask if my entire statement can be submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. HASDORFF. I have had the privilege of working with the 

Faith-Based and Community Initiative and the charitable choice 

language when I worked here on the Hill for Congressman J.C. 

Watts and Congressman Mark Souder. In addition, I was asked to 

establish the first Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community 

Initiatives for the State of Alabama, and was able to see firsthand 

through that experience how the Faith-Based and Community Initiative is making an impact on the lives of individuals and communities. 

I have only served in my current position for a little over a 

month, but I look forward to this exciting new challenge and believe this initiative can be used to make a difference in the lives 

of people around the world. 

In today’s testimony, I would like to address our experience 

working in partnership with faith- and community-based organiza-
10

tions to achieve our foreign assistance objectives and describe the 

results we are seeing. 

As you are aware, sub-Saharan Africa is the world’s poorest region. Over half of its 700 million people live on less than $1 per 

day. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has completely overwhelmed many 

health systems and impoverished families. The aftermath of lingering conflict and armed strife have exacted a huge toll on the 

people of this region, severely limiting economic growth and challenging the delivery of much-needed social services. 

USAID learned early in its history that faith-based and community-based organizations are on the forefront of meeting human 

needs around the world and are excellent implementing partners 

for development programs because of their dedication to result, 

their ability to reach the grassroots level of society, and their capacity to mobilize societies for positive change. 

Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, talks about how no matter where you are in the world, even 

if there is no electricity, no running water and no real infrastructure, even if they are meeting under a tree, you can still always 

find a church. This is a resource that cannot be ignored when 

working with hard-to-reach populations. 

In Executive Order 13279, President Bush established a Center 

for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at USAID. The Center 

has worked to fulfill the President’s Executive Order in several 

ways. First, we respond to direct inquiries. Faith-based and community organizations call the Agency almost daily asking for information on how to obtain USAID funding for their projects around 

the world, many of which are to provide services in Africa. My staff 

also meets regularly with these organizations and groups, or individually whenever possible. 

One of the primary functions of the Center is to provide outreach, training and technical assistance. In addition, we work to 

build intermediary relationships so that small faith- and community-based organizations that lack the capacity to manage large 

sums of Federal dollars can partner with larger organizations that 

are already receiving USAID funding. 

It is important to note that USAID partners with groups representing diverse faiths in its work in Africa. Because of the fact 

that Africa is host to the largest Muslim population in the world, 

USAID is utilizing partnerships with many Muslim as well as 

Christian and non-faith-based organizations, in addition to building 

many interfaith alliances. 

One example of upcoming work with faith-based organizations is 

beginning to occur in West Africa through the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. USAID, while in the initial phases of programming for Niger and Chad, is seeking to expand our partnerships to work with local indigenous faith-based organizations. 

In Uganda faith-based organizations also play unique roles in 

providing home-based care for people and families affected by 

HIV/AIDS, mobilizing and referring people to service delivery 

points, spearheading HIV prevention with particular emphasis on 

abstinence and mutual fidelity, as well as providing end-of-life care 

and post-bereavement support to families. 
11

In Angola, since the end of the civil war in 2002, USAID has 

worked with faith-based organizations, both international and Angolan, to help the country rebuild, reintegrate and reconcile. And 

finally, in Sudan the role of churches and faith-based groups, not 

only as mediators but also as advocates, have played a pivotal role 

in the north-south conflict as well as in the ongoing Darfur conflict. 

Agencywide, in fiscal year 2005, USAID made 347 awards totaling over $591 million to faith-based organizations. This amount is 

up from the 235 awards for over $521 million made in fiscal year 

2004. It is important to note that in almost every case, the implementing organizations competed with other organizations for funding. This is an increase of more than 13 percent from the prior 

year. In fiscal year 2005, specifically in the area of HIV/AIDS, 

USAID has provided faith-based partners with over $23 million in 

assistance, with the vast majority of that aid going to sub-Saharan 

Africa. This total does not take into account the many subpartnerships with FBOs that would add considerably to the overall 

amount. Despite this positive trend, we also see that the vast majority of faith-based awards are made to a small number of groups. 

Therefore, it remains an important role for the Agency to continue 

its proactive efforts to bring on new partners to the Agency. 

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate this Committee’s continuing interest in the use of faith-based organizations and 

USAID’s critical role on the Continent of Africa. I am grateful for 

the opportunity to share with you how the Faith-Based and Community Initiative is making a difference in the lives of people all 

over the world. I cannot overstate my support of this initiative because I see on a daily basis how it draws diverse groups into incredibly innovative partnerships that can truly transform lives, 

communities, and even nations. 

I feel very blessed to have the opportunity to serve in my current 

position and would now be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Hasdorff, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hasdorff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. TERRI HASDORFF, DIRECTOR, FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES OFFICE, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you as the Director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to update you on our work at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with faith-based organizations in sub-Saharan Africa. In today’s testimony, I’d like to address our experience working in partnership 

with faith-based organizations to achieve our foreign assistance objectives and describe the results we are seeing. 

As you are aware, sub-Saharan Africa is the world’s poorest region: over half of 

its 700 million people live on less than $1 per day. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has 

completely overwhelmed many health systems and impoverished families. The aftermath of lingering conflict and armed strife have exacted a huge toll on the people 

of this region, severely limiting economic growth and challenging the delivery of 

much-needed social services. As a United States Government Agency (USG), we engage with a wide variety of partners to advance our work and we find faith-based 

organizations to be critical to this effort. 
12

USAID’S RATIONALE FOR WORKING WITH FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS

The Agency’s underlying rationale for working with faith based organizations 

(FBOs) is simple: in many of the difficult contexts in which we work, FBOs have 

proven to be effective. The following quote provided by Samaritan’s Purse points to 

several comparative advantages of FBOs:

‘‘The Church (or other FBOs including traditional healers) can be viewed as 

the largest, most stable and most extensively dispersed non-governmental organization in any country. Churches are respected within communities and most 

have existing resources, structures and systems upon which to build. They possess the human, physical, technical and financial resources needed to support 

and implement small and large-scale initiatives. They can undertake these actions in a very cost-effective manner, due to their ability to leverage volunteer 

and other resources with minimal effort.’’

USAID learned early in its history that faith-based and community-based organizations are on the forefront of meeting human needs around the world, and are excellent implementing partners for development programs because of their dedication 

to results, their ability to reach the grassroots level of society and their capacity to 

mobilize societies for positive change. Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church in 

Lake Forest, CA talks about how no matter where you are in the world, even if 

there is no electricity, no running water and no real infrastructure . . . even if they 

are meeting under a tree, you can still almost always find a church. This is a resource that cannot be ignored when working with hard to reach populations. 

I am amazed at the willingness of faith and community based organizations to 

join together with one another as well as private and public sector agencies in order 

to combine their strengths to confront critical issues. When properly implemented 

the Faith-Based Initiative brings together unique collaborative partners who design 

and deliver effective and efficient social service delivery systems. To say it more 

simply, when properly implemented the Faith-Based Initiative frees average people 

to join with other average people to do extraordinary things in their communities 

. . . extraordinary things that are so unique to their village or hometown that no 

government agency or political body could ever construct or mandate a solution so 

exquisitely tailored to heal individuals & families and the communities in which 

they live. 

Because of this, USAID has been partnering with faith-based and community organizations since its inception. When it comes to meeting human needs in far away 

and hard to reach places, faith-based and community organizations get results. 

Therefore, USAID is putting the vast capabilities and resources that faith-based organizations provide to good use in Africa. 

OUTREACH TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

By Executive Order (13280), dated December 12, 2002, President Bush established a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI) at USAID. At 

that time the President also issued an Executive Order (13279) ‘‘to guide Federal 

agencies in formulating and developing policies with implications for faith-based organizations and other community organizations, to ensure equal protection of the 

laws for faith-based and community organizations, to further the national effort to 

expand opportunities for, and strengthen the capacity of, faith-based and other community organizations so that they may better meet social needs . . . and to ensure 

the economical and efficient administration and completion of Government contracts. . . .’’ (Executive Order 13279, Introduction). 

The USAID CFBCI has worked to fulfill this portion of the executive order 

through a multi-faceted approach. First, we respond to direct inquiries. Faith-based 

and community organizations call the Agency daily asking for information on how 

to obtain USAID funding for their projects around the world. My staff also meets 

regularly with these organizations in groups or individually whenever possible. This 

assistance takes place primarily through facilitating meetings with appropriate 

USAID staff either in Washington or in our overseas missions. These meetings help 

build institutional working relationships with the Agency; and assist FBOs in their 

efforts to secure USAID funding. This service provides these potential new partners, 

and those existing partners who would like to expand their relationship with 

USAID, with essential, up-to-date information on USAID and its programs. 

Feedback provided to Faith-Based or Community Organizations (FBCO) is practical and honest, and often includes some form of technical assistance. FBCOs that 

lack the capacity to manage large sums of federal dollars are encouraged to partner 

with larger organizations that already receive USAID funding. We also encourage 
13

partnerships and the formation of consortiums to enhance the ability of FBCOs to 

compete when applying for federal assistance. 

Another important aspect of outreach is CFBCI participation in conferences that 

target faith-based and community organizations. CFBCI has co-sponsored, with the 

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, conferences for 

Faith-Based and Community Organizations. Over a dozen conferences have been 

held in cities across the U.S. with attendance ranging from 500 to 1,700. Participants are given an overview on CFBCI and answers to frequently asked questions, 

including what they can and cannot do with government funding. Participants are 

able to get specific questions answered on funding opportunities from Agency staff. 

These conferences provide a unique opportunity for FBOs to interact and exchange 

valuable information. Contacts are often made that help smaller FBCOs in the competition process. 

CFBCI produces materials that highlight opportunities of particular interest to 

smaller and medium sized faith-based or community organizations. Examples include American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA), Ocean Freight Reimbursement, Limited Excess Property Program and micro enterprise development. Each 

opportunity includes a web link for more information and contact information for 

a person representing each program. 

POLICY CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT THE INITIATIVE

As with all of USAID’s partners, faith-based organizations must comply with the 

same rules and regulations as any other non-government entity that receives Federal funding from USAID to provide critical services. These include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rules and 

regulations governing federal grants and contracts. In addition to the rules and regulations applicable to all USAID contractors and grantees, faith-based partners are 

prohibited from using federal assistance for inherently religious activities, including 

proselytizing, prayer services and religious study. A faith-based organization may 

still engage in these activities, but they must be privately funded, separate in either 

time or location from the secular activities funded with federal assistance and voluntary for program beneficiaries. USAID currently funds faith and communitybased organizations that represent a wide variety of faiths and denominations including those of no faith affiliation at all. 

USAID’s CFBCI makes itself available as an ombudsman to which faith-based or 

community organizations can turn if they feel that they are being discriminated 

against by the agency or contractors. However, the number of complaints has been 

few, and those rare instances were resolved quickly. Where a compliance issue is 

raised about a USAID-funded organization, it may be directed to the USAID mission 

in country, the USAID regional Bureau, the Office of Acquisition and Assistance 

(OAA) in Washington, or the USAID Inspector General. All complaints received by 

USAID are investigated, and if warranted, the program in question may be subjected to financial review or formal audit. 

MEASURING RESULTS

Agency wide, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, USAID made 347 awards totaling over 

$591 million to Faith-Based organizations. This amount is up from the 235 awards 

for over $521 million made in FY 2004. It is important to note that in almost every 

case, the implementing organizations competed with other organizations for funding. This is an increase of more than 13% from the prior year. In FY 2005, specifically in the area of HIV/AIDS, USAID’s Office of HIV/AIDS provided faith-based 

partners with over $23 million in assistance, with the vast majority of that aid going 

to Sub-Saharan Africa. This total does not take into account the many sub-partnerships with FBOs which would add considerably to the total amount. 

Despite this positive trend, we also see that the vast majority of faith-based 

awards are made to a small number of groups. Therefore, it remains an important 

role for the Agency to continue its proactive efforts to bring on new partners to the 

Agency. 

Four examples of the USG’s efforts to bring on new partners in Africa are detailed 

below. These programs implement the requirement set forth in Executive Order 

13280 Sec. 3(d), to ‘‘propose the development of innovative pilot and demonstration 

programs to increase the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in Federal as well as State and local initiatives.’’

CORE Initiative—(Community Responding to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic). USAID 

provides strategic assistance, organizational development, direct grants, and other 

support to community and faith-based groups in developing countries. Geared to uti-
14

lizing faith networks, priority is given to groups who commit their own resources 

and demonstrate the ability to meet needs for care, support, and stigma reduction. 

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Annual Program Statement 

for Abstinence and Healthy Choices for Youth (ABY). Through this procurement, 

$100 million in new grants will be utilized by faith-based organizations, communitybased organizations, and other groups to mobilize rapidly to help adolescents, teens 

and young adults avoid behaviors putting them at increased risk of HIV/AIDS infection in the 15 focus countries of the President’s Emergency Plan. The focus countries, which are home to more than 50 percent of HIV infections worldwide, are: 

Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia. 

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Annual Program Statement 

for Orphans and Vulnerable Children affected by HIV/AIDS (OVC). $100 million in 

new grants to support orphans and vulnerable children as a part of the President’s 

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Eleven organizations, including a number of faithbased organizations, won the five-year grants through a competitive awards process. 

In 2003, more than 15 million children worldwide under age 18 had lost one or both 

parents to AIDS. By 2010, it is estimated that more than 25 million children will 

have lost at least one parent to AIDS. Each U.S. grant will provide care and support 

to orphans and vulnerable children affected by HIV/AIDS in at least two of the 15 

focus countries of the President’s Emergency Plan. 

New Partners Initiative (NPI). This Initiative was announced by President Bush 

on Dec. 1, 2005. Through NPI, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief will 

provide $200 million for grants to new partners to provide HIV/AIDS prevention and 

care services. The Emergency Plan will reach out to organizations through NPI, 

working to help build their capacity and assist them in becoming new partners with 

the U.S. Government. USAID, along with other USG agencies, is an implementing 

partner of this initiative. 

EXAMPLES OF ‘‘SUCCESS’’

To more fully illustrate USAID experience in working with and through FBOs, 

I’d like to provide some concrete examples drawn from four African countries. 

Uganda 

Uganda is largely a religious country with 97% of its people claiming to be one 

of the following: Catholics, Anglican Protestants, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, 

or Orthodox Christians. In order to reach the mostly rural population, USAID works 

with organizations of faith, especially in education and health. Through support of 

Madrasa schools, Islamic religious education has been integrated with secular early 

childhood education in order to help needy three-to-five year olds better prepare for 

further education. 

Through networks reaching into the farthest and smallest communities, religious 

and faith-based organizations are in a unique position to capitalize on the trust of 

their constituencies to provide guidance to people about health and behavioral 

change. The dramatic decline in HIV/AIDS prevalence recorded in the mid-1990’s 

is partly attributed to the involvement of religious and faith-based organizations at 

grassroots levels and the ability of these networks to mobilize communities. Since 

the early 1990’s, USAID/Uganda has collaborated with faith-based organizations to 

utilize their established networks to raise awareness, influence behavior change and 

fight stigma. 

Faith-based organizations also play unique roles in providing home-based care for 

people and families affected by HIV/AIDS, mobilizing and referring people to service 

delivery points, spearheading HIV prevention with particular emphasis on abstinence and mutual fidelity as well as providing end-of-life care and post-bereavement 

support to families. The spiritual and end-of-life support is particularly critical in 

the context of a culture that fears speaking about death and dying. 

USAID/Uganda’s partnership with faith-based organizations is currently being expanded through the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU), which unites all five 

traditional religious faiths in Uganda. With USAID/Uganda support since 2001, 

IRCU has evolved into a nationally accredited coordination mechanism for the faithbased HIV/AIDS interventions in Uganda. Using PEPFAR resources over the last 

two years, IRCU has provided sub-grants and technical assistance to over 100 FBOs 

reaching 30,000 people affected by HIV/AIDS including orphans and vulnerable children. In June 2006, USAID/Uganda signed a three year direct contract of $15 million with IRCU to further roll out prevention, care and treatment services, by targeting underserved areas and populations including those ravaged by armed conflict. 
15

Angola 

Since the end of the civil war in Angola in 2002, USAID has worked with faithbased organizations, both international and Angolan, to help the country rebuild, reintegrate and reconcile. Two prominent FBOs among the organizations that have 

been active partners with the USG in this effort are World Vision (WV) and Catholic 

Relief Services (CRS). Through the $75.5 million Consortium for Developmental Relief in Angola program (March 2003—December 2005) WV and CRS, along with 

three other non-governmental organizations, supported the resettlement and agricultural recovery process in the Planalto provinces of Kwanza Sul, Benguela, 

Huambo, and Bie ́, helping 210,000 vulnerable and food insecure households transition from emergency to development assistance. 

The recovery process included activities such as distributing seeds, tools and animals for traction; strengthening extension services; rehabilitating rural infrastructure including roads, bridges, irrigation systems, community storage structures, 

schools and meeting centers; reforestation activities; and establishing and training 

community based organizations to lead conflict resolution and broad-based community participation in decision-making processes. Another project funded by the Mission enables CRS to work on grassroots reconciliation in the province of Benguela 

by enhancing and broadening citizen participation in local-level decision-making, 

community initiatives, and conflict management. Finally, the Mission supports the 

work of the Center for Economic Studies and Scientific Research, an independent 

think-tank housed in the Catholic University of Angola, which has resulted in new 

market oriented analyses and the development of several new publications promoting policy reform dialogue. 

Kenya 

Shortly after losing his wife to AIDS in 1992, Ugandan Canon Gideon 

Byamugisha became the first African clergyman to openly declare his HIV-positive 

status. Since then, he has sought to eliminate HIV/AIDS-related stigma and discrimination by advocating the 4 Es-empathy, empowerment, equipment, and engagement; and the 6 Ps-prayers, policies, plans, programs, personnel, and partnerships. With support from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through 

USAID, clergy have recently begun to implement Canon Byamugisha’s approach in 

Kenya. 

The Kenya Network of Religious Leaders Infected and Affected by HIV/AIDS 

(Kenerela), the first such network in East, Central, and Southern Africa, was established in February 2004 by 44 religious leaders at a retreat in Limuru, Kenya. 

While religious leaders wield significant influence in Kenya, where the vast majority of people are members of faith communities, Kenerela’s pointed out that ‘‘a 

deafening silence permeates religious communities with regard to HIV and AIDS.’’ 

In April 2004, Kenerela members were given technical guidance and financial assistance from USAID via World Vision that enabled them to define their mission 

and begin work on a plan of work to take them through 2007. Goals include establishing eight regional branches to work ‘‘with stakeholders in the fight against HIV/

AIDS-related stigma, denial, inaction, and discrimination in our congregations, thus 

reducing the [HIV] prevalence to 20% within the age group of 15–49 years.’’

The POLICY Project, also in collaboration with World Vision, helped bring together 52 religious leaders from five African countries, all of whom are living with 

or affected by HIV/AIDS. They shared a common vision of a Kenya ‘‘where stigma, 

denial, and discrimination are nonexistent’’ and religious leaders ‘‘are witnesses of 

hope and forces of change in their congregations and communities.’’ In August 2004, 

Kenerela members met with members of faith-based organizations and with people 

living with HIV/AIDS to discuss ways to work together to reach their shared goals. 

Kenerela membership now totals 1,000 in eight provinces and includes pastors, 

HIV-positive religious leaders, clergy who have lost or are caring for close relatives 

and congregants. Kenerela encourages congregations to provide home-based care, 

counseling, and peer education for people living with HIV/AIDS, and for local orphans and vulnerable children. Kenerela also teaches local groups how to effectively 

manage their projects. Perhaps Kenerela’s most important function is to provide accurate information, communication, positive role models, and nonjudgmental support to people living with HIV/AIDS. 

Sudan 

In Sudan, churches and faith-based groups have played a critical role in the last 

35 years, pushing for national, regional and inter-communal peace. Since the 1972 

Addis Ababa Agreement which concluded an extended peace process to end a 15-

year civil war between the dissident Anyanya group and the Sudanese government, 

and brought relative peace to the country for a 10 year period, church groups have 
16

worked to parley issues of church and state, religious, cultural and ethnic diversity 

and formal mediation methodology into reconciliation processes. The role of churches and faith-based groups, not only as mediators but also as advocates, has continued in recent years, both in the North-South conflict, as well as in the ongoing 

Darfur conflict. 

In the South, church groups have played a part in reconciling various factions of 

the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), and even more actively in facilitating reconciliations between warring tribes and clans. The classic example of the 

Wunlit Peace—brokered by the New Sudan Council of Churches with assistance 

from international churches through their ‘‘people-to-people peacemaking’’ methodology—reconciled the Dinka and Nuer people in 1999 and stands as a symbolic 

model for other ethnic groups in the South to follow. 

USAID’s programming has bolstered support for this methodology to be applied 

in reconciling other ethnic groups in conflict, particularly against the backdrop of 

a North-South conflict which exacerbated these tensions and divided these communities further. Sudanese faith-based groups, with support from their international 

sister organizations, have continued to be critically involved in quelling tensions in 

Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal, where they are seen as a credible, legitimate mediators for inter-communal conflict. 

On this side of the ocean, FBOs continue to remain engaged in advocacy for support to the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and respect for 

human rights. Most recently, with the Darfur crisis, the world has witnessed how 

a broad-range of faith-based groups from all religions have coalesced around the 

Darfur cause and become a powerful advocate on the US political stage for their 

counterparts in Sudan.’’

CONCLUSION

A particularly meaningful resource of the faith-based community to the work of 

USAID is its deep connections to the most vulnerable people in Africa. FBOs have 

been and continue to be on the front lines in places like Sudan, Angola, Rwanda, 

and Uganda. As faith-based organizations have a long history of working with vulnerable populations and an overall successful track record in these areas, we feel 

it is sound development policy to continue to support them to achieve our mutual 

objectives. I am encouraged by the steps that have been taken to ensure their participation and look forward to strengthening our relationships with the faith-based 

community as we seek to pursue our common goals. 

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate this Committee’s continuing interest in the 

use of faith-based organizations and USAID’s critical role on the continent of Africa. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today and share with you how 

the Faith-Based Initiative is making a difference in the lives of people all over the 

world. I cannot overstate my support of this initiative because I see on a daily basis 

how it draws diverse groups into incredibly innovative partnerships that can truly 

transform lives, communities and perhaps even nations. I feel very blessed to have 

the opportunity to serve in my current position and now would be happy to answer 

any questions you might have for me at this time.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you firsthand—and thank you for this 

data. This is really encouraging and very, very helpful to the Subcommittee. You mention, agency wide, 347 awards totaling $591 

million to faith-based organizations; $591 million out of how much? 

Do you have that? 

Ms. HASDORFF. The agency gives out about $15 billion a year 

total, between $3 billion and $4 billion in assistance. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you know to what extent of that $3–4 billion, the 

subcontractors turn out to be faith-based? 

Ms. HASDORFF. We do not track the subgrants. We only track the 

grantees that are direct. We are putting in place tracking systems 

that will allow us over the next year to start tracking subgrants. 

Mr. SMITH. Does that include governments too? When a government gets money for a certain program to ensure that they themselves are not, you know, excluding, for example, a faith-based organization? 

Ms. HASDORFF. I will have to get back to you on that. 
17

Mr. SMITH. Okay. If that can be—and perhaps what we are doing 

is to ensure that faith-based groups are not discriminated against. 

We hear sometimes complaints that some USAID grants—and 

some of them are very, very large, $150 million to this organization, $60 million to another organization—that some of the faithbased indigenous organizations have a heck of a time, and they are 

very, very often unsuccessful, in applying for a grant from that or 

subgrant from that organization. What do we do to ensure that 

there is complete transparency so that they are not excluded? 

Ms. HASDORFF. So that faith-based groups are not excluded? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. HASDORFF. Well, in line with what the White House faithbased initiative has implemented across the board for all agencies 

that are affected by that, we make sure that it is a level playing 

field and that faith-based groups are given the same opportunity 

to compete for government grants as any other nongovernment entity. So all of the grant opportunities that are available through 

USAID that would be eligible for faith-based organizations to apply 

would be made open——

Mr. SMITH. Is there any kind of monitoring system other than 

the IG, perhaps GAO, that we would ask for? But is there any 

other kind of systematic monitoring system, either contemplated or 

currently in operation to ensure that if I am a subgrantee, I am 

living in Uganda or would like to be one, I make application for 

money that a local provider has money for, whatever the issue may 

be, and then find out that I am just shown the door summarily. 

What do we do to ensure that that doesn’t happen? 

Ms. HASDORFF. The faith-based office at USAID works with each 

of the offices that USAID funds across the world to make sure that 

they are aware of making certain that the grants that we give out 

are eligible for faith-based organizations to apply for. So it would 

be through the Center that that type of outreach would be done. 

In addition to that, all of the information that is through the White 

House Faith-Based Office that is for more of the domestic faithbased outreach that occurs, that would make sure that they understand the grants are open to them to apply for. 

Mr. SMITH. Can you tell us how we can be sure that the USAID 

mission personnel in the field who have considerable control over 

how money is spent, as to whether or not they have been adequately trained and understand that the clear unmistakable congressional intent is not to exclude? I mention this for a reason. 

When the PEPFAR program was under consideration, and I was 

one of the original sponsors of Henry Hyde’s bill which he considers 

one of his greatest triumphs in terms of legislation, I offered a 

number of amendments. One of them had to do with the conscience 

clause. We found that during the 1990s many faith-based organizations in Africa where shown the door, were told you need not apply, 

because they didn’t want to be part of a condom distribution program. Notwithstanding the fact that they had very effective behavioral change programs, very energetic efforts to try to push the abstinence message to especially the young people in elementary and 

secondary schools, they literally were told, you need not apply. 

I used some of those examples during the debate on the Floor because I did offer the amendment, and it passed, to provide complete 
18

conscience for those who would prefer not to take that part of it, 

leaving that to someone else. We hear, anecdotally, that that still 

is a problem and I am wondering what is being done to ensure—

I mean, this isn’t a matter of just my opinion now. This is now 

backed with the imprimatur, if you will, the full support of the 

Congress of the United States, that conscience is to be respected 

and that an NGO or a grantee can’t take it upon themselves to go 

their own way on this. If you are going to be a U.S.-funded contractor, these are the rules, clear and simple. You can’t discriminate based on the fact that you didn’t want to include some other 

aspects of the ABC. 

Ms. HASDORFF. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that while I know 

that the Agency has been making great strides with this initiative, 

and I am pleased with a lot of the work I have seen in the past, 

one of my goals as the director of this office——

Mr. SMITH. And you have only been on it for a month. 

Ms. HASDORFF. But it is exciting because I think there are some 

opportunities for additional outreach, and that is one of my goals 

is to work more closely with some of the mission directors. I know 

that that has been occurring in the past, but I think there is even 

more that can be done and that is one of the things I look forward 

to. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the things that I found when I visited Uganda, and I have been to several African countries, and Greg and I 

saw it firsthand, many of the USAID people who were absolutely 

skeptical of the A and the B had come around, because they saw 

that young people who were given the right kind of message with 

the right kind of reinforcement were able to change their behavior, 

which obviously benefits their health and their well-being. I mean, 

I met young people who were dedicated themselves that they would 

wait until marriage before engaging in sexual activity, thereby 

practically eliminating—unless they used bad needles—risk of contagion by AIDS. But they came around. They told me, as candidly 

as they could possibly say, that they were skeptical. And I remember in the 1990s there were people who laughed at it. They laughed 

at Museveni and the ABC model and the First Lady for what they 

were trying to do. It didn’t fit into their paradigm on what a fight 

against AIDS should look like. I still think there needs to be some 

educating done along those lines. 

Let me ask you, if I could, what weight the churches and 

mosques and synagogues get, in the fact that they have such considerable infrastructure? What always impresses me when you go 

to a faith-based effort is it is not something that has to be started 

from the ground up, and people employed who had not been doing 

this before or don’t have, you know, the passion that so many of 

the churches and faith-based health organizations have. And especially as it relates to the volunteer base. I mentioned Our Lady of 

Africa in my opening. Their volunteer base is almost, you know, 

within limits but you know it is just—if they need people to do 

something, they have them and they meet every week not just for 

Mass but there is this constant number of people willing to engage 

in this effort. So in terms of dollars spent by the U.S. Government, 

we get such bang for the buck in terms of good things happening 

on the ground. 
19

And I am wondering when grants are being reviewed, does that 

kind of infrastructure have—add to points or whether or not they 

get the grant? And I would add to that, I only made brief mention 

of what I saw for years, but the massive immunization efforts—

that wasn’t just in Latin America. That was all over Africa and all 

over the world. And had it not been for churches, volunteers and 

the base that they provided, that would have been, you know—

UNICEF and our USAID would have been ineffective in getting the 

world’s children immunized. So the weight given to infrastructure 

that a church brings with it. 

Ms. HASDORFF. I think in the grant process at USAID, basically 

what they are looking for is the best partner for whatever social 

service it is to provide, and many times faith-based organizations 

are that partner. Obviously the leverage they have with resources, 

volunteers, all the things that you mention, would definitely be 

taken into consideration. I know that you know they are just looking for the best partner to work with for whatever service it is. And 

many times that is a faith-based organization. 

Mr. SMITH. One final question. Local indigenous organizations 

that may not be the most adept at writing grants but may be the 

best individual or group to actually implement a grant, what kind 

of technical assistance is being provided to them to overcome what 

some of the more savvy K Street grant writers have over them in 

writing a grant for USAID or anywhere else? And I do have another question. If you could speak to the New Partners Initiative 

and how well that is going. 

Ms. HASDORFF. One of the things that the office—that the Center 

for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives does is address that 

very concern that you were talking about. A lot of times for the 

smaller local NGOs, it is very difficult for them to have the same 

leverage for receiving grants. What we encourage them to do is 

partner with larger intermediary organizations who can assist 

them with that technical assistance that they need, or our office 

will work with them as well if they are applying directly for a 

grant. But we encourage that type of collaboration quite a bit. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you help marry them up with the other organization? 

Ms. HASDORFF. We do. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, from the evidence you see in the field, does the 

Global Fund do this? Maybe you are not the right person to ask 

on this—it might be somebody from HHS or USAID that handles 

the Global Fund—but as I said at the outset, the message we are 

getting back—and as a matter of fact, the Catholic bishops of Africa recently complained bitterly that they provided 40 percent of all 

the health care in Africa and they get 4 to 6 percent of all the Global Fund moneys. And that is by design, not by default. 

I am wondering whether or not we are finding that out in the 

field as well, because obviously we want to work side by side with 

the Global Fund. 

Ms. HASDORFF. I would have to take that one for the record because I have only been there for a month so. I am not sure about 

that, but I think that it is. And as far as the New Partners Initiative, I know that that has been very successful and I am once again 

still delving into that, but from everything that I am hearing, it is 
20

welcoming a lot of new faith- and community-based groups to the 

grants process that were not being—that we were not receiving or 

we were not accessing that in the past. 

Mr. SMITH. And our mission in getting the message out that 

these potential moneys are out there for them? 

Ms. HASDORFF. Yes. Outreach has been conducted very heavily 

on that. And our office has done been quite a bit on that well as 

well. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You mentioned Healthy 

Choices Initiative in your testimony. And when I was getting ready 

for the hearing, one of the things we do is go on the Internet and 

we pull down articles and talk to other Members of Congress. 

When USAID awarded the AYB grants in 2004, there was an organization that made a grant and was named Children’s AIDS Fund. 

It was headed by a Ms. Anita Smith. And USAID did an independent review board that makes recommendations on this grant 

that deemed that the Children’s AIDS Fund was not suitable for 

funding due to their lack of experience in international aid. 

And I do agree with the Chairman. We need to figure out a way 

to nurture and move along indigenous groups so that they can 

apply and do that. So I am not—I think that that is a noble role 

for us to do. But this group—and this person, her name was Anita 

Smith—applied for that. 

It appears from your testimony you are in the process of awarding new grants. Now, considering the Children’s AIDS Fund was 

ruled not eligible for funding, yet it turned out it received a grant 

anyways, what are the criteria, and could you provide to this Committee the criteria that the board, that the panel—I think it would 

be interesting for the Chair and I, how you determine whether or 

not a grant is awarded. And then maybe some goals and objectives 

you have in order to help nurture and sponsor indigenous groups 

to be able to be at a place where they can receive a grant. 

So if you could provide that for us, that would be good because 

one of the things that—with some of the other funding we are 

doing for development funding, we are saying you have to meet all 

these goals, these objectives, these specific measures. And I have 

been out in the field, as others, when we have traveled the country 

and saying no, we are very, very serious about this accountability 

here. And so I would like to see how we are holding people accountable. 

So do you have a report on the first $100 million that has been 

awarded on this program that you could provide for the Committee 

along with that? 

Ms. HASDORFF. Absolutely. We will have to get back to you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am curious as to how the money was used and 

how you have tracked your results, so that if there is a program 

out there that maybe has a C grade, USAID can maybe interject 

some way to get that up to a B-plus to keep—especially if it is an 

indigenous or local-run program, so that we make sure we are 

doing that. 

I had another question, too, and it seems like you are struggling 

with getting tracking. So I would be interested in knowing how 

many grants were actually made to Muslim groups and in what 
21

countries. And then you mention this terrorism. Would you—what 

was that again. Terrorism——

Ms. HASDORFF. What I mentioned was the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership and that is a new program that we started up in West Africa. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Did that fund money come out of USAID’s funding program? 

Ms. HASDORFF. I will have to take that question for the record. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And could you take a look at that, please? And 

could you also provide to the Committee and the membership of the 

panel on how it is selected for USAID to go over these grants? 

Ms. HASDORFF. Yes, ma’am. I will take that question. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. That would be great. And welcome. You have 

only been there a month? 

Ms. HASDORFF. Yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am sorry for all the questions. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think my question is just a continuation, in a way, of what you 

have heard, because in your testimony you talk about the concern 

you have is that a relatively small number of faith-based organizations obtain the bulk of the grants. And so I wondered what you 

could tell us is the exact problem. 

I know it is the same as—the question about well, how do we get 

indigenous groups in there too? But can you tell there is some common element to the grantee—the grantees—that we can identify as 

being either a positive or a negative situation? And it is really, I 

suppose, all of our concern that we have had a lot of information 

given to the Committee, given to individual Members of the Committee at various times about the hostility that exists out there in 

the field, hostility toward the faith-based organizations on the part 

of other NGOs. And somewhat understandable I suppose. Here is 

a new group coming in to essentially take part of the action that 

they have—that these other organizations had been used to having 

to themselves. But are there things that you can do—well you 

know, first of all, what is the reason for this small number? And 

are there things you can do to ameliorate the kind of hostility that 

may actually still be out there? 

Ms. HASDORFF. Well, Congressman, I think the Faith-Based and 

Community Initiative as a whole has seen—basically you have 

small faith- and community-based groups that are small nonprofits 

that many times have a hard time accessing grants just because of 

their lack of knowledge or capacity. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Sophistication. 

Ms. HASDORFF. So that is across the board. What we are trying 

to do at USAID is reach out and do more outreach, training and 

technical assistance, looking for ways of building smaller and community-based groups to allow them to have access; also partnering 

them with larger groups that are already receiving funding that 

can work as intermediaries so they can partner with that group. 

Those are all things that are being done to try to address that 

issue. 
22

But as far as the hostility, I have not seen that during my time 

there at USAID. It seems there is a real excitement to welcoming 

new partners, and I think that the New Partners Initiative and 

many other things that are being done there are opening up the 

doors for smaller groups to have access. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Well, although I am encouraged to hear about 

the fact that you may not have seen that in the brief time that you 

have been there, I will assure you that there is a great deal of—

some anecdotal, some quite objective—information available to lead 

us to the conclusion that there are tensions that exist out there. 

So as your tenure develops, I just hope that you are sensitive to 

this potential problem. Whether it is real or perceived incorrectly, 

that is the thing I would like you to be able to tell us the next time 

we meet. 

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I don’t have anything. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much for your testimony. We look 

forward to staying in touch with you. We will have you back in a 

few months, maybe by the middle of December if that would work. 

Ms. HASDORFF. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I would like to now ask to the witness table our second panel, 

beginning with Mr. Ken Hackett who is the President of Catholic 

Relief Services, the official international relief and development 

agency of the U.S. Catholic community. He oversees operations in 

99 countries and commands a global staff of more than 4,000. Mr. 

Hackett joined Catholic Relief Services more than 30 years ago and 

has served on posts throughout Africa, as well as a variety of positions in Catholic Relief headquarters in Baltimore. In July 1993, 

Mr. Hackett was named Executive Director of Catholic Relief Services and he was appointed President in 2003. 

We will then hear from the Reverend Edward Phillips who was 

ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in 1974, currently serves as 

the Managing Director of the Archdiocese of Nairobi, Eastern 

Deanery AIDS Relief Program. He also serves as the country administrator for a Marquette University nursing college in Kenya 

where he runs a national training program for HIV/AIDS care. As 

a long-term resident of Kenya, Reverend Phillips has also been appointed to Kenya’s Ministry of Health, HIV/TB National Steering 

Committee. 

And finally we will hear from Mr. Ken Isaacs, who currently 

serves as the Vice President of Programs and Government Programs for Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief organization with 

activities in over 100 countries worldwide. Mr. Isaacs also served 

as International Program Director for 17 years. In between his two 

positions with Samaritan’s Purse, Mr. Isaacs served as the Director 

of the Office of Foreign Disaster Relief Assistance within the U.S. 

Agency for International Development. 

Mr. Hackett, if you could begin, please. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KEN HACKETT, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC 

RELIEF SERVICES 

Mr. HACKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an 

honor to appear before this Committee to discuss this most impor-
23

tant of issues. And I would also like to take a moment to thank 

this Committee, and you in particular, for the work that you have 

done on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act and on the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Act. This 

is tremendously beneficial to the people in those two countries. 

Thank you. 

If I may, I would like to summarize my prepared statement that 

could be entered for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement will be entered 

as a part of the record. 

Mr. HACKETT. As an organization of the Catholic Church in the 

United States, and one that has been the recipient of U.S. Government foreign assistance for over six decades, we found the FaithBased and Community Initiative to be a very positive development. 

However, from the perspective of Catholic Relief Services, we cannot conclude with any empirical evidence that more funding has 

come to us directly as a result of the Faith-Based and Community 

Initiative. And I did a little survey earlier in the week among the 

other major faith-based organizations—World Vision, Lutheran 

World Relief, UMCOR of the Methodist, the Adventist Development 

and Relief Agency—and basically everybody felt the same way. 

Funding did not come because we were faith-based or religiously 

grounded. We compete for U.S. Government money like anybody 

else, or any of the for-profits. 

If I may, I would like to offer a few perspectives on the FaithBased and Community Initiative and a few suggestions on where 

it might go for the future. While we recognize that the primary intent of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative was not directed 

to large religiously based groups like ourselves or the Lutherans or 

the Salvation Army, I would suggest that all of us have noticed an 

increased openness to religious organizations at different levels 

within the Administration. The fact that there is in each Cabinet 

office and department someone specifically designated with a faithbased organization portfolio is what we deem a very constructive 

change. 

And the related conscience clause provision in the HIV authorization has also helped to ensure that faith-based organizations can 

compete on a level playing field without sacrificing our moral values. And I commend you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for your leadership in that regard. 

Second, we have witnessed an increase in smaller churches’ and 

religiously inspired groups’ engagement in Africa. These groups 

had limited contact with Africa, and now have been able to increase their presence. I won’t directly attribute that to the FaithBased and Community Initiative, but there may be some linkage. 

This reality, in our view, offers a hope that these groups may be 

able to bring back to the United States a more profound understanding of the African people and contribute in a deeper way to 

the dialogue about foreign aid programs for Africa. 

Further, the great diversity of American values represented by 

this broad array of churches and faith-inspired groups itself embodies, in a way, our democratic traditions and values. The FaithBased and Community Initiative has brought opportunities for 

many smaller organizations with little experience working abroad, 
24

much less in Africa. But at the same time, their learning curve is 

steep and their missteps often confusing to many. 

Third, the foreign aid bureaus of the government have demonstrated increased sensitivity that the faith-based organizations 

bring values and approaches that the U.S. Government itself sometimes forgets. So there is some positive change there. 

When I look back over my 35 years of dealing in this type of 

work, I see that in the past, sometimes the U.S. Government foreign aid bureaucracy often didn’t give much credence to such values as social justice or the role of civil society or the dignity of the 

individual. 

A fourth concern for me lies with the fact that some contractors 

look to partner with faith-based organizations to increase their 

competitiveness. The money is obviously an attraction to many 

faith-based organizations, both American and African. But the consequences of the often fundamentally different approaches between 

contractors and faith-based organizations can often lead to fractured relations, hard feelings, and possibly even compromised missions. It is the relationships with local affiliates and branches and 

partners that make American faith-based entities effective in their 

outreach and assistance to groups in Africa. 

A fifth concern is the desire of the U.S. bureaucracy, something 

you were just talking about, to deal directly with religiously affiliated institutional partners. I want to see African indigenous agencies grow and flourish and develop, but there are some problems 

along the way. And I will give you an example. Recently one very 

troublesome case happened in Tanzania, involving a longstanding 

AIDS program of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam that 

CRS had been funding for over a decade. The Archdiocese was informed that whether they liked it or not—and they didn’t like it—

if they wanted PEPFAR funding, they would have to agree to accept it directly from USAID and not from Catholic Relief Services. 

As members of the same church family, we don’t intend to sever 

our relationships with such partners merely to meet USAID’s or 

the U.S. Government’s short-term funding approaches. 

And lastly I would like to comment on the direction of foreign assistance overall. Obviously, as we all know, terrorism is a deep concern for our country, and it is understandable that a significant 

portion of overall foreign assistance must be directed toward helping countries deal with that threat. But our increased attention to 

terrorism has produced a distinct decrease in attention to the worst 

impacts of poverty. 

As a member of the board of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, I am very proud of the strides we have made in that unique 

effort to help countries deal with poverty reduction. We achieve 

that goal through conscious and deliberate investments in economic 

growth, as well as social infrastructure and policy changes that are 

truly integral to the overall process of growth in poverty reduction. 

As I hear and read statements of our higher-level government officials concerning the approach being taken to foreign aid that deal 

with human development as well as stability and security, I appreciate them. However, I am troubled by reports coming out of some 

U.S. Embassies and USAID missions that all programs need to be 

justified solely on the basis of counterterrorism. There appears to 
25

be a disconnect. We see deep cutbacks in support for food aid programs, safety net programs and United States Government programs that reach the poorest segments of African societies. 

And I was wondering to myself as I prepared this, how I would 

ask the Missionaries of Charity in Ethiopia to justify their severely 

reduced appeal for any food aid allotment, which they use to feed 

the most destitute in Addis Ababa and elsewhere, in counterterrorism terms. However, I remain hopeful that our Government bureaucracy will recognize that it can be effective when it supports 

the expression of the most profound American values expressed by 

the broad array of American faith-based and civil society groups. 

When the government attempts to impose its motivations and 

agendas on private faith-based and nongovernmental groups, it 

risks compromising the good work they do and it lays open the perception they are merely tools of our government. Worst of all, the 

erosion of basic values in foreign assistance diminishes the U.S. 

goal of building peace, justice, and stability in our world. I thank 

you very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hackett follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. KEN HACKETT, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC RELIEF

SERVICES

Good Afternoon, I wish to commend Subcommittee Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Payne, and Members of the Subcommittee for calling this hearing and offering Catholic Relief Services (CRS) the opportunity to testify on the Faith-Based 

and Community Initiative (FBCI). In my testimony I will:

• First, discuss our impressions of the FBCI;

• Second, describe some examples of how we work with the local Catholic 

Church and other faith-based partners in Africa;

• Third and most importantly, outline the challenges facing faith-based organizations like CRS as a result of the shift in U.S. foreign assistance policy toward a narrow focus on security and anti-terrorism.

Let me open by stating that the faith-based initiative is a positive development 

that recognizes the history of good work and vast potential of this nation’s religious 

institutions. We believe it gives credence to the effectiveness of faith-based humanitarian organizations like CRS, Lutheran World Relief, Church World Service, the 

American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and our many other colleagues in 

the field who have provided decades of assistance to poor people around the world. 

At CRS, we believe that our grounding in our faith is an asset in our work, because 

it gives us an ability to project values that flow from religious convictions that other 

non-faith-based organizations have difficulty articulating. 

A great part of CRS’ operational advantage is our ability to engage an extensive 

network of local faith-based organizations, including local Catholic dioceses and parishes, as well as social service agencies, through which we carry out our work. We 

have seen that as a result of the FBCI, some of our local partners have greater access to funding, have increased dialogue with donors, and have formed other partnerships. 

However, progress in this regard is threatened by broader changes in the U.S. 

Government approach to foreign assistance. We fear that it will be difficult to preserve a role for faith-based and community organizations in this changing context 

that appears to place a greater value on contracting and short-term deliverables 

over long-term, sustainable development. 

1. THE IMPACT OF THE FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE

We understand that the primary focus of the FBCI was to increase access to federal funding for faith-based groups that had not previously had access, and that its 

focus has been more domestic than international. Therefore, it is not surprising that 

there has been little or no growth in the CRS public resources portfolio that can 

be directly attributed to the FBCI. Grants are not offered to CRS because we are 
26

a faith-based organization. However, CRS has seen some expansion of opportunities 

and increased receptiveness of governmental actors, not only for CRS, but for other 

faith-based organizations as well. 

CRS has been using U.S. taxpayer-provided resources in relief and development 

programs for more than 60 years. We work with a wide range of U.S. Government 

departments and agencies, including the Department of State, USAID (including 

Food for Peace and OFDA), USDA, the Department of Labor, the Department of 

Health and Human Services and others. 

We do not seek preferential treatment because we are a faith-based organization. 

We only want a level playing field. The merits of our programs and our stewardship 

of resources are sufficient to make us competitive. Our faith-based network of partners makes us a superior choice as a cooperating sponsor or grantee. 

Despite the fact that larger, established faith-based organizations were not a primary target of this initiative, we have felt welcomed at high levels within the Administration, and we believe our input has been valued. For example, we have been 

able to present our perspectives on the importance of poverty alleviation in the context of the Millennium Challenge Account, where I serve on the Board of Directors. 

We have been able to meet and discuss issues with the Director of the White House 

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives as well as with officials in the 

faith-based initiative offices in various U.S. Government departments and agencies. 

We have seen greater sensitivity from the U.S. Government to the approaches of 

the faith-based community. Organizations such as CRS and others attempted to improve the terms under which we work for many years. Some changes were made 

grudgingly before the FBCI—such as lifting the informal ban on funding noncondom distributing organizations. We are happy to report that the US Government 

is open to a wide variety of effective and proven approaches to women’s reproductive 

health and HIV and AIDS that center on combinations of nutrition, hygiene, health 

care, education and moral behavior. 

2. FAITH-BASED PARTNERSHIPS IN AFRICA

For decades, CRS has sought to build the capacity of local organizations, faithbased and otherwise, to assist them in identifying and addressing their own needs. 

The work of CRS is grounded in Catholic Social Teaching, which stresses the dignity 

of the human person and the profound ties that unite all humanity. It also promotes 

the concept of subsidiarity, which holds that decision-making should not be centralized, but should flow down to the appropriate local level. 

At the same time, CRS does represent fundamental American values. Americans 

expect the active involvement to the fullest extent of all recipients of our aid. This 

means that people are participants, not just beneficiaries or bystanders, in development and relief programs. It means that we must partner as equals with all the 

dignity afforded a true partner. 

Let me briefly highlight how we work with the Catholic Church and other faithbased partners in Africa.

• The work of faith-based organizations like CRS goes far beyond implementing 

so many specific 2- or 3-year projects. On a visit this past April to Juba in 

southern Sudan, Vice President Salva Kiir told me how important it was to 

the people of south Sudan that CRS stayed with them to help them gain a 

right to self determination. We have been in Sudan and we will stay as long 

as we are needed.

• CRS has supported the Catholic Bishops of the Democratic Republic of Congo 

in educating voters as to their voting rights and the need for them to participate in the ongoing electoral process in that high-potential but war-torn country.

• In Benin, with support from a U.S. Department of Labor grant, we are working with the Church to address the problem of child trafficking. The trafficking project we have there has provided community outreach and support 

for vocational training for 10,000 trafficked and at-risk children and their 

families.

• Finally with the support of CRS private funds and the President’s AIDS initiative (PEPFAR) we are working through a variety of networks in Africa, including the faith-based networks, to provide (as of August 31, 2006) a total 

of 47,323 people living with HIV with life-preserving anti-retroviral drugs and 

another 100,401 people living with HIV with related medical care.

These examples underscore that one key to CRS success in promoting development and relief is forming partnerships with local organizations. These links pro-
27

vide continuity for development programs and promote greater effectiveness in aid 

implementation. 

3. THE CHALLENGE TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

I fear that the positive potential for the FBCI to influence both the actors in foreign assistance and the programs being carried out may be overshadowed by recent 

changes in foreign assistance. I see a shift in U.S. foreign policy and overseas aid 

toward a narrow focus on security and anti-terrorism that could undermine the tenets of partnership and sustainable development. 

The current State Department model stresses the 3–Ds: Diplomacy, Defense and 

Development. In principle, it is a solid model whose merits can and must be debated. In practice, what troubles me most at the outset is the lack of attention to 

our traditional core constituency: the poorest of the poor. The Foreign Assistance 

Framework, in its July 11 version at least, makes no mention at all of poverty or 

hunger. Instead, the overarching emphasis underpinning Transformational Diplomacy, the State Department’s new philosophical foundation for foreign assistance, 

seems to be counter-terrorism. We have heard from our representative in Ethiopia 

that ‘‘the number one priority for all U.S. Government programming in Ethiopia is 

counter-terrorism.’’ Therefore, all USAID programs need to be justified in terms of 

working towards this goal. Where does such an approach leave the most destitute 

served by groups like the Missionaries of Charity? Where is the attention to alleviating poverty and addressing the root causes of hunger, which one could argue are 

significant contributing factors to instability and the conditions that foster conflict 

and terrorism? 

This emphasis leaves CRS to wonder how we, as a faith-based organization, can 

find an appropriate place for ourselves and our partners in future foreign assistance 

efforts. We simply cannot sign onto an initiative that subsumes our mission as an 

agency serving extremely poor people in the developing world into a security paradigm. 

The U.S. Government’s increasing preference for providing assistance through 

contracts focuses on the short-term results without supporting a long-term process 

of building up local organizations. These contracts or awards are often based on 

physical infrastructure built—such as wells dug, schools built or clinics supplied. 

What this approach does not measure is the impact on disease prevention, opportunities for girls in education, or indices of health promotion. For instance, a school 

feeding program does nothing to improve education if it is not linked to teacher 

training and compensation, water and sanitation at the school, curriculum improvement, parent-teacher associations and child de-worming. We see programs increasingly split into discreet contracts or having such a narrow focus and timeframe that 

will ultimately result in no sustainable change in people’s lives. Unless U.S. government-supported programming takes a wider focus, a longer time frame and more 

people-centered approach, it will not be sustainable. 

Moreover, we are increasingly forced to treat partners as if they are subcontractors. This goes against our nature. There are growing numbers of solicitations requiring U.S. Government approval of sub-recipients and ‘‘fair and open competition’’ 

for sub-recipient participation in receiving resources from the prime awardee. This 

requirement effectively undermines our long-term commitment to our communitybased partners of all faiths, and potentially requires us to make our traditional 

Church partners compete against other faith communities. 

To conclude, from CRS’ perspective, the greatest impact of the FBCI has been increased sensitivities in U.S. Government agencies toward the issues and values espoused by faith-based organizations. In the broader context, CRS believes that the 

most important foreign aid issues are maintaining a focus on long-term development 

and ensuring that poverty reduction isn’t sacrificed in the increasing emphasis on 

national security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to respond to any questions.

Mr. SMITH. Father Phillips. 

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND EDWARD PHILLIPS, CHAIRPERSON, EASTERN DEANERY COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH 

CARE & AIDS RELIEF PROGRAM 

Rev. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, first 

I would like to thank you for inviting me to attend this meeting 

and to tell you a story, not from a major donor or world league out 

of Washington or Baltimore, but out of the slums of the City of 
28

Nairobi, and give a different focus on what the U.S. Government 

is doing. I have a prepared statement which I have submitted and 

request to be put into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. Thank you. I spent over 30 years living in Africa, 

and actually more of my biological life has been in Africa than still 

in the United States. Although most people say I still come from 

Boston, I never lost the accent. 

Thirteen years ago we began in the city of Nairobi to set up an 

AIDS program in the slums on the eastern side of the city. It was 

supported by the late Cardinal Otunga, because we were seeing in 

the early 1990s many of our poor folks in the slums were sick and 

dying of AIDS. They weren’t resourcing—people weren’t talking 

about AIDS—they weren’t resourcing health services of the government, and so we discussed, as a group of priests outside of the city, 

what we must do. 

So in 1993 we finally received some funding from two churchbased organizations to try to respond through the communities and 

the slums, to reach out to people that are sick and dying with 

HIV/AIDS and also put into place prevention. As time went on and 

our program continued to develop, we started to seek out additional 

ways of getting funding. 

And one of the things in the AIDS world, there is a word called 

‘‘stigma,’’ and AIDS patients and AIDS families feel the sense of 

being stigmatized for others because they are HIV-positive and 

have AIDS. And I had felt the same form of stigmatism being directed toward me as a Catholic priest, running an AIDS program 

in the slums of the city of Nairobi. When the word was on the 

ground Catholics were not welcome at the table to seek out money 

if it was for AIDS, and the main player at that time with money 

was USAID—this was pre-PEPFAR—well known on the ground 

that Catholics are not welcome. So I go running around with my 

tin cup, begging people for money in the United States. I figure, 

where am I going to find my salaries for the next month? But the 

word was Catholics are not welcome in the AIDS field. 

Then in 2002, the Center for Disease Control, who has a Nairobi 

office, had a different approach. They came to me, and they were 

setting up voluntary counseling and testing centers, and they started to look at the relationship of HIV and tuberculosis. And all they 

could offer was technical support to us, and every year, they had 

tried to find a little bit of money within the government grant and 

the National AIDS Control Program to allocate us some money for 

TB studies, and we did a pilot study on tuberculosis and delivery 

of services within the slums. From PEPFAR, I was able to get a 

direct cooperative agreement through the Center for Disease Control for a comprehensive AIDS care, TB care, counseling, and we 

began offering pediatrics care this year. 

Now, the strange dynamic is, for a person who is a Catholic 

priest—and Catholics weren’t welcome at the table—the AIDS Relief Program is presently the Number two individual supplier of 

antiretroviral care in Kenya with PEPFAR. Eastern Deanery did 

the national study for testing and counseling in relationship to tuberculosis. And it is now the government policy, a faith-based organization that wasn’t welcome at the table. The Eastern Deanery 
29

Program at the present time is working through Marquette University, the College of Nursing, who also had problems getting funding. We ran a national program for the upgrading of nurses and 

the HIV/AIDS scare, and actually we have developed a model for 

nurses, a model of antiretroviral care. 

The same program is the present largest individual supplier of 

antiretroviral drugs in Nairobi Province, all to the poor and the 

slums in the City of Nairobi, and we are the Number 1 TB clinic 

in the city of Nairobi, as approved by the Kenyan Government. We 

test over 3,000 patients every month, and clients, through our VCT 

sites and through our diagnostic testing and counseling sites, and 

presently, we have over 700 children receiving comprehensive 

AIDS care, including antiretroviral care. At the present time, our 

total patient population is over 6,500 patients, all of this for someone who wasn’t welcome at the table because we are faith-based, 

and we are Catholic. But PEPFAR and the CDC believed in us. 

Until this day, the CDC respects us. There is no pressure placed 

on us, on the Catholic traditions, as to what might be. 

I work at the national level of the Episcopal Conference. I work 

at the Vatican. I am actually a pontifical advisor to the Vatican on 

health issues, and one of the things we find in the work in the 

Church around Africa, especially in Kenya, is the formation of 

young people. I think we all know, when were young, our parents 

told us ‘‘no,’’ but kids have to know the skills and how to negotiate 

relationships with other young people, and so we have done a lot 

of work on life skill development, the formation of young people so 

that they have the skills to help them to grow and develop. 

I think the Church has been hit over the head with what I think 

is one of the key things, which is positive formation of young people. And I have worked at the universities as a chaplain, at the 

same time running a program and a lecture at the University. I 

know the hurts of the young university students that they go 

through. 

As we move forward I have some concerns, and these are economic concerns. Let’s start with the Global Funds. The Chairman 

mentioned it. In January of this year, actually, I was in Geneva. 

I was invited to give a paper for the major Catholic donors around 

the world, and actually the people from the Global Fund came in, 

and they admitted between 4 to 6 percent of the Global Fund 

money is going to faith-based organizations. It is scandal, and they 

wipe it off. Today it is a country issue. We are sitting in Geneva. 

That is not our issue. I said, ‘‘Come on. It is a scam. It is all part 

of the same system.’’

I really believe that there is really a glass ceiling, and they don’t 

want to look at it, and there is probably also issues of secularism 

that are up in it. I have actually prepared a paper for the Episcopal 

Conference in Kenya to try to even deal with the Kenyan Government. Because what happens is you put your proposal in; what you 

put in doesn’t always come in the final agreement they put through 

because of the amount of changes that go on. 

So how can you justify 4 to 6 percent, worldwide, of Global Fund 

money when, across Africa, church-based organizations are doing a 

phenomenal amount of work? It makes no sense, and no one wants 

to ask the question. So you know, there is some form of bigotry or 
30

elements of that in that, and I think that really has to be looked 

at. 

Secondly, I have heard a lot of discussions about how we are 

going to take PEPFAR money, and we are going to put it in the 

Global Fund. I have been overseas for over 30 years. I know the 

good of American politics and American foreign aid, and I know the 

bad of it. 

Now, there is one thing. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, PEPFAR is one of the few times that I have seen the 

moneys really get down to folks. I mean, I am taking care of the 

poorest of the poor who don’t even access health care, and you 

know, I am keeping them alive, and I am a huge supplier in the 

country. PEPFAR is doing that. It is what, with the American taxpayer when you go back to your constituency, you talk about. This 

time the money is going there. It is not going to the $500 hammers 

or the $700 toilet seats or, you know, X amount of money coming 

back to Washington. 

So I think as a Government, as the U.S. Government operation, 

we should be happy. And I find it bizarre that we are getting good 

outcomes. You know, you are tracking what is going on. The suppliers are always there. The suppliers aren’t always there in 

PEPFAR. We were threatened—no, we weren’t threatened, but in 

April we were called to a meeting in Kenya because of the lockout 

of antiretroviral drugs in the Kenyan Government, and we were 

told to slow up on the scaling up of our patients, because drugs had 

to be released to go over to the Kenyan Government so they could 

keep people alive who were on medication. Well, you know, 

PEPFAR is doing well. Well, you know, anybody in the business 

world—if you have got a good thing going, you make sure it goes 

better; but if you are thinking about taking some from there and 

putting it there, it makes no sense. And I think that is something 

you really have to look at. 

And then, finally, I guess the question—the two questions we 

have are there is a concern that the glass ceiling is coming back 

in on the U.S. Government side. It is already there on, I think, the 

Global Fund side; but there is a glass ceiling there on the U.S. 

Government side that is hard to find a lot of ways around, but I 

just kind of wonder if it is coming back up again. 

Another concern I would have is what is going to happen post 

PEPFAR. It is a question a lot of us have on the ground: What are 

we going to do? Because it is only a 5-year program, and after that, 

what is going to happen? And I have got 6,500 patients. My target 

next year is going to be over 9,000 patients who enter 

antiretroviral care. I don’t have that money, so it is another thing 

you are going to have to look at as we move down the line. 

But with that, I would like to thank all of you for, you know, letting me share a little bit of my experiences in Africa. And I am 

open at any time for any questions you might have, Mr. Chairman 

and all Members of the Committee. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Father Phillips, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Phillips follows:]
31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND EDWARD PHILLIPS, CHAIRPERSON, EASTERN

DEANERY COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH CARE & AIDS RELIEF PROGRAM

For over the last 30 plus years I have spent my life working in Africa. I have 

spent more of my biological life in Africa than the United States. 

In 1993 I was appointed by the late Cardinal Maurice Otunga to develop the Eastern Deanery AIDS Relief Program. The term deanery is a church term for a section 

of the archdiocese so in political terms you might consider the deanery to be like 

a district of the House. The Eastern Deanery AIDS Relief Program developed because many of the parishes on the eastern side of the city had slums as part of their 

parishes and were encountering people dying from HIV/AIDS related illnesses with 

no care being offered to them. The priests saw the suffering of their people living 

in the slums and said that we should try to respond in what ever way we could 

to these people. At that time most people were not talking about HIV/AIDS. Initial 

funding came from a German Catholic development organization called Misereor 

and my own community Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers. Both of these church 

groups have continued to fund us with their limited resources. 

As HIV/AIDS became more of issue prior to the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief , United States government funds were coming mostly through the 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However though it 

was not official USG policy, the Catholic Church was not welcomed at the funding 

table for HIV/AIDS. In point of fact, I felt stigmatization by being a Catholic priest 

and running a Catholic run AIDS care program. 

In the year 2002, I felt the complete opposite attitude coming from the US agency 

Center for Disease Control (CDC) through their Kenya office. CDC Kenya wanted 

to work with us as they were developing Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT) 

in Kenya and tuberculosis services. CDC did not have the funding stream at that 

time and initially could only offer technical services. When they began to receive 

more funding they tried to assist as they could. With the implementation of 

PEPFAR, I was able to obtain a five year cooperative agreement with CDC in the 

area of HIV/AIDS care, counseling, HIV/TB and next year orphans and vulnerable 

children. CDC has respected the traditions of the Catholic Church and has never 

tried to impose conditions on our work that would be in conflict with the Church. 

Now from the situation of not being welcomed at the table by some people within 

the USG system, Eastern Deanery AIDS Relief Program is currently the number 

two individual supplier of anti-retroviral treatment (ART) in Kenya under PEPFAR. 

We are the number one individual supplier of ART in Nairobi province. Our tuberculosis service was awarded the number one TB site in Nairobi Province in the year 

2006. Our TB services are only one of two sites nationally allowed by the National 

Leprosy and Tuberculosis Program (NLTP) to offer Isonaizid prophylaxis as part of 

comprehensive AIDS care. We were also allowed by NLTP to do a pilot study on 

Diagnostic Testing and Counseling for in relation to tuberculosis care. This study 

had now become the national protocol for TB care. 

Through the assistance of PEPFAR and CDC, the USG has been able to reach 

poor people living in the slums which are what the U.S taxpayers believe their tax 

dollars should be. At present, we have over 6,500 patients receiving comprehensive 

AIDS care. Out of these 6,500 patients, over 700 of them are children receiving 

AIDS care. We are presently testing an average of 3,000 clients every month in our 

VCT centers and through clinical Diagnostic Testing and Counseling. At our antenatal clinic, all our pregnant mothers accept to be tested because we believe that 

any mother wants the best for their baby and if testing is communicated properly 

the mother will accept. The sadness is that 22% of our mothers are being tested 

HIV Positive but at least now we can offer these mothers and children various treatments to keep them alive. 

What USG money had done through Eastern Deanery is keep poor families alive. 

Poor children as any children need the love and support of parents. Through the 

use of anti-retroviral treatment parents are being kept alive. Thus a hidden outcome 

from PEPFAR is that we are supporting the strengthening of the family unit which 

is crucial for any society. As the family unit breaks down, children become vulnerable and also societies become more vulnerable because of manipulation of vulnerable children for unhealthy activities. 

HIV/AIDS needs to be viewed in all its components including prevention. The 

Catholic Church has been in the forefront on abstinence and prevention programs 

even though not recognized by many. 

The basis of Church policy on abstinence is in the formation of people and in particular young people. Young people around the world face the same struggles as 

young people in the USA trying to understand themselves as young men and women 

with issues around sexual identity and sexual feelings. The Church is trying to help 
32

young people know themselves better and develop appropriate life skills so that they 

can positively say no to inappropriate activities. It is easy to tell someone to say 

no to sex but it is another to help that person to develop internal skills so they can 

say no to sex before marriage. Young people feel at times that they are being pressured into sex even though they want to say no. By helping children develop life 

skills, the ability is there to say no. 

Many of our young women are being infected by older men because of issues 

around poverty and psychological seduction. The Church is trying to challenge the 

adult male population on the role of a real man. Does a real man have sex with 

a young woman who could be the age of his daughter? This challenge is also a challenge to the cultural dynamic of the superior/inferior relationship in the male/female 

relationship. 

As the Church has been marginalized pre PEPFAR, the same marginalization can 

be seen in relation to the Global Fund. Global fund figures show that approximately 

only 6% of all Global funds go to Faith Based Organizations. Why should only 6% 

of the funds go to FBO when in many of these countries the FBO are major suppliers of health care? The Global Fund will claim that it is a national problem and 

not theirs. However if the Global Fund has guidelines on many parts of their program why deny the problem with the FBO? As it is the FBO are categorized in the 

same category as any local NGO which might not have any credibility. I have written a paper for the Kenya Episcopal Conference on this issue so that the Bishops 

can question the Kenya government on local allocation of Global Fund funds. 

We must acknowledge that PEPFAR has tried to address the issue of FBO as well 

as attempt to track outcomes for all that receive PEPFAR funding. PEPFAR also 

works hard that supplies are there so there will not be a break in services. The 

same cannot be said for the Global Fund. I personally believe that it makes no sense 

if you have an effective program that is reaching people that you fund a program 

that will be at the cost of PEPFAR. You know the positive outcomes of PEPFAR, 

and if anything, funding should be increased instead of decreased. This is what a 

good business person would do. 

As PEPFAR comes to an end, my concern is what will happen after PEPFAR? 

Who is going to meet the costs of all these poor patients? 

Another concern that I see post PEPFAR is that the glass ceiling being put in 

place so that FBO are not allowed at the table. The Global Fund percentage shows 

that the glass ceiling is already in place and the risk is that personnel within the 

USG might also follow in the same direction.

Mr. SMITH. Now Mr. Isaacs. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KEN ISAACS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, SAMARITAN’S 

PURSE 

Mr. ISAACS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to also request that my written record be—that my 

written transcript be turned in to the record, and I will just speak 

in summary here. 

Mr. SMITH. No objection. 

Mr. ISAACS. Thank you. 

Chairman Smith and distinguished Representatives, I want to 

thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

I work with Samaritan’s Purse, which was founded 35 years ago, 

to bring emergency assistance to people living in poverty, famine, 

disease, and more. Today our current budget is $256 million. Less 

than 3 percent of that comes from the government. We have had 

a long and strenuous attempt over the 17 years that I have been 

with Samaritan’s Purse to access that 3 percent of the money. 

Today, we still find that we face ongoing and substantial bias from 

USAID on too many occasions. Globally, we now have a staff of 

2,500, including 500 Americans. Approximately 2,100 of these are 

in foreign locations, including members of my own family who are 

serving in Sudan. 
33

These are committed, highly trained professionals who, because 

of their Christian faith, are moved to bring relief to suffering people. They frequently accept assignments that put them in difficult 

and dangerous situations without regard for their personal safety 

or financial gain. They are motivated by the belief that Jesus 

Christ is the Son of God and that He suffered death on the cross 

to bring eternal life to those who believe in Him. They also believe 

they have a responsibility to share this good news with others 

while fulfilling the biblical mandate to help people in need, without 

consideration for what those people believe. 

Regardless of what one believes religiously, what we do has significant human meaning. Even in strongly Muslim countries such 

as Afghanistan and Indonesia, we have received the full support of 

host governments who value our compassion and the excellent 

quality of our work. We never make any effort to hide our Christian identity, as I just didn’t to you. I just told you. We have never 

used any government money to support evangelism or religious activities, and we are fully accountable to every donor, including the 

U.S. Government. 

I have worked with Samaritan’s Purse since 1988, and I also 

lived in Africa for a number of years. I resigned from Samaritan’s 

Purse to accept the position of the Director of Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance—and, by the way, I want to say that I am proud 

to have led OFDA throughout the tsunami in Ethiopia in 2005, and 

I want to say that OFDA is an organization that I feel does not receive as much attention as it should from our Government. I believe that it is a personification of some of the best qualities of the 

American people, and that is compassion and generosity to people 

in time of crisis. 

In December 2005, I returned to Samaritan’s Purse, and because 

of my experience in both worlds, I feel like I have a unique perspective on the relationship between faith-based organizations and the 

U.S. Government. And I would say that the government needs to 

engage more vigorously with faith-based organizations and also 

that those organizations need to better understand and appreciate 

what it means to work with the government. 

The government witness here, the Director of the Office of FaithBased and Community Initiatives, a moment ago I just met her, as 

you folks did, and I worked with that—I was the token evangelical 

at USAID, so anytime Christians came in, they would say, ‘‘Hey, 

Isaacs, come on down here. We want to get in a meeting with you,’’ 

you know? They have a very limited capacity. Substantial things 

have been done to improve the situation, but she has a staff of five, 

six, maybe eight. I don’t know what it is, but it is not so many people, and there are 3,000 people that work in USAID. 

I believe that no qualified organization should be excluded from 

funding on the basis of their statement and practice of faith. While 

this is not the policy of the U.S. Government, it is too often the reality. More needs to be done to ensure that the implementation of 

the President’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative is not 

thwarted because of the personal prejudices of individuals within 

government agencies. 

With more than 25 offices in Africa and a network of tens of 

thousands of pastors and churches, Samaritan’s Purse has helped 
34

impoverished people throughout Africa. Our work includes feeding 

programs in Uganda, Sudan, Mozambique, Liberia, and Kenya. We 

support 121 hospitals in 29 African countries, and every year we 

put more than 200 doctors on the Continent to provide critical medical care and professional training. 

Today, I want to talk a little bit about two of our program areas, 

major program areas, so that will give you some insight into how 

it might operate with the Faith-Based and Community Initiative as 

a faith-based organization. Those two areas are Sudan in our work 

in fighting AIDS. 

Our hearts are broken for the people of Sudan. We opened a hospital in Lui, South Sudan in 1997. We did that because we had a 

moral compunction to go where the need was and not where the 

permissions were. Today, this hospital is a primary facility for over 

400,000 people. We also have activities going on in East Sudan in 

partnership with OFDA and Food for Peace, and we are heavily involved as well in Darfur, where we are feeding over 350,000 people 

who are beneficiaries of our program. 

I just want to comment quickly on Sudan, that while the world 

focuses on Darfur—of which I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for your leadership in helping to pass the Darfur Accountability 

Act, and all of the Members there. That is something that was 

greatly needed. I think that it is important and we must not forget 

the people in other areas of Sudan. The East is under heavy persecution, and I want to point out also that I think this Comprehensive Peace Agreement is in grave danger, particularly with the 

building tensions that are going on in Darfur. 

We received in 2005 funding from the President’s Emergency 

Plan for AIDS Relief. That is in four countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, 

Uganda, and Mozambique. This work is changing lives and preventing the spread of AIDS, especially among youth. In the first 

round of the PEPFAR funding, we were turned down but we were 

never told why, and it took 14 months later before we heard back 

from USAID. So, obviously, they were reconfiguring how they were 

doing things, and as I said, it has improved. 

We are training thousands of church leaders, who in turn are 

teaching their congregations and communities about AIDS and how 

to make healthier, more responsible choices. To reduce stigma, 

church congregations have immeasurable value and are educating 

their folks and communities to better understand the facts about 

the disease and those who suffer from it. 

I would like to point out that in 2004 to 2006, our Church Mobilization Program in Mozambique, which was funded by the core initiative program of USAID, has worked in 49 communities, 24 denominations and 310 churches in just one district, the 

Chicualacuala District. 

A recent statistical study on our work by Johns Hopkins University of Public Health provides strong evidence that significant behavior change can and does take place when people are empowered 

to choose abstinence and faithfulness. The practice of abstinence 

increased among both unmarried males and females. The percentage of females who reported choosing abstinence was 34 percent in 

2004, but by 2006 the data shows that that number had increased 
35

to 49 percent. The number for males was also impressive: 34 percent in 2004 versus 41 percent in 2006. 

Now, no matter what your beliefs are, there is no way to deny 

that this behavior change will have an impact on the spread of the 

disease, and I would like to emphasize that this was accomplished 

in just 2 years of programming. 

I know that there is a strong resistance in many quarters to the 

programs of Christian organizations that promote abstinence and 

faithfulness. I have seen firsthand the prejudices that organizations like ours—and it is also interesting to hear the Father here, 

he has run into it as well—have and continue to encounter when 

we apply for grants for these activities. However, from a public 

health perspective, the data proves that when people embrace the 

values of abstaining from sex before marriage, remaining faithful 

to one partner or reducing their number of partners, their risk of 

contacting HIV decreases significantly. 

As a government and as organizations, I believe to do anything 

less than to try to share these values is to deny that people have 

the power to make choices. Teaching this kind of sexual responsibility will significantly reduce the spread of the AIDS pandemic. 

Yet substantial resistance remains in USAID country missions. 

Some of the ranks of the USAID bureaucracy and the Global Fund 

have been earlier mentioned. 

A recent study by the Global Accountability Office suggests that 

abstinence and faithfulness in marriage programs have not made 

a significant impact. We strongly disagree with this for three reasons. One, the conclusions are very premature. Behavior change in 

societies does not happen in months, it may take a generation; and 

the PEPFAR money has only been, really, in the field for about 3 

to 4 years. 

The second disagreement point is that the assessment is flawed 

and the data is incomplete and shallow. For example, Mr. Chairman, we were interviewed in Ethiopia in late July 2005 before we 

had an approved work plan. We were not interviewed, however, in 

Mozambique where we had positive quantitative data from a prestigious medical school on the effectiveness of our work. 

And the third point is that there is significant institutional resistance within the government, the academic community and nongovernmental organizations to the concept of teaching values; and 

in fact, broader, there is resistance to concepts of helping or working with faith-based organizations. It still exists in these societies. 

I have often heard that the teaching of values will not stop the 

spread of AIDS, it won’t work. But learning happens with repetition over time. A sufficient amount of time has simply not passed 

for people to make judgment on the long-term effectiveness of these 

types of activities. 

I believe that faith-based organizations bring tremendous value 

to the United States Government’s assistance programs throughout 

the world, and especially in Africa. Faith-based organizations are 

always on the frontlines of meeting human need. Because of our 

faith, we go to the far corners of the world, and will continue to 

do so with whatever resources we have, as was said by Mr. Hackett 

a moment ago. Partnering with faith-based organizations should 

not be about politics. It should be about leveraging resources and 
36

capacity for the greatest benefit to the African people. To not 

wholeheartedly implement the spirit of the President’s Faith-Based 

and Community Initiative is a disservice to millions of desperate 

people. 

I, too, have concerns about what happens after PEPFAR. And 

having been in the government for a year, I know a little bit about 

budgets and supplementals; and things change, but I think that we 

all need to be looking down the road past 2008 of how some of 

these programs can continue. 

And I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Isaacs follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. KEN ISAACS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS AND

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, SAMARITAN’S PURSE

Chairman Smith, distinguished Representatives, and fellow guests of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to highlight the value of the longstanding relationship between Faith-Based Organizations and the American people 

in bringing aid to Africa. 

My name is Ken Isaacs, and I am Vice-President of Programs for Samaritan’s 

Purse, a Christian International Relief Organization. Samaritan’s Purse was founded over 35 years ago to bring emergency assistance to people living in poverty, famine, disease, and war. Today, we are bringing desperately needed aid such as food, 

medical care, vocational programming, and emergency shelter to millions of people 

in over 100 countries. Our current budget is $256 million. Less than 3% of this figure comes from U.S. government support. We have ongoing funding relationships 

with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through the following: 

the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), Food for Peace, the Bureau of 

Global Health, American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA), and various country mission offices. We have also received support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Globally, we have a staff of about 2,500 people, including 500 Americans. Approximately 2,100 of these work in foreign locations, including members of my own family who are serving in Sudan. These are committed, highly trained professionals 

who, because of their Christian faith, are moved to bring relief to suffering people. 

They frequently accept assignments that put them in difficult and dangerous situations without regard for personal safety or financial gain. They are motivated by the 

belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He suffered death on the cross 

to bring eternal life to those who believe in Him. They also believe they have a responsibility to share this Good News with others while fulfilling the Biblical mandate to help people in need. 

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, what we do has significant human meaning. 

Even in strongly Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Indonesia, we have received the full support of host governments who value our compassion for their people and the excellent quality of our work. Though we make no effort to hide our 

Christian identity and faith, we respect local laws and customs. We have never used 

government money to support evangelism or religious activities. We are fully accountable to every donor, including the U.S. government. 

I have worked for Samaritan’s Purse since 1988, serving in poor, war-torn, and 

disaster-ridden countries throughout the world. I lived with my family under the 

communist regime in Ethiopia during the last three years of their civil war. I have 

traveled to Sudan more than 100 times over the course of my career. In 2004, I resigned from Samaritan’s Purse to accept the position of Director of OFDA. I am 

proud to have led OFDA because it is the personification of the best qualities of the 

American people—compassion and generosity. It deserves more support and recognition from all of us. 

In December 2005, I returned to Samaritan’s Purse. Because of my experience in 

both worlds, I have a unique perspective on the relationship between the U.S. government and Faith-Based Organizations. The government needs to engage more vigorously with Faith-Based Organizations, and these organizations need to develop a 

better understanding and appreciation of working with government agencies. 

The U.S. Government has a long history of working with some Christian organizations. Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, World Relief, and Food for the Hungry 

International are a few of the organizations that have established a comfortable 
37

partnership with government agencies. I believe that other Christian organizations 

should also have the opportunity to establish the same kind of ongoing partnerships. 

No qualified organization should be excluded on the basis of their statement and 

practice of faith. While this is not the policy of the U.S. government, it is too often 

the reality. Congress needs to ensure that the implementation of the President’s 

Faith-Based Initiative is not thwarted because of the personal prejudices of individuals within government agencies. 

Christian organizations have years of practical experience in addressing the physical needs of suffering people. We are guided by the Christian imperative to deal 

with a person’s—and a community’s—emotional and spiritual needs. The Bible challenges us to love others unconditionally, to forgive, and to care for those in need, 

even our enemies. This is why Christians have always been at the forefront of providing humanitarian aid. History is full of examples of personal sacrifice by people 

of faith such as Mother Teresa. 

With more than 25 offices in Africa and a network of tens of thousands of pastors 

and churches, Samaritan’s Purse has helped millions of impoverished people. Our 

work includes feeding programs in Uganda, Sudan, Mozambique, Liberia, and 

Kenya. We support 121 hospitals in 29 African countries, and we send more than 

200 doctors to the continent each year to provide critical medical care and professional training. Today, I will highlight two of our Africa programs: our relief projects 

in Sudan and our work in fighting AIDS. 

Our hearts break for the people of Sudan. In 1997, at the height of the civil war 

between north and south, we opened a hospital in the southern town of Lui. We had 

a moral compunction to go where the need was, even when access was denied by 

the Government of Sudan. This hospital is the primary healthcare facility for over 

400,000 people. Two years later, during the siege of the Nuba Mountains, we delivered emergency food aid to starving people at great risk to our staff and aircraft. 

With private support, we are helping to restore communities by rebuilding churches 

and schools throughout southern Sudan. 

In 2003, we began working in East Sudan in partnership with Food for Peace and 

OFDA. The Beja, a closed Muslim tribe, allowed us to distribute food and provide 

medical treatment in their communities. We were able to build a hospital for the 

Beja in this rebel-held town of Hamesh Koreb. On January 10, 2006, the Government of Sudan’s armed forces overran the area, and we were forced to flee. Despite 

the impassioned pleas of the Beja people for the Christians to return—and our own 

persistent efforts—we have not received permission from the Government of Sudan 

to continue our work there. 

We are heavily involved in relief work in Darfur. I want to congratulate Congress—and you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne for your leadership—for passing the 

Darfur Accountability Act. We appreciate this important legislation to support the 

people of Sudan in their struggle for freedom. In partnership with OFDA, we are 

providing relief supplies and implementing agricultural and protection programs 

that benefit more than 350,000 people. We are also working with the World Food 

Program to feed over 125,000 people per month in Darfur. We are UNICEF’s major 

implementing partner in south Darfur, and together we have built more than 40 

schools. 

While the world focuses on Darfur, we must not forget people in other areas of 

Sudan. The east is under heavy persecution with restricted access. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the north and south is in grave danger. The war in 

Sudan is a fight for liberty. We must all be diligent in ensuring that the Sudanese 

government is held accountable for its efforts to suppress freedom. 

A Christian Response to HIV/AIDS 

In 2002, I had the honor of serving as Project Director of the Samaritan’s Purse 

Prescription for Hope Conference in Washington, D.C. Among the more than 900 

people who attended this event were Senator Bill Frist, Senator Jesse Helms, and 

the former Administrator of USAID, Andrew Natsios. Two years later, Foreign Affairs magazine described this event as a ‘‘turning point in American AIDS policy’’ 

(January/February 2004). The intent of the conference was to mobilize the church 

worldwide to become actively involved in the fight against AIDS and to create greater awareness among government leaders about the role of Christians in stopping the 

spread of the disease. 

Many of our AIDS programs are conducted in partnership with the President’s 

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This work is changing lives and preventing the spread of AIDS, especially among youth. We are training thousands of 

church leaders who in turn are teaching their congregations and communities how 

to avoid HIV by making healthier and more responsible choices about their sexual 

behavior. To reduce stigma, church congregations are being educated to better un-
38

derstand the facts about the disease and those who suffer from it. Thousands of 

church members are providing compassionate homecare to vulnerable households 

because of the information they received. 

From 2004 to 2006, our Church Mobilization Program in Mozambique worked 

with 49 communities, 24 denominations, and 310 churches in the Chicualacuala District. A recent statistical study on our work by the Johns Hopkins University School 

of Public Health provides evidence that significant behavior change can and does 

take place when people are empowered to choose abstinence and faithfulness. 

The practice of abstinence increased among both unmarried males and females. 

The percentage of females who reported choosing abstinence was 34% in 2004 but 

by 2006 the number had increased to 49%. The figures for males were also impressive: 34% in 2004 versus 41% in 2006. No matter what your beliefs are, there is 

no way to deny that this behavior change will have an impact on the spread of the 

disease. I want to emphasize that this was accomplished in just two years in one 

area. In addition to our prevention programs, we are actively involved in the fight 

against the widespread stigma that too often keeps people from receiving the physical, emotional, and spiritual aid they need. The Johns Hopkins study found that 

after our program was implemented in Chicualacuala, the percentage of vulnerable 

households receiving care rose from 57% in 2004 to 84% today. 

I know that there is strong resistance in some quarters to the programs of Christian organizations that promote abstinence and faithfulness. I have seen firsthand 

the prejudices that organizations like ours face in applying for grants for these activities. However, from a public health perspective, the data proves that when people embrace the values of abstaining before marriage, remaining faithful to one 

partner, or reducing their number of partners, their risk of contracting HIV decreases significantly. To do anything less than to try to share these values is to deny 

that people have the power to make choices. Teaching this kind of sexual responsibility will significantly reduce the spread of the AIDS pandemic. 

A recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggests that abstinence and faithfulness in marriage programs have not made a significant impact 

(Spending Requirement Presents Challenges for Allocating Prevention Funding 

Under PEPFAR, April 2006, GAO). We strongly disagree with this for three reasons. 

1.) The conclusions are extremely premature. Behavior change in societies does not 

happen in months. It may take a generation. 2.) The assessment is flawed, and the 

data is incomplete and shallow. For example, Mr. Chairman, we were interviewed 

in Ethiopia in late July 2005—before we had an approved work plan. We were not 

interviewed in Mozambique, however, where we had positive data on the effectiveness of our work. 3.) There is significant institutional resistance within the government, the academic community, and non-governmental organizations to the concept 

of teaching values. I have often heard that the teaching of values will not stop the 

spread of AIDS, but learning happens by repetition over time. A sufficient amount 

of time has not passed for anyone to make a judgment on the long-term effectiveness of these programs. Where would any of us be if our teachers had decided we 

could not read in the third grade and therefore stopped trying to teach us? 

Faith-Based Organizations bring tremendous value to the U.S. government’s assistance programs throughout the world—and especially in Africa. They are always 

on the frontlines of meeting human need. Because of our faith, we go to the far corners of the world, and we will continue to do it with whatever resources we have. 

Partnering with Faith-Based Organizations should not be about politics. It should 

be about leveraging resources and capacity for the greatest benefit to the African 

people. To not wholeheartedly implement the spirit of the President’s Faith-Based 

Initiative would be a disservice to millions of desperate people. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just begin the questioning, but first let me 

preface it by expressing my and this Subcommittee’s deep gratitude 

for the work you have done and continue to do against so many 

odds. It is just extraordinary and encouraging, and beyond that, it 

is inspiring. Thank you so much. Let me begin, if I could, with Mr. 

Hackett. 

In your testimony, you pointed out—and it is very disconcerting 

to hear you phrase it so strongly—that the foreign assistance 

framework, in at least its July 11th version, makes no mention at 

all of the poverty or hunger, leaving out that the emphasis on 

counter terrorism seems to—you know, that is the newest fad. Of 
39

course, we have to be involved with counterterrorism; but as you 

point out so aptly, what about the poorest of the poor? USAID 

should be all about the poorest of the poor, and if it happens to coincide with the counterterrorism effort, well then so be it. But for 

the poor person who is dying of hunger or disease, they are not 

concerned about politics; they are concerned about survival. 

Could you elaborate on that, because this is a very serious new 

course, I think, for us to be taking. 

Mr. HACKETT. And if you listen to the Secretary of State and her 

policy advisors, in my opinion, as I mentioned, the right conceptual 

approaches are there. You have to deal with security and stability, 

and it goes hand in hand if you are going to try to improve poverty, 

the situation of poverty and the opportunity for people, so it is seen 

as a whole. How that gets interpreted down into the field is a completely different matter, and it is about communication and putting 

the right emphasis on things. And the case I mentioned about Ethiopia was striking, and it was very recent orientation that every 

program that is funded by the United States Government is underscored by how it contributes to counterterrorism actions. And I 

think these kinds of things have to be rectified because they just 

don’t make any sense. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, it is interesting you picked out Ethiopia, 

because I have legislation now that we are trying to get on the 

Floor called the ‘‘Ethiopian Human Rights Act.’’ As we all know, 

Mellis has imprisoned many of his own parliamentarians. The election was not judged free and fair, and the opposition did well nevertheless, and the use of bully-boy tactics have increased, not decreased, by the Mellis government. And for us to count on that government to be a partner in counterterrorism when they are engaging in serious human rights abuses themselves, it certainly begs 

the question: Feed the hungry in Ethiopia; provide for, you know, 

the women who need help, micro credits and everything else, but 

to again look at them. 

Part of what our bill would do, as I think you may know, it 

would limit security aid based on whether or not they have made 

significant changes in their human rights abuse path. So that is 

very, very discouraging to see that. 

Mr. HACKETT. And, if I may, I just would hate to see American 

foreign assistance, which has really always in part been concerned 

about the poorest, change in any dramatic way. And this is going 

to play out in the future of PEPFAR, which does reach some very 

poor people, and it is playing out in the cutting back of food assistance programs for the poorest, so——

Mr. SMITH. And I think it also, in a philosophical and in a very 

real way, in a tangible way, compromises both the sect-based and 

the secular humanitarian-based efforts. You are not pawns of U.S. 

foreign policy initiatives as it relates to terrorism or anything. I 

mean you, hopefully, are not working counter to that; but it is supposed to be, you know, our humanitarian efforts to help the poorest 

of the poor. So that is a very dangerous trend, I would think. 

Let me just ask you, Father Phillips, with regards to—and you 

note in your testimony that you have been working in Africa for 

30 years, and I couldn’t agree more when you said as the Church 

has been marginalized pre-PEPFAR—and I hope that is not coming 
40

back that you, perhaps, are concerned about—but in the same organization in the same relation to Global Fund, it is 6 percent. 

Now, of that 6 percent, which is a paltry amount of money compared to what capacity the Church and faith-based organizations 

can provide and are providing, what about the 6 percent? Who are 

they? Are any of those front groups or groups that, you know, will 

hang out a shingle tomorrow that somehow suggests there is a 

faith component when, really, it is not part of the genuine fabric 

of, say, the African society? 

Rev. PHILLIPS. I know of one in Zambia, actually, where the 

Global Fund is directly involved in an effective way. Between the 

Zambian Catholic Sectarian Episcopal Conference and the Protestants, they are getting the money directly there. I mean, that is a 

good story as far as being a positive effect of what is going on in 

Zambia. 

I know in South Africa, the South African Episcopal Conference 

walked away from the Global Fund because they felt they were 

being manipulated. I know the Bishop from Abusa. We were together at the SECOM meeting in Nairobi back in June of this year, 

and he was just fed up with it. People at the Catholic Sectarian 

Episcopal Conference in Kenya have spoken to me, and I said, 

‘‘Well,’’ you know, ‘‘this is really all a local issue,’’ and this is why 

I wrote the paper for the bishops, to try to push on the national 

level that the proposals go in from the faith-based organizations, 

that it gets into the counter operational plan. 

In point of fact, I asked—in the Durban meeting of PEPFAR in 

June, to one of the key people of the Global Fund, I asked the same 

question: Do you know how much of the FBO world is going to get 

FBO money? She didn’t know what FBO was. Kevin DeCock had 

to tell her FBO was a faith-based organization. ‘‘Oh, yeah, we are 

funding them.’’ And so that also shows the mindset, but I have not 

seen the breakdown of the data; but, see, what is going to happen 

is PEPFAR only funds so far, and in many situations if you are 

into PEPFAR you are in, but I don’t—from what I see going on, if 

you are not into the system right now, you are probably not going 

to get in under this funding, so it is going to mean where else do 

you go. And so I think how it is going to wind up for other faithbased organizations is if you are not in PEPFAR and you don’t 

know how the funding is coming out, it is going to have to be the 

Global Fund; the money isn’t there in the Global Fund. 

And then I think what Ken was alluding to are the new methodologies of—even on PEPFAR funds, is how it is coming out. I 

mean I know in Kenya, USAID went into this tendering on a regional basis; and in point of fact, they couldn’t even tender the first 

tender because they put reproductive health in as part of the whole 

thing. So, say, for the Catholics, if you wanted to get into a group, 

you would have to go in as a secondary group. You couldn’t go as 

a primary because of the problems. 

So I don’t know, you know, but I think that we have got to watch 

where things are going, is what my feeling is, and that is where 

I think—I don’t want Global—the PEPFAR money has to move forward, but I don’t think it is going to meet all the needs in all of 

these countries; but Global Fund isn’t doing it either, and I think 
41

they have to honestly challenge, and what PEPFAR isn’t picking 

up, they should be picking up. 

Mr. SMITH. Perhaps you could speak to this or any of our witnesses. We have been concerned about the lack of transparency at 

the Global Fund, that there seems not to be—usually you can get 

a printout, perhaps, of some of the recipients—but there is not that 

transparency that would allow any one of us to know exactly where 

it is going, what it is being used for, and how the process was used 

to get them there. Which raises serious questions after the Oil-forFood diversion, or scandal, and numerous other scandals with 

money that there could be, you know, real problems here, both 

ideologically as well as an accountability from a misuse of funding. 

Tom, did you have any questions before you leave? 

Mr. TANCREDO. I don’t have time. 

Mr. SMITH. I will yield right now. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Well, quite quickly because—I’m sorry, I am late 

for something else. But in the discussion of the issues involved, it 

seems to me clear that—it seems clear to me that there has been—

this is a realization to a certain extent of all of the concerns that 

were brought to light when this whole issue was debated here in 

Congress as to whether or not there would be this kind of discrimination and, on the other hand, the potential effect and, in a negative way, the effect on the organizations themselves, the faithbased organizations, by the allure of the money that is available 

and the potential strings that would go along with it. I guess I am 

as concerned about the latter as I am about the former, and it is 

not something that we have discussed at any great length so far. 

I guess I am wondering how you build a defense against that, because everybody is shaking their heads here and saying, yeah, that 

is true, but how do you build a defense against that internally, 

structurally, because there is a great fear, certainly on my part, 

that it is—you know, like so many things we do here, the intentions are all good or, for the most part, good. The effects have both 

negative and positive ramifications. So how do you build the structural sort of defense against that? 

Mr. HACKETT. Well, part of it is what Father Ed just mentioned, 

this whole procurement mechanism which favors, basically, comprehensive approaches, in USAID’s terms, to dealing with AIDS or 

to dealing with something else. So, in that way, a contractor from 

K Street, as you say, can say, ‘‘We will be a comprehensive approach. We will do reproductive services. We will do condom distribution. We will do stigma. We will do this and that.’’ And then 

they look to attach themselves to faith-based organizations, and as 

a faith-based organization, you have to be pretty certain of what 

you believe before you enter these arrangements. And I think we 

have all had it dangled, all the money dangled in front of us, and 

sometimes we say yes, and many times we say no. 

So there is a structural problem, I think, in the procurement in 

the first instance, and you can look at it from the USAID government perspective. They are saying, ‘‘We would rather deal with a 

couple of very large contracts than a whole bunch of small ones, 

and all of you small agencies’’—and CRS isn’t necessarily small—

‘‘are a problem. We don’t know how to deal with you. You have dif-
42

ferent motivations. You don’t understand things in the right—in 

the language we are using.’’

I think it is a challenge, but I think Congress should keep holding the government agencies to task about making sure we are 

about American values, and let’s not lose those for efficiency and 

things like that. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Well, I think that that is a slippery slope, and 

the other—you lead me to the other question. Part of your response 

leads me to the second question I have, and that is about the government themselves. And so you feel that the reaction of the government of the countries in which you are working, to the extent 

that they have been—maybe the relationship hasn’t been the best 

between faith-based organizations, the government itself—that it is 

based primarily on this idea that they are just—they don’t want to 

deal with a lot of smaller organizations? Or is there any inherent 

problem there similar to the one that we were talking about with 

the bigger, non-faith-based organizations? 

Mr. HACKETT. I was referring mostly to our own Government. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I see. 

Mr. HACKETT. Its preference is to deal with a couple of big agencies rather than with small ones. Maybe I will ask Ed to speak to 

local government. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. You know, we relate directly, as I said in my presentation, to—you know, I am involved on the national level of the 

Kenyan Government, and I am out of the national church, so there 

is not a problem there. 

I do know there are tensions right now in Kenya between the 

Episcopal Conference and the Christian Health Association of 

Kenya on the Prevention of Maternal-Child Transmission Program, 

because there was a Catholic group that had the grant for 5 

years—and it is going to run out in February of next year—and 

now they have gone into this provincial—which is really the way 

to get all of the big boys and big girls back into the operation. And 

I must be honest, you know, and so now both sections, the Catholics and the Christian Health Association of Kenya, they don’t 

know where they stand because 20 percent of all Prevention of Maternal-Child Transmissions in the country was being done through 

this one grant that actually went to the Catholic Medical Mission 

Board, and it is going to run out in February. 

Now, I was told in Toronto by Jack Galbraith during the AIDS 

Conference, He said, ‘‘Father, come February, no money.’’ Now, I 

am lucky because I have a direct contract with the CDC for my 

main operation. Well, man, I got off the plane in Nairobi, and the 

next day I had the e-mails going on, trying to figure out where am 

I going to find the money—because the cops were going in in September, and if you are late, there is no money. So I knew how to 

negotiate, and ultimately the CDC made sure that that component 

would fit into next year’s budget. But now all the Protestants and 

the Catholics are all kind of wondering are they going to be picked 

up underneath this, you know, division into the provinces. And I 

know Buck Buckingham is doing his best—he is the PEPFAR coordinator in Kenya—and he is trying to get the pieces back together 

and see what is going to happen. 
43

But I do know there is a lot of discontent on both the national 

level because—and it might just be oversight, but all of a sudden, 

20 percent of PMTCT around the country is up in the air, and supposedly it is going to be absorbed by these new organizations. But 

no one has really come to dialogue with them on it, and so there 

are a lot of unhappy troopers out there. So it could present—I gave 

you some—that is why Buck, I think, is positively trying to, internal to the U.S. side, get the people in USAID to get out there, talk 

to the church people, make sure it is—you know, they are going to 

be integrated in but it hasn’t been a smooth transition so far, that 

I can guarantee you. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. Would you like to say something? 

Mr. ISAACS. May I speak to that a little bit? 

Mr. TANCREDO. Surely. 

Mr. ISAACS. I have seen where large organizations have gone 

right to the grassroots level, organizations that if you had gone on 

their Web site, let’s say in 2000 or 1995 or 2002, there was nothing 

faith-based about them. But now they have faith-based programs, 

and it is not just that they are dangling that money in front of organizations such as Catholic Relief Services or Samaritan’s Purse, 

but they are using the money to cherry-pick within—and I am 

thinking right now of a specific example down in South Ethiopia 

of a Protestant church that has a great program, and an organization came by, and they just wanted to fund one component of it 

that fit into their faith-based portfolio. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I see. 

Mr. ISAACS. So they took this money, and once they did, then 

they had to sort of start compromising who they are a little bit in 

order to meet the ideals. 

The foreign government—I have never detected any problem in 

Africa about being a faith-based organization within a foreign government. They don’t resist that. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I see. 

Mr. ISAACS. It is a different level of resistance that is in the mind 

and in the culture of—and one other point I just want to say. 

There is a bit of a difference between being a faith-based organization and being an organization that is known for religious activity. If you are a faith-based organization that is sort of neutral and 

you don’t profess your faith or you don’t get too haughty with the 

whole religious thing, they are much more comfortable. If you actually profess what you believe or—and I can imagine the Catholic 

church would have this a lot because you have a lot of religious activity—whoa, you will get a cold shoulder and a little bit of a stiff 

arm. 

Mr. TANCREDO. And you are talking about that cold shoulder and 

stiff arm being from——

Mr. ISAACS. Well, that is coming from our Government. That is 

coming from the U.S.A.——

Mr. TANCREDO. Yeah. 

Mr. ISAACS. And it is also very different, too, mission to mission. 

You know, as to our PEPFAR Program in Kenya, the AIDS Office 

there doesn’t even want to talk to us. They don’t even want to 

know what we are doing in Kenya. In their mind, that is a Washington, DC, thing. 
44

Mr. TANCREDO. That is certainly a problem, I think, Mr. Chairman, we must deal with to the extent we are able to on this Committee. And I want to thank you very much both for having a hearing and also allowing me the opportunity to ask some questions. 

Mr. SMITH. And on that point, that is part of what I was trying 

to get at with Ms. Hasdorff, that the mission directors in some 

cases have a diametrically opposed view as to what their mission 

is, and notwithstanding a law that makes it very clear what it 

ought to be. So I think your point was very well taken. 

Any instances that you know of, if you could let us know, it 

would be very helpful because, again, we are a government under 

laws, and they should not be—they don’t have that latitude to discriminate against religiously based organizations. 

I was beginning to ask about the whole transparency issue if any 

of you would like to answer that one. Now there are a couple of 

more—whoever would like to touch on it. 

Mr. Hackett, for sure, if you could touch on that one. You gave 

us some cautionary words on indigenous groups, this idea of funding directly with the one that was then peeled off from Catholic Relief Services. That is certainly not the intent of trying to find—you 

know, I think the intent is to find new and innovative religiously 

based groups that have not been part of the process before——

Mr. HACKETT. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Not to cherry-pick someone who is working with you and say, ‘‘Oh, now that is a local group that we need 

to work with directly.’’ Well, it really is directly when they work 

with you, so your point was very well taken there. 

And, Mr. Isaacs, if you could just maybe elaborate on the GAO 

report. I read that GAO report very carefully, and was shocked 

that they didn’t even visit Uganda, the country that has pioneered 

against severe criticism in the 1990s by the so-called ‘‘international 

community’’ that thought it was foolhardy to push abstinence and 

faithfulness, and yet they didn’t even visit there. And you made a 

point about Mozambique and the fact that information was not included. If you could elaborate on that whole issue a little more, if 

you would——

Mr. ISAACS. Well——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. And also the Johns Hopkins study you 

mentioned. 

Mr. ISAACS. Yeah. I have got a hard copy of the Johns Hopkins 

study, and I would like to have it attached electronically. It is a 

rather voluminous study——

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. ISAACS [continuing]. But I still think that it would be good 

to get it on the record. 

Mr. SMITH. No objection. We will do that. 

Mr. ISAACS. We were surprised in Ethiopia that we were interviewed there for effectiveness of abstinence and faithfulness in the 

ABC curriculum when we weren’t doing a program, and we were 

likewise disappointed when we tried to encourage them to go to 

Mozambique where we were doing the same program, but yet they 

didn’t show there. And just on that one anecdotal, we felt like the 

information was—it is shallow. I mean, they didn’t penetrate down 

and look at it. The conclusions—I think they are far-reaching to 
45

have drawn those conclusions, so we just—and you know in summary, we just totally disagreed with the report. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. HACKETT. Just on the question of how you get the messages 

that our policy message is sent here out into the field, there is no 

easy way, obviously; it is a tremendously complex bureaucracy, but 

you have got to set up systems of rewards so that the mission director knows what is the important thing that she or he is going 

to be rewarded on. And if this week it is we are going to read you 

a whole bunch of new indigenous agencies, he will go out and find 

them any way he or she can. And I think that system is something 

that I think—I hope that Ambassador Tobias can look at, too. It 

is not just about the numbers. It is about how it is done and the 

integration of a lot of different actions together to make a real impact on many people. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. I think another thing you might want to just look 

at it is, you know, a lot of overseas—you know, especially on the 

USAID side, they are not civil servants. You have a few civil servants, and many of the people are contractors; and then the question of are they coming out of the broader NGO community, out of 

Washington and whatnot, into this system and back, so you might 

have a swinging doors type of an operation going on sometime, you 

know, in the system. And that might have an impact, because I 

think a lot of your decisions are really being made not by the civil 

servant who is, you know, officially employed by the USAID—you 

know, I am on the CDC side, but I have been around long enough, 

I know what is going on. But I think a lot of it—you know, these 

are really contractors who are coming out of the NGO world, and 

they are running the health sectors in a lot of these countries, and 

it might be that the top health sector person might be a civil servant from USAID, but a lot of them are contractors coming in. So, 

you know, it could be unintentional or unconsciously making sure 

and taking care of our own, and if there is a bias amongst the secular NGOs against the FBOs—remember, they are all fighting for 

the same money, so they are all—so, you know, if someone is coming into the turf and taking a little bit off from the folks, that is 

probably not a dynamic that anybody wants to talk about. 

Mr. SMITH. Real quick. A previous witness had said that the 

money has gone up to—I think 591 was the amount she had given 

us—Ms. Hasdorff, yes—and yet you don’t detect that that is any 

really qualitative increase for the faith-based organizations? 

Mr. HACKETT. We don’t see a causal link between the FaithBased and Community Initiative and our money. We feel that there 

are more smaller agencies—and many of them contact us and say, 

‘‘Will you help us get a grant?’’ and we do. But I don’t think the 

President’s initiative was meant for us or World Vision or CARE 

or the Lutherans or Methodists, I think it was meant to engage 

many smaller groups for whom the playing field was not balanced. 

They just did not have the ability to access money. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the criticisms for years has been that USAID 

has been getting rid of more and more of its people to oversee programs, which is why they give out these mega-grants to organizations, and then they essentially become U.S. Government surrogates. Is that your sense, too? I know that Andrew Natsios, when 
46

he was USAID Administrator, that was a concern of his; that Congress, in its shortsightedness, keeps cutting back on personnel, particularly in the home office, who could administer these grants and 

break them out, perhaps, much better. 

Mr. ISAACS. May I address that? 

The contracting process at USAID, from my experience with it, 

is extremely laborious. 

Mr. SMITH. It is what? 

Mr. ISAACS. It is laborious. It is heavy——

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. ISAACS [continuing]. And there is a tremendous move within 

the Agency to get people to pool their efforts to get organizations—

NGOs to pool their efforts so that the contracting section has less 

work to do. Whether a contractor is giving out $50 or $50 million, 

the fact is he has got to go through the same paperwork. And I 

know that during the tsunami, it was incredibly difficult to get the 

money out the door fast enough to save lives. I think that is what 

is creating the pressure. 

I think Mr. Hackett has an excellent point that the Faith-Based 

and Community Initiative was intended to engage new organizations, grassroots organizations. They don’t have the capacity to 

meet the formality that is required within USAID, so the pressure 

then is on them to pool or to give money to a contractor who then 

wants to subcontract it. And they become tools, and I don’t really 

know what the answer is. It is like trying to carry 5,000 pounds 

of bricks across the yard, and somebody wants you to carry a few 

more. It is a very difficult situation. 

But I want to agree with one thing that Mr. Hackett also said. 

We have not seen any substantial increase to us because of the 

faith-based organization. I don’t know that it was intended for us. 

I don’t think it was. The only exception to that is the PEPFAR 

money. I think that we got about $10 million or $11 million on 

that, but we have thousands of partners around the world, and 

they have tried repeatedly to access U.S. Government money, and 

they can’t. 

Mr. SMITH. As those denials proliferate; could you let us know as 

part of our oversight? 

Mr. ISAACS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. We only get them anecdotally, and then it is—you 

know, when you raise it, they seemingly have a good answer, but 

maybe not. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for your willingness to conduct 

a hearing to provide information on a topic that is not often talked 

about, and the insights that you have provided today I am grateful 

for. I regret missing the entirety of your presentations. 

I confess, Mr. Chairman, in addition to my great admiration for 

you and my desire to be a part of your Subcommittee and important work, I had an ulterior motive for coming today. Mr. Hackett 

sends me a piece of mail about every 2 or 3 weeks from his organization. 
47

You have an incredible—I don’t want to call it a marketing program—but an educational outreach, you know, so I want to congratulate you on that, and I assume it is quite successful for you. 

I must not be on your list. 

Mr. ISAACS. Let me have your address. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you all for the work you do. It has got 

to be extraordinarily meaningful in your willingness to come today 

to share your testimony. I very much appreciate it. Everything that 

I had on my mind has basically been covered by the Chairman and 

Mr. Tancredo, but let me try to summarize it right quick if I could. 

There are three key points, I think, that have been made since 

I have been here. 

First of all, the distribution of funds to organizations such as 

yours, or other like organizations, are inhibited by three factors. 

One is the institutional barriers that simply militate toward giving 

grants to bigger organizations instead of smaller; secondly, the 

more difficult problem of perhaps identifying cultural resistance 

within the government to organizations such as yours, who are 

openly professing a particular faith and unashamedly pursue that 

as the core of your mission and, yet, at the same time are making 

a clear attempt to separate your humanitarian outreach efforts 

from your proselytizing efforts. 

And third, I would say—well, those are actually the two key 

points. I think that, if I am walking away with what you are saying 

correctly, those are the two key barriers, I think, for perhaps a 

more just or equitable distribution or a different distribution that 

might change the outcome here. 

Actually, there is a third point. There may just be a greater comfort level because of the relationships that already exist between 

certain NGOs and government officials as well. But roll all of those 

things together, and I think you have the three fundamental factors that tend to diminish the prospects for more faith-based opportunities to be an active partner in what is the fundamental goal of 

helping the poorest of the poor, the marginalized, the sick, and 

those who are hopeless. And ultimately, that is the purpose; and 

I would think that would be completely consistent with the ideals 

that the taxpayers have sent us here to achieve. That is ultimately 

the purpose of what you are doing. Not who does it, but to that end 

is why we are here. 

Mr. HACKETT. And if I may amplify——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Is that assessment correct? 

Mr. HACKETT. Basically. I would say, on your first point, there 

is a bias against those groups, faith-based or whatever, who will 

not do this total comprehensive package, which includes condom 

distribution and everything else. And so, if they can give it to one 

contractor who can then subcontract out the pieces, that is a preferable mode. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is because of workload, but it is also because of—as a resistance——

Mr. HACKETT. Yes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY [continuing]. To your culture versus a governmental culture? 

Mr. HACKETT. Certainly some of that. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Okay. 
48

Mr. ISAACS. I agree. I think it is some of each culture, but I believe the primary driver, though, on the—you know, everybody getting into groups is a workload issue. It seems to be a trend in the 

way of conducting business. 

In addition to that, you get into institutional bias. And I wouldn’t 

want to say it in a public forum right here, but I can tell you that 

I have been—when I was in USAID, I know firsthand of institutional bias where the proposals didn’t receive, let’s say, as much review as they should have; but at the field level it is even more unleashed, it can be even more unleashed. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Is that due to a lack of understanding or an 

unwillingness to try to understand? 

Mr. ISAACS. I think it is probably—my personal opinion is it is 

probably a bias and a desire to do what they want to do. It is an 

exercise of independence. I am getting some subtle nods over there, 

so maybe I am not the only one who has seen that. 

Mr. HACKETT. I mean, it is a combination of things, but if you 

have long-term government employees who have been doing something in the same way for a couple of decades and all of a sudden 

there is a new approach that says you are going to start talking 

to these groups that really don’t have a history of collaboration—

they use different language; their motivations and inspirations 

they wear right on their sleeves; they talk about their beliefs—

there are some bureaucrats who are very uncomfortable with that, 

and that is the field we play on. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, I am trying to just unpack the questions so I can understand it more clearly. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. I think it can blow up, to be very honest with you, 

you know, and I think it has the potential—that is what I was saying in my presentation. The potential is there for the glass ceiling. 

I don’t personally—see, I work with CDC, and it is a completely 

different operation, you know, and they are a small player in the 

whole PEPFAR. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. When you say ‘‘glass ceiling,’’ it is your ability 

to rise to a certain level, and that is it? 

Rev. PHILLIPS. Well, you never know where it is going to hit you, 

you know, because most of the PEPFAR money is under USAID. 

Very little of the PEPFAR money is under CDC. Now, I happen to 

work directly with CDC. I don’t have those problems, but the CDC 

doesn’t function that way, and even with the beginning of 

PEPFAR—I think it was last year—CDC went out again to try to 

find smaller groups to get them into the system. And I know they 

had to subcontract them out, and the Catholic Sectarian was one 

of them on an abstinence program. They just didn’t have the capacity to handle it. They were subcontracted out, but they took some 

strong activities on their part. 

But see, it is a different thing because CDC works directly with 

me, so you are working with professional people from Atlanta, you 

know: HIV specialists, counseling specialists. They hire Kenyan 

specialists. Mostly, they are the staff from the Kenyan nationals—

physicians and whatnot—so they have a real involvement, direct 

involvement, with what is going on with their partners, and in the 

same way, I am a larger partner. 
49

So, you know, we also—I am involved in writing. You know, we 

are going to do another pilot study, and it is going to start off next 

week because we have the capacity, and they saw that. But it is 

a different mentality where the others are more into these bigger 

groups, and I do know the Church—I know the Catholic church is 

very upset right now on this whole Prevention of Maternal-Child 

Transmission. I just think it is going to straighten itself out, but 

it is just that they were clueless, and they kind of let it float, and 

so now the Church is wondering what is going to go on. 

But it is a different mentality if you have got someone who is 

running 20 percent of the Prevention of Maternal-Child Transmission through faith-based organizations in Kenya and, you know 

the tendering system is to go into provinces, and before you had a 

faith-based group that was handling all the faith-based because it 

is new tender, and they couldn’t tender all over the country. So 

that is all hanging up, but I still think it is part of the, you know, 

‘‘we are going to take care of each other’’ system. 

Now everybody is—the big boys and the big girls are all going 

to gather round, and that is my guess, folks, and I don’t get the 

money on that side, but I have been around the world a bit. You 

know, I have been overseas. I think that is probably also behind 

it a bit, but you will never be able to prove it. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, obviously, there are a lot of dynamics 

here, and it is a complex answer. But it certainly may be understandable that as the government looks toward some new models 

of efficiency that, because of economies of scale, they are simply 

looking at dealing with bigger organizations. What you don’t want 

to see, though, is—as you were alluding to, Mr. Chairman, and you 

confirmed—that if you are studying the successful outcomes of 

countries who have reduced age transmission rates, for instance—

and you have skipped Uganda because they have emphasized a 

couple—their first priorities are value-based—it begins to raise the 

question in your mind of why. And to the degree that it might 

bleed over into some institutional bias against a values-based approach, whether it is faith-based or not, is a concern. But I recognize what you are saying. There are a lot of levels of complexity 

here, and all of these things are potential factors. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. You have been very kind with 

your time. If I could just ask one or two final questions and then, 

perhaps, submit some additional ones for the record. 

On the Global Fund, if any of you would like to speak to the 

issue of whether or not the U.S. Government—that would be Secretary Leavitt and the Bush Administration and Congress. Have 

we done enough as providers of a third of that budget to demand 

not only accountability and transparency but also a breakout for 

faith-based organizations? 

Mr. HACKETT. I will start. I don’t think we have done enough. I 

think that——

Mr. SMITH. Have we done anything? 

Mr. HACKETT. I can’t say that. I think there is a great opportunity for the Global Fund to be successful, and the fact that we 

don’t—none of us can speak to you quickly about how well they 

have done, other than to say the percentages are measly, I think 
50

tells part of the story. We don’t know. As Father Ed said, the 

Catholic Church, from even the Vatican level, has held discussions 

with the Global Fund that about 30 to 40 percent of health capacity 

in the poorer countries is provided by the Catholic church. That 

seems like a wake-up call, but they have made no headway so far. 

So I think our Government should do more. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. I think it is a moral obligation, and you all are 

Representatives, and you have to go back to get voted on in the 

next 6 weeks or so, and the folks——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 40 days. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. Huh? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. 40 days. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. 40 days. All right. Let’s be honest. Hey, I have 

lived overseas for years, but I know the mindset of the ordinary citizen. They are going to say that U.S. Government money is going 

for the poor around the world, and how can we stand there and 

then say to the folks that we put all this money over in Geneva? 

Geneva, for their own reasons, kind of denies the fact that faithbased organizations are involved, and they don’t want to get the 

money there, so I mean—I think—to be very honest with you, I 

think it is a political risk to stay quiet, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. 

To me, it is a political risk to stay quiet on this because the ordinary taxpayer—it doesn’t matter what their party is, they want 

their money to go the right way and be used. And for some reason, 

this Global Fund machination is not working. And I believe it was 

Ken who said it previously: It is crucial that the Global Fund 

works effectively because PEPFAR can’t do it all. 

Even if we increase funds, which, you know, I am really going 

to be pushing, it can’t do everything, and it should be part of the 

element of the Global Fund. It should be able to pick that up even 

with the FBOs, but it is not doing it. So, for me, it is good politics. 

Also, to me, it is a moral question and should be done. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Isaacs. 

Mr. ISAACS. Well, just on the Global Fund, I would say that we 

haven’t done enough. From the field, I have met with ministers 

who have helped, who are quickly forming their country-coordinating mechanisms. They have got 2 weeks to get it together, and 

they are trying to put together a $70 million program. 

I think that in addition to what the Father was just saying, I 

think it is also an issue—to bring faith-based organizations in is 

an issue of practicality and good business. They have networks that 

cannot be compared to anyone else, and to just reject that or to try 

to appease Washington rather than to wholeheartedly and sincerely engage those networks is shorting the system, and it is going 

to come up with an inferior product. And people are going to die. 

That is the net result. 

Whereas, when I use those networks, if there is some way to get 

over this bias so that there is not an attitude of appeasement, but 

hey you know what, that is a network of Catholic churches, it actually would be valuable. We could do something with that. Look, 

those guys have got 300,000 people going to church here—what if 
51

we could do something with it? But I have never heard that people 

are thinking like that, not at the CCM level. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, maybe just to add on that, FBOs 

are put on the Global Fund—at least I can tell you from Kenya, 

and I think it is around the world—Global Fund has decided that 

faith-based organizations are the same as any local NGO. They 

make no difference. Now, I can tell you a lot of NGOs in Kenya—

we call them ‘‘briefcase NGOs’’—you know, they get a piece of 

paper, and they try to chase the money down. If it works, it works. 

So, if you are in a situation—why do you take faith-based organizations that have tremendous health care systems around Africa and 

that are doing a tremendous amount and just kind of throw them 

in the general public NGOs? Again, this isn’t rocket science, but 

there is something else that I think is behind it. 

Mr. SMITH. One final question, and I asked this to Ms. Hasdorff 

earlier. 

Do faith-based programs have any comparative advantage in the 

awarding of grants because of the infrastructure, the networks, as 

you call them, Mr. Isaacs—that is, people resources, physical plant, 

physical infrastructure—and if not, why not? 

It seems to me, when grants are being awarded, you know, rather than suitcase NGOs, why isn’t that taken into consideration? Or 

is it? 

Mr. HACKETT. I think it is. I don’t know how broadly it is, but I know that we won a very large PEPFAR grant, $365 million and 

in nine countries, and people were looking at what were we bringing as a network for outreach to the table. So I can say that in 

some cases, it certainly is. 

We just bid something in Nigeria, and it was because of the contacts that we had there that others did not have. But it is kind of 

a business decision. It is not necessarily because we are faithbased. It is that Catholic Relief Services has this network that it 

can work with. 

Rev. PHILLIPS. I am kind of on the ground. I am not the big players. I don’t know how to answer that particular one. I think that—

to be very honest, I think the challenge is a lot of faith-based organizations that need some capacity-building—and I think Ken would 

agree with me, and you know, to be honest, and I think there are 

positive ways—if you can’t handle a lot of money, there are systems 

that could be put into place. And I think they are out there, and 

I saw that with CDC; and the USAID has done it, too, to try to 

find somebody to take that money and kind of work with them. 

And I think that that is going to be an effective way. 

But see, the principle really is do you want to work with those 

people, do you appreciate that they have another whole network, 

as Ken would say, that takes you all the ways down to the grassroots, all the ways out to the far-off village? And if you believe in 

that and the network that is there, then—again, any businessman 

would say, you know, if I am going to sell Coca-Cola and I have 

got somebody who can take it out to the furthest village, I am 

going to make sure I am going to partner with them because—but 

that doesn’t work sometimes in the more sociopolitical world that 

we have to deal with. 

Mr. ISAACS. I would agree with that. 
52

Sometimes it has been a benefit, and sometimes it has been of 

no consequence that you can represent within a proposal that you 

have a substantial infrastructure network. I think that that comes 

back to these proposals are very sophisticated. They are very technical. They go through a tough review process, and it is a bit of 

a star chamber. You don’t know what went on in it. It is hard to 

get any feedback on what they liked or didn’t like about your proposal. 

Mr. SMITH. Are there no post-award debriefings? 

Mr. ISAACS. I would say that on the first PEPFAR round, we 

were rejected, and we weren’t even asked—they asked for concept 

papers, and then you get approved to submit a proposal—we didn’t 

even get asked to submit a proposal. And we were shocked, so I 

wrote a letter to some people that I know up here on the Hill and 

to former Administrator Natsios. And I got a phone call about 4 

months later and got a 4-minute briefing over the phone. And they 

basically said, because of Federal contracting laws, we can’t answer 

any of your questions. It will interfere, they called it, with the integrity of the procurement process. 

So to answer your question, no, we didn’t get objective feedback 

to help understand it. 

Mr. SMITH. Because it is routine with a number of domestic 

grants that a want-to-be grantee gets a debriefing. I have sat in on 

many of those from my district when Youth Build and a whole host 

of other grant requests were denied during one year; and then the 

next year they learned what they did wrong or what could be done 

to improve next year’s request, so——

Mr. ISAACS. Well, it is a very competitive process, and there has 

been no evidence, in my observations, that being a faith-based organization or having a faith-based initiative has, in any way, reduced that level of competition. 

Mr. SMITH. Father Phillips, you indicated that there is concern 

and I guess among the 6,500 people that you deal with every day 

that PEPFAR may not be continued, is that? 

Rev. PHILLIPS. My folks are in the slum. They don’t know much 

about international politics. I am the only one in charge, and I am 

the only foreigner. My whole operation is completely Kenyan. I am 

the only foreign person in the whole operation. I mean, yeah, the 

people I am taking care of, they are not working or they are working as temporary laborers, things like that. So there is no way that 

they are going to be able to, and that would be a general concern 

for a lot of us because the good thing about PEPFAR—and you 

have to appreciate it has gone out to—I mean I am dealing with 

the poorest of the poor in the slums but it is getting out to lower 

income people and poorer people and those folks are not going to 

be able to meet the costs of antiretroviral drugs as well as the lab 

tests and as long they are on treatment because they will go on the 

second line treatment and the second line drugs. The protease inhibitors are much more expensive than the first lines. So I am 

going to tell—you know, I worry about it but at the end of that it 

is in God’s hands. But you also have to be positively political and 

say this is a serious issue because it is a moral issue. Once you put 

people on treatment, you are obligated to keep them and that is 

why the United States Government, they slowed us down in April 
53

on enrollment of our patients because of a problem of funds for the 

global funds and the Kenya Government and there was a stockout 

on the government’s side. So they made the right decision. They released drugs to keep people going on the treatment on the Kenya 

Government side until the drugs came in. This is lifetime treatment, you know. 

Mr. HACKETT. I could not agree with you more. This is a big 

issue for an institution like ourselves, half a billion dollars, that we 

keep the people that we have started on antiretrovirals on them is, 

I will tell you, it is discussed at the level of my board and they 

want to know, what does it cost us, CRS, if we have to keep those 

40,000 people on antiretrovirals without the U.S. Government’s 

PEPFAR money? And they are nervous, as you can imagine. 

Mr. SMITH. Thanks for the alarm because my own personal sense 

is PEPFAR will be authorized and, if not in an actual bill on the 

authorizing side, it will be done so through the appropriations process probably through current plus a little plus-up level. My hope 

would be that since it has worked so well and some of those new 

drugs to follow on the antiretrovirals people that are already on 

them will be more expensive that we need to significantly ratchet 

this up. I would also—this is conjecture but so long as President 

Bush is there the next 2 years, there is no doubt this is one of his 

key foreign policy initiatives. I can’t for the life of me think there 

would be any diminution on his part. Hopefully whoever follows on 

in the White House will also, but as long as I am here and Jeff and 

I think other Members of the Subcommittee will do our part to say 

as you have pointed it out, we made a commitment. We can’t stop 

treatment or else people will die. Plus it is a program that is working. 

Chairman Hyde summed it up so well, this is the equivalent of 

the bubonic plague. This is our modern day black death. That is 

why he was so aggressive in making sure the bill got passed in the 

first place, notwithstanding its $15 million price tag. Every dollar 

is worth it and then some. 

So thank you for that caution because we need to be out there 

telling people that this is not something that can slip and, you 

know, not get reauthorized and if we fail that because of some policy differences on the appropriations side, we have to make sure 

that money is there. And Mr. Hackett, I will always be appreciative 

not just for all the work you do personally and Catholic Relief Services, but even in the tsunami crisis when we met in Sri Lanka with 

Cardinal McCarrick, you had a paper prepared about your concerns 

of the diversion of funds from Africa and educational and other programs to meet the immediate crisis but it was not coming from new 

money. It was coming from existing moneys so that the Africans 

would have been worse off without replenishment, and I think your 

points were extremely well taken. And Mr. Isaac, when I was in 

Darfur met with Samaritan’s Purse, as I think you may know, and 

was greatly impressed by the bravery being out there on the front 

line providing care for the Darfurians. So thank you so much. 

Jeff, do you have anything to follow up? Any final comments? 

Mr. HACKETT. Just the observation, we are very happy to hear 

that this Committee will fight for the continuation of PEPFAR and 

that it is a commitment of our President. There is also in the con-
54

text of providing this kind of assistance what they call the wraparound services, people need food, particularly the poorest. They 

need other types of assistance, and I hope we won’t lose sight of 

those things as well. 

Mr. SMITH. That is a good point. We held a hearing recently in 

our Subcommittee on the problem of you can’t take these drugs, the 

antiretrovirals on an empty stomach. It is like if you are taking aspirin on an empty stomach or an antibiotic, especially that so many 

of us take from time to time. You get sick. And I thought the point 

was very well taken by our witnesses that that has to be wrapped 

around, as you so adequately put it. So thank you for that reminder. 

Anything else? If not, thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ