U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–366PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

AMERICA’S GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: 

WHY DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT 

MATTER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Serial No. 116–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

( 

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 

or http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania 

DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota 

ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota 

COLIN ALLRED, Texas 

ANDY LEVIN, Michigan 

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia 

CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

DAVID TRONE, Maryland 

JIM COSTA, California 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Ranking 

Member 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CURTIS, Utah 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

RON WRIGHT, Texas 

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

STEVE WATKINS, Kansas 

MIKE GUEST, Mississippi 

JASON STEINBAUM, Staff Director 

BRENDAN SHIELDS, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Ami Bera, California, Chairman 

Ilhan Omar,Minnesota 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Ted Lieu, California 

Tom Malinowski, New Jersey 

David Cicilline, Rhode Island 

Lee Zeldin, New York, Ranking Member 

Scott Perry, Pennsylvania 

Ken Buck, Colorado 

Guy Reschenthaler, Pennsylvania 

CHAD OBERMILLER, Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

Chairman Ami Bera ................................................................................................ 52 

WITNESSES 

Higginbottom, Honorable Heather, Chief Operating Officer, Care USA, 

Former Deputy Secretary of State, Management and Resources .................... 9 

Natsios, Honorable Andrew S., Director of the Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs & Executive Professor, George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, Former Administrator, United States Agency For International Development ......................... 16 

APPENDIX 

Hearing Notice ......................................................................................................... 49 

Hearing Minutes ...................................................................................................... 50 

Hearing Attendance ................................................................................................. 51 

(1) 

AMERICA’S GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: WHY 

DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT MATTER 

Wednesday, February 27, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ami Bera (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BERA. Before I gavel in and do my opening statement—this 

is all new to me. So but in my three terms in Congress and now 

my fourth term, I really have had the desire to try to work in a 

bipartisan way, especially when we approach foreign policy. 

And I think we have been blessed to have the prior chairman, 

Ed Royce, as well as the current chairman, Eliot Engel, as our 

leaders and, historically this had been a relatively bipartisan committee looking at solving some of the issues and, it is certainly my 

desire and my intent, working with the ranking member, Mr. 

Zeldin, for us to approach this in a bipartisan way because, if you 

look at our history, America’s soft power but America’s diplomacy 

and development really has been incredibly important to how we 

have shaped the world and I would argue that we have shaped the 

world for the better. 

I also, when I think about the members on this committee, both 

in the majority and the minority, you look at the quality of the 

membership and the number of veterans, including the ranking 

member who currently, I believe, still serves in the Reserves, bringing that experience to have a senior diplomat like Mr. Malinowski, 

to have a refugee who understands that experience, like Ms. Omar, 

and to have folks that either came here as immigrants or are children of immigrants. 

I think that breadth of knowing what the American experience 

is and, hopefully, will bring that spirit to who we are on this committee. And, again, I could not be more honored to have the privilege of chairing what I think is going to be a very important committee on oversight. So—— 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it has been a privilege over the course of the first couple months here of the new Congress with this new subcommittee. 

In conversations and meetings with the chair I could certainly 

confirm his desire, his strong interest, in bipartisanship. That certainly will result in a stronger product coming out of this committee. It helps empower the full committee and I think bipartisanship is something for all of us to be very proud of. 
2 

So thank you to Chairman Bera for setting the right tone, and 

with regards to his priorities coming out of the gate I am confident 

that at the end of this Congress a couple years from now, a year 

and a half from now or so, we are going to be able to have real 

product, maybe in legislative form, maybe through oversight, that 

will help strengthen America. 

So I look forward to serving with you and all the other members 

of this committee, and I yield back. 

Mr. BERA. So the hearing will come to order. 

This hearing, titled ‘‘America’s Global Leadership: Why Diplomacy and Development Matters,’’ will focus on why the State Department and USAID are critical to the success of our country, our 

foreign policy, and how Congress can ensure that they thrive. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, extraneous materials for the record subject to the 

length limitations in the rules. I will now make my opening statement and then turn it over to the ranking member for his opening 

statement. 

Good afternoon. I want to welcome all the members to this first 

hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Committee. Chairman 

Engel reestablished this subcommittee to strengthen Congress’s 

oversight of the executive branch and reassert our authority in foreign policy. 

This subcommittee will work closely with the full committee and 

other subcommittees to exercise our role, and as we heard this 

morning from Secretary Albright, it is her belief and I think it is 

all of our belief, as I listen to the questions and testimony of members on both sides, that foreign policy best is done in a bipartisan 

way and that the best foreign policy at our best is when the executive branch is working closely with the legislative branch in partnership, sending a singular message to the world so there is no ambiguity to our allies and others, and I think, as we mentioned earlier, that really is a goal and I would like to acknowledge the partnership that I think we will have with the ranking member, Mr. 

Zeldin, from New York. 

To begin with, as we look at Article 1 and, again, Secretary 

Albright said now is the time for Article 1 to really reemerge. 

It really has far too long under both Democratic and Republican 

administrations Congress has allowed oversight to falter and more 

and more of our ability, really, has shifted over to the executive 

branch both under Democratic administrations and Republican administrations and I think this is our opportunity to re-exert that 

oversight and start bringing things back to what we should be 

doing. 

With that, if I look at our history as the United States, particularly in the post-World War II history as we looked at the three 

pillars of defense but also diplomacy and development, our foreign 

policy and our approach to the rest of the world really did make 

the world a better place. 

And I know Mr. Natsios in his opening comments will talk about 

the Marshall Plan and the remarkable work that we did rebuilding 

Europe, rebuilding Japan, going and protecting Korea and the miracle that is the Republic of Korea today. 
3 

And you would rightfully argue that our presence around the 

world—the American presence—leading with our values and leadership in the 70 years post-World War II made the world a better 

place, made the world a safer place, made the world a more democratic place. 

But I think we can also, as we think about the purview of this 

committee over the next 2 years, we understand that the world has 

changed. It is a different place today. 

You see it is not a given that the democratic model of our values 

will rule the 21st century. You see more autocratic leaderships— 

the rise of China, the reemergence of Russia. 

You also see the failed States, the terror States that are—have 

to be approached in a very different way than we may have approached a cold war with the Nation State and this is an opportune 

time for us to take a step back, take a deep dive into where America’s diplomacy is today, where America’s development is but then 

also come out of this thinking about where we need to go. 

And this committee is Oversight and Investigations and we will 

use the tools that we have available to investigate where we are 

today. 

But that would be only half the battle if we did not actually try 

to come out and present to this administration or the next administration and then this secretary of State or the next secretary of 

State a roadmap of where we think we could go to continue to lead 

the world both with our soft power and hard power and, again, 

there is no reason that this next century cannot be an American 

century because the last century certainly was an American century. 

And with that, I would like to thank both Ms. Higginbottom and 

Mr. Natsios for joining us and I will turn this over to my esteemed 

colleague, Mr. Zeldin, the ranking member. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I look forward to working with you on bipartisan priorities we both share. 

This hearing is, certainly, the first step. We both believe in 

American leadership and Congress’s role in oversight and investigations. 

I wanted to extend my thanks to today’s two witnesses for being 

here today to discuss the importance of American foreign policy, 

aid, and development around the world. 

There is no question that targeted and measured foreign aid and 

level-headed diplomacy further American national security, business, and humanitarian interests. 

Today, we are not here to question this consensus but, rather, examine the tools and resources used in these endeavors in an effort 

to ensure they are the most effective and efficient means possible. 

Too often, we have witnessed programs with good intentions 

originally established to forward American values and improve the 

lives of those around the world go off the tracks and it is our responsibility as the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to 

monitor these programs and help correct course when necessary. 

For example, and given the backgrounds of our two witnesses 

and I am here with Congressman Perry, who has joined us, I will 

touch on the stated mission of the previously U.S. taxpayer-funded 
4 

United Nations Relief and Works Agency, also known as UNRWA, 

which has a mission to provide humanitarian support for Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and 

Gaza. 

The education of children, especially those in war-torn areas, is 

a noble mission. But over the past 6 years, UNRWA and the State 

Department have failed to provide Congress with an accurate picture to implement oversight measures by deliberately withholding 

information and certain reporting requirements and we recently 

found out why. 

In a recently declassified portion of a GAO report, we learned 

that the textbooks in the educational program of UNRWA were 

delegitimizing Israel and that supplementary material to counter 

this textbook content that promotes anti-Semitism, paid for with 

American tax dollars was being rejected on the ground. 

The underlying mission of foreign aid programs like UNRWA is 

critical. But holding them to that mission and ensuring its funding 

goes to furthering that goal may be even more important. 

U.S. foreign aid should be an investment, building a strong foundation with our allies. However, providing economic assistance to 

the Palestinian Authority, which supports a ‘‘pay-for-slay’’ program 

to financially reward terrorists for killing innocent Americans and 

Israelis is in direct violation of this ideology. 

Last Congress, the Taylor Force Act was passed and signed into 

law. It withholds economics assistance to the Palestinian Authority 

until it publicly condemns these acts of violence and stops inciting 

and rewarding the terrorists who perpetrate these horrific crimes, 

therefore protecting the innocent Americans and Israelis and better 

allocating these limited foreign aid resources. 

The United States must support aid programs that promote the 

interests of our Nation and, therefore, of our allies. For example, 

foreign aid that promotes good governance in a country like Venezuela is a proud show of what an important investment this funding can be. 

There are so many different examples all across the entire map 

for the entire world that this committee can get into. Just touching 

on a couple of examples there, but I am sure we will hear a lot 

more over the course of today’s testimony with our two great witnesses. 

There should be an integrated policy approach to aid and diplomacy in which we leverage greater influence per aid dollar. We 

must employ greater accurate oversight and accountability internally within the State Department as well as over these foreign assistance programs ensuring those utilizing U.S. funding are better 

aligned with our Nation’s values. 

We need to examine whether the millions of dollars we give to 

multilateral agencies serve our needs and whether they continue to 

maintain the high standards Americans would expect. 

We need to share the burden so that we can offer the opportunity 

for other regional actors to contribute as well. Are there administrative efficiencies we could implement to make our dollars go farther? How can we improve transparency and accountability in a 

manner that does not hinder development efforts? 
5 

These are the questions I hope our witnesses will address. Thank 

you both again for being here and I look forward to your statements. 

I would like to thank our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bera, full 

committee chairman Mr. Engel, and lead Republican, Mr. McCaul, 

for their leadership and assistance on these issues. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BERA. I will now introduce the witnesses. 

As I stated earlier, you know, Ms. Heather Higginbottom is the 

chief operating officer of CARE USA, one of the world’s largest humanitarian organizations. She served as deputy secretary of State 

for management and resources in the Obama Administration. 

Andrew Natsios is currently the director of the Scowcroft Institute at Texas A&M. He served as the thirteenth administrator for 

the United States Agency for International Development. 

Thank you both for being here, and with that, Ms. Higginbottom. 

STATEMENT OF MS. HIGGINBOTTOM, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, CARE USA, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE, 

MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Chairman Bera, Ranking Member Zeldin, 

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify as you work to make the State Department and 

USAID more effective and more efficient. I have edited my remarks 

for time and ask that my full statement be included in the record. 

Mr. BERA. And without objection, your full statement—written 

statement will be part of the record. Thank you for reminding me 

that I was supposed to do that. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. For the last 6 years, first as deputy secretary of State for management and resources and currently as 

CARE chief operating officer, I have had the privilege of seeing 

American diplomacy and development in action and the responsibility of thinking about how to strengthen it. 

With just about 1 percent of the Federal budget, the United 

States gets no better return on its investment than the work of our 

diplomats and development professionals which saves millions of 

lives, builds stronger economies, and creates a safer world. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that it has never been popular to invest 

money overseas. President Reagan acknowledged that, quote, ‘‘Foreign aid suffers from a lack of a domestic constituency.’’ 

The very DNA of care is a daily reminder that Americans have 

always stepped up to address global challenges. Seventy-three 

years ago, a small group of Americans joined forces to create the 

first ever CARE packages for starving survivors of World War II. 

Today, instead of delivering aid in a box, CARE works to address 

the roots of poverty using proven tools to empower women and girls 

and help entire communities create long-term prosperity, stability, 

and resiliency. 

We are here today to focus on what we can do better. But we 

should not lose sight of what the U.S. already does so well and I 

saw it firsthand in 2014 as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa 

threatened whole countries. 

American leadership made the difference. Working with partners 

in a coordinated, rapid, innovative way, we brought every tool we 
6 

had to bear from deploying civilian health and development experts 

to engaging our military and Border Patrol agents. 

We work with Congress to provide resources, pharmaceutical 

companies to develop a vaccine, manufacturing companies to make 

protection suits for health workers, and we galvanize partners to 

build an aircraft to evacuate patients with infectious diseases. 

As a result, Ebola was contained in West Africa and in our interconnected world where a disease knows no boundaries we should 

be building upon, not weakening, instruments of diplomacy and development. 

The U.S. is a catalytic leader and what we do encourages other 

countries to act, and it is why over the past 25 years the number 

of people worldwide living in extreme poverty has been halved as 

has the number of women dying during pregnancy and the number 

of children dying before their fifth birthday, and this has been a 

bipartisan effort across Republican and Democratic administrations. 

Despite these clear results, the president’s budgets for Fiscal 

Year 2018 and 2019, and we fear once again in Fiscal Year 2020, 

have proposed slashing foreign assistance by 30 percent, jeopardizing countless lifesaving programs. 

We appreciate that Congress has rejected these cuts, but there 

has been damage done due to uncertain funding levels and time 

lines, the threat of recisions packages, and government shut downs. 

Just earlier this month, we came days away from halting a Food 

For Peace program in Haiti that supports 100,000 chronically poor 

households. We are very grateful to our USAID colleagues who 

managed to release funds at the eleventh hour. 

But when lives are on the line we cannot afford crises of our own 

making. To be sure, the State Department and USAID are not perfect institutions. The 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which I oversaw, contains many recommendations to 

make these institutions more efficient and more effective. I will 

highlight just three. 

First, the currency of the State Department is information and 

relationships, and yet there is no enterprise wide system for organizing, collecting, and sharing information. 

Second, better utilization and expertise in data analytics, science, 

and technology is essential, and the siloed natures of both the 

State Department and USAID mean that crosscutting analysis and 

engagement is often unavailable. 

Third, performance management and strategic planning at both 

agencies should be strengthened and collaboration and communication across agencies should be enhanced. 

As the history of the CARE package shows, often the best way 

to combat fragility, address poverty, and prevent mass displacement is by harnessing the generosity and talents of the American 

people in partnership with communities around the world. 

This work, backed by continued American engagement and diplomacy in development, is essential to building a future worth having 

for ourselves, our children, and our neighbors around the world. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Higginbottom follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

STATEMENT OF MR. NATSIOS, DIRECTOR OF THE SCOWCROFT 

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS & EXECUTIVE PROFESSOR, GEORGE H. W. BUSH SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT 

AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, FORMER 

ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity 

to speak today on the importance of foreign aid programs. 

My comments today are my own. I am not representing Texas A 

& M Univ. the Bush School of Government and Public Service at 

Texas A&M. 

Since World War II, the United States foreign aid programs have 

played a leading role improving the livelihoods of the world’s poor, 

cultivating good governance and democratic practice, protecting 

human rights, and accelerating economic growth. 

We are living through the greatest golden age in civilized history 

for the common people of the world. The reason I say that is based 

on the statistic that Ms. Higginbottom here just mentioned. 

There has been a dramatic improvement in the lives of the poor. 

Ninety percent of the population a hundred years ago in the developing world was poor. In fact, there was not even a developing 

world; there were colonial empires a hundred years ago. 

But that has dramatically shifted. The number of poor people has 

dramatically declined. The number of democracies, until recently, 

has been on the rise. Certainly, there have been terrible abuses of 

human rights. I know this firsthand: I was in the center of the 

Rwandan genocide. I was there when Darfur took place. I like to 

think we blew the whistle in USAID about what was happening in 

Darfur before anyone else even noticed what was going on. But the 

fact is that people did not even know what human rights were a 

hundred years ago. They did not use those words, and there were 

no institutions protecting human rights. 

We have made enormous progress and we are living through it, 

but we do not see the forest from the trees. We do not see what 

things were like 200 years ago, or 300 years ago, when a life expectancy of 40 years was regarded as long. 

The Marshall Plan was our first organized, systematic effort to 

extend American humanitarian power abroad in a lasting way. We 

had carried out humanitarian efforts before: Herbert Hoover ran 

the greatest food aid program in world history during World War 

I and its the immediate aftermath. But that was a temporary program. By the way, Hoover also went into Russia in the middle of 

the Great Famine after Lenin took over. It is a very interesting 

story regarding how he prevented the central government from manipulating the food aid at that time. The same problems we have 

now concerning the manipulation of food aid took place in Russia 

in the early 1920’s. Hoover simply told Lenin that the U.S. would 

leave the country if he did not stop interfering. We would not distribute food on a political basis. It will only be done based on need. 

That is one of the hallmarks of our aid programs, particularly in 

humanitarian assistance and in health programs. We distribute aid 

based on need. 
12 

Now, I understand some aid has to be distributed to our allies— 

economic aid, that sort of thing. But when it comes to the survival 

of people, including women, and children, and noncombatants, we 

need to focus on aid distributed based on need, not based on interest. 

USAID helped the United States win the cold war more than 

most people realize, even within USAID. For example, in South 

Korea there are amusing stories regarding how intrusive USAID 

was in the Park government in terms of forcing reforms. The same 

thing happened in Taiwan, in Indonesia, and in Thailand. In 

Greece and in Turkey in the early 1950’s after USAID encouraged 

reforms Stalin worked to destabilize both countries in the late 

1940’s. 

We have had remarkable successes in countries that were extremely poor and are now developed countries in Latin America, in 

Asia, and, more recently, Africa. 

One of the greatest success stories—my favorite—is the Green 

Revolution. That was an effort started by Dr. Norman Borlaug, 

who was a professor at Texas A&M later in his life; we have a 

Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture there. The Green 

Revolution doubled yields in Asia at the same time that Mao was 

killing 45 million Chinese through the Great Leap Forward Famine, USAID’s work increased and contributed to a dramatic decline 

in famine in Asia. 

In fact, a study has been done on the topic. The book is called 

‘‘Mass Starvation’’ by Alex de Waal and it came out last year. Alex 

de Waal is a good friend of mine, he teaches at Tufts. In the book, 

he says that with the creation of the international humanitarian 

response system, there has been a massive decline in the number 

of famine deaths, since 1980. 

He traced famine deaths from 1870 until 2010. So, we have empirical evidence showing that starvation deaths and famines have 

massively declined at the same time that this international response system was set up. 

Now, I have mentioned in my paper four challenges. I am running out of time now so I cannot go into them, but they are the 

forced displacement crisis, the pandemic disease risk, the risks 

posed by fragile and failing States, and food price volatility (which 

was a major factor in the uprisings in the Arab world). People said 

it was the Arab Spring. It was not a spring. It has been a nightmare in Syria, Yemen, and Libya in particular. There is a direct 

connection between food price increases (which make people hungry when theye cannot afford the food)—and political uprisings. 

The evidence—empirical evidence from political scientists and 

scholars—is very convincing in showing that there is a direct relationship. 

There are three things I propose in my testimony that we need 

to do to address these challenges. First, we must decentralize back 

to the USAID missions. The reason we were successful in the Cold 

War is that the mission directors (and, I might add, our Ambassadors) had far greater discretion to carry out policies and programs at the country level than we do now. Everything has been 

centralized over the last 30 years, and it is not helping things be-
13 

cause we, in Washington, are separated from the reality of what is 

going on in these countries. 

Second, we need to deregulate USAID. USAID is overburdened 

with the regulatory requirement that have been imposed on it in 

order, supposedly, to reduce abuse. These reporting requirements 

do not reduce abuse. They just generate a huge amount of paperwork. The abuse still takes place anyway, and it costs USAID a lot 

of money to fulfill these reporting requirements. 

The third proposal is consolidation of programs. Having USAID 

programs at 18 different Federal agencies is very unwise. 

Those are the three reforms that I propose at the end of my written testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsios follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. 

Obviously, you have got a lot of say there and all of it really important. I will go ahead and start the questioning. 

Ms. Higginbottom—and let me frame it this way. I think it is incredibly important for us to, you know, recognize our veterans 

every day and have a day like Veterans Day to just remind us of 

what they do to protect our freedoms and represent us around the 

world and the sacrifice that they and their families make. 

But I do think far too often we forget about the others that are 

out there representing us from our diplomats to our aid workers to 

the folks that are working through the NGO’s and, you know, I just 

want to make sure that we do not lose sight of that and, you know, 

our generals are the first ones to admit that that partnership that 

they have with the development community and the diplomatic 

community is incredibly important, because it is this combination 

of our hard power and our soft power. 

You have been inside the building at State Department and certainly have looked at how the department is working currently and 

if you would just make a few comments on, as we get this committee underway, some of the things that we should be thinking 

about and how we best could work with the folks inside the building. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I think that this committee can play a really important role in 

highlighting some of the challenges that both the Foreign Service 

and the civil services face as well as to understand, to your point, 

Ranking Member, about how to have oversight of program and ensure we have accountability and that we have the right processes 

in place for those things. 

With respect to some broad areas that I think are important for 

the committee to consider, we are seeing a decrease in the number 

of people taking the Foreign Service exam and we are seeing some 

attrition. 

The building is built on the professional nature of its Foreign 

and civil service employees. I think it is really important that we 

understand what is happening there. We need the best and brightest to represent us around the world and that is really critical. 

I mentioned in my testimony something that I am really seized 

of and I want to just mention it again, and that is that we do not 

have an enterprise wide knowledge management system and it is 

inefficient and ineffective to have a personal system that is contingent upon rotations with no clear way of maintaining information 

and relationships that is organized and centrally housed. 

I think that is a critical issue. It takes investment and it is complicated, but I think it is really, really necessary. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Natsios, you are a long-serving USAID director and, certainly, served at a very interesting time. As you think about your 

lessons and as you think about where we need to go in aid and development, we are seeing other governments, you know, taking a 

different approach, the Chinese for one certainly how they are approaching the rest of the world. 

What would, if you were to just imagine the absence of the U.S. 

presence there, who is going to fill that? And then the flip side is 
29 

the importance of how should we be thinking about this as we go 

forward as we think about aid and development in the 21st century 

and the importance of the U.S.’s role in that capacity and what it 

says to the rest of the world when the United States shows up. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, I can tell you I am a very strong internationalist. I am right of center rather than left of center. But that is 

where the bipartisan nature of this coalition is. 

There are conservative internationalists and there are liberal 

internationalists, and I think we agree on more than we disagree, 

frankly. 

Mr. Guterres, the secretary general of the United Nations, publicly said something we all knew privately. The U.N. does not work 

without American leadership. It does not. President Bush used to 

have a weekly call with Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary General at 

the time. 

He would sit there and go through a list of things we needed 

done and Kofi would say we need help on this or that. They were 

not the best of friends, I have to tell you. They disagreed on some 

issues. 

But they worked together on a regular, systematic basis and it 

made a difference. That relationship between the U.S. and the U. 

N. is weaker now, and it has been weakening for some time. That 

is not a good thing. 

I am an Africanist—that is where I spent a lot of time. My African colleagues tell me that African States that signed these infrastructure agreements with the Chinese are kicking themselves for 

failing to read the fine print. 

One colleague told me that the financing agreement says if the 

recipient country cannot pay the bill, the Chinese take over their 

ports. I think it was in Zambia recently that the Chinese took over 

a mine. 

We do not do things like that. Everybody knows the United 

States protectds its interests. But we have other interests, including the broader development of poor countries. 

It is in our interest to have a stable world order in which fewer 

people are poor. No one thinks that the Chinese have that anywhere in their foreign policy. 

If the Chinese displace us—which I do not think they are going 

to do—I think this notion the Chinese are going to take over the 

system is nonsense. It is not going to happen for a variety of reasons that are beyond this hearing. 

But if it should happen, the international system will not be 

functional. 

Mr. BERA. Well, my sense, having traveled a lot and talked to 

leaders around the world, is they would much rather the U.S. presence be there because they know, you know, obviously, we have our 

interests. But we do act in a much more benevolent way in helping 

build the capacity of the countries that we are involved in. 

In my remaining time, you know, Ms. Higginbottom, you are now 

at CARE International and as we think about our role in diplomacy 

but, more important, aid and development, how should we be 

thinking about our partnership with the NGO sector and also, potentially, with the corporate sector? 
30 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I think in the NGO sector we look at, across 

the spectrum, at partnerships. That is how we work. Whether it is 

with USAID or with private sector companies with other INGO’s, 

and I think as we see the world changing and particularly the development landscape changing, what we see is that official development assistance, as critical as it is, is a very small percentage of 

private revenue flows that are going into countries, and that means 

if we are going to be really effective with our work we have to look 

across a whole range of partnerships. 

And I think as we look at State and USAID, ensuring they have 

the capacity—both agencies—to develop those partnerships and relationships and work more seamlessly across different sectors, I 

think we will be much more effective and efficient with our—with 

our resources. 

Mr. BERA. Well, maybe expanding on that then as well, knowing 

that we have limited and we certainly have challenges that we will 

have to look at here domestically, I think my perception is, it will 

not be the United States going it alone. 

We now have multiple allies that are developed nations and so 

forth and the president is not incorrect that we should be working 

with them. 

Maybe, Mr. Natsios or Ms. Higginbottom, how do you envision us 

working with the international community? And, again, let me 

couch I think the Americans should be leading because of our leadership and our values. But what has changed from the 20th century to the 21st century? 

Mr. NATSIOS. I think when political systems—democratic systems 

in particular but even dictatorships get under severe stress they 

begin to behave differently. 

And it is not just in the United States. This has been happening 

across the world in other democracies. You are seeing what is happening in Europe right now. 

The Democratic Party of Sweden is actually the Nazi Party of 

Sweden from the 1930’s. It got 17 percent of the vote in the last 

Swedish election. That is very disturbing. 

The auditor general, which is a big job in this party, was a member of the Waffen-SS. He is an old man, but he was a member of 

the Waffen-SS, one of the most horrendous parts of Hitler’s structure of terror. 

This party received 17 percent of the vote in Sweden because of 

the immigrant issue in Europe. So it is an issue—these issues are 

churning across the world. 

We interviewed someone for admission to the Bush School. She 

is Chilean and works in refugee issues. She told me that a million 

refugees have escaped to Chile—a million. 

The Refugee crisis is having an effect across the world, and that 

is why people start turning inward, becoming more protectionist, 

more ultra nationalist, more isolationist, and that is not good. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Natsios, I notice that votes have gotten called. 

Mr. Zeldin, I think you can probably do your questions and then 

we will recess and come back after votes. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Earlier in my opening remarks I referenced the GAO report that 

Congressman Perry and I recently secured the declassification of 
31 

revealed a number of concerning issues regarding staff who failed 

to implement appropriate policies and push back with the host 

country. 

When UNRWA developed complementary teaching materials and 

seminars to address concerning content following three textbook reviews, some staff refused to attend training and workshops and utilized this supplementary material, which countered the content 

that was not aligned with U.S. values and, in many cases, not 

aligned with reality. 

I want to ask you this question more generally. It is not specific 

to that report. But based on your experience, how did you deal with 

local beneficiaries who did not implement appropriate standards? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, Congressman, I hesitate saying this, but I 

will say it. It is not this committee, but this Congress and other 

committees have placed draconian limits on American diplomats 

and USAID officers getting out— not just of the capital city—but 

out of the mission itself. 

The USAID mission in Kabul is called ‘‘the prison′′ by the USAID 

staff. You can go for one year on duty in Kabul and never leave 

the mission. They will not let you out because of the security restrictions. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Just so you know, the question, though, is with regards to the local—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. The question is: How do you monitor programs if 

you cannot go out and see them? If you to improve accountability, 

you need to take the authority over our embassies and missions out 

of those other committees, because they have told everyone there 

is no tolerance for risk. If there is no tolerance for risk, we should 

not have embassies. We should not have missions around the 

world. You have to get out of the capital city, out of the mission, 

and out of the embassy to find out what is going on. These abuses 

are taking place because we cannot see what is going on. 

Why? Because of these security restrictions and, more importantly, because of restrictions on how many USAID officers and 

diplomats can be assigned to these countries. We hire more Foreign 

Service Officersand then we cannot send them out to the field. 

I used to blame the State Department for this until I became a 

diplomat and realized it is not the State Department that is the 

problem. It is Congressional Committees, but it is not the four committees that oversee Foreign Affairs. 

The committees that are the problem are giving exactly opposite 

instructions than all of you are giving to the State Department and 

USAID, and that is the problem. 

There are conflicting instructions in terms of access and openness to get out of the capital city and the mission and the embassy. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Ms. Higginbottom, if you could, I guess, just speak 

to the interaction with the locals, based on your experience. What 

else can we improve upon? 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I do—I just want to agree with what Mr. 

Natsios said. The issue of how we manage risk, not how we eliminate it, has got to be taken up and I think this committee can play 

an important role because a lot of the concern we would have about 

program implementation would be the limit that we would have 
32 

imposed for mobility and not having the ability to really know what 

is happening in a given program. 

When you do know that there are—there are a lot of mechanisms, I think, actually to deal with staff that are not following policy or guidelines and when it is very clearly the case then the line 

management has a lot of tools at their disposal to take action and 

they should. 

The inspector generals at both agencies play an important role. 

I met with our inspector general every week. It was not my favorite 

meeting but it was really important, and I think they can highlight 

critical areas where we need to focus and where there are problems. They do inspections of embassies. They can highlight some of 

these issues. 

So I think there are tools. I do think the risk issue is really important and I do think that this committee can play an important 

role in helping to address that. 

Mr. ZELDIN. OK. So I am going to just continue based off of your 

answers as opposed to—I had a couple of other followup questions. 

But I guess going back to Mr. Natsios, can you now take your 

point, I guess, to the next level a little more? Is there more specificity you can share? I know you did not—you were not naming 

other committees but what can we get out of your exchange that 

we can act on? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, you cannot reassign responsibility within the 

congressional system. 

But if I had my way, the only four committees that would be allowed to deal with the State Department and USAID would be the 

four appropriators and the authorizers in the House and the Senate. 

Even though I have had disagreements with these committees 

over the years, I have never seen then do things that are damaging 

to either institution. But I have seen other committees in this Congress who do not travel. 

They do not know what is going on in the world, and their objective is not the carrying out of American foreign policy or USAID 

programs. It has nothing to do with party. The Democrats and the 

Republicans are equally damaging to the operational capacity of 

State and USAID. 

I wrote a article for the Weekly Standard about 10 years ago 

called ‘‘American Fortresses,’’ because the embassies often look like 

medieval fortresses. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Well, we all have more to talk about. I know that— 

I will yield back to the chair at this time because I know we only 

have a few minutes left of votes. 

Mr. BERA. I want to—at this time the subcommittee will recess 

so that members can vote and then the hearing will resume immediately following the votes. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BERA. The committee will come to order. I ask that, you 

know, at this juncture, Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania. So we will go 

to you. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate coming directly—oh, do you want to defer to the—— 
33 

Mr. BERA. OK. Thank you for that. See, we are already acting 

in a bipartisan manner, as you know, working together. What a 

tone. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. OK. Thank you. Thank you. 

Thank you for your testimony earlier today and for your patience 

with us as we vote. 

Let me start with this question to you, Mr. Natsios. As a general 

matter, I assume you would agree that when the United States 

military deploys to a complicated dangerous place it is helpful to 

have civilian agencies involved as well providing humanitarian assistance, development, reconstruction, good governance, and all of 

that. I presume we are in agreement. Yes. 

And Ms. Higginbottom, OK. Let me—let me apply that principle 

then to a situation we are dealing with right now and that is Syria. 

A number of us, on a very bipartisan basis, over the last few 

weeks and the last few days including at the Munich Conference 

made an effort to try to persuade President Trump not to follow 

through on his policy or tweet or whatever it was to pull all of our 

forces out of that country prematurely before the mission was complete. 

And he heard us and I think, fortunately, made the decision to 

retain around 400 troops with our allies as part of the effort in that 

country. 

But what has been lost in the debate over our presence in Syria 

is that late last year the administration also made a decision to 

completely end, not to spend some $230 million that the Congress 

had provided for stabilization programs in Syria because, they argued, others, particularly the Saudis, could fill our shoes. 

So I wanted to ask you, do you think that is a good idea if we 

have 400 troops or any number of troops deployed in Syria to have 

absolutely no civilian component to that mission? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Congressman, I was the co-chairman of the Committee on Human Rights in North Korea with my good friend, Roberta Cohen, when you were assistant secretary of state. You were 

our biggest supporter in granting money for investigating the outrageous atrocities that the North Korean regime has committed 

against its own people, and I do want to thank you for that. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. NATSIOS. It made a very great difference to us. We are a 

small organization and we appreciate it. Thank you. 

The first thing is that it is not about how much money we spend. 

It is about who is spending it and how it is spent. USAID has expertise in war zones that even our friends in Europe do not have— 

and I think some of our friends in Europe do some things very well. 

We perhaps, because of the U.S. being a great power, have mastered, though not completely, how to work in very difficult places 

and run programs. 

The Saudis have no experience in this. They do not have any experience even in stable environments. That is point number one. 

It is not going to work with the Saudis taking over in Syria. Second, if we are going to keep troops on the ground, we need to have 

a civilian component next to them. 
34 

So I, frankly, do not support the withdrawal of these civilian personnel from Syria. I think we are going to have to send them back 

in again. I know we keep telling the Russians and the Iranians 

they are going to fund the reconstruction. 

I have to say the Russians do not have a lot of experience doing 

reconstruction work in the developing world and the Iranians have 

no experience. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Right. Well, we are keeping them as—so we 

are actually keeping the troops with no—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. I know, but what about the civilian component? 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Nothing. It has been completely eliminated 

and, I mean, does that make our troops safer? I mean, is there an 

issue potentially with—in terms of the safety of our troops if there 

are no civilian eyes or ears? If we are not working with local governments? If we are not working with NGO’s on the ground to 

counter extremism, which we were doing? 

We were funding in Syria these extraordinary women-led human 

rights organizations that operated under ISIS control and, in my 

view, are the most effective counterweight to ISIS at a time when, 

well, they were obviously risking their lives. Would the Saudis fund 

those kinds of organizations, do you think, if we turned it over to 

them? 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I would not expect that they would and I 

agree that—Congressman, that the type of relationships and engagements that you have with some civilian capacity in a context 

like that is really important and I do think it can have a direct contribution to the security of the troops. I am pleased to see that 

there has been a shift in that—in that posture from the president. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thanks. And just, finally, a comment on a different issue that has come up—our assistance in Palestinian 

areas—and I take the point about criticism of UNRWA. 

But let us also not forget that we have completely eliminated 

USAID programs operating to improve water systems, to encourage 

Palestinian and Israeli children to get to know each other, to support schools. 

Presumably, you do not think USAID was teaching people to 

delegitimize Israel. Who do you think benefits more from the complete elimination of those programs, Israel or Hamas? 

Mr. NATSIOS. I think eliminating the programs helps Hamas. 

That is not what the intention was by the administration, but that 

is what the effect is. 

I can tell you from personal experience, and I might add a little 

story. When we went into Afghanistan the first thing we did, not 

just to educate kids but to get them off the streets into school, was 

to print 7 million textbooks from the old royal curriculum used 

when the king was in power. These were at the University of Nebraska, where there was an archive from Afghanistan. 

I had nine Afghan intellectuals—journalists, women’s groups, 

and academics—read all 200 textbooks to make sure there was no 

anti-Semitic or anti-Russian content. (There was anti-Russian content because of the civil war.) Female stick figures—stick figures— 

had been scratched out from all the textbooks. 

We fixed these issues and I had the Afghan intellectuals read the 

books twice to make sure we did not miss anything. The point is 
35 

that there is a utility in having USAID there because we are sensitive to these issues, and without us there I think, frankly, the extremists will have more license. 

I understand the pressure of politics. I was in the legislature of 

Massachusetts for 12 years. But I think it is unwise to shut these 

programs down. That is my experience. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you. Fully agree. 

Mr. BERA. Thanks, Mr. Malinowski. 

And Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, 

thanks for being here. These foreign assistance dollars are precious 

and, of course, I do not have to tell you or remind you they come 

from the hardworking taxpayers of the 10th District in Pennsylvania and everybody else’s district here, too. So it is really important that we safeguard them. 

And, you know, oversight is important and I am sure you are familiar with the stories of fraud and abuse and so this is the Oversight Committee. I think it is important to highlight some of these 

things and then just have a discussion about it. 

There is a 2018 report that assistance provided to Afghanistan 

through the reconstruction trust fund was at risk for misuse. The 

special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction who was 

appointed by Congress stated that once the U.S. or any other donor 

provided its contributions to fund—to the fund, neither the World 

Bank nor USAID could account for how those funds were specifically spent. 

There is also—this goes back a way—but, you know, because, 

Mr. Natsios, I have listened to some of your comments and also Ms. 

Higginbottom. I want to get to some of those about why this is happening if you are not able to monitor correctly. 

But this goes back to 2013. An investigation by the Wall Street 

Journal found that more than 20 percent of the malaria drugs sent 

to Africa under the president’s Malaria Initiative were stolen or diverted each year and then sold on the black market. 

Is the circumstance that you have described where the risk assessment or the aversion to risk is so great that we are not letting 

the people that would oversee—that staff that oversee these funds 

and these programs, is that—is that something fairly new? 

Is that the—let us be candid—is that the advent of this administration or does it go prior to this administration? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Oh, no. This goes back 20 years. This goes back to 

the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in the 1990’s. 

I wrote an article, as I said, for Weekly Standard in 2006 called 

‘‘American Fortress.’’ 

But it was based on what had happened earlier. This is now new 

at all. 

Mr. PERRY. So—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. And it is not just in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is 

across the world. 

Mr. PERRY. Across the spectrum. So when the IG does inspections and finds these flaws and the lost money, so to speak, or the 

evidence of lost money, do they include in their report the circumstances, and why is that? Do you know? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, I am being very candid here. 
36 

The special IG for Afghan reconstruction is outrageous in some 

of the accusations he makes. I will give you an example. He said: 

we went to a school that USAID rebuilt. There was no one in the 

school. That is true. 

You know why there was no one in the school? Taliban had 

taken out the headmaster and beheaded him in front of all the 

teachers and the children. If your child watched the headmaster 

being be headed,—would you send your child back to the school? 

Of course the school was empty. He did not mention that in the 

audit, however. In fact, their people did not even go to see for 

themselves. They sent someone else from one of the ministries to 

go in. Half of his staff has never even been to Afghanistan. 

I think the regulators overstepping, and I say that carefully. The 

IG for USAID, in my view, does very good work. 

But he has to be in competition to find more abuse than the special IG. They compete with each other, and if he does not show that 

he is saving money, his budget gets cut by the Congress. 

I wrote an article about this in 2010 called, ‘‘The Clash of the 

Counter-Bureaucracy and Development.’’ You can access it on the 

website of the Center for Global Development. 

I would urge you to read it—I know it is a long article but your 

staff could read it. It discusses the consequences of these systems 

that have been set up. When you have competing IGs to see who 

can find more abuse, you get inaccurate reporting. 

Are there problems in USAID? Absolutely. But half the problems 

that I have seen they got reported by the IG because they never 

discovered them. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. If I could just add very briefly, I think that 

as USAID and State, to a certain extent, have come up with new 

ways to try to monitor when they are limited in access, particularly 

in places like Afghanistan, questioning the efficacy of those frameworks I think is worthwhile because they are really committed to 

ensuring that the programs that are being funded work and that 

they are not subject to fraud. 

But I think there is a good conversation to have to see whether 

that oversight—the accountability framework that USAID and 

State are doing is effective and I do think that the risk issue is 

more acute in some places than others. But post-Benghazi it is 

more—it has been more constrained. 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. So what is the—if we are not—you know, these 

are all policymakers up here interested in making sure that you 

have the resources that you need, that American foreign policy and 

interests are furthered and that is what we are doing here. 

So and we count on things like the IG, right? I mean, that is 

what we are supposed to do. We are not there and they are, allegedly. So is there—what is the mechanism for people inside—and 

thanks for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman—inside the organizations? 

What is the—what is the internal mechanism? Is there an internal mechanism when you—you said, you know, they are not reporting on half the things that you saw that apparently you found 

problematic at some level. 

Is there a mechanism for you to find a way to report and make 

sure the right thing is done? 
37 

Mr. NATSIOS. As Administrator, I used to meet with the IG every 

week. We had a very good relationship. When I saw something 

wrong I would tell him: I want you to go in and find out what is 

going on here. 

There are two functions of the IG. One is to make sure the management systems work properly and conduct do financial audits. 

That is sacrosanct. We cannot touch that. 

The other function is to look into fraud and abuse. Most of the 

things that the IG investigates USAID officers report. 

The IG does not discover the abuse. We discover the abuse and 

we call in the IG. I can give you a lot of examples—some of them 

entertaining, some of them very disturbing. 

But the staff calls up the IG—that is the standard procedure in 

USAID. If you discover something wrong and you do not report it, 

you can get fired for not reporting. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Perry, if I can also—I would like that to be part 

of our role as congressional oversight as well. You know, if we are 

authorizing and appropriating funds for programs I do think it is 

part of our responsibility to say are these programs actually working the way they are—are we using the taxpayer dollars in the 

most effective way. 

And, you know, if programs are working really well in one part 

of the world, you know, certainly, thinking about how you take that 

and, you know, if programs are not working or funds are not being 

used the way we intended them to be used as Congress. 

I also think it is our responsibility to expose that and—— 

Mr. PERRY. Without a doubt, and I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence. And for the purposes of the discussion, it seems to me 

that there is somewhat of a breakdown in the system here and 

maybe, you know, while we rely on the IG as well is there any way 

reconcile between what the folks that work for the agency report 

to the IG and what the IG reports to us, right? I mean—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. The special IG for Iraq reconstruction was more responsible than the one in Afghanistan, in my view. I worked with 

the guy. I sent the IG into Iraq. When the Marines took the city, 

the IG and the USAID officers were right behind them. 

The mission director called me up and said, Andrew, could you 

have given me a month to set the systems up before you sent the 

IG in? I told him, ‘‘I do not want any problems′′. We had one contract that got screwed up. 

Guess where the contract was? The U.S. Air Force. We asked the 

Air Force auditors to look into it. It was a corrupt contract, and we 

had to dump the whole thing. That is the only contract that got 

screwed up. 

Mr. PERRY. Well, as two Army guys, look, we like picking on the 

Air Force but that is another—Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. I am Army too or I would not have told you the 

story. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BERA. Well, and I know Mr. Espaillat is on his way over 

here. You know, I have additional questions. So since we do have 

a little bit of time we will go and do a second round of questions 

if you also have questions. 
38 

I am conscious and supportive of what Mr. Perry brought up in 

terms of, you know, we do have a responsibility to use the taxpayer 

dollars in the most effective way and in conversation with the current USAID administrator, Ambassador Green, I really do think 

the shift to capacity building and looking at the assets in the countries that we are going into and trying to, as opposed to a one-sizefits-all, saying, you know, each country in each situation is specific. 

Ms. Higginbottom, we had a chance to travel together to Europe 

and I think there are some specific examples of how CARE, working with USAID and the U.S. Government, are doing some specific 

programs to help empower women in villages to care for themselves. 

And if you want to share some of those, you know, because those 

are not ones that demand donations from the United States in the 

long term. What it is doing is building self-sufficiency. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Yes, thank you. A lot of the care programming is really aimed at how we build capacity over time, how we 

make sustained investments, not—I mean, we do humanitarian response. We respond to emergencies. 

But we also look at investments we can make that can really lift 

up communities and we do that with a lot of USG support, with 

a lot of resources from the USAID as well as other partners, and 

we have a variety of different programs. We saw some in Sierra 

Leone and the idea—and I think it is consistent with Administrator 

Green’s approach—to get a path to self-reliance. 

We want to lift whole communities out and one of the reasons 

why—the principal reason why we have over time come to focus on 

women and girls is that the data shows that by targeting not just 

women and girls—we benefit boys and men as well—but by targeting them we see that there are greater returns in terms of investment in health care and education for their children and it lifts 

them up into becoming entrepreneurs. 

We have an incredibly powerful—it is called the Village Savings 

and Loan Association. They are small savings groups but they are 

much more than that. They become really a platform to save some 

money but also to become empowered in communities and make 

permanent and sustained change. 

I think that is the type of development assistance that we know 

is successful and that works and that over time should become 

really the lever that lifts these countries. 

Mr. Natsios was talking earlier about countries that were once 

the recipient of aid and are now our trading partners—some of the 

biggest countries in the world. That is our objective with the approach on poverty reduction. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Natsios, in the remaining time that I have left, 

your focus on Africa, and when we think about there is many 

things that we should be focused on in Africa. 

You know, one, that I spend a lot of time worried about is the 

youth bulge that we are seeing in sub-Saharan Africa and, you 

know, a large population of young people, young men, who may not 

have anything to do—you know, potentially destabilizing to the region, et cetera. 

And I would just be curious if we were thinking about how we 

approach that and how we are approaching it and, again, sticking 
39 

with what is working, what is not working—you know, just in the 

remaining minute and a half I would be curious about your 

thoughts on that. 

Mr. NATSIOS. First, when I became administrator one of the first 

things we did was set up the Office of Conflict Mitigation and Management. Some people said, ‘‘Why? That’s the State Department’s 

job.′′ I said, diplomatically it is. Developmentally, we can do things 

that cause conflict if we are not careful, and we can do things that 

prevent conflict if we are strategic in our planning. 

We asked how many of the 70 missions had civil wars or major 

conflicts in the preceding 5 years. Sixty percent. Sixty percent had 

major conflicts. 

I asked this office to intergrate ways to deal with that into their 

country strategis. The research showed that the youth bulge and 

illiteracy are correlated with conflict. The young men who join 

these militias in West Africa, in Yemen, and in other places are 

often illiterate and unemployed. 

So the youth bulge is affecting the stability of the world order, 

even if we do not see it. It is at the grassroots level, and when we 

begin to study what is causing this, it is very interesting. 

We sent teams in with the State Department and DOD in 2003 

into the Sahelian region to see why people were joining al-Qaida— 

I think it is called al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb now. 

They started interviewing young men. It was not poverty that 

was causing them to join. It was the sense of belonging, of purpose 

in life. Most of them were not Islamists. They had no theological 

training. They did not even know what that meant. They were 

being propagandized by the leaders who were using them for this 

purpose. 

But it is the same mentality for young people—young men particularly but young women now, to joining gangs in L.A. and Central America and other places. 

So what we have noticed is if you can get these vulnerable young 

people into youth groups—more soccer teams—it helps. When I 

first saw this I asked why we were spending money on soccer 

teams. My staff told me, ‘‘do you want them joining militias or a 

soccer team?′′ I chose the soccer team. 

You will notice in the USAID RFPs that workforce planning for 

youth is now a much bigger theme in all of USAID programming. 

I have noticed it much more than when I was in office. 

Mr. BERA. So it is a worthwhile area for us to pay attention to. 

Mr. NATSIOS. It is a very worthwhile area. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Zeldin has been kind enough to let me go to Mr. 

Espaillat from New York first. Then we will come back to Mr. 

Zeldin. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chairman. 

Violence and illicit trafficking in Latin America and the Caribbean has become a more serious problem and I think that it deserves further attention from the U.S. 

I believe we need to do more with the State Department’s Caribbean Basin Security Initiative and the Central America Regional 

Security Initiative Programs to curve the persistent violence in the 

region. 
40 

Now, previously, many of these countries, so like transported 

drugs to the north, to the U.S., and they were involved in that aspect of the trade. But now there seems to also be a very dangerous 

and persistent code of violence in those urban cities of those countries that need to be addressed as well. 

And so what are—what are some of the recommendations that 

you can share with us today and with regards to improving the situation regarding this violence and illicit trafficking in Latin America and the Caribbean? 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Just a couple of comments and ask Mr. 

Natsios to jump in. 

I think that it is clearly an issue. It is impacting us directly, 

whether it is because of migration and drivers there or because of 

the drug trade itself. 

I think we can look at the success of Plan Colombia for some lessons learned when we have a long-term sustained commitment. We 

talked about an incredibly fragile State, dealing with many of those 

issues. Now over 15 years later we get to Paz, Colombia and we 

see a different opportunity. 

I think the investment in the Northern Triangle of Central 

America where we see a lot of those conditions is absolutely critical 

to both addressing the drivers of migration but also encountering, 

you know, the cartels and the drugs that are—and the gangs in 

that area that are driving it. 

During the last administration we made a significant increased 

investment there. It is a longer-term commitment that takes some 

time to address the violence and the corruption and the security 

issues. But I think that is critical to maintain. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. But in addition to the sort of like traditional law 

enforcement efforts that could be augmented via additional funding, what are some of the social programs beyond the soccer 

leagues, right, that could help relieve the situation locally and also 

curtail the migration problem? 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Yes. What I have seen, particularly in the 

Northern Triangle countries, is a combination of things. 

You are working with law enforcement. You are doing training. 

You are cracking down on corruption. You are working with the 

three governments to ensure they are making commitments to follow through. 

But there is a lot of programming for kids and young people, A, 

to give them something to do to keep them out of the gangs, to protect their safety. They are complicated to implement in certain 

very, very dangerous places but when done well are very successful, and I visited many of them when I was at the State Department and I think sustaining that investment is really important. 

But it has to be alongside a crackdown on corruption and really 

focusing on law enforcement as well. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Can I just add to that? 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Sure. 

Mr. NATSIOS. There is a part of that program, just to drill down 

a little further, that Ms. Higinbottom is referring to that looks at 

the indices that help us understand whether a kid is vulnerable to 

being recruited into the gang. 
41 

What USAID and its partner organizations have done in those 

three countries—and this is based, by the way, on a model used in 

L.A. to keep kinds out of the gangs is identify what all those risk 

factors are, the figure out which kids are vulnerable, then put them 

in specific programs that reduce the vulnerability based on the factor that put them in the category in the first place. 

They are showing a substantial decline in gang membership as 

a result of this system. So the programs work. But the biggest 

problem—and this is something, Mr. Chairman, that I strongly 

urge the committee to consider—is the time horizon. 

USAID programs do work. They take 10 to 15 years sometimes 

to work. When we cut a program halfway through, we wipe out half 

the investment because it takes 10 years—sometimes 15 years, 

particularly in democracy programs—change to occur. 

So one of the things this committee can do is look at the time 

horizon problem. 

Now, if there is mismanagement, I am not saying you should not 

absolutely look at it. We are not talking about mismanagement. 

But if you want to see results, realize that the Green Revolution 

took 30 years to implement. Thirty years. 

I am the chairman of a the board of Harvest Plus, a member of 

CGIAR, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research. Harvest Plus breeds plants for micro-nutrients—specifically 

zinc, iron, and vitamin A—to address micro-nutrient deficiencies 

among the poor in developimg countries. 

The reason I am bringing this up is that it will take 30 years 

to fully inplement this program. Harvest Plus has bred these micro 

nutrients into 298 crops grown by poor people in the developing 

world. We have proved this can work. Now we have to get the seed 

out to farmers in a sustainable way. It is going to take at least 15 

years, additional years to do that. 

Washington policy makers want want immediate results. I say, 

how are you going to get the seed out to a billion people in a year? 

It takes years to do this stuff. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Yes. Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, and these 

programs, obviously, cost money and this current administration 

continues to repeatedly send to Congress requests for deep cuts, 

and so that is, obviously, a major, major problem that—there is a 

perception out there that we are giving away everything when in 

fact foreign aid is just minuscule in regards to the entire budget 

and there is proposed cuts to begin with. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NATSIOS. I do not support these cuts, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Zeldin. 

Mr. ZELDIN. USAID put forth a plan to partially reorganize a lot 

of consultation with Congress. I do not know if you had any 

thoughts you wanted to share that would be pertinent to the topic 

of this hearing with regards to the plan the USAID Administrator 

Green has. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I will just say one brief thing because I know 

you will have a lot to say. I think that there are some—it seems 

to be, from my perspective, some really good ideas. How they are 

implemented is really important. 
42 

But when I look at, for example, the proposal to bring the food 

and nutrition programs into—to stop isolating them and bring 

them into more comprehensive that is just aligned with the way we 

do programming, for example, that we know is much more effective 

when it is combined with other interventions. 

I think there is a lot of logic there. From what I have understood 

from the proposals there is still a lot to learn about its implementation. 

Mr. NATSIOS. When I was the director of OFDA—the Office of 

Foreign Disaster Assistance—which was our emergency response 

mechanism in USAID for famines, civil wars, and disasters like 

earthquakes, we considered seriously merging Food for Peace and 

OFDA together. 

If Bush 41 had been elected to a second term, we were going to 

implement it. We were seriously considering it. 

Mark Green just did it 2 weeks ago and he asked me for support. 

This has nothing to do with the Trump administration. We were 

considering doing this 30 years ago. 

So I strongly support what Mark Green is doing. If I thought he 

was damaging the agency, I would say it in public. 

He is not damaging the agency. I think he is a very good administrator. He was a good choice. He is an honorable guy. He is trying 

to do the right thing. 

Now, do I agree with every single detail of everything he is 

doing? No. But the reorganization you are talking about, Congressman, I support and as I said before, we were considering it in 1992. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Any other specific suggestions that you want to 

throw out there for our consideration and his? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Regarding the oversight functions, a council needs 

to be formed of the special IGs, the IG for USAID. The OMB, the 

GAO, and the Congressional Oversight Committees. 

A council should be formed statutorily to meet and coordinate so 

they are not auditing the same program in the same country at the 

same time. We had three different agencies auditing capacity building in Iraq in the middle of a war. 

We spent much of our time responding to three different agencies 

auditing the same program. That is a waste of taxpayer money 

while our people and soldiers are getting killed. 

We lost 300 people in Iraq, 600 in Afghanistan, while we were 

in the middle of answering three different audits by three different 

agencies. It is too much. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I would add a couple of things that are a bit 

different. One there is, in the 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, some recommendations about how to increase 

efficiencies across the two agencies that I think regardless of administration this is—this is separate from any sort of strategic priorities I think are important. 

One of them that I led was a joint strategic planning exercise 

across the two agencies—that does not happen anymore—as well 

as joint reviews, and the reason for that—there is some tension, of 

course, between what development priorities and what foreign policy or diplomatic priorities we might have in certain places. 
43 

But the fact of coordinating and communicating and collaborating is just a more efficient use of our dollars and it does not— 

it does not subjugate one department’s priorities to the other. 

It is really about coordination and making sure. In Washington, 

we have the same level of understanding that you might have in 

a mission or an embassy, which does not—is not always the case. 

And also I would say—Mr. Natsios said something earlier about 

empowering the field. One very practical thing—when the State 

Department begins its budget and planning process it starts at the 

mission and it comes up to the bureaus and then eventually to 

the—and at State it is the—excuse me, at USAID it is the other 

way, and I think there is a lot of inefficiency in having those processes sort of start in different places and end up differently. They 

need to be separate processes but they should be better aligned. 

Mr. NATSIOS. We used to do planning at the mission level, but 

because nearly every dollar is earmarked in USAID, we had to tell 

the missions, ‘‘These are the earmarks that they are going to get 

imposed, and you need to plan accordingly.′′. 

The old system, for 40 years in USAID, was that everything was 

done from the bottom up. Now, everything is earmarked. There is 

no discretion left. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Briefly, I just have just over a minute left. 

Switching over to State Department and the special envoy positions, Secretary Tillerson was starting to look at the five dozen or 

so special envoys. Are there any that your—that you have identified as wanting to elevate higher? 

Are there any positions—any of the special envoy positions that 

you think are unnecessary? Do you have any thoughts that you 

want to share as far as—— 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I think from a—excuse me—from a process 

perspective, I think there should be a regular and I would do a 

every one-or 2-year review of the special envoy offices. 

Many are congressionally mandated. Others are appointed because at a moment in time you need them and those are important 

and we should not say all special envoys are bad, in my opinion. 

But some are outdated and it is not a great use of resources. We 

did that under Secretary Kerry’s leadership and we got rid of a 

bunch. It was not the most popular thing within the building but 

it was the way that we could then say we need a special envoy to 

counter ISIL or another—a strategic priority. 

So I think it is an important regular process that should—that 

should occur in the State Department in terms of currently. I do 

not think my—I am as familiar with the current spectrum but I 

think they should be regularly reviewed and they should be presented to Congress as well. 

Mr. NATSIOS. I was a special envoy myself under President Bush 

for Sudan. I think I did a pretty good job under difficult circumstances in the middle of two terrible civil wars. 

Still, we have to understand the effect this has on the assistant 

secretaries when we put special envoys in to do their job, because 

that is what is happening. 

Now, are there situations in which you need a special envoy for 

a major crisis that requires someone’s full attention. Yes, there are, 
44 

and I agree with Ms. Higginbotom that saying all special envoys 

are a bad idea is not wise. 

However, having 50 special envoys is excessive. Why do you have 

a State Department, then? Why are there assistant secretaries? 

What are they left to do? 

I know it is very difficult from a political standpoint to get rid 

of some of these titles. But from a management standpoint, it does 

not make any sense. 

Mr. ZELDIN. My time is up. I will yield back to the chair. 

Ms. OMAR. Thank you. And in line with some of the things that 

sometimes does not make any sense, Ms. Higginbottom, it seems 

that sometimes our humanitarian goals under—are under cut by 

other parts of U.S. foreign policy. 

To me, there seems to be—an emblematic example is the horrific 

situation that is happening in Yemen. Money for humanitarian aid 

does not seem to be a problem. We sent over $700 million trying to alleviate the enormous 

human suffering that is taking place in Yemen but it cannot get 

to the people because of the political and the military realities 

there. 

And one of those realities is that under the Obama and Trump 

administration we have been militarily supporting the Saudi-led 

coalition. I was proud to co-sponsor the Yemen War Powers Resolution and my question to you is to kind of think about the big picture. 

Is it the case that our diplomacy and development objectives 

sometimes seem to severely undercut our military and political objectives? 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Thank you, Congresswoman. I mean, the situation—the humanitarian situation in Yemen is just awful. It is 

one of the worst crises, obviously, in the world. There is 80 million—80 percent of the, excuse me, of the Yemeni population that 

is in need of humanitarian assistance. 

We have a very large program with CARE trying to address 

some of those needs. I can speak to my perspective from the Obama 

Administration in which we were deeply engaged in trying to support a political solution—a peace solution—and had quite a deep 

involvement in that, which is ultimately how we are going to reduce the violence, and I think that diplomacy and engaging in that 

is critical important. 

Obviously, you know, we find ourselves facing just an absolutely 

horrific crisis there and we have got to figure out what are the 

steps forward now. 

Mr. NATSIOS. If I could just add. 

Ms. OMAR. Yes, I actually was going to have you answer this 

question for me. Would you explain why a focus on humanitarian 

aid and human rights and development are important from a national security standpoint? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Sometimes there is a conflict between defense and 

development, Congresswoman. I watched it. I would get enraged 

sometimes. But this has been going on for 70 years. It is not new, 

though sometimes it is more public than it used to be. 

Food was used as a weapon against North Korea during the nuclear negotiations 25 years ago when there was a famine and 2 1/ 
45 

2 million people died. I was part of the NGO community. I was vice 

president of World Vision and we had a coalition to stop using food 

as a weapon in diplomacy. 

President Bush said we would never do it, and he did not for the 

8 years he was President, I do not think President Obama did it 

either while he was in office. 

There are clear tensions, and you have to make a judgment as 

to what is most important and whether aid is appropriate to use 

in achieving other ends. For me, using food aid as a weapon in negotiations is like blaming the people who have been the object of 

atrocities for the atrocity. 

They are not the ones that caused the problem. The people who 

are dying in a famine are usually weak, vulnerable people who 

have no way of protecting themselves. Why are we punishing 

them? 

Sometimes we fail to consider the ethical consequences of what 

we are doing. With respect to Yemen, I wrote an op-ed piece with 

the former director of OFDA—the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance—in the Obama Administration. It was a bipartisan op-ed 

criticizing the Saudi government’s blockade. And we timed it for 

the Saudi Crown Prince’s visit. He apparently got a little upset 

that it appeared in the newspaper when he arrived. 

Ms. OMAR. Yes. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Then, President Trump actually issued a tweet attacking the Saudis for doing this, and they suspended the blockade 

for a few months, but then they reimposed it. 

Reimposing it was not ethical. You have to consider the ethical 

consequences of this. 

Ms. OMAR. So we are in agreement that humanitarian aid should 

never be politicized? 

Mr. NATSIOS. I do not think it should be politicized and I have 

spent 30 years of my career trying to prevent that from happening. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. I agree with that. 

Ms. OMAR. I appreciate that. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BERA. Mr. Zeldin, if you do not have any additional questions—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. Now, let me just add one little qualification. 

Mr. BERA. Please. 

Mr. NATSIOS. If we find out that large amounts of food aid is 

being diverted by the regime or by any combatants or militias, then 

we must stop the program. That is what we found in North Korea. 

The North Koreans were diverting food. 

I sent someone up, under cover, to the Chinese border with 

North Korea to interview refugees. We found that 40 to 60 percent 

of the food was being diverted by the secret police and the military. 

So I ended the program. We did it very quietly,. But the aid was 

not going to the people who were supposed to get it. 

That is a legitimate reason for ending it. That is not politicizing 

the aid. The purpose of the aid is to feed hungru people. 

Mr. BERA. And part of our job as oversight—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes. 

Mr. BERA [continuing]. Is to make sure our aid and humanitarian efforts are getting to the folks that we are actually trying 

to help. 
46 

Mr. NATSIOS. Exactly. Exactly. 

Mr. BERA. Sure. Go ahead. 

Ms. OMAR. Can you think of an example where a country that 

we might send humanitarian aid into can see it as inciting violence 

within that country? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, you might get that view point, if you talk to 

Omar al-Bashir, who I dealt with for 30 years as the president of 

Sudan, and who may be leaving office shortly, involuntarily, given 

the uprising going on in northern Sudan right now. He saw all of 

the humanitarian aid as helping his opponents and prolonging the 

war. 

He said, ‘‘If you would only stop the aid, all these people would 

stop fighting.′′ I said, ‘‘They will stop fighting because they will all 

be dead. That is what you want to happen.′′ 

I understood what he was saying, and he did argue that some of 

the food was being diverted and we had to be careful not to let that 

happen—to let aid get to the rebels, for example, in Darfur. 

But 2 million people’s villages were burned down. Thirty-eight 

hundred villages were burned by the Janjaweed in cooperation 

with the Sudanese government. Are we supposed to just ignore 

that? Three hundred thousand people died in Darfur. 

Ms. OMAR. Yes. Well, thank you. I think we are in agreement 

that sometimes in particular situations, depending on who is looking at it, sometimes we can see it as being diverted and we can— 

we can have a moral clarity and ethical understanding of why we 

are doing it, and sometimes people within those nations can look 

at it as having an alternative motive in getting involved and sending that aid. 

And so there is a balance and oftentimes we have to be cautious 

of towing the line and making sure that we are not being seen as 

bad actors intervening in other people’s affairs. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. 

I want to thank both of the witnesses for being here. We will get 

you to your plane on time and—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. BERA [continuing]. Again, we look forward to continuing to 

work with both your organizations and both of you as well. 

So thank you. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HIGGINBOTTOM. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BERA. With that, I adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
47 

APPENDIX 
48 
49 
50 

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 
51 
52 
53 

Æ