U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–099PDF 2016

FY 2017 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR SOUTH ASIA:

RECOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENGAGEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 11, 2016

Serial No. 114–174

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South 

and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 5

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, 

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 22

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal: Prepared statement .................................... 8

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement ........................................ 25

APPENDIX 

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

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

Written response from the Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal to question submitted for the record by the Honorable Grace Meng, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New York ........................................................... 48

Written responses from the Honorable Jonathan Stivers to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Matt Salmon, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Arizona, and chairman, Subcommittee on 

Asia and the Pacific ............................................................................................. 49

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Matt Salmon to the 

Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal and the Honorable Jonathan Stivers ............. 51

(1)

FY 2017 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR SOUTH 

ASIA: RECOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND 

ENGAGEMENT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. This committee will come to order. Members 

present will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the official hearing record. 

And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

5 calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitation in the rules. 

The South Asian’s subcontinent is one of enormous potential. 

This important region of over 11⁄2 billion people, including 40 percent of the world’s poor, is often overlooked, or viewed primarily 

through the lens of the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

But the rest of South Asia is more significant than the attention 

it receives would suggest. India recently surpassed China as the 

world’s fastest growing and large economy, and the region is looking to enhance trade connectivity to boost growth. 

On the other hand, South Asia still faces major development 

challenges, including weak governance, corruption, and threats 

from violent extremism. We will hear from the administration witnesses today on its efforts in these areas. 

Given China’s interests in building influence in the region, I 

would also like to hear about the administration’s work to maintain 

relevancy in South Asia. 

This hearing will focus on the Fiscal Year 2017 State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budget request for the South Asia region. I look forward to hearing from the 

panel about how we are to boost U.S. presence in this important 

region. 

India is undoubtedly a very important partner for the United 

States. We have many interests in India, including facilitating India’s membership in APEC, which I have spoken many times and 

checked in with you guys about, ongoing BIT negotiations, and 

strengthening defense and security agreements. 

2

Twenty percent of India’s population lives in extreme poverty, 

with one-fourth of the total population completely off the electric 

grid. If India is to realize its leading role in the region, it must facilitate reforms to create opportunities and better lives for its own 

people. 

How are we assisting the Indian Government and leveraging the 

private sector to improve the conditions of the people in India? 

India is clearly a priority for the administration, but what progress 

is now being made? This committee has concerns about antiquated 

protectionist policies that hold back India’s full-growth potential 

and hurt U.S. companies. Restrictions on market access including 

direct retail sales, weak intellectual property protection, and the 

time required to resolve contract disputes are among the top concerns for U.S. businesses. 

Prime Minister Modi has made economic reform a centerpiece in 

his administration, and I am very pleased that he has. 

What are we doing to help spur the Indian Government in the 

much-needed opening of India’s economy? Sri Lanka’s new government has been touted as more American leaning than the prior administration, but more work lies ahead. The Fiscal Year 2017 

budget request for Sri Lanka is a tenfold increase from previous 

years, now at 39.8 million. How will such an increase in funding 

work toward bolstering democratic change and strengthening civil 

society organizations? 

Many successful efforts in South Asia are transferable between 

countries. How are we ensuring adequate transfer of successful 

programs to leverage resources efficiently? Nepal faced a devastating earthquake last year, and the House responded with a resolution that myself, along with Ranking Member Sherman, put forward. We stood with Nepal. And my State of Arizona even lost one 

of our finest in the efforts to search and rescue, and we continue 

to assist in rebuilding. 

This year’s budget calls for an increase of 8.3 million for Nepal 

for continued relief efforts. Please update us on these efforts in 

Nepal, including timeframe and the outlook to completion. 

Bangladesh receives the largest amount of U.S. development assistance and global funding in the region. Bangladesh is considered 

a moderate Muslim country, receives the most attention for counterterrorism efforts, yet, continues to struggle. 

Since 2013, several bloggers and international activities have 

been brutally killed, six in the past 12 months alone. I offer my 

deepest condolences to the families and friends of the USAID employee and local human rights activist, who was brutally murdered 

just a few short weeks ago. Bangladesh also continues to struggle 

with democratic governance, the rule of law, and corruption. 

The request for assistance to Bangladesh reflects an increase of 

$13.5 million. I would also ask the panel to discuss overall assistance to Bangladesh as it results to countering violent extremism 

and providing for further freedom of expression without violent recourse. I also want to understand what specific programs are we 

putting in place to meet these challenges? 

Finally, the Maldives, the smallest nation in the region, has 

shown a worrying deterioration of its democracy, as well as concerning percentage of its population traveling to the Middle East 

3

as foreign fighters. South Asia is an increasingly important region 

of the world. It is ripe with opportunity, yet held back by corruption, weak governance, and danger of extremism. 

With our oversight hearing today, we will be discussing diplomacy and foreign assistance in South Asia, including progress 

made over the past year. The United States should also look at 

how to best connect South Asia to the Asia Pacific, integration that 

would be vital to facilitating South Asia’s potential. I look forward 

to the discussion not only on what was accomplished last year, but 

what we accomplish next year. 

And before I turn the time over to our ranking member, I would 

like to recognize the Bangladesh Ambassador to the U.S. Would 

you please stand and be recognized. 

Thank you, Ambassador. We are really happy to have you here 

today. 

And I would like to now give time to the ranking member, Mr. 

Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

South Asia, with nearly 2 billion people, by definition, is a major 

focus of American foreign policy. As the largest democracy, second 

most populous country, maybe soon to be first most populous country, and the third largest economy in the world, India is perhaps 

the greatest geopolitical opportunity for the United States. The 

United States and India share many core values, including religious pluralism, individual freedom, and the rule of law. Over the 

past decade, the United States and India have worked to bring 

India out from nuclear isolation, increased defense and security cooperation, narrowed differences over how to combat climate change, 

and a number of other signs of a more intense and high-quality relationship. 

Right now, our trade is about $110 billion in goods and services 

both ways, and we are running a $20-billion deficit. I strongly support Vice President Biden’s goal of increasing bilateral trade to 

$500 billion, and I hope that that is $250 billion in each direction. 

I know the administration has continued to pursue a bilateral investment treaty with India, and I am interested in knowing how 

this would not only increase trade and investment, but lead to balanced trade. 

And I would admonish the State Department folks, who are here, 

including, of course, the Assistant Secretary. Companies will come 

to you saying, this is great for America’s economy, and what they 

want is to make $1 million profit off a $1 million licensing fee. The 

State Department needs to focus on the jobs, not the profits. 

And, for example, I have seen the State Department actively 

market cars made in Germany because, well, Chrysler asked them 

to do it. They didn’t bother to notice that the car was made in Germany. So I am hoping that the embassies and others who report 

to you are focused on the jobs aspect, not just whether there is a 

familiar American company asking for help. 

The International Energy Administration estimates that India 

will require $2.1 trillion in investment in power sector loans to 

meet pent up demand. I want to do everything we can to ensure 

that American companies employing American workers provide a 

4

good portion of the plant equipment and technology that would go 

into that new infrastructure. 

When we voted in favor of the nuclear cooperation agreement, we 

were told that India would reform its liability laws to facilitate 

American participation. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses as to why India continues to have a legal structure that provides that level of liability protection to Russian, French, and Chinese firms that can claim sovereign immunity, while, in effect, 

freezing U.S. companies out of the market. 

As to Bangladesh, the chair noted many of the concerns. Despite 

development progress, there is the continued instance of extreme 

poverty. The growth of Islamic extremism, murderers working their 

way through a publicly circulated list of politically active members 

of religious minorities. Less than 2 weeks ago, Xulhaz Mannan, a 

USAID employee, was brutally murdered for his activism in human 

rights. The home of a Christian family was bombed, and just last 

weekend, a Sufi saint was murdered. I look forward to hearing how 

we are addressing these concerns, particularly with regard to the 

significant Hindu minority in Bangladesh. 

I look forward to hearing your assessments on Sri Lanka and its 

political process of reconciliation. I met recently with the Ambassador of Sri Lanka and encouraged Sri Lanka to move forward to 

increase American import—imports from America, and, of course, 

political reconciliation between the Sinhalese and the Tanuk communities. 

He explained that there were elements of progress, but as I 

talked to those from the Tamil community, I see that progress 

could be moving forward and more quickly toward giving more 

local power to local officials and withdrawing the military from the 

Northeast. 

Even in the smallest country of the region, the Maldives, with a 

population of only 400,000, we see important American interests at 

stake. President Yameen is crushing democracy. It is becoming a 

recruiting paradise for jihadists. More than 200 Maldivians are estimated to have traveled to Syria and Iraq, the highest record of 

terrorist recruitment per capita in the world. 

And when Islamic State fighters return to the Maldives, they 

don’t face prosecution. Of course, there are countries in Europe 

where returning fighters do not face prosecution, and that is a mistake, both for the world and the individual country to which they 

return. 

Finally, with respect to Nepal, I hope to hear about the effectiveness of the $130 billion—million dollar U.S. response to the earthquake in April of last year. 

Ms. Biswal, in your written testimony you say the needs are $6.6 

billion. Two-thirds have been committed, but that we are meeting 

only 10 to 18 percent of the housing and health facility needs. My 

guess is that although the commitment may be at the two-thirds 

level, the actual funding may be at the 5 or 10 percent level. And 

I look forward to seeing what we can do and how the administration would justify its $109.3 million request, though. With that, I 

yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bera for an opening 

statement, and then we will get to our witnesses. 

5

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Obviously, this is an exciting time in the U.S.-India relationship. 

I mean, it is a remarkable time in terms of the level of economic 

cooperation and defense, the defense cooperation, and the possibilities are endless. 

Working with the chairman, you know, a logical next step in the 

development of India and, you know, more broadly, South Asia, is 

India’s membership in APEC, and certainly, this body looks forward to working with the Department of State to push for India’s 

membership in APEC, and we continue to encourage that. That not 

only is beneficial to India, obviously that, you know, sets the stage 

for the next step, as potentially getting bilateral investment treaty. 

This also is beneficial to the entire region of South Asia. Obviously, 

India is an economic powerhouse, but, you know, as India’s economy rises and develops, hopefully, that, then, spills over to Bangladesh and the other countries in the region. 

So, yes, I do see this, both from the USAID perspective, but also 

from the U.S.-India perspective and U.S.-South Asia perspective as 

a great next step to really start to accelerate the South Asian marketplace and the countries. 

So thank you. I look forward to hearing that, and I will yield 

back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. We are happy today to be joined by Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal of the Department of State’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and Assistant Administrator Jonathan Stivers of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Asia. We are appreciative to have both of you 

here today sharing your time with us. And I will recognize Ms. 

Biswal first. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NISHA DESAI BISWAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL 

ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. BISWAL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ranking 

Member Sherman, thank you very much for the invitation to testify 

today. And I would ask that my full written statement be submitted for the record so that I may summarize. 

Mr. SALMON. Without objection. 

Ms. BISWAL. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I spent the formative 

years of my career working as a professional staff member on this 

committee, and so, it has instilled in me a longstanding respect for 

the important role of Congress in our foreign policy, and it is an 

honor and a pleasure to be here before the committee. 

It is also a deep pleasure to be here with my good friend and 

former House colleague, John Stivers. John and I just returned 

from Bangladesh, and we were there in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Xulhaz Mannan. And I want to thank both of you 

and the committee for the strong support of USAID, the U.S. Embassy in the condemnation of that heinous act. I do believe that to 

so many—Xulhaz’ death reminds us of the risks that our diplomats 

and development professionals face, and it is important to honor 

their sacrifices. And, again, I thank you for your strong support in 

that vein. 

6

Mr. Chairman, as you noted, South Asia is at a pivotal point in 

its development. It is on the cusp of a new era of opportunity, but 

it is also buffeted by stark challenges, as both of you have noted. 

A strong U.S. partnership with the region is critical to addressing 

global issues of the utmost importance, mitigating climate change, 

combating violent extremism, ensuring maritime security, eradicating disease, decreasing poverty, and so much more, as well as 

unleashing a new era of opportunity of growth and of shared prosperity. 

With India, our diplomatic economic and defense partnership is 

broader and deeper than ever before. As reflected in the strategic 

and commercial dialogue and our trilateral and multilateral engagements with India, including the administerial with U.S., India, 

and Japan. The fact that we have had an unprecedented six leaderlevel visits and meetings in the last 21⁄2 years, we are India’s number one partner in military exercises, its leading defense supplier, 

and our commercial ties continue to expand, even as we explore 

new opportunities to further increase our bilateral trade. 

In Bangladesh, we are investing in a key strategic partner in 

both regional and global challenges, such as climate change, food 

security, reducing poverty, advancing health, and peacekeeping, 

and many challenges remain in this dynamic country, despite remarkable progress in many of these areas. 

One-third of Bangladeshis still live in poverty. Its geography 

makes it susceptible to the impacts of climate change, and adequate protections for workers are still very much a work in 

progress. 

Yet, as both of you noted, many of the gains that Bangladesh has 

made in human development and economic growth risk being undermined by escalating extremism violence. As I noted, the recent 

slaying of Xulhaz Mannan, a respected and admired advocate for 

human rights, has shined an international spotlight on the increasing threat to Bangladesh’s diverse and tolerant society. 

During our visit, John and I underscored Secretary Kerry’s message to the government and to the Prime Minister and the people 

of Bangladesh that the United States will work with them in this 

fight against violent extremism, and that during a time of such 

challenge, it is all the more important to respect the rule of law, 

political rights, and the ability for Bangladeshis to be able to speak 

freely. 

But Bangladesh has a history of overcoming difficult challenges, 

and we are hopeful that with determined partnership, we can also 

help Bangladesh defeat the extremists and terrorists that threaten 

their vibrant society. 

For Sri Lanka, the country’s strategic position in the Indian 

Ocean makes it a key player in regional efforts to ensure maritime 

security to protect freedom of navigation and response to national 

disasters. Our bilateral relationship, as you have noted, has been 

transformed over the past year, thanks to a unity government led 

by a President and Prime Minister that are committed to reforms 

that can benefit all Sri Lankans. We recently launched the first 

U.S.-Sri Lanka partnership dialogue, and continue to look for opportunities to expand our partnership. 

7

In Nepal, we continue to help the country recover from a tragic 

earthquake that struck in April of last year to ensure that the development gains from 60 years of partnership with Nepal are not 

lost. It is critical that we continue to support that massive reconstruction effort. 

And, finally, given time constraints, I will refer you to my written testimony for Maldives and Bhutan, but we share the concern 

that on Maldives, that deteriorating democratic space in Maldives 

creates a breeding ground for extremism, and we are determined 

to work with partners and friends in the region and across the 

commonwealth to ensure that we can support the aspirations of the 

Maldivian people for a democratic society. 

Finally, let me just conclude by recognizing that the rebalance to 

Asia, that the President has put as one of the centerpieces of his 

foreign policy, is fundamentally a recognition that the security and 

the prosperity of the American people is inextricably linked with 

the security and prosperity of Asia, and nowhere is that more evident than in the South Asia region. And we look forward to continued engagement with the important countries and people of that 

region. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Biswal follows:]

8


20099a-1.eps
9


20099a-2.eps
10


20099a-3.eps
11


20099a-4.eps
12


20099a-5.eps
13


20099a-6.eps
14


20099a-7.eps
15


20099a-8.eps
16


20099a-9.eps
17


20099a-10.eps
18


20099a-11.eps
19


20099a-12.eps
20


20099a-13.eps
21


20099a-14.eps
22

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Stivers. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY 

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member 

Sherman, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. Thank 

you for the invitation to testify today on advancing U.S. foreign policy goals in South Asia. It is an honor to be back again before this 

committee, especially alongside my friend and colleague, Assistant 

Secretary Nisha Biswal. 

Before I begin, I would like to extend the deepest condolences to 

the families and friends of Xulhaz Mannan. He was a member of 

the USAID family in Bangladesh, and he was brutally murdered 

late last month. Xulhaz embodies the very best of USAID. He was 

a heroic leader for human rights including on LGBTI issues. His 

tragic loss is a reminder of the risks that our staff take every day 

in the field to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people. 

Last week, Nisha and I were able to meet with his family and 

friends to better understand his life and legacy and what he was 

fighting for in Bangladesh, in addition to the growing violent extremism in that country. 

We are urging the Bangladesh Government, at the highest levels, 

to fully investigate this violent attack, and others and bring the 

perpetrators to justice. We are also ensuring the safety and security of our staff as our highest priority in this difficult operating 

environment. 

The President’s budget request of $440.7 million for South Asia 

reflects our sustained commitment to this vitally important region. 

While the region has achieved much success in terms of development, significant challenges remain. South Asia has roughly onethird of the world’s extreme poor, both the highest rates and largest numbers of undernourished children in the world, and is extremely prone to natural disasters as we saw last April in Nepal. 

We are working through three primary approaches in USAID. 

First, we are pioneering a new model of development that focuses 

on leveraging our impact and our funding by using public-private 

partnerships, science, innovation, and regional solutions. 

For example, in India, while our assistance dollars have been 

steady, the total value of U.S. development programs have doubled, 

because we are leveraging the private sector and international donors to move forward and make progress on a lot of the very important human development and health outcomes that we want to 

have there. 

Second, we are building pathways out of poverty through integrated approaches with the three Presidential initiatives on global 

health, Feed the Future, and climate change. 

And, third, we are promoting democratic governance and empowering reformers, because we know that the best chance of promoting democratic change is to empower the reformers to change 

their country. 

In Bangladesh, USAID has helped the country make enormous 

progress in recent years. They have been able to cut their poverty 

23

rate in half. They have reduced deaths of mothers and children by 

more than two-thirds. They have improved the management of 21⁄2

million acres of forest and wetland, home of the endangered Bengal 

tiger, and we have helped introduce new rice varieties that can 

withstand flooding and high salt levels. And as a result, Bangladesh now does not have to rely heavily on rice imports. Despite 

this progress and the tradition of tolerance in Bangladesh, rising 

violent extremism is a threat to the country’s development. 

USAID supports those who represent a democratic pluralist society in Bangladesh, such as civil society and journalists. USAID also 

works to address a weak judicial system by strengthening the ability of the institution to uphold the rule of law, and bring perpetrators of violent extremism to justice. We will continue to analyze, 

update, and implement our strategies to best help the reformers increase and maintain the right of the Bangladeshi people to freely 

express themselves through their religion or their political views. 

In India, successfully addressing health challenges means success on a global scale. Accordingly, the bulk of the budget requests 

for India will go toward maintaining momentum on goals related 

to child and maternal survival, HIV/AIDS, TB, clean drinking 

water, and sanitation solutions. Addressing gender inequality is a 

crosscutting focus of our USAID initiatives in India. We are helping to implement a safe cities partnership that focuses on increasing safety for women in public transportation, schools, streets, and 

connects women with advocacy and support services. 

When the earthquake struck last year in Nepal, our 20-year investment in disaster risk reduction proved critical to Nepal’s ability 

to respond. From more than 1,000 USAID-trained first responders 

who conducted search-and-rescue missions saving lives, to a major 

hospital that continued treating patients uninterrupted, due to the 

preparedness plan we helped them establish, the U.S. Government 

mobilized 130 million to respond to the immediate post earthquake 

needs, including construction of temporary schools, emergency nutrition and food, and expanding our countertrafficking in persons 

work to earthquake-affected districts. 

Many obstacles lie ahead. Reconstruction from the earthquake is 

likely to take many years with total economic losses estimated at 

$7 billion. 

U.S. support for the international effort to help Nepal’s recovery 

is critical to helping maintain development progress. In 2015, Sri 

Lankans went to the poles to support a sweeping democratic reform agenda. Seizing on this democratic breakthrough, USAID is 

helping Sri Lanka strengthen democratic institutions through the 

Parliament, judiciary, and auditor general, as well as support for 

civil rights and human rights. 

In addition, we are providing economic help for the poorest and 

most vulnerable Sri Lankans, especially in former conflict zones 

with resettlement and economically lagging regions. 

Mr. Chairman, alongside diplomacy and defense, development 

plays an indispensable role in advancing our security and prosperity. We must address both immediate crises, and the root causes 

of poverty, conflict, and instability. This is the heart of our work 

in the South Asia region. 

24

I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

25


20099b-1.eps
26


20099b-2.eps
27


20099b-3.eps
28


20099b-4.eps
29


20099b-5.eps
30


20099b-6.eps
31


20099b-7.eps
32

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. I will ask the first question. 

While the U.S.-India policy has been a pretty healthy one, and 

our security relations have improved dramatically over the last 15 

years, I don’t believe that our economic relationship has quite kept 

pace. U.S.-India economic ties and experts encouraged both supporting India’s membership in APEC, and concluding a bilateral investment treaty in a recent hearing that I chaired about India and 

the U.S. economic ties, there is strong support here in the Congress 

for India’s entry into APEC. And I have introduced a bill to that 

end, and Senator Cornyn released a companion bill just within the 

last week or so. 

The administration has maintained that it welcomes India’s interest in APEC. Where do we stand on negotiations for a bilateral 

investment treaty? And what else are we doing, from the administration’s perspective, to improve economic ties? 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank you 

and commend and welcome the leadership that you and many of 

your colleagues have shown on the U.S.-India relationship and the 

ambition that you have injected into that partnership in terms of 

where you would like to see it go. I think that that has been an 

important voice, and it has been much noted and appreciated. 

I do think that as you noted, that the President has welcomed 

India’s interest in APEC. I think that the size of the Indian economy makes it one that we want to engage with, and engage with 

in an ambitious but constructive way. 

There are a multiplicity of views with respect to India’s entry 

into APEC. And largely, the conversation is around better understanding India’s desire for membership in APEC, and India’s approach and philosophy as it comes into a largely economically focused body on important issues of open free and fair trade. And I 

think that those are conversations that are ongoing in the administration with the administration and the Government of India, and 

I think that those conversations will help chart the path for how 

to move forward on India’s interests. India’s interests is one that 

I think we welcome strongly, and I certainly heard that not only 

from our President, but from across all levels of our Government. 

With respect to the bilateral investment treaty, we have long 

maintained that a high standard bilateral investment treaty between our two countries would greatly advance and facilitate additional American investment into India and would create a level 

playing field for American companies and for American investment 

so that there are the necessary safeguards and protections for that 

investment, and I think that that will go a great deal toward enhancing confidence in—amongst investors in India’s economy and 

will facilitate greater investment flows. 

We are already starting to see that U.S. investment is starting 

to flow toward India, and, in fact, India became—surpassed China 

as the largest destination for some segments of American investment, and we are likely to see that trend continue. 

We are in the midst of discussions on the bilateral investment 

treaty to ensure that there is a firm commitment on both sides to 

be able to address some of the areas of discrepancy between India’s 

model BIT and what we see as a high standard investment treaty, 

33

and we are hopeful and confident that those discussions can lead 

to the formal launching of negotiations. 

Mr. SALMON. So we are just really in the position right now of 

starting the dance. You know, I know there are serious issues. You 

know, I mentioned in my opening remarks concerns about allowing 

us to sell on the Internet to individuals. Amazon has had some real 

issues in India, and I would like to get those resolved. I know we 

have had some agricultural issues that, you know, have been stumbling blocks in the past. And I also know that—and I don’t know 

whether this completely applies to bilateral investment treaty, but 

a lot of our U.S. investors and companies that do business in India 

are really concerned about the length of time that contract dispute 

resolution gets done, gets handled. 

The average time in court is about 4 years, and that is just not 

acceptable. I know they are trying to move toward arbitration, but 

I don’t want to belabor that. But I know that there are several 

issues. We are very interested in moving forward. I think there is 

a lot of support in Congress. I know that there are issues. But, you 

know, while doing it thoroughly and effectively, I would like to also 

add expeditiously to the list, because I think it is incredibly important that we further that relationship. 

And the last issue I would like to just bring up is, again, India. 

When we had the full hearing a couple of weeks ago, I was a very 

loud voice about the potential sale of F-16s to Pakistan. India has 

objected mightily to this, because there is a big fear that—or concern that they might use those F-16s against India. And it looks 

as though that sale is kind of in limbo right now. 

Could you kind of clarify to me where that might be, or what 

your thoughts are on that? 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me start off by saying we have a very important 

relationship between the United States and India. And we also 

have a very important relationship between the United States and 

Pakistan. Each relationship stands on its own merits, and is in furtherance of our goals and interests with both countries, and we 

don’t see them in any way as being zero sum. 

The F-16 platform is one that we have felt has been used successfully in combating terrorism, and that has been the basis on 

which the administration put forward the notification to provide an 

additional eight F-16s. However, we understand the very serious 

concerns that have been raised by Congress, and those concerns 

are right now being taken into consideration. And, so, I don’t have 

an update for you on—with respect to that notification and where 

it goes, but I will say that we have recognized the concerns that 

Congress has raised with us. 

Mr. SALMON. In fact, I am just going to say one last thing and 

then hand it over to Mr. Sherman, but I do believe that the administration has listened to what Congress said. I believe you are trying to be responsive, and I want to compliment you for that. Because this was across the aisle. This wasn’t just Republicans or 

Democrats. This was across the aisle. A lot of concern that was expressed, and to its credit, the administration, I believe, is taking 

those things into account, and I want to thank you for that. And 

I will yield my time to Mr. Sherman. 

34

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I know the staff loves the chairman 

very—oh, good. They did start my time over. I thought they were 

going to charge my time for the fact that the chairman had extra 

good things to say. 

People outside of Washington look at Washington and say, they 

come up with every weird argument to help Wall Street and to help 

corporate America. When you go over to the Ways and Means Committee, we are told that we should forgo tax revenue, because we 

need to create capital, because capital helps the American worker. 

So we have a capital gains allowance. We have a—I used to be able 

to name 100 things we do to increase the amount of capital available for investment in the United States. 

Then you, you know, you walk on over here from Longworth and 

you come over to this room, and we are told it is just a wonderful 

thing if this capital that we have accumulated can be deployed to 

India. And what we need is to have taxpayer-paid officials negotiate a great BIT agreement so that American companies will feel 

good about taking this capital, which the Ways and Means Committee helped them create, and invest it abroad in India and elsewhere. 

Is there an analysis that shows whether a quality BIT agreement 

will increase jobs in the United States? Is there—and is there one 

that is not paid for by Wall Street? 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. Congressman, let me just say, first and foremost, that we are 

in support of an increase and enhancement in two-way trade between the United States and India, one that seeks to grow investment of U.S. companies in India, but equally of Indian companies 

in the United States. And a high standard bilateral investment 

treaty is not about, necessarily, whether this will facilitate the 

outsourcing of jobs. It is about actually creating the level playing 

field that ensures that U.S. investors are getting the same protections and fair and equitable treatment as investors from Japan, 

from South Korea, and over 50 other countries that already have 

investment treaties with India and enjoy those kinds of protections. 

But I take your point with respect to ensuring that the—that the 

trade and investment with the—between the United States and 

India is one that accrues benefits in both directions. And to that 

effect, I would note that according to the U.S.-India business council, Indian companies have invested more than $11 billion in the 

United States over the past decade, and we probably can attribute 

close to 100,000 U.S. jobs in all 50 States to——

Mr. SHERMAN. But if I could interrupt. I don’t think we need a 

BIT to encourage Indian investment in the United States. I haven’t 

heard too many Indian companies saying they won’t invest here 

unless we do a BIT, that they feel that they are being discriminated against as opposed to Japanese or British investors. We welcome the Indian investment here. It is a small portion of American 

investment there, and a BIT will encourage more American investment there. 

And let me shift to another aspect of this. One of the things we 

export is planes. I know that the French and German Foreign Ministers are working every day to sell an Airbus. What have you and 

35

the diplomats who report to you done to get them to buy American 

planes——

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you, Mr. Sherman——

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Other than ask them not—to ignore 

the silliness in Washington where we almost eliminate the Ex-Im 

Bank. Hopefully, you hypnotized them into ignoring the craziness 

here. 

Ms. BISWAL. Congressman, we do do a great deal of commercial 

advocacy on behalf of American companies to ensure that U.S. companies are——

Mr. SHERMAN. I will need to interrupt you. This is kind of a test. 

I know the standard talking points that you are in favor of commercial advocacy. I am kind of testing whether that is for real, because I had a different Assistant Secretary come here and say they 

agreed on commercial advocacy and testified as to how he had 

helped promote German-made cars without knowing it. 

So that is why I asked a very specific question about planes to 

see whether you could point to real specifics or whether it was just 

the talking points that we believe in commercial. 

Ms. BISWAL. So we have seen a dramatic increase in defense 

sales to India——

Mr. SHERMAN. I’m sorry. Civilian planes. This is a question about 

civilian planes. 

Ms. BISWAL. On the civilian planes, I will have to get back to 

you——

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. 

Ms. BISWAL [continuing]. On a response on that. But I know we 

have seen some major defense and transportation infrastructure 

projects where American companies have one, including GE, locomotive, including a number of defense contracts with Lockheed, 

with Raytheon, with Boeing and so on. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know the defense business is there, and you will 

get back to me on the commercial side. 

I brought up, in my opening statement, the civil nuclear industry. Obviously, BHOPAL did not cast America in a good light. We 

saw the Deputy Secretary’s meeting with the Foreign Secretary on 

this issue. How close are we to being able to put American nuclear 

companies on the same liability level as others? 

Ms. BISWAL. Congressman, I would say that one of the areas 

where we have been able to have significant breakthroughs is on 

the civil nuclear cooperation. We have seen, in the past year and 

a half, significant progress with respect to India’s establishment 

that its liabilities laws are compliant with the international convention on supplementary compensation. India has now ratified, 

and is now a member of the international convention on supplementary compensation. India has established an insurance pool 

that—that, again——

Mr. SHERMAN. Has the U.S. nuclear industry said, yes, that is 

enough, or do they still regard it as not enough to allow——

Ms. BISWAL. I think each individual company, at this point, has 

to make its own commercial decision in terms of risk and in terms 

of opportunity, and I think we are starting to see companies making those decisions individually. Some are further along down that 

road than others, but it is largely, at this point, a commercial deciVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Aug 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\051116\20099 SHIRL
36

sion. And we stand ready, through the U.S. Government, through 

our financing bodies, like the Ex-Im Bank, to support that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are saying the Indian law fully matches 

the protocol on liability? 

Ms. BISWAL. That is correct. We do believe now that they have 

a test that they meet those. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have gone over time. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. I would like to yield to Mr. Perry. 

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

thanks for being here. I am not sure who can, or would be willing 

to answer the question, but I am hoping one of you can. So the 

2017 budget request for Nepal includes an over 300-percent increase in OCO, or overseas contingency operations funding, and a 

nearly 50-percent decrease in the base. Now, while the OCO request includes some continued earthquake assistance, it also includes a significant amount of funding for seemingly normal programs, like elementary reading education. 

Can either one of you elaborate on the justification for shifting 

so much to the OCO account for Nepal? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. 

The earthquake that hit Nepal last year devastated the entire 

country, either directly or indirectly. There are reverberations from 

that massive earthquake that caused more damage than the earthquake in Haiti in terms of housing, schools, and overall damage. 

And much of the budget will support this longer-term recovery. 

Again, it is all interconnected. 

You pointed out primary education, but realize, over 8,200 

schools were destroyed during the earthquake, and I think that 

with reconstruction, certainly in a lot of the other development we 

do, it is hard to draw the line between what is earthquake and 

what isn’t in terms of how we move forward on development. And 

so we believe that all of our efforts did meet the definition of OCO 

in terms of responding to a natural disaster in that country. 

Mr. PERRY. So is the OCO ever present, or is it only present in 

times where—I mean, is that account ever present and just sitting 

there waiting for something to happen for country after country, including Nepal? Or how does that work? 

Mr. STIVERS. I can’t speak to the bigger budget issues, except for 

just to say that Nepal certainly, in terms of the earthquake response, we believe does fit under the definition of what OCO 

should be used for. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. So I guess, then, the next question would be 

how long are you projecting the OCO account to be necessary? Is 

this going to be forever? You know, I understand we are trying to 

figure out what the base should be, and I understand that there 

is the circumstance that was maybe unexpected, and is an emergency situation, which warrants the OCO, but at what point do—

is there a plan? What is the plan to get back to the base, so the 

American people can see that we are spending this much of their 

tax dollars in Nepal? 

Mr. STIVERS. We think it makes sense for Fiscal Year 2017 for 

Nepal to be an OCO country. The decisions on whether in Fiscal 

Year 2018 it would meet that definition, I think, depends on a lot 

of circumstances, and we certainly need to consult with Congress 

37

on that issue, and at the time the Fiscal Year 2018 budget is submitted. So I think it has to be determined at that time. 

Mr. PERRY. So there, essentially, is—like, you can’t say that in 

2017, under this OCO budget, this is what we plan to have completed, and which will require a continuation of OCO in 2018, or 

will be substantially completed in 2017 and then go back to the 

base? I mean, shouldn’t we kind of have some idea now of where 

we are going to stand at the end of the year, or do we just have 

an expectation we are going to spend all this OCO money and then 

at the end of the year, we will to take a look around and see what 

we got, and see if we need more? 

Mr. STIVERS. I think we have to evaluate Fiscal Year 2018 at the 

appropriate time. I think we can evaluate Fiscal Year 2017. I think 

over this next year, we can see how much progress has been made 

there. It has been very slow progress in Nepal in terms of earthquake recovery. And I think that is a decision we have to make, 

you know, in consultation with Congress. 

Mr. PERRY. I hear what you are saying. To me, if I know—yeah, 

just take—you have an accident with your car and your insurance 

company, and the adjuster looks at it and says, Here is the damage. You didn’t expect this, it is an emergency situation, and you 

need the vehicle. It is going to cost $3,000 to fix it, right? And so 

we set up and OCO fund, which is your insurance company that 

pays $3,000 to fix the car. You take the deductible out. We know 

what we are going to get to, right? We know it is going to cost this 

much and then we are done. But what you are saying is that this 

thing happened. We have got an open-ended budget as far as the 

OCO will go, and we will look at the end to see what we got, then 

we have—in other words, there is no plan; there is no estimate. 

There is no evaluation of when this—how far this is going to go, 

I mean, until we get to the end? We don’t have an idea? 

Ms. BISWAL. Congressman, I understand the gist of your question. I think the reason why you are not getting the clarity in the 

answer that you want is because we haven’t yet determined, in the 

Fiscal Year 2017 funds, how much out of OCO we will be able to 

put toward Nepal, because of all of the other contingencies and exigencies that are also right now under discussion. 

When we have a clarity of how much of the Nepal recovery and 

reconstruction we will be able to accomplish this year, we will be 

able to make a determination if in Fiscal Year 2018, we will need 

to pursue that or not. But it is a very finite and limited use of OCO 

for—for, essentially, this earthquake recovery and reconstruction. 

And we hope to be able to have clarity for you as we get a better 

determination of how much we will be able to do out of the 2017 

funds that Congress provided if we are going to need to pursue any 

additional in the outyear. 

Mr. PERRY. With the chairman’s indulgence, let me ask this one 

last question. So with the request being a 300-percent increase in 

overseas contingency—the OCO fund, a 300-percent increase and a 

50-percent decrease in the base, based on that, if you get that, you 

must—you must be planning for something with that money. You 

must have come up with some estimate to arrive at the 300-percent 

increase and the 50-percent reduction in the base. Would you be 

38

done with the work if it goes as prescribed as expected at the end 

of the year or not? 

Ms. BISWAL. I would—I am sorry. And I misspoke, it is the Fiscal 

Year 2016 appropriation, which is right now with us, where we are 

trying to make a determination. So the combination of what we are 

able to realize in 2016 with what we have requested in 2017 will, 

I think, determine whether, if we need to pursue anything else in 

2018 or not. And we hope to be able to give you some clarity on 

that. Those are conversations that we are very much in the midst 

of right now in the administration looking at some of the other contingencies that we are trying to address, and these are also conversations that we are very much having with the appropriators to 

also understand their priorities, Congress’ priorities, with respect 

to the use of OCO. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. One last comment before I yield. I would 

say, to me, from my standpoint, if I am one of the appropriators, 

and you have got a 300-percent increase request and a 50-percent 

deduction in the base request, ostensibly to go toward the OCO, I 

am less inclined to be interested to provide that, unless I know 

there is a plan, right, to spend last year’s money and this current 

request to get to somewhere where I know I am going to be. And 

what I didn’t hear—what I didn’t hear was that there isn’t any 

plan. We are going to spend the money, and then we will let you 

know if we need more at the end. 

With all due respect, I think that is one of the things that frustrates the American taxpayer is these programs go on forever and 

ever and ever. And we are paying you folks to make evaluations, 

determinations, make estimates and put the money—put the 

money toward those things to finalize a completion. 

And I don’t know that—if we just do this, we are ever going to 

be complete, because I am sure Nepal is always going to need more 

money. 

With that I will yield. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Ms. Gabbard. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Biswal, in your opening remarks you mentioned the 

Maldivia, and I know you ran out of time, so I would like to ask 

you to speak a little bit more about the Maldives, and specifically, 

the percentage of their small population who are foreign fighters 

who are traveling to Syria. 

Can you talk about how the United States is working with the 

Maldives to counter this strikingly high number of foreign fighters 

that they have from the Maldives? 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

We have multiple sets of issues that we are concerned about in 

our tracking with respect to the Maldives. Certainly, the fact that 

there is such a high per capita ratio of foreign fighters being recruited out of the Maldives is a mounting concern. The fact that 

the governance environment continues to deteriorate, that there 

continue to be politically motivated arrests and trials, and that the 

democratic space has been consistently deteriorating has, we think, 

contributed to a greater—creating a more fertile field for recruitment of extremist organizations. 

39

And we have maintained over the years, and continue to maintain programs that are targeting combating terrorism and engaging 

with civilian and security forces on specific concerns with respect 

to trafficking of narcotics, of persons, and of financing that can 

make its way toward terrorist organizations at the same time that 

we are working both in our bilateral engagement, and with our regional and commonwealth partners to try to address the governance environment to see if we can’t bring enough pressure and 

partnership to bear on trying to address some of the grave concerns 

with respect to the governance challenges. 

Now, I will confess that there is rising frustration in civil society, 

in the human rights community, and in the international community about the lack of progress from the Government of the 

Maldives, and I do recognize that there have been increasing calls 

for stronger actions with that regard, including actions, many of 

who have been calling for sanctions, or travel bans, or visa bans, 

to try to exert more pressure in that direction. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Shifting over to Bangladesh, Mr. Stivers, you remembered thoughtfully, the USAID worker and human 

rights activist who was slaughtered most recently. On Sunday, the 

New York Times editorial board wrote about how Bangladesh has 

descended into lawlessness. I introduced a resolution last year calling on the Government of Bangladesh to protect the rights of religious minorities in the country, including Christians, secularists, 

atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera. 

Can you speak to what is your sense of the situation, and the 

government’s response? What more should they be doing than they 

are already specifically? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Over the last few years, the domestic and global situations have 

combined to contribute to increasing radicalization. I think domestically in Bangladesh, increased political violence and polarization 

of political parties are key contributors, and there is a lack of political space and free expression that are real challenges for the government in Bangladesh. 

I will defer to Nisha to talk about her discussions with the government there. We know the targets include writers, activists, intellectuals, and certainly religious minorities. Thank you for your 

being such a champion on this issue, because you have identified 

this issue long before some of these attacks happened. 

And I think our development programs at USAID can help mitigate some of the underlying drivers of violent extremism, certainly 

our support for civil society, human rights, voices of tolerance, journalists can help push back on some of the closing space in Bangladesh. 

We work with the judiciary, and I know DOJ and the Bangladesh police support each other on community policing efforts. 

And so our work in this sphere to promote free expression, to promote those reformers who are pushing for more free expression and 

democracy and better governance in Bangladesh, those are the 

folks that we support at USAID. And Xulhaz Mannan was really 

a hero in pushing on those exact things. 

Ms. BISWAL. If I may add to what John has said. This is, obviously, an area of mounting concern for us and was the focus of our 

40

meetings and conversations with the government we met with not 

only foreign ministry, but home ministry and law enforcement officials, and we met with the Prime Minister to discuss what we could 

do in terms of both providing support and partnership, and 

strengthening the capacity and the ability of the government of law 

enforcement to, one, protect vulnerable communities and prevent 

acts of terror; but then, two, to investigate and hold people accountable when there is violence. And this is incredibly important that 

there be a very focused effort to fully investigate and bring people 

to justice when there are attacks of this nature, and how we can 

be supportive in that context. 

We also talked about the need for us to work with civil society 

organizations to ensure that they also have access to tools and 

training and information with respect to their own security. And so 

there is an effort underway right now from the United States to see 

what more we can bring to bear in terms of tools, technology, and 

resources. We have got a team heading out this week with my Deputy Ambassador, Bill Todd, who formally served as the Assistant 

Secretary in INL, but he is going along with a team from the counterterrorism bureau, from the CSO office, and others. And quite 

frankly, we expect that we will be engaging in a fairly intensive effort in the weeks and months to come to see how we can further 

strengthen efforts to secure vulnerable populations, and to turn the 

tide on extremism and terrorism in Bangladesh. 

Mr. GABBARD. Thank you, Ms. Biswal. I am over my time, but 

in closing, in all of your remarks, you talked about the tools that 

the U.S. is trying to provide to support the Bangladesh Government, but you didn’t talk about the leadership and the resolve that 

must begin and come from the Government of Bangladesh if there 

is to be any progress. There are tools, and then there is leadership 

and commitment to standing against these acts of terrorism and 

extreme violence, and a commitment to hold those perpetrators accountable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and thank you for being 

here today. First of all, I would like to talk briefly about Sri Lanka. 

They held elections obviously in 2015, and it has kind of marked, 

I would say, a political shift that is pretty significant in the country. And I had been to Sri Lanka in the past, and kind of witnessed 

firsthand some of the devastation that occurred during, and in the 

follow-up to the civil war and the unrest that they had there for 

quite some time, particularly in the north of the country and the 

area around Jaffna. What would you say is the situation relative 

to the government actually coming together, where Tamils feel an 

actual role in the government? 

When I was there, and this has been probably 5, 6 years ago, 

they didn’t feel like they were being treated at all well by the government. The government obviously had a different point of view 

on this. What would you say is the situation, and especially on the 

ground in the North? They said they were being excluded from 

being in police departments and a whole range of jobs and things. 

How are things now? 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you, Congressman. Let me say that there has 

been a sea change between what the environment and the percepVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Aug 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\051116\20099 SHIRL
41

tion was in Sri Lanka amongst the Tamil and other minority populations in Sri Lanka, prior to the January 8, 2015 election, and 

what has been the feeling, the perception, and the reality since 

then. Now it is and continues to be a work in progress. There are 

many, many areas where we want to see more actions and more 

progress, but we do see a commitment and a steady sense of actions from the government, including on the return of land. 

Over 3,400 acres of land have been returned from military to the 

original landowners. We have seen the government take steps to 

start looking at constitutional reform by convening its Parliament 

as a constitutional assembly. We have seen, for the first time, a 

Tamil leader named as the opposition leader in Parliament. 

In May, the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Judicial Independence 

and Torture were welcomed into Sri Lanka, both of whom were denied entry by the previous government. And the government has 

shown itself willing to examine both the progress and the shortcomings, and to engage in an honest and open dialogue on what it 

needs to do. We need to see some more progress on things like the 

establishment of a commission on missing persons. We would like 

to see them take a look at their Prevention of Terrorism Act and 

to see how it can revised or reformed in light of changing circumstances on the ground, so that civil liberties can be ensured, 

and many other things that I think we would like to see greater 

progress on, but we are encouraged by the fact that there seems 

to be a commitment to move forward. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I have got a follow-up questions however, I have only got a minute and a half, and I wanted to shift 

over to Bangladesh, so let me do that kind of quickly here as well. 

The first time I was in Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia was in power. 

And when I went back most recently, which was maybe 2 years 

ago, Sheikh Hasina was in power, and met with both of them on 

both those occasions. Obviously they have different points of view 

on a whole range of issues. But the most recent time it was a couple of months before the election that didn’t—well, the election 

happened, but it was boycotted by Khaleda Zia’s party. A couple of 

questions. One, do they anticipate elections any time in the near 

future, or what is the status on that at this point? And then most 

importantly, relative to the violence that we have seen with the 

Islamist extremists that have literally hacked people to death, and 

other horrific things, in general, it tends to be when people have 

criticized extremism, those people are targeted. Do you see that as 

being an ongoing phenomenon? What is the government trying to 

do to push—what are they doing to crack down on it without expressing—without suppressing freedom of speech in the press, et 

cetera? All in about 30 seconds. 

Ms. BISWAL. Thank you, Congressman. With respect to the elections, my understanding is that the next elections would take place 

in 2019. I have not heard any indication that there would be an 

earlier timetable in terms of when the term is set to expire. We do 

continue to urge that there be a more inclusive political process 

and that the democratic space in the country be expanded to allow 

for peaceful political activity. There has been a history of political 

violence in Bangladesh, including a particular spate of political vioVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Aug 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\051116\20099 SHIRL
42

lence in 2015, which was of concern, and we have noted it both 

publicly and privately in our conversations with political parties. 

So I think that that is going to continue to be a space that we 

need to engage on and to continue to bring to bear some pressure 

to see some additional progress on political inclusion in Bangladesh, but also a respect for a violence-free space in politics in 

Bangladesh. 

And finally, with respect to the rising incidences, and the frequency of incidences of violence, of extremist violence, in Bangladesh, I think that that is something we are seeing action and 

focus from the government on, and that is something that I think 

we want to try to, again, further capacitate. 

So I did not mean to convey that the Government of Bangladesh 

is not seized with the problem. I do believe that they are. I believe 

that the Prime Minister was very clear in her determination to try 

to address this. I think we can bring to bear, through our partnership, greater capacity and greater focus on that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I want 

to go back to Nepal for a minute, and following up on the gentleman from Pennsylvania’s questioning of the use of overseas contingency accounts. And I may have misunderstood the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, but it seemed like his last observation was, 

well, we are always going to have problems in Nepal. And that is 

true, but I wanted to put this in perspective. The earthquake that 

occurred over a year ago in Nepal, was it not something like the 

third largest, most intense earthquake ever recorded? Mr. Stivers, 

somebody? 

Mr. STIVERS. I am not sure if it was the third, but the devastation was enormous. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And there was a second aftershock that was almost equally powerful. Is that not correct? 

Mr. STIVERS. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And it led to complete destruction of villages in 

many valleys; I mean, total. Is that correct? 

Mr. STIVERS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And destroyed, you know, UNESCO-preserved 

shrines and monasteries throughout the country, including in Katmandu, the capital, and also led to a massive landslide on Mount 

Everest itself, which did damage and took lives as well. Is that correct? 

Mr. STIVERS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Any estimate of what the total cost of the damage done from all those events might have been? 

Mr. STIVERS. The estimated damages are almost $7 billion. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. How much? 

Mr. STIVERS. $7 billion. 

Mr. STIVERS. $7 billion. One of the poorest countries in the world. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. And how many people live in Nepal? 

Mr. STIVERS. I think it is around 100 million. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. 100 million? One of the criticisms that has been 

leveled about the relief and recovery efforts is that money has been 

very slow to be deployed, and as a result, reconstruction has alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Aug 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\051116\20099 SHIRL
43

ready missed one monsoon season, and is likely to miss another, 

partly due to corruption, partly due to government incompetence, 

partly due to international relief incompetence, but also partly due 

to the fact that absent verification and infrastructure for managing 

these funds, international agencies and nonprofits are not going to 

release them. Could you comment, because there are people in need 

still living in temporary housing over a year after the devastating 

earthquake. 

Mr. STIVERS. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman Connolly. 

First of all, I think the population number is 20 million. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah, I thought 20-something. 

Mr. STIVERS. I’m sorry. In terms of the damage, around $7 billion 

in losses. More than 750,000 homes were destroyed. About 1,200 

health facilities and hospitals, destroyed or damaged, more than 

8,200 public schools destroyed or damaged. It was devastating. And 

it occurred in, not so much the population centers that are more 

easily accessible, but up in the mountain areas which are very difficult to get to, to get reconstruction, or humanitarian recovery, to 

get that assistance to the people who need it. That continues to be 

a huge problem in Nepal, and reconstruction has been slow. There 

have been a number of constraints to that. Certainly the extent of 

the damage, the fact that it has occurred mostly in remote areas 

that are hard to access, and the limited capacity of the government 

are issues. The Nepal Reconstruction Authority has just begun to 

operate and international donors have been slow. There were a lot 

of pledges, but the money has been a lot slower in terms of moving 

forward in terms of reconstruction from a lot of the countries and 

entities that committed a significant amount. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But if I can, one of the things that concerns me 

though, I mean, my view about management is, number one, are 

you seized with the mission? To allow a whole monsoon season to 

go by, it is very difficult to do reconstruction and construction in 

a monsoon season. So you have got to wait for that, and then 

schedule your construction or building. And we are now in monsoon 

season number two, I believe, and we still aren’t seeing reconstruction. That means people are once again without housing, without 

shelter, without many of the basic necessities of life, and at risk, 

in not a particularly favorable climate, both in monsoon and in 

terms of winter. So what are we doing to try to light a fire under 

folks to be seized with the mission, and are we seized with the mission? 

Mr. STIVERS. Absolutely. In my written testimony, I explained a 

number of things that we have done in terms of the reconstruction 

and the recovery. We did pledge, commit and provide $130 million, 

which was for the initial humanitarian response, and a lot of that 

was used for reconstruction. As we move forward, we are trying to 

find the funds to do more in terms of the reconstruction for our 

part, but it continues to be a challenge. Certainly it continues to 

be a challenge for us to do our part, and for the rest of the international community, and maybe I will defer to Assistant Secretary 

Biswal about the diplomatic engagement on that. 

Ms. BISWAL. Sure. But let me just make one observation on the 

issue of the OCO before I talk about the diplomatic engagement on 

Nepal’s recovery effort. We recognize that OCO is not for addressVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Aug 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\051116\20099 SHIRL
44

ing kind of the long-term development needs, but for addressing exigent circumstances, and the earthquake was certainly an exigent 

circumstance. And the bipartisan budget agreement——

Mr. CONNOLLY. And excuse me. I wish Mr. Perry was still here. 

That was the point of my line of questioning. I don’t disagree with 

him normally, but what happened in Nepal is almost unprecedented, and certainly the worst to happen in Nepal, and it presents 

and enormous challenge for us, the international community, and 

not least, the Nepalese themselves. That is why—please continue, 

but that is the setting for the OCO provision here. 

Ms. BISWAL. Exactly. And we recognized and I think Congress 

recognized in the budget agreement by expanding OCO funds. So 

that was putting the earthquake reconstruction in under OCO was, 

in a sense, respecting the direction that we received from Congress 

in terms of how and where to use OCO, and we hope to be able 

to revert to a longstanding, regular development program in the 

base as soon as possible. We want to address the exigent circumstances of the reconstruction and recovery as quickly as possible. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I know my time is up, and the chairman is being 

very indulgent. But just to make a point, don’t rush too much into 

that. We have just established on the record we are in the second 

monsoon season, and we haven’t really touched reconstruction. So 

the idea that we would go back to business as usual when we 

haven’t even addressed the crisis at hand a year after the fact I 

think would be very imprudent management. 

So let’s not be rushed into that for form’s sake. Let’s make sure 

that we are using resources in every which way we can to try to 

return people to some sense of normalcy in their villages and towns 

and cities in Nepal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Well, I thank the panelists for being here today. As 

always, you were very responsive. 

Mr. SHERMAN. You are not going to do a second and third and 

fourth round? 

Mr. SALMON. Actually we have a meeting with the People’s Congress, what is it, the Foreign Affairs chairman, and that is in 10 

minutes. And with the chairman’s indulgence on my long-winded 

responses, yours, all of us, I think we would probably be here for 

a little while maybe extended beyond that. You have been wonderful. I really appreciate it, and I appreciate the committee members 

up here and the great questions. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We will miss you until next time. 

Mr. SALMON. This committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

46

f


20099n.eps
47

f


20099m.eps
48

f


20099c.eps
49


20099d-1.eps
50

f


20099d-2.eps
51

[NOTE: Responses to the above questions were not received prior to printing.]

Æ


20099e.eps