U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–449 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S FISCAL YEAR 2001

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE BUDGET REQUEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 15, 2000

Serial No. 106–150

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

THOMAS CALLAHAN, Professional Staff Member

JILL N. QUINN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESS

Page

The Honorable J. Brady Anderson, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX

Members’ Prepared Statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from New

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........................... 34

The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from

California .............................................................................................................. 36

The Honorable Sherrod Brown, a Representative in Congress from Ohio ......... 38

Witness’ Prepared Statement:

The Honorable J. Brady Anderson, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 42

(1)

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S FISCAL YEAR 2001

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE BUDGET REQUEST

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

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

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Mr. GILMAN. Our Committee will come to order. Members, please

take their seats.

Mr. Administrator, we are pleased to have this opportunity to

meet with you to discuss the coming year’s budget for foreign assistance. Before we go too far in the specific budget items and program objectives, I would like to share with you and my colleagues

a fundamental belief.

I believe that foreign assistance is important, not only for what

it does to help the people of other nations, but also what it says

about the people of our Nation. We live in a time that historians

may well call the beginning of a Golden Age. We are perched on

the cusp of a revolution in information, communications and productivity. America sets the tempo for this revolution and we stand

poised to reap its benefits.

We should not be embarrassed about those achievements. Indeed, we can be proud of our forbearers whose hard work and sacrifice brought us to this privileged position. That is the good news.

But let us not forget that only a tiny fraction of the world’s burgeoning population even knows the meaning of the words internet

or cell phone or stock options. The vast majority of our brothers

and sisters are more familiar with concepts like hunger and disease

and violence.

What will distinguish our world as we enter what may become

a second American century from the world of ancient Rome?

Rome’s empire rotted and collapsed from within, corrupted by arrogance and mounting disregard for the people it governed. I am confident that our Nation will not follow Rome’s example. We have defied the patterns of history before, for, as de Tocqueville noted, we

are a nation of paradoxes. We are peaceful even as we create more

destructive weapons. We are communal in our jealous protection of

individuality. And we are generous even as we avidly pursue great

riches.

The scholar Joseph Joffe speculates in a 1997 article that, ‘‘the

key to our Nation’s success is generosity. Somehow our Nation has

remained unchallenged despite victory, defying the laws of real

2

politic. No one is ganging up on the hegemon. But it will have to

keep providing order and security for others.’’ He went on to say,

‘‘Only by doing good, can it do well.’’

No one wants to waste the taxpayers’ dollars and many observers

have questioned the effectiveness of some of our development efforts. Carol Lancaster, a former USAID Deputy Administrator

warned that, ‘‘A basic lesson is that while foreign aid can promote

development, it doesn’t guarantee development and more aid does

not necessarily buy more development. Indeed, unless it carefully

avoids reinforcing flawed policies and poor governance weakening

institutions and creating dependence, more aid can buy less development.’’

No one would argue that helping others is easy.Indeed, it is far

more within our power to destroy a nation than to lift it up, but

the uplifting of others is inextricably tied to the development of our

own nation.

Again, we thank you, Mr. Anderson, and we look forward to your

testimony. We thank you for your service, and now I would like to

call on our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join

with you in welcoming our guest, former Ambassador and now the

head of AID, obviously taking on and continuing the great work

that Brian Atwood did there. We, as a country, I think can be

proud of the work that has been done by AID. It almost covers two

tracks, in one sense, our altruistic commitment to helping our fellow man on this planet, men and women, when you see the kind

of disaster we have recently seen in Africa from the flooding, from

war in Sierra Leone and Congo and other areas. Obviously, Americans want to respond.

But for those who may be less inclined toward simply the humanitarian effort, there is a payback here economically. Many of

the countries that formerly were our largest recipients of grain

today are our largest customers for American agricultural products.

As we have helped AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, the

opportunistic diseases that threaten Africans that come along with

AIDS, transmit very easily to Americans. This globalization is seen

on a daily basis, whether it is the economic or the health side of

it.

Last year, those of us in the northeast who were confronted with

West Nile virus disease that was brought here somehow and immediately had an impact taking the lives of several people in the

northeast and still continues to be a danger. So that even if we

wanted to, it would be impossible to withdraw from the world.

I think of the things we can be proudest of is the fact that America, even when it is challenged, even when times are tough, has

continued to help those less fortunate around the world. Today we

find ourselves the most affluent society in the world, an economy

that has had the longest continuing growth. It is important that we

continue to learn from the past, try to get rid of mistakes and

failings, places where we may have made mistakes, learn from

those and learn to do even a better job helping people to try to

achieve a better life for themselves and their children. So I am very

happy to have our friend here and look forward to hearing his testimony.

3

Mr. GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition? If not, Mr.

Anderson. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for holding this hearing on the President’s 2001 budget request for international affairs. I would like to

make a brief opening statement, but I will not be able to remain

in the question period due to a Commerce Committee markup. I

have a couple of questions I would like to include in the record and

would appreciate a response from Administrator Anderson. Tuberculosis is one of the greatest infectious killers of adults worldwide,

killing 2 million people per year, one person every 15 seconds, more

people in 1999 than any year in world history. Globally, TB is the

biggest killer of young women. WHO estimates that one third of

the world’s population is infected with the bacteria that causes TB

including an estimated 10 to 15 million individuals in the United

States. Eight million people worldwide develop active TB every

year. It is spreading as a result of inadequate treatment and it is

a disease that increasingly knows no national borders.

We know the Administration is committed to increased action

against HIV/AIDS in 2001. The fact is that TB accounts for one

third of AIDS deaths worldwide and up to 40 percent of AIDS

deaths in Asia and Africa. HIV infection multiplies by 30 fold the

speed at which a TB-infected person can develop disease and become infectious. In many sub-Saharan countries, the number of

persons with TB has quadrupled since 1990.

We have a remarkably cost-effective strategy for TB control that

uses inexpensive drugs, but the strategy is reaching only 1 in 5

people ill with TB. A recent study, a WHO study in India found

that in areas where effective TB treatment was implemented, the

TB death rate fell by seven fold. We have a small window of opportunity during which stopping TB can be very cost effective. The

cost of DOTs, directly observed treatment, can be as little as $20,

$20 to save a life. But if we go too slowly, so much drug resistant

TB will emerge that will cost billions to control with much less

chance of success.

Gro Bruntland, Director General of the WHO said that TB is not

a medical problem, but a political problem that we need the will,

the political will around the world and the developing end, the developed countries, the rich countries, too, to make a difference.

Last year the House passed appropriations bill, included $35 million from 0 to $12 to $35 million over the last 3 years to control

TB. I want to know how much, Mr. Chairman, will USAID actually

spend for TB control in 2000? How will the great majority of this

money be used to implement TB control, to TB control problems?

And briefly in another issue, Mr. Chairman, last year, House and

Senate reports accompanying the Foreign Ops bill called for not

less than $250,000 in aid to India to be used to promote health care

in the Sringgari within the State of Carnotica. This area faces

many health challenges and has a mortality rate which is significantly higher than the national average. It is my understanding

that Sharada don Battari Charitable Hospital is the major source

of medical care in this region. I would like to encourage you, Mr.

Anderson, to involve them in this project and to be updated on the

project’s progress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.

4

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to be very

brief to just welcome Ambassador Anderson here this morning. We

all know of the outstanding work done by previous Administrator

and we know that you have the compassion and the interest and

the vision to not only continue that work, but hopefully we can

even expand it. I look for the day that we can get increased funding

for USAID. I think it is totally underfunded and questions like my

colleague, Mr. Brown, brings up about how much is AID spending

for tuberculosis control, I am sure of the answer and I do not even

know the numbers, but I am sure it is inadequate. It is not enough,

but that is because it is beyond your control.

I think that we have to deal with the appropriators. We have to

take another look at the way we deal with the world. We have to

take another look at how much we budget for international development. I think we are way off the target. In the world, we are

probably amongst the lowest. I think it is about less than 1 percent, probably less than one half of 1 percent that we actually expend for overseas development and when we compare $300 billion

defense budget that we are looking at now, compared to the pittance, the little pennies that we drop, you cannot even say—they

are not even pennies from heaven. They are almost pennies from

hell because it should be dollars coming compared to the pennies.

So I know you have a tough job. We will continually push to try

to see that we get the appropriations moving forward, development

fund for Africa is certainly not funded where we like it. It is not

totally in your purview, but indirectly it affects what you try to do.

So we just welcome you hear and look forward to hearing your

testimony, but more importantly working with you in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, I have

been generally supportive of the Administration foreign aid matters. I think the work you do is very important and so I ought to

explain why questions today will take on a different character.

There are news reports that the Administration plans to allow nonenergy exports by Iran to the United States. This action will be

taken by the Administration without any consultation from Congress, and so there is a little guilt by association in that you are

part of the same Administration that would undertake this action

which not only tells Iran they need make no concessions to the

United States in order to do business with us, but also completely

destroys our ability to urge our trading partners to demand that

Iran stop its missile program, stop providing arms to Hezbollah,

stop developing weapons of mass destruction and free the 13 Jews

in Sheraz that have been held nearly a year and that face the

death penalty. For the Administration to leak to the press that this

is what they are planning to do completely obliterates in my mind

any benefit of the doubt that I would give to any Administration

witness at least until those news reports are corrected.

So Ambassador, it is not you, but that will be reflected in my

questions.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Lantos.

5

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Ambassador Anderson who is bringing to this incredibly complex and

difficult task, extraordinary talents and abilities and a proven

record. We are delighted to have you in this role.

I want to echo the comments of my friend, Congressman Payne.

When Harry Truman made his inaugural address along with vast

numbers of Americans I was thrilled to hear his fourth point in his

inaugural which subsequently came to be known as the Point Four

Program, providing economic and technical assistance to less developed countries.

We have slipped enormously in terms of international comparisons in our aid program. If we were at the level of Norway or Denmark, we would have billions, billions of additional funds to deal

with the most unfortunate millions and hundreds of millions of

people living on this planet.

I find it obscene that as so many rejoice in new found wealth,

there is no awareness of the need to be our brothers’ and sisters’

keepers. There is a carryover from a philosophy of greed that characterized the previous decade and the decade prior to that.

I want to say to you Mr. Ambassador that you can count on

strong support for Administration policies along these lines and

support for an increase in the budget. It is often viewed by some

that economic aid and technical assistance and human rights concerns are merely idealistic notions when in point of fact both recent

and long time history demonstrates that unless we attend to the

economic needs of people and unless we attend to the human rights

concerns, we will have explosions such as the ones we had in

Kosovo and East Timor and scores of other places.

So these are the most practical programs, the most pragmatic

programs our government engages in and I would like to see us on

a bipartisan basis work toward restoring our aid budget to 1 percent of GDP. It would still leave plenty of resources for everything

else we are doing.

We welcome you and we look forward to working with you.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Any other Members seeking

recognizing? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. With all due respect to my friend, Mr.

Lantos——

Mr. LANTOS. I just wanted to get a rise out of you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just a note about the era of greed, it just

seems that everything has to always be blamed on the last Administration, Mr. Lantos, and I think that, and I have done statistical

runs on contributions during the Reagan and Bush years which

dramatically increased during their years and I guess during the

Clinton years the amount of—and I agree with you, the amount of

contributions made with people with resources that could give

those contributions is down and that is not something that we

should be proud of. The fact is, we are in an era of prosperity and

people should be donating more of their money to charitable

causes. But this is not a carryover from the era of greed. During

the Bush and Reagan years, the amount of charitable contributions

dramatically increased in our country.

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.

6

Mr. BERMAN. I think the gentleman makes a legitimate point

about not always blaming the previous Administration on this

issue. In fact, under the Reagan Administration foreign assistance

was far higher than it is now. I think a lot of the blame should go

this Congress.

Mr. LANTOS. Absolutely.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman.

Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield for a moment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly, I am taking all kinds of punishment.

Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my good friend from California for

yielding. Let me just share a little anecdote with him. When I was

in Albania some time back and met with our U.S. aid contingent

and they presented their program which is very impressive, in the

afternoon I met with the people who run the Shorush Foundation

in Albania and I discussed to my shock, embarrassment and anguish that the private contributions of this one American to Albanian technical assistance and aid exceed those of our government

which I think is a rather intriguing comparison.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Actually I think we need to appeal more to

those individuals in our society. The great thing about America is

we have people from every corner of the world who live here. America is not made of one ethnic group, one religion, one race and we

have people literally who tie us to these very parts of the world and

in various charitable operations we have people who come from

these parts of these different countries. Jews give a lot of money

to Israel. Greeks give a lot of money to Greece. Irishmen give a lot

of money to Ireland when there is a need and I think that these

are things we can be very proud of, the fact that this ties us and

ties our hearts to people in need in different places.

Mr. LANTOS. For the record, if my friend allows, Joy Soros, she

is not Albanian.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, well with that said I think that we

must also keep in mind when we are talking about government assistance that we should by making sure that we remain a country

where charitable giving is encouraged, we cannot just give everyone the impression that government is going to do it all and that,

of course, is a very important element in the psychology of helping

other nations.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition? If not, we

want to again welcome Brady Anderson, our Administrator of the

U.S. Agency for International Development. Mr. Anderson was

sworn in as Administrator in August 1999. He directs a $7 billion

program out there. He was previously in the Clinton Administration as Ambassador to Tanzania and before that he spent 5 years

living and working in the villages of East Africa. He served 3 years

as a Naval officer, including 6 months in a destroyer off Vietnam.

After his military service, he was an Assistant Attorney General in

Arkansas and he is now directing a very important agency.

Welcome, Mr. Anderson. You may submit your full statement

and we will put it in the record or you may read it, however you

may deem appropriate.

7

Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. BRADY ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. I am very pleased to be here today in my capacity as

Administrator of U.S. Agency for International Development——

Mr. GILMAN. If you would withhold a moment? May we have

order, please, while Mr. Anderson proceeds?

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Please, proceed.

Mr. ANDERSON. I am pleased to be here today in my capacity as

Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to present the President’s fiscal year 2001 budget for foreign assistance programs and to lay out the priorities of the Agency.

I know that your colleagues on the Budget Committee are discussing the overall fiscal year 2001 international affairs budget.

We need your support for the President’s request of $22.8 billion

in order to provide essential fundings for these important programs

which include those managed by USAID.

I would like to make brief comments and request that my formal

remarks be included in the record.

Mr. GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. ANDERSON. During my tenure at USAID, my priorities are

to continue strengthening the Agency’s collaboration with the Department of State and to improve our relations with Congress. I

also hope to make significant headway in resolving the management problems that have bedeviled this Agency for some time. In

short, I want to insure that USAID resources, approved by Congress, have their maximum intended benefit whether in building

democracies in market economies, promoting children’s health, preventing and mitigating conflict or responding to foreign disasters.

As you said, Mr. Chairman, I come to USAID with 8 years of

field experience in Africa, 5 years as a linguist with the Wycliffe

Bible Translators and three as the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania.

I have worked and lived in the villages of Kenya, Tanzania and

Ethiopia. I know how difficult life in Africa can be. I also know that

the people of Africa want, more than anything, the chance to succeed. I am proud to be before you today as part of an organization

that works to give them and millions of other people around the

world that chance.

Since my confirmation last August I have visited the Balkans,

the Middle East, Turkey, and the Central American countries of

Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Today, I would like to

share with you some of my observations from these visits.

We are in a tough business where there are no easy answers or

silver bullets. The challenges faced by the developing world are

real. They are extremely difficult and they are all inclusive. There

has been progress in the past few years. Still, we are constantly reminded of how far other countries have to go before they can become free and prosperous societies.

We as a nation are proud of the freedoms guaranteed to our own

citizens. We celebrate the opportunity for economic improvement

8

that our system creates for Americans and we are rightly concerned that these freedoms and opportunities be passed on to future generations. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that even for

the United States it took almost 200 years before equality and the

unalienable rights of the individual came to rest upon solid foundations.

It took time for us to develop an economic system that provided

opportunity for everyone in our society, rather than one that operated for the benefit of a few.

What this experience has taught us is that democracies and market economies do not magically appear. They require the creation

of solid, democratic institutions, the rule of law, guarantees for

basic individual rights, and a free market system that offers opportunity for all.

Many of the problems facing the people of the developing world

such as disease, illiteracy, grinding poverty, environmental degradation, repression and corruption stem from weak and sometimes

nonexistent institutions.

Given this reality what is the role of USAID? What can we do?

Well, the most important contribution we can make is to transfer

American knowledge, ideas and information. This is what USAID

does and this is what we do best. At USAID we talk a lot about

institution building and I know it can seem rather esoteric, but let

me explain why we think institutions are so important.

Institutions are the bricks and mortar of any society, but they

are especially important in democracies because they reflect the

needs of the people. Take a look at our own country. Our justice

system depends upon the rule of law, the idea that all men and

women are equal before the law. Our social safety net insures that

the most vulnerable in America, the elderly, the poor, the sick, get

the health care they need and deserve. Even the fact that our trash

is picked up on time reflects a local government that is efficient

and responsive to its constituents.

These are just some of the things we are trying to help other

countries create. The goal of our Agency is to help nations develop

into functioning, market-based democracies, not because democracy

is American, but because democracy is a system of government that

serves the people it governs. Democracy cannot be implemented

without strong institutions. The ability of people in developing

countries to deal effectively with the basic problems of child mortality, poverty, illiteracy and corruption is almost entirely dependent upon the quality of their political and economic institutions.

We are working to establish the rule of law, to create independent judiciaries, independent media, to implement needed economic reforms like international accounting and audit standards

and banking reform. We are working to privatize state-own enterprises and to help pass laws protecting private and commercial

rights all over the world.

Like many of you, I agree that our microenterprise, child survival, population, agriculture, environment, girls’ education and infectious disease programs are important parts of USAID’s work.

However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that if we are

to succeed in the long term, we must leave behind people and institutions with the capacity to deal with these problems on their own.

9

The United States does not and cannot exist as an island of prosperity in a sea of poverty and instability. What is more, foreign aid,

as we all know, benefits Americans just as much, if not more than

it benefits other countries.

We do not want our children and our grandchildren to live in a

world of failed states, famine, epidemics, terrorism and instability.

All of which threaten our own security and prosperity.

In my travels as Administrator, I have met many people and I

have heard many stories and I can tell you that people around the

world look to us not because they need money, but because they

need inspiration. They respect us and they want to work with us

to find solutions to their problems. They do so because, as Americans, we believe strongly in the dignity and the worth of the individual. I think USAID’s programs today reflect this fundamental

value, the belief that as President Kennedy once said, ‘‘The rights

of man spring not from the generosity of the State, but from the

hand of God.’’

I take seriously my role as the President’s Special Coordinator

for International Disaster Assistance. Earlier this month in response to flooding in Mozambique and other Southern Africa nations, I designated a search and rescue team and disaster assistance response team to Mozambique to help the victims of this crisis. I have coordinated with the Department of Defense to transport relief supplies and with the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide a U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue coordination team. I have asked our Africa and humanitarian response bureaus to work alongside the World Bank’s assessment team that is

in Mozambique today to develop a strategy to help the people of

Mozambique regain their footing.

I firmly believe that USAID can and does make a difference in

the world because of who and what we are. We are doers who look

at problems not as obstacles, but as challenges to overcome, but we

need the flexibility to focus our resources on things that will make

a difference over the long term. It is for this reason that I have focused today on the critical importance of institution and capacity

building in both the political and economic spheres.

There is one more point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman.

USAID is the premiere donor agency in the world because our presence in the field is one of the strongest in the world. This presence

today is jeopardized by continued constraints on our operating expense budget. I know the people who work at USAID are among

the finest people, not just in government, but in our society. Their

efforts and commitment to our work overseas deserve not only our

respect, but also our gratitude and support. I hope that support

will be reflected in this year’s allocation for our operating expenses.

I appreciate this opportunity to set forth my views and I will look

forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Administrator Anderson. USAID missions in the field often do not receive funds until the third or even

fourth quarter of the fiscal year. Can you tell us what causes those

delays and what can we do to avoid that?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is unfortunately a part of the planning

process and the appropriations process. One of the most important

10

priorities I have at the Agency is to attack some of the management issues that we have had for a long time.

USAID is an Agency that makes contracts and agreements with

universities, nongovernmental organizations and others. This entire process has come to take entirely too long. We are looking at

it now. We have been looking at it for several months in hopes of

moving that time up when, in fact, we can get money into our missions overseas.

I feel strongly that the USAID missions in the countries where

we have them—73 now, but it will be 70 after this year—is where

the programs really are. The mission directors need more flexibility. Withholding the funds from them for so long is not the way

to do it.

Mr. GILMAN. So you think you will have that corrected this year?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think we will improve it this year, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. I hope you can correct it this year.

How will you be dealing with the challenges insuring that the

missions, your aid missions are not funding NGO’s that may have

links to terrorist organizations?

Mr. ANDERSON. There is an intergovernmental process that has

been set up recently to review proposals like this that involves all

of the relevant agencies of the Federal Government, not just ours.

State and others have the information that we need to be able to

make that sort of judgment and I am confident that new system

will enable us to screen out groups that——

Mr. GILMAN. Who or what is in charge of that new system?

Mr. ANDERSON. State Department primarily.

Mr. GILMAN. Who?

Mr. ANDERSON. The State Department.

Mr. GILMAN. And who in the State Department?

Mr. ANDERSON. I have had conversations with Under Secretary

Pickering about it on several occasions.

Mr. GILMAN. Does Pickering have someone in charge of that?

Mr. ANDERSON. I am sure he does, but I could not say who it is.

Mr. GILMAN. Could you provide that for us?

Mr. ANDERSON. I will do that.

Mr. GILMAN. So we can make it part of the record.

And NGO workers are coming under increasing risk of kidnapping, murder and assault. What is USAID doing to insure that its

grantees are prepared and security conscious?

Mr. ANDERSON. The Ambassador, as chief of mission in each

country where we work, is tasked by the President, as it were, and

the Secretary to oversee the security of official Americans in the

country. We get information from the RSO, the Regional Security

Officer in the area. He or she provides that information to us and

to the Department of State so that we can make judgments about

places that we work. For example, Chechnya, as you know, is a

very dangerous place and we do not do anything inside Chechnya;

the Department of State and the Ambassador have advised us not

to fund any NGO work inside Chechnya because of security concerns.

We have a security office at USAID, and of course the State Department does and we have offered training opportunities for

11

NGO’s. We have encouraged NGO’s to talk to us before they engage

in any activity anywhere. We encourage them to go by the Embassy when they are in the country where they are going to do the

work and talk with the RSO first. We make access to radio frequencies available to them in the countries where they work. That

is one of the most important things for them so they can communicate and find out when there is a danger in a certain area.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you,

one, for the cooperation we have had on the microenterprise loans.

Obviously, an area we both have great commitment to and I think

we are making progress. It is one of the areas that I think we have

been incredibly successful. Working together with Chairman Gilman, the First Lady, and your predecessor and now you, sir, we are

very appreciative of that.

It is interesting the President raises, the Chairman raises the

issue of delay in funding because one of the areas that we have had

some disagreement, although the Chairman and I often do agree is

the situation in Haiti where the Chairman and others have put a

hold on funding to assist democracy and child assistance and food

aid. I was wondering when congressional holds like that occur in

a country as poor and as troubled as Haiti, what has that done to

the program in Haiti?

I am not trying to start a fight between you and the Chairman.

Mr. ANDERSON. I should begin by saying that I respect the Chairman’s and any Congressman’s concerns about a program or proposal that we have, especially in a place that does involve a lot of

controversy like Haiti. There are tremendous needs in Haiti in

terms of humanitarian issues and in terms of democracy issues. It

is those things that our programs are designed to address, and

therefore I hope that holds can be lifted on programs that——

Mr. GEJDENSON. But essentially what happens is it disrupts the

ability to execute programs and prevent you from getting help to

some of the neediest people in the world. Is that correct?

Mr. ANDERSON. The Haitians are certainly among the neediest

people in the world and our programs are designed to help them.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. One of the things that——

Mr. GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEJDENSON I would be happy to yield to the Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Just bear in mind when we put a hold on it, it is

done for an important purpose and with Haiti it had to do with

making certain the election process will move forward appropriately. Right now, we are concerned that Haiti once again is

thinking about delaying that important election.

Thank you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, my sense of what happens in Haiti, Mr.

Chairman, is that those people involved in the power structure

have never cared much about the poorest of the poor and that we

would do much better keeping our focus on helping them with their

needs and nutrition and health care and not try to use that as a

leverage for a class of people who rule that country who seem not

to care at all about the poorest of the poor.

12

Let me go to another area now that we have touched that one

and that is on the issue of disease and disease control because I

think it is going to be a growing area of focus and I would just suggest that you work with World Health Organization. My colleague,

Mr. Brown, talked about the virulent strains of TB. As I indicated

earlier, we have got the West Nile disease, the AIDS epidemic in

Africa which continues to grow will provide hosts for a number of

opportunistic diseases that are much more easily transmitted than

AIDS and will have a direct impact on us here. I really think that

this is an area that we have to help, you have to help us develop

the information so we can bring it to our constituents so they can

see in this case while what we are doing has a humanitarian element, there is also an element of self-preservation. If we can keep

AIDS from spreading in Africa, it is obviously going to help Africa

which is already devastated by this disease, natural disasters and

wars, but there is also a terribly important ingredient for us. Can

you give us an assessment of where that is?

Mr. ANDERSON. HIV/AIDS, polio and TB know no boundaries.

They do not need visas to enter the United States and while there

is no polio in the Western Hemisphere, it unfortunately continues

to resist eradication in Central Africa, especially, and also in India.

There is a very huge concerted effort on our part and as a part of

the WHO to really hone in on polio to eliminate it. I would agree

with you, Congressman, that to eliminate and contain diseases like

HIV/AIDS, TB and polio that cripple and kill so many people, including Americans, it is in our own self-interest to make the effort

along with others. We cannot do it ourselves. We should not do it

by ourselves. It is not possible. The challenge is too great. We are

focusing greatly; the President has made this a big priority for us.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. Let me just close with one last suggestion and that is from time to time the issue of purchasing American products comes up. I am not going to go into a great specific

discussion because I only have a limited amount of time left, but

I want to tell you it is terribly important as the agencies make decisions on purchasing products that they put a high priority on

products made in the United States, when American taxpayer

funds are used to help other countries. For those of us who fight

for U.S. foreign assistance, we are undermined, whether it is the

USDA or your organization or State, when highly visible items, in

particular, but at all times, where it is at all practical, to make

sure that we buy American products with American taxpayer dollars. We want the support of the American people. We use their resources to pay for these programs. We have to make sure the

NGO’s and the other agencies we work with understand that it is

an important element.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your testimony.

I have a number of questions I am going to go through quickly and

hope you could address at least some of them now and then get

back to me on the others.

The State Department, I think with AID, sent an assessment

mission to Indonesia that called for $450 million in aid over 3

13

years. It appears that the budget request does not meet that. I

raised questions about why it does not. There are no ESF funds for

India or for the Philippines in fiscal year 1999 and 2000, yet there

are $5 million each for fiscal year 2001. That seems like a bad idea

to me. If you want to spend money in those countries why do you

not put it in development aid or child survival aid? I do not understand why you are starting those programs of ESF assistance. Generally, it is not a good way for us to leverage our foreign aid.

In Macedonia, I am interested in some more detail about how we

will spend the money there and I would like to know from your

staff what assistance the European Union countries are providing

to Macedonia, a country that has borne probably the biggest cost

because of the Kosovo conflict.

There is bipartisan legislation being considered to place a 15 percent cap on U.S. multilateral assistance to the Balkans. In light of

the EU’s and other countries’ failure to meet their commitments to

civilian government and all of its related programs in Bosnia and

in Kosovo, I would like your reactions as to whether or not you

would support such a cap as leverage on our allies to do what they

are required to do.

I would hope that you can keep in mind with respect to aid to

Bosnia about the incredible corruption that exists on all sides in

the country. That corruption is absolutely stopping any kind of foreign direct investment. The extent you finally can leverage some

movement from the level of corruption in Bosnia that would be important because right now we are not making any progress. We are

just throwing money away.

Finally, two more points. The Wall Street Journal yesterday said

very major crop failures in Mongolia with severe food shortages beginning and expected to get worse. Are you prepared to provide

P.L. 480 or other assistance to Mongolia? For this fiscal year and

certainly into the next fiscal year, you have no aid allocated for

P.L. 480 to Mongolia, a country which is struggling but doing a

great job with its limited resources and moving toward democracy.

Finally, I would like a little detail later, on how you are going

to spend the proposed assistance to Cyprus.

Thank you. Do you want to tackle any of those issues?

Mr. ANDERSON. I would be happy to, yes, thank you, Congressman.

In Indonesia, the assessment team, of course, had USAID members on the team, along with State, I believe our request is going

to be in the neighborhood, it seems to me, of $130 or so million.

We think at this point that is a good program, that it does attack

both economic and political issues as well as humanitarian issues.

It seems that Indonesia’s President Wahid is committed to economic and political reform and we are all pleased that he is there.

We want to support him in that very important strategic country.

Mr. BEREUTER. I agree with you, Mr. Ambassador. I am just

wondering why you are not spending another $10 or $20 million.

Mr. ANDERSON. Some of that money and this goes into the second

question about ESF, the State Department allocates ESF in consultation with us, but State makes the final determinations on ESF

and, as it were, we do on development assistance.

Mr. BEREUTER. I know. I hope they will hear the concerns today.

14

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. I want that money to come to you for child development, child survival, and other development.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. The 15 percent cap, I think, from a

policy point of view, makes a lot of sense. From a development

point of view we are proud that one of the things that I think we

Americans, both militarily and certainly through USAID is that we

are very often the first people present when there has been a crisis

because I think of our values and because of the efficiency in our

systems, although at times we fret about our inefficiencies in our

bureaucracy, but we get places very quickly. We, as Americans,

when we see a problem we say here is a problem, here is what we

think we should do to get it fixed and this is how we get there. I

just think we are very capable of that sort of thing and that puts

us out front at times in a leadership position which I think is usually a good thing.

In the case with the EU, they have been, in our judgment, very

slow to respond. They seem to make financial commitments, but to

actually get the money there on the ground it takes them a longer

time. Maybe it is the peculiar animal that the EU is. But we are

going to obey whatever caps there are in legislation and appropriations.

Mr. BEREUTER. I know my colleagues, I am infringing on your

time, but if you, Mr. Anderson, could at least get to Mongolia.

Mr. ANDERSON. I am aware that Mongolia had a terrible drought

and they have had a terrible winter. I know that a lot of their animals have died. We have sent someone from our Bureau of Humanitarian Response who has already gone to Mongolia and is preparing a report to see what we will do. But certainly, if P.L. 480

resources are needed in Mongolia, I see no reason why we would

not use it there.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. I will be satisfied with a written response to the rest to expedite things.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to

comment on the fact that we do need more foreign aid, but often

those of us arguing for more foreign aid talk about how America

is not doing as much as other countries. I think the American taxpayer has been the most generous in the world by far because you

have got to look at what we contribute to world peace. We are contributing a massive amount of our tax dollars really not to defend

the borders of the United States, but to work for peace and stability around the world, a peace and stability that is in our interest, but it is just as much in the interest of Japan and Germany,

countries that live in more dangerous neighborhoods than we do.

So I look forward to working for more foreign aid, but starting with

the assumption that the American taxpayer is, should be and

wants to be the most generous in the world.

I would like to return to Mr. Gejdenson’s comments about the

Buy America provisions. I am particularly concerned about buying

foreign vehicles. America makes every kind of vehicle. We should

not be providing aid to any country that prohibits the importation

of American vehicles or imposes restrictions on that importation

15

that are more severe than they impose on the importation of vehicles manufactured in Europe or Asia. What would be the disadvantage of a requirement that 99 percent or more of all of the vehicles

used by USAID be manufactured in North America?

Mr. ANDERSON. As I said in my remarks I lived in East Africa

for 8 years, both as Ambassador and working as a private citizen.

I spent a lot of time in vehicles and a lot of time on the roads in

Africa. One of the problems that we faced was getting vehicles with

the steering wheel on the right side. The countries I was in, Kenya

and Tanzania, are British, where the steering wheel is on the opposite side than it is here. That presents a problem in getting vehicles that are made in the U.S. with that.

When I was in Tanzania, actually, I took this on as a cause. It

certainly was the State Department’s policy to have Ambassadors

transported around in U.S. vehicles. I had to get a new one. The

old one was dead and I wanted to get a Jeep Grand Cherokee. It

was a four wheel drive, and if you have been on the roads even in

Dar es Salaam, you see why I needed that. So it took several

months to finally get a Vice President from Chrysler to send me

a fax telling me he would love for an ambassador to be in a right

hand drive, four wheel drive Grand Cherokee, but they do not

make them, although he wants to and he would hope that we

would encourage them to make right hand drive vehicles. I wound

up buying and importing from Australia a right hand drive Ford

LTD made in Australia. That was a Ford and I am proud of that

name. I have had other Fords, but it was an Australian vehicle

which a lot of people found kind of interesting that an American

was driving around in it, but it had to be right hand drive. I found

that was always a real hard thing for us.

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, what would be the disadvantage of

a provision of law requiring that 99 percent of all vehicles used by

AID in left hand drive countries be manufactured in North America?

Mr. ANDERSON. The second problem that I faced during the 8

years I was there was getting access to parts and service for American vehicles. I asked some missionary friends from the U.S. who

loved Ford F250 pickup trucks. They drove them when they were

in the States and they wanted to take them to, in this case, Tanzania and Kenya. They put them in a container, but they had to

fill their container with all the parts, filters, and everything. Of

course, they themselves are mechanics, as a lot of missionaries are

in Africa in order to service the doggone things because there is no

way to service a Ford vehicle in East Africa. It is a shame. I hate

that we in a way have given over to Land Rover and to the Japanese car companies, the four wheel drive market. I just think it is

a terrible shame, but that is a very real, very tough problem. If

that were a law it would cost—you would have to raise our budget

tremendously just to maintain the vehicles because there would

have to be a huge amount of spare parts—it is just a reality that

I saw. I have to say that.

Mr. SHERMAN. Can you look at this matter and report to the

Committee that each and every time there has been a waiver, it

is in a country where less than 1 percent of the vehicles on the

road are U.S. manufactured, where parts are therefore not availVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:23 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67449.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
16

able for U.S. manufactured vehicles? It strikes me as odd that you

could repair an Australian made Ford, but not an American made

Ford.

Mr. ANDERSON. You could not.

Mr. SHERMAN. You could not repair it?

Mr. ANDERSON. The back windows of my car would not lower

after the first few months. We could not get them repaired. We had

ordered a part. It never came.

I will do that.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Moving on to——

Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Let me note to

all of our colleagues, immediately following the testimony by Mr.

Anderson and our questions, our Committee will markup H.R.

3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act for the Year 2000. Please stand

by following Mr. Anderson’s testimony.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson,

welcome to the Committee. During the last few months there have

been new allegations of abuse in the Peruvian government’s family

planning program. The allegations include cases of women being

told that they must accept contraceptive methods; other cases in

which contraceptive drugs or devices were administered without

the woman’s knowledge or consent and some others in which rewards or incentives were given to the women and/or health care

providers in connection with acceptance of sterilization or other

birth control methods.

As you may know, in March 1998, the Peruvian government

promised to eliminate all of these abuses in its program. Prior to

that time abuses had been well documented, many of them in connection with sterilization fairs that were held in various places

throughout Peru and you might also recall that we convened a

hearing on that and heard from two of the women who had been

abused in this way who broke down in tears over that abuse and

one doctor who acted as a whistleblower at great risk to himself

brought forth the evidence.

According to the U.S. State Department country reports on

human rights practices for 1999 which as you know was published

in February 24th, Peru’s highly respected official ombudsman has

also received complaints of post-March 1998 abuses. The report

notes that the ombudsman is continuing to investigate these

abuses, but it does not say whether USAID has drawn its own conclusions about whether these abuses have been continuing and

whether any of them took place in projects, programs or activities

supported in whole or in part by U.S. funds. If they did, these programs would violate U.S. law which requires voluntariness and informed consent in U.S. funded family planning projects.

Mr. Anderson, my question is are these serious allegations—

these are serious allegations and I hope you do have some answers.

I raise these questions with Secretary Cohen last week and hopefully that was passed on to you or your staff as to our concern.

Can you tell us when it first came to AID’s attention that women

may have been denied informed consent in the Peruvian government’s program even after March 1998?

17

Second, aside from supporting investigations by the ombudsman,

what specific steps has AID taken to determine whether U.S. funds

were contributing directly or indirectly to these abuses.

And third, if the abuses are happening in the Peruvian government’s program, but not in projects supported by U.S. funds, does

not this still raise questions about whether we should be in a family planning partnership with a government that abuses its own

women in this way?

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Congressman. I do not know the answer to the question. I will find out when someone in USAID,

whether in Peru or here, first learned about the allegation.

I was told when I talked about this yesterday, when I first heard

about this, that our mission in Peru was contacted and that they

had not been told of these allegations. But I want to make sure to

answer your question when did anyone in USAID first learn of this

allegation, I will have to ask and find that out.

Mr. POMEROY. Will the gentleman yield, briefly before continuing?

Mr. SMITH. In terms of being told, again, the ombudsman has

been receiving these. I have raised this repeatedly. As a matter of

fact, our hope was that the Peruvian government would come clean

and absolutely renounce in every aspect of its administration of its

program the coercion and the lack of informed consent.

Hopefully, and this is very important, AID has been—I mean the

red flag has been there now for a couple of years. I hope they did

not fall asleep at the switch. But I yield.

Mr. ANDERSON. I certainly hope that they have not. I cannot tell

you and I will not say what I know about what the USAID mission

there knew. Everyone, of course, is aware of the problems going

back to the 1998 hearing and the things that were done to try to

rectify the situation. I think it is outrageous if, in fact, they have

lapsed back into this, as it were, or if they have made a determination to go back into this, depriving women of freedom in this way.

I think we should do everything we can and we will, to find out

if these allegations are true, what is the nature and the extent of

the allegations, who knew what, and when.

My understanding is the GAO as a part of a wider examination

requested by Senator Helms, is going to visit Peru in May or June

of this year and they are looking into the family planning program.

I look forward to results of the GAO study. When we have exactly

the nature of the allegations that people have made, then I can assure that we ourselves will look into it to make sure. It seems to

me it may be determined by the extent of the violation. I mean is

this government policy? Is it some local person that has gone off?

I really do not know, but I think the family planning program is

important. It is important to the men and women of Peru. They are

the ones who asked for it and I would hesitate to agree that we

should stop the program. It would depend, I think, probably on the

extent of the violation.

Mr. SMITH. Please let me say for the record, even pre–1998 as

we worked up to our hearing, as we were gathering evidence, it

was never part of the government program. They always were in

denial, even though there was serious evidence to suggest otherwise. I mean that is part of the subterfuge we deal with all of the

18

time on every human rights violation. It is never something the

government in any area of abuse, countenances, encourages or supports and yet they countenance, encourage and support the very

thing they deny and that is why I think we need to get to the bottom of this and do so aggressively and I know my time is up, Mr.

Chairman, but it really does concern me. We have been raising

these questions now for a number of years. Fujimori himself has

made population control a centerpiece of his war on poverty. Unfortunately, it looks like it is a war on the women of Peru as well as

on their children. You can always eliminate poverty, if you eliminate kids.

Mr. POMEROY. Time.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me?

Mr. POMEROY. Time.

Mr. SMITH. The Chairman calls the time. Will the gentleman

yield?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Everybody who serves on my Subcommittee knows

that if anybody on the Subcommittee ever exceeds their time by a

minute, two or three or even more, I always extend them the courtesy. Mr. Delahunt knows very well as does everybody else. So I

would hope you would show me the same courtesy.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Smith, please, proceed.

Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield back the balance, but I do

hope——

Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman’s time is up. Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Pomeroy chaired regularly. If you have a complaint, please direct it to

the chair.

Mr. POMEROY. I only meant as a helpful little note to kind of

move this along and I apologize to the gentleman if he took umbrage at my comment. Really, I did not mean anything by it.

I do want to begin by commending the Administrator for the support he has brought in on alleged affairs. Sometimes I think the

problem with AID and Congress we just do not understand one another very well, so I see Joe Crapa sitting behind you as an Assistant Administrator and I think that having someone with his many,

many miles of Hill experience is going to be real helpful to the

Agency.

Second, the Chairman authorized and I was deeply grateful to

him for this, that I attend a reconnaissance tour of Kosovo with the

Assistant Administrator in charge of the Bureau of Humanitarian

Response, Hugh Parmer. Attending that with Assistant Administrator Parmer and his support person, Regina Davis, let me very

deeply impressed about their leadership talent and I just want you

to know that. I thought they did a wonderful job and again, Mr.

Chairman, I am very grateful you allowed me to go on that.

I would like to have you comment on a portion of your testimony

which appears on page 9 and it relates to the education of girls.

Ideally, this might be a matter for an entire hearing at some point,

but you state ‘‘USAID has paid an important role improving education around the world, especially for girls. I am personally convinced that teaching girls and young women how to read and write

may be our most important contribution toward moving the development of countries forward.’’

19

Would you elaborate on that, please?

Mr. ANDERSON. I will. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy, and I thank you

for the reference to Joe Crapa. He is doing a fine job. I think sometimes the problems that we do have are in the lack of understanding between us and the Congress. I might point out my Chief

of Staff and all the other Assistant Administrators are here today

as well.

I think a lot of people in this business in the world are learning

that the role of women in developing countries is a big part of all

the problems that developing countries face. As young girls are

educated, the evidence is beginning to be overwhelming to show

that their health and that of their families when they marry and

have children are better the better educated they are. An educated

mother tends more to see that her little boys and girls are educated. The economic prosperity even of the family seems to be tied

directly to the degree of the education of the mother and the wife.

For those reasons more and more people including Mr. Wolfensohn

and others at the World Bank, we at USAID and others in the

world are seeing that that is almost the single most important

thing that we can do to help people lift themselves out of poverty.

Mr. POMEROY. Is additional funding—what can we do to kind of

elevate this as a key high profile component of our international

assistance strategy?

Mr. ANDERSON. Money is a part of it. Sometimes the problem is

the policy of the government and that involves to some extent even

culture or cultural norms. People in traditional societies might in

some cases think that there is less reason to educate the girl than

there is to educate the boy. Maybe that was true even in our own

country. I remember that my mother told me that it was the case

in her family. Her twin brother went to medical school. Even

though she wanted to go to law school, she was not allowed because they wanted to send her brother.

But that aside, oftentimes it is policy, it is education policy at the

national level that holds back the girls. We have various ways to

encourage policy reform at the national level, some of which involves resources in which we can get the national education authority to provide scholarships for girls. Oftentimes in Africa, girls

who are members of nomadic tribes are notoriously difficult to educate anyway, but the girls especially are. If there can be scholarships for girls in a nomadic tribe, then that is the way to get at

this sort of problem.

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you.

Mr. BALLENGER [presiding]. Having a new person at the desk

here I just thought I would get my two cents in and say I think

you are doing a wonderful job in Venezuela from the disaster and

I would like to say the work you have done in Salvador and Nicaragua for microenterprise is something that you ought to blow your

horn about.

Next, it is Mr. Cooksey’s time.

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jambo.

Mr. ANDERSON. Si jambo.

Mr. COOKSEY. I made my first trip about 2 years before you and

I was in Maua in north, really east of Meru if you are familiar with

that area.

20

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. COOKSEY. My last trip was to Mozambique when it was dry

there, toward the end of the civil war.

My questions are in two different categories. My first set of ques- tions would be in regard to the administration of the $7 billion

budget that you are responsible for. My second area, line of questioning, will be in regard to malaria research because there are

millions of people that are suffering from malaria and a lot of the

people are dying.

I am concerned when I learned here today that it takes 3 years

for dollars that are appropriated for these programs to get there,

whereas NGO’s that go over and you were part of an NGO and I

was part of an NGO when we were both working in East Africa,

can deliver the goods, deliver the services, deliver the technology

and the information in a much more efficient, effective manner. So

I was a little bit disturbed to learn that.

My question is how can you as someone from Helena, Arkansas

and I live about 200 miles south of you in Monroe, Louisiana, with

a legal background and a political background, come in and solve

the problems that are really accounting, administrative problems

in a program that has been fraught with administrative disasters

and wasted funds which are really American taxpayers’ dollars.

How are you going to overcome that? I understand that AID spent

$100 million trying to develop a new set of systems controls, computers, hardware, software and it failed.

My second question is how much effort is being put into malaria

research? I know a lot is being put into AIDS research, but what

about malaria? Because when I was there, malaria was a problem.

Today it is a problem and it will be a problem in the future.

I will qualify my first question. How are you as Administrator

going to overcome what I feel is too often a political agenda of the

Administration you serve and overcome the people on my side of

the aisle who are single issue Members of Congress that have

never really been there to work. They go there to talk. I want the

people who get the work done and not a lot of bureaucrats and not

a lot of politicians. There are millions of people that are suffering

and dying in this part of the world. I think we are wasting a lot

of time here and taxpayers’ money. Convince me otherwise.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. My wife is from Shreveport——

Mr. COOKSEY. My wife is from Shreveport too.

Mr. ANDERSON. We will talk about that later.

Mr. COOKSEY. Burt High School.

Mr. ANDERSON. Of course, Burt High School. Let me address malaria first. I have had malaria a couple of times as has my wife.

Mr. COOKSEY. Me too.

Mr. ANDERSON. As you know, it is not fun to have. I think the

President is right about this effort. I was at the White House a few

weeks ago when Mr. Wolfensohn was there, the WHO was there,

UNICEF was there, Bill Gates’ father was there, other foundations

were there and the pharmaceutical companies’ heads were there.

The President is trying to develop a vaccine for malaria. The

pharmaceutical companies are going to be the ones who are going

to do it, but they naturally want profit and they know they have

to make a profit. So if malaria, unfortunately, only occurs among

21

people who are too poor to pay for the vaccine, why in the world

would the pharmaceutical companies develop the thing? That is a

fundamental problem.

There has been, as you know, research going on for some time,

some of which we have been involved in funding part of and others

have as well. But the President’s effort is to try to get the big companies, Merck was there and Smith Kline Beecham and several

others, to get involved in this. They say very frankly they would

like to, but malaria is apparently extremely difficult to chase down

because it changes all the time.

Mr. COOKSEY. I would point out if you would let me interrupt you

and I am a physician. I am an ophthalmologist. An American pharmaceutical company developed the medication that is the cure for

River Blindness.

Mr. ANDERSON. I know.

Mr. COOKSEY. And they have given it away.

Mr. ANDERSON. I know Merck——

Mr. COOKSEY. And gained no financial benefit. But anyway, they

have got a good track record.

Mr. ANDERSON. They do.

Mr. COOKSEY. As long as the politicians stay out of their way.

Mr. ANDERSON. I think that is a way to approach it. There is

going to be some tax credits and ways to try to get them to do it.

On the management question, that system that failed is called

the new management system. The Agency tried apparently to develop a system and apply it specifically to USAID, and that did not

work. The day they plugged it all together, it did not work. What

we have done is purchase a commercial off the shelf [COTS] financial accounting system, that meets all the Federal standards. It has

been put in other Federal agencies. We have purchased that system. It is being installed today in Washington and will be completed some time in October of this year. Then it will be installed

first in Egypt and then in El Salvador as pilots by next March.

Then eventually, as we work out the bugs, it will be installed

worldwide by the end of 2002. I am glad you asked the question.

Management is a very important thing. It is a boring, dull topic to

talk about, but it is very, very important. I tell people in the Agency all the time that I am a manager and all of you are. It hurts

our credibility——

Mr. COOKSEY. Sure.

Mr. ANDERSON. As an agency with the Congress and with the

American people, and that is why I think we have to improve the

management of the agency, I am very confident that we are doing

that. I am very confident.

Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman’s time is——

Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that is being

done because I feel like too much money is being wasted in our government and in the recipient government. The dollars are not——

Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman’s time is way past. Mr.

Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Anderson.

I am going to ask you some questions regarding the assistance

package for Colombia that will shortly be considered either next

22

week or the following week. There was a summit that was held

here as a result of the efforts of Mr. Mica and the UNDCP which

is their drug control program and there was some I thought illuminating information regarding the success of rural development

and alternative crop substitution programs, both in Bolivia, Peru

and Ecuador.

The proposal put forth by the Administration has some $145 million dedicated to those kind of efforts. There are many in Congress

that are concerned about the balance of the U.S. aid package, some

80 percent going to security assistance, primarily helicopters and

other military hardware and 20 percent going to for lack of a better

term the rural development social investment side of the equation.

In terms of the $145 million, when asked and I understand it

would be USAID which would administer most of those dollars,

when asked why the imbalance we continue to hear that there is

an inability on the part of both USAID and the government of Colombia to absorb any more dollars.

Have you had an opportunity to review those statistics? Is that

your conclusion?

Mr. ANDERSON. In Colombia itself, that seems to be the best

judgment of our people. In part of the package, there is some

money included for Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just want to focus on Colombia, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. ANDERSON. It is a judgment call as to what can be absorbed

there. I think we have only got two U.S. direct hires in Colombia

now and we are going to send another two as quickly as we can

so we are doubling that. That is a very small staff for such responsibility.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me interrupt if I may. My concern is that the

successes that these kind of efforts have had elsewhere in the Andean region have been outstanding. The 50 percent reduction in

the cultivation of coca in Bolivia, I think, is probably the best example. It is my position that we should be making more of an investment in terms of those kind of initiatives and if it is the position of the Administration that we do not have the infrastructure

in place to absorb and as you say and I am familiar and by the way

your folks on the ground in Colombia are outstanding. I want to

compliment you on that.

But also to say that we cannot absorb it when we know that the

United Nations, the UNDCP has the ability and the infrastructure

available now to conduct these kind of programs far in excess of

$145 million. I guess my query would be and it is currently happening in Colombia, with the government of Colombia and the

UNDCP under the leadership of Mr. Alarchi who is noted in law

enforcement circles for having dealt a severe blow to the Mafia in

Italy when he was a member of that government, have absolutely

in their representations during the course of that summit indicate

that they have on the ground, in the Andean region, the ability to

do more if only they receive some funding from donor countries.

Why would not we go that route when we know that in the end

that will do more, I dare say, than simply efforts to interject and

eradicate without having the component of rural development slash

alternative crop substitution?

23

Mr. BALLENGER. Let me just say, Mr. Anderson, we will give you

the chance to answer the question. That was a very long question

you gave.

Mr. ANDERSON. I will be brief.

Mr. BALLENGER. Okay.

Mr. ANDERSON. I agree that the rural development component is

an extremely important part of Plan Colombia and the helicopters

are important. But without the rural development part of it, it is

going to create a lot more problems in the future. The total is $97

million or so in the first year. Oftentimes it is better to start a little bit more slowly to see what we can do, and then after the first

year, it may be that that is a time to gear up. I mean, in a lot of

places in other parts of the world, for example, Nigeria and Indonesia, where we are putting a lot of effort in, very quickly, it makes

me as a manager, and it does in Colombia, makes me nervous that

we do it. It is important that we do it the right way and that we

do not have any wastage. But it is an extremely, extremely important part of the Administration’s package.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Those of us who have

been skeptical about American foreign aid are disturbed when we

see recipients of our aid using their own resources for things that

just do not make any sense to us, especially when recipients of foreign aid use their own resources for weapons and how much money

are you proposing for family planning assistance for India, for example?

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not know the family planning part of the

India budget. I can get that information for you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are we talking over $100 million, I believe?

What would it be?

Mr. ANDERSON. It could not be that much because the whole

India program is, I believe $130 or $140 million in fiscal year 2001,

and the fiscal year 2001 request totals $164.7 million.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does your staff have any suggestions?

Mr. ANDERSON. Less than $5 million, between $3 and $5 million—actually, I’ve just been advised the fiscal year 2001 request

for family planning is $26 million.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, I guess the $100 million figure I got

was last year was all aid to India of some kind, equal that. All

right.

So if all aid to India equals $100 million or thereabouts and do

we have any aid, are you proposing to Pakistan?

Mr. ANDERSON. Pakistan has a small program, about $3 million

in 2000 and $2.2 million in 2001, which is designed to educate

young girls and young women and to provide maternal and child

health care. That is all.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No food assistance to Pakistan?

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not believe so. No.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So Pakistan—India receives about $100 million. Pakistan receives $3 million through this thing.

North Korea receives how much? I understand it is the largest

recipient of——

24

Mr. ANDERSON. It receives food aid. We provided $50 or $60 mil- lion in food aid to North Korea in 2000. India is receiving over $82

million in fiscal year 2000.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. $50 or $60 million in food aid. Let me just

point out the obvious. North Korea is maintaining one of the largest militaries in Asia and India and Pakistan continue to spend

their money not just on weapons, but weapons of mass destruction

and of course, Korea, as we know, many of us believe that Korea

is actually moving forward trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Is not this a travesty for us to be providing countries that use

their own resources in this way and this can go to other countries

as well that are spending too much of their own money on weapons

and such? Is it not a travesty for us? Is this not a betrayal of our

own people to spend our own limited resources that way when they

are using their resources for this type of nonsense?

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Congressman. I certainly wish, and

I think we all do, that a lot of countries in which we are involved

in economic and development assistance spent less on their militaries. I think that in general the American public does support the

kind of humanitarian assistance that, as I mentioned, in Pakistan

is educating especially young girls in a system. As you know, Pakistan does not emphasize that particular thing. I might add as we

talked about with Mr. Pomeroy earlier, often the education of

young girls and women can lead to change.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note that I have charged for the last

3 years that the Administration has a covert policy of supporting

the Taliban in Afghanistan and all the documents that I have read,

I might add, back up so far, but yet the State Department has, of

course, not delivered the documents, all of the documents that I

have requested, even after 2 years and I will repeat that charge

today for anyone. So anything that you want to do for young girls

that this Administration claims to have done for young girls has

been undone in spades by this policy in Afghanistan, but that will

some day come to light and you may be able to talk on that subject

some other time. Go right ahead.

Mr. ANDERSON. As far as Korea is concerned, we provide only

food aid and it is directed at elderly people in nursing homes, children, people in orphanages, that kind of thing. I hope, on both

sides of the aisle, that we all agree that feeding children and people who need food is something that the United States——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think we disagree with that. I think that

the American people are smart enough to know that if we spend

our money feeding children and they spend their money feeding

their military, what we are really doing is feeding their military

and that may not dawn on the Administration, but certainly the

taxpayers understand that.

Well, let me ask you. I have a press release here from HUD. This

may be out of your area, but it says we are building homes for the

Chinese communists. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. ANDERSON. No sir, I do not.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In November 1999 describes how we have a

cooperative effort with the communist Chinese to help build homes

for the Chinese people.

25

Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman’s time——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just suggest that Chinese are building rockets to destroy people by the millions. The North Koreans

are spending money on weapons, the Indians and the Pakistanis,

as well as many other countries are. Yes, we can help starving children in those countries but by providing money to those starving

children, we are permitting those countries to spend their money

on weapons and that is a travesty.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Anderson, I think that was a statement and

not a question, so if I may I will go to Mr. Menendez next.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,

welcome in your maiden visit to the Committee. You are doing fine

and I appreciate the meeting we had. I have a series of questions

to start off with and I would ask you if you could just answer them

yes or no.

I think you will see why. I will not be unfair, I think, but I think

you will see what I am trying to establish here.

Do you believe that trade alone can control illegal migration to

the United States?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Do you believe that trade alone can reduce the

flow of illicit drugs to the United States?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Do you believe that trade alone can help consolidate fragile democracies?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Do you believe that trade alone can help reduce

poverty?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Do you believe that trade alone can fight the

spread of infectious diseases?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Or for that fact protect the environment alone?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you.

Mr. ANDERSON. You are welcome.

Mr. MENENDEZ. And it is that—a very cooperative witness. It is

that set of circumstances that I have just asked you which your organization itself, your Agency, has established as the national interest of the United States in the Western Hemisphere and my concern is when we come to the conclusion that trade alone cannot do

all of those things it may very well be a factor in enhancing the

possibility for some of those things. It cannot do all of those things.

That when this year’s request for the region is about a third of a

request of a decade ago, a 1990’s request, it is a real problem. It

is a real problem because unfortunately the region’s problems have

not diminished by a third. We celebrate what we call democracies

in the hemisphere, save one, but the fact of the matter is that in

many places in the hemisphere that democracy is clearly at risk.

We spent an enormous amount of money in Central America during the late 1980’s to promote democracy. Now that we have the

opportunity to consolidate democracy for this century we have a

real problem in terms of the type of budget that we are offering.

So my concern continues to be, as it has been for several years and

26

this is not unique to now your being here, but I just wanted to

wave my sabre early and hope that our colleagues on the Committee as well as appropriators and I know the congressional Hispanic caucus who is going to be pushing this issue will look for an

increase and if you did have an increase within the region’s budget,

would you be able to effectively produce greater assistance in the

region?

Mr. ANDERSON. We could, Congressman. The consolidation of democracy is a key issue, obviously, in Central America and in Latin

America as a whole. I have had the privilege, as I stated in my

original remarks, to visit Central America several months ago and

was terribly impressed with what is happening in places like El

Salvador in the consolidation of democracy. The people are committed and there is an opportunity now to consolidate democracy

and really grow economies after so much for so long was wasted.

They are committed to inclusion, bringing all parts of their society,

whether they be indigenous Indians or just citizens of a lower

socio-economic class, into the society. I see that commitment there,

and I think we should support it. If we did have more resources

we could be more helpful and supportive of this effort.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate that statement. I think that the Colombia package that we will soon be debating is emblematic of the

difficulties we have in the hemisphere. We wait for an enormous

problem to be on our hands and then we rush to pump in money

to try to solve it, money that while certainly we need to do something with Colombia, the question in Colombia’s case it will be over

$1 billion. That is far beyond the $600 some odd million that exists

for the rest of the hemisphere. Many parts which have problems

with sustainable development issues, many other countries for

which I know, for example, we have had some questions raised

about the AID’s alternative development programs in Bolivia and

a few other places, I would hope that we do not wait for those locations to become a crisis and then we are facing not a steady, an

intelligent expenditure of money over time in which we avoid and

curtail the problems of illegal immigration, biodiversity issues,

health issues, we are facing in parts of the country here in the

United States, illnesses that were eradicated at one time and now

we see them. All of those issues are at stake for us and I look forward to working with you and hopefully our colleagues to increase

the resources for this part of the world for which the United States

has a direct national interest.

Thank you.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you.

Mr. BALLENGER. If I may, Mr. Radonovich has a statement he

would like to have included in the record. Can someone ask unanimous consent to include his statement in the record?

Mr. HOUGHTON. So moved.

Mr. BALLENGER. Without objection.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Anderson

for being here. I have an original question I would like to ask, but

just following that line of questioning, is there, in your opinion, any

one bumper sticker size solution to the issues of illegal immigration, the environment and drug trafficking?

27

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not want to be labeled as one who says democracy is the solution to everything, but I think that is a darn

good start and building the foundations of a democracy in which all

the people, no matter who they are, feel that their human rights

are protected and feel that they have an opportunity to exercise

their skills and entrepreneurial drive to participate in the economy

and educate their children. It seems to me that the kinds of institutions we can help build in a democracy is long term.

Mr. BEREUTER. As developing countries start to shift a little

more away from aid and toward seeking more trade with us, do you

think they do that as part of a strategy to make themselves more

stable and to try to encourage democracies in certain areas—perhaps to replace narco-trafficking economies with real private sector

jobs for themselves, for example?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think people are beginning to realize that our

system—our economic system and our political system, which are

multi-party, liberal, democratic and a free market—that our system

works better than anything else anybody in the world has tried in

our lifetimes.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. Here is my original question. You

have spent a great deal of time striving to make AID assistance efficient and targeted, stretching it as far as it can go. In the past,

universities have played a valuable role and leading role in U.S. assistance. There is every reason to believe that they can do more for

us in the future, but, in the past 5 years or so, the number of AID

grants and contract through universities fell significantly—almost

63 percent. Is there a reason why USAID has reduced its reliance

on these university resources in providing this assistance?

Mr. ANDERSON. If there is a reason—and there is always a reason—I am not sure what it is. I realized some time back after

presidents of a number of the land grant universities came to see

me to talk, principally about agriculture. Then the discussion expanded because they are all interested. They do other things and

there are other issues that they would like to be involved in around

the world. I think that, if what we do is transfer American know

how, experience, and democratic values, the repository for a lot of

that is in universities like in your State and mine. It seems to me

that we should have more participation of universities and colleges

in America, not less.

I am real proud of the participation that we have now, both in

agricultural research and in all kinds of things that American universities do. If I had a list and a big board of all the things that

universities do, funded at least, in part, by USAID around the

world, it would be a very large list, but it should be larger.

I am not sure why university contracts and grants have declined,

although it may be the more aggressive pursuers of USAID dollars

have sort of beat them out, as it were. That is a possibility, but I

think we should do more at the university level.

Mr. BEREUTER. I do too. I know that our office and yours have

been working on some revisions to Title XII that would create better linkages between international research, development, and

trade. The whole goal, obviously, is to tie in what the Federal Government is doing, what state programs are doing in trade and research development, and to bring the resources of the universities

28

to bear as well. Do you regard those linkages, I guess as I do, as

promising and perhaps very useful?

Mr. ANDERSON. I do, absolutely. The linkages within the Title

XII universities with agribusiness are very promising and I think

there is a real future for it. We are going to continue to work with

you and your staff.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. GILMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Brady. Mr.

Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome personally, Ambassador Anderson, and now the Director of

USAID. I think our President could not have selected a more qualified and more sensitive person to take such great responsibility for

providing for the services that are needed by so many people

around the world.

I am not a mathematician, but I am just curious, out of a $1.7 trillion budget, how much is $7 billion out of that? Do we have any

mathematicians that can give us an idea?

Mr. ANDERSON. I have been told that our USAID portion is one

half of 1 percent of the Federal budget.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am curious because I think Japan, their foreign assistance program is well over $100 billion a year and they

seem to be getting all kinds of credit for being the true humanitarian to the world and we are getting all kinds of criticism, saying

that this country is not a humanitarian country with a $7 billion

budget.

But I am curious also, out of the International Monetary Fund,

how much are we contributing to that? That does provide assistance in the same similar fashion as what AID is doing. I am also

curious what percentage we provide in the World Bank and its activities and I think my good friend, Mr. Sherman, has stated earlier hardly anything is mentioned about the fact that we spend well

over $150 billion alone just to maintain the sea lanes and the

Asian Pacific security and nobody ever talks about in terms of our

contributions to peace.

I am just curious, Mr. Anderson, about the $7 billion allocation.

Is there a certain formula that you go through in saying what is

best for Africa this year, what is good for Asia, what is good for

Latin America? Do you do it by responding to the crises and the

needs at a given time or is there a certain allocation provisions

that the State Department goes through in providing for this

breakdown of the $7 billion that we give you?

Mr. ANDERSON. There is not one formula. We look at several factors. One is our foreign policy objectives. So part of this budget, a

large part of it is spent in the Middle East, for example. There are

obvious foreign policy considerations there.

Also, the need of the country is considered, and finally, what we

believe to be and judge to be our own ability to be effective in that

particular situation is considered. If a country were one which had

the need and it was also a foreign policy priority, but its government was so weak or corrupt or simply resistant to change, then

we would consider these matters in our determination.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of the serious concerns that I have, Mr.

Ambassador, it was something that Mr. Brady alluded earlier. We

29

currently have about 500,000 foreign students from all over the

world that attend American universities and colleges which I think

is says well of our Nation’s educational institutions. One of the

things that I sensed in my experience in visiting some of these

countries, not the industrialized countries, not the countries where

we have our Fulbrights and all this exchange thing, I am talking

about Third World countries that are really poor. The thing that

I am very concerned about is that in the sense that I get in visiting

some of these poor countries that they are not just hungry for education. They are starving for education and I am just curious, if

AID can seriously address opportunities not from countries that

have the means, I am talking about countries that really are dirt

poor and has AID given any consideration for the brightest students, not students of politicians and prime ministers of the political leadership, students who come from villages and the outward

country. But if they have the intelligence should they be given opportunities to get a good education here in this country, is AID seriously looking into these kinds of opportunities for these Third

World countries? Because I believe if we literally believed the idea

that not just giving a fish to a man each day, but we should him

how to fish. I hear this how many years and we go through this

ritual every year, Mr. Ambassador, never ending. We keep pumping in $7 billion here, $7 billion there, but in terms of results, in

terms of providing education for those who could be, could make

the difference by bringing them to this country. I am talking about

the industrialized. I am talking about Third World countries.

Is your office looking into providing opportunities for students

who could some day or could well be a big help to those countries

simply by education?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, we are. Oftentimes as we meet leaders and

foreign ministers and prime ministers and ministers of agriculture

in foreign countries, we learn that they were educated at Texas

A&M, Tulane, LSU and other universities in the United States. I

think we should continue that education, but it is expensive to

bring one person from a developing country here for 4 years and

then for them to go back. It is not an inexpensive thing. It is an

investment in the future. Also we really focus a lot of our efforts

on primary education, and to a lesser extent secondary education

in these developing countries. We believe that yes, the leadership

certainly does need to be educated, well educated, even in the U.S.,

but as important or even more important is the education of large

numbers of the young boys and girls in their countries. That is

where really the USAID’s focus is and that is what our distinction

is in the field of education.

Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman time has expired.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Mr.

Anderson.

Mr. ANDERSON. Nice to see you.

Mr. HOUGHTON. I just have one question. Do you know the program called ATLAS? What it is, it is a program which involves

funds which the African American Institute is using for the training and the education of Africans and I guess the worry that I

30

would have, having been associated with that Institute and having

a lot of respect for what they have done is I think it may be, the

effort may be to merge it in with other programs and therefore not

earmark it for African training and education and you may not

know about and if you do not, fine, I would be interested in your

answer, ultimately, if you want to send me a letter.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would prefer to send you a letter. I have heard

of ATLAS and when you mentioned education, it rings a bell, but

I do not know enough——

Mr. HOUGHTON. They do good work, but the most important

thing is that it directs educational funding for Africans and does

not just go into a general pool. If you could let me know, I would

appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Mr. ANDERSON. I will.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Houghton.

Mr. GILMAN. Again, I remind our Members in a few minutes we

will be taking up H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act.

With regard to our prior discussion, Mr. Gejdenson raised the

problem about the holds that we had on Haiti. The staff now informs me that the holds on assistance to Haiti, TN92 and TN100

for food security and for youth at risk were released by my staff

verbally several months ago. Apparently, that information has not

reached the Administrator and I asked USAID to make note of this

on our release request.

I am also releasing my hold on TN92. Hurricane Georges Recovery Program, a bridge project that had gone along much too slowly,

but I would ask the Administrator to report to our Committee how

many more of these infrastructure programs are slowly making

their way through AID’s procurement process? We found that there

was over a year’s delay with the bridge project in Haiti and that

is why we put a hold on it because they were not progressing.

With regard to TN395 on the rule of law, we are going to continue our hold. There is no sign that the Haitian government has

the will to cooperate with us on judicial reform. The Haitian Justice Minister’s statements disparaging our USAID Mission Director

in Haiti are certainly not acceptable. I understand that Senator

Leahy also has placed a hold on this notification for similar reasons

and I just wanted to clarify.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would just thank the Chairman for releasing

the three items and particularly the speed with which he has done

that.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. We will now proceed

with 3822.

Mr. Administrator, thank you very much for being with us and

that portion of the hearing is now—oh yes, Mr. Campbell?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick comment to

say I applaud your work. I have had the chance to see it up close

in Africa and I want to do all I can to encourage it. I will have the

chance, hopefully, to get to know you a little bit better, but as for

now I just did not want this opportunity to pass without saying

31

Godspeed and may you continue to help the poorest people on

earth.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you.

Mr. CAMPBELL. A specific policy priority of mine which might be

of interest to you is to get more assistance in clean water and child

inoculations. We spend in Africa for democracy building and whereas I am not saying negative things about that. I am saying that

measurable results I have got to say are more likely in the first two

categories, clean water and inoculating children than measuring

the number of opponents to Canu in Kenya for example, or developing multi-party democracy in Uganda might be ever able to be

measured.

So I do not need a response. You are welcome to give one. I yield

to you as much time as I have left to hear it, but I just wanted

to convey to you my thanks, my encouragement and the slight

point of view regarding priority.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I would like to say

just briefly some things I said earlier, I think before you came in,

about democracy. The results are certainly more easily measured

in the number of immunizations, for example, versus how multiparty democracy is progressing in Uganda. But I think in the long

term, and it is a long term investment, building democracy is important.

Also, concerning the clean water, I think the citizens really are,

in a functioning democracy as we know it, the ones that will demand of their government cleaner water, whereas now it is difficult

for them to do that. But I agree, and we are working on the clean

water and the other areas as well.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. It is a very thoughtful response and

maybe I have a slightly different priority. Now you know it, but

you run the Agency, I do not and I applaud your response.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Director.

That portion of our meeting is completed. Thank you for being

with us.

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

(33)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 15, 2000

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64