U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87–710PDF 2014

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY 2015 MENA BUDGET

REQUEST: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES AND

CHALLENGES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 29, 2014

Serial No. 113–138

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Anne W. Patterson, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................................ 8

Ms. Alina L. Romanowski, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for the 

Middle East, U.S. Agency for International Development ............................... 21

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Anne W. Patterson: Prepared statement ..................................... 11

Ms. Alina L. Romanowski: Prepared statement .................................................... 23

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 54

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 55

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 57

(1)

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY 2015 MENA 

BUDGET REQUEST: PRIORITIES, OBJECTIVES 

AND CHALLENGES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana RosLehtinen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr. 

Deutch, our ranking member, will be here with us shortly. So Brad, 

it is up to you to do the opening statement. Okay. 

So after recognizing myself and Brad for 5 minutes each for our 

opening statements, I will then recognize members of our subcommittee who seek recognition for their statements. 

We will then hear from our witnesses. Thank you, ladies, and 

without objection your prepared statements will be made a part of 

the record. I did not get the memo on the blue. I would have gone 

with you. But members may have 5 days to insert statements and 

questions for the record subject to the length limitations in the 

rules. 

The chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes. The Middle East 

and North Africa remain a region fraught with difficulties and dangers that threaten United States national security interests and 

must not be overlooked. 

In previous years, the administration has requested but never received authorization or appropriations the authority to establish 

yet another flexible spending account in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs called the Middle East and North Africa Incentive 

Fund. 

This account, in essence, was more like a slush fund for the administration to allocate and distribute hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance without having to justify to or get authority from 

Congress. 

And though the name has changed, the idea has resurfaced again 

in this year’s budget request under the name of Middle East and 

North Africa Initiative. I continue to object to the authorization of 

this initiative and question whether the shift to regional accounts 

is the best approach. 

2

Many traditional bilateral accounts have decreased and it may 

signal to our allies that the United States is not committed to the 

Middle East and North Africa region. In addition, with so many regional accounts already in place there is a great risk of duplicity 

and overlapping of U.S. taxpayer dollars. 

The United States has already spent over $1.7 billion on the Syrian humanitarian crisis to help those Syrians who are in dire need 

of this assistance and those host governments that have taken in 

a combined total of nearly 3 million Syrian refugees despite the incredible strain that it has placed on their own governments. 

However, we cannot continue to throw money at the problem if 

the administration lacks a clear and decisive plan in dealing with 

the Syrian conflict. 

We continue to treat the symptoms of the problem but not the 

disease. Perhaps nowhere is this failed leadership and misguided 

policy in the region more salient than the current state of the peace 

process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. 

As the deadline came and went today, the process has failed and 

the result has been an announced agreement between Fatah and 

Hamas. This unity reconciliation deal has major implications for 

the Fiscal Year 2015 budget request as the administration is seeking over $440 million in direct bilateral assistance for the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank and Gaza. 

However, if Hamas is part of this Palestinian unity government, 

the U.S. law that I drafted and became a law would prohibit this 

assistance and we must abide by the law. In 2006, I authored the 

Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which later became the law that 

put this prohibition in place. 

The law is clear. The U.S. cannot send funds to a Palestinian 

Government that includes members of the terrorist group Hamas. 

Unlike the United States, which continues to negotiate with the 

world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, Israel will not and 

should not be pressured into dealing with a Palestinian Government that seeks closer ties with Hamas. 

That is why I was deeply dismayed to read Secretary Kerry’s 

comments this weekend suggesting Israel will become an apartheid 

state if it abandons the negotiations. These remarks are offensive 

and are beneath the office of the highest ranking U.S. Government 

diplomat. 

But the reconciliation movement is not the only real consequence 

of the administration’s failed policies of peace in the Middle East. 

This past weekend, reports indicated that the Palestinians plan on 

moving forward with their scheme at the United Nations to be 

granted de facto recognition by becoming members of other agencies, not just UNESCO. 

The administration continues to seek waiver authority to fund 

UNESCO including arrears payments that would leave the U.S. 

taxpayers on the hook for nearly $1 billion after it admitted the 

nonexistent state of Palestine. 

Now this latest move by the PA could force the administration 

into defunding any U.N. agency that admits Palestine and I will 

continue to do everything within my power to ensure that no such 

waiver is granted and that the law will be fully enforced. 

3

Another matter in which the administration’s policies have been 

indecisive and where our dithering has served only to complicate 

the situation is the political transition in Egypt. 

While I recognize the security needs of Egypt that are essential 

for stability in the region, I remain concerned over the steps that 

still need to be taken for a democratic transition and respect for 

human rights and feel that perhaps more should be done to help 

establish and fund democratic institutions rather than the military. 

The upcoming Presidential elections will be a litmus test for 

Egypt’s transition and will give us an opportunity to reassess our 

aid package. I am also increasingly concerned about the endless capitulations and concessions to the Iranian regime and the havoc 

that the Syrian conflict is causing in Lebanon as that country 

draws closer to an all-out sectarian war. 

And while countries like Yemen, Tunisia and Libya and others 

in the region continue to struggle with deteriorating security, economic and political environments, it is clear that the U.S. must reevaluate our foreign policy and that there are far too many countries of strategic importance to the United States’ national security 

in the region for the administration to continue to pivot to Asia. 

We must address these issues by first dealing with them directly 

and effectively, and I am so glad that now we can turn to the ranking member of our subcommittee, Mr. Deutch, from Florida. Thank 

you, Ted. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madame Chairman, for convening today’s hearing. It is a pleasure to welcome back Assistant Administrator Romanowski and to extend a warm welcome to Assistant 

Secretary Patterson. 

Thank you for being here. This is your first appearance before 

the subcommittee. It is nice to have you. I want to take a moment 

to commend the work both State and USAID are doing in a very 

challenging region. Both State and USAID have been actively engaged in responding to what is, to say the least, a very fluid situation in the Middle East, clearly, the most immediate being the response to the Syrian crisis. The situation is dire. Nine point three 

million people in need of assistance, potentially 3.5 million in besieged areas. 

The $1.1 billion budgeted for Syria humanitarian response funds 

will help to deliver needed humanitarian goods to those displaced 

inside Syria and refugees in neighboring countries. In addition, we 

have increased our aid to countries dealing with the influx of refugees. 

Lebanon, with over 1 million officially registered refugees, received an increase in aid for training the Lebanese Armed Forces 

to assist with border control and ensure that the LAF and Lebanese security forces can have sole control over Lebanon security. 

In Jordan, we are supporting efforts to keep critical water supplies flowing and increase the quality and capacity of educational 

institutions as well as continuing to train and supply needed military equipment to ensure that Jordan can secure its borders. 

I am pleased to see the full funding of security assistance to the 

democratic state of Israel, our greatest ally in the region. A safe 

and secure Israel is vital to ensuring U.S. interests in the region 

and while I believe the continued economic assistance to the PalesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Jun 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_MENA\042914\87710 SHIRL
4

tinian Authority to build viable state institutions is critical to supporting peace efforts, we must ensure that the letter of the law is 

being upheld. 

Let me be clear. No Palestinian Government that includes terrorist members of Hamas can or will receive U.S. funding. I hope 

that each of you will provide insight into our aid strategy going forward in Egypt. 

Secretary Kerry’s recent certification resumed some large-scale 

military aid is a result of Egypt’s continued commitment to securing the Sinai, preventing the smuggling of weapons to Hamas and 

upholding peace with Israel. 

But it is clear that there are real and serious concerns that must 

be addressed with respect to basic human rights and democratic 

values. I am afraid that the status quo is unsustainable. 

This budget continues to support strong ties with our Gulf partners as we seek to confront mutual challenges like the preventing 

of a nuclear-armed Iran and stopping the spread of both Sunni and 

Shi’ite extremism. 

For long-term success, I believe we have got to focus our resources in areas where we can have a sustainable impact. I am 

pleased to see an increased focus on building civil society, increasing engagement, building institutions and strengthening the rule of 

law in North Africa. 

In Morocco, USAID is implementing a new country development 

cooperation strategy aimed at increasing civic participation, decreasing youth unemployment and increasing access to quality 

basic education. 

As Tunisia moves forward in its quest for democracy, strong U.S. 

support for both civil society and economic programs will be vital 

to its success. 

The situation in Libya requires increased attention. I am pleased 

that this budget reflects our commitment to restoring security in 

Libya. Instability has not only led to increased violence, but poor 

border control has increased the flow of weapons and arms into the 

Sahel. 

And since the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq, we have 

sought to find a balance between our security interests in stabilizing the country and our broader regional interests. 

Our reduced presence has resulted in nearly 50 percent decrease 

over the Fiscal Year 2013 funding request. Unfortunately, spillover 

from the Syrian crisis has exacerbated the security situation in 

Iraq as we are now seeing the resurgence and emboldening of extremist elements in western Iraq. 

At times we find ourselves at odds with the Maliki government 

over Iraq’s role in the Syrian crisis, particularly as has been discussed many times in this committee the reluctance of Iraq to 

ground and inspect Iranian flights to Syria. 

Nonetheless, our continued support for Iraq’s stabilization advances our security, economic and political interests in the region. 

We all know the United States can’t solve the problems of the Middle East. 

But in addition to addressing the most pressing security challenges, we can put in place strategies and policies that attempt to 

5

shape the outcome in a way that reflects universal democratic values that are of the utmost importance to this country. 

I appreciate the flexibility of the Middle East North Africa Initiatives Transitions and Reforms Fund to respond to changing events 

on the ground. 

But I hope to hear from both of you today how the United States 

intends to maintain a cohesive policy that not only responds to the 

situation on the ground but continues to address what are the underlying causes of instability and could be for future generations. 

And again, I want to thank you both for being here today and 

thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. Thank you very 

much, and I know Mr. Meadows came here first but I think it will 

be easier for me just to go down the line, if that is okay, Mark. Mr. 

Chabot is recognized, the subcommittee chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will be very brief. 

As always, we face daunting challenges in the region and I think 

we all look forward to hearing from the administration here today 

and we welcome them. 

Yesterday evening, Madam Ambassador, we both had the opportunity to speak at a Lebanese-American event commemorating, and 

I think the chair—yes, the Seder Revolution last night and I think 

prior to that I think our paths had last crossed in Cairo when you 

served so well as our Ambassador there. 

So we very much welcome you here and welcome you here, Ms. 

Romanowski, as well and so rather than drone on I will yield back 

so we can get to the witnesses as soon as possible. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot, and so pleased now 

to recognize Mr. Schneider. He was going to pinch hit for you, Mr. 

Deutch, for the opening statement. He would have done an equally 

good job. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I don’t want to interrupt you. Keep going. Thank 

you very much. Thank you for being here. 

As has already been said, there is so much happening in so many 

places around the Middle East and each of these countries having 

great strategic importance and in many cases being a strategic 

threat to the United States. 

How we stay engaged, how we stay involved, where we put our 

limited resources is crucial here. So I welcome you here. I am 

grateful for your willingness to come and speak with us and I look 

forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and, again, 

thank you both for your service to your country and for being here. 

I am interested and one of the things I will be looking forward 

to hearing is how the pivot away from the Middle East toward Asia 

has gone and whether or not we are considering a repivot back to 

the Middle East as we have seen pretty much a campaign promise 

of getting out of Iraq fall into our face as we see Fallujah now 

owned by ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked elements. 

And I’m also very interested in the Syrian policy. I am a big believer that we should have enforced the red line in Syria and that 

that is a conflict that is only going to continue to get worse and 

there will be no end state in which it stops getting worse. 

6

So, again, thank you both for being here and, Madam Chair, I 

will just yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much and we were consoling 

Mr. Chabot here as we were talking bad about pivoting to Asia, 

since he is the subcommittee chair. Ms. Meng is recognized. 

Mr. CHABOT. They appoint me chair of the committee. Then they 

pivot towards——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And then they pivot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, please. 

MS. MENG. I would like to thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and 

Ranking Member Deutch for calling this important hearing today. 

There is certainly a great deal to discuss and I think we have 

a particularly distinguished panel so we are excited for that. Thank 

you both for being here. 

One thing that occurred to me while reading about the Afghan 

elections last week was the degree to which this administration has 

unburdened the American people of Iraq and Afghanistan. And you 

know, I don’t think the President always gets enough credit for 

that. 

With everything going on here at home and with the humanitarian and political crises going on in the Levant the President has 

done a great job of enabling us to focus on the most important 

things. 

Obviously, the troop draw downs are huge parts of this but there 

are many other points at which the administration has shown discipline and political acumen in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And these less publicized things have helped relieve the American people of the burdens of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 

that have so consumed us in the last decade. 

That is not to say we are not still terribly burdened by the effects 

of the wars on our veterans and troops who continue to suffer casualties in Afghanistan. But we are largely unburdening ourselves 

of the emotional and financial costs of the current situations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Turning westward, I look forward to a discussion today of where 

we are going in Syria, under what conditions we will continue to 

support the Palestinians and what we should expect of the Egyptians as they undergo yet another transition of power. 

We have spent significant sums in each of these areas so I look 

forward to today’s discussion. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, ma’am. Mr. Weber is 

recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Madam Chair, I have no comments and I am ready 

to go. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. All right. Let her roll. 

Mr. Meadows is recognized. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you both for being here. Ambassador Patterson, thank you for your service. Truly, the Egyptian people know 

that you love and care for them and I just want to say thank you 

for doing that. 

It is critical as we start to look at this in this tough time to be 

precise with our dollars, and as I look at the budget request if this 

were a 5-year request then more ambiguity and allowing greater 

7

flexibility would be something that I think most of us could get behind just because of the fluid nature of that. 

But because it is a short-term authorization, you know, what we 

really need to hear from both of you is specifically how we are 

going to help in those areas—Egypt being one, Jordan another. As 

we start to look at investment in those areas that are perhaps salvageable more so than those that are more difficult, what I would 

like to see is how do we emphasize and leverage our dollars most 

effectively in those areas that we can create stability in the Middle 

East and go forward. 

Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you sir. 

Dr. Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies, I appreciate you 

color coordinating today. Madam Chair, I agree also with your assessment about your objection to a blanket approval of approving 

this aid without substantial reforms to our foreign aid policies. 

So we do not continue to treat a symptom and not a causative 

agent or the underlying cause of the problems that we have seen 

over and over again for it would be analogous to giving an aspirin 

to treat a brain tumor is just not going to work. 

We have got to get at the underlying problem, and I look forward 

to hearing your statements and suggestions on how to effectively 

utilize our support in these times of an economic downturn. 

I mean, we don’t need to go—you all know where we are at, and 

more desirably I would like to see suggestions on a paradigm shift 

instead of doing the same thing we have done over and over again 

for so many years—a paradigm shift of how to better administer 

the aid that the United States of America gives to the countries in 

the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. 

And I would like to focus on trade, not aid, and I look forward 

to hearing you and I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Yoho. And now I 

would like to recognize Mr. Connolly for his opening statement. I 

don’t know if the ladies are aware that he is a former staffer in 

the Senate Committee of International Relations. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am—I thank the chair for pointing that out. We 

former staffers like to believe it makes for a better Congress, you 

know. 

Madam Chairman, I have an opening statement I would like to 

have entered into the record. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our 

witnesses today. Thank you for calling the hearing. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much and thank you to all 

of our members and thank you. I am so pleased to recognize our 

two excellent panelists today. 

First, we welcome Ambassador Anne Patterson, who is assistant 

secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. Ambassador Patterson 

has been the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Colombia, Pakistan 

and, most recently, as we know, Egypt. 

She has also served as assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, deputy permanent 

8

representative to the United Nations and deputy inspector general 

at the State Department. Welcome, Madam Ambassador. 

We also have with us Ms. Alina Romanowski, who is the acting 

assistant administrator for the Middle East Bureau at USAID, the 

U.S. Agency for International Development. Prior to this position, 

she served as deputy assistant administrator in the Middle East 

Bureau focusing on U.S. assistance programs in support of political 

transitions in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. 

Welcome, ladies, and we will begin with Ambassador Patterson. 

Thank you so much, and as I stated, your entire statement will be 

made a part of the record. Please feel free to summarize. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANNE W. PATTERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. PATTERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Deutch——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Pull the microphone a little bit closer to you. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Members of the committee, again, thank you for 

inviting us to discuss our Fiscal Year 2105 budget request. We are 

requesting $7.6 billion for diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance to better position us to provide support for political and 

economic reforms as well as to promote security and stability in the 

region. 

This will be hard work and will require all of the tools at our disposal. We need dedicated diplomats in the field who can operate 

from secure facilities yet also get out and meet with citizens and 

officials across the region. 

My staff and I pay close attention to threats to our people but 

we also work in some high-threat environments. 

Our targeted assistance programs will support humanitarian and 

security needs, promote economic reforms and strengthen governance and democratic values. We will focus on helping regional partners counter violent extremism, strengthen their economies, improve education and provide jobs, especially while expanding business and trade with the United States. 

The department seeks $1.5 billion to respond to Syria-related 

and regional contingency needs and to support region wide economic and political reform initiatives. The request includes $1.1 

billion in humanitarian assistance accounts for Syria-related humanitarian needs. 

More than 11 million people, half the country’s population, are 

displaced or in need of humanitarian assistance and these numbers 

continue to grow. 

We are seeking $155 million in support for the moderate opposition and particularly the local councils in Syria that are providing 

services as a bulwark against violent extremists. 

We continue to adjust bilateral programs in order to meet changing needs, particularly for Syria, Yemen, Libya and Tunisia. We 

need to be able to respond rapidly to critical priorities and take advantage of opportunities. 

Our request includes $225 million to support reforms promoting 

broad-based economic growth, stability and democratic change. Beyond our Syria-related and regional contingencies request, the 

9

Yemen and Iraq bilateral request are our most important changes 

from previous years. 

Our request anticipates the continuing transition of contingency 

operations in Iraq to a more traditional diplomatic presence. However, Iraq is fighting off a ferocious effort by violent extremists who 

seek to disrupt its national elections and exploit the Syrian civil 

war to expand their influence across the region. 

The United States is providing targeted security and development assistance to assist Iraq in its fight and to further U.S. strategic interests in Iraq. The $309 million request for Iraq is a significant decrease but it focuses on U.S. priorities such as programs 

for counterterrorism, vulnerable populations, governance and commercial development, especially in the energy sector. 

Yemen’s political transition is progressing. It reached an important milestone recently through the broadly inclusive national dialogue and is working to implement the outcomes. With active U.S. 

engagement, Yemen has made some gains extending security in the 

country both through military operations and through reorganization of its security ministries. 

We are proposing an enhanced Yemen bilateral budget of $106 

million to help continue the fight against violent extremists and 

humanitarian assistance for vulnerable Yemenis, consolidate the 

transition’s democratic gains and address critical economic challenges. 

I have just returned from Tunisia, which is making considerable 

strides. Some of you may have met Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa 

during his recent visit to Washington. Despite its gains, underlying 

economic and security challenges pose substantial threats to 

Tunisia’s stability. 

Our bilateral request of $66 million provides resources that will 

enable us to support Tunisia’s democratic transition, bolster security and promote economic growth. We have requested $1.5 billion 

in military and economic assistance to Egypt to sustain our longstanding partnership in pursuit of mutual goals. 

As circumstances in Egypt have changed, we have reevaluated 

how assistance best supports our objectives, including a desire to 

work directly with the Egyptian people. For example, we are supporting a higher education initiative to help students, especially 

women and girls, earn degrees in the fields that provide the 21st 

century skills urgently needed to rekindle Egypt’s economy. 

Continuing instability in Libya is undermining the government’s 

ability to function effectively or to get the country’s oil production 

back online. To support Libya’s fragile transition, we are bolstering 

our assistance efforts to strengthen internal security, advance the 

transition, develop governance capacity to provide services and create opportunities for economic growth. 

The United States has a long-term and enduring commitment to 

support Israel’s security and to seek a comprehensive and lasting 

Middle East peace between Israel and its neighbors. 

We remain deeply engaged with Israel and the Palestinians, who 

now are facing some very difficult decisions. They need to step back 

and reflect on how to proceed. 

10

But there is no change in our commitment to remain engaged. 

Our $3.1 billion bilateral request will help Israel to maintain its 

qualitative military edge, a cornerstone of our policy. 

Our foreign assistance of $441 million for the West Bank and 

Gaza will support the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to deliver 

services and improve security conditions while reinforcing Palestinian respect for the rule of law and fostering the conditions for 

a strong private sector economy. 

We have increased our bilateral assistance to Lebanon to meet 

challenges posed by the spillover effects of the Syrian civil war. 

The $155 million Lebanon request will be used to build the capacity of the Lebanese Armed Forces and the internal security 

forces, improve public services, expand growth and build the capacity of local government and civil society. 

Along with our loan guarantee programs, the $671 million Jordan bilateral request supports the government’s political and economic reform efforts while helping address challenges from regional unrest and the large numbers of refugees from Syria. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Deutch, the United States 

continues to face paramount national security challenges in the 

Middle East and North Africa. The resources you provide will play 

a critical role in assuring success and a better future both for the 

people of the region and the interests of the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Patterson follows:]

11


87710a-1.eps
12


87710a-2.eps
13


87710a-3.eps
14


87710a-4.eps
15


87710a-5.eps
16


87710a-6.eps
17


87710a-7.eps
18


87710a-8.eps
19


87710a-9.eps
20


87710a-10.eps
21

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. 

Ms. Romanowski. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ALINA L. ROMANOWSKI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR THE MIDDLE EAST, U.S. 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Deutch and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very 

much for the opportunity to discuss the Fiscal Year 2015 budget request for USAID for the Middle East and North Africa. 

The U.S. will remain engaged with the governments and the people of the region to support their transitions and their economic 

and political reforms. The President’s request of $7 billion for the 

Middle East supports our continued engagement. 

One point three billion dollars of that request will enable USAID 

to implement targeted programs in the region. The 2015 request includes $1.5 billion for the proposed MENA initiative, which will 

give us the tools and flexibility to respond to Syria-related and regional contingency needs and support the political and economic reforms. 

As part of this initiative, USAID will launch two initiatives to 

tackle some of the region’s most pressing development challenges. 

USAID’s new MENA investment initiative will aim to create jobs 

in the region, spur private investment by targeting promising startup businesses that struggle to access financing. It will leverage 

U.S. funding to catalyze resources from others. 

The second initiative, the MENA water security initiative, will 

engage the public and private sector to help entrepreneurs and researchers develop water smart technologies which, combined with 

economic opportunities, will improve long-term sustainable access 

to water for 20 million people across the region. 

To grow the private sectors in Tunisia and Egypt, we have established enterprise funds which we will continue to fund in 2015. We 

are also working to create business-enabling environments that reduce barriers to starting businesses and trade. 

In Egypt and the West Bank, for example, we are investing in 

one-stop shops. In Egypt, these shops have reduced the time it 

takes to register a business from over a week to about an hour, and 

in the West Bank I witnessed Palestinians using similar shops to 

receive services from their local government quickly, transparently 

and hassle free. 

We are also focusing on economic empowerment of small and medium entrepreneurs. In Libya, we have trained 177 entrepreneurial 

women on fundamental business skills. This is the first program of 

its kind to focus on Libyan women. 

In Jordan, USAID has prepared hundreds of thousands of students for the job market through a nationwide entrepreneurship 

program, vocational training in the tourism and hospitality sectors 

and internships and job fairs for recent graduates. Turning to 

democratic governance, USAID is committed to helping build 

participatory democracies. 

In Egypt, we have helped thousands of women in rural 

governorates exercise their political and economic rights including 

helping 48,000 women get government IDs. In Yemen, USAID 

22

helped youth and women take an active role in the national dialogue conference and in Tunisia we worked with civil society and 

the government on a consultation process that led to adopting some 

of the most progressive NGO laws in the region. 

I would also like to highlight two of our key bilateral programs—

West Bank Gaza and Egypt. The U.S. Government pursues comprehensive Middle East peace by supporting Palestinian institution-building so that a future Palestinian state will possess the capacity to govern, provide services and ensure security and stability 

within its borders and with its neighbors. 

Our 2015 request will continue to build the capacity of institutions necessary for a future Palestinian state. In Egypt, we have 

reoriented our assistance to more directly support the Egyptian 

people. 

Our assistance will focus on growing jobs in high unemployment 

sectors, building job skills of young Egyptians through a higher 

education initiative and helping Egyptians advocate for improved 

rights in governance. Finally, I would like to turn to Syria, which 

is a regional challenge of daunting proportions. 

AID will continue to provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance 

inside Syria and to Syrian refugees in five neighboring countries. 

In Lebanon, where Syrians now make up close to 25 percent of the 

total population, our assistance focusses on water, education and 

small-scale agriculture. For example, USAID has rehabilitated 183 

public schools throughout the country. 

We will continue to support the Government of Jordan, a key 

partner in the region, by providing critical support to host countries—excuse me, host communities to alleviate increased demand 

for services such as primary education and access to water. 

In addition to our annual assistance, we are preparing a second 

loan guarantee in 2014. And, in conclusion, the President’s 2015 

budget request ensures USAID programs will continue to support 

the needs and aspirations of the region’s people during this critical 

period of change. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and I am 

happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Romanowski follows:]

23


87710b-1.eps
24


87710b-2.eps
25


87710b-3.eps
26


87710b-4.eps
27


87710b-5.eps
28


87710b-6.eps
29


87710b-7.eps
30

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Ms. Romanowski. 

Ambassador Patterson, on Syria in your testimony to the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee last month, after describing our efforts to resupply the Supreme Military Command, SMC, when its 

warehouse was taken over by extremists, you stated that when the 

SMC regained control we began sending supplies again, this time 

directly to trusted commanders. 

But this is a bit disconcerting. What changes have been made to 

U.S. assistance programs since the extremist takeover to the warehouse to ensure proper oversight and implementation of these programs to Syria? 

And moving to Egypt, one of my major concerns in this political 

transition that is taking place is the government’s respect for the 

rule of law. Right now, we are seeing those mass trials and other 

negative trends that point to a country that may be slipping on the 

path toward democracy. 

Next month, as we know, Egypt will hold these Presidential elections. This could very well determine who will lead the country into 

democracy or whether the country will fall back into its old failed 

patterns. 

The new government can demonstrate its true respect for the 

rule of law by pardoning the conviction of the 43 NGO workers 

wrongly sentenced last year. Do you think that the Egyptian President will be able and willing to do so? In our meeting yesterday 

afternoon it seemed to indicate that they are not going to do that. 

They are asking for the NGOs to come back. 

What are we doing to ensure that the pardon is issued for all 43 

quickly and ensure that the NGO law is passed to help bolster civil 

society in Egypt? 

And lastly, PA funding. I have concerns over the PA funding request especially in light of recent developments. We know that the 

PA continues to pay the salaries to the tune of hundreds of millions 

of dollars to Palestinians who have been in Israeli prisons for committing or assisting in acts of terror. 

We also know that money is fungible so the PA could very well 

be using our U.S. taxpayer dollars to support these convicted terrorists and their families. What is State and USAID doing to ensure that our funds are not being used to fund these terrorist payouts and to get more oversight and transparency over how the PA 

uses our funds? 

Why do we continue to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to 

this corrupt PA without leveraging or conditioning our aid upon 

implementation of drastically needed reforms? 

So to summarize: Syria, what changes have been made to U.S. 

assistance programs, Egypt, the immediate pardon of the 43 NGOs 

and PA funds going to pay terrorists and the need to get transparency to avoid corruption under the PA structure? Thank you, 

Madam Ambassador, Ms. Romanowski. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Thank you. Let me take those in order, Madam 

Chairman. 

On Syria, we have resumed assistance across the border into 

Syria to the opposition. No system is foolproof, Madam Chairman, 

but we have a very experienced team in Turkey and now in Jordan 

that monitor these. I have met personally with many of the comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Jun 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_MENA\042914\87710 SHIRL
31

manders and talk to them regularly and have a whole range of contacts in the region. 

So we are reasonably confident that this material—more than 

reasonably confident, quite confident, that this is going into the 

proper hands. Again, it is an area of very considerable turmoil so 

no system is perfect. But we are reasonably confident we can monitor this and audit this and that we know to whom we are giving 

the supplies. 

Let me also mention that we have a program of building up local 

councils and we pay police and teachers in some of these areas in 

anticipation that there is a structure that can deliver public services to the Syrian people when a political settlement is reached. 

Madam Chairman, in Egypt, let me say that we too are extremely concerned about recent developments—the death sentences 

against activists, many of whom are not even involved or not even 

brought to trial. 

The NGO issue has been a longstanding one between our governments and Egypt and I think the Embassy when I was there had 

something like 43 meetings with the government on the NGO 

law—the various governments. 

Of course, we have had three of them in the past 2 years. It has 

been an exceedingly high priority for us. I can assure you that Secretary Hagel has raised it. Secretary Kerry has raised it on many 

opportunities. 

He is meeting today with the foreign minister, Nabil Fahmi. We 

have pushed repeatedly for a pardon for the NGO workers and for 

others and it will continue to be a priority going forward. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And if I could interrupt you. In our meeting 

yesterday with the minister he did not indicate that there would 

be any movement on that issue. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Madam Chairman, I too have discussed this 

with the foreign minister and with General el-Sisi before he was 

a Presidential candidate. I want to tell you I think it will be a hard 

sell. 

I think there is little appetite for NGOs, which they accuse of foreign interference, and but all I can say is we will continue to press 

the point. We also—the good news, however, is there are a number 

of NGOs in Egypt that do want to work with us and that we have 

been able to work with throughout this period. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. On the PA issue? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes. Madam Chairman, let me say that we 

made a request of $440 million for the Palestinian Authority and 

I think—but I want to ask Alina to answer this question—I think 

there is a extraordinarily complex auditing process. 

I think I saw something like 16 steps to audit where this money 

goes and to ensure that it goes into the proper hands. I believe the 

GAO just did a study and found out that while there were some 

paperwork snafus they were confident that the money was going 

into the right hands and not, as you say, into hands of terrorists 

or otherwise. We support——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And with what the law is saying, if there is 

a unity government and they have signed such a deal not implemented yet but signed. 

32

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes. Madam Chairman, let me assure you of the 

administration’s position on that. This is the—because this is the 

seventh unity discussion and announcement and chit chat since 

2011 and we have got to see what evolves here. 

I saw this frequently in Egypt, that they would issue statements 

and nothing would come of it. But let me be utterly clear about our 

policy toward Hamas. No U.S. Government money will go into any 

government that includes Hamas until Hamas accepts the quartet 

conditions and that is renouncing violence, recognizing previous 

agreements and, most explicitly, recognizing Israel’s right to exist. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, and my time is up and so I am 

sorry, Ms. Romanowski, but maybe the others will ask those questions and give you an opportunity to respond. Thank you very 

much, Madam Ambassador. So pleased to yield to my friend, Mr. 

Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ambassador Patterson, I will just continue with where the chairman left off. I understand that there have been discussions of unity government in the 

past. 

But I just wanted to touch on a few things that you said. You 

just said that the principles renouncing violence, recognizing that 

Israel agree to past agreements are requirements. 

But you said we have got to see what evolves. You said that 

Israel and the Palestinians need to step back and consider how to 

proceed. You said in your written testimony that what we haven’t 

seen, frankly, is the kind of political will to actually make tough 

decisions, and that has been true on both sides. 

I understand that there has been talk of unity governments in 

the past. But why should any discussion of a unity government 

with a terrorist group be treated with any less alarm and concern 

and outrage, frankly, just because these talks have taken place in 

the past and the governments have never formed? 

I mean, to suggest that both sides simply need to take a step 

back and see if they are serious about peace without expressing 

what I think would be necessary outrage at the decision by President Abbas to turn to a terrorist group to form a government to 

me shows what I think should be a real concern about the commitment to peace. 

And it is just—it is frustrating, frankly, that because there has 

been—there have been conversations like this in the past that 

haven’t gone anywhere that somehow in some quarters it seems 

that we don’t take it as seriously as I would suggest we need to 

when one of the partners that we need for peace has announced 

that they are willing to throw in with a terrorist group that we and 

our allies recognize as a terrorist group. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Deutch, I certainly appreciate that point. 

Let me say that relations between President Abbas and the leadership of Hamas are—well, they hate each other. 

They are not positive at the slightest and there is some thought 

that one way to get rid of Hamas is to hold an election because that 

is how they entered the political process and that is how Abu 

Mazen—President Abbas should get rid of them. But they are a 

terrorist group. They are a terrorist group under U.S. law. 

33

But I wouldn’t want to throw out the entire Palestinian Authority over a discussion with Hamas that historically has not gone 

anywhere. 

The Palestinian Authority needs our support and some elements 

of this, particularly the security forces, have been an enormous success over the past several years—the ability to protect 2.5 million 

Palestinians, to have a professional security force. So I take your 

point and I agree with you. But I don’t think we should essentially 

throw out the baby with the bath water. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I have—Ambassador Patterson, as you know, as I 

stated earlier and as I stated many times, I have been fully supportive of those efforts. I think they have been vitally important to 

enhancing security in the West Bank, security in Israel and 

throughout the region. 

But to suggest that we are somehow throwing out the baby with 

the bath water because—let me put it this way. I don’t think it 

should be up to us to remind President Abbas that they need our 

support when it has been clear—it has been the position of the 

United States Congress that any decision that they make to align 

themselves with a terrorist group will mean the end of the funding. 

It is not—I don’t think it is up for us—it is necessary for us to 

remind them. That is something that should be very clear to them. 

But I appreciate the point. 

I just wanted to quickly turn, if I may, to Iran, Ambassador Patterson, and the administration had pledged to strictly enforce existing sanctions. The President had said he would come down on 

sanctions violators like a ton of bricks and to his credit and to the 

administration’s great credit sanctions have been imposed numerous times throughout the interim agreement. 

Under the joint plan of action the U.S. committed not to seek further reductions in Iranian oil exports below the million-barrel-perday mark and the IAEA reports that Iran’s exports reached 1.65 

million barrels per day in February and that their exports exceeded 

the million-barrel mark in every month during the agreement thus 

far. 

I just—I would like to know if the numbers are accurate, if you 

could make available the department’s country by country estimates on Iranian oil imports and then ultimately where does that 

lead, and if it is true that they are in excess of a million barrels 

per day and countries are violating will sanctions then follow. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Deutch, let me assure you that sanctions 

will continue to be imposed vigorously on violators. I think our policy on that has been quite clear. On the oil shipments per se, some 

of those statistics are seasonally adjusted. In other words, there are 

seasonal fluctuations and some of them include condensate so they 

are not entirely——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. They include—what was that? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Condensate. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Okay. If you can move it up a little bit closer. 

Ms. PATTERSON. They are not entirely—they are not entirely 

crude oil. But let me say——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Can you move the microphone just a little bit 

closer? 

34

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes. Let me say that we think over time, over 

the next few months, that there won’t be a net change. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chabot is recognized. 

Mr. CHABOT. My colleagues have already emphasized our concern 

about the involvement of Hamas and a unity agreement and all 

that so I don’t want to beat a dead horse but I guess I will. 

I think we all feel very strongly about this on both sides of the 

aisle so I would just like to reiterate everything that they said relative to that matter and I agree with them completely. 

And we have great concern and great frustration and we think 

there ought to be no circumstances under which any tax dollars 

should in any way go to support a terrorist organisation like 

Hamas. You have been very clear in your early statement that that 

will be the case. 

But these discussions have gone on and apparently haven’t gone 

anywhere in the past and I certainly understand your point about 

that. But we feel very strongly about this. Just let me leave it 

there. You can respond or not. 

Ms. PATTERSON. No. Just let me restate our assurances. No more 

money will go to Hamas unless essentially it stops being Hamas. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Let me shift over to Lebanon 

for just a minute here. 

As we know, Presidential elections will be happening in a few 

weeks and parliamentary elections, I believe, in the fall, and 

Hezbollah, of course, I think we can count on them to intimidate 

and coerce and to some degree disrupt and try to enforce their will 

on the people of Lebanon. 

And one of the conditions that we would like to see in the next 

government—there are a number of them but I think one of the 

most important is the disbanding of the militias, particularly 

Hezbollah, and could you touch on the administration’s view on 

that and what, if anything, we are doing on that and what we expect from the next government and how realistic it is that they actually follow through and disband the militias, especially 

Hezbollah? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, our policy, Mr. Chabot, toward Hezbollah 

has been well known over many years and the subject of very extensive sanctions and I know there is a bill from this committee 

that will intensify those sanctions, too. 

But let me say that, again, I want to be realistic with the committee. I think the possibility of eliminating Hezbollah from essentially Lebanese political life in the short run is remote. But let me 

say that we urge them to exclude Hezbollah. We do not deal with 

the two ministers from Hezbollah. 

We are very specific about that. We have no relation about that 

and we have certainly encouraged the Lebanese Government to 

move forward with elections on time and a free parliamentary system. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Let me just ask one final question here. 

I am concerned about what ill effects there might be from this 

Hamas Fatah even talking of a possibility of an agreement—the 

35

role that that might play on the U.S. security coordinator for Israel 

and the Palestinian Authority. 

I had the opportunity to visit their training facility during General Moeller’s tenure and was impressed with the work being done 

there and the professionalism of our team. Can you give us an update on how it is going and can you speculate as to what would 

happen if there—if this unity agreement might go forward? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, this program has been very successful. 

They have trained over 4,500 regular policemen and 2,000 of the 

presidential guard, and the $70 million that we requested in this 

budget is for essentially refresher and advanced training to improve the capacity of the Palestinian security forces in things like 

forensics and criminal investigations. 

Again, it would be—it would be a disaster, of course, if Hamas 

would somehow be integrated into the security forces. But I think 

the chances of that are remote and, again, we would not support 

that. But the project itself has been going very well. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I yield back, Madame Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And I thank Mr. Schneider for 

being sweet enough to allow Mr. Connolly to go first. Thank you, 

Mr. Schneider. Mr. Connolly is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair and I thank my colleague, Mr. 

Schneider. Secretary or Ambassador Patterson, going back to 

Egypt, the chairman laid out some of the enormous challenges to 

any semblance of democracy in Egypt. 

We have a military government that overthrew what your colleague testified before this committee a few months ago was a freely and fairly elected government. It has mowed down hundreds of 

citizens in the streets. 

It has condemned to death at least 700 Egyptians and, by the 

way, their political affiliation certainly is not justification for being 

sentenced to death. How in the world do we continue to justify decisions such as that made recently by Secretary Kerry nonetheless 

to go forward with the delivery of Apache helicopters to that military? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Connolly, you are entirely correct in the 

issues that you have outlined and the extremely dire human rights 

situation that is taking place in Egypt, and this is of enormous concern to us and it is the reason that we did not proceed with the 

certification on governing democratically. So the two certifications 

essentially allow us to keep the contracts alive. 

But let me also stress, Mr. Connolly, that we have serious national security interests in Egypt as well based on geography, 

based on the situation in the Sinai. Egypt, like other countries in 

North Africa, is essentially caught between the enormous weapons 

flows out of Libya and the jihadi flow out of Syria and the situation 

in the Sinai has flared up. 

Egypt has been a good partner even with this very problematic 

human rights situation. Egypt has been a good partner to Israel 

and has closed down many of the tunnels in the Sinai. 

So this is really a situation in which we have a range of objectives in Egypt and they don’t always coincide. We decided to release the Apaches because the Egyptian Government has 33 

Apaches of which only a few were operational and functional at 

36

this time so they needed these Apaches to use in the Sinai and we 

have held back the other major weapons systems. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Romanowski testified about—in fact, cited as 

an exemplar democracy-building projects in Egypt that USAID is 

supporting. But, clearly, Egypt is headed in the wrong direction 

with respect to building democracy. At what point do you reevaluate the efficacy of our aid investments despite our noble intentions? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Mr. Connolly, we have had over the years tremendous success in our programs to support—that directly support 

Egyptians in building their economic growth and in the higher education and bringing skills to Egyptian people. 

We are reorienting our program to do more and more directly 

with the Egyptian people. We do have and we do know that there 

are many NGOs in Egypt that still would like to work with us and 

benefit from the expertise and the technical assistance that we do 

provide them. It will be a very long process. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aren’t they at risk? The chairman pointed out 

the still unresolved NGO situation in terms of 40 something people 

with trials pending haven’t been accused of being foreign agents 

when they are guilty of nothing other than having cooperated with 

us excepting in some cases funding from us in the democratization 

process, and that was several governments ago and yet this current 

government persists in that persecution. 

At what point do we determine on a bilateral basis we are putting people at risk seeking NGO cooperation? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Mr. Connolly, I agree with you and we are 

constantly reevaluating our ability to conduct and continue those 

programs. But we do feel that it is important to look at those programs and to the extent to which that these NGOs do want to work 

with us and can safely work with us. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, it just seems to me that at some point the 

fiction that we are helping to build democracy in Egypt has to be 

addressed and at some point that balancing act, Ambassador Patterson, that you talked about, which one can understand, we do 

have vital security interests. 

Egypt is not just any other country in the region. They are a 

vital part of the Camp David process. But we need to be true to 

our own ideals about it. 

At some point, it seems to me, we are going to have to face the 

moment of truth about where this government is headed and what 

investments we are willing to continue to make in it. Otherwise, 

we make a mockery of the word democracy and the idea of building 

democratic society. 

No such thing is occurring in Egypt. Quite the opposite. And that 

doesn’t mean we abandon all of our investments but at some point, 

it seems to me, we have to take a cold hard look at their efficacy 

despite our good intentions. 

A lot of money is going into that. Madam Chairman, I don’t know 

if I have any——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Well put. Thank you so much. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I appreciate, Mr. Schneider, your courtesy. 

37

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And just for the information of the members, 

this is the order in which you will be recognized—Mr. Meadows, 

Mr. Schneider, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Weber, Mr. Cicilline, Dr. Yoho 

and Mr. Cotton. And so we will now turn to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you both 

for your testimony. 

Ambassador Patterson, I would like to go to you with regards to 

the Palestinian issue. You talked about four tenets. You talked 

about, I guess, the auditing of moneys that assured us that our 

money is not going to support terrorist families. 

It is still difficult to go home and talk about aid to the Palestin- ians, you know, and $400 million plus when we have their minister 

of prisons saying that the people in prison—terrorists—are heroes. 

How can we do a better job of making sure that indeed—because 

money is fungible—I mean, it gets moved around. 

If we are supporting economic activities in Gaza or wherever it 

is and yet they are still building terror tunnels daily how do we 

hold them accountable for the American people so the moneys that 

we give them do not come back to provide terrorist activities to our 

greatest ally in the Middle East—Israel? How do we do that? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Meadows, let me assure you that we have 

this conversation with them often. I personally had it with a Palestinian official just last week and let me also assure you that I think 

there is some very considerable soul searching going on in the Palestinian Authority about this if only because it is fiscally irresponsible and very expensive to maintain these stipends. So I am hopeful we will see some change in this. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Can we send a very clear message? And I understand it is a delicate thing. I don’t want to get in the middle of negotiations. However, can we send a very clear message that unless 

this stops the money will stop? Because, I mean, it is impossible 

for us to look at it so let us look at incitement. 

You know, in the last omnibus there was a provision in there 

that said the Palestinians had to do more than what they were 

doing in terms of to make sure that incitement was not taking 

place, that Secretary Kerry has to basically say that that is not 

happening. 

And yet our own Ambassador to Israel says that incitement is 

taking place with regards to the Palestinian Authority. So how do 

we as people of—you know, the State Department have two conflicting messages. One says incitement is not happening. The other 

says it is. How do we make sure that that stops as well? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, at least I am not aware that we have said 

incitement doesn’t happen. I think what we are trying to say at 

least is that there have been some improvements and that we work 

vigorously with the Palestinian Authority, particularly on issues 

like textbooks where there has been some progress in recent years, 

to reduce the incitement and sort of the anti-Israel bias. 

So I don’t think we would say that there—I think we would say 

that we are working on this. Vis-a`-vis the message, I think, Mr. 

Meadows, you can rest assured that very stiff messages about this 

are conveyed to the Palestinian Authority on a regular basis. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, but making progress and stopping it and 

saying that it has stopped are two different things. The language 

38

in the omnibus appropriations was very clear and it didn’t say that 

we had to make progress. 

It said that we had to certify that they—that it was not being 

done, and yet we are not seeing that. So I guess are you saying 

that you and Secretary Kerry are willing to say that the Palestinian Authority is doing all that they can do to stop incitement at 

this point? You are willing to certify that? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I don’t know. I can’t answer that question, Mr. 

Meadows. I can’t answer that question now. I would have to go 

back and review the record on this and see exactly what the Palestinians have done. 

But what I can assure you is that we do everything we possibly 

can to reduce this and to engage with them on this issue. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. At what point, when we continue to just 

send money and send money and send money and never take it 

away, does the leverage of the money that we send them stop being 

a leverage? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Meadows, providing money for the Palestinian Authority is in our interest, in many cases. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree and——

Ms. PATTERSON. It provides——

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. I am a student of the Middle 

East——

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. And so I follow it and I understand 

that there are but at some point when our words become meaningless the leverage of those dollars they cease to exist. Would you not 

agree with that? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, yes. I would think that that is probably 

true all—you know, across any foreign assistance account that you 

don’t want to make statements that then—about which you then 

don’t deliver. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. PATTERSON. No, I entirely agree with that. But we have 

made progress with the Palestinian Authority and sort of to back 

up and take a broader look at this, I think the secretary’s view on 

the peace process right now is that we are in a pause and I think 

he would say that both sides recognize that they have to get back 

to negotiations and that even Prime Minister Netanyahu used the 

word suspend and not cease. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. PATTERSON. So the idea is to work with the parties to get 

back to the negotiating table because I think people on all sides realize the two-state solution is the only way forward. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Let me follow it with one last question 

and then I will throw one to you and I will yield back. You mentioned in your tenets—your quartet you said the Palestinian and—

we say now Palestinian/Hamas, if that is what it becomes, the recognition of Israel’s right to exist. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. At what point does that become the recognition 

of a Jewish state? Because that is something that they have 

never—you know, Israel is willing to recognize a Palestinian state 

39

but yet Jewish state is different than recognizing Israel. So at what 

point do we change our rhetoric to say a Jewish state? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well——

Mr. MEADOWS. Or do we? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I can’t answer that, Mr. Meadows. The broad 

scope of international law and quartet principles and U.S.—and 

U.N. resolutions on this says to recognize Israel’s right to exist and 

before they take that fairly fundamental and elementary step I 

think it is highly premature to get in any further discussion. That 

would be a quite momentous step to recognize Israel’s right to exist 

by Hamas. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Ms. Romanowski, let me go back. What 

matrix do we look at in terms of USAID, in terms of the effectiveness? You read off a litany of things that we have spent millions 

of dollars on in terms of what—in terms of training—additional 

training and yet what we see is the per capita GDP in many of 

those countries actually going down, not increasing. 

So at what matrix do we look at to say that these dollars are 

being effective and not just providing a training? I am your biggest 

advocate when it comes to really putting dollars to make a difference. 

I am your worst nightmare when it comes to spending dollars 

when all we are doing is filling out and saying well, we have 

trained 1,000 people and yet GDP goes the other way. What matrix 

is out there? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Mr. Meadows, that is a very important question and it is a very important question for us and we are constantly looking at setting up those very detailed metrics to measure 

against our programs. 

I think one very broad metric is not just have we trained these 

young people or trained women but have they also then been able 

to secure jobs in the areas that they were trained. And we know 

that in many of our programs—for example, the ICT program in 

Tunisia—we have been able to see Tunisians—2,600 Tunisians actually get jobs and begin to expand the ICT sector in Tunisia. I will 

go back——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Meadows, I know you have a very inquisitive mind and Ms. Romanowski——

Mr. MEADOWS. I will yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Is a wonderful witness but we 

are going to move on out of there. Thank you so much. Mr. Schneider, thank you for being kind enough to yield to Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. My pleasure, and thank you, Madame Chair. I 

guess I am going to start—well, let me take a step back. 

In my opening remarks, I commented about the dynamics taking 

place throughout the Middle East and the work that you all do. 

Thank you again for being here. And so many of the areas are—

you know, these states are keystones in a way. 

Egypt, surrounded by Libya, Sudan, the Sinai is a keystone and 

what happens there is going to affect the region. Syria, obviously, 

with Lebanon and Turkey and Jordan and Israel is a keystone—

what is happening in Yemen. 

40

And it is important that we, as was said before, maintain a focus. 

As the U.S. increases engagement in other areas of the world we 

need to make sure the U.S. stays engaged here. 

But I want to come back and, as others have talked about, talk 

about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Ambassador, you said 

there are a number of U.N. resolutions. On November 29th, 1947, 

in Resolution 181 the U.N. was clear. There would be a Jewish 

state and an Arab state, and the Jewish state that came into existence on May 14th, which will celebrate its 65th birthday on Monday, is the Jewish state of Israel with equal rights for all citizens 

regardless of religion. 

But that is a clear and defined and stated fact and it is not up 

for the Palestinians to define it. It is only up for the Palestinians 

to accept that and recognize it. 

I am grateful that there is full support and funding for Israel in this budget of $3.1 billion and Israel is in a position that it has to 

make a lot of choices and its choices are existential choices. 

You talked a bit about the qualitative military edge. Israel 

doesn’t have the numbers but it has to have an edge, an advantage 

technologically that the United States is committed to supporting 

and I am grateful for the support of my colleague from Georgia, 

Doug Collins. 

We introduced a bill to move the assessment from 4 years to 2 

years and that passed the House unanimously. I would like to see 

it move in the Senate. 

Israel has as a keystone state threats on all of its borders including on the north from Hezbollah. I am grateful for my colleague, 

Mr. Meadows, who has introduced a bill with me to sanction 

Hezbollah. 

But Israel’s choices are does it deploy its iron dome in the north 

or the south and it can’t do it all every day because the threats are 

so overwhelming. The Palestinians, on the other hand, also have 

choices and they are making very different choices. 

They can choose whether or not to continue its incitement or 

move back and they have continued to in their textbooks, in their 

rhetoric, incite and promote conflict with the Israelis. Abbas can 

make a choice. Does he work toward peace and negotiations, true 

negotiations with the Israelis, or does he turn to Hamas and he 

made that choice, and he made that choice before the deadline, as 

we said today, when the negotiations came to an end. 

The Palestinians have a choice. Do they seek statehood through 

negotiations with Israel and mutually agreed definitions of what 

that means or do they go to the United Nations and go ways that 

trigger actions by the United States? And thank you, Madam 

Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. 

And they continue to make that choice of going to the U.N. and 

seeking acceptance in those bodies. And they can make a choice 

whether to engage Israel legitimately or to continue to seek Israel’s 

delegitimization around the world and they continue to choose the 

others. 

Yet we continue to send funds to the Palestinians because, as 

you said, we need to work on development aid. We need to work 

on services, rule of law and a private sector because those institutions become paramount. But the question is what partner do we 

41

have to work within—in the Palestinian territories—what partner 

does Israel have. 

Who is building these institutions and how do we make sure that 

those institutions and the money we send are happening as opposed to money going to fund terrorists in jail for the actions they 

took at a time in the past. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Schneider, this is an enormously complex 

issue and let me give you an example of how we are trying to work 

with the Palestinians. 

I have been to two conferences. I am very interested in the economic and job creation side of this so I have been to two conferences recently with the super impressive young businessmen 

from Palestine. And you know, I might hazard to say that if you 

can be an entrepreneur in the West Bank you can pretty much do 

it anywhere. 

So those are the kind of people that we are trying to promote 

within Palestine. These will be a basis for a two-state solution. 

The other night the secretary had a dinner. He had major American investors who are looking at Palestine as a future investment 

if and when a two-state solution is reached and peace breaks out. 

We have programs underway to promote mortgages—pretty fundamental issue—in the Palestinian Authority to try and build a base 

for this. 

So it is not a perfect situation by any means and, my goodness, 

the Palestinians have done a lot of stupid things over the years but 

we need to work with those people we can work with to try and, 

one, moderate the government and build a grassroots movement 

and then build some kind of economic system going forward so we 

won’t have to provide all this assistance in the future. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So I had the privilege of being in Israel exactly 

a year ago. I went to Ramallah. Ramallah is a booming town. 

Buildings are—there are cranes all around the city. They are building roads. They are building roads with medians, with flowers in 

the center. They are investing in their future. 

We drove through Jericho. Jericho is a bustling city with development and malls and all the things you are talking about. It is possible for Palestinians—entrepreneurial Palestinians to work toward 

their economy. 

Yet the leadership and the leadership we seem to be engaged 

with continues to make choices, continues to turn to Hamas, continues to turn to the U.N. and we continue to fund them. 

When do we—to echo the point made earlier, when do we say we 

need to hold the Palestinian leadership accountable and we need 

to have expectations that they will adhere to the agreements they 

are making to us? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I think we do hold them accountable and I 

think—I think we do hold them accountable. Much of our resources, much of our assistance goes—in the cash transfer goes into 

repaying Israel for goods and services provided. But we do have to 

work with this other element in the Palestinian Authority. 

The Palestinian leadership, these are older fellows. At some 

point they are going to move on. There are going to be openings 

for these younger individuals to move up and you probably met 

some of them in Jericho and Ramallah too. 

42

So we just have to keep—we just sort of have to keep at it in 

the Palestinian territory and, frankly, in many other countries in 

our region and work with the people we can work with. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. All right. Well, I agree it is the whole region. 

Israel faces a lot of threats. We face a lot of threats. We need to 

have success in Egypt that there is the rule of law and that there 

is the opportunity for their economy to grow. 

As was mentioned earlier, we met with the foreign minister and 

he talked about needing to have 8 percent to 10 percent growth. 

Jordan is of grave concern. The fourth largest city in Jordan is a 

refugee camp, and Ms. Romanowski, maybe I will turn to you. 

How are we making sure that as we see these refugee camps 

grow—and I think it is several hundred thousand people now living 

on the border of Jordan and Syria, you have 1 million refugees in 

Lebanon—that we are providing services in a way that provides for 

extended care of these people that don’t become permanent cities 

and permanent burdens on the states where they are. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. We are actually doing a lot of that in our programs—bilateral programs both in Lebanon and in Jordan where 

we have, as soon as the refugees started coming over, we began to 

adjust a lot of the programs that we were doing in Jordan anyway 

and in Lebanon to accommodate the Syrians who came into the 

host communities. 

As you know, the refugee camps’ issue is the purview of the State 

Department’s PRM bureau. But USAID has—because we had extensive programs already working on expanding schools, improving 

schools, improving water management, improving private sector development, as soon as the stresses of the Syrian refugees came in 

both from Lebanon and in Jordan particularly we shifted and we 

made sure that what we were doing included and took into account 

the pressures of those Syrian refugees, largely, first of all, to accommodate them but also not to create enormous tensions within 

Jordan and Lebanon. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr.——

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We could speak for 5 hours or 5 days we would 

scratch the surface. I have 5 minutes so I will yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Schneider, and we will go to Mr. 

Kinzinger. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you 

all for being here. We will have our disagreements on some of the 

issues but I appreciate your service to your country and for spending the time with us this morning. 

I am a pilot in the military and one of the first things you learn 

in dealing with emergencies is that the first thing you have to do 

is maintain aircraft control and then you analyze what is going on 

and then you take the appropriate actions. 

But the first thing you have to do is fly the aircraft because if 

you get, you know, focused on all the problems before maintaining 

aircraft control you are going to find yourself buying the farm pretty quickly. 

So I see a Middle East that is on fire. I see Jordan that has the 

amount of refugees moving into it without jobs as would be the 

equivalent of Canada moving into the United States without work. 

So that is a pretty serious situation for Jordan’s stability. 

43

As I mentioned in my opening, I see Iraq where you have ISIS 

and al-Qaeda-linked elements that now have where the Marines 

fought the hardest—they fought, frankly, since Vietnam in 

Fallujah, including a colleague of mine, Duncan Hunter, who is a 

veteran of Fallujah. 

I look at Iran and I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion 

that whatever our final deal is it will have some right to enrich 

uranium for the Iranians despite the fact that UAE and South 

Korea we don’t give the right to enrich uranium—some of our best 

allies. 

Concerns with Turkey, I see Egypt—you know, frankly, I am 

glad the Muslim Brotherhood is out of Egypt. I haven’t heard the 

administration’s position necessarily on that. I see a Russia that is 

moving into Ukraine and a big situation in North Korea that has 

artillery fire drills, on the south an emboldened China. 

And where I have been concerned is that our focus has been this 

Israel-Palestinian thing. And I think, look, in the ’90s this was a 

big issue and it was a huge issue because it was, frankly, a relatively stable Middle East. But as the Middle East has caught on 

fire and problems have arisen and we have the problem with 

jihadism and instability all over the place, the importance of IsraelPalestinian conflict has stayed the same but all these other 

issues—this maintaining of aircraft control—have gotten big, and 

I get concerned that all of our energy is being sucked in by this. 

It is a noble cause—I mean, trying to create peace between these 

two folks is a noble cause. But we have huge, huge burning issues 

in the Middle East. Today, I want to drill down a little bit on the 

issue of Syria and I want to say to the Ambassador how will the 

administration’s ongoing strategy review for Syria shape the use of 

Fiscal Year 2015 funds requested for Syria and could you actually 

briefly explain what our policy and what our strategy is in Syria, 

if you had to put it in a few sentences or a paragraph, I guess? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes, Mr. Kinzinger, and maybe we could come 

back to some of these other issues. But let me explain. Our policy 

is to work toward a negotiated solution. We do not believe there is 

a military solution available in Syria and, secondly, or policy is to 

curtail and you are absolutely correct in your description of the 

spread of ISIS. 

Particularly in eastern Syria and western Iraq it is an exceedingly serious issue right now and they have made very significant 

inroads into western Iraq to contain the terrorist threat. 

I think DNI Clapper testified before the full committee on this 

and he talked about the presence of foreign extremists in Syria, 

some of whom have come from the tribal areas of Pakistan and 

some of the whom are looking at targets outside the region. 

So yes, it is a very serious problem and I certainly do not want 

to convey that we see the Israeli-Palestinian issue as the only issue 

in the Middle East. So we are trying to contain it. 

We are a major donor to Lebanon and Jordan. Ms. Romanowski 

has outlined some of the projects we have done. It is about $1.7 billion equally divided between activities inside Syria and activities 

on the ground. 

Mr. KINZINGER. How much was that again? I am sorry. 

44

Ms. PATTERSON. One point seven billion dollars and that is—we 

are asking for additional funds because the humanitarian crisis is 

quite severe. 

We provide assistance inside of Syria so people will hopefully not 

flee the country. We are feeding enormous numbers of people there 

and we are resuming—we have rushed to provide Iraq with small 

arms, Hellfire missiles, surveillance and advice. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And I—and I think that is great. I mean, we can 

revisit whether we should have left Iraq or not. I believe we 

shouldn’t have. But, you know, it is done and we can’t reintroduce 

troops there nor should we. 

But I think it is important that we understand that this is a 

fight that a lot of Americans died for. Whether you agree with the 

beginning of the war or not, it is what it is. You talked about a 

negotiated solution in Syria. How? 

I mean, what you have right now is an extremist opposition. You 

have a moderate opposition who we should be supporting and 

building up and you have a very evil dictator that has killed almost 

200,000 of his own people including now with this new thing called 

chlorine gas, which I can’t imagine—has got to be one of the most 

terrible ways to die or choke to death. 

How do you negotiate a solution when we have made Assad a 

partner in getting rid of his gas? We are not really very intensely 

going after al-Qaeda-linked elements in Syria even though I always 

thought our country had a policy of al-Qaeda shall not live peacefully anywhere. And then the moderate opposition that we may be 

giving some humanitarian assistance—we are probably not giving 

a lot of arms or command and control ability. 

So if you could answer that. And then also why is it that our allies in the Middle East keep telling me we are not doing anything 

in Syria? Where is that disconnect happening? Because I have 

talked to some very good allies in the Middle East that say the 

United States has not taken a leadership role and every administration official that comes before me says we are doing the best 

thing we have ever done in the Middle East—this is great—this is 

amazing. 

Our allies are saying no. Where is that disconnect and how do 

we get our allies to believe we actually care about what is happening in Syria? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ambassador, if you can summarize quickly. 

Thank you. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes, quickly. Let me talk about the chemical 

weapons. We have got 92 percent of the chemical weapons out right 

now. I guess I would disagree with you, Mr. Kinzinger, that that 

has emboldened Bashar al-Assad. That was the biggest threat to 

the Syrian people and to Syria’s neighbors. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, I think Assad was the biggest threat to the 

Syrian people. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes, but this is the biggest short-term threat. 

Now, Assad is a huge threat and I don’t want to downplay and, of 

course, our policy is to go after al-Qaeda anywhere they are. 

Let us not be under any illusions about that. And regarding our 

allies, I think if you spoke to them, and I don’t know how recently 

you have, but I think you would find there have been very signifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Jun 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_MENA\042914\87710 SHIRL
45

cant cooperation in some areas of some areas, particularly with 

Saudi Arabia and Qatar in recent months that I think will make 

a difference. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. We will go to the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Patterson, 

do you have a dollar figure on the amount of stipends—I forget 

what they call it—going to the terrorists in prison—kind of the salaries? 

Ms. PATTERSON. No, I don’t have a figure. This is—they pay families whose relatives are imprisoned and then they do pay some of 

these people after they are released, and I don’t have that figure. 

Mr. WEBER. I mean, there have been figures reported in the 

media and, forgive me, I don’t remember exactly what those figures 

were. Do you remember any estimates? 

Ms. PATTERSON. No, sir. I don’t. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, let me ask the question this way then. 

Ms. PATTERSON. I will try and provide you with some figures on 

that. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well——

Ms. PATTERSON. I think—I know it is available because I——

Mr. WEBER. Forty million dollars maybe. Is that $20 million a 

year? Is that—don’t know? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Just don’t know. 

Mr. WEBER. What do you think about the idea of reducing any 

moneys that we give to the PA by twice that amount and saying 

when they clean up that process, that procedure, when it halts the 

reward of terrorism then we will talk about getting their money 

back to them? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, I think we have scrubbed this request, Mr. 

Weber, as significantly as we can and I think—and it is in great 

detail. We can provide the details to you. 

I think all this money goes into worthwhile projects and the cash 

transfer goes, as I say, into reimbursing others for goods and services. I think the projects and particularly on the security side are 

very well thought out and I would hate to see any of it reduced. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I mean the revelation that they were paying 

terrorists who had Israeli blood on their hands and some American 

blood on their hands as well and others, is just incomprehensible 

to me. 

I am going to go back to your statement earlier that Mr. Meadows asked about the PA being willing to accept the fact that Israel 

has not only the right to exist, and Brad Schneider alluded to the 

resolution and the date, but actually needs to recognize the fact 

that they have the right to exist as a Jewish state, and you said 

you thought that was too much of a stretch. 

Ms. PATTERSON. I was talking about Hamas, Mr. Weber. I was 

talking about Hamas. What I tried to say was I think to get Hamas 

to recognize Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence would be 

a very significant step forward. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, then in my opinion they shouldn’t be allowed 

to participate in the government over there if they want any of our 

46

money. If they—I mean, they want all of our money but not all of 

our ideas. How does that work? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Sir, we would never support and we will certainly not support a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas 

because of those reasons, because they have not accepted those 

principles. 

Mr. WEBER. So you are in favor of reducing any type of foreign 

aid that we send them if there is a Hamas connection there? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. And what percentage would you reduce that? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, I mean——

Mr. WEBER. Would you shut it all down? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization 

and it is illegal for Americans or American funding to engage in 

that. 

Mr. WEBER. I get that. So you would be willing to deny all foreign aid to the PA if they form a government with Hamas? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes, if—yes. If Hamas is——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Now, we are—now we are getting somewhere. 

Now we need to negotiate the dollar amount. So that if the PA is 

paying for terrorists in prison we ought to also be willing to hit 

them with some economic sanctions of that sort. Don’t you agree? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Sir, I think—I think this, obviously, is a difficult 

problem and when they pay the families of people that are imprisoned and they pay stipends I would say that is a political prisoner 

and I, frankly, know that they are going to try and phase that out 

and we should give them an opportunity to do so. 

Mr. WEBER. But we could help them phase that out. 

Ms. PATTERSON. I would be hard pressed, Mr. Weber——

Mr. WEBER. We could give them some encouragement. 

Ms. PATTERSON [continuing]. Hard pressed to say which of the 

programs for the Palestinian Authority we should cut. I would be 

very hard pressed to say that. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I think if we made it clear that we were cutting that dollar amount because of that practice and we had to—

and then the next question I have right behind that is how do we 

verify that. What does that look like? 

Ms. PATTERSON. We can provide those details to you but it is 

very extensively audited and reviewed. When I looked at these I 

was—frankly, having been the deputy IG, it is a 16—I think a 16-

stage auditing and review process. It looked to me like the most extensive reviewed foreign assistance program that we have on the 

planet. 

Mr. WEBER. Who initially sounded that alarm that this money 

was going to those terrorists? Do you know? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I am sorry. The terrorists——

Mr. WEBER. Who brought this to light that they were paying terrorists in prison or the families of terrorists—PA was? Do you 

know? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, that has been the case for some time. 

Mr. WEBER. And who brought that to light? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I don’t know. 

Mr. WEBER. Why do you think we haven’t acted on it to date? 

47

Ms. PATTERSON. Because I think—I think, one, that it is a political issue for the Palestinians—that these people are in jail, they 

have to provide for the families and, again, I think that they plan 

to phase it out. 

Mr. WEBER. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I go to the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies, I appreciate your 

testimony and I know you are getting tired of this and I hate to 

bring it up one more time. 

Certainly, you hear the contention here, the anxiety over the Palestinian Authority and the foreign aid going there. Without beating 

it too hard, they have got Resolution 21 and 23 on their books that 

says they pay the stipends. 

I propose that all foreign aid is cut to the Palestinian Authority 

until they remove those two resolutions. What would you think 

would happen with that? 

If we are serious we are serious, and if not—I mean, it is like 

you said. They have been doing this. We have known about it for 

years. We have addressed it. You talked and you said there were 

stiff messages sent. But if we just said, you know, fine—we are 

stopping all aid until you remove those resolutions that say we pay 

these people. 

Ms. PATTERSON. I think—I think fundamentally the support for 

the Palestinian Authority is in our interest. To have a peaceful 

area, now quite peaceful, adjacent to Israel, patrolled by welltrained Palestinian police and, again, there are 70 million in the—

Israel will have to take over those security duties, sir. 

Mr. YOHO. I hear what you are saying. But if we were just to say 

we have talked about this for year after year after year, I have got 

to go back to my district and tell people that we are giving money 

to an area that promotes terrorism. 

If we are serious we need to be serious and say until you remove 

those resolutions from your—I am not telling you how to live—I am 

just saying take those resolutions off your book if you want our assistance, and if you want the assistance in the name of peace we 

will help you, and that is even a hard sell in my district. 

But if you want it get rid of those resolutions. I mean, what do 

you think would happen if we did that? Do you think they would 

come to the table, say you know what, we get it—we are done? Do 

you think they would do that? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I don’t—I don’t know, Congressman. But what 

I think is removing assistance from the Palestinian Authority 

would, frankly, be a disaster because you would have——

Mr. YOHO. How do you view it now? I mean, we have been doing 

that and it is—it is not going real well. Ms. Romanowski——

Ms. PATTERSON. No, that is—I would disagree with that. Actually, there have been huge improvements over the past few years. 

Certainly in the security side there have been enormous improvements in the Palestinian——

Mr. YOHO. But if you look at the missile attacks over the last 

year I have seen an increase, have we not? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Congressman, those, at least as far as I know, 

mostly come from Gaza, which is under the control of Hamas. So 

48

we are not talking about Gaza. We are talking—or the Hamas—

we are talking about the Palestinian Authority run by President 

Abbas and——

Mr. YOHO. I get that, but again, it is sending a signal that we—

what we say we mean and they need to pay attention if they want 

our assistance. Ms. Romanowski. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Let me see if I can get a few very important 

points out in terms of how we monitor and ensure that the funds 

are going to where we believe they are. 

First of all, as my colleague said, it is one of the most heavily 

monitored and evaluated assistance programs that we have. All the 

programs are monitored every year. When it comes to the cash 

transfer it is something that is done very precisely. 

When we do the budget support we do a single transfer treasury 

account, which actually we beforehand approve and review all of 

the debts that will be paid and all the bills that we pay, and when 

the transfer actually occurs we have someone who is sitting actually there ensuring that the funds are transferred and then the 

bank account closes. 

Mr. YOHO. I understand that whole concept but yet those resolutions are still on their books—21 and 23. All I am saying is get rid 

of those resolutions and you can have the foreign assistance back. 

That is all I am asking. 

You know, we can monitor it and we can watch it. But as long 

as those are on the books they are still promoting that. Let me 

move on to something else because you were talking about the aid 

that we give——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will make that—Dr. Yoho, we will do 

that. 

Mr. YOHO. Yes, ma’am. I appreciate it. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Good. Thank you. Why don’t you just bring 

it to their attention? 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. The U.S. aid that we give you were saying to 

Jordan that we have invested in a lot of jobs or business development—economic development. What is their unemployment rate 

right now? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. The last——

Mr. YOHO. Egypt—in Egypt. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. In Egypt or in Jordan? 

Mr. YOHO. I am sorry. Egypt. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. In Egypt? 

Ms. PATTERSON. It is about 22 percent, about that. 

Mr. YOHO. What was their unemployment rate 10 years ago? Any 

idea? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I don’t know. But unemployment—let me be 

clear—unemployment in most Middle East countries has gone up 

because of a huge youth bulge. There is a—this is true across every 

single country in the Middle East because of the—with the exception of Israel, because of the unemployment of—very severe unemployment of mostly young men. With young women it is even 

worse. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, that is kind of what I am—I am sorry. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Go ahead. But we will wrap it up. 

49

Mr. YOHO. Well, what I was—we are investing in development—

economic development and educating the students but if there is no 

jobs there is nowhere for them to go. 

What is being done as far as industry or business development 

in that area and are we focussing on that? And again, it goes back 

to trade, not aid. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr.—can I answer? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Good questions to ponder. But thank you, 

Madam Ambassador. We are going to move on, if we could. And 

Mr. Collins is recognized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being 

here. Just a few quick questions and we can go through unless 

they——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. A little closer to your——

Mr. COLLINS. Here we go. All right. We are here. Welcome to 

Congress Radio, playing all the hits and asking all the questions 

that some like to answer and some don’t. But this has been a good 

day so far. 

Seventy million dollars security assistance for Palestinian Authority was requested in the President’s budget for training, equipment, infrastructure for Palestinian security forces. I know it has 

been discussed a little bit today. How will this program be affected 

by the recent unity government agreement, especially with Hamas? 

Ms. PATTERSON. It won’t be affected because there isn’t an agreement yet and we would plan to proceed because this is one of the 

highlights——

Mr. COLLINS. Do you plan to proceed even if Hamas—if the 

agreement is made? 

Ms. PATTERSON. No. Certainly not, sir. Certainly not. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. So then it would be suspended completely? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Let me be clear on this. But the Palestinian security forces are a very considerable success. They are well trained. The $70 million that we have asked for in the budget is essentially for advanced and refresher training to teach the Palestinian 

police skills like forensics and advanced criminal investigation and 

to bring back their leadership’s middle management and refresh 

their skills. But it has turned into quite a professional police force. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. And that is—you know, I guess it concerned—you know, good to hear on one point. What are we spending now currently to help them? 

Ms. PATTERSON. The police? 

Mr. COLLINS. Are we giving any money to support—and I am 

asking a question. I am not—I don’t have an answer. 

Ms. PATTERSON. I beg your pardon. I am sorry. I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. COLLINS. How much are we spending now to provide training 

and equipment and support to the security forces? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I can’t remember the figure but I will get that 

for you. But this is a reduction. 

Mr. COLLINS. This is a reduction? Okay. 

Ms. PATTERSON. This is a reduction. Over the past few years we 

spent more because we were basically training hundreds if not 

thousands of them in Jordan at this police institute in Jordan. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Let us just follow up on that just from a policy perspective for just a moment. Let us just assume, which I beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Jun 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_MENA\042914\87710 SHIRL
50

lieve many do, including myself, that there is a good probability 

that this Hamas agreement is going to go through. Okay. 

It does stop this but what—with the money that we have already 

spent with the highlighted area here the concern that I have in 

this region, especially when we are spending money and we sort of, 

now, frankly there is—you only can beat this horse so long. 

But with Hamas coming back in here with a relatively well 

trained, in your words, security forces does that not present at 

least a policy issue as we go forward? I know it is not a budget 

question per se but it is a policy question going forward. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Mr. Collins, I would doubt that this agreement 

would go forward and, yes, if it did of course it would be an issue. 

But I mentioned earlier that there have been seven similar discussions—agreements since 2011. Many of them took place in Egypt 

so I saw this firsthand and they have political reasons for doing 

this but none of them so far have materialized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Do you think there is political reasons for going 

about it now? 

Ms. PATTERSON. Yes. I think maybe some of them would actually 

be of considerable reassurance to this committee. But maybe we 

can discuss that later. But I do not——

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Let me—let me stop right there. I want to 

just say considerable reassurance—hold on. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Well, I think—I think—I think relations 

with——

Mr. COLLINS. Reclaiming my time. Considering this committee 

and its concern, in my personal opinion, for Israel I am not sure 

how you can reassure me that the Palestinian Authority, teaming 

with Hamas or entertaining that thought, again, with Hamas is 

helpful to me or this committee or Israel. 

Ms. PATTERSON. Excuse me, sir. But what I was trying to say 

was that I think the relations between Fatah and Hamas are not 

good, and I think one reason that President Abbas enters into 

these discussions is to try and limit Hamas and essentially clip 

their wings in Gaza. 

So I think that would be perhaps of some modest reassurance because it would have long-term security implications from Israel because as I mentioned most of the rockets that attack Israel, and 

there was quite a spate a year and a half ago, come from Gaza. 

Mr. COLLINS. So you—again, I think we just probably will just 

have to, you know, kindly agree to disagree here. I mean, I am not 

really sure how it is clipping their wings. Hamas still does what 

they do. They continue to do what they do. 

I think that, frankly, is more of an issue of the actual peace 

agreement in and of itself and I am not sure there is actually a 

want to continue here and I think they use it as a way to push 

away from the table when they don’t want to deal with certain 

issues and then when they want to come back they come back to 

the table. 

So I think taking a very rosy approach to that is, frankly, disturbing. Moving on to another question, funds have been used in 

Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq dealing with Syria. Again, not dealing with 

the numbers issue here but I do want to look long term here. 

51

Given the state of Syria as we know it today, how long do you 

believe that these enhanced funds are going to have to be there to 

help with different issues—varying issues, humanitarian issues 

and other things—in these, you know, surrounding countries? Is 

there hope that we can start beginning to cull that back or is this 

just going to become, frankly, a long-term request? 

Ms. PATTERSON. I don’t know, Mr. Collins, what the long term 

would be. But I would say that for several years we are going to—

you could probably anticipate requests of this magnitude——

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. 

Ms. PATTERSON [continuing]. Because the humanitarian situation 

is quite serious. 

Mr. COLLINS. Madam Chair, I know my time is up. Just some of 

this just really disturbs me and I think really—and I appreciate 

the ability just to agree to disagree sometimes. 

But this—I think for those of us who watch this, for those of us 

who actually look at Israel as a preeminent ally and friend in the 

region, to consider anything that an outreach from the Palestinian 

organization to Hamas is anything of clipping wings or anything 

else I think very seriously undermines what is actually going on 

and I am very disturbed by that, even from a budget perspective. 

And I respect your opinion. We are just going to disagree on this 

one. Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I agree. Thank you so much. Thank you, 

Madam Ambassador. 

Thank you, Ms. Romanowski, and thank you to all of our members for being here and the audience. 

And with that, the subcommittee has concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

54

f


87710n.eps
55


87710m-1.eps
56

f


87710m-2.eps
57


87710c-1.eps
58


87710c-2.eps
59

Æ


87710c-3.eps