U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–817PDF 2015

THE FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST: ASSESSING U.S.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVENESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 17, 2015

Serial No. 114–53

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Alfonso E. Lenhardt, Acting Administrator, U.S. Agency for 

International Development ................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Dana J. Hyde, chief executive officer, Millennium Challenge 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 19

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Alfonso E. Lenhardt: Prepared statement ................................... 7

The Honorable Dana J. Hyde: Prepared statement .............................................. 22

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 63

Written responses to questions submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Florida .......................................................................................... 64

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ...................................................................................................... 68

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .................................................................................................................. 74

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly ..................................................................... 78

(1)

THE FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST: ASSESSING 

U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVENESS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

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

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order and I will ask 

the members if they will take their seats. 

Today, we review the budget requests of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and when thinking about your effectiveness the ultimate objective must be to see countries graduate from foreign assistance. 

Countries that respect individual rights and respect property 

rights, clearly, are more likely to enjoy stability. They are more 

likely to have economic growth. Both are essential to overcoming 

poverty than those countries that do not. 

So when it comes to development, the right policies matter, far 

more than the dollars and cents and that is why the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation is so important and that is why the right 

focus on what USAID does is so important. 

So these are the principles that this committee has promoted in 

the past. For example, if you look at the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which I helped write 15 years ago, that was a plan 

to help these countries develop and we are going to have to reauthorize that this year. 

AGOA, as we call it, is up for reauthorization. These are the 

principles that guided the founding also, as I say, of the MCC and 

by working with poor but relatively well-governed countries; by recognizing sound policies; by committing to the principles of transparency and accountability, MCC is putting countries on the path 

toward graduation. 

So today MCC is requesting the ability to enter into compacts 

that would advance regional economic integration and regional 

trade, and I am pleased to be working with Karen Bass—Congresswoman Bass—on this issue. 

And MCC, at the end of the day, must stay true to its roots and 

not dilute its rigorous selection criteria and that is a constant concern because that is what gives the leverage to keep moving these 

countries toward the proper governance. 

2

Meanwhile, USAID has established itself as a global leader. In 

humanitarian assistance, in disaster relief; from the devastating 

earthquake in Gujarat to the deadly Ebola epidemic in West Africa, 

USAID typically is the first to respond. 

In the Philippines, I saw firsthand Typhoon Haiyan’s devastation 

there and USAID knew that it would take 3 weeks for U.S. food 

aid stored in Sri Lanka to arrive, 12 weeks if they had to ship that 

food from the United States. So what they did was they bought the 

food locally. They saved lives as a result. 

I was pleased to see the administration renew its request to exempt a quarter of the Food for Peace budget from costly, outdated 

and inefficient U.S. purchase and shipping requirements. But the 

President should have asked for more. This is timid reform. 

Still, I will work with the administration and my colleagues so 

that our food aid reaches more people in less time for less money, 

and that is the nature of the reforms that we have pushed in this 

committee in the past. 

Despite strong performance in the area of disaster relief, USAID 

has historically struggled to perform in other areas. Its poor performance in Haiti led this committee to pass successful legislation 

last Congress to step up oversight of the lagging aid effort in Haiti, 

and reports of waste continue to come out of Afghanistan. 

To its credit, USAID has been working to redefine itself over the 

past 5 years. In many areas it is putting MCC principles into practice. The agency is focusing on results and innovation while tapping the expertise and capital of the private sector. 

USAID also is becoming more transparent. The agency has 

begun implementing a number of the transparency reforms that 

this committee has demanded and that Mr. Poe on the committee 

has advanced. 

What isn’t commendable is the administration’s failure to nominate an inspector general, which has left USAID and MCC without 

a top cop for over 1,200 days. 

Ranking Member Engel and I have encouraged the President to 

get the second longest IG vacancy filled now, and I am demanding 

that USAID sort out its policy with the Government Accountability 

Office so it can once again gain complete, timely access to the information that the Government Accountability Office requires to execute its congressionally mandated oversight role. 

This is in keeping with the USAID new commitment to transparency as well as in keeping with the former administrator’s personal pledge to me. As you know, Director Shaw changed this policy and now we look forward to its implementation. 

So there is no shortage of challenges on your plate and at under 

2 percent of the total annual budget, the International Affairs 

Budget has had to punch above its weight and that won’t be changing anytime soon, meaning a focus on efficient and effective programs has to be a continuum here. 

So I look forward to working with you, Ambassador Lenhardt 

and Ms. Hyde, to address these challenges and these opportunities 

over the coming year, and I will turn to Mr. Eliot Engel of New 

York, our ranking member, for his opening statement. 

3

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this 

important hearing. I have always been very fond of USAID and the 

wonderful work that USAID does. 

Ambassador Lenhardt, Ms. Hyde, thank you for testifying this 

morning. Thank you both for all your hard work and service to our 

country. As the chairman mentioned, compared to the entire Federal budget what we are discussing today represents a drop in the 

ocean. I have long felt that U.S. foreign aid should be increased. 

But a lot of people don’t realize that it is barely 1 percent of our 

budget. But it is a critical part of America’s foreign policy. Our investments in foreign assistance pay huge dividends in terms of our 

country’s security, prosperity and values. 

Our efforts abroad save millions of lives, improve governance and 

promote economic opportunity around the world. The benefits of 

foreign assistance are clear. But, of course, every tax dollar must 

be spent wisely. 

That is why this committee’s oversight of USAID, the State Department, MCC and other foreign affairs agencies is so critical. 

Ms. Hyde, your leadership of MCC has been outstanding, as far 

as I am concerned. For more than a decade, MCC has maintained 

an emphasis on data-driven, accountable and transparent development efforts. I look forward to continued progress to ensure that 

MCC maximizes the benefits of this approach. 

I also want to thank you for MCC’s work with my staff to help 

Kosovo compete fairly within the MCC framework. Thanks to this 

collaboration, we found a way to generate data on Kosovo that can 

be submitted to MCC and included on MCC’s scorecard. 

Ambassador Lenhardt, thank you for stepping into the role of 

acting administrator. Roger Shaw has big shoes to fill, as I am sure 

you know, but your distinguished record tells me that USAID is in 

good hands, remains in good hands. Your leadership comes in an 

especially challenging time. 

As we face expanding needs due to conflict and instability around 

the world, our foreign assistance budget remains constrained. 

I want to thank USAID for its incredible work in responding to 

the Ebola crisis in West Africa. After a very challenging year, our 

strategy is working but the situation remains critical in Sierra 

Leone and Guinea. 

We need smart investments in sustainable health care systems. 

We need to help countries identify and contain infectious diseases 

and we need to help people live healthy productive lives. 

We must also not forget that treatable diseases continue to kill 

millions of people every year. Last year alone, hundreds of thousands died from malaria and 1.5 million succumbed to tuberculosis. 

I hope Congress will provide robust funding for our global health 

programs this year. Likewise, I am concerned that we will need 

more funding for humanitarian relief in the coming fiscal year to 

deal with crises in Syria, Ukraine, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and many other places. 

Four years after the start of the horrendous conflict in Syria, the 

country continues to be a magnet for extremists. ISIL has spread 

across Syria and deep into Iraq. The Assad regime commits atrocities. I just heard of more gas atrocities this morning. 

4

They commit atrocities with impunity and the humanitarian crisis has reached critical proportions. We must do more to help bring 

this conflict to an end and respond to the immense suffering it has 

caused. 

On Ukraine, the President recently signed bipartisan legislation 

expanding assistance across a variety of sectors. Chairman Royce 

and I have worked in the collaborative process to help Ukraine as 

have the members of this committee. 

Since USAID is the lead agency implementing much of this effort, I look forward to hearing your views on these new programs 

concerning Ukraine. 

I am very pleased by the President’s $1.1 billion proposal to address the root causes of child migration from Central America. 

I also want to call to your attention to a bipartisan letter I sent 

you last week along with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Sires, Mr. Cicilline 

and others urging USAID to provide direct funding to LGBT 

human rights groups in Central America. 

The level of violence against LGBT individuals in Honduras, 

Guatemala, and El Salvador is unacceptable. In Africa, increased 

trade and access to electricity are critical to economic growth and 

development. 

USAID is leading with the Power Africa and Trade Africa initiatives. I hope Congress will complement those efforts by passing 

Electric by Africa and reauthorizing the African Growth and Opportunity Act. 

And, again, the chairman has been a champion on this for many, 

many years. Both of these laws would bolster USAID’s efforts and 

support innovative and enterprising Africans. 

And finally, in Afghanistan and Pakistan the United States has 

spent billions of dollars on roads, agriculture, rule of law and capacity building. 

I hope you will focus on how USAID plans to monitor projects in 

Afghanistan after the withdrawal of all American combat troops 

and assess the continuing value of our aid to Pakistan. 

Ambassador Lenhardt and Ms. Hyde, thank you again for appearing here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROYCE. And let me second, Mr. Engel, your remarks 

about former Director Shaw’s work and on wishing you well, Ambassador, in your new position as acting Ambassador for the U.S. 

Agency for International Development. 

Ambassador Lenhardt has continued in his service to this country. He served as the U.S. Ambassador of Tanzania from 2009 to 

2013. He also served this nation as the 36th sergeant of arms of 

the United States Senate and in that service was the first African 

American to serve as an officer of the Congress. 

Dana Hyde, prior to becoming chief executive officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, was the associate director at the 

Office of Management and Budget and previously worked at the 

State Department. 

So we welcome them, and without objection the witnesses’ full 

prepared statements will be made part of the record and members 

here will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or questions to you or any extraneous material for the record. 

5

So we will ask you both to please summarize your remarks and, 

Ambassador, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT, 

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Engel and members of this committee for allowing me to 

discuss the Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for the United States 

Agency for International Development. 

Thanks to strong interagency partners like Dana Hyde and bipartisan support in Congress, we are fortunate to have leaders 

throughout government who understand the importance of development to our nation’s security and prosperity. 

At USAID, we believe that by partnering to end extreme poverty 

and promote resilient democratic societies, we are helping developing countries transform into peaceful, open and flourishing partners for our own nation. 

As I testify today, my colleagues at USAID are supporting that 

mission and representing our country in dynamic and challenging 

environments around the world. 

We are rooting out threats before they reach our shores, 

unlocking flourishing markets for American businesses and connecting our young people and universities with global opportunities, all for less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. 

This year’s budget request advances our country’s interest while 

responding to pressing national security priorities all over the 

world, from Nigeria to Honduras. 

By leveraging public-private partnerships and harnessing innovation we are maximizing the value of each and every dollar that 

is entrusted to us. 

At the same time, we are making difficult choices about where 

our work will have the greatest impact, shifting resources and personnel to better advance our mission of ending extreme poverty 

around the world. 

These investments have delivered real measurable results on behalf of the American people. Our Feed the Future program has 

helped 7 million farmers boost their harvest with new technologies 

and improve nutrition for more than 12 million children. 

Our Africa has mobilized $20 billion in private sector commitments and encourage countries to make critical reforms, and 

thanks to groundbreaking investment in child and maternal survival, we are on track to save the lives of up to 15 million children 

and nearly 600,000 women by the year 2020. 

These efforts are at the core of a new way of doing business. 

After 5 years of reform, I am confident our agency is now a more 

accountable and effective enterprise. 

Yet, I am equally humbled by the challenges before us and recognize that we have much more work to do. That is why my focus 

will be on one core discipline—management. I will focus our energy 

in all of our activities at the agency to be more innovative and strategic in our effort to get better every day. 

6

Because while we may not have all the right answers, we are 

asking the right questions. Above all, I will ensure that we are 

good stewards of the precious resources that are entrusted to us. 

Spending over 30 years in the Army and becoming a two-star 

general and later as an Ambassador to Tanzania may not be the 

typical path to a job in development. But even though my journey 

was different from the development professionals with whom I had 

the privilege to serve, my conclusion is the same. 

America’s investment in development is money well spent. Saving children from hunger and disease elevates our own moral 

strength. 

Empowering entrepreneurs to innovate and create new markets 

advances our own prosperity. Strengthening civil society not only 

gives a voice to the oppressed but also makes our own citizens 

more secure. 

Through our work, we are opening up new paths to opportunity, 

energizing the global economy and reducing the root causes of insecurity throughout the world. In doing so, we are advancing the values that unite the American people and the people throughout the 

world. 

As we work to tackle these global challenges, we will value your 

counsel on how we can become even more effective and, certainly, 

accountable. 

I thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lenhardt follows:]

7


93817a-1.eps
8


93817a-2.eps
9


93817a-3.eps
10


93817a-4.eps
11


93817a-5.eps
12


93817a-6.eps
13


93817a-7.eps
14


93817a-8.eps
15


93817a-9.eps
16


93817a-10.eps
17


93817a-11.eps
18


93817a-12.eps
19

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Ms. Hyde. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANA J. HYDE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Ranking 

Member Engel, members of the committee. I am delighted to be 

here today with Ambassador Lenhardt to discuss the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request. 

Just over 10 years ago, Congress created MCC as a competitive 

and incentive-based model——

Chairman ROYCE. Ms. Hyde, let us make sure that that button 

is pushed. There we go. Thank you. Keep going. That mic may not 

be working. Let us try that one more time. 

Ms. HYDE. Are we good? 

Chairman ROYCE. Now we are good. 

Ms. HYDE. Now we are good. There we go. 

MCC was given a singular mission—reducing poverty through 

economic growth—and it was grounded in three core principles—

good governance, country ownership, and accountability for results. 

Over the past decade, we have seen the power of these principles 

in action. MCC creates incentives for countries to do the right 

thing. Our investments support democracy, help fight corruption 

and promote American values of economic freedom and good governance. 

Our work across the globe has created measurable improvements 

in the lives of the poor. And our partnerships have proven that 

poor countries will deliver on the promise of prosperity—when 

given the right incentives and the right support. 

As we look to Fiscal Year 2016 and beyond, MCC will build on 

this model of success. The President’s budget request of $1.25 billion will help unlock MCC’s own potential to advance America’s interests in three important ways. 

First, by enabling new and deeper partnerships in critically important regions; second, by supporting efforts to drive transparency 

and improve data across the development community; and third, by 

leveraging private sector investments to widen impact and create 

trade and investment opportunities for American businesses. 

Let me expand just briefly on each of these points. Partnerships—over the past decade the majority of MCC’s partnerships 

have been in Africa. Roughly 65 percent of the agency’s portfolio 

has been invested on the continent, mostly in large scale infrastructure—roads, ports, power lines, water systems—projects that 

are designed to unlock impediments to economic growth. 

MCC is playing a key role in advancing the administration’s 

Power Africa initiative. We have made a $1 billion commitment to 

Power Africa and we intend to commit roughly another $1 billion 

to energy-focused compacts in sub-Saharan Africa. 

The MCC brand in Africa is strong and the continent holds tremendous promise for MCC to deepen its impact. In Fiscal Year 

2016, MCC will continue its bedrock commitment to Africa with investments in two of the countries hardest hit by Ebola—Liberia 

and Sierra Leone. 

20

We will also focus on Niger, one of the poorest democracies in the 

world and a critical ally in the fight against violent extremism. And 

MCC will fund a new threshold program in Cote d’Ivoire, a country 

that reformed its entire family code to provide women equal rights 

as part of its effort to gain our assistance. 

While Africa will remain a core focus, MCC is also developing its 

first ever compact in South Asia with Nepal, one of the poorest 

countries in the region and now a committed democracy. And the 

board recently approved new compacts with the Philippines and 

Mongolia. 

Those countries present important opportunities to leverage our 

impact on poverty reduction and support U.S. interests in the region. In each of these partnerships, MCC will commit itself to evidence-based decision making and accountability for results. 

But what we have learned and what we know is that economies 

do not act in isolation. Markets are regional and if we seek to truly 

turn the dial on economic growth, we must think and act regionally. 

That is why we are requesting the operational flexibility to explore regional investments in appropriate circumstances and on a 

targeted basis. Examples could include linking transportation infrastructure within Central America or enhancing access to power 

in West Africa or in South Asia. 

Such investments offer the potential of fighting poverty on a 

wider scale, with higher economic returns and greater economies of 

scale. And they are squarely aligned with MCC’s mission and its 

decade of experience in infrastructure development and incentivebased reforms. 

I am grateful to Chairman Royce for his support of regional investments and to Representative Bass for her sponsorship of such 

legislation. 

Second, data and transparency are built into everything we do at 

MCC. Indeed, in 2013 MCC was named the most transparent aid 

agency in the world. That leadership will continue as we release 

detailed geospatial and gender data on our investments and as we 

work with the consortium of organizations to collect even better 

data on governance. 

Finally, catalyzing private investment is at the core of our work. 

At the heart of the MCC model is investments that overcome barriers to growth, reform key sectors and create opportunities. The 

recent Ghana Power Compact serves as a model in this regard. 

MCC’s $498 million investment in Ghana is expected to attract 

over $4 billion in U.S. private sector funding by transforming the 

country’s power sector. In all of these areas, MCC punches above 

its weight. 

Our impact reaches beyond the specific projects that we fund. By 

helping to reform policies and revamp institutions, we help put our 

partner countries on the road to self-sufficiency and a future without aid. 

I know your constituents expect their money to be well spent, 

with clear metrics for success and a solid rate of return. That is 

why MCC treats foreign assistance like a business, making decisions based on hard data and rigorous analysis. 

21

That is why we closely monitor results on the ground and hold 

country partners accountable, and that is why I can assure you 

that in MCC, American taxpayers are getting a good return on 

their investment. 

On behalf of the agency, I would like to thank the committee for 

its support and guidance over the past decade. I look forward to 

our continued collaboration and to helping to build a more secure 

and prosperous future here at home and abroad. Thank you. I 

would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hyde follows:]

22


93817b-1.eps
23


93817b-2.eps
24


93817b-3.eps
25

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. Hyde. Thank you very much. 

I have got three questions that I want to ask and, Ambassador, 

I will just start with you. 

Over the past year, the committee has become increasingly concerned as we have seen USAID inhibiting the congressional watchdog here, the GAO, from doing its job, and as you know I spoke 

with former Administrator Shaw about this after being contacted 

a number of times by the GAO. And he gave me a written assurance that this policy would be repealed and that the GAO would 

be provided with the information including unredacted documents 

that it needs. 

And I was just going to ask you is this your commitment as well? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you 

also for the many opportunities where you support our programs. 

Certainly, I give you that commitment. 

Chairman ROYCE. That is fine. That is fine with me. That is good 

enough. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Okay. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will see the policy is repealed and I will 

work with you on that and I appreciate it. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. On food aid reform is another area where I 

worked with Director Shaw closely and I have been working with 

the ranking member and other members of this committee for 2 

years now to try to make food aid—the program there—more efficient and more effective. 

And we want to get more food sent to more people in need in real 

time here when these disasters hit and we can do this at a lesser 

cost if we—and we have made some progress in doing it. 

But, Ambassador, how much does USAID spend annually on 

shipping food aid as a result of the U.S. cargo preference requirements and how would USAID’s food aid program be affected if 

cargo preference was bumped back up to 75 percent as been—as 

was proposed by some last year? 

And I follow that up with another question—how many U.S. 

shipping companies benefit from agricultural cargo preferences? 

Are they all wholly U.S.-owned and how many more people could 

be reached with 45 percent flexibility, assuming a budget of $1.4 

billion? If I can kind of give you that outlay and get your feedback. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In answer to the question how many—how much did we spend, 

about $175 million to ship food aid was spent in Fiscal Year 2013 

with about $125 million spent on U.S. flag vessels to comply with 

cargo preference requirements. 

There are, as you indicated or requested, there are three carriers—principal carriers—that account for about 85 percent of the 

food aid shipped in the past two fiscal years and we spend, as I 

said, $175 million. 

The request for Fiscal Year 2016 is to give us a 25-percent leeway in that. That amount—that kind of flexibility would allow us 

to feed about 2 million more people around the world. 

It would probably get us to a point where we would be able to 

cut maybe 11 to 14 weeks off of delivery and it would get food in 

26

a timely fashion to those in need using a number of ways—voucher 

systems, cash vouchers, credit cards—to purchase local food items. 

In general, it would create an environment where, certainly, we 

would be faster in our effort to get food around to those in need. 

So I hope that was a—those responses addressed each of your 

questions. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

The other issue I was going to raise is land tenure in the Philippines. As I noted in my opening statement, individual property 

and title transfer rights are really critical and we see this playing 

out all over the world. 

It helped spark a revolution across North Africa and the Middle 

East, and in Haiti the inability to secure land title has really impeded our recovery efforts there. 

In Cambodia and the Philippines, land grabbing routinely undermines U.S.-supported development efforts. So given the significance 

of U.S. investments in the Philippines, I have been pressing USAID 

and MCC to tackle the land grabbing issue there for years. 

I have made several trips there and seen this first hand, been 

out to some of the areas where this has occurred. I very much appreciate your efforts but it is unclear to me how high this is on the 

Embassy’s priority list and that is why I raise it. 

Ambassador, what specifically is USAID doing to urge the Government of the Philippines to address the issue of land grabbing 

and have any of the corrupt local officials who are complicit in land 

grabbing been held accountable? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Land tenure remains a key priority for USAID. The lack of formal access to land and natural resources is, in many ways, a major 

cause of poverty, certainly, conflict or, for that matter, prevention 

of a country from reaching its full development. 

Since 2008, USAID has worked to improve regulatory requirements for the Philippines—the Government of the Philippines—and 

streamline land registration processes of one description or another. 

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in response to Typhoon 

Haiyan, many Philippine citizens lost their title as a result of that 

catastrophe and one of the things that we are doing specifically as 

your request is working with the Government of the Philippines as 

well as the city of Leyte to restore those deeds and titles to the people, farmers and other landholders. 

Again, as I think about this issue, the Philippines is certainly 

our focus but we are also looking at this across the globe. 

My own experience in Tanzania was one where land tenure became such a critical issue that in some cases people did not seek 

out an opportunity to improve themselves simply because they 

were denied the opportunity for land. 

And when we made it possible through encouraging the government’s reform for people to use the land—farmers—they produced 

sufficient food items for themselves but also they produced items 

sufficient enough to sell on the market—the local markets. 

And so they improved themselves. They sent their children to 

school as a result of the cash they were able to secure as result of 

27

selling additional food items, and so this issue is a major consideration in development. 

And so you have pressed on a very key issue that we certainly 

have taken to heart and we will continue to work with your—you 

and your committee as something that certainly we have to get resolved as quickly as we possibly can. 

Chairman ROYCE. And one of the things that is happening is that 

very well-connected developers at the local level where there is 

local government corruption are basically blocking access to public 

roads. 

I saw this myself driving out to one of these areas where this had 

happened, and roaring up on a motorcycle is, you know, one of the 

private guards employed. He produces a semi-automatic weapon 

and tells us we won’t be able to access that public road. He has 

blocked that road. 

What he is in the process of doing is taking the land of people 

on the other side of that road, or his employer is in the process of 

doing that, because they can no longer access that land. 

And this is a process that, despite our effort to get it reversed, 

has not been reversed. At the Presidential level, the President—

President Aquino—has tried to impact this. 

But at the local level in the Philippines, USAID and MCC, despite all of their engagement there—and we have a $433 million 

compact with the Philippines that is going to be completed in May 

2016. In December the board made the Philippines eligible to develop a second compact. 

So I think the MCC agrees that the lack of enforceable property 

and land tenure rights in the Philippines constrains economic 

growth. I know what I have heard from the U.S.—Philippine-American investment community about their experiences there, their 

problems there. 

Will you condition the second compact upon progress in this area 

to make sure that on these public roads the Federal Government 

in the Philippines keeps them open, keeps them public and you remove those well-placed—those, you know, well-connected developers who are out there blocking access so that people can get to 

their property? 

And the other question I would ask is what—both of you—what 

else can we be doing to press the government to take this seriously? 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In reference to the compact, well, first, let me say that MCC’s experience has absolutely been the case that one of the key impediments to economic growth is insecure land tenure and the need for 

land reform. 

So we have worked in those areas in many countries. We are 

working now in Cabo Verde. We are building a compact in Morocco 

that has land reform at the center of it. 

We are, as you mentioned, looking at a second investment in the 

Philippines. We are in the very early stages of that. We will be 

guided, of course, by the economic analysis. But I commit to you 

that if land is an issue in the Philippines we will take a very careful look at it. 

28

Chairman ROYCE. But wait a minute. We have been working on 

this for 3 years now. We have taken two trips down there. We have 

had this happen in the middle of the typhoon. 

We have had this happen on an ongoing basis with respect to 

people’s inability to access their property. Having already had this 

compact in place, my point is these are discussions—as I said, I 

don’t know how high this is on the Embassy’s list of things to do 

but the principal impediment to investment there is getting this 

process fixed so that people—and the other point I would make is 

it is a major issue in terms of people in the Philippines now who 

don’t have the means of preventing well-connected people from routinely doing this. 

As I say, nobody to my knowledge has been charged in this process and, frankly, to be on a public road and to hear about this and 

go out there and have a gun waved in your face is just an affirmation or an indication of what people are talking about is a huge 

problem that is not being confronted, not being reversed. 

Anyway, I will leave you with that. I am out of time. I will go 

to Mr. Engel, and thank you very much. 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Lenhardt, I want to ask you a question about 

Ukraine. The chairman and I have gone to Ukraine together. A few 

weeks ago, Secretary Kerry was here before this committee and we 

talked to him about Ukraine. I, and many others, believe that we 

should be aiding Ukraine with—allowing them to have weapons to 

defend themselves. 

But I want to talk about Ukraine’s financial stability. The United 

States, along with the European Union, the IMF and the World 

Bank are helping Ukraine remain financially stable with rounds of 

loan guarantees. 

What will the administration and USAID do to help Ukraine, including another round of loan guarantees or loans? Do we have 

anything in the—in the pipe now for them? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

Ukraine is, certainly, a country that we have spent a lot of time 

and, certainly, some of our resources because it is an important entity. 

We are doing a lot of work now assisting Ukraine become stronger in terms of its government but also from the standpoint of supporting civil society and doing as many other things to bolster the 

country so that it is strengthened at a time when it is being threatened. 

The loan guarantee specifically—we have secured one or at least 

supported one loan guarantee of $1 billion. Based upon the performance of Ukraine to date, it looks very favorable that a second 

billion-dollar loan might be in the offing. 

But from all indications in terms of what Ukraine is doing, we 

feel encouraged by their efforts and, quite frankly, looking forward 

how we can help them become even stronger. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me ask you a similar question. We all know—I was driving 

in this morning and heard again the reports that Assad, who we 

29

seem to be somewhat cozying up to—I don’t know why—has apparently dropped some more poison gas on the civilian population. 

So we know the crisis in Syria is just horrendous. It has displaced more than one half of Syria’s population, created more than 

3 million refugees, and while the United States is the single largest 

global donor of humanitarian assistance to help the victims of both 

Assad and ISIS, much work obviously still remains to be done. 

So how will you assure that U.S. assistance gets to the Syrian 

refugees and the internally displaced people in Syria and is not 

intercepted by Assad or terrorist group? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

We are doing a lot of work in Syria. Currently, Syria citizens are 

internally displaced to the tune of about 8 million—nearly 8 million 

people, those who refugees in other countries—Jordan, Lebanon, 

Turkey—another nearly 4 million people. 

And so the crisis is real. It is the most, at this point in time, 

probably the most significant humanitarian crisis that we have in 

the world. We are reaching out in major ways to help the Syrian 

people with food aid, health and in some cases we are providing, 

you know, learning opportunities for children. 

Mr. ENGEL. Are they aware—are they aware that this aid comes 

from the United States? When there is food aid does the local population understand that we are the ones providing it for them? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Mr. Congressman, yes, they are, and I 

say that because although we don’t mark it in a major way with 

our logos and, as many other, perhaps our flag because of the situation and the potential to put people in harm’s way both from the 

standpoint of those recipient of the aid as well as those who are 

administering the aid, the beneficiaries certainly are aware of the 

fact that America has risen to the challenge of helping them. 

The impression that we get from implementing partners is that 

people know where this aid comes from. They are told as the aid 

is being administered, as opposed to putting out big flashy sign, because in some cases with ISIL and their activities would certainly—there would be retaliation. 

So from that standpoint, I think that the Syrian people who are 

receiving the aid know that America is there helping them. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me—let me ask you a quick question about 

health. Most of the world has been rightfully focused on Ebola in 

West Africa. 

But I think it is also important to state and remember that millions of people around the world die each year from other terrible 

contagious but treatable diseases like tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. 

So I was disappointed when I looked through the administration’s proposed budget. There’s a proposal to cutting bilateral tuberculosis funding by $45 million, which is a 19-percent cut from 

Fiscal Year 2015. 

Can you comment on that, and if this proposal moves forward 

can you elaborate on how this substantial cut in funding would be 

implemented? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The request for 2016 is actually overall a plus-up of $66 million 

and so it becomes a matter of working within a constrained enviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:55 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\031715\93817 SHIRL
30

ronment, setting priorities as to how much we can do, and we have 

set as the principal focus for our global health preventing child and 

maternal deaths. 

The second is to respond to infectious diseases and, certainly, a 

third priority would be figuring out how we can extend as much as 

possible our efforts around the globe. The point of TB it is—it is 

a disease, certainly, that is problematic but it is not something that 

we have forgotten. 

The $66 million plus-up for global health is determined or at 

least aimed at helping as many opportunities as we can. Child and 

mother—maternal mortality can be reduced by as much as 13—

saving 13 million children and saving 600,000 mothers. 

And so my point is that we don’t necessarily are neglecting the 

treatment of tuberculosis as much as we are putting the resources 

where they can do the most good, if that makes sense. 

And I know I am a bit rambling on that but I am trying to get 

across the fact that constrained resources create an opportunity for 

us to prioritize. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. We can talk after the hearing or——

Ambassador LENHARDT. Sir, I would like to do that—come back 

to you. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. So I understand that. Thank you. 

I just want to, before I go off, again, thank Ms. Hyde for her help 

with Kosovo. It is very important. And let me just say, the MCC 

was created to be a different type of foreign assistance model and 

complement other foreign assistance tools in the USG tool. 

Could you tell us what—where you feel the future is for the MCC 

and what you feel you have done? 

Ms. HYDE. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I appreciate the question and I appreciate your remarks on 

Kosovo. We are committed to working with your team to get us to 

a place where Kosovo can be evaluated in tandem with other nations. 

MCC was created as a different model of foreign assistance and 

it is unique in many ways. It is highly focused on select countries 

that are relatively well performing in governance. 

It has, over the years, created what is known as an incentive effect—the MCC effect. What we see is that countries are changing 

their laws just in an effort to receive MCC assistance before any 

taxpayer money is spent. That sort of incentive structure is certainly true and we have seen many examples of that in Africa. 

I mentioned one country in my testimony, Cote d’Ivoire, that 

changed its entire family code in an effort to pass the scorecard. 

So the scorecard has been a powerful tool for incentivizing good 

governance and I think moving forward is something, as we look 

to go into regional work as the chairman mentioned, we absolutely 

have to be true to those eligibility requirements and to the model 

on which this is based. 

It has also been a leader in data and transparency and taking 

the information and the decisions that we make, evaluating them 

strenuously and putting them out for all of us to learn, and we 

have learned lessons over the decade as to what investments were 

working and not working. 

31

It is catalytic in the way that I think we mentioned around private investment. So MCC is looking, by definition, at what is the 

barrier to growth, with an economic team, and looking to invest to 

overcome those barriers. 

We are also looking at the regulatory environment, the policy environment in particular sectors. Here, Ghana is an example. As 

part of our investment we are asking the Government of Ghana to 

undertake really hard reforms in the energy sector that will help 

make that sector more sustainable. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. We are going to go to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 

of Florida, chairman of the Subcommittee on Middle East and 

North Africa. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome 

to you both. 

Ambassador, the United States has contributed over $3.5 billion 

in humanitarian assistance since the start of the Syrian conflict 

and the President is now seeking an additional $1.6 billion for 

these efforts for Fiscal Year 2016 alone. 

But we must ensure that we are being as efficient and as effective as possible with that aid. Seventy-two percent of that aid that 

we have provided thus far has been routed through U.N. agencies 

and U.N. initiatives. 

My concern is that once this money goes to the U.N. we lose our 

oversight into what is actually being done with that assistance, 

which is why I was joined by Congressman Deutch, Mr. Connolly 

and Mr. DeSantis last month in requesting a GAO report on our 

Syria humanitarian assistance. 

What mechanisms do we have in place to ensure that the aid 

that we send through the U.N. gets to the intended recipients and 

does the administration have a humanitarian response strategy 

that is distinct from the ISIL strategy, and if so what is it and if 

not, why not? 

Moving to Afghanistan, sir, we learn from SIGAR’s Supplemental 

Report released on February 27th that State and USAID only responded to three of SIGAR’s 24 questions by the deadline that was 

December 29th, and as of the report’s release 14 questions still 

have not been answered. 

This isn’t the first time that we have had an issue with State 

and USAID stalling or not getting answers to SIGAR as well as 

GAO. Where is State and USAID in answering these 14 questions 

and what would SIGAR and GAO say if we called them up right 

now for an assessment? 

On the Palestinian issue—on April 1st, the Palestinians will officially be members of the International Criminal Court, the ICC, 

and in my view that has already triggered U.S. law to cut off funding. 

While the administration has indicated that it does not believe 

that the PA’s actions triggered the suspension of U.S. aid, it has 

said that a review of aid to the Palestinian Authority is underway. 

What is the current status of the third tranche of outstanding 

aid to the PA and what is new with the review? And lastly, though, 

the President’s budget request includes $20 million for democracy 

assistance to Cuba. 

32

I worry that the administration’s normalization effort might signal the end of our efforts to promote democracy and governance on 

the island and, indeed, throughout the Western Hemisphere. 

I am concerned about the track USAID is taking with regard to 

closed societies, especially those impacting our region. In Venezuela, for example, many of us have been advocating for years 

that the people of Venezuela need more democracy and governance 

funds. 

Yet, the administration still does not give Venezuela the attention it desperately needs. Can USAID provide the committee with 

a breakdown on how much aid in the Western Hemisphere is specifically going toward democracy and governance programs? 

And then, lastly, for Ms. Hyde, MCC is in the middle of imple- menting a $277 million compact with El Salvador awarded because 

of that country’s supposed commitment to political rights, to the 

rule of law, to control of corruption. 

This is despite widespread concerns over El Salvador’s March 1st 

election, the results of which have still not been announced. Will 

MCC suspend El Salvador’s compact if elections there are determined not to have been free and fair? Ambassador? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congresswoman. You have 

given me quite an interesting plate here and see if I can take them 

in order. 

To begin with, our support to various communities and refugees 

and other humanitarian programs around the world we continually 

assess those programs. We evaluate the effectiveness of those programs. 

We have mechanisms in place to determine how well those programs are being carried out. We use a tiered effect and tiered operation opportunity to determine how effective the programs are on 

the ground. Personnel are implementing, partners provide feedback 

as to how the program is being executed. 

We do so by third party independent contractors who go out and 

assess or, if we have the opportunity ourselves, using our Foreign 

Service officers, the civil servants, to see what is happening on the 

ground. And so there is a process by which we check on the effectiveness of various programs. 

Chairman ROYCE. General, I am going to—I am going to make 

a suggestion here. It will make it easier on you, too. 

Why don’t we—why don’t we respond in writing to those questions, and I think that would be the most efficient and I will remind members just to allow our panelists time to respond to their 

questions. 

We will go to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New York, ranking member 

of the Subcommittee on Europe. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, Ms. Hyde, thank you for your testimony. You 

know, I just came back from Asia and I am one who believes in 

the President’s agenda with reference to TPP and the importance 

of international trade. 

But one of my pet peeves has always been in any trade agreement is what are we doing with reference to trade capacity in development, particularly how does trade promotion and how can 

that assist the most vulnerable especially in developing countries 

33

and where there is minority populations and Afro-Colombian communities. 

So in this year’s budget for the MCC and the USAID, is there 

any plan—what is planned for trade promotion and for the inclusion of these communities in trade benefits so that everyone can 

benefit from the bottom up and not just from the top down? 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the question 

very much. 

At MCC we do think trade capacity is a core component of eco- nomic growth and we have worked over the portfolio, over $10 billion, in a number of investments that are trade capacity—infrastructure investments, obviously, building roads, facilitating ports 

and the like, and depending upon the estimate one thinks roughly 

half are depending upon the definition of trade capacity, roughly 

half of our portfolio has been committed in that area. That said, 

we are looking forward to see what we can do more on trade capacity building and certainly see what we could do more to reach out 

to American businesses. 

So later this year, we will be leading the MCC’s first ever trade 

mission with business leaders to Africa. This came out of the 

AGOA Summit last summer. 

We will be doing more of those to purposefully present the opportunities that our investments make themselves but in and around 

our investments if we are bolstering capacity. 

We are also doing a second thing which is we start with a constraints to growth analysis—economic analysis. We are integrating 

into that analytical tool trade capacity specifically so that more of 

our investments will be oriented in that way. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman. 

One of the efforts we have is a major program, Trade—in addition to Power Africa but it is also Trade Africa—focused on trade 

and how do we extend, how do we cause a proliferation of trade opportunities for American businesses. 

This program is specifically in Africa but I would share with you 

that it is happening in other places around the world in terms of 

our focus on trade. 

Trade becomes the one tool that anything we have the opportunity to connect with countries both for their own prosperity and 

security as well as our own and an opportunity for American businesses to certainly become available and use the technology that 

they offer to many of these countries. 

I will give you an example in Tanzania. As the Ambassador to 

Tanzania, I was very active in encouraging American businesses to 

come to Tanzania and in fact we were able to bring about the necessary reforms in Tanzania where the government itself began to 

use the phraseology ‘‘Tanzania is open for business.’’

And in those countries—companies, rather, that came to Tanzania, they flourished. They did very well. Some of the companies—

IBM, John Deere and as many others who came and, by the way, 

small businesses as well. 

Mr. MEEKS. Well, on that let me—let me ask because of the 

small business. What has also played a significant role is micro finance——

Ambassador LENHARDT. Yes. 

34

Mr. MEEKS [continuing]. In those areas and reducing poverty in 

these emerging economies, these micro—and often these small investments, you know, they leverage other opportunities in these 

communities. 

So can you just tell me what USAID and then also in the time 

I have left I have another question that I guess I could ask and 

just have it—you respond to me. 

The MCC proposal do you provide funding and support for these 

efforts and any new initiatives to reach vulnerable groups and attract other funds including American investment. And here I am 

specifically interested in efforts in Africa and USAID and MCC 

projects. 

So if you could answer that, and then probably to answer I am 

also concerned about the lack of dollars and spending in regards to 

democracy promotion. 

It has fallen by 38 percent since 2009, hit a low $1.4 billion in 

2014 and furthermore the number of countries where USAID operates dedicated to a democracy program has fallen from 91 to 63. 

So maybe in writing you can respond to me on that. But can you 

answer my second question in the 14 seconds I have left? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

I will conclude by saying that USAID has been pivotal in shaping 

the micro finance industry, particularly by transforming it into a 

market-driven model that attracts private investors, companies 

who bring to the table their own capital and so from that standpoint we are looking to see how we can explore, how we can do 

more. 

Interestingly enough, in those cases where we are putting out 

micro financing, women do very well and, by the way, as my experience in Tanzania, not only did they bring about the activity that 

they were embarked on, farming generally, but they also paid back 

the loan. 

Mr. MEEKS. Ambassador, I am out of time. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MEEKS. So I would love to get your response in writing and 

also let me talk to you about Haiti. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE GREGORY W. MEEKS

USAID has been a leader in the Democracy, Human Rights and Governance 

(DRG) sector for many years, defending human rights and civil society and strengthening sound democratic institutions around the world. 

It is true that USAID’s spending for democracy, human rights and governance has 

dropped by over a third since FY 2009. At the same time, over half of this decline 

has resulted from the evolution of programs in just three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is the other half of the budget decline that has impacted our 

democracy, human rights and governance programs in the rest of the world, particularly in Africa. This is our greatest present challenge. 

USAID has already begun to act: it has made modest but important increases in 

its FY 15 budget, and the President’s FY 16 budget includes substantial increases 

in requests for democracy, human rights and governance for USAID. For FY 2016, 

the Administration has requested $2.9 billion for global DRG assistance, an increase 

of nearly $1.0 billion over the FY 2014 enacted level. 

While we are working to address the budget challenges of recent years, we are 

also pursuing a more integrated approach to development, making DRG a critical 

element to all development programs. Only through respect for human rights, civic 

35

engagement, and accountability of public officials will development gains in health 

and education, for example, be sustainable over the long-term. 

Despite the challenges to its budget, USAID has been and will continue to be a 

leader in supporting the President’s national security policy on human rights and 

democratic governance. USAID has been an active member of the Atrocity Prevention Board and has pioneered the training of USG field officers in this area. We 

have provided important support to the Open Government Partnership, through 

which almost 70 countries have committed to implementing concrete actions in the 

area of transparency and anti-corruption. USAID is also a key player in President 

Obama’s Stand with Civil Society initiative, which is addressing authoritarian encroachments on political space around the world. In addition, the Agency has developed new guidance for our programs in closed spaces. And USAID is an inter-agency 

leader in shaping a more comprehensive USG approach to addressing conflict, fragility and violent extremism. In carrying out these initiatives, USAID has leveraged 

significant funding from other public and private donors. For example, we have 

raised $50 million of external funding for its Civil Society Innovation Initiative and 

$40 million for its Grand Challenge on Making All Voices Count. 

In addition, during this Administration USAID has issued a new strategy on democracy, human rights and governance. The new strategy codifies a more holistic 

approach to our programming in this sector by focusing on participation, inclusion, 

and accountability, while elevating human rights and integration of programming 

across economic and social sectors. All of these efforts come on top of our continuing 

work in areas such as electoral support. For example the support that USAID provided to Nigeria’s recent election—assistance to the electoral commission, political 

parties, and NGO monitors—was a key factor in Nigeria’s historic transition of 

power. All of these examples speak to the important work that has been carried out 

despite the budgetary challenges.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks. 

And now we turn to Mr. Rohrabacher, the chairman on the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

I would like to identify myself with what Mr. Meeks just brought 

up on in terms of the importance of micro finance as compared to—

even comparing that to the bigger loans and the more substantial 

financial dealings that we seem to be involved with. 

Also, I would like to identify myself with the remarks of Chairman Royce in terms of the concern about title and actual ownership—the legal basis of this. Establishing micro loans and looking 

for title and ownership rights is actually a low cost way of achieving great things, and just a thought there. 

Let me just note that with that and with the concern Mr. Royce 

has expressed today we also need to make sure that those governments that are engaged with stealing property, especially from 

American citizens, do not benefit by the benevolence of our Government. 

Specifically, the Government of Ethiopia, which there is a family 

in Orange County in which Chairman Royce and myself are familiar—with an immigrant family from Ethiopia whose property has 

been stolen and the Ethiopian Government refuses to not only return—not return it but not offer any type of just compensation 

whatsoever. 

So I would hope in the millennium the MCC does not provide 

Ethiopia or other governments like it that steal property from 

Americans that we offer them sort of some loan guarantees, et 

cetera. 

The—in terms of the overall program in terms of America’s assistance, I would prefer to see a program—an assistance program 

aimed more at emergencies and disasters rather than economic development. 

36

When people are in tragic and horrible situations, we as human 

beings need—there is a moral obligation for us to reach out and 

help them and as we see that in the Middle East today. 

So I would hope that those millions of people, especially, for example, in the Middle East where—and the Kurds are taking in 1 

million or more—11⁄2 million people, which they have very little 

budget. 

Let me ask Mr. Ambassador, is—are we providing direct aid to 

the Kurds now or does all of this have to go through Baghdad 

which, of course, is ruled by Baghdad government which is ruled 

by people who think of the Kurds as an adversary? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Congressman, for the 

question. 

We are providing assistance to people who need it without regard 

to whether or not it is in a direction fashion to the Kurds or, for 

that matter, that it is funneled through——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe I will go directly—does our aid that 

goes to—that eventually ends up with the Kurds do we have to 

ship that through Baghdad first? Does that have to be approved by 

Baghdad before we are permitted to give that direct assistance? 

That could be a yes or no question. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. I will come back to you on that question. 

I don’t have all the details, Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, General. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. So I will come back to you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would appreciate that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

U.S. humanitarian assistance is not channeled through government (central or regional) authorities in Iraq. U.S. government humanitarian assistance in Iraq is delivered on an impartial basis by trusted partners, including United Nations (U.N.) 

agencies, public international organizations such as the International Committee of 

the Red Cross and the International Organization for Migration, and NGOs. The 

U.N. coordinates the international humanitarian effort in Iraq, under the leadership 

of the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Resident Coordinator 

and Humanitarian Coordinator, Lise Grande. To ensure the most effective response 

and to avoid duplication of efforts, the U.N. coordinates with relevant government 

bodies such as the Joint Monitoring and Coordination Center in Baghdad and the 

Joint Crisis Coordinating Center in Erbil. 

The U.S. government has provided nearly $220 million for humanitarian assistance to Iraqis in the region since the start of Fiscal Year 2014. Of the nearly $220 

million, USAID has provided $29.74 million; the State Department’s Bureau for 

Population, Refugees and Migration $182.3 million; and the Department of Defense 

contribution of $7.5 million. 

U.S. government humanitarian assistance is focused on the provision of food and 

other relief commodities, shelter (including repairs), water and sanitation, health 

care, protection (including specialized services for women, children, and survivors of 

sexual and gender-based violence), and humanitarian coordination and logistics. 

Rather than being targeted to particular communities or locations, U.S. humanitarian assistance is provided on a country-wide basis, and focused on the populations in greatest need who can be reached by our humanitarian partners. Currently it is too dangerous for many relief organizations to work in ISIL-held areas, 

therefore, the majority of U.S. humanitarian assistance is concentrated among Iraqi 

internally-displaced persons and Syrian refugee populations in the north, center and 

south of the country. 

Despite the ongoing strong support by the United States to vulnerable Iraqis, tremendous needs remain. We regularly urge other donors to contribute generously to 

37

the U.N. appeal for Iraq, and we continue to press the Government of Iraq to support its displaced citizens.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let us just note when we talk about—I just 

came back from Egypt where they have a tremendous effort that 

is going on with many other countries to help build an economy. 

We should be very grateful for that. 

And in terms of one last note about Pakistan, we have been giv- ing—we have given over $28 billion of assistance of one kind or another over the last 15 years to Pakistan. I understand next year’s 

list is about $500 million. 

I am wondering are we still going to be giving this money as 

we—when we read reports where just yesterday a Christian community church was blown up and 15 Christians were murdered, 

where we see thousands of innocent people being murdered in the 

Kurdistan region of Pakistan. 

Are we going to continue giving Pakistan that money even as it 

imprisons Dr. Afridi, the man who helped us bring to justice the 

man—the people who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11? 

Are we going to—when are we going to wake up and realize that 

the Pakistani Government is engaged in activity that actually murders Americans, murders their own citizens and is involved with 

religious persecution? Anybody want to tackle that? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, but time is up, 

and they will get to you in writing. 

Dr. Bera, your time is——

Mr. BERA. Thank you. 

Last week, under the leadership of Chairman Royce we had a 

chance to visit some of the—your staff, Ambassador, on the ground 

in India. We visited the Vivekananda slum outside of New Delhi 

where some of your staff is working on clean water and sanitation 

efforts. 

Doing a great job, by the way. Incredibly important work in the 

sense of helping plan out a community, helping, you know, put 

something as simple as toilets into a slum of, you know, thousands 

of individuals. 

Why this is incredibly important, as we are thinking about empowering women and girls, as we are looking at safety, you know, 

something as basic as giving them a place to go use the restroom 

and privacy has dramatic effect. 

So, again, I just want to compliment your staff for what they are 

doing out there. This is an incredibly important area to me as we 

look at maternal-child health and women’s empowerment around 

the world. 

I am glad that I do see an increase in the budget request of 

about 8 percent in USAID’s budget. What I am curious about is, 

you know, specific efforts on women’s empowerment, specific resources that are going to empower women and then, you know, specific efforts on family planning and reproductive health in the 

budget priorities, if you can briefly talk about that or——

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman, and thank 

you also for taking the time to visit India and seeing on the ground 

first hand some of our work that is underway. 

The support to India, and I can take it from the top—the macro 

level—the strategic partnership is very important to us and as we 

38

think about our shift to Asia and the support there, India is a very 

important partner and besides being the largest, you know, democratic democracy in the world. 

Specifically as it relates to women, we have a number of programs aimed at empowering women, starting with basic education, 

creating an environment where women have the opportunity—girls 

have the opportunity to learn, to grow and eventually make a 

major contribution to their country and their families and many 

other things. 

We also look at women from the standpoint of how do we protect 

them, how do we ensure that they are not victims of, in the case 

of India as was reported in the news recently, violent rapes and 

other assaults. 

And so our programs are aimed at securing women, girls as 

much as possible, keeping them protected from gender-based violence as well as thinking about girls who are being forced into 

early marriages. And so all of these efforts are aimed at empowering women, keeping them safe. 

You saw some of that when you were on the ground, and so we 

feel confident that this is working for us but more work has to be 

done. And so it is a—it is a constant routine for us to reach out 

to empower girls. 

Mr. BERA. Right. So let us continue to maintain a focus and, certainly, this office will continue to work there. 

On the U.S.-India relationship as well, as we build momentum 

USAID is also launching a very innovative program, the Diaspora 

Bonds, which I think is the first of its type of program. Again, it 

is in the very early phases. 

But it is to encourage the Indian-American diaspora to invest in 

India and, you know, I would be curious to get your sense on that 

and any specifics about that program. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. I would have to come back to you. The 

details of that, Congressman, I don’t have that at hand. But I will 

say that working with any diaspora is very important because they 

have a voice. 

They, certainly, have an opportunity to encourage and supporting 

financially in many cases the country and, certainly, the issues 

that are present in India. And so I will have to come back to you 

with the specifics as to the program. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE AMI BERA

USAID’s Indian Diaspora Investment Initiative (IDII) enables U.S. investors, particularly the Indian American diaspora, to support the expansion of social enterprises (businesses that tackle poverty) across India, working in sectors including agriculture, education, energy efficiency, healthcare, and water and sanitation. 

U.S. investors (including the Indian American diaspora) will be able to purchase 

a ‘‘Diaspora Investment Note,’’ issued by the Calvert Foundation, a social impact investment fund. The Calvert Foundation will pool this capital and lend it to multiple 

partners (with strong track records of supporting social enterprises) which will use 

the proceeds to lend to small- and medium-sized social enterprises operating in 

USAID’s target sectors in India. Once the social enterprises repay their loans, the 

partners will repay the Calvert Foundation, which thereafter will repay investors 

their principal plus nominal interest. 

A key component of the IDII is an innovative USAID Development Credit Authority (DCA) partial credit guarantee of the loans from four Indian financial instituVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:55 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\_FULL\031715\93817 SHIRL
39

tions (two banks and two non-bank finance companies) to small- and medium-sized 

social enterprises operating in USAID’s target sectors in India. DCA partial credit 

guarantees reduce the risks of lending, thereby helping financial institutions lend 

to underserved sectors aligned with USAID’s development objectives. 

The goals of this innovative and cost-effective initiative include 1) increasing access to finance for social enterprises operating in the target sectors in India, 2) providing a systematic pathway for the Indian diaspora to invest in the development 

of their country of origin/heritage, and 3) unlock sources of capital beyond USAID’s 

grant resources through a credible investment vehicle. 

President Obama announced the broader IDII in January 2015. USAID anticipates that the related DCA partial credit guarantee will be signed by all partners 

by September 2015 and the Calvert Foundation Diaspora Investment Note will be 

issued later in the year.

Mr. BERA. Great. There is a relatively new program that was just 

announced by the President in January when he visited India and, 

again, it is to leverage a diaspora that has done every well here 

in the United States and empower them to invest the resources 

through these bonds to, again, help some of the social impact programs that, you know, specifically in this case in India. 

It looks like my time is up and, again, thank you both for the 

work that you are doing. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Doctor Bera. 

And now we will turn to Mr. Scott Perry, Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, ladies and 

gentleman, for being here today. 

Ambassador, thank you for your service. I am wondering—the Fiscal Year 2016 budget request provide the OIG $63 million increase, an increase of over 16—of 16 percent over Fiscal Year 2015. 

Can you explain in light of that why—succinctly, if you can, why 

the inspector general position has not been filled—there is no nominee—1,200 days? If you can explain, what is your perception? What 

is happening? What is the problem? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I don’t think it is a question of anything that is short of the fact 

that the search is underway. 

Mr. PERRY. Twelve hundred days? I mean, what about the acting 

inspector general? Is that person not qualified? I mean, how many 

days is appropriate? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. That I can’t respond to specifically as 

much as to say that the function of the Office of the Inspector General goes on. The work continues, the oversight, the—certainly, the 

opportunity for our programs to get reviewed, that is taking place. 

Mr. PERRY. Sir, I can appreciate that. But 1,200—to me, it is inexcusable and maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with you. I 

suspect that is the case. 

But you must understand the American people demand accountability, and while the work goes on there is not one single person 

at the top that can really be focused upon for the failings, and 

there are failings and they might not have anything to do with you. 

But it just shows to me a lack of commitment to the oversight 

of a lot of money and in the face of large request it seems antithetical. 

But let me—let me move on to why I think there needs to be 

more oversight. There have been some reports that the money in 

Gaza for reconstruction some has been diverted to continue the 

40

construction of tunnels by Hamas. Is there any truth to this? Do 

you know of any? 

Is there any truth to that other than reports and has the money 

that USAID spent in Gaza in the past has any of that been used 

for the making of tunnels—the construction of tunnels by Hamas? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thanks for the question, Congressman. 

The answer is no. 

Mr. PERRY. To which one? Both? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. No. No to the fact that tunnels—money 

for building tunnels, that is not something that I am aware of that 

is taking place. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. You are not aware of it but you don’t know 

that—you are not aware of it. So there is no proof at this point. 

It could be happening but you are not aware? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. I am not aware of. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. In fact, I would be very surprised that 

that is happening and in fact, again, I mentioned earlier that we 

have mechanisms to check on the progress of programs and so none 

of that has come to our attention at this point. 

Mr. PERRY. Can I get a list of the projects that USAID has funded in Gaza and how much money has been spent on each project 

and what the status is of those projects? 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE SCOTT PERRY

Since the onset of the July–August 2014 conflict in Gaza, the United States has 

committed $231 million in humanitarian assistance to Gaza. This assistance has 

been provided to established United Nations and non-governmental organizations, 

including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the World Food 

Program, the United Nations Development Program, UNICEF, the International 

Committee for the Red Cross, and others, to provide urgently needed humanitarian 

relief (water, food assistance, and hygiene and medical kits) and meet immediate 

needs such as psychosocial support for children and families and rubble removal. 

We are not currently aware of any reports that U.S. assistance for humanitarian 

aid in Gaza, including reconstruction, has been diverted for other purposes. The 

United States takes very seriously any reports of diversion of its assistance, and we 

have long required our partners in Gaza to take appropriate steps to prevent U.S. 

funding from being diverted for non-intended purposes. 

Consistent with statutory requirements, USAID has appropriate procedures in 

place to ensure that Economic Support Fund (ESF) assistance for the West Bank 

and Gaza is not provided to or through, or diverted to, any individual or entity that 

is known to be involved in or advocating terrorism, including Hamas. USAID’s vetting process checks non-U.S. individuals and entities within certain thresholds 

against law enforcement and intelligence community systems prior to local prime or 

sub award issuance. Worldwide, USAID requires grantees to sign its Certification 

Regarding Terrorist Financing in order to receive funds. In the West Bank and Gaza 

specifically, the annual Appropriations Act requires annual audits of all USAID direct awardees, as well as an annual Government Accountability Office audit of the 

use of all ESF assistance.

Ambassador LENHARDT. Congressman, yes, you can get that list 

but I will tell you that the work that is being done is humanitarian 

assistance. It is providing food aid. It is providing water. It is providing health——

Mr. PERRY. I understand, but I want to make sure that all of the 

money is going to those programs and none of it is going to tunnel 

construction by Hamas. 

41

That is what—that is what I am trying to ensure without—with 

all due respect, without an IG present I am concerned that some 

of that is slipping through the cracks. 

But moving on, getting to what Ms. Ros-Lehtinen was talking 

about regarding the Rome Statute and the Palestinian Authority, 

I am curious to know what will happen to funding in Gaza to the 

PA if they pursue criminal—war crimes charges against Israel. 

Do you see that as an issue that will—that will trigger a reduction in funding or a conversation of a prohibition of funding or is 

that not relevant to the conversation? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you for the question. 

I think all of that is relevant and at this point in time we are 

reviewing——

Mr. PERRY. So if they pursue war crimes against Israel, what do 

you do? What can we expect from you? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. War crimes against Israel—sir, I can’t 

answer that question in a way that would——

Mr. PERRY. If it has an impact on your funding, on the funding 

of USAID—what the Palestinian Authority and Hamas does in the 

International Criminal Court, understanding Hamas is recognized 

terrorist organization, if they pursue war crimes against Israel are 

you telling me it will have no effect on the funding——

Ambassador LENHARDT. No. 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. From the United States Government to 

the Palestinian Authority? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Congressman, I am not saying that at 

all. I am saying that at this point in time that because of the last 

several weeks and months, the Fiscal Year 2016 request is under 

review with respect to our continued support to the Palestinian Authority, and so that is happening. But answering a hypothetical at 

this point I cannot provide that to you. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand. Thank you for your time. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

And now we turn to my good friend, Mr. Ted Deutch, the ranking 

member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Nice hairdo. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you very much. 

Welcome to our witnesses. Appreciate your being here in your 

new capacity and commend the good work that both of you do. 

As ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, I have been particularly focused on the humanitarian 

challenges stemming from the complex crises in the region, in particular, Syria. 

We are now more than 4 years in. There is no end in sight and 

the humanitarian crisis grows larger every day, and as we know, 

even if there was a political solution tomorrow, even if Assad left 

tomorrow, the humanitarian crisis would continue for years. 

With 12.2 million people in need of assistance both inside and 

outside of Syria and the daunting task of assisting the growing 

needs in Iraq as ISIS forces wreak havoc on towns and villages, 

forcing civilians to flee, the United States has stepped up. 

42

We have played the largest role as humanitarian donor, $3 billion already spent. The budget request this year includes $1.6 billion for humanitarian needs in Syria and Iraq. 

And my question, Ambassador Lenhardt, first, to you is what is 

the ability of USAID partners to operate in regime-controlled areas 

of Syria and what is their ability to operate to the extent there is 

any in ISIS-controlled areas? What is the status of these besieged 

communities? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I would, first, say that people who operate in these areas—conflict areas—are doing so because they are motivated, because they 

feel they can make a commitment to something larger. They are, 

in many cases, heroes and heroines and so we applaud what they 

are doing across the board. 

With respect to our emphasis on safety, we continually talk 

about safety. We ensure that they are—by causing them to be situationally aware of what is going on or in and around the areas 

where they operate it is the kind of thing where, quite frankly, we 

are concerned about, certainly, the danger but these people rise to 

the top. 

They come fore—to the fore and implementing partners are doing 

the work that, quite frankly, needs to be done in threatening environments. We are providing aid to the Syrian refugees as well as 

internally displaced people at a time when others perhaps would 

not. But those people out there—the courageous folks are doing 

that day in and day out. 

Mr. DEUTCH. They do, and they are courageous, and if you would 

pass on our sincere thanks to them for the work that they do. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I am—I want to just shift gears in the remaining 

time I have and talk about—just follow up on an exchange that you 

had with Dr. Bera on the issue of girls and women and empowering 

girls and educating girls—the issue of gender-based violence, forced 

marriage, and we know that the impact that it has throughout the 

world. 

But the question I have is if, I think—Ambassador Lenhardt, I 

will ask it differently but the issue is, you know, we are considering a piece of legislation that I don’t expect you to comment on. 

But the International Violence Against Women Act would officially create an Office of Global Women’s Issues so that we can 

have someone in the administration at the ambassadorial level to 

focus on these issues every single day. 

This is an issue that, as far as I am concerned, should not be 

controversial. My question is not for you to comment on the legislation but to just let us know if it would—the extent to which it is 

helpful to have someone at that level as an ally for the work that 

you do, Ambassador Lenhardt, and Ms. Hyde, in your case to the 

extent that countries express interest in these gender equality 

issues and want to make that a part of what they do with you. 

Again, what would it be like to know that you have got that ally, 

going forward? 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

43

I can certainly speak from my own experience at the State Department which is a fantastic instrument and tool of American diplomacy and is organized in a way that has both regions and functions. 

And one of the perennial challenges is to integrate issues across 

the globe and I think the position that you described, and I saw 

this first hand, is how we can take that effort and not just make 

it a siloed effort of women and girls but, rather, how do we put it 

in both the regions and the functions from humanitarian assistance 

to economic development and the like. 

So that, from my own experience, was an effective approach to 

that. We work closely with that core group, and I will say at MCC 

we have country teams. For every country we work with there is 

an economist on the team, there is an M&E person on the team 

and there is a social and gender person on every team. So we matrix it that way. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. 

Dr. Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it. I appreciate you two being here. 

I am looking for answers or solutions. I want solutions, because 

there is a lot of questions and with the money that the American 

taxpayers have put in to foreign aid, and we hear all kinds of numbers—it is less than 1 percent. 

But when the military goes into Afghanistan or Iraq and builds 

roads is that considered foreign aid? Because we don’t bring those 

roads back. Somebody is paying for those and it is the American 

taxpayers, and when we look at all this money going around the 

world can you tell me, say, any country, pick a country. 

We give $500 million to Pakistan or the Palestinian Authority. 

Does that come out of the money that goes to you or does that come 

out of State Department? Or the money we give—or the money we 

give Mexico? Does that come out of USAID or MCC or does that 

come out of the State Department? 

Ms. HYDE. So thank you for the question. I will take a stab at 

it, based upon my experience at OMB but it was in a different context. 

Those funds are all part of what is the 150 function. That includes assistance that funds MCC, that funds the Peace Corps, that 

funds the State Department and the like. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. So all that money goes out to you—goes out? 

Ms. HYDE. Goes—correct. 

Mr. YOHO. Does it go out as cash, commodity, training, equipment or other? 

Ms. HYDE. Oh, I see. I see. So taking the conversation from the 

account structure to the program level, each one of the programs—

my program in particular—has certain controls around those funds. 

I wouldn’t speak to USAID but Ambassador Lenhardt can speak 

to the controls around different types of funds. In MCC’s case, 

when we partner with a country we have at least five sets of controls on disbursements. It starts with we are working with countries that are in the upper half of well-governed countries. 

44

Second, we put a fiscal agent and a procurement agent on the 

ground that is an outside entity in every program that we have. 

Third, we oversee a completely open and transparent procurement 

process where we have authority at every step of the way before 

anything is verified as complete. 

Fourth, the funds sit in the U.S. Treasury until we have done the 

verification and then we are paying vendors directly. So we are not 

putting the funds directly to the government. 

And then finally, we maintain a 24/7 hotline, a robust set of 

training——

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Let me stop you there. Because you talked 

about transparency and accountability. We gave the country of Afghanistan $1 billion in 2012—2013, I think it was. There was $300 million unaccounted for. So if there is transparency and accountability where did our $300 million go that we 

don’t know about and who is responsible for that? And the person 

at the top of that organization, if they can’t account for it, they 

need to be fired. 

The American taxpayers where I come from want to see that 

happen. And when we give money and we are doing it for democracy and human rights and we are promoting all this stuff, which 

I agree—I think it is a great thing—but when we are going in there 

and, as Dr. Bera brought up, we are putting in toilets, we are 

doing, you know, civil law, we are doing these in countries that 

have corrupt governments. How do you do that and why is that our 

responsibility? 

Why is that not the responsibility of that government and if we 

are giving them money, a cookie, and it’s a good cookie and they 

want our cookie, why are we not willing to take that back if they 

are not following the procedure if we have transparency, if we have 

accountability? 

Because I hear this story over and over again. I have been here 

for 2 years, going into my third year, second term, and I hear the 

same story over and over again. 

But I don’t see the end results, and with all the money we have 

spent over the course of the last, you know, again 1 percent, $37.8 

billion over 10 years—that is $370 billion of American taxpayers’ 

money—but yet has the world gotten safer? Has our relationships 

gotten safer around the globe? Ambassador Lenhardt. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman. 

I believe our relationships and our security and our prosperity 

has been enhanced as a result of our foreign aid. 

Mr. YOHO. May I stop you there? Because as I get Ambassadors 

that come in from countries all around the world, they say when 

they look at America they don’t want us around. 

In Bob Gates’ book talking about Pakistan, when they had the 

floods that they came, they took the stuff. There wasn’t high five 

and they weren’t excited to see the Americans there because they 

don’t trust us, and that was when we came in there as a humanitarian relief. 

And so we are not—we are missing something as we go out and 

try to do this humanitarian thing and I see us spending a lot of 

taxpayers’ money and we are at $18 trillion in debt and I don’t see 

where we can afford to give money away when we are broke. 

45

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman. 

My experience is different both as the Ambassador to Tanzania 

as well as the Ambassador to the East African community with 

four other countries. 

We were loved, and in Tanzania we has a 90-plus percent approval favorable rating for the American people in our outreach to 

the Tanzanian people. So my experience is different. 

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

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Dr. Yoho. 

And now another Florida colleague, Ms. Frankel, of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Madame Chair, and I thank you both 

for being here. I am sorry I was in and out because I have another 

meeting, like many, across the hall. But my son has worked for 

USAID so I have a special place for it in my heart. 

I have a couple of questions, first, having to do with women’s 

education. If you would comment on some of the work that USAID 

is doing in regards to women’s education and I also—I would like 

to know a little bit about the safety today for USAID workers, 

given what is going on around the world. 

I think we were all concerned. There was recently the death of 

Kayla Mueller who I believe—I don’t believe she was working for 

AID but she was working for some other humanitarian organization. 

So if you could just address those two issues for me, and thank 

you for what you do. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

We do a great deal in terms of training, teaching young girls and, 

for that matter, women and their empowerment. To begin with, at 

any point in time there are significant—millions of girls who are 

not going to school and who are being victimized in many ways either by gender-based violence or, for that matter, forced into early 

marriages. 

And so our program are designed and are carried out to encourage girls to go to school and to work with parents of those girls to 

encourage also the fact that the girls are significant. 

They have value, and in places where our programs have been 

allowed and people—parents support it, we are very successful. 

Last week, I attended a program at the White House, Let Girls 

Learn, where the First Lady has taken the opportunity to reach out 

to girls across the world. 

That is a very effective program. We are contributing to that—

USAID. But more globally, we are contributing to teaching children, many of whom are girls, and where girls grow up to be—become parents themselves or mothers. 

They, as I mentioned earlier, are involved in taking care of the 

family and creating an environment where their children then grow 

up to become contributing members of their—of the country that 

they—certainly, where they live in. 

And so it is a program whereby girls flourish and they are protected. With respect to security of our personnel, we are very conscious of that. As I said earlier, we focus our activities in ensuring 

that we either provide the training and/or the visibility, reaching 

down with our implementing partners as well as our own situaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:55 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_FULL\031715\93817 SHIRL
46

tional awareness of our own staff to ensure their protection, ensure 

that these locations around the world where they operate they are 

aware of what is happening and they can protect themselves. 

Or if the situation—the conflict is so severe then we will pull 

them out and protect them from any further potential harm. 

So that is happening across all of our programs. We integrate, 

by the way, gender in all of our programs so that it is not simply 

teaching but it involves everything that we do. Women’s issues are 

very important to us. 

Ms. HYDE. I appreciate the question. I would just highlight 

quickly two areas where MCC is working. First, gender is integrated across the programs through our indicators. On our scorecard there is a gender in the economy indicator. 

There is also a gender in education subset of the education indicator. So we are assessing a country’s investment in their girls and 

in education. 

Our programs themselves tend to be more toward the vocational 

end, the nexus to jobs and economic growth, as well as a great program that we have in Georgia, for example, which is in STEM—

science and technology—and it is a partnership with San Diego 

State. 

So that is the area in which we are working. But third, one area 

that I am really excited about is on data. MCC has helped take 

gender data and we have made a commitment as part of the initiative that is called Data 2X to release all of our sex-disaggregated 

gender data by the end of 2015 and to do more as we go forward 

to collect information about the impact that we are having on girls 

specifically so they are counted, they are heard. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Ms. Frankel. 

And now this committee is taken over by Florida. Mr. Clawson 

of Florida. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Okay. Thank you all for coming today. 

I want to start by saying that when I lived overseas, you know, 

I would bump into folks from USAID and my impression was that 

you had really good people in difficult places trying to do difficult 

things, and although I am always worried about accountability, as 

we should be because you all—this is taxpayer money—my personal experience with folks out there working in the field is that 

they do really good stuff under really difficult circumstances. 

So please pass along my personal compliments in that regard, 

and I appreciate what you all do. I would like to follow up with 

something that was said earlier about Cuba and for you all to give 

me a sense now that what has happened has happened with Cuba. 

And, you know, we are going through this normalization process 

and I think that there is maybe some stakeholders that were left 

out of that conversation. So now we are going to—we have been involved in the past, from what I read. 

I kind of struggle with what is discreet and what is secret and 

where USAID—you know, where you ought to end and the CIA 

ought to start. 

And so I kind of—if you would give me an overall picture of 

where the money is going to be going in Cuba, what is discreet and 

what—you know, what our goal for that discreet money is, I would 

really appreciate it. 

47

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman, for your comments and I echo your opening thoughts about USAID personnel. 

They are truly heroes and heroines doing work around the world. 

I thought leaving the military after I retired I would never find 

a group of people who were as highly motivated, committed to the 

task as well as patriotic. But I find them here in USAID and I 

think we can do nothing less than continually talk about the goodness and the work that they do. 

Mr. CLAWSON. With no creature comforts, by the way. I mean, 

they live a tough life. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. And in threatening environments, sir, 

that many of us don’t appreciate, don’t understand. But they do it 

nonetheless and they do it with great aplomb and they do it for all 

the right reasons, and that is the outreach of the American people 

to wherever it is around the world that they find themselves. So 

thank you for your comments. 

With respect to Cuba, we are committed to programs for democracy, civil society and independent media, and so that was the emphasis, that was the direction being in Cuba. 

It was—there was nothing nefarious. There was nothing that we 

had any design on other than helping the Cuban people have an 

alternative and causing them to understand that America is reaching out to them in ways that was productive and positive. We also 

do humanitarian work with respect to family members of prisoners——

Mr. CLAWSON. Can I interrupt—can I interrupt just a second, 

just to follow up on what you said with—sorry for butting in. 

In the case of Cuba, the government doesn’t want us there. In 

other places where I have seen you’all’s organization the governments usually do want us there. That’s an important distinction or 

am I wrong—am I missing something on that? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. No, sir. You are not. But I think it is 

also for us to think through the fact that our work is extended to 

people, the American people to wherever people are around the 

world who are in need, as opposed to governments. 

In many cases, we don’t work with governments but we certainly 

provide relief, humanitarian assistance to people and so that is the 

focus. And so if we were to simply cut out the fact that people 

around the world are suffering because of their governments is that 

a reason for us not to help? 

I don’t think that is the intent. So we reach—we reach out wherever people are in need and so that is why were in Cuba trying to 

provide assistance to the Cuban people at a time when their own 

government does not provide that assistance. 

Mr. CLAWSON. And the Cuban Government would look at this as 

espionage. Is that right? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Sir, I am not sure how they would look 

at it as much as to say our focus is on people, bringing the American people to the Cuban people in this case. 

But we do it in other places around the world, closed societies 

and, by the way, again, talking about the protection of our people 

and the work that they do, we have a program whereby a new design where we specifically encourage and counsel people working, 

independent contractors and the like are partners, how to protect 

48

themselves, what to look for, how to ensure that they are continually mindful of the threat, and where that threat is sufficient 

enough we pull them out or we will curtail the contract. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes 

Mr. Castro for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ambassador, and 

thank you, Ms. Hyde, for your testimony this morning. 

And, Ambassador, thank you. First of all, congratulations on a 

distinguished career and thank you for overseeing USAID for us 

now. 

Let me ask you about the Global Development Lab and the wonderful work that you all are doing in development there. If you 

could describe that for us and some of the innovations that have 

taken place because of that work. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. 

The Global Lab, if I can describe it and looking at it from the 

standpoint of what we are doing, the lab offers us the opportunity 

to think more about leveraging science, technology, innovation and 

partnerships in all of our work. 

They—the lab represents what might be described in other businesses as our research and development—how to become better at 

what we do, using the lab to identify ways in which we can extend 

the resources that are entrusted to us as well as looking at new 

opportunities for us to bring in new equipment, new partnerships 

around not only in America but around the world. 

And so the lab is that one entity that brings that all together. 

I can use some examples. In the Ebola crisis, for instance, they developed a very unique suit that protected personnel who were responding—the health workers. They have also developed as a result of a challenge we put out various creams that would block the 

Ebola virus. 

But beyond that, we are looking at ways where using things like 

geospatial techniques, how do we do a better job of mapping potential problem areas around the world, looking at either climate, 

looking at places where poverty is extensive or, for that matter, extreme ideology—where looking at a model, putting that all together 

in terms of how the lab then could pinpoint potential problem areas 

before they occur. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. So the lab is something that we see as 

beneficial both today but more importantly long term——

Mr. CASTRO. Well, and thank you for that. 

Ambassador LENHARDT [continuing]. And figure out a way to institutionalize it into everything that we do. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. And the reason that I bring that up is because 

sometimes there is the impression about U.S. foreign aid and the 

work that USAID does as though the United States is simply giving and the countries are taking. 

But the Global Development Lab is an example of how not only 

is it accelerating and improving our development work but also 

leading to technologies and innovations that can be helpful in the 

United States and in countries of the world where we are not necVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:55 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_FULL\031715\93817 SHIRL
49

essarily even giving aid. So I think that is at the cutting edge of 

the innovative work that USAID does. 

My second question is I just—I left for a little bit to go meet with 

some foreign ministers from Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—and let me ask you about the President’s proposal to offer about $1.14 billion in assistance to the Central American countries. Six hundred and thirty-five million of that would be 

through USAID. What kind of work are you all anticipating doing 

there? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman. 

We are looking at continuing much of the work that we are doing 

now and expanding that. We are doing work with respect to security in the countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and providing those opportunities for reducing violence, lowering youth unemployment, spurring broad-based economic growth in some of the 

fragile locations, fostering public sector accountability, transparency and effectiveness. 

I will tell you also that one of my jobs was President of the National Crime Prevention Council here in our country where we did 

a great deal of work in South America and Central America with 

the things like community policing, causing communities to have a 

better sense of security within their own neighborhoods by encouraging them to work with local police. 

And in many cases where that came together they were more secure and they eliminated the threat both from the standpoint of the 

physical threat but also from the drug cartels, and when those 

neighborhoods came together the drug cartels—they left. They got 

out of the picture. 

So this money then would extend many of those programs and 

offer an opportunity for—through Central America’s security and 

prosperity to extend to our own because truly that is part of our 

own back door. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Ambassador, have you determined—and I apologize if you have 

answered this before. I was down the hall for another hearing. 

But has the administration determined whether the Palestinians 

have violated U.S. law by seeking to enter the International Criminal Court and supporting judicially authorized investigations 

against Israel? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Sure. We have—the Fiscal Year 2016 

budget is under serious review in terms of our support to the Palestinian Authority and so I will leave it at that. 

We will come back to the Congress for your counsel as well as 

working with the administration and State Department to determine what actions we take going forward. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So it is possible that as you examine that that 

you think that funding is not appropriate in light of those actions. 

Is that what you are saying? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Sir, I am not commenting on that as 

much as to say our programs with respect to the Palestinian Authority is under review. 

50

Mr. DESANTIS. And when you—when will you let us know what 

the conclusion is? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Chair, let me make the commitment to 

come back to you when that does occur and we will respond at that 

point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE RON DESANTIS

USAID, in conjunction with the State Department, continues to examine our assistance to the Palestinians to determine how it can best be used moving forward. 

Although our view is that the legislative restrictions related to Palestinian initiation 

or active support for an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorized investigation have not been triggered to date, we are deeply troubled by Palestinian 

action at the ICC and continue to voice our opposition to further actions to both the 

Palestinians and the international community. 

We continue to believe that U.S. assistance to the Palestinian people is an important tool in promoting regional stability, economic development, and increased security for both Palestinians and Israelis.

Mr. DESANTIS. So beyond the ICC issue, it has been the administration’s position, I think, that the unity government with the Palestinian Authority between Hamas and Fatah did not trigger a 

defunding which is in the law and I think the reason for that is 

that the administration said Hamas was not exercising a ‘‘undue 

influence’’ on the government. So is that still the administration’s 

position? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Sir, again, as I said, it is under review 

and so we will have to come back to you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. What can you report on—I know Secretary Kerry 

last year pledged U.S. money to help, you know, rebuild the Gaza 

Strip after the conflict last year and I know other Middle Eastern 

countries like Qatar have pledged billions of dollars. 

So what is the status of that? Has the United States obligated 

funds for the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Sir, I can’t comment on that because I 

don’t have any specific knowledge. I will tell you about our programs—our humanitarian programs, assisting people with water, 

food, health and hygiene products as well as doing some teaching, 

basic education. 

But those are our programs. I cannot comment on something 

that, certainly, I can’t control. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So but those programs have continued unabated 

in the Palestinian areas? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Again, our focus is on people and so 

those programs are based on previous years’ moneys. For as long 

as those moneys are available we continue to reach out and provide 

humanitarian assistance. But, again, the Fiscal Year 2016 request 

is in fact under review. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. Well, what I would say is money that is 

going to rebuild the Gaza Strip there is a great danger that that 

money is going to be used by Hamas and I think that would be a 

huge mistake if we go down this road where they are building more 

tunnels and they are acquiring more rockets and maybe the money 

goes to the PA. 

But since money is fungible, if there is other money at stake that 

can be diverted for some of those illicit measures. I also am conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:55 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_FULL\031715\93817 SHIRL
51

cerned about just having traveled over there that you still have the 

Palestinian Authority educating its youth to hate Israel, to hate 

Jews and to seek Israel’s elimination. 

And I just think that that is just so toxic and we continue, you 

know, pouring money over there. But if that underlying dynamic 

does not change, you know, I think you are going to continue to see 

a lot of substandard results. 

I yield back the balance of my time and I will—the chair will 

now recognize Mr. Cicilline for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by really congratulating you, Ms. Hyde, on the 

terrific leadership at MCC—as you know, identified as the most 

transparent aid agency in the world and the model that is used at 

the MCC, I think, is really a great example for development aid 

and I have seen very—personally the work done in Cape Verde and 

the kind of success that has happened there and I really want congratulate you on that. 

I would like to ask you specifically, I know that Liberia is currently seeking to work with the MCC in developing a compact. As 

you know, the Ebola outbreak has had a tremendously devastating 

impact on that country and on the institutions and the personnel, 

and the government, obviously, dealing with an already limited capacity has also been constrained by budget obligations as well as 

impact on personnel. 

And I am wondering how MCC and you will be working to ensure that they actually have the capacity to benefit from an MCC 

compact. It is, I know, a country that is in serious need of support 

and just wondering how sort of we are thinking about that. 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your comments 

as well about Cabo Verde. It has been a model for us in many respects, the work that we have done there on the ports and in the 

water management program. 

With respect to Liberia, as you know, there was certainly a lull 

among the development community for their work in Liberia and 

my impression and understanding is that there are many efforts 

underway simultaneously now, and there is a great opportunity for 

us to look at economic growth, for us to work together with other 

donors. And I certainly echo the Ambassador’s comments about 

partnerships in what we do and how to put the pieces of the puzzle 

and the funds together. 

So I think we have a real opportunity now to do that in Liberia. 

We have re-engaged vigorously with our colleagues from USAID 

and we have engaged particularly around the energy sector. So before the outbreak we had conducted a constraints to growth analysis. 

It had, clearly, shown that the energy needs that President 

Sirleaf speaks about so often are the impediment to private investment. We know that, and so our efforts are likely to be focused on 

the energy sector, working with Power Africa, and the efforts that 

USAID and OPIC and others are undertaking there and to see if 

we can double, triple the capacity in the country. 

We will be doing so mindful of the policy reform environment, 

not just what we will build but what the sector is going to look like 

52

at the end, and work together with them and I think they are enthusiastic for our involvement in that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your service and 

thank you again to the heroic staff and personnel of USAID for the 

work they do all over the world. 

I want to just put out three questions and to the extent we have 

time if you can answer them. Otherwise, if you could just answer 

them in writing that would be terrific. 

I am very pleased that the State Department recently followed 

USAID’s lead in appointing a special envoy for the human rights 

of LGBT persons, Randy Berry. 

We hope that the offices of USAID’s senior LGBT coordinator, 

Todd Larson, and the State’s envoy receive robust funding to allow 

them to work together to carry out their mandate to protect the 

basic human rights of LGBT individuals globally. 

Many foreign governments have recently proposed or enacted discriminatory and sometimes dangerous anti-LGBT legislation. So 

my first question is what role do you see USAID’s senior LGBT coordinator will play to combat this and other discriminatory actions 

against LGBT individuals around the world. 

A second questions is that USAID has done incredible work as 

part of the U.S. participation in the effort to end the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Liberia has gone more than 3 weeks without 

a new Ebola case. 

This is a monumental achievement, but as new cases continue to 

be diagnosed in Sierra Leone and Guinea it is clear we must remain vigilant in our efforts. Can you provide an update as to our 

efforts that are underway to end unsafe burial practices and improve communication in communities that are still seeing new 

cases of Ebola being diagnosed? 

And, additionally, we are hearing reports that survivors of Ebola 

who can continue to infect other individuals with whom they have 

sexual contact. They are not being properly educated about these 

risks or provided with appropriate contraception. Can you identify 

what steps if any the United States is taking to help address this 

risk? 

And, finally, as my colleague mentioned, sexual and genderbased violence continues to hamper our efforts to reduce global poverty. I saw this, particularly, in Liberia last year. 

What steps is USAID taking to address this issue both on our 

own and in partnership with international NGOs? Are there successful models? What can we do more effectively and what can 

Congress to do to respond to this really insidious and horrific level 

of violence against girls and women all across the world? 

So I know I have left absolutely no time for you to answer those 

three questions but I look forward to hearing your responses in 

writing and I thank you again for your service. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Sherman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to pick up on the comments of the gentleman from Florida, who is leaving as I applaud his comments. 

53

And that is there may be a real question here as to whether aid 

to the PA is legal today, given the actions that they have taken. 

So it is not a matter of conducting a view with regard to next 

year’s budget. You may be illegally spending funds this year. So I 

am hoping that you will come back to us not just with a report as 

to whether the aid is good public policy and good development policy but also whether it is legal, and that even if you think it is wonderful policy that if it is illegal you will stop, not waiting for next 

year. 

So I wonder if we can count on that kind of legal analysis being 

given to the committee on a prompt basis. Ambassador? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I will commit to you that we will take that under review and 

come back with a response. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The two agencies you represent are doing work 

that is important in and of itself. You are helping the poorest countries in the world and the poorest people in the world. 

But the American people are funding these programs not just for 

that purpose but for our geopolitical and to be safer. And it would 

be easy to say well, if only there was economic progress then we 

wouldn’t have anything to worry about from a geopolitical standpoint. 

But 19 out of 20 of the 9/11 hijackers came from a country already way richer than you hope to make the countries that you are 

working in. So it is not enough for our geopolitical purposes to just 

have economic progress in the world. 

That is why Congress has required what I call ‘‘flag on the 

bag’’—that you have to aggressively let people know where the aid 

comes from. What I would like to know from each of you is do you 

have public polling to show that people in these countries know 

what the United States is doing or are we just hopeful that if you 

put the flag on the bag people will know about it? Ms. Hyde. 

Ms. HYDE. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the question. 

I think it is a very strong point and it is something that at MCC 

we are taking a close look at. We don’t have public polling. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. That is the answer. Ambassador, do you 

have public—have you done any polling? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Yes. We—thank you, Congressman, for 

the question. 

Yes, we do, in fact, have a program whereby we focus on marketing and ensuring that where it is appropriate that——

Mr. SHERMAN. If you have the polling I would like to make it 

part of the record of the hearing. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Well, we do——

Mr. SHERMAN. I know you have marketing. That is not the question I asked, though. And I am glad you have it but I want to know 

if you have polling because it is not——

Ambassador LENHARDT. Well, we do—in answer to the question, 

yes, we do for to assess how are we doing with respect to getting 

our message out—messages out. 

I can tell you that from my experience in Tanzania, very powerful. It produced the results that we wanted. As I mentioned earlier, 

Tanzanians are favorably——

54

Mr. SHERMAN. What I will ask you to do is furnish for the record 

the polling because you can have any company—I mean, Coca Cola 

may say we got a great adverting campaign, we are on the Super 

Bowl. 

But then they check to see whether people are buying Coke and 

they do polling to see whether people saw the frisky polar bear. 

I want to move on to another question. Pakistan is, I think, the 

most important area for our concerns. We have spent $155 million 

to improve education in Sindh and we have this audit report on 

those efforts. 

I commend you, Ambassador, for those efforts. But the inspector 

general says the program is not achieving its goal, hasn’t built 

schools, there hasn’t been an improvement in early grade reading, 

community mobilization. Are these problems being addressed and 

are you following the IG’s recommendations? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. In answer to the question, yes, Congressman. We are in fact looking at the report. But I will say beyond that report we also do our own assessments, our own evaluations. And so they tell us a different picture that isn’t perfect but 

it is certainly making progress. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN

Public awareness polling has been at the heart of USAID’s ‘‘branding and marking’’ requirements since the Agency first issued a regulation requiring branding and 

marking in 2004. USAID has continued to conduct public polling as part of efforts 

focusing on increasing awareness of U.S. civilian assistance in critical countries. A 

recent example is Pakistan. 

Starting in 2011, as one component of a broader communications strategy formulated and implemented with the Department of State, USAID/Pakistan began implementing a multi-media, multi-lingual media campaign, employing a local Pakistani 

implementer, with a focus on increasing awareness of USAID assistance to the Pakistani people. To measure the effectiveness of the campaign, USAID/Pakistan also 

contracted with an independent company to conduct nationwide polling. 

Since the beginning of the paid media campaign, USAID aired 78,500 TV spots, 

47,000 radio spots, 31,000 movie theater spots and 221,040 cable TV spots. The campaign also reached 69,566,000 digital impressions. USAID is currently in the process 

of procuring a follow-on media campaign activity. 

During the three-year campaign, now completed, polling showed an increase in 

awareness of U.S. assistance, from 34% in 2011 to 47% in 2014. The polling also 

showed a direct correlation between Pakistanis aware of USAID’s work and increased favorability towards the United States. 

Since 2011, USAID has also run a weekly Urdu-language radio show that is 

broadcast across 70 percent of the country. Each weekly radio show features a specific USAID program and includes a discussion with USAID staff, implementers, 

and beneficiaries.

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to thank you for the effort. I think it is 

very important. I think it is the most geopolitically important country to us. 

And, finally, I am going to shift over and maybe you can furnish 

some information to the record, Ms. Hyde—what does Armenia 

have to do to get another compact? And since I have zero time that 

will probably be a response for the record unless the chairman 

wants to hear you orally. 

Mr. YOHO. We will give you 30 seconds. 

Ms. HYDE. The board just recently set forth criteria for a second 

compact. The three criteria are success in the first compact, 

55

progress on the scorecard and a commitment to reform—policy reforms going forward. 

I know that Armenia has made progress on the political rights 

indicator which was the challenge in our first compact. We will be 

looking to evaluate a second compact against those criteria. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

very much. 

I met yesterday with a woman who is the chairman of the 

Kurdistan regional government’s High Council on Women’s Affairs 

and I am wondering if you can speak to what work or what types 

of assistance you are providing there to the either the Kurdish 

Government directly or to the NGOs who are operating there. 

A few of the areas that were brought up of concern, obviously, 

are the ballooning numbers of refugees and IDPs who currently 

exist there and the costs that that is taking there on infrastructure 

and resources, both in the economic sense. 

But, specifically, they spoke about the assistance needed which 

they are not currently getting for many of the women and girls who 

have been rescued from ISIS who are coming back with unimaginable types of trauma and violence that they have lived through. 

Yet they are being welcomed back to their families and communities but not having the resources and tools to be able to help both 

these, you know, Christian and Yazidi women and girls but also 

their families. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Congresswoman for the 

question. 

We are providing humanitarian assistance to the entire populations in the country as opposed to targeting specifically the Kurdish population. 

They are included in that—our outreach specifically as you relate 

this story. I am not aware of that. It is something that I certainly 

will take back and look into and see what if anything we can learn 

from and focus on. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE TULSI GABBARD

The U.S. government has provided nearly $220 million for humanitarian assistance to Iraqis in the region since the start of Fiscal Year 2014. Of the nearly $220 

million, the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration 

(PRM) has provided $182.3 million, USAID has provided $29.74 million, and the Department of Defense has provided $7.5 million. 

U.S. government humanitarian assistance in Iraq is based solely on vulnerability 

and need, and delivered on an impartial basis by trusted partners. These partners 

include United Nations (U.N.) agencies, public international organizations such as 

the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Organization 

for Migration, and non-governmental organizations. No U.S. humanitarian assistance is channeled through government bodies in Iraq. Overall coordination of the 

humanitarian effort in Iraq is facilitated by the U.N. under the leadership of the 

Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Resident Coordinator and 

Humanitarian Coordinator, Lise Grande. To ensure the most effective response and 

to avoid duplication of efforts, the U.N. coordinates with relevant government bodies 

such as the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Center in Baghdad and the Joint 

Crisis Coordinating Center in Erbil. 

56

U.S. government humanitarian assistance is focused on the provision of food and 

other relief commodities, shelter (including repairs), water and sanitation, health 

care, protection (including specialized services for women, children, and survivors of 

sexual and gender-based violence), and humanitarian coordination and logistics. 

Rather than being targeted to particular communities or locations, U.S. humanitarian assistance is provided on a country-wide basis, and focused on the populations in greatest need who can be reached by our humanitarian partners. Currently it is too dangerous for many relief organizations to work in Islamic State In 

Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)-held areas, therefore, the majority of U.S. humanitarian 

assistance is concentrated among Iraqi internally-displaced persons and Syrian refugee populations in the north, center and south of the country. 

Despite the ongoing strong support by the United States to vulnerable Iraqis, tremendous needs remain. We regularly urge other donors to contribute generously to 

the U.N. appeal for Iraq, and we continue to press the Government of Iraq to support its displaced citizens. 

Finally, I would note that key humanitarian staff from USAID and the State Department also met with the Chair of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR) High Council 

on Women’s Affairs to hear her perspectives and view from the field—part of a constant effort to meet all actors on the ground involved in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

Ambassador LENHARDT. But we are providing humanitarian assistance to the area and the Kurdish people are, certainly, within 

that envelope. 

Ms. GABBARD. Through the Iraqi—through all of the dollars that 

you are providing are going through the government in Baghdad or 

are you providing direct assistance to the Kurdish Government? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. It is going through—it is a combination 

and so there are resources going to Baghdad and then they further 

put that out. But we also have implementing partners who are 

working within the country who are—have a contract with us and 

they are doing that work based upon that contract. 

Ms. GABBARD. I would be interested to get the details of how that 

breaks down because both yesterday and time and time again, both 

in the area of defense but also with humanitarian aid, what we 

hear constantly from them is that they are not—they are only seeing a fraction of what is sent through Baghdad. 

So actually getting a breakdown of what ends up there specifically in Kurdistan where you are seeing all of this activity is something, I think, is important for us to know. 

The other question I had was with regard to the funding being 

provided. I know there was a 17-percent increase in funding toward 

Syria and fighting the Islamic State. The CRS report that we have 

here mentions that most of the requested funding is going to address the impact of the crisis on Syria’s neighbors, including $1 billion to help counter ISIS and mitigate Syria-related economic and 

security concerns in Jordan as well as another $335 million to 

strengthen Iraq’s counterterrorism capabilities. 

I guess, specifically, I am wondering same—similar question, 

how that is being distributed and what—to what—to what end if 

you are talking about countering ISIS using USAID funds. How is 

that being used? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. The last part—I am sorry, ma’am. 

Ms. GABBARD. How are the specified intent of these funds both 

going to Jordan and Iraq and other countries as stated as countering the Islamic State and I am wondering how are those funds 

being used. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you for the question. But, again, 

it is about humanitarian assistance as opposed to countering ISIL 

57

or anyone else, for that matter. These funds are intended to help 

people and so that is the focus. 

Let me correct one other thing as well. I didn’t want to leave the 

impression that we provide humanitarian assistance through the 

Government of Iraq. Those—that assistance takes the form of infrastructure, large projects. Humanitarian assistance goes directly 

to people. So that is what we do more than anything that——

Ms. GABBARD. How do you do—what do you—you say directly to 

people. Through what avenue or what platform? 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Through implementing partners on the 

ground who are actually on the scene providing that assistance, 

take the form of food, water, health care, as many other commodities that we produce. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. I thank you for the clarification. I 

would love to—if you could send us information on some of the 

partners who you are working with specifically to deal with this 

issue of the women and girls who have been rescued and who are 

going through this post-traumatic stress and how those services are 

being provided. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. The lady’s time has expired and we have come close 

to the conclusion of this and we want to thank you guys both for 

being here. 

But I have one follow-up question. I am reading the CRS summary here and it says, ‘‘Persistent challenges to effective evaluation include unclear aid objectives, funding and personnel constraints, emphasis on accountability for funds, methodological challenges, compressed time lines,’’ and this is something I find—I hear 

over and over again, ‘‘country ownership and donor coordination.’’ 

It goes on and on. 

My question is how do you increase the want of the government 

and the citizens with the aid we give? And we were on a CODEL 

in South America and the people that were doling out our money, 

helping a situation—and this was dealing with narcotics—they 

said, we have got all these resources, we have got the equipment, 

we have got the money but they just don’t want to do it. 

And it reminded me of when I was a little kid and my mom 

wanted me to play the piano, and she worked two jobs to pay for 

the piano lessons and for 7 years she did that and I would sit there 

and I didn’t want to play the piano, and she finally got it and 

walked away. 

And I see that so many times. We offer this money and you have 

a breakdown of—you know, maybe they are a corrupt government, 

we are giving them money and they are not using the money the 

way they are supposed to and you talk about the accountability you 

have. 

How do you increase that want? Just if you have an idea how 

we can do that to make our money more effective—our aid more 

effective. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the 

question. 

It has to come from a desire to want to do more, having a sense 

of ownership, having a sense of commitment. I will tell you how we 

did it in Tanzania. 

58

We asked the Tanzanians themselves, what are the—what are 

your priorities, what are things that you hope to achieve. And in 

thinking, looking at it and assessing, evaluating those priorities 

and their desires with our own national interests, and where those 

same came together if we could support it then we supported it. 

And, miraculously, and not surprisingly the Tanzanians were much 

more enthusiastic about carrying that out. 

And so part of this has to be how to we involve the country—

how do we involve that government to have a good sense that this 

is something that we want to do and then how do you hold their 

feet to the fire. 

Mr. YOHO. Exactly. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Causing reforms to be realized and it is 

a carrot and a stick. 

Mr. YOHO. Ms. Hyde, anything else you want to add to that? 

Ms. HYDE. The tool—the scorecard. So we have countries that 

are vying for MCC assistance, and it is interesting to see when you 

put out 20 indicators and you say to leaders, you are only ranking 

here and your neighbor is ranking here. It is a competitive-based 

system that is incentivizing countries to change their laws to try 

to get MCC assistance. 

So we have partners that come to the table with the want. With 

that we pursue a country ownership model that says you will have 

controls and oversight but we will have final authority on accountability. We need to be accountable for these funds and so we will 

pursue it that way. 

And, finally, we do 100 percent independent evaluations on both 

performance and impact of our programs. So we are evaluating 

what we do. We pay for that. But we think that is a wise investment. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. I appreciate your time. I appreciate you 

being here and taking time out and the committee’s—and the committee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


93817n.eps
61


93817m-1.eps
62

f


93817m-2.eps
63

f


93817c.eps
64


93817d-1.eps
65


93817d-2.eps
66


93817d-3.eps
67

f


93817d-4.eps
68


93817e-1.eps
69


93817e-2.eps
70


93817e-3.eps
71


93817e-4.eps
72


93817e-5.eps
73

f


93817e-6.eps
74


93817f-1.eps
75


93817f-2.eps
76


93817f-3.eps
77

f


93817f-4.eps
78

Æ


93817g.eps