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

95–126PDF 2015

REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY 2016

BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND EURASIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 16, 2015

Serial No. 114–60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Alina Romanowski, Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State .. 5

Ms. Susan Fritz, Acting Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development ............................................ 18

Mr. Daniel Rosenblum, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central Asia, Bureau 

of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ....................... 29

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

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 36

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Alina Romanowski: Prepared statement ........................................................ 7

Ms. Susan Fritz: Prepared statement .................................................................... 21

Mr. Daniel Rosenblum: Prepared statement ......................................................... 31

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement ........................................ 38

APPENDIX 

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

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

(1)

REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY 2016

BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND 

EURASIA 

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I call to order the Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats Subcommittee for this afternoon’s hearing on the 

administration’s budget request. 

Before I get into the substance of the hearing, I would like to express my sympathy for the victims of the devastating floods which 

struck the Georgian capital of Tbilisi this weekend. 

Over a dozen people have lost their lives and millions of dollars 

in property damage has been suffered. I am sure my ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee join me in expressing 

our condolences to the families of the victims and wishing the citizens of Tbilisi a speedy recovery. 

Getting to the matter at hand, the President has asked that Con- gress authorize over $50 billion for international affairs programs 

for Fiscal Year 2016. Over $1 billion has been requested for programs of all types in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is a sizeable increase from roughly $640 million spent for 

Fiscal Year 2014. Given the events in Eastern Europe over the past 

18 months, much of the increased spending is targeted on Ukraine, 

Georgia and Moldova. Yet, let me note that we are currently $18 trillion in debt and 

the debt is increasing every day. So every dollar we use to help 

people in foreign countries places that much additional burden on 

the backs of the American taxpayer, even worse, on the backs of 

America’s children who will inherit this debt. 

All government programs need to meet a high standard. But foreign assistance particularly, if it is to be given at all, must meet 

the most rigorous standards for accountability. 

Congress has the duty to scrutinize the President’s requests to 

make sure it is responsible and that it properly supports our nation’s international policy priorities. 

2

As I discussed during the same hearing last year, post-war Europe is often cited as a successful example of U.S. foreign assistance. The Marshall Plan did succeed. It did so because it was part 

of a larger U.S. approach to restoring Europe. 

The German Government itself, for example, undertook reforms 

to remove extensive price controls and other restrictions on trade, 

production and the distribution of goods. That is what helped restore their economy more than any aid program. 

I would encourage us all to keep that experience in mind as we 

talk about governments like the one in Kiev, which we are currently working so hard to support. 

The United States Government can provide loan guarantees, 

technical assistance programs and training. But if the Ukrainians 

themselves can’t sustain the drive to reform their country and root 

out corruption, our efforts will be fruitless. 

Since Moldova gained its independence, for example, the United States has spent over $1 billion to help that country develop into 

a prosperous democracy. This year’s request for Moldova is nearly 

$50 million, or $20 million over Fiscal Year 2014. 

During my question time, I hope to hear from the witnesses why 

our aid to Moldova is increasing so dramatically when the political 

parties and corrupt ruling elite in Moldova have shown zero real 

interest in the type of reforms that country needs in order to prosper. 

Let me note there is a grave distinction between humanitarian 

assistance and development aid. Of course, we should always be 

ready to respond to natural disasters, perhaps like the one that is 

experienced with Tbilisi—earthquakes, floods, those type of natural 

disasters. 

We owe it to our fellow human beings in being one of the most 

prosperous countries in the world to help out in these cases of dire 

emergency. 

However, development funds can’t work if recipient countries do 

not undertake economic reforms. The role of government assistance 

is not, thus, to replace private investment. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions or extraneous materials for the 

record. 

With that, I turn to our ranking member, Congressman Meeks, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to join you in sending out condolences to those who 

were victims—those families victims of the floods in Tbilisi. Our 

hearts and prayers go out to those families. 

Let me also thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing to 

provide us with an opportunity to examine the administration’s 

2016 budget request and our Government’s ability to execute our 

strategy in the region. 

When discussing our fundamental strategy for a Europe whole, 

free and at peace, my attention is immediately drawn to the war 

in Ukraine. 

The country struggled to modernize its economy and the fight for 

its citizens’ basic rights. Yet, while my attention is drawn to Russia’s role in the region and our relationship to Russia, I cannot 

3

stress enough the importance of the countries that are not in the 

spotlight in today’s papers. 

Europe and Eurasia is, after all, a diverse region in terms of levels of political and economic development and in strategic military 

concerns. 

I am convinced that the work of our diplomats and aid workers 

in the field ensure that America’s interests are being protected 

while bringing peace and prosperity to the region. This is—but this 

project is far from over. 

The overall budget reflects a particularly urgent demand that, 

frankly speaking, may require more resources when 2016 arrives. 

I am referring to the situation in Ukraine and the economic tightrope the government is currently walking. 

Yes, the reform of the economy must be done by the Ukrainians 

themselves following successive governments’ failures to reform. 

But the new Ukrainian Government will not be able to meet the 

rightful demands of its citizens without some help. 

With a closing political window, I want to make sure that we 

help a committed government get reform done and get it done correctly. Take the Ukraine portion of the budget out of the equation, 

however, and we are left with a relatively small budget, given the 

concerns in other parts of the region. 

A few weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted a lively hearing on 

progress and challenges in the western Balkans. Since the hearing, 

Macedonia continues to stumble through its political turmoil. 

The Greek foreign minister has also visited Washington when we 

examined possible energy futures that would affect all members of 

the western Balkan region. Or Serbian prime minister visited also 

to DC to discuss Kosovo and relations with Russia. 

All of this is a way to say that there is plenty of work to be done 

in this region. Are we succeeding in achieving our foreign policy 

goals in the western Balkans, given the budget? 

Meanwhile, in Central Asia we face similar problems but with 

different variables. As the Russian economy reels, citizens feel the 

combined effects of low oil prices, corruption and a non-modernized 

economy and Western sanctions. As a result, scores of migrant laborers, many of them men, are returning home to Central Asia. 

Kyrgyzstan and Turkestan are especially vulnerable. We are not 

only due—and it is not only due to the local economies that rely 

on remittances as a significant source of income. They do rely on 

remittances as a significant source of income. 

But the economies may not be able to absorb the influx of labor. 

In these countries, having frustrated portions of society with nothing that they can do to support their families, people will look toward more drastic options to express despair. 

And finally, the Caucasus, where USAID has been active in various programs in the diverse region. I would like to hear how the 

2016 budget aims to address the problems that seem increasingly 

difficult. 

It is recent—in its recent summit and rigor our partners in the 

region, the European Union, recalibrated its policy toward the eastern partnership, noting the various challenges and levels of development. 

4

As EU and NATO memberships become even less attractive or 

attainable goals in the mid- to medium-term, our assistance there 

becomes much, much more important. 

In conclusion, I look forward to discussing the proposed 2016 

budget with our four colleagues from the State Department and 

USAID. 

It is my goal as ranking member of this subcommittee to challenge, nudge and encourage you to make sure our dollars are being 

used to their fullest potential in a diverse region that means so 

much to us as Americans. 

And I yield back. 

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

Does Mr. Cook or Mr. Weber have an opening statement? 

Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, sir. Let us get going. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. There we go. 

We have a great panel with us today to help us understand this 

part of the Federal budget and how it relates directly to our relations with the countries within our jurisdiction of this committee. 

First is Alina Romanowski, who is State Department coordinator 

for U.S. assistance to Europe and Eurasia, a position which she 

took up this past March. She coordinates our assistance programs 

across multiple State Department bureaus and government agencies. 

Previously, she served as the deputy assistant administrator for 

USAID’s Middle East bureau and held senior positions within the 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 

She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and graduated with a Master’s degree from the University of Chicago. 

Next, we have Daniel—no, we don’t. You are not next. No. Next 

we have Susan Fritz as acting assistant administrator for USAID 

in Europe and Eurasia Bureau. 

She brings over two decades of experience to the table and she 

has served as, for example, USAID mission director in Serbia and 

the deputy mission director for Kosovo. It is good to have her back 

as well before the subcommittee. 

And then we have Mr. Daniel Rosenblum. He was a deputy assistant secretary of state for Central Asia from 2008 to 2014. He 

served as the coordinator for U.S. assistance to Europe and Eurasia. 

Before that, he held numerous positions of responsibility within 

the State Department before joining the executive branch. He was 

a legislative assistant here on Capitol Hill for Senator Carl Levin. 

And last but not least, we have Jonathan Stivers, serves as 

USAID’s assistant administrator for the Bureau of Asia and today 

will be speaking specifically to the Central Asian aspect of his portfolio. 

Mr. Stivers is an 18-year veteran of Capitol Hill and last worked 

for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. So we have two veterans over 

there, you know, both sides of this discussion, and he holds a Master’s degree in international policy from George Washington University. 

I would like to ask all of our witnesses to limit their presentation 

to 5 minutes. Everything else in your opening statement can be put 

5

into the record and then it will be followed by a question and answer period from the members to the panel. 

Ms. Romanowski, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ALINA ROMANOWSKI, COORDINATOR OF 

U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE AND EURASIA, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking 

Member Meeks and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

inviting me here today to testify on the President’s Fiscal Year 

2016 budget for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia. If there is no 

objection, I would also like to submit my written testimony for the 

record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Last fall marked the 25th anniversary of our 

assistance to support democracy, political pluralism and economic 

reform in the post-Communist space of Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia. 

The results have demonstrated the transformational power of 

U.S. assistance to unleash freedom, security and prosperity across 

a region once shackled by totalitarianism, hostility and economic 

stagnation. 

Since 1990, 12 former assistance countries have joined NATO 

and 11 joined the EU. In Central Europe, 11 former seed assistance 

countries are now fully-fledged partners in opening the way toward 

democracy, rule of law, open markets and human dignity for their 

Eastern neighbors. 

While the success of our assistance had been significant, progress 

is worryingly uneven. The fate of our 25-year assistance effort is 

visibly being tested in Ukraine and Russia’s actions represent the 

most serious challenge facing the U.S. and our European allies 

since the end of the Cold War. 

With the current crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s attempt to shred 

the values on which the post-Cold War order is based, we are redoubling our focus and objectives toward a Europe whole, free and 

at peace and fostering stable, prosperous and pluralistic democracies across the region. 

Our Fiscal Year 2016 request for the Europe and Eurasia region 

is $953.3 million and reflects the tough challenges that we face in 

a budget environment with competing global demands. 

We support five strategic objectives. First, keeping faith with 

countries as they chart their own futures in the face of bullying 

from outside actors. Second, supporting these countries on their 

path toward Euro-Atlantic integration. 

Third, bolstering efforts to tackle corruption, build rule of law 

and foster transparent and accountable governance. Fourth, deepening and expanding civil society and free independent media. 

And finally, fifth, rolling back transnational threats that rob the 

region of its prosperity and undermine its security. 

Since Russia’s occupation and purported annexation of Crimea, 

the U.S. has committed $471 million in assistance for Ukraine 

along with providing two $1-billion loan guarantees. 

6

If Ukraine continues progress on its reform agenda and conditions warrant, the U.S. administration will work with Congress to 

consider providing another loan guarantee later in 2015. 

Going forward, our assistance in Ukraine will target broad economic, anti-corruption and energy reforms while incorporating civil 

society, private sector and the public into this process. 

In Kiev and European capitals, we are working closely with other 

international donors to avoid duplication and ensure 

complementarity of our efforts. 

Just like in Ukraine, we are supporting Georgia and Moldova to 

pursue clean accountable governance as well as their quests to 

move closer to Europe and counter Russian pressure. 

U.S. assistance is also playing an important role in addressing 

serious transnational threats like organized crime, trafficking and 

foreign fighters from the region. 

To combat these malign influences, our Fiscal Year 2016 request 

for peace and security programs for Europe and Eurasia is $263.4 

million, which is up $51.8 million over Fiscal Year 2014 levels. 

But our objectives are not limited to post-Soviet space. The countries of the western Balkans too are knocking at the door of EuroAtlantic institutions. 

We must continue to offer them a political, economic and moral 

hand in their efforts whether in normalizing relations between Serbia and Kosovo or helping Albania push ahead with progress on reforms to meet EU standards. 

Our budget request also aims at rooting out corruption. We are 

increasing transparency and accountability in courtrooms across 

Albania. 

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, we are supporting civil society to implement a new whistleblowing protection law and in Ukraine we are 

providing technical assistance to help stand up a new independent 

anti-corruption bureau. 

We are also working to reverse the worrying trends of democratic 

backsliding and restricting civil society. Doing this requires innovative thinking to ensure that countries in Eurasia and the Balkans 

continue on the path to democracy. Our Fiscal Year 2016 request 

for democracy funding is $193 million. 

As Secretary Kerry said when he testified before this committee 

over a month ago, ‘‘Our budget proposals aren’t just a collection of 

numbers. They are the embodiment of our values.’’

For 25 years, our assistance in Europe and Eurasia has extended 

those values toward our ultimate goal of completing a Europe 

whole, free and at peace. This budget request continues that mission. 

Finally, we remain committed to working diligently, effectively 

and imaginatively with the resources provided by the American 

people in service of our values and our national interests throughout the region. 

Thank you for this opportunity and your bipartisan support. I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Romanowski follows:]

7


95126a-1.eps
8


95126a-2.eps
9


95126a-3.eps
10


95126a-4.eps
11


95126a-5.eps
12


95126a-6.eps
13


95126a-7.eps
14


95126a-8.eps
15


95126a-9.eps
16


95126a-10.eps
17


95126a-11.eps
18

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The figure you just gave on $193 million for 

democracy development or building, that was over what territory? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Sir, that is our request for Fiscal Year 2016. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. For which countries? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. It is for the region. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. For the——

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Europe and Eurasia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Got it. Okay. 

Ms. Fritz, you may. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN FRITZ, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, EUROPE AND EURASIA BUREAU, U.S. AGENCY 

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. FRITZ. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today on the administration’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for 

Europe and Eurasia. 

Historically, the United States and USAID have played a key 

role in this region. Over the past 20 years, 12 Eastern European 

countries have transitioned from receiving USAID assistance, integrating into the Euro-Atlantic community including NATO and the 

EU, becoming strong allies. 

However, the region’s transformation isn’t complete. In the countries where we continue to work, progress in key areas is uneven. 

Gains are at risk and we are even seeing some regression. 

The past year has been challenging. Russian aggression in 

Ukraine and throughout the region threatens peace, stability, democracy and prosperity and requires greater U.S. and international 

focus, resolve and resources to meet these challenges. 

Still, we see opportunities from Kiev to Belgrade to Tbilisi to further Euro-Atlantic integration, democracy and economic prosperity. 

U.S. assistance remains critical to countering Russian pressure and 

to advancing the goal of a Europe whole, free and at peace. 

To support these goals, the President has requested $710.2 million in ESF in Fiscal Year 2016. This assistance targets critical 

needs in Ukraine, supports Georgia, Moldova and the Balkans’ continued Euro-Atlantic integration and strengthens the democratic 

and economic resiliency of these countries to address Russian pressure. 

In Ukraine, USAID has stepped up its efforts to support the 

Ukrainian Government and people during a historic transition. We 

deeply appreciate congressional support that has reinforced our efforts and the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. 

USAID’s funding supports critical programs in the following 

areas—stabilizing, strengthening and growing Ukraine’s economy 

and supporting Ukraine’s energy independence; strengthening democracy and rule of law; combatting corruption and promoting effective governance; and improving the availability and effectiveness 

of health services and containing the spread of HIV/AIDS and TB. 

Some key accomplishments and milestones in these areas include 

in energy, USAID provided critical technical assistance to help 

Ukraine keep the lights and heat on this past winter in the face 

of potential energy shortages. 

19

Last year, USAID provided approximately $11 million in support 

of a successful snap Presidential and parliamentary elections. 

While we have seen progress, the challenges facing Ukraine will 

not be solved overnight. 

The conflict in Eastern Ukraine continues to destabilize the 

country, resulting in over 1.3 million internally displaced persons 

and 5.1 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Ukraine 

will require a sustained commitment from the United States and 

the international community. 

Turning to Moldova, Moldova has taken significant and meaningful steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration but faces substantial 

challenges, particularly from continued corruption and Russian 

propaganda. 

U.S. assistance is strengthening democratic institutions and civil 

society, addressing corruption and improving the business regulatory environment and private sector competitiveness, especially 

through assistance to companies to enter new markets after a 2014 

Russian trade embargo. 

Turning to the Caucuses, in Georgia USAID’s programs are 

aimed at economic growth, further U.S. integration—I am sorry, 

EU integration and strengthening civil society, democratic governance and independent media. 

Targeted assistance also focuses on improving the livelihood and 

resilience of border communities that are particularly vulnerable to 

Russian pressure. 

In Armenia, we are working with the government and civil society to strengthen decentralization and anti-corruption reforms and 

are supporting economic growth. 

Turning to the Western Balkans, we are furthering EU integration and strengthening democratic governance and economic 

growth. 

The recent crisis in Macedonia reminds us that we cannot take 

peace and stability in the Western Balkans for granted. Let me 

provide a few highlights of our efforts in the Balkans. 

In Kosovo, USAID recently completed agricultural support which 

led to increased agricultural sales of over $100 million and created 

over 6,000 jobs. 

In Macedonia, USAID supports credible and independent reporting through its media fact-checking service. In Fiscal Year 2014, 

the service published almost 900 peer reviews of articles, produced 

over 90 critical disclosure analyses and published over 100 journalistic lessons that helped increase the media literacy of consumers. 

In Serbia, we are supporting judicial reforms that are critical to 

Serbia’s EU accession. USAID’s work with six pilot courts resulted 

in reduction of backlogs by 55 percent, resolving more than 13,000 

cases. 

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in a region facing some of its 

most significant challenges in decades, USAID will continue to seek 

to advance U.S. interests and goals while also maximizing our impact and resources. 

The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request recognizes that even with 

competing priorities and difficult budget realities the United States 

must continue to play a critical leadership role in this region to 

achieve the goal of a Europe whole, free and at peace. 

20

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fritz follows:]

21


95126d-1.eps
22


95126d-2.eps
23


95126d-3.eps
24


95126d-4.eps
25


95126d-5.eps
26


95126d-6.eps
27


95126d-7.eps
28


95126d-8.eps
29

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr Rosenblum. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL ROSENBLUM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR CENTRAL ASIA, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND 

CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full 

written statement appear in the record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Chairman Rohrabacher and members of the 

subcommittee, I am here today to focus on Central Asia and that 

portion of our request. 

Some of Central Asia’s most serious challenges such as 

transnational crime, narcotics trafficking, terrorism and violent extremism directly affect U.S. national interests and require us to 

work closely with the countries of this region. 

And while U.S. security is directly tied to a stable Central Asia, 

the region’s energy resources and transport corridors can help drive 

economic growth that benefits the region and the entire world economy. 

So the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 request of $155.7 million, 

which supports sovereignty, security, good governance and economic development in Central Asia, is also supporting a safer and 

more secure United States. 

And this support should also help these countries reduce their 

dependence on Russia or on any other single power. Regionally, we 

are focusing on creating open and secure borders while improving 

economic linkages among the Central Asian states and with their 

neighbors to the south, east and west. 

Our connectivity efforts are organized under what we call the 

new Silk Road initiative and focus on creating an energy market, 

improving trade and transport infrastructure, streamlining customs and border procedures and enhancing business networks and 

people-to-people ties. 

We are also working with Kazakhstan to help it join Tajikistan 

and the Kyrgyz Republic as WTO members. And on that note, we 

are insistent that the Eurasian Economic Union shouldn’t raise 

barriers to trade nor impair the ability of its members to enter into 

other trade relationships or fulfill their international commitments. 

We know that the Central Asian governments’ records on human 

rights have been flawed and that improvement is slow and inconsistent. Once step forward is often followed by two steps back. 

We also know that long-term stability cannot be achieved by restricting the free and peaceful expression of political and religious 

views which, as we often remind these countries, is a shortsighted 

and counterproductive strategy. 

So by seeking to build civil society and by promoting the rule of 

law, our assistance seeks to create more space and tolerance for 

peaceful dissent and religious expression. 

It is important to note that while we often speak about Central 

Asia as a monolithic region, in fact nothing could be further from 

the truth. It is five individual countries, each with their own 

unique history, culture, development needs and external policies. 

30

Kazakhstan, with its abundant natural resources and well-educated younger generation, is the region’s largest and most advanced 

economy and shares U.S. priorities in regional security, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, energy security and climate change. 

Kazakhstan’s likely accession to the WTO in a very short time 

from now and its rapidly growing middle class offer many new opportunities for U.S. companies. But Kazakhstan’s advances in the 

economic sphere have not been matched by the same amount of 

progress in developing a vibrant civil society or strong human 

rights protections. 

So we are working to develop institutions within the government 

and civil society that can advance those goals. 

In the Kyrgyz Republic, democracy’s roots are growing gradually 

and we continue to support nascent government institutions. The 

success of economic and political reforms is not guaranteed here 

and we will continue to make the investments in good governance 

that will strengthen this young parliamentary democracy’s resilience. 

Tajikistan faces severe challenges including economic stress and 

social tension resulting from the decline of remittances from Tajik 

migrants—migrant workers in Russia. 

These remittances sustain the Tajik economy but will reportedly 

decline by at least 20 percent this year. On the security side, we 

are working to enhance the capacity and professionalism of 

Tajikistan’s military, border security, law enforcement and judicial 

institutions. 

Turkmenistan also shares a long border with Afghanistan, which 

it has assisted with discounted electricity, humanitarian aid and 

infrastructure development. It also faces significant challenges in 

securing its borders against criminal and terrorist activities. 

So our cooperation with Turkmenistan is focused on enhancing 

its ability to maintain secure borders while also addressing its restrictions on human rights. 

Finally, Uzbekistan and its geographical position in Central Asia 

make it strategically important for regional security. It also shares 

a border with Afghanistan as the most populous country in Central 

Asia. 

Our priorities are to help Uzbekistan maintain safe and secure 

borders while developing more responsive and open institutions. 

Mr. Chairman, despite its significant challenges, Central Asia 

has tremendous potential to become a major nexus for global trade 

and energy flows. Our assistance and diplomacy can help achieve 

this vision, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenblum follows:]

31


95126b-1.eps
32


95126b-2.eps
33


95126b-3.eps
34


95126b-4.eps
35


95126b-5.eps
36

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Stivers. 

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

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. STIVERS. Chairman Rohrabacher, distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on 

the role of USAID in advancing our foreign policy goals in Central 

Asia. 

It is always an honor to testify before this committee and be back 

in the people’s House. President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget 

request of $155.7 million for foreign assistance in Central Asia reflects a sustained commitment to American involvement in the region and the broader area, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

In Central Asia, USAID is working through three primary approaches—one, promoting economic growth and regional 

connectivity; two, tackling development challenges of global consequence; and three, supporting democratic governance. 

First, on economic growth and regional connectivity, Central Asia 

is one of the least economically integrated regions of the world with 

intraregional trade accounting for less than 5 percent of total trade. 

With little economic opportunity at home, hundreds of thousands 

are forced to migrate in search of work. In Tajikistan, Russian-derived remittances account for 50 percent of GDP and for neighboring Kyrgyz Republic, it is about a third of GDP. 

This year alone, more than 1 million Central Asians will return 

home from Russia without funds or employment prospects. 

USAID is working to expand economic opportunity through a 

dual-pronged approach of promoting domestic reforms to support 

economic growth and regional connectivity efforts. USAID focuses 

on strengthening the business-enabling environment, access to 

market and private sector and agricultural competitiveness, and 

the U.S. Government’s new Silk Road initiative is key to efforts to 

bind the region to the markets in South Asia through Afghanistan. 

Second, we are tackling the development challenges and threats 

to stability. On global health, some of the highest rates of 

multidrug-resistance tuberculosis in the world are in Central Asia. 

The time between testing and diagnosis used to take almost a 

month. Patients had no choice but to return to their community as 

they awaited their diagnosis, thereby risking the spread. 

USAID has recently introduced cutting-edge technology from 

California called Gene Expert that diagnoses drug-resistant 

multidrug-resistant TB strains in hours instead of weeks. 

USAID is also partnering on adaptation of Kazakhstan’s wheat 

sector. More frequent droughts are a major challenge and any reduction in wheat production has significant repercussions for regional food security. 

Our efforts include promoting agricultural practices such as the 

use of drought- and heat-resistant wheat varieties and forecasting 

models to inform harvesting decisions and improve yields. 

Third, promoting democratic governance and empowering civil 

society is our key priority. Fighting poverty is often less a question 

of funding but also of effectively addressing the underlying strucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:00 Aug 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\061615\95126 SHIRL
37

tural problems with governance that prevent many countries from 

realizing their potential. 

At the core of our engagement across the region are empowering 

reformers who are standing up for human rights and fundamental 

freedoms, all foundational to lasting stability and prosperity. 

Next, I will highlight other key assistance areas in the five countries of Central Asia. In the Kyrgyz Republic, it is the only parliamentary democracy in the region. 

The country has continued to consolidate its democratic system 

with the first democratic transfer of power in Central Asia in 2011. 

The upcoming parliamentary elections this fall and the Presidential elections in 2017 will be critical, as the system remains 

fragile. 

Our partnership offers an alternative to the authoritarian models 

in the region. U.S. assistance supports continued parliamentary development, judicial reform and consolidation of an electoral process 

that continues to reflect the will of the people. 

Tajikistan shares an 800-mile border with Afghanistan and is a 

lynchpin for security and stability in Central Asia. Seventy-five 

percent of Tajikistan’s labor force is dependent on agriculture for 

their livelihoods, yet one in four children suffer from stunting, 

which is chronic malnutrition that stunts a child’s growth in early 

ages. Boosting agricultural productivity is essential to improving 

lives. 

In Tajikistan’s poorest province, the Feed the Future initiative 

helps households increase their production of profitable and nutritious crops. 

In Uzbekistan, our assistance contributed to the adoption of a judicial code of ethics and expanded defendant rights. Uzbekistan is 

also a source country for human trafficking and USAID works to 

combat the illegal practice. 

In Kazakhstan, we support economic diversification, combatting 

human trafficking, independent media and efficiency and transparency of the court system. 

And in Turkmenistan, one of the most isolated states in the 

world, U.S. assistance improves access to outside information, education and communication between the government and civil society. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share what USAID is doing in 

Central Asia and I welcome any advice, thoughts or questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

38


95126c-1.eps
39


95126c-2.eps
40


95126c-3.eps
41


95126c-4.eps
42


95126c-5.eps
43


95126c-6.eps
44

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and we will have 

questions from the panel now—from our members. 

Let me just say in general I am a bit concerned. Did the words 

‘‘radical Islam’’ come out of anybody’s mouth today in testimony? 

Any of your testimony include a statement that included the words 

‘‘radical Islam?’’

I don’t think I heard that. I heard a lot about Russia and being 

a reason for this and that, this and that, this and that. 

But let me just note that if Central Asia, which is made up mainly of Muslim populations, should succumb to the type of radical Islamic temptations that people in other parts of the Islamic world 

have succumbed to, we are in big trouble. 

This could be—I personally believe that if General, now President el-Sisi in Egypt, is overthrown and it has been very difficult 

for this administration to get themselves to help President el-Sisi, 

that you could have a complete collapse of resistance to this radical 

Islamic terrorist movement in the Gulf, which would then perhaps 

spread next step into Central Asia. 

I mean, this could be an historic threat to Western civilization. 

But yet we didn’t hear anything about it today when we are discussing America’s commitment to that region. 

We have—let me ask a little bit about the nature of our assistance. When we are talking about $750 million, I guess, to Ukraine 

and $193 million to democracy building, when you are talking 

about democracy building does that—is what we are talking about 

money that we give to NGOs? Is that included in this? 

Ms. FRITZ. Our assistance varies. Some of it is to NGOs to help 

build their capacity. Most of our assistance goes through U.S. contractors and U.S. NGOs that provide technical assistance from civil 

society to——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So the answer is yes. 

Ms. FRITZ [continuing]. Judicial reform, a whole host of areas——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I got it. 

Ms. FRITZ [continuing]. Not just civil society. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In that—in that host of reforms, do we sponsor NGOs that are pushing specific environmental policies as well? 

Ms. FRITZ. I don’t know what you are referring to. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Environmental policies. Do we have NGOs 

who are suggesting that the countries in pushing to organize people within these countries to focus on particular energy sources or 

environmental mandates and restrictions? 

Ms. FRITZ. We do not, not that I am aware of. What we do do 

is to work with countries to help them meet EU directives related 

to energy, environment and private sector and their energy sector. 

So EU directives but not anything beyond that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, let me note that we just recently—I, with a delegation, visited Kosovo and there is apparently 

an American-sponsored NGO that is becoming very aggressive in 

trying to promote certain energy sources. 

And I have met in that area region as well people who are talking about NGOs trying to push for what we would call here renewable energy resources rather than energy sources that perhaps are 

cheaper for those societies at this particular stage in their development. 

45

And I think that while we all—who would disagree with some 

very positive thing called environmentalism—what is good for the 

environment—there are distinct debates as to what is in the long 

run the best direction to go in terms of renewables right now and 

the developing world. 

Because if you have expenditures for energy that are higher now 

in a developing world that means they don’t have other money 

available for education, health care, et cetera, et cetera. 

And so if maybe perhaps you could get back to me with a list of 

the NGOs that are engaged with trying to influence energy policy 

under your jurisdictions that would be very helpful. 

Ms. FRITZ. Yes, sir. We will look into that and get back to you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And Ms. Romanowski, you wanted to say 

something about that? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Well, I did want to add a point—that with respect to Kosovo in particular we are supporting broadly their energy development and their energy security plans, which do include 

a combination of renewables. 

We are also looking at how they could be building a third and 

more modern coal plant as well as replace the outdated and very, 

very highly-polluting Kosovo A Plant. 

So there are—the energy situation in Kosovo is particularly serious and very, very unreliable and we are working with Kosovo to 

develop an energy plan that, clearly, is both a short-term and a medium-term objective including all types of energy sources. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have to admit that it certainly is—we need 

to be involved with helping hands for countries like Kosovo and 

other countries. 

But I think people would resent it here if we had people who 

were being paid by foreign governments to come in and tell us 

what energy policies are best for our country and, you know, so 

Kosovo—this is not an illiterate uneducated group of people. 

They should be able to make decisions on their own and it seems 

to me providing that type of pressure, and I know that people 

have—how do you say—have the best of motives in mind in all of 

these areas because this is what they believe is good. 

Sometimes, of course, people can disagree with what exactly that 

policy should be but even with that the idea on having the United 

States Government going in, pressuring countries where you have 

populations that are relatively educated populations toward these 

type of policies I think it is something we need to think about and 

be a little bit more retrospective in terms of how we would feel if 

we had people in here from the United Nations who now are going 

to come in and tell us what we are going to do in terms of our energy and environmental policies. 

What about social issues? Do we have—are we financing the 

NGOs on different social issues? 

Ms. FRITZ. Are you specifically referring to Kosovo or more 

broadly? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, generally, in Eastern Europe and in Eurasia. 

Ms. FRITZ. If you include health care as a social issue, yes, we 

support NGOs who engage in issues related to health care. 

46

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, the complaints that we have heard is 

that they—that we are defining social issues to include sexual type 

of things and basically policy toward homosexuality, which we in 

the United States we don’t believe in people being discriminated 

against for this but in those countries perhaps they are culturally 

different than we are and having our—pressuring them through 

our Government to accept certain cultural norms like that, I think 

that in Hungary in particular we heard some people complaining 

that their government was being pressured by American taxpayer 

groups that we are trying to get—to force them to change their policy on this which, again, should be left up to individual countries 

to make their determination as to what their position would be on 

gay marriage, for example, or even abortion. Any comments on 

that? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Mr. Rohrabacher, our support for civil society 

and for NGOs is very much focused on themes that strengthen 

democratic governance that helps support the reform agendas that 

the people in this region are interested in pursuing. 

They are also focused on having laws and values that don’t discriminate against the peoples in this region and other minorities 

that are in this region. 

So a lot of our work that we do with NGOs and in fact in our 

engagement—diplomatic engagement with the governments in the 

region is to ensure that the laws are free of discrimination and in 

this region. 

So a lot of the work that we do do with NGOs does encompass 

many of the values that we share in this country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the answer is yes, and let me just note 

that I think that trying to push our belief in—from Western civilization belief that, for example, most of us don’t believe that we 

should have multiple wives. 

You know, you are married to one person, and to have—to go to 

an Islamic country and try to push norms, whether it is homosexuality or where it is men-women relationships and things like that, 

I think that we could find it very difficult if somebody was coming 

into the United States with government money trying to pressure 

us in the opposite directions because that is what their culture says 

is the right way to go. 

With limited resources and with the fact that we are borrowing 

every single penny that we give to these countries, it might be better for us to prioritize and that telling them how to run the social 

structure in their country should receive a lot lower priority than 

perhaps working with them to build their economy and build a 

more interactive country with us in terms of economics and other 

items like that. 

With that said, I will be very happy to yield to Mr. Deutch and 

what time that he would like to expend. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before—and thanks to 

all of you for your testimony. 

Just one point I would make at the outset that many of us deeply 

believe that this is not about American norms but that LGBT 

rights and women’s rights are human rights and that we have an 

obligation to speak out in support of human rights including LGBT 

47

and gender equality everywhere in the world. I just wanted to get 

that on the record. 

I have travelled—to our panel I will tell you I have travelled a 

number of times to Europe and to Central Asia, most recently last 

month on a trip to Germany and in my role as chair of the Congressional Study Group on Germany. 

It was clear to me in my meetings with members of the government, legislators, civil society groups, NGOs that the historic and 

deep transatlantic relationship is appreciated. It is respected. 

In many ways, it is revered. But it is not one to be taken for 

granted. And as our attention is frequently diverted to crises 

around the world, I think that we in Congress, the administration, 

the American people have to remember the important partnership 

that we have with our European allies and should continue to engage with them on a bilateral basis as well as through our multinational organizations like NATO and OSCE. It is just not a relationship that should ever be taken for granted. 

Now, I would like to focus my questions on the eastern Mediterranean region. There are a number of issues that make this area 

one of interest for the United States including recent optimism of 

achieving a reunification deal in Cyprus, new energy opportunities 

in the Mediterranean and last week’s election results in Turkey 

and what will result for them. 

Obviously, we are focused on the Greek debt crisis and the downto-the-wire negotiations and others. There is a lot happening in 

that part of the region. 

So just a couple of questions. In looking at the budget, it appears 

that the State Department didn’t request any funds for Cyprus in 

the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. The question is does State or USAID 

have any plans to increase involvement and support, financial or 

otherwise, as Cyprus negotiations move forward. 

And then to the extent that you can speak to the status of reunification negotiations and the role that the United States is playing 

to help reach an agreement, I would appreciate that, in particular, 

how have our USAID and State Department efforts contributed to 

achieving a peaceful settlement. Ms. Romanowski. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Yes. Mr. Deutch, on Cyprus we welcome the 

resumption of the settlement talks that started in May and are 

going to—and reaffirm our full support for the U.N.-facilitated 

process and we want to be helpful to the parties in any way that 

we can. 

We have encouraged the parties, as they go through their talks 

to reach a settlement as soon as possible, to reunify the island as 

a bizonal bicommunal federation. 

But we, in fact, did not request funding in both Fiscal Year 2015 

or 2016 as we are facing regional challenges and broader global demands on our budget. 

We have had to make difficult choices but we will be looking for 

ways in which we can support the settlement talks as they go forward. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks. I would—I would just like to drill down a 

little bit on one specific issue in Cyprus. 

Last week, Cyprus’ commissioner of humanitarian affairs was in 

Washington. I know he met with the State Department, asking for 

48

U.S. assistance and resolving the issue of missing persons in Cyprus. 

Nearly 2,000 people went missing during the intercommunal 

fighting of 1963 to 1964 and then, again, after the Turkish invasion 

of 1974. To this day, most remain missing and it would seem that 

with the promising restart of reunification negotiations and the 

focus on confidence-building measures that one of the best confidence-building measures will be for Turkey to stop putting up 

roadblocks like claiming certain areas are in occupied Cyprus and 

are off limits as what they refer to as military zones for the search 

of more than, as I understand it, 1,400 that remain missing. 

So I know that USAID has provided assistance in the past to the 

Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus. We have legislation that 

directs the administration to locate five American citizens who 

joined the ranks of the missing in 1974 and so I am just—I would 

like to know what progress is being made to open up the military 

zones and what steps are being taken to locate the remaining four 

American citizens whose remains have not yet been found. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Mr. Deutch, I appreciate very much your question but I would like to take that for the record and consult with 

my other colleagues at the department that are real experts on the 

missing persons issue and get you an answer to that question, if 

that is all right. 

Mr. DEUTCH. That is okay. I will look forward to receiving that 

response after you have had an opportunity. 

Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one last question or——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think I went over my time so you can go 

over your time. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. I appreciate that. Just a general question. 

If anyone would like to comment on the changes—any changes 

we might expect in Turkey following the recent election in which 

AKP lost a number of—a significant number of its seats. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Yes. On the—the United States does look forward to working with this newly-elected Parliament and the new 

and the future government. 

We are encouraging them to form a coalition government or a 

new government as quickly as possible and at this point we have 

looked at the—at the elections, that they were general—the fundamental freedoms were generally respected. 

Journalists—while journalists and the media were somewhat 

critical of the ruling party and they were subject to some pressure 

and intimidation—there was some violence—we agree with the 

OSCE election observation mission that was in Turkey that this 

is—it was an election that in essence represents the elected—the 

voting representatives in Turkey. 

We do—again, we do await their new government to continue to 

work with Turkey as an important partner in the region on many, 

many regional and global issues. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 

will look forward to receiving that response to the question about 

the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. 

49

We will proceed to the second round, seeing that there is only a 

couple of us here, and I mentioned earlier that I had been through 

the—down in the Balkans on a trip recently and one of the points, 

Ms. Fritz, that I have been trying to make is that we—when we 

talk about aid I am—there is no hesitation on my part to commit 

America to helping people in an emergency situation and, certainly, 

Kosovo, 20 years ago, had an emergency situation and they were 

in conflict and people were being killed and there was a—and there 

are natural calamities as well when people have volcanos and all 

sorts of earthquakes and things such as that. 

We have to be willing to help out in those situations. I think our 

humanness of our values certainly would demand that of any free 

people. 

But in terms of aid, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 

that we have to make sure that our aid isn’t just being used as a 

means not to have their governments do for their people what they 

are perfectly capable of doing. 

And when I was in Kosovo, I couldn’t help but notice that there 

was a new hospital that I actually visited that was built totally 

with private funds from the United States and that the government 

there in Pristina had not given them the permits to open even 

though their hospital they had equipped—there it is sitting right 

there with all of the most modern technology that any hospital 

would have, closed. 

And I don’t—you know, whatever the reasons there are always—

anybody can find a reason not to do something, of course, until 

somebody gets paid off somewhere. 

Now, I haven’t heard that they—someone has stepped forward 

with their hand out yet but quite often that happens in less-developed countries. 

But why should we be giving Kosovo support when they have a 

hospital right there that has been paid for with private dollars and 

that they are not given permits to open? 

Ms. FRITZ. The kind of support we provide to Kosovo is related 

to building their capacity. So we are not providing—first of all, we 

are not providing assistance in the health sector. Second of all, we 

don’t provide funding. 

We provide technical assistance and training to build the capacity of the government to do different things whether it is in the energy sector, helping private-sector development. 

We help companies to be able to compete on the European market to export their products to European countries. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are not giving them any help in the 

health care area at all? 

Ms. FRITZ. No. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ms. FRITZ. Sir, we also provide assistance related to democratic 

institutions. We support civil society. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ms. FRITZ. We support a range of——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So would you suggest that if someone is involved with a humanitarian effort like—this is—it better be the 

White House. Hold on. Mr. President, I am in the middle of a hearVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:00 Aug 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\061615\95126 SHIRL
50

ing. I am sorry. I can’t take the call right now. I have no idea who 

that was. 

But so you would believe that when the—a country that we are 

helping in a variety of areas does something like—for example, 

does not give the permits necessary for a private sector hospital to 

open up that this would be considered a health care issue and not 

a rule of law issue? 

Ms. FRITZ. It certainly could be both, and what I meant to say 

was that USAID is not currently engaged in this issue. We can consult with the Embassy and find out more information for you, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me suggest that we should—go right 

ahead, Ms. Romanowski. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. I just wanted to add a very important point 

that I think we share also your concern for access to quality health 

care and we recognize that this is an issue that is problematic. 

And our Ambassador, in fact, has been working this issue with 

the Kosovo Government along with the private sector to try and resolve this issue. In fact, she met with the prime minister last week. 

So it is definitely an issue on our radar that we are focusing on 

to, again, make sure that that hospital can function the way it was 

intended to. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I realize the Ambassador is paying attention because I think that we brought her with us to go to the 

tour of the—of that hospital. 

I would suggest that if Kosovo or other countries are unwilling 

to step forward—now, this—to me, this is a potential corruption 

issue because so often what happens is people don’t get permits 

until they have paid somebody off. But I have not heard specifically 

of any demand yet. 

But even without that factor, if people expect to have us subsidize various activities in their country while they are engaged in 

that type of thing with an American citizen who has put money 

into it, I think it demands us more than just to say something but 

it demands us to do something, which I would—I will be watching 

very carefully to see if the State Department does more than just 

talk about it after—this hospital isn’t open. 

It has already been 6 months since we were there. So that hospital is just sitting there while people in that country, especially—

by the way, it was especially designed to help women—women in 

that city to get the proper care that they need—and if that is going 

to remain closed I think we should consider some type of pulling 

back in some of these other areas, perhaps even pulling back from 

our trying to pressure them to have the type of energy development 

that we think is best for them rather than perhaps what they think 

is best for them. 

And about Ukraine, and I guess—I guess Mr.—Ms. Romanowski, 

I think this would be for you but I am not sure if the others—this 

fits them. 

Could you give me a frank assessment of—because we have been 

talking a lot about Ukraine here, and let me just note for the 

record there is nothing that could help Ukraine more in their building their economy is to help bring peace between Russia and 

Ukraine. 

51

When Ukraine or any other country invests in military equipment, we are there investing in things that blow up rather than 

things that create more wealth. 

Military spending and providing debt to a country in order to finance an unnecessary conflict is a horrendous burden on a country 

that is in debt and I think it is—frankly, I think we should be 

doing more in trying to find a compromise and a solution, perhaps 

in helping—even having more talks about the Minsk agreements 

that have been reached on a pathway to get them back—to back 

off from this conflict. 

But one of the unknown factors or unseen factors here in the 

United States is the role that oligarchs have been playing in creating the situation that now exists. 

A large portion of the Ukrainian army has been financed by a 

couple of oligarchs. These are private sector people who have military personnel out and which—with tanks and cannons and all the 

rest. 

Could you give us any type of an assessment of whether or not 

the—this new President Poroshenko has been successful at deoligarching his government and his society? 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words about 

that. I think the government of the current and new Government 

of Ukraine has made some significant progress in undertaking reforms across many sectors in their society that will—that will, 

again, address some of the issues that you are talking about. 

It is a long—they have—and I will speak to some of the reforms 

in a minute but it is a long-term process. There are—they have 

made some very important reforms. 

The Rada has passed some significant legislation that goes to 

anti-corruption and rule of law. We are working with them through 

a series of advisors in the government ministries, again, to help 

both implement reforms and to focus on the kinds of reforms that 

are needed across a number of sectors. 

It will take a significant amount of time and it certainly will require the full support of the Ukrainian people. 

With respect to the efforts that they are on the Minsk commitments, currently we are very much encouraging and supportive of 

the trilateral contact group that is designed to bring all the parties 

together to talk about implementing the Minsk agreement. 

And this is a very important component of being able to make 

sure that Ukraine can continue its commitment to democracy and 

to reforms and also to push back against Russian pressure on the—

and the presence of Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine. 

They do have a near-term economic crisis, which we have helped 

as well as the IMF and others to stabilize, so that they can continue to implement the reforms that they want to do to, again, 

build a stronger and prosperous country that isn’t affected and can 

push against the Russian pressure that is going on right now. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, this all started when—over an economic crisis in which President—the elected President, 

Yanukovych, went for assistance to the EU and the deal that he 

received from them he did not believe was equivalent or near what 

the Russians were offering and that led to—step by step into a situation of conflict today. 

52

And I would hope that we can take step by step back from that 

and the first step in that is to try to stop the actual physical fighting between the Ukrainians and the separatists and especially the 

withdrawal of the Russians of any people they have in the eastern 

Ukraine and hopefully that can be part of the same deal. 

But we need to—we need to focus a lot on peace rather than simply subsidizing the current status quo, which is leading them into 

the gates of Hell. 

We now have—Ms. Frankel has joined us and if you have some 

questions for the panel you are certainly welcome to take your 5 

minutes right now. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

And I wanted just to follow up on a comment of one of our witnesses, and thank you all for being here. Over the weekend, our 

Ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, summed up concerns 

that I think a lot of us have and he said there is no issue that is 

a greater threat to Ukraine’s long-term success today than the institutionalized corruption. It is a bigger threat than Russian tanks. 

I don’t know whether you are familiar with that or whether you 

agree with that. But in reference to that, I would like to ask this. 

First of all, do you have an opinion as to whether this long-term 

corruption issue in Ukraine so undermined the Ukrainian Government and the confidence of the people that set a stage for the Russian aggression—whether that is related at all. 

And can you tell me how—I guess is it USAID that is doing—

that is working on the corruption issue? Can I get some details on 

that? 

Ms. FRITZ. Sure. I can talk about our programs. Is that what you 

were interested more about—our assistance? So——

Ms. FRANKEL. But I would also like to hear the cause and effect, 

if you have an opinion to that. 

Ms. FRITZ. So maybe I can talk about assistance and Alina might 

take the cause and effect. So our assistance—what we have done 

is when we design every new project we look at how we can build 

in an anti-corruption component. 

So, for example, we are working with the judiciary. We are working in education, pharmaceutical procurement, e-governance permitting, financial disclosure in energy and all of those each have 

an anti-corruption component. 

In assessing how the Ukrainian Government is doing, they have 

passed more than a dozen key pieces of legislation that address corruption including establishing legislation to establish the National 

Anti-Corruption Bureau as well as the National Anti-Corruption 

Prevention Agency and the bureau is moving forward in terms of 

being stood up with a budget and staff and so forth. 

The prevention agency—they are just in the process of appointing a director of the agencies or setting up the committee to appoint the director. The prevention agency will be really important 

in terms of addressing financial disclosure and monitoring that of 

public sector employees of which there are over 900,000. 

Another area in which USAID has been involved is working on 

doing risk assessments for corruption of government agencies. So 

we have done two—one with the Securities Commission, another 

with the Deposit Insurance Company—and those identify areas 

53

that are at risk within those agencies for corruption and then an 

action plan to start addressing them. 

Moreover, we have given the methodology to or we are in the 

process of giving it to the Ukrainian Government so that they can 

do it across the government to start addressing some of these 

issues holistically across the government. 

We have judicial reform programs as well as programs that support civil society. What I would point to post-Maidan is that civil 

society was energized by Maidan and remains engaged in pressuring the government on reforms. They are monitoring. 

I was just there last week, met with a group of key NGOs and 

they are continuing their pressure on the government to reform. So 

it is from both sides that this is happening and will continue. 

Lastly, I asked a question of the group last week whether they 

have seen progress in the year since Maidan in terms of corruption 

and what they reported was public sector corruption it is noticeably 

less than it was a year ago and they were energized and inspired 

that this will continue. So I think Ukraine has a long way to go 

but we have seen some progress. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. Ms. Frankel, let me try and answer your question about whether corruption and how this all happened. I really 

am not in a position to really speculate on what prompted Mr. 

Putin to violate another country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

So I think I will leave it at that for the moment. But what I will 

say about corruption and how it can erode a country’s stability, it 

can limit its prosperity and it really does inhibit the responsive 

democratic pathways that populations would like. 

It undercuts its economy and it undercuts the expression and the 

ability of citizens in their country to express their values and 

where they want to take their country. 

On the corruption piece, for us and as my colleague, Susan Fritz, 

has said, fighting corruption is very much an integral part of our 

longstanding goal of Europe whole, free and at peace. 

It is not just in Ukraine. It is across the region. So that in fact 

that countries outside and external pressures such as Russian pressure don’t have the impact and don’t have the ability to get in and 

begin to meddle in the situation and into a country’s economy or 

politics or elsewhere. 

Like my colleague at USAID, going to Ukraine was one of the 

first visits I made in this new—in this new job and I was—I was 

struck when I talked to NGOs and even new government officials 

how important for them it was to tackle the issue of corruption in 

Ukraine and how the reforms that they were undertaking and the 

long, long list of other reforms that they had to undertake was 

going to be a long-term effort and a commitment. 

They recognized how difficult this might be and how it required 

convincing others in their society to make these difficult reforms 

that initially could have a significant impact on the—on the economy or on the—or on the livelihoods. 

But at the end of the day, every single Ukrainian I talked to recognized that they needed to embark on serious reforms to get on 

to the democratic path and to continue their integration into Europe. 

54

Ms. FRANKEL. Just—Mr. Chair, if I just may follow through. I did 

not mean to infer that the corruption was an excuse to Putin. 

I—my inference was that it weakens the resistance of the country and the people in the country when they don’t have confidence 

in the government and the government is not working correctly. It 

can lay a predicate for a terrorist group or—I know what you are 

going to call Mr. Putin—an aggressor to come in. 

Ms. ROMANOWSKI. And I think that the—what we are seeing now 

is the Ukrainian people want to see reforms happen fast and quick, 

and as we all know, in some cases it takes a while to get those 

done. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you to the panel. Just a few more 

thoughts about the—just sort of take up where the conversation 

ended. I think the corruption issue is the direct—is the direct cause 

for the problems that are in Ukraine today, not just their economic 

situation but this military confrontation that they have. 

I remember seeing Kuchma and I was there during the Orange 

Revolution and I actually supported the kids down in the square 

and went into their tents with them and everything. 

And, of course, they got rid of Kuchma, the last of the Soviet 

leadership of Ukraine, and we got Yushchenko is, I believe, then 

came in after the Orange Revolution and he was married to Kathy 

Chumachenko, worked with me in the Reagan White House. 

Thought, oh boy, we got some Western people there now who are 

committed to better government, and the people, in fact, in 

Ukraine have been convinced that Yushchenko—and, unfortunately, his—all of his cohorts were as corrupt as they had with 

Kuchma and were so disillusioned that they ended up voting for 

Yanukovych, who was the pro-Russian candidate at the time. 

And then Yanukovych, of course, to suggest that he was any less 

corrupt than anybody else would be just wrong because what the 

people of the Ukraine have had is government after government 

after government coming in, with the hope of the people that new 

government is going to be a noncorrupt government and they got 

some hope and, frankly, Yanukovych was just as corrupt as his 

predecessors, probably more corrupt. 

And when they—thus, when he did not get the deal that he was 

looking for to help the Ukraine’s—the Ukraine’s economy from 

the—from their Western European friends who have to, again, like 

Merkel has suggested, had they treated Yanukovych differently we 

might not have had this confrontation with Russia going on. 

But Yanukovych ends up going to Putin, getting the agreement—

a better agreement than what the European Union was offering—

but the people of his country, because they have learned that corruption is the way of life of these—of their leadership, assumed 

that they—the country was being sold out to Russia probably for 

personal gain for their—for their President and that is when this 

violence erupted in that society. 

And let us just hope—I mean, this is a horrible situation in 

Ukraine and we need to—I think the first step is, number one, do 

everything we can to stop the actual fighting and get the people 

disengaged with spending because every day of fighting is the exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:00 Aug 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\061615\95126 SHIRL
55

penditure of millions of dollars that are drains on that economy 

and also it hurts the people there and people lose their lives. 

So just—that is just a thought and but I got one last issue I 

would like to bring up before we close and—unless Ms. Frankel has 

another comment. 

I have—this is, Mr. Rosenblum, about—this is back to my central 

point that I didn’t hear anybody mention radical Islam. 

I keep hearing people mention Russia, Russia, Russia. But radical Islam is, to me, the major threat we must face today. Just like 

when the Soviet Union was in, that was the major threat and other 

things were secondary. 

Well, I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that we could have radical 

Islamic terrorists taking over various governments in Central Asia 

and I understand that we trained—in Tajikistan they trained their 

special forces commander, who recently defected to ISIL and is now 

actively involved in trying to accomplish the ISIL gains in Central 

Asia and whatever the ISIL is long term trying to do. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think you are referring to the 

case of Mr. Khalimov, who was the commander of the Oman special 

forces, which is the interior ministry special forces in 

Tajikistan——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM [continuing]. Who, I guess it was 2 or 3 weeks 

ago appeared in a video where he announced that he had joined 

ISIL. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Defected. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. That is correct—defected. And so this case—it 

actually so happens, coincidentally, that today a delegation from 

the Government of Tajikistan is here in Washington for our annual—what we call the annual bilateral consultations between our 

two governments. 

Not surprisingly, this particular case has come up in the conversation although it is covering the whole broad range of our relationship with Tajikistan. 

So we—this is a case that, obviously, was—came as a surprise 

to us and that we are very concerned about and what its ramifications are. 

The—Mr. Khalimov came up through the ranks of the interior 

ministry before he became the commander and during that period 

of about a decade did participate in several U.S. training courses—

I think about five training programs sponsored under our anti-terrorism assistance program. 

The way those programs work, as you probably know, Mr. Chairman, is that the attendees are selected by the government of the 

country and then they go through a vetting process that is sometimes informally referred to as the Leahy vetting, which is basically seeing whether the selected participant was involved in any 

gross violations of human rights in their own country. 

And in terms of that vetting, this person, Mr. Khalimov, passed 

our vetting. But I just want to emphasize that he was—he was selected by the government, which is the normal way that these 

things work. 

56

It is hard to predict these sorts of things and actually there was 

a hearing last week that I participated in on exactly this issue of 

recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters from Central Asia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. ROSENBLUM. Of course, this case came up as well, and I was 

asked a similar question about Mr. Khalimov. It is hard to predict 

how these cases come up. As I said there and I will say here again, 

we are continuing to look at our procedures for conducting these 

training courses. 

We are always going to be dependent on selection by the governments to a large extent, of course, of the participants. But we are 

looking if there are any ways to do additional screening that might 

help us to avoid future cases like this. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I would hope that this particular incident is a wake-up call for all of us about Central Asia. We should 

not be taking Central Asia for granted—that, indeed, once radical 

Islam, if they are successful in the Gulf and then they manage to 

spread to the other areas in northern Africa and into Central Asia, 

we will be involved with an historic shift of power on this planet 

that will plague us and plague mankind and humankind for generations to come. 

And this is—the fact that in Tajikistan you have someone like 

this defecting over to the most radical elements of Islam should tell 

us that we need to pay attention there and not take—and not focus 

totally, our whole efforts, on Russia’s dispute within Ukraine, although we need to make sure that Russia has got the message that 

we do not believe that it was right for them to go in to—even if 

they had—Yanukovych was overthrown or whatever, there was no 

excuse for them to come in with their troops and that should not 

have happened. 

But with that said, we have a lot of other challenges to face in 

which the Russians could possibly play a positive role in if we can 

get the situation in the Ukraine settled. 

So with that said, Mr. Deutch, you have whatever time you 

would like. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Just—I only need a couple seconds. I wanted to 

come back in just to ask that our panelists take back from me and, 

I know, from those of us on this committee who have had the opportunity to travel to places like Tashkent and Dushanbe and 

Bishkek that we have really great appreciation for the work that 

State and our diplomatic corps and that our USAID workers do in 

these places—that it can’t be taken for granted that for, unlike 

many parts of the world, for most of the people in Bishkek, for example, what they know about the United States is what they learn 

from their contact with the person from the Embassy who goes out 

and reads to kids, runs programs—what they do to stand for this 

country and our values and advance our interests. 

By being willing to spend a few years representing this country 

in those places means a great deal. They should be commended for 

it and I would ask you to take that message back to them. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Deutch, I would like to thank you for 

coming back to make that expression. I think that reflects we are 

a partnership here. 

57

You know, this is—we are trying—all trying to do our best to 

make sure our country is served well and we are—and the message 

that Mr. Deutch gave of that gratitude for the role that you play 

it goes for both sides of the aisle. 

So thank you very much. I declare this hearing adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


95126n.eps
61

Æ


95126m.eps