U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

65–795PDF 2011

PRIORITIES FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE IN THE

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 13, 2011

Serial No. 112–30

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CONNIE MACK, Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of 

Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State .................................. 7

The Honorable Mark Feierstein, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Latin 

America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development ..... 17

The Honorable Adolfo A. Franco, vice president for global regulatory affairs, 

Direct Selling Association (former Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean for the U.S. Agency for International Development) .. 43

The Honorable Mark L. Schneider, senior vice president, International Crisis 

Group (former Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean for the U.S. Agency for International Development) ............................... 50

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Arturo Valenzuela: Prepared statement ...................................... 10

The Honorable Mark Feierstein: Prepared statement .......................................... 20

The Honorable Adolfo A. Franco: Prepared statement ......................................... 47

The Honorable Mark L. Schneider: Prepared statement ..................................... 54

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 72

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 73

The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: Prepared statement ................................................................................................... 75

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: 

Letter from the Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senator, to 

His Excellency Porfirio Lobo Sosa, President of the Republic of Honduras, 

dated February 17, 2011 .................................................................................. 78

Letter from Members of Congress to His Excellency Porfirio Lobo Sosa 

dated September 17, 2010 ................................................................................ 79

(1)

PRIORITIES FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE IN THE 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

2212 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Connie Mack (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. MACK. Good morning, everyone. This subcommittee will 

come to order. I first want to thank everyone, especially our witnesses for joining us for the hearing today. And I want to thank 

all the members who showed up today. Try to make it light and 

lively. 

After recognizing myself and Mr. Sires for 5 minutes each for 

opening statements, I’ll recognize the members of the subcommittee for 2 minutes each for their statements. We will then 

proceed directly to hearing testimony from our distinguished witnesses. 

The full test of the written testimony will be inserted in the 

record. Without objection, members may have 5 days to submit 

statements and questions for the record. 

After we hear from our witnesses, individual members will be 

recognized for 5 minutes each for questions to our witnesses. The 

chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Again, thank you all for being here, and look forward to this 

hearing. 

As chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I am focused 

on three key priorities that I believe are imperative to U.S. interests in the Hemisphere; these are freedom, security, and prosperity. 

On February 15th, we held the first hearing of this subcommittee. During that hearing, I promised to continue to engage 

the administration to develop a strategic relationship with Latin 

America, the Caribbean, and Canada that promotes the security, 

goals, and ideals of the U.S. and our allies. In that hearing, we addressed four or five main areas where the State Department’s focus 

was not in line with U.S. interests. 

The include the Colombia and Panama Free Trade Agreements. 

I am encouraged to see that we are a step closer on Colombia. Venezuela: Where I highlighted the need for the Keystone XL pipeline 

in order to counter Chavez’s influence; however, we still see delays 

in the approval process. 

2

Cuba: Where a USAID contractor was recently sentenced to 20 

years in prison while this administration sat back and watched; 

and Mexico: Where Americans are being murdered and the drug 

cartels are targeting border patrol agents. 

In light of these policy concerns, the purpose of today’s hearing 

is to review the budget request for next year, acknowledge support 

for the necessary assistance that advances U.S. interests, and identify misdirected funds. 

First, I would like to address security. Security ranks as the 

number one concern for citizens throughout this hemisphere. And 

these security concerns post a significant threat to U.S. citizens. 

However, President Obama appears more worried about increasing 

funding for agenda-driven programs, like the Global Climate 

Change Initiative, which will cost taxpayers $109 million. 

State Department-led programs in Mexico, Central America, and 

the Caribbean acknowledge the expansive security concerns that 

we face in our hemisphere. Yet, the apparent haphazard approach 

to security-related assistance, and lack of leadership in implementing these programs demonstrate that security is not a priority 

for this administration. 

While the threat of a failed state looms across our southern border with Mexico, the Merida Initiative has suffered extensive 

delays throughout the entire first phase of the program. With 

roughly $1.1 billion appropriated under Merida for security equipment since 2008, latest estimates show that only around $300 million has been delivered. 

Regarding Central American, President Obama recently announced a new Central American Citizens Security partnership, including $200 million in funding to Central America. This announcement came as news to Congress, especially since the ranking member and I personally met with the new State Department Drug Policy Coordinator, and there was no mention of this new partnership. 

To date, no one from this administration has made an effort to 

work with Congress in establishing this new approach. Further, El 

Salvador and others in the region are unclear of what the partnership stands for, and how it will be funded. 

If the United States isn’t going to be a leader in the region, there 

are many nations who are vying for such a leadership role: Which 

leads me to the ALBA Nations, led by Venezuela, and the need to 

establish that their actions have consequences: Governments that 

stake their success on building hatred toward the United States 

should in no way, shape, or form receive assistance from the 

United States Government and the taxpayers. 

It is counterproductive for the U.S. to provide continued assistance to nations where we are unable to access vetted units, and the 

host government continuously works to thwart U.S. efforts. 

There must be clear consequences for the actions of the ALBA 

nations, and the U.S. should start by eliminating assistance to 

Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua in the 2012 budget. 

It is time we regain our leadership role and demonstrate through 

our Foreign Assistance Budget the benefits of being an ally of the 

United States. 

3

Thugocrats who spew anti-U.S. sentiment, and seek to destroy 

the freedoms of their people, should do so with the understanding 

that they will receive zero assistance from U.S. taxpayers. 

Third, environmental assistance. Finally, where President 

Obama has shown a true commitment in the budget is through environmental assistance. We see Global Climate Change funding infused throughout the entire budget request totalling in $109 million just in the Western Hemisphere. From $10 million for Brazil, 

a nation that leads in clean energy, to $8 million for Ecuador, who 

last week kicked out our Ambassador. 

This administration must recognize that budget cuts are necessary. All of us would like to support our special interests around 

the globe; however, we are broke. Now is not the time for U.S. taxpayers to support Ecuador’s clean energy initiatives. 

While Americans are being murdered at the southern border, and 

nations in our hemisphere continue to strengthen ties with Iran 

and illegal sources of income, the United States needs to show 

leadership in its funding priorities. 

I look forward to hearing from how State and USAID plans to 

work closely with Congress to achieve our jointly held goal of a 

safer, more prosperous region. 

Thank you very much. 

And now I’d like to recognize Mr. Sires for 5 minutes for opening 

statement. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I know you’ve 

been here before, so I thank you for coming. 

I want to begin by emphasizing to all those attending this hearing that the prosperity and the security of the United States is intrinsically linked with the political and economic successes and failures of the countries of the Western Hemisphere. 

I emphasize this because at times it seems that we forget the importance of the relationships we have with our neighbors. And as 

members of this subcommittee, I believe that these relationships 

are some of the most important for our national security, and future economic prosperity. 

I was happy to see that the President visited the region where 

he emphasized the importance of our current and future economic 

ties for the hemisphere, as well as our shared security concerns. 

It is no doubt that many countries in the region are taking the 

steps toward political stability, and economic growth. Yet, the region has also experienced an increase in violence that has reduced 

the quality of living across much of the Americas. 

The lack of inclusive participation by all members of society in 

the growing economic prosperity of the region has made the Americas susceptible to populous appeal, and jeopardizes the political 

and economic improvement made in the region over the last two 

decades. 

Additionally, the declining support for democracy as a result of 

corrupt governance, drug traffickers acting with impunity as the 

result of weak State presence, or increased immigration as a result 

of economic and fiscal insecurity have stretched the chances of any 

sustainable progress. 

4

Our assistance programs, such as Merida Carsi should continue 

to counteract these forces, not only to insure a promising future for 

our neighbors, but also for ourselves. Of course, the assistance to 

the Cuban people remains a priority of mine. 

In 2010, State Department Human Rights reports on Cuba reads 

like a handbook of oppression, and tyranny. The violations include, 

but are not limited to, denial of medical care, arbitrary imprisonment, denial of fair trial, limited freedom of speech, press, and 

right to peaceful assembly, and association. 

In light of this report, it seems preposterous that there is a delay 

in the 2010 funding for the USAID democracy promotion program 

in Cuba. While this delay has been touted as necessary to review 

the program, I see it as turning our backs on the Cuban people, 

and as a blatant disregard of the will of this Congress. 

And might I add also that Senator Kerry’s comments don’t help, 

where he blames the programs for Alan Gross’ imprisonment. I 

mean, he should wake up and smell the coffee, to see what’s going 

on in Cuba. 

These funds provide the necessary assistance to combat the Castro regime through the promotion of democratic principles, and by 

supporting civil societies’ initiatives in Cuba. 

The death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo and the unlawful imprisonment of Alan Gross again show the necessity of such programs in 

the first place. We must hold the Cuban regime responsible for all 

these human rights violations, and not punish the Cuban people by 

withholding these critical funds. 

I would like to, again, thank the chairman for holding this hearing. I look forward to the testimonies of our witnesses. Thank you. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

And Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 2 minutes for opening statement. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I also want to thank Assistant Secretary 

Valenzuela, as well as Messrs. Feierstein, Franco, and Schneider 

for being here today to address the subcommittee, and for answering any questions we may have on this subject. 

Mr. Chairman, assisting foreign governments financially can 

have great benefits for the United States; namely, increased national security, and an expansion of markets for U.S. products and 

goods. 

Foreign aid promotes democracy, encourages free markets, and 

enhances security, but I also believe, in a time when Americans are 

having difficulty putting food on their tables, keeping gas in their 

cars, and paying their utility bills, we need to be prepared to justify 

to them the benefits to be derived from spending their hard-earned 

tax dollars on foreign assistance. 

With fewer dollars available to devote to foreign aid initiatives, 

it is of the utmost importance that we spend those dollars wisely, 

and prudently. 

Mr. Chairman, recently I reviewed President Obama’s proposed 

FY ‘12 budget for the Department of State, and specifically, its outlays for International Affairs, particularly with regard to the Western Hemisphere. 

5

At this point, I’m not convinced that the President’s proposed FY 

’12 budget for foreign operations and U.S. economic assistance in 

the Western Hemisphere properly reflects a true understanding of 

U.S. interests in the region. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing, the collective testimony of today’s witnesses, and do hope to learn more with regard 

to foreign aid initiatives in the Western Hemisphere. Thank you for 

having this important hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Ms. Schmidt. 

And now Mr. Payne is recognized for 2 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very important hearing. I’ll be brief. 

Number one, I think that Colombia is still regarded as one of the 

most dangerous countries in the world, has the world’s largest internally displaced communities in front, actually, of Sudan. 

I would like to know why we are not demanding that Colombia 

meet certain human rights benchmarks before rewarding them 

with an agreement that has a high probability of creating further 

displacement, murders, and poor conditions in the country. 

Number two, I would like to hear how the administration feels 

about the very flawed Haitian election process, and our concerns 

that we may have with President-Elect Michel Martelly, formerly 

allegedly associated with Tonton Macoutes back that had a reign 

of terror on Haiti back 20, 30 years ago. 

Finally, I’m concerned about the Western Hemisphere Bureau on 

Race, Ethnicity, and Social Inclusion Unit, which is set to expire 

despite its effectiveness in strengthening democracies by including 

minorities, and various aspects of the government in social planning. 

I think that we have been on the right trajectory in Latin America and the Caribbean. We have been moving forward in the right 

direction. I think it’s important that our neighbors to the south 

continue to have assistance. I think it’s in our best national interest. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

And I notice people are fanning themselves. We know it’s hot. 

We’ve turned the air conditioning on, or up, or down, or whatever 

to make it cooler, so just bear with us. 

I now would like to recognize Mr. Rivera for 2 minutes for opening statement. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary 

Valenzuela for being here, and Administrator Feierstein, as well. 

Thank you so much for being here. 

I’ll be brief. We’ve had previous meetings, and other hearings 

where we’ve had several discussions, so I’ll just recap two of them 

that I think are important to touch on as we proceed in this hearing. 

First of all, the Free Trade Agreements that the United States 

is pursuing with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I think it’s 

important to reiterate that all three trade agreements are important, and all three trade agreements should move forward. 

6

I think the recent announcement with respect to Colombia was 

a positive step forward, but it is in no way an assurance that that 

Free Trade Agreement is going forward. And as I’ve said on many 

occasions, and as several Members of the Congress have said, I will 

vote against the South Korea Free Trade Agreement unless I see 

concrete, tangible progress on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 

And on Panama, as well. We know how important that is. But Colombia, in particular, is one of our best allies in a region that is 

fighting narco terrorism, that is fighting for commerce and trade 

throughout the region to be free, and is wanting to expand with the 

United States of America. I think it’s important to pursue that. 

And then secondly is the democracy promotion issue. We’ve spoken previously about the Helms-Burton legislation, and the requirements on Title III, and making sure that there is justification 

for the promotion and advancement of democracy and suspending 

that. 

I’d like to hear some more about that, as well as the USAID 

funding that Congressman Sires mentioned earlier. We know 

what’s happened recently with Alan Gross, and I think that only 

speaks to the fact that we need to continue to move forward with 

this democracy funding to promote freedom and human rights, and 

civil liberties inside Cuba. 

And I know, Administrator Feierstein, we’ve spoken earlier about 

the issue of liability waivers. I know we’ve spoken privately about 

that, but I’d like to hear from you on the record regarding that 

issue, as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. 

And Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 2 minutes for opening 

statement. 

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

First and foremost, I would like to associate myself with the 

opening remarks of Chairman Mack, who expressed some things 

that are really dear to my heart, but also of concern to all responsible Members of Congress at this point. 

I’d also like to suggest that we, when we’re looking at Colombia, 

realize they have been going through this turmoil, and there has 

been great improvement in Colombia over the last few years in 

terms of human rights, and violations that happen during times of 

conflict. 

It always surprises me that people will expect Colombia to have 

such a high level of human rights protections, which I support, 

even though they’ve been in the middle of a conflict, but they don’t 

have those same expectations for Cuba, and Venezuela, who are 

not going through this conflict situation, and have even worse 

standards of human rights. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, your commitment to actually calling people to task for bad judgments and bad policies in their country, I 

would hope that any country in the Western Hemisphere, or anywhere else that expropriates the property of American citizens, 

they have to deal with that, and they have to make it right by 

those people, or we should not be giving them foreign aid. 

I will personally join with you and others who are interested in 

joining me in this. I will suggest as the aid package moves forward, 

7

that Honduras not be given further foreign aid until it deals with 

the expropriation of American properties in the country. 

We have expressed over, and over, and over again, petitions, letters, et cetera to the Government of Honduras that they need to 

deal with these expropriations, and deal with those people who 

have had their property taken in a fair way. They have not—they 

have stonewalled this issue, and I’m going to work with any other 

member of this committee who will work with me to see that Honduras does not get one cent of American money until it deals fairly 

with those Americans whose property has been expropriated. 

So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There’s lots to talk 

about today. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I’d like now to introduce our witnesses. First, the Honorable Dr. 

Arturo Valenzuela. It’s good to see you again. Dr. Valenzuela is the 

Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. 

Prior to his appointment to State, Dr. Valenzuela was a professor 

of government and director of the Center for Latin America Studies 

in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown 

University. 

During the Clinton administration, Dr. Valenzuela served as 

Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of InterAmerican Affairs at the National Security Council. Again, thank 

you, and welcome. 

Second, the Honorable Mark Feierstein. Mr. Feierstein is the 

USAID Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Before joining USAID, served as principal and vice president at 

an international polling firm. Additionally, he serves as Special Assistant to State for the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of 

America States. 

Welcome both of you. Mr. Valenzuela, is recognized for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ARTURO VALENZUELA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF WESTERN 

HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m delighted to have this opportunity to testify before you today on the 

Department of State’s budget priorities in the Western Hemisphere. I look forwarding to working with you, and with this committee to advance U.S. interest in the hemisphere. I am also honored to be here with my colleague, Mark Feierstein, in appearing 

before you. 

President Obama’s recent visit to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador 

highlighted the importance this administration places on its relations with Latin America. The President’s message of partnership, 

and the dozens of agreements completed during the trip underscored how tremendously significant the region is for the United 

States on issues including our economic competitiveness, our global 

strategic interests, and our core values of democracy and human 

rights. 

And last week, President Obama announced that we are moving 

with the U.S.-Colombia and U.S.-Panama trade promotion agreeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\041311\65795 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

ments, which we expect will create thousands of American jobs, 

and increase U.S. exports by more than $1 billion. 

As Secretary Clinton recently stated:

‘‘Enhancing our competitiveness, accelerating innovation, 

achieving energy security, expanding our exports, all of these 

require robust engagement with Latin America. Even in this 

inter-connected world, geography still matters. This administration believes that our opportunity with Latin America derives from the power of proximity; proximity that is geographic, economic, and reflects the common history of the 

Americas. Our hemisphere stands to gain from greater cooperation, which can lead to the rise of even more capable 

partners, who can help us accomplish our strategic objectives 

from promoting clean energy to improving security in the region, to strengthening human rights and democracy.’’

The Obama administration’s strategy of engagement has contributed to a shift in Latin American public opinion. According to the 

2010 poll by Latinobarometro, two-thirds of the population in most 

countries had favorable attitudes toward the United States, an increase of 10 to 20 points from 2008 levels. The role of the United 

States in Latin America is also overwhelmingly viewed as positive. 

This suggests the Obama administration’s strategy has reversed 

the dangerous depletion of good will toward the United States that 

had occurred in the prior decade. 

U.S. foreign assistance in Latin America and the Caribbean supports our overall policy goals of advancing U.S. interests through 

promoting effective democratic governance, citizen safety for all, expanded economic and social opportunity, and a clean energy future. 

The U.S. foreign assistance request for FY 2012 for the Western Hemisphere totals $1.98 billion. We believe this request will help 

us meet the challenges and opportunities we face. At the same 

time, it is lean and responds to the fiscal constraints that we all 

recognize. 

In order to sustain the hemisphere’s progress, we must prioritize 

citizen security. Our FY 2012 funding request targets the issue of 

citizen safety, accounting for just less than half of the total request 

for the Western Hemisphere. Our efforts will be particularly focused on improving citizen security in Mexico, Central America, the 

Caribbean, and Colombia. 

In order to oversee effectively the citizen security programs in 

Latin America and the Caribbean, I’ve asked Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson to assume responsibility for ensuring program coordination. 

Our assistance request also reflects the priority we’ve placed on 

supporting democratic processes that meet international standards 

of transparency and accountability. We also seek to strengthen the 

foundation of civil society, thereby giving voice to the voices in 

countries like Venezuela and Cuba. 

We continue to help the Haitian people rebuild after the terrible 

earthquake that struck the country, fulfilling President Obama’s 

vision that our commitment to Haiti is sustained. 

Additionally, we have made sure that critical issues like preventing youth violence, and combating violence against women, and 

9

other marginalized groups, including indigenous, African descendants, have become increasingly incorporated into our assistance 

programs. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe our budget priorities for 

the Western Hemisphere focus on achieving high impact in areas 

vital to U.S. interests and laying the groundwork for deeper and 

more productive partnerships with the region, as a whole. 

And I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Valenzuela follows:]

10


65795a_1.eps
11


65795a_2.eps
12


65795a_3.eps
13


65795a_4.eps
14


65795a_5.eps
15


65795a_6.eps
16


65795a_7.eps
17

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. 

And now I’d like to recognize Mr. Feierstein for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK FEIERSTEIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR LATIN AMERICA AND 

THE CARIBBEAN, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you the invitation to testify today. 

I am grateful for the committee’s interest in the U.S. Agency for 

International Development’s priorities in Latin America and the 

Caribbean, and pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the 

Obama administration’s development policy in the Americas. 

The President’s FY12 budget request for USAID in the Western 

Hemisphere reflects the administration’s intent to focus our investments in priority countries and sectors, and achieve lasting development gains overseas, while contributing to the security and prosperity of the American people. 

USAID’s work is not charity. When we help economies closely 

tied to our own, we develop markets for our products. When we 

help farmers in coca producing areas harvest legal crops, we stem 

the flow of drugs to our communities. When we reduce the prevalence of disease in the Americas, we help keep our communities 

healthy. 

But USAID’s programs also reflect core American values. The 

American people’s outpouring of support following Haiti’s earthquake is a prime example of these values at work. We at USAID 

are doing our part in Haiti, too, and we’re seeing progress despite 

the daunting challenges. 

The number of Haitians living in tent camps has fallen by more 

than 800,000; 20 percent of the 10 million cubic meters of rubble 

produced by the quake has been removed. More Haitians have access to clean water and health services today than before the earthquake. 


65795a_8.eps
18

We look forward to working with the new Haitian Government 

to accelerate the reconstruction process, and implement our longterm development plans. 

In the context of a challenging fiscal environment, President 

Obama’s FY12 budget request projects key priorities including combating drug trafficking and organized crime in the Americas. Mexico, Central America, and parts of the Caribbean are suffering from 

the highest rates of non-political violence in the world, and it is in 

our interest to support their efforts to combat crime. 

While we continue our longstanding programs to strengthen judicial systems, the heart of USAID’s security work involves preventive measures that deal with the social roots of violence; namely, 

providing productive alternatives to youth vulnerable to the lure of 

crime. 

We also continue to help drug-producing countries to cut off the 

source. In Colombia and Peru, USAID is providing farmers with 

legal alternatives to growing coca and helping to re-establish government presence in areas where guerilla groups and drug trafficking organizations recently operated with impunity. 

Defeating the drug cartels and gangs will require strong democratic institutions. Our FY12 budget request maintains our support 

for programs that strengthen the capacity of national and local institutions to provide services. 

But our democracy work also extends to the support of civil society, and political parties in countries where political space is narrowing or, in the hemisphere’s remaining dictatorship, non-existent. Our engagement with countries will be shaped by their commitment to democratic practices and respect for human rights. 

Democracy is advanced and bolstered by broad-based economic 

growth. USAID, therefore, continues to prioritize programs that 

allow the private sector to flourish, and create jobs that lift people 

out of poverty. 

Ensuring we have adequate resources for our highest priorities 

requires making tough choices; choices we are already making. We 

have committed to closing two USAID overseas offices in this hemisphere in recognition of the gains that Panama has made since we 

re-established a presence there in 1990, and will close our office 

and wind down our programming. And in a cost-saving measure, 

we plan to manage our Guyana projects from one of our regional 

offices. 

Of all the metrics we use to gauge our success, none is more important than reaching the point at which we can close up shop in 

a country. As President Obama has said: ‘‘The purpose of development is creating the conditions where our assistance is no longer 

needed.’’

In order to maximize the impact of our budget, we are leveraging 

other sources of funding. We are already working with countries 

like Brazil and Chile, which are valuable lessons to share from 

their recent successes in achieving broad-based economic growth, 

and developing effective democratic institutions. 

Recognizing that long-term development and job creation depend 

upon an active and vibrant private sector, we are also increasingly 

collaborating with businesses. And we are increasing the return on 

19

our investments by encouraging the development of innovative solutions. 

For example, spurred on by an incentive fund created by USAID 

and the Gates Foundation, the telecommunications company, 

Digicel, introduced a mobile money system that is enabling Haitians to access financial services on their cell phones. 

Such novel approaches, combined with selectivity in our investments, and a commitment to create greater capacity abroad, will 

accelerate the pace of development in the Americas. And as Latin 

America and the Caribbean become more prosperous and secure, 

the United States will also reap the benefits. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feierstein follows:]

20


65795b_1.eps
21


65795b_2.eps
22


65795b_3.eps
23


65795b_4.eps
24


65795b_5.eps
25


65795b_6.eps
26


65795b_7.eps
27


65795b_8.eps
28

Mr. MACK. Thank you. And now we’ll move on to questions. 

Mr. Valenzuela, can you talk a little bit about how you—how the 

State Department views the priorities of Latin America? What are 

our priorities in Latin America? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Yes. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that you summarized well in your opening remarks what 

our priorities would also be; would be freedom, security, and prosperity. And when we look at the countries of the Western Hemisphere, we’re mindful of two things. One, that there has been extraordinary progress in the region as a whole. We’re no longer in 

the situation we were 25 years ago with authoritarian regimes and 

civil conflicts in Central America, and failed economic policies. 

We’re in a situation that’s really far more promising in that respect, where you have elected governments in most parts, where 

you have, at the same time, countries that are able—have been 

able to take on economic policies that not only have led to significant prosperity and growth in many places, but also have addressed issues of social exclusion. 

So, we see the glass half full in this sense, because we’re also 

mindful, and I’ll finish my comment with this reflection. We’re also 

mindful of the challenges that still remain, that there are weak 

democratic institutions in some countries, that there are really significant levels of exclusion of certain sectors of societies, that 

there’s a lot more to be done. And we want to stand to be an effective partner to be able to address all three of these things; how we 

can better help protect security, how we can better advance freedom, and how we can, at the same time, better advance economic 

opportunity and prosperity. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. Can you tell me then why looking at the 

budget, it appears that—so you would agree that security is either 

the, or one of the top issues and concerns facing all of us in the 

Western Hemisphere. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. That’s correct. 

Mr. MACK. Can you tell me then why in the budget that was submitted to the Congress, that it appears less of an emphasis on security, and more emphasis on other programs, including $109 million for Global Climate Change? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. If I might summarize very briefly our priorities. The largest commitment that we have in our budget is, in 

fact, to citizen safety initiatives. It’s 48 percent of the entire budget. And that includes Merida, it includes CARSI in Central America, it includes the CBSI initiatives in the Caribbean, it includes 

Colombia. This is a substantial commitment and the lion’s share of 

our budget commitments. 

We also have other priorities that are indicated by the three objectives that you, yourself underlined. And we want to be responsive to some of the other priorities, as well. 

And alternative energies and climate change is an issue that is 

a priority in the Western Hemisphere in all the countries. When 

I travel, as I did recently with the President, one of the conversations it was clear both in Brazil and in Chile, was the importance 

of addressing issues of alternative energy and climate change. 

29

Mr. MACK. Again, let me get back to the priorities, though. So, 

you can’t help but to see things in the news that’s talking about 

Mexico, and the problems that’s happening in Mexico with the drug 

cartels, and security concerns there. 

Guatemala, there’s concerns in Guatemala, and the security 

threats and challenges in Guatemala. The drug trade that continues to flow through Venezuela, but also is impacting most of the 

nations in Latin America. 

And when we look at the budget, and we see a diminishing priority in budgetary items for security issues, it puts up red flag. And 

then you superimpose that on $109 million for global climate 

change, which I understand is a priority of the President, but I 

don’t know that it’s a priority of the people who are seeking security in Latin America. 

How do you justify those? And you’ve got about—if you could, 

really quickly, on that. And then I’ve got a follow-up question. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Yes. Well, again, I would reiterate that our 

commitment to programs like Merida, and CARSI, and CBSI is fulsome. 

One of the reasons why there’s some decline——

Mr. MACK. Okay. Let me, real quick, because you keep talking 

about——

Mr. VALENZUELA. Sure. 

Mr. MACK. Only $300 million of the $1.1 billion has been delivered in Merida, so there’s an issue there. 

Let me ask this one last question. And I mentioned this in my 

opening statement about ALBA countries. 

We continue to support with U.S. tax dollars countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, who are building—trying 

to build up their nations by spewing anti-U.S. rhetoric. Why would 

we spend almost $95 million in assistance to countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, who have made it clear 

that their priorities, their goals, their visions in life are not the 

same as the United States, or the people of the United States? Why 

would we continue to support those countries? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Mr. Chairman, if I might simply respond to 

your earlier remark, as well. With the $408 million has been already delivered in the case of Merida, and we expect that $500 million more will be delivered by 

the end of this year. So, it may have been slow at the beginning, 

but we’re really meeting our commitments with the case of Merida. 

And, also, the final traunche of Merida is focusing on some—we 

moved beyond equipment and things like that to, in fact, some of 

the really critical issues, such as institution building, and judicial 

reform, and police training. 

I don’t want to——

Mr. MACK. The issue, though, there is that we are lagging behind 

the drug cartels. And this is since 2008. It’s extremely disappointing that a commitment that we made to work with the 

Mexicans in this, the fact that $300-, $400 million of $1.1 billion 

has only been delivered since 2008 is cause for concern; I think you 

recognize that. 

My time is up, so let me move on. We’ll have a chance to——

Mr. VALENZUELA. All right, thanks. 

30

Mr. MACK [continuing]. If you need it, to discuss this. 

Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me associate my remarks—associate myself to the remarks of Dana regarding Honduras. I’d be happy to work with you, 

Congressman, on this issue. 

You know, we talk a lot about the Merida initiative. And one of 

the things that I had a concern with when this whole thing was 

first conceived was the fact that we seem to not take a regional approach to the problems in the Western Hemisphere, but we seem 

to be focusing—we focus on Mexico, so the drug gangs move to another country. It’s like a balloon, you push it here, and it pops out 

someplace else. 

We were very successful in Colombia. I think until we do a regional approach in all these countries in Central America, we’re not 

going to be as successful as we want to be. Let me put it that way. 

The fact that the President is putting $200 million, I would like 

to see more details about it. I don’t know enough about it. Is it 

going to be more of a regional-basis, or is it not? 

So, I was just wondering how you feel about the comment that 

I just made, that I think we should take more of a regional approach, instead of taking—it seems that we’re taking country by 

country, and where the problem pops up, we try to throw some 

money in there. 

Can you just comment, both of you? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, I couldn’t agree with you more 

that, in fact, this cannot be approached simply by doing bilateral 

relationships with particular countries and assistance with particular countries. It has to be a broad regional focus. 

And, indeed, one of the first steps that the administration did 

with Merida when this administration came in was, in fact, to 

broaden Merida to include a strong component with regard to Central America, which led to the development CARSI initiative, the 

Central American Regional Security Initiative, as well as the CBSI 

initiative with regard to the Caribbean; mindful of the fact that we 

still needed to continue to cooperate with Colombia on this. 

So, at this particular point, our entire focus is really very significantly regional. It extends from Mexico, through Central America, 

through the Caribbean, and into Colombia. And we’re working together with all of the countries there. 

And if I might say something about the Partnership for Central 

America that the President referred to. This is a broad partnership 

that not only includes the United States, but it also includes key 

actors, such as Colombia, and, in fact, Mexico, working in Central 

America, but other donor organizations. And by that I mean the 

Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank, and other 

countries, such as the European Union, and others. 

We’re trying to do a much more strategic planning effort with 

other countries, with donors, so that we can, in fact, address what 

is, indeed, a regional problem, as you suggest. 

Mr. SIRES. Would you like to comment on that, sir? 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. Yes, thank you. I very much appreciate the opportunity to address that. 

31

I think if you look at the FY12 budget request, and, in fact, look 

at our budget today, and our programs, you’ll see it reflects the approach that you’re encouraging. 

The largest budget for us in the Western Hemisphere after Haiti, 

of course, is in Colombia. And that is largely a security program, 

where we do a lot of alternative development work in helping the 

government establish a presence in areas that were in conflict recently. 

Peru, which is our second-largest budget in the hemisphere, half 

of our budget there is devoted to alternative development, which, 

of course, is security-related work. 

And at the same time, for FY 12 we’ve been able to, in a very 

challenging fiscal environment, in our austere budget, been able to 

protect and even increase funding for Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. And, again, those are security-related programs. 

In the case of USAID, which has a relatively smaller piece of the 

overall U.S. Government security package, we’re focusing our work, 

and Rule of Law with extensive programs in Mexico and elsewhere. 

And, also, working with at-risk——

Mr. SIRES. I’m running out of time, and I just want to ask this 

other question. 

One of the problems that I talked to the Ambassador from Guatemala was that when we find people that are illegally in this 

country, and there are gang members, we send them back to the 

country. We don’t let them know that these people were gang members. Has that changed? We don’t let these countries know that I 

am sending you 20 gang members from whatever gang. Do we let 

them know now? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, my understanding is that the 

law enforcement agencies are making much more of an effort now 

to, in fact, inform their counterparts in countries of the background 

of some of the people that are being sent back. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. But you would have to—I would refer you to 

them, however, for a fuller explanation. 

Mr. SIRES. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And my last question has to do with the budget for democracy 

promotion. I understand that there were cuts there in this budget 

for foreign programs, and so forth. How are you going to prioritize 

that, if we’re going to have these cuts? 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. Congressman, I think if you look at the budget 

you’ll see that, in fact, the largest sector of the FY12 budget request is for democracy. We have a whole host of democracy programs, which range from strengthening institutions like parliaments in local government, but also working in countries where 

there’s been a backsliding, or repression. We have important programs in Cuba, Venezuela, and elsewhere. So, it is a high priority 

for us, and those programs will continue. 

Mr. SIRES. If we ever get the programs going in Cuba. 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. Well, our programs are ongoing in Cuba. There’s 

been no interruption there. We have just submitted a CN for an additional $20 million, and we look forward to continuing those programs. 

32

Mr. SIRES. Okay. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr. McCaul is recognized for 

5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Secretary, I—when Secretary Clinton testified before the full 

committee, I brought up Merida. And as with the chairman of this 

subcommittee, expressed my disappointment in the flow of—in the 

implementation of that, particularly at a time when Mexico is in 

a real crisis. And I know the Ambassador has expressed his concerns from Mexico to us about that. 

I asked her to respond in specific numbers what is the latest 

with that program, and I look forward to getting that response. 

I’ve spent a lot of time talking about Mexico lately, and the drug 

cartels. I wanted to focus on another issue of importance today; and 

that is Venezuela. 

And I’m concerned, as I believe the chairman is, as well, of the 

influence of Venezuela in Western Hemisphere. Under this budget, 

$5 million will be given to Venezuela in economic assistance, so I 

think it’s appropriate to talk about the role of Venezuela. 

Clearly, they’re not our friend. Their allegiance to Iran concerns 

me greatly. I recently had Bolivian law makers who came to me in 

my office, and told me about these large aircraft that were leaving 

Bolivia, flying to Venezuela, and then on to Iran. They mentioned 

these uranium mine fields, or mining facilities in Bolivia. That’s a 

real concern. 

Maybe you can tell me whether that’s fact or fiction, or perhaps 

another setting, but that is very concerning to me. And then we 

had the Commander of SOUTHCOM, General Fraser, testify before 

the Senate last week, and talked about his concerns about the 

flights between Caracas and Tehran. 

And just recently, I was told that the administration is considering issuing special licenses to allow Iranian aircraft and engines 

of U.S. origin to be serviced and repaired. 

To me, that’s pretty stunning. I mean, if we have a role in servicing Iranian aircraft that could be complicit with exporting uranium from Bolivia and Venezuela. 

Mr. Secretary, let me just throw that out. This is what’s being 

reported to me. If it is, in fact, true, it’s very disturbing news, and 

I hope you can perhaps shed some light on this information. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I want to thank 

you for your concerns, and your focus on Mexico, and the things 

that you’ve done, and brought to our attention. And want to be as 

responsive as we can to you on your concerns about that. 

With regard to Venezuela, I couldn’t agree with you more, that 

we’re concerned about Venezuela’s position. We have been for some 

time, not only internally, the way Venezuela has been going after 

press freedoms, and after opposition sectors, undermining democratic institutions, issuing things like, or doing things such as having the National Assembly delegate authority to the Executive that 

goes beyond the term of that National Assembly, and so on. So, the 

pattern is a long one. 

And we’re also concerned about the relationships that Venezuela 

has with Iran. And we’ve been tracking those very carefully, and 

33

very closely. And we’ve been following up. In fact, we’re in continuous communication with our intelligence community, we’re in continuous communication with other partners. 

I just had a bilateral set of meetings, day-long meetings with the 

Israelis recently where we went through a whole host of issues, including this particular concern that we share with regard to Iran. 

And let me just simply say that Iran does clearly want to increase its profile in the Western Hemisphere. The base point from 

which they start, however, is extremely low. And, in that sense, 

you know, we haven’t seen some of the things that have been alleged out there. But I can assure you, Mr. Congressman, that we 

really are looking very closely at these sorts of——

Mr. MCCAUL. And my time is running out, but, again, we had 

the Commander of SOUTHCOM. It’s not me, or some anonymous—

this is the General as Commander of SOUTHCOM, expressing concerns about these flights between Caracas and Tehran. That gets 

my attention. And I think it gets most people’s attention. 

Do you have any information about these flights, not only from 

Venezuela, but also originating out of Bolivia, and the potential 

that these aircraft may be carrying the very materials that Tehran 

may be using to produce a nuclear bomb? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Yes. We are concerned about these allegations. 

We’ve looked at them extremely carefully. We continue to monitor 

them very carefully. 

And, Mr. Congressman, I want to be responsive to your question 

regarding the alleged licensing of—I don’t know about that. This is 

the first I’ve heard about that, and I would be glad to look into 

that, and get back to you on it. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And just in closing, and thank you for your cooperation on that. I just find it absolutely absurd that we would 

be providing assistance to Iranian aircraft by way of—basically, 

providing material support to a terrorist nation. And if these licenses are granted, to fix these airplanes. 

So, with that, and thank you for your time, and I yield back. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. And now I’d like to recognize 

Mr. Payne for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Although you touched on a question of Haiti, could you update 

us on the development; are many people still in tents, and there’s 

been a tremendous amount of pledges made. I wonder do you know 

how many of the pledges from countries around the world actually 

have been lived up to. And is there a program going on to relocate 

the people that are in tent cities? 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. Well, thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the 

question. Of course, you are very much aware of the enormous 

challenges we’re facing in Haiti. This was a country that was before the earthquake the poorest in the hemisphere, one of the poorest in the world. And the devastation was tremendous from the 

earthquake, with 20 or 30,000 people being killed, and government 

ministries being damaged. 

In terms of the people living in tent camps, at one point it had 

reached 1.5 million people. We are encouraged that that number is 

now down to under 700,000. Now, to be sure, that’s too much, but 

34

we’re working very hard to continue that transition. We have a 

number of programs in place to do so. 

We’re repairing what’s referred to as yellow homes. These are 

homes that were damaged in the earthquake, but they could be repaired. We’re helping transition people into what are called green 

homes. These are homes that are ready to be moved into. We’ve 

also provided two shelters, transitional shelters. And we have a 

long-term program in place to build more permanent homes. 

At the same time, we’re trying to insure that the people who are 

living in these tent camps are being taken care of, and we’ve been 

providing free food, free water, health care. In fact, as I noted earlier, today in Haiti more people have access, more Haitians have 

access to clean water and health care than before the earthquake. 

And, in large part, that’s because of the services that exist in the 

tent camps. 

And what’s remarkable with regard to the cholera crisis, which 

we’re hoping to—we think is under control now, has barely touched 

the tent camps. If you look at the conditions in which people are 

living in there, there was great fear when the cholera crisis broke 

that it would have a terrible impact on the camps. In fact, there 

has been very little impact on the camps because of the clean water 

people have there, and their access to health care. 

But the reconstruction of Haiti is going to take many years, and 

we are very much committed to the reconstruction of Haiti, and 

looking forward to working with the new government. 

Mr. PAYNE. Is there any assessment yet of the new government? 

I know with President Aristide there, back—has that had any impact on what’s going on in Haiti? 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been 

any impact yet. We’ve had some discussions with the candidate 

string, the campaign, and there have been discussions between the 

Embassy and USAID Mission in Haiti with the incoming government. And we believe that there is—there will be an alignment in 

terms of the priorities with regard to development and reconstruction there. 

Mr. PAYNE. There is, as I mentioned earlier, the Western Hemisphere Bureau has a Race, Ethnicity, and Social Inclusion Committee, and it seems that the committee is about to expire. And I 

just wondered are you aware of it, and has there been any allocations in the current budget for the unit, or is there enough interest 

in keeping this going, especially in Brazil and Colombia? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, I participated personally in 

these events with that unit. I think that it’s extraordinary work 

that the unit has done. Our dialogue with Brazil on race and discrimination issues has been extremely important, and we’ve been 

very interested in the level at which Brazil has responded with regard to that. 

Also, our interest in continuing to work the Colombians, particularly on the issues with Afro Colombians is very important. So, it’s 

our commitment to look for ways to maintain that unit, and to 

keep it vibrant. It will certainly be continued to be part of our diplomacy. 

We’re encouraging embassies throughout the hemisphere to 

adopt programs like this. They’re very valuable. They allow us to 

35

share best practices with regard to measures that can be taken to 

address issues of social exclusion, racial discrimination, and things 

like that. So, we’re very committed to this kind of a program. 

Mr. PAYNE. My time has expired. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Now I’d like to recognize Mr. 

Rivera for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Secretary Valenzuela. I’m still a little 

murky as the real impact of the recent announcement on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. When President Santos left the 

White House, and our Trade Ambassador, Mr. Kirk, came outside 

and gave a statement, I saw a video of the statement, and what 

he said, in essence, was that: ‘‘The agreement allows us to be put 

on a path to begin a discussion on how we can come to an agreement on steps that can be taken to move forward with the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.’’ What in the world does that mean? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, it means that we want to move 

forward, and this is the administration’s policy to conclude the Free 

Trade Agreement with Colombia and Panama. We hope to move as 

expeditiously as possible on that. We’ve had an excellent, excellent 

dialogue with the Colombians on this. 

There is an action program that we’ve worked together with 

them on it, and I think—I’m very optimistic. This is something, 

also, that the Colombians are doing not because the United States 

has asked them to do it. It’s something that they are committed to. 

And I’m referring very specifically to such things as labor rights, 

and the treatment of labor official——

Mr. RIVERA. Where are we today that’s different from the day before this agreement, or this quasi agreement was announced? 

What’s the difference? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I think that we’re close to being able to move 

this forward. And I’m confident that this is something the administration wants to get done this year. 

Mr. RIVERA. We’re close to moving it forward, because we had 

heard that previous to this agreement they signed, also. This 

agreement does not mean this Congress is going to get the Colombia Free Trade Agreement any time soon. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I would defer to USTR, on issues like timing. 

But we’re optimistic that this is moving forward. 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, I hope you’ll take back the message to USTR 

that in no way will this agreement mollify the commitment of 

many Members of Congress to move forward on the Colombia Free 

Trade Agreement. And I’m speaking in terms of a bipartisan commitment that I’ve heard from colleagues, such as Congressman 

Farr, who although I may disagree on a variety of issues vis a vis 

U.S. policy toward Latin America, when he says that he’s going to 

vote against the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, and work to 

kill the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, if the Colombia Free 

Trade Agreement does not come forward, as well, you can put a lot 

of members on the list that will do that, including myself. I will 

work day and night, whatever I can do to kill the South Korea Free 

Trade Agreement unless there is concrete movement on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, as well. 

A second issue——

Mr. VALENZUELA. We’re committed to Colombia Free Trade. 

36

Mr. RIVERA. I hope as committed as you are to South Korea. 

Going to the issue of Cuba and democracy promotion, is there 

any conversation or consideration to taking Cuba off the list of 

state sponsors of terrorism? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. No, there’s not. 

Mr. RIVERA. So, this administration is fully committed, and believes that Cuba merits being on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. That’s correct. 

Mr. RIVERA. Why does this administration believe Cuba merits 

being on that list? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Because the finding has been that this is a 

country that has in the past supported terrorism, is involved in terrorist actions. And we’re not intending to change that. 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, I hope the administration will also remember 

there is currently activities, as well, in terms of activities with terrorist organizations, whether it be the ETA, Basque terrorists, or 

FARC terrorists, and so forth. And we also have to remember that 

one of the main tactics that terrorists will often use is hostage taking. 

And in that sense, I want to come to the issue of Alan Gross, and 

ask you where are we in terms of making sure that this particular 

American hostage is released by the Cuban Dictatorship immediately? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, thank you for asking. We’ve 

made it very, very clear that we think it’s an outrage that not only 

was he detained for as long as he was, but that, in fact, that he 

was convicted inappropriately. This is a dedicated international aid 

worker, who was working—and Mark can speak more specifically 

to the kinds of programs he was working with. And we think that, 

and we’ve made it very clear to the Cuban authorities that we 

would want him to be released immediately. 

Mr. RIVERA. So, there is no consideration——

Mr. VALENZUELA. And we’re working very assiduously in that direction. 

Mr. RIVERA. So, there is no consideration, whatsoever, to the possibility of making an agreement whereby Mr. Gross is released, 

and Cuba is taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. No. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

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

Chairman, at this point I’d like to submit for the record a letter 

from Senator Inhofe to President Lobo of Honduras, as well as a 

copy of the letters that were sent to the President of Honduras by 

other members of the House. 

Mr. MACK. Without objection. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And the letters are 

self-explanatory, and let me just ask, what is the policy of American properties expropriated in a country in this hemisphere? Do 

we just shrug our shoulders and say we’re going to give them aid, 

anyway? 

37

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I’d 

be happy to look at the letters and the information you’re going to 

send me. 

This issue has been raised before in previous testimony. We don’t 

comment on investment disputes. This is something that is between private parties, but we’ll be very happy to look at the letters 

that you are referring——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It has been adjudicated, and there are a 

number of cases that have been adjudicated. We’re not just talking 

about one, although there’s one that we all know about. That adjudication then at some point put has some sort of moral, if not legal, 

onus on us to follow-up, and have a different kind of policy based 

on the fact that there’s been a legal finding of wrong-doing. And 

I would hope that we do not provide foreign aid of American taxpayers dollars to governments that have taken property from 

Americans. And after having it legally decided that it was unlawful 

expropriation, that we would then just continue sending money, 

our aid dollars to them. 

On a totally different issue, what role does the Export Import 

Bank play in your development goals in Latin America? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. It actually plays a very important role. You 

would have to—I would have to refer you to them for the specifics 

on their programs, but I might point out that during President’s 

trip, the chairman of the Export Import Bank was one of the members of the cabinet, and sub-cabinet that attended some of the 

meetings, and participated in the CEO forum. And, in fact, the Export Import Bank has made available, I believe, $1 billion line of 

credit for U.S. companies to be able to participate in some of the 

infrastructure projects that——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The Export Import Bank, if I’m correct, we, 

the taxpayers, although there’s no appropriation for the Export Import Bank, we are, basically, guaranteeing the loans of the Export 

Import Bank. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Exactly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And, again, the Export Import Bank then 

guarantees other loans to do business where it targets. What do 

you make of this report that the Export Import Bank has promised 

Brazil’s state-owned oil company a $2 billion loan guarantee to help 

them with their offshore oil drilling, at a time when, of course, our 

Government is opposing, and has actually stopped the offshore oil 

drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I would have to refer you to the Export Import 

Bank for comment on that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You don’t know anything about this. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I don’t know much about that, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that there are reports that the Export Import Bank has offered this $2 billion loan guarantee to the Brazilian state-owned 

company here, an oil company. And the oil company is actually, 

also, being involved in this happens to have an investor. And there 

are millions of shares of Petrobras, this Brazilian oil company, the 

state-owned oil company, I guess. But they actually are—it’s on the 

market, as well. And billions of shares of this have been bought 

and sold by various interests. The largest firms holding this prior 

38

to the disclosure of the Export Import Bank’s offer for this credit 

line, the firm that had the most shares in this company prior to 

this announcement, in some way the biggest owner of those shares 

of that company was Mr. George Soros, who happens to be one of 

the President’s biggest campaign contributors. This deserves to be 

looked into, don’t you think? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Again, I would refer you to the Export Import 

Bank for the details on that. I have no comment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I can tell you, if it was a Republican 

administration, that people would be up in arms. There’d be-every 

news show would have something about this. Something stinks 

down there about this. Two billion dollars going to help offshore oil 

drilling off Brazil with no guarantee that we’re going to get any of 

that oil, at a time when the administration is clamping down on 

our own people who are trying to do offshore drilling, that, itself, 

is questionable. 

Then when you tie this into the fact that George Soros probably 

made hundreds of millions of dollars off the stock that he owned 

in the company that we were providing these loan guarantees for, 

which he’s probably already liquidated and made—and pulled in 

his cash, this is outrageous, and deserves a very close look from 

this committee, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. And if the witnesses 

don’t mind, we will, I think, go another round of questions, because 

I think there’s a little more to chew on here. So, I’ll recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I want to get back to this question about the ALBA countries, 

and why would we continue to fund them. The President of Ecuador is quoted as saying to the U.S.: ‘‘That we can keep our dirty 

money, and that Ecuador doesn’t need it.’’ So, the question is, is 

why do we continue to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to countries like 

Ecuador, who (a) think that the taxpayers in the United States are 

dirty, and they don’t want their dirty money, and they don’t need 

it. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Right. It’s a very fair question, Congressman. 

Let me answer it this way. We have fundamental strategic interests in the Western Hemisphere that we need to advance. Among 

those strategic interests are, indeed, strengthening democracy freedoms, as you pointed out earlier, addressing security issues, and 

looking for greater opportunities. 

The ALBA countries are, by choice in this one group, but they’re 

very different societies. And their histories are really quite different. So, the phenomena in Bolivia is a very different phenomena 

from the Venezuelan, and from the Ecuadorian phenomena, or the 

Nicaraguan phenomena. And we need to be mindful of those differences. 

And our response needs to be one that is a strategic response. 

We shouldn’t just have a blanket answer that says oh, we won’t 

fund, or we will fund. What we need to do is to see how we can, 

in fact, advance our interests. 

Mr. MACK. But what interests——

Mr. VALENZUELA. And in some——

Mr. MACK. Okay. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Well, in some cases——

39

Mr. MACK. Wait. Hold on. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Yes. 

Mr. MACK. I get your—so, what you’re saying is we have strategic interests, and that helping some of these countries with U.S. 

taxpayer dollars to help fight drug trafficking is a good thing. So, 

I hear what you’re saying, but why would we send $8 million to 

Ecuador for Global Climate Change Initiatives? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Because we’re interested in advancing Global 

Climate negotiations, and things like that. 

Mr. MACK. I mean, I’m sorry, but there is no—other than if 

there’s—this is my opinion, that there’s a political motivation by 

the President and the administration to promote Global Climate 

Change Initiatives, but when a country like Ecuador, the President 

says keep their dirty money, and that the Ecuadorians don’t need 

it, I say we take him at his word. And that if he doesn’t need the 

money, and if he’s going to join with Venezuela and other ALBA 

countries in trying to build his own country on spewing against the 

United States, then we should—the taxpayers of America don’t 

want their money being spent on programs like this. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I understand your position on this. Congressman, let me say a word about Ecuador, if I might, because, as you 

know, the Ambassador was PNG’d from Ecuador. We think that 

this was an outrageous determination on the part of the Ecuadorian Government. We immediately took reciprocal act by 

PNG’ing their Ambassador here in Washington, and we’ve cut off, 

in fact, the high-level bilateral dialogue that we had on a series of 

issues. 

And at this particular point, we are reviewing all of our cooperation with Ecuador to see where we, in fact, move ahead. And there 

may be some areas where it—in fact, maybe it is in our interest, 

for example, to deal with support for certain sectors of Ecuadorian 

society, where we may have some benefit to having some contacts 

with them. 

Mr. MACK. Well, let me——

Mr. VALENZUELA. But those are things that we’re still considering. 

Mr. MACK. Okay. Let me just say this for the record, and I hope 

they hear me loud and clear. 

I understand that what you’re referring to is the President’s 

budget and request. In this Congress, with the majority being now 

in the Republican’s hands, I’m going to work hard to defund any 

assistance to the ALBA countries, because I don’t—first of all, 

we’ve got our own financial problems here in the United States. We 

certainly don’t need to be funding programs like Global Climate 

Change, or any other initiatives in countries where the leaders of 

those countries don’t want the support of the United States. 

And I think we can save the American taxpayers’ money, and at 

the same time send a strong message to these ALBA countries, if 

you continue down this path, you can expect zero assistance from 

the United States. Nine seconds. You agree? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. It’s your prerogative. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. My time is expired. Congressman Sires is 

recognized for 5 minutes for additional questions. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

40

You know, Senator Kerry made a big issue out of the $20 million 

that were used to promote democracy in Cuba, where he claims 

that what this does is antagonize the country, and so forth. You 

know, my comment to that is, I don’t think Cuba needs any antagonizing to put people in jail. They’ve been doing that for the last 50 

years. 

And I would just wonder how the administration feels about the 

comments made by Senator Kerry? Is it going to change your 

mind? Are the programs going to be stopped? Because I know Senator Menendo is pretty harsh on the comments that the Senator 

made. 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. Thank you, Congressman. We are fully supportive of our programs, our democracy programs in Cuba. These 

are programs that began in 1996 under the Clinton administration. 

They’ve continued throughout through three administrations now. 

They have strong bipartisan support. We think those programs are 

essential. We intend to fully fund it at levels consistent with previous years. We’ve just submitted a CN. I believe there will be a 

briefing later this week by the State Department and USAID to go 

into greater detail with those programs. And we look forward to 

full funding from Congress for them. Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. I was just wondering, when you sit next to these people across from you in Cuba, and you have their interest groups, 

do you bring up the criminals that are in Cuba, like Chesimard, 

who killed a state trooper in New Jersey, and fled to Cuba? She 

shot him point blank. She’s there now. Her new name is Assata 

Shakur, we know her as Chesimard. Do you raise those issues with 

the Cuban Government? I mean, these are people that are wanted 

here for killing a state trooper in New Jersey. Sir? Don’t run away 

from me. Please let me know, yes or no. 

Mr. FEIERSTEIN. I’ll have to defer to my State Department colleague on that. They handle the relations with Cuba. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. I’m not familiar with this particular case that 

you’re referring to, Congressman. I’d be happy to look into it. But 

let me say that when we do have our discussion, and I haven’t conducted them myself, but when we have discussions from my Bureau with the Cubans on things like the post office, and the migration talks, we always raise issues like these. And we also insist on 

meeting with people from civil society in these countries. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, New Jersey has put a bounty on her head of $1 

million. And I know that the State Troopers in New Jersey are constantly coming to see me to make sure that the woman that shot 

this state trooper is not forgotten. So, I would just put it on the 

list to do, when you meet with some of these people. 

There are over 100 criminals in Cuba, or more that have fled 

from this country. And they have sanctuary there, so I was just 

wondering, with all this talk about Alan Gross, what a terrible person he is, we have people that committed murder here in this country, and are living in Cuba, and it’s like a sanctuary. So, I just 

don’t know—I think the administration could be a little firmer, and 

more aggressive in trying to pursue some of these criminals, and 

bring them back for justice here in the United States. I mean, 

41

these are people that are convicted here by our courts. These are 

people that escape from jail, and went to Cuba as a sanctuary. 

All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Sure. Thank you. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr. McCaul is recognized for 

5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, actually, do want to go back to, now that we have a second 

round, go back to Mexico. And Congressman Cuellar and I were involved with Merida, and I think we’re almost in a post-Merida 

phase, and that we need to start thinking about what is the next—

what is the strategy? 

And I chaired a hearing on Homeland Security where the focus 

was, what is the plan, and what is the strategy to help the Mexican 

Government win this war against the drug cartels, which President 

Calderθn clearly says, ‘‘It’s a war.’’ I think when 35,000 people died 

at the hands of the drug cartels, he’s correct in saying that. 

But we’ve had contracts and problems with Merida. Mr. 

Feierstein, I know you’re aware of some of these, 90 percent to one 

company for training, that people don’t even show up. But I’m interested in what is the—you know, I had the Department of Defense, DHS, State Department all at this hearing. What is the 

plan? It seems to me that these different agencies ought to be 

working together on what is the overall strategy that we should be 

implementing to help Mexico. After all, it is in our backyard. It’s 

not Libya, halfway around the world. It’s right next door. 

And one issue that came up, and the two of you are very familiar 

with what we did in Colombia, not that you want to use a cookie 

cutter approach, but it seems to me that we should be looking at 

maybe the best practices, and lessons learned from the Colombia 

experience. And I know that sometimes this gets people nervous, 

but I think we ought to look at what worked down there in Colombia, and apply that to Mexico. 

Can you tell me if either one of you agree with that assessment? 

And, if so, what can we do working together? And Congressman 

Mack and I will be traveling down to Colombia and Panama and 

meeting with President Calderθn in Mexico City. What can we do 

working together, not only this administration, the majority and 

the minority in Congress, but also with the Mexican Government? 

What can we do working together to help them win this war, which 

I believe Merida is not being implemented as it should, and it’s not 

working, and we’re losing. They’re losing, and we’re losing, also. 

So, with that, do you agree that we ought to be looking at what 

happened, our experience in Colombia, and are there things we can 

be doing in Mexico, applying those principles, and how can we 

work together on this? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, I couldn’t agree with you more 

that this is of the highest priority for the United States in terms 

of our fundamental interests to be able to work effectively with 

Mexico, to be able to overcome this challenge. 

And I also would agree with you that to draw on lessons that 

have been learned elsewhere is a very valuable way to go. And, in 

fact, there is much more conversation. One of the aspects of this 

regional strategy with regard not only to Mexico, but also to CenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\041311\65795 HFA PsN: SHIRL
42

tral America, and the Caribbean is to get other partners involved. 

And the Colombians have really stepped up to the plate in this regard. 

They’re training policemen, as you know, in Mexico. They’re also 

helping training policemen in Central America right now. But taking this a step further, some of the strategies that were used, in 

fact, to go push back on the criminal organizations that the Colombians used is something that the Mexicans might look into. 

We’re fairly confident that the essential pillars that we’ve been 

following are the correct ones, that we need to bring down the drug 

trafficking organizations, and criminal cartels, and that sort of 

thing. That you also cannot do this without paying attention to 

building stronger institutions, including judicial institutions, 

and——

Mr. MCCAUL. And I agree. We have a President in Mexico who 

wants to work with us, and I don’t know what the next election 

will bring, whether we’ll have that same window of opportunity. 

And time is kind of running out. I think President Calderθn has 

been a great ally, and we’ve been a good ally to him, but time is 

running out, and the window is shutting. And it seems to me we 

need to maybe start thinking, maybe not outside the box, but think 

about an overall new strategy that we can bring to bear down in 

an area that’s right next door, where there’s a crisis on our doorstep. 

So, I would hope you would take a look at that. I, personally, 

think it’s getting to the point where the idea of a joint intelligence/

joint military type operation is going to be necessary. Now, I know 

the sovereignty issues are great. And I understand the obstacles 

that you have in the State Department to convince them that that’s 

the best thing, but if you’re sending our guys down there, we ought 

to do it without one hand tied behind our backs. 

So, if I could indulge the chair, and ask one more question. And 

this has to do with—it was called to my attention that the Palestinian authority, President Abbas, was traveling. He’s traveled 

around the world, but particularly in Latin America, trying to get 

support for the recognition of a Palestinian State outside of the Negotiation Peace Process. 

I think that’s troubling, obviously, to the Israelis, because I think 

their view is look, let’s come to the table, but let’s come without 

any conditions, without any preconditions. And I think that has 

some merit to it. Why bring conditions before you even sit down at 

the table? 

So, I, personally, I think I find this activity a little bit—it’s counterproductive, in my judgment, to what Secretary Clinton and the 

State Department is trying to do with respect to the Peace Process 

in the Middle East. And this may even come down to a U.N. resolution. 

What is your position on this strategy that President Abbas has 

been taking? And what would be the position of this administration, if a U.N. resolution was to come down recognizing a Palestinian State outside of the negotiation process? 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Congressman, our position has been very clear 

on this, that this is not a helpful step for countries to recognize the 

Palestinian State at this particular point. This is something that 

43

is being negotiated by the two parties. In fact, it’s far better for 

them to address these issues, and that this, in fact, could be counterproductive to have countries do this kind of recognition. And 

we’ve made that very clear to our counterparts throughout Latin 

America. 

As you well pointed out, there are some countries that have recognized the Palestinian State, some of them have actually indicated that they recognize it with the 67 borders. We’ve made it 

very clear to all of our counterparts that we don’t think this is a 

good idea. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, I think that’s the right course of action. And 

thank you for your answer. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. And I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today, and bearing with us as we move 

through this. And always appreciate your input, and trying to work 

on making America stronger around the world, and at the same 

time protecting the taxpayer dollars. So, thank you very much. 

Mr. VALENZUELA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressmen. 

Mr. MACK. And I think now we will have a second panel. We’ll 

give a moment for this panel to gather their things. 

I’d now like to introduce the second panel. First, the Honorable 

Adolfo Franco. Mr. Franco is the vice president for global regulatory affairs for Direct Selling Association. Previously, Mr. Franco 

served at USAID as the Assistant Administrator for Latin America 

and the Caribbean. Welcome. 

And, second, the Honorable Mark Schneider. Mr. Schneider is 

the senior vice president for International Crisis Group. Mr. 

Schneider has previously served as the Director of the Peace Corps, 

and as the Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean at USAID. And welcome to you, too, sir. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Franco for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ADOLFO A. FRANCO, VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, DIRECT 

SELLING ASSOCIATION (FORMER ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN FOR 

THE U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) 

Mr. FRANCO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

for the invitation to testify today. It’s really great to come home to 

the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my perspectives on how the United States 

should advance our interests in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Let me begin by saying that although I may disagree with some 

of my colleagues, including my good friend, Mark Schneider, testifying here today, I have great respect for them, and for the commitment they bring they bring to their work. 

Arturo Valenzuela and I had many vigorous debates during the 

2008 Presidential election when he worked for the Obama campaign, and I worked for the McCain campaign. And I look forward 

to continuing these exchanges with him, and others in the future. 

However, we do have significant, even profound differences in 

our views regarding U.S. interests, and how best to secure them. 

44

These are clearly seen in our positions regarding the President’s 

proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012, and his conduct of foreign affairs in the region, as a whole. 

I have trouble, Mr. Chairman, understanding a foreign policy 

that espouses a hard line with respect to democratic Honduras, and 

yet extends a welcoming hand to the brutal regimes in Venezuela 

and Cuba. I believe our current policy is driven by an effort to appease and reach accommodation with those adversaries at the expense of diminishing support for our allies, most notably Mexico 

and Colombia. 

A subject that is particularly close to my heart is the Cuba democracy program that Congress authorized 15 years ago. This program is designed to bring about genuine change in Cuba by providing the growing dissident movement with the tools needed to 

overcome Castro’s information blockade. As we witnessed in Eastern Europe a generation ago, true change is only possible when it 

is broadly supported at the grassroots level, and information about 

the outside world is widely disseminated, and Cuba is no different. 

When I assumed my position as Assistant Administrator for 

USAID’s Latin America Bureau, the Cuba program budget was a 

paltry $5 million, and most of that was unspent. By the end of the 

Bush administration, the Cuba program had increased dramatically, reaching $40 million at USAID alone. Other government 

agencies who were also actively engaged and provided financial resources to support those pressing the Castro regime for change. 

Moreover, our efforts in Cuba were bolstered by a multinational 

component that included a range of prominent individuals in Europe who identified with the struggle for freedom, such as Lech 

Walesa and Vaclav Havel, as well as statesmen such as former 

Spanish Prime Minister Joe Maria Aznar. These inspiring leaders 

and the organizations they represent were active participants in 

our programs, USAID’s programs, to bring about light and hope to 

the Cuban people. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Government’s interest in this multinational effort has dwindled to nothing. This is no accident, Mr. 

Chairman. Instead of assisting growing democracy movement on 

the island, U.S. foreign policy now focuses on expanding contacts 

with the Castro regime, and relaxing regulations, including travel, 

to Cuba. 

Instead of ratcheting up pressure on Castro, the Obama administration has relaxed travel restrictions, and provided the regime 

with the additional resources that will allow it to perpetuate its 

tyranny. Since I left USAID, the Cuba program I ran has had its 

budget cut in half. Support for Radio Martii, another vitally important tool in our arsenal to provide a democratic transition to Cuba, 

is also waning. The simple fact is, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of 

the continued repression in Cuba, the President’s goal is to reach 

an accommodation on the Cuban regime’s terms rather than those 

of the Cuban people. 

The Obama administration not demonstrated an ability to learn 

from its mistakes in Cuba or elsewhere in Latin America, and so 

it falls on Congress, and you, Mr. Chairman, as well as this committee, to insure that basic American interests are not undermined. 

45

This starts with a careful review of the President’s request of over $2 billion for Latin America and the Caribbean in Fiscal Year 

2012. While I applaud the President for his restraint regarding the 

overall request this year, I take issue with the proposed allocation 

of the funds requested. 

In a time of increasing violence and insecurity in the region, 

nearly all of the 2012 reductions come from military and police assistance programs. For example, under the President’s budget only 

23 percent of the 2012 request is allocated for police and military 

aid. In the last budget President Bush sent to this Congress, nearly 

40 percent of our assistance was allocated to police and militaryrelated activities, including community policing, which I strongly 

advocated to reduce gang violence, which poses a clear threat to democracy in the region, and to our own internal security. 

Sadly, most of President Obama’s proposed reductions would be 

borne by our key allies, Colombia and Mexico. Let me be clear: Despite the extraordinarily successful presidency of Alvaro Uribe, Colombia’s struggle with narco traffickers and its internal insurgency 

is far from over. Colombia is increasingly threatened by hostile 

Venezuela that has openly and repeatedly threatened to attack it, 

and though close to bankruptcy, itself, Venezuela continues to lavish enormous resources on a massive military buildup with Russian 

and Iranian assistance. 

Equally important, President Bush’s Merida Initiative for Mexico 

should be built upon, not reduced. Some will argue that the necessary military and police equipment has already been provided, 

and a reduction in outlays is now warranted. I strongly disagree. 

Long-term and sustained institutional training of the Mexican police and military, as well as assistance to its justice system, will 

remain a basic necessity. I fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 

recognized this need when she promised a $500 million aid package 

to Mexico during her recent visit. But, apparently, the administration has decided to ignore her pledge, as the President’s request 

falls short of the promise made to Mexico, allocating only $112 million in Fiscal Year 2011, and $102 million in Fiscal Year 2012. 

But even as the President’s request, if enacted, will undermine 

our allies’ security, it spares most of the social development assistance. Social development programs, such as Climate Change, will 

do little to counter the growing threats from Ecuador’s authoritarian Rafael Correa, or the likes of Evo Morales in Bolivia, and 

Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. It simply ignores what even the magazine The Economist says of Hugo Chavez’ drive to turn Caracas 

into a ‘‘Caribbean Tripoli’’ with ‘‘people’s communities and communes’ and militias. 

Simply stated, Mr. Chairman, this committee should review each 

and every expenditures proposed by USAID and the Inter-American Foundation, an independent agency of the United States Government, to insure that organizations and programs supported by 

these organizations support the interests of the United States, its 

allies, and those who share our values and ideals. 

I can tell you in closing from my own experience, that providing 

such assistance, especially hard assistance in the form of military 

and police equipment sends a very clear statement to both our 

friends and adversaries. Suspending assistance to countries that 

46

are clearly not committed to democracy, such as Ecuador, Bolivia, 

Nicaragua, would send an equally strong message. Make no mistake about it, assistance provided through ‘‘non-governmental organizations’’ is often assistance to the various regimes and often 

heads directly into the hands of tyrants. 

The simple fact is that we are now competing with Iran, China, 

and other non-hemispheric global players for influence in the region. We need to stand with our friends and allies, and provide 

them with the tools they need to provide internal security and 

prosperity. 

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that with your continued leadership, we can, as Speak Boehner has said, persuade this President 

to change course. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you and other 

members of the committee may have for me. Thank you very much, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franco follows:]

47


65795c_1.eps
48


65795c_2.eps
49


65795c_3.eps
50

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Schneider, you’re now recognized for 5 minutes. And if 

you go a little longer, I’m not sure we’re going to get much complaint up here. Is your microphone on? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK L. SCHNEIDER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP 

(FORMER ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LATIN AMERICA 

AND THE CARIBBEAN FOR THE U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Now it’s on. 

I want to commend the committee for addressing Priorities in 

U.S. Foreign Assistance at this time, while the Executive and Legislative Branches are really grappling with the question of a budget 

crisis. 

This hearing offers an opportunity to identify those assistance 

programs for Latin America and the Caribbean which should be 


65795c_4.eps
51

protected from budget cuts. And I think it’s important to understand that the reason that they should be protected is because 

they’re vital to U.S. foreign policy goals, those that prevent conflict, 

strengthen democratic institutions, especially those related to the 

Rule of Law, and directly encourage economic growth that reduces 

poverty and inequality. 

The International Crisis Group is a leading non-partisan, nongovernmental organization that focuses on analyzing from the field 

what drives conflict, coming up with policy recommendations to 

you, and others, as to how to prevent conflict, or to resolve it. 

In Latin America, our headquarters is in Bogota, and we focus 

in the Andes, significantly on the Colombian civil conflict. We also 

have an office in Haiti, where we’ve been since 2004, and we’ve just 

opened a project in Guatemala, given the rising threat to the State 

from organized crime and drug trafficking in that country. 

It’s useful to step back a moment and recognize that in this 

hemisphere over the past three decades, most of the countries have 

made the difficult transition from military rule to democratic government. 

On the economic front, most of the countries have adopted reforms that enable the region to bounce back faster than any other 

region, including the United States, from the recent financial crisis. 

Unfortunately, in 2011, and this is something to take into account, the estimates are that GDP growth in the hemisphere is 

likely to drop to about 4 percent, again demonstrating the drag of 

continued inequality and poverty on the region’s prospects. 

And when you talk about innovative social policies, many of 

those have been initiated in the region, and are being used elsewhere; the conditional cash transfer policies, particularly. They 

need to be supported. 

The challenges that continue to face the hemisphere, though, are 

first, confronting inequality and exclusion; second, combating drugs 

and crime; and, third, strengthening democracy and combating corruption. And I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that in the discussion 

earlier this morning, those three elements are fundamental to security, security of the countries of Latin America, and, actually, security of the United States, as well. 

First with respect to inequality and exclusion. Despite economic 

growth last year, in 2010, more than 180 million people lived on 

less than $2 per day, more than 72 million lived on less than $1 

dollar per day in this hemisphere. I believe that there are three 

ways that the United States through its assistance programs can 

help the countries of the region deal with that. First is to expand 

help for rural development and small farmers. Second, to help the 

region expand quality education; and, third, to encourage tax reform. 

I’m going to focus a little bit in detail, in my testimony, you’ll see 

the actions that I suggest, but let me explain the reasons why it’s 

important to help the countries deal with that from the standpoint 

of U.S. national interest. 

First, much of the flow of the illegal migration from Mexico and 

Central America actually originates in the rural areas of those 

countries, not just the overcrowded urban areas. Economic growth 

52

south of the border, in fact, is the only long-term way to decrease 

illegal migration north of the border. 

Second, coca cultivation takes place in the poorest rural regions 

of the Andean ridge countries, yet campesinos there have no desire 

to work with or for the illegal drug cartels. They need the same 

help to grow legal crops, as they get to grow illicit crops. Those are 

the same regions where the FARC in Colombia and illegal armed 

groups now in Peru, have found a home in the past, and today. And 

those are the same rural areas where the Afro Colombians and the 

Indigenous live who have been excluded for so long. 

I won’t go into the issue of quality education, but it’s crucial. And 

the fact is that the budget of USAID, essentially, ignores that. Only 

in Latin America, it’s about $50 million, $50–60 million out of a $2 

billion budget. I think we can do better. Not all by ourselves, but 

linking and partnering with the IDB, the World Bank, and others 

to focus on this issue. 

Today in Latin America, just to give you some sense of the problem, the richest fifth of the population receives as much from every 

dollar publicly spent on elementary education as the poorest fifth. 

And when it comes to higher education, the richest fifth receive 

many times as much as the poorest fifth in terms of benefitting. 

Something needs to change. 

Tax reform is fundamental to allow those governments to function. 

The second challenge is drugs and organized crime. A lot of the 

discussion today is focused on this issue. The response of the Mexican State with U.S. support under Plan Merida has blocked the 

cartels from acquiring full control over border states. It’s also 

pushed more of the drug flow into Central America. And those governments are far less equipped to defend themselves. 

And I just note that between Guatemala and Mexico, there are 

58 border crossings, only four are permanently covered by police 

control. So, when you wonder about how it gets through, it’s pretty 

easy. 

I just want you to just also note that in Guatemala in 2009, the 

death toll is equal to that of Mexico, a country about 10 times larger. And last year, the death toll again in Guatemala is among the 

highest in the world. 

And something that I didn’t hear much mention of earlier is impunity. The ability of those criminals to believe, and to be successful in not being held to account for their actions. Last year, the 

International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala found 

that less than 1 percent of those who were arrested for violent 

crimes were convicted. 

In Colombia, Plan Colombia has strengthened the capacity of the 

Colombian State to defend itself against the FARC and the ELN, 

and encouraged paramilitary demobilization. However, the rise of 

what they call the BACRIM, Bandas Criminales, made up in large 

part by undemobilized paramilitary continue to pose threats to citizens’ security throughout the country. They now number between 

6,000–10,000. There’s a need for much more coordinated effort by 

the Colombian Government with others help, including our’s, to 

deal with that. 

53

At the same time, in Colombia, while there’s been a reduction in 

overall cultivation of coca in terms of number of vectors, the fact 

is that there is a wider area that’s affected than there was 10 years 

ago. And, in addition, now the movement has gone back to Peru 

and Bolivia, and the same amount, virtually the same amount of 

cocaine is flowing north. The Inter-Agency Assessment of Cocaine 

Movement that DIA runs continues to estimate about 1,000 metric 

tons coming out of the Andean ridge countries coming north, and 

to Europe. 

And I should note, as you already have, that while 90 percent of 

the cocaine coming to the United States comes through Central 

America and Mexico, the vast bulk of the cocaine going out to Europe goes through Venezuela, and then out to the Caribbean, or 

through the Atlantic to West Africa. 

The response, it seems to us, the Latin American Commission on 

Drugs and Democracy led by Former Presidents Fernando 

Henrique Cardoso, Cesar Gaviria, and Zedillo, came up with a serious proposal. Last year, Members of Congress offered a similar proposal for a bipartisan commission to fundamentally look at our 

counter drug policies, and come up with some better answers. And 

I would urge this Congress to move forward with that. 

In Colombia, President Santos has launched a welcome set of 

new reform initiatives. That needs to be supported. And I would 

just add here that I traveled to La Macarena consolidation zone in 

December, and there needs to be a greater buy-in by civilian government, and civilian administration in making that work. And, 

also, in insuring that human rights protections are a major focus 

of attention. 

Mr. MACK. Mr. Schneider, I’d ask you to——

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The final comment is this. The third challenge 

is strengthening democracy and confronting corruption. And I think 

there are ways that we can do more. 

And, finally, on Haiti, don’t forget Haiti. If we move away from 

this effort to help Haiti recover from the earthquake, the future, 

unfortunately, is going to be one which we’re going to have do more 

in terms of preventing refugees from Haiti coming to the United 

States. And it will be a failed state forever. And we really can’t afford that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]

54


65795d_1.eps
55


65795d_2.eps
56


65795d_3.eps
57


65795d_4.eps
58


65795d_5.eps
59


65795d_6.eps
60


65795d_7.eps
61


65795d_8.eps
62


65795d_9.eps
63

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Schneider. 

Mr. Franco, I want to continue on part of your opening statement. And you talked about how to make a statement in Latin 

America. And when we talk about Bolivia, and Ecuador, and Nicaragua, Venezuela, how do you see this budget that has been put 

forward, does it support, you think, the ideals of America, or does 

it support some other agenda? 

Mr. FRANCO. Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to question the President’s motivations, and patriotism, or anybody at the administration. They’re not my priorities, or the way I would allocate it. I 

don’t think they further our interests for the following reasons, and 

I think you’ve articulated them very well. 

The first has to do with what you described in your opening 

statement about freedom, prosperity, and security. And I think it 

falls very short on the security front. And you can’t have freedom 

and prosperity without security, and promoting our interests in 

that regard. 

Don’t take my word for it. Your able staff here, Kristen, Nathan, 

and the rest of them, they can look it up on something called Just 

the Facts, which is analysis, a non-partisan analysis of the President’s budget, and it is reduced by 43 percent, despite what the 

witnesses said earlier on military and security, and police matters. 

And I don’t think that’s in our interest, first and foremost, to do 

that. And it’s really balanced on the backs of Mexico and Colombia. 

They fall far short. The Merida Initiative falls short, and Colombia’s military spending is slashed significantly. 

Secondly, I don’t believe, and I share your view, in rewarding enemies and adversaries of the United States. I think it sends the 

wrong signal. I think it is fine to talk about Global Climate 

Change, and I have a lot of respect for Mark. And he always gives 

a very good academic presentation, and he’s a very smart guy. But 

with respect to our narrow foreign policy specific interest in the region, I think we need to send a very strong message to those countries that have taken positions that not only are contrary to our 

own, but they threaten our own security, and the continued spread 

of populism a la Hugo Chavez being the ringleader in the region. 

I think it’s making a mockery of the United States that we continue to engage in these programs in countries that have kicked 

out an ambassador, for example, of the United States. Of course, 

she’s not the only one. We have that track record in Venezuela, and 

Bolivia, as well. 

So, the short answer is, I think the $2 billion should be reallocated. I commend the President for coming in with a $2 billion 

budget, but I think it should be—and I went at length about the 

Cuba program. 

I would ask, though, last thing on Cuba, is that you take a very 

close look at the Congressional Notification Document. I question 

the allocation of the funds to Cuba, how they’re being used. I don’t 

believe talking to lawyers in Cuba on human rights, and gay and 

lesbian rights in Cuba, these are fine things in a free society, but 

Cuba is not a free society. There are no lawyers in Cuba per se, 

or anything of that kind. 

What’s been suspended is the multinational efforts that we 

were—the information, to get information into Cuba. Frankly, what 

64

Mr. Gross was doing, and those are the things that have now been 

changed. So, I would take exception with even the money allocated 

to Cuba. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. So, I put up on the monitor there a chart 

that shows the security funding in relation to all the other funding. 

And I just don’t know, with all that’s happening in Latin America, 

and security being such an important issue, because, frankly, without, as you said, without security, freedom and prosperity will not 

exist. And I just—I’m very disappointed, and you can’t say this, or 

chose not to, but I can. I’m very disappointed that the President’s 

budget request appears to be more interested in things like Global 

Climate Change, which I’m not sure that there’s agreement here in 

this country on a way to go forward on Climate Change. 

But, certainly, I share your thoughts when it comes to our adversaries in Latin America. And whether it’s $95 million that we’re 

giving to countries that said that our money is dirty, and they don’t 

want it. So, Mr. Schneider, can you—would you like to respond to 

that? I mean, I know that you have a slightly different opinion in 

what kind of goes into security, and what doesn’t go into security. 

And I respect your opinion very much. I may disagree, and look at 

how we place our priorities differently, but I understand. 

But how, on this question of our adversaries, those that have—

they’ve chosen to be adversaries of the United States. We didn’t 

choose to push them out. How do we continue to fund programs in 

those countries? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Two things. You’re right, I’m desperate to answer the question. 

I think, first, that the issue of security, particularly when you 

look at this hemisphere, needs to be viewed as what our threat is. 

And the threat is really from organized crime and violence. And, 

therefore, the question is, how do you strengthen the capacity of 

the law enforcement institutions from the police, to prosecutors, to 

judges, to prisons to operate effectively, and insure that somebody 

who engages in murder, or drug trafficking is brought to justice, 

and put away? And that seems, to me, to be fundamental. 

Now, you don’t get that with just security assistance out of FMF. 

You get that, in part, from ESF that goes to strengthen Rule of 

Law. 

The second part of that is, one of the real problems in Central 

America is you’ve got the large number of unemployed, and in a 

sense frustrated youth who become the foot soldiers, and they become most vulnerable. We need to do a better job of dealing with 

them. That’s on the security side. At least, I would think that that 

needs to be—you need to look at both sides of security when you’re 

making your assessment. 

The second is, on the question of the ALBA countries. There are 

two things, and let me start off where I’m most in disagreement 

with Adolfo, and that is about non-governmental organizations. 

And let me explain. 

Adolfo spoke very eloquently about trying to provide assistance 

to groups in Cuba. Why? Because he wants to focus on strengthening civil society in a country with a repressive, authoritarian regime. 

65

In Ecuador, in Bolivia, in Venezuela, I want to see what the 

mechanisms are to strengthen civil society in those countries to 

bring pressure toward democratic change, and strengthening democratic battles in those countries. And I would look to do it not just 

directly, but with other countries in the hemisphere. 

A long time ago, I started something in Chile to try and see 

whether Chile, and particularly the groups that had managed the 

transition from military rule to democratic rule could engage with 

countries who were still having the problems in this region. And 

now I think that this is something we might think about elsewhere. 

But it’s basically to take the experience of democracy in this hemisphere, and to use it to strengthen civil society in countries in this 

hemisphere, and elsewhere that clearly are facing critical problems. 

So, I would say look for ways to strengthen civil society in those 

countries. 

The other thing that I would say is, that when you’re doing humanitarian work to, let’s say, reduce maternal mortality in Bolivia 

or in Ecuador, or immunize children, I don’t think that benefits the 

government. That benefits the people, and that’s one of the reasons 

why over the last 2 years, 3 years the Latino Barometro shows the 

U.S. approval in Latin America has jumped 20 points, because I 

think that we need to continue to focus on how we can be identified 

with the things that the people are concerned about. That includes 

reducing crime in their countries, and it also includes providing 

benefits, and reducing poverty. 

Mr. MACK. And look, I agree with that idea, that look, in a country where there’s—on Madison Avenue in New York, advertising 

firms can convince people to buy a pet rock, we should be able to 

do a better job of communicating to Latin America all of the things 

that we do do for the people of Latin America. I agree with you. 

Did you want to——

Mr. FRANCO. I just wanted to add a couple of things. I don’t want 

to turn it into a debate here. But I just wanted to make a couple 

of comments regarding Mark’s presentation. 

Mr. MACK. Let me pose—I’ll let you do that, but let me, if you 

might, I just want to get this other question out there——

Mr. FRANCO. Sure. 

Mr. MACK [continuing]. Before we end up with votes and stuff. 

So, and both of you can take a crack at this. So, if you only have 

X amount of dollars to spend. 

Mr. FRANCO. Right. 

Mr. MACK. And you look at the priorities of our security in Latin 

America. And when I—I keep going back to security. This isn’t just 

my own—I think, generally, most people recognize that the issue 

of security is paramount in Latin America, and all of the Western 

Hemisphere. So, if you only have X amount of dollars, how can you 

justify spending a large portion of that money on other things, 

other than security? That’s one. 

And, two, if you have only X amount of dollars, and you have to 

make priorities, how do you prioritize a country that is opposed to 

the United States, and in direct conflict with the United States? If 

you had more money, and you could do more things, then maybe 

you would look at ways to try to do some things in those countries, 

66

but in this time, how do we justify that? So, you can respond, and 

then answer questions. 

Mr. FRANCO. Well, Mr. Chairman, your question is excellent, because it answers what I was going to make some comments regarding Mr. Schneider’s comments. 

The first is, there is just a pie. You’ve put it up there on the 

slide. And that is the budget. And, yes, it would be great to do everything we possibly could for all kinds of humanitarian purposes 

throughout the world, including needs in our country. We just don’t 

have the resources to do that. So, the pie is the pie. It’s $2 billion, 

unless someone is advocating to go beyond what the President has 

requested, which I have yet to hear. 

Therefore, that $2 billion, how best to allocate it? I’d love to hear 

what the Colombians think about the allocation of the resources, 

and the Mexicans, as well. I would venture to say from my experience at USAID, maybe things have changed, but in the last 6 

years, I would think the security items you’ve just described is at 

the top of their list. I don’t think it’s going to be the NGO organizations that Mark made a reference to. 

So, since this is a government-to-government assistance program, 

USAID, this is our foreign policy. These are our partners, they are 

our allies. I’d like to hear what they have to say. And I can assure 

you from my experience, that it tends to be the security items, and 

it tends to be the specific tools that they need to combat internal 

insurgencies, and gang violence that they clamor for in the first instance. And I think we should be responsive to that. 

Secondly, I do take exception with my friend, Mark Schneider, on 

NGOs. First of all, when I was at AID, we did not support NGOs 

in Cuba. There’s no such thing. Everything in Cuba is controlled 

by the Cuban Government. We supported the dissidents, as authorized by this Congress, but they’re not NGOs. 

What I did support was organizations from outside the country, 

particularly in Europe, since there was such a clamor from the 

other side at the time of the Democratic Congress that we needed—

we had to not make this a bilateral problem with Cuba, but a multilateral one. Well, when I engaged the Europeans, and others, and 

they were all—I met with Mr. Hovell, I met with Mr. Bolessa, they 

were all very eager to help us out. And these efforts haven’t continued. 

So, to be clear, we don’t support NGOs in Cuba. I don’t know 

what they propose to do with these activities they’re proposing in 

their CN. I don’t understand how they could work with lawyers 

within Cuba that are not controlled or government agents. 

Secondly, with respect to global change, or humanitarian efforts, 

or the rest of it is, I think it’s high time that Brazil, a country that 

has an assistance agency, Mr. Chairman, it’s called ABC. It’s a cooperation agency, that’s their acronym for AID. They can step up 

to the plate. In Brazil, they can step up to the plate in the region. 

They’re a regional player. Chile is a very prosperous country. I 

don’t think this should be shouldered by the United States. 

The fact of the matter is, from my experience in development in 

25 years, it’s not $2 billion. You would be talking $2 trillion, and 

we still would not be resolving the problems. The problems are 

67

often internal. They need to be resolved by the people and the governments, themselves. 

I think what we can do is look at what our interests are first. 

And I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, gang violence is a problem in 

the United States. It is a problem now in about 46 states, not just 

the border states, where Mexican gangs are operating here. Those 

are the things we need to combat first and foremost. 

The rest of the items that we’ve discussed here today, I think are 

the skewed and wrong priorities. They’re skewed the wrong way by 

this President’s budget. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Schneider. And, Mr. Schneider, before you go, by the way, there’s $10 billion to Brazil for Global Climate 

Change. And Brazil is the world leader on clean energy, so it seems 

that—well, I’ll keep my editorial to myself. Mr. Schneider. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Okay. Let me just go back to two things. One 

is on the question of—it seems to me there’s a distinction between 

Colombia, Mexico on the one hand, and the countries of ALBA on 

the other. And it’s in those countries that ALBA, where your aim 

is not to provide benefits to the government. Understood. But it 

seems to me there you have—there are avenues, and that’s where 

I was talking about non-governmental organizations, and civil society, to try and support development, and helping the people in 

those countries. And down the road, resulting in, hopefully, 

changes that result in governments with whom we can cooperate. 

And I’ll just give you one anecdote, personal anecdote. In 1966, 

I was a Peace Corps volunteer in El Salvador. There was a military 

government there. The idea that because there was a military government we shouldn’t do anything, including the Peace Corps, was 

wrong. We were in the Peace Corps, and the people that I worked 

with, those people became democratic government in El Salvador 

afterwards, and now. 

And it seems to me that that’s the kind of grassroots contact that 

we can have with civil society in those countries, and try and look 

down the road at the same time we provide benefit to the people 

now. 

The second thing you mentioned in Colombia——

Mr. MACK. Mr. Schneider, wouldn’t you—real quick. Wouldn’t 

you agree, though, if the pie is only so big, and we have such security concerns that——

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I understand. I understand. I just do think that 

the pie is big enough to do that, because the benefit to the United 

States, it’s going to be very small amounts of money relative to the 

$400 million that we’re proposing for Colombia, or the $250 million 

for Mexico. I think it’s actually $350 million for Mexico. But it’s 

going to—we’re talking about very small amounts for civil society 

in those countries. But those small amounts can have a significant 

impact immediately and down the road. 

On the security side, again, please look at what—I went to Colombia. I met with the Minister of Defense, I met with the National 

Security Advisor in December, and talked to them about how the 

U.S. assistance could be most effective. 

The most effective way is strengthening their capacity to go after 

these organized crime gangs, and strengthening their—the Fiscalia 

General is vastly underfunded. It needs substantial additional atVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\041311\65795 HFA PsN: SHIRL
68

torneys and investigators. The procura generale, the Defensor del 

Pueblo, they need to be out in those consolidation zones, where you 

want to have the civilian states say when you move the FARC out, 

what comes is the positive presence and activities of civilian government. That’s why I’ve always said you need to task the ministries, agriculture, health, education to be out there along with the 

law enforcement. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. Mr. Franco. 

Mr. FRANCO. I don’t want to get the last word in here, Mr. Chairman, but——

Mr. MACK. Sure you do. 

Mr. FRANCO. But the fact of the matter is, and I appreciate what 

Mark says, it is important to have security assistance. It’s reduced 

by this budget. If it’s so important, it’s being reduced, and it’s being 

reduced because—and you have to look at the graphs, and the figures. Social development programs are spared. 

I understand and appreciate, and understand what you’re saying, 

Mark, about social development programs. We’ve done them historically in this country, it shows the good will of the American 

people. Those programs are spared, and military and security 

spending, which you acknowledge is important, is reduced by 43 

percent. 

I think this hearing’s purpose, which I applaud Mr. Chairman for 

holding it, was the foreign policy priorities, and the allocation of 

the resources. That’s what this was about. This is not debating 

whether a vaccination program is a good thing, or a bad thing. I’m 

not here to do that. It is we have a pie, we have priorities, are they 

the right priorities? My simple answer to you and the committee 

is, they are not. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. And I want to thank—hold on. 

Okay. All right. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Just one minor point. Secretary Gates, who, presumably, is concerned about security, has told us time and again 

that one of the key problems in Afghanistan is the failure to have 

parallel to our military capacity civilian capacity working to help 

build law enforcement at the local level, and development. 

And all I’m saying is that that same concept in terms of broadly, 

what produces security has to be in the way we think about the 

priorities. And in Latin America right now, dealing with the problems of organized crime, law enforcement means not just tanks. It 

means judges, and prosecutors who are clean. It means police who 

can function, work in community policing, absolutely. But also police who are capable of going after these organized crime. 

Mr. MACK. Well, thank you. 

Mr. FRANCO. Have we reduced our budget for Afghanistan in the 

military side by 43 percent? 

Mr. MACK. No. And here’s what I would like to end with, is this; 

that all of this is great, but when we are broke, and we have to 

look at the priorities—I mean, every dollar we spend, we have to 

borrow at this point. So, to continue to fund things that aren’t targeted to the goals of the United States, which should be security, 

my frustration is, is I look at the budget. There seems to be a lot 

of money in areas that do not further the security goals that we 

should have on one hand, and on the second hand, we continue to 

69

fund countries who are our adversaries. And I’m just going to leave 

it with that. 

I think this budget is wrong headed, that we need to have a 

course correction. We need to get back to funding the real priorities, which is in this case security. 

Thank you, gentlemen, very much for being here. And the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

72


65795n.eps
73


65795m-1.eps
74


65795m-2.eps
75


65795e-1.eps
76


65795e-2.eps
77


65795e-3.eps
78

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


65795f.eps
79


65795g-1.eps
80

Æ


65795g-2.eps