Congressional Hearings
U.S. INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA AND THE FY 2020 BUDGET
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.F 76/1
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-116hhrg36642
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hsfa00 | H | S | Committee on Foreign Affairs |
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA AND THE FY 2020 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND NONPROLIFERATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.Govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-642PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, po@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation
BRAD SHERMAN, California, Chairman
DINA TITUS, Nevada TED YOHO, Florida, Ranking Member
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
GERALD CONNOLLY, Virgina ANN WAGNER, Missouri
AMI BERA, California BRIAN MAST, Florida
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia
Don MacDonald, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Wells, Ms. Alice, Acting Assistant Secretary for South and
Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State................ 7
Freeman, Ms. Karen, Assistant to the Administrator for the Office
of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, United States Agency for
International Development...................................... 17
Steele, Ms. Gloria, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Bureau
for Asia, United States Agency for International Development... 25
INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Information submitted for the record from Representative Houlahan 37
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 54
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 55
Hearing Attendance............................................... 56
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Information submitted for the record from Representative Sherman. 57
Statement for the record submitted from Representative Connolly.. 62
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted to Mrs. Steele from
Representative Wagner.......................................... 64
Responses to questions submitted to Mrs. Wells from
Representative................................................. 65
Responses to questions submitted to Mrs. Wells from
Representative Houlahan........................................ 70
Responses to questions submitted to Mrs. Steele from
Representative Houlahan........................................ 71
U.S. INTERESTS IN SOUTH ASIA AND THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
Thursday, June 13, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Sherman
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Sherman. The subcommittee will come to order. Members
present will be permitted to submit written statements to be
included in the official hearing record. Without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for five calendar days to allow
statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record,
subject to the length limitation in the rules.
We will be joined by members of the full committee who are
not members of the subcommittee and, without objection, they
will be allowed to ask questions at the end of the first round
of questions. The first opening statement will be delivered by
our ranking member, Ted Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
the Fiscal Year 2020 State Department and U.S. Agency for
International Development budget request for the South Asia
region. I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses
for being here today.
The relationship between the United States and countries in
South Asia concerning democracy promotion and economic growth
is ripe for cooperation. However, the region also faces
significant challenges particularly involving China's increased
influence in the region. We have also seen the continued
proliferation of human rights abuses and acts of radical
terrorism. I would like to focus this hearing on how U.S.
expenditures support the health of U.S.-Asia's democratic
institutions, increase economic development, and address
security concerns while best serving U.S. interests.
In recent years, we have seen an increased focus on South
Asia. In 2017, the Trump administration announced their Free
and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy which restructured the typical
Asia Pacific approach and emphasized the importance of this
region to the U.S. and our national security. This area is
vital for national security. The development and the growth, as
we have heard over and over again, there is going to be more
people living in the Asia Pacific theater by 2050 in the world
than outside of that.
This strategy is marked by respect for sovereignty, freedom
of navigation, open markets, and transparent investment in the
Indo-Pacific and is carried out by agencies like the Department
of State and USAID, whom we have here today with us and we are
so excited. A June 2019 Pentagon report called the Indo-Pacific
the single, most consequential reason for America's future.
For this reason, we must continue to address the region's
shifting geopolitical landscape, increasing complex security
outlook, lingering human rights issues--not lingering human
rights issues, but more egregious human rights issues that we
haven't seen since probably World War II--and enduring
development challenges.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the
Department of State and USAID intend to address these concerns
and how Congress can best support them in these endeavors. I
yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
Today's hearing examines the administration's budget
request for South Asia and our interest in the region. We look
forward to hearing from Ambassador Wells, Ms. Steele, and Ms.
Freeman. I will introduce them at the end of my opening
remarks.
In the 4-years from 2014 to 2017, our annual aid to South
Asia averaged $2.2 billion. This included one billion for
Afghanistan and nearly 800 million for Pakistan. But our 2018
budget for South Asia has dropped almost in half, and the
Fiscal Year 2020 budget is proposed at $1 billion, including
half a billion or a bit more than that for Afghanistan, and 70
million for Pakistan. This is a dramatic reduction in our
efforts. It will be interesting to hear from our witnesses
whether South Asia is dramatically less important to us than it
was a few years ago.
As to India, we have a strategic partnership in the Indo-
Pacific. I am working to strengthen that relationship as co-
chair of the India Caucus. Our partnership is built around
common democratic values, our economic relations, and our
strategic interests. And of course, there have been several
steps forward in the area of joint naval exercises, whether it
be U.S.-India or U.S.-Japan-India. We do have a $24 billion
trade deficit with India. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses how we are going to open India's markets and how
India is going to open its markets so tha American exports will
increase.
As to Pakistan, USAID projects have covered energy,
agriculture, education, and health sectors. There is a small
but growing middle class, civil society, independent judiciary,
and we have had two elected changes in government at least in
the--what should I say--official government as opposed to the
whatever role in government the military plays beyond what is
set forth in the constitution.
That being said, our aid to Pakistan less than a decade ago
was two billion a year. We now have cut it to 70 million. If I
did the math quickly, I would just say that is under 5, you
know, that is a 95 percent reduction, roughly. Pakistan, I
think, is very important to the security of the United States.
There are those that argue that Pakistan is important because
it is close to Afghanistan and I think it is just the reverse.
It is true that looking at history, looking at 2001,
Afghanistan suddenly became critical to our national security
and the fact that al-Qaida was able to operate there, who had
devastating effects on our country. But looking forward, it is
clear that Pakistan will have a much bigger impact on the
United States and, of course, is a nuclear country with--
nuclear weapons State with a growing nuclear arsenal.
I want to hear about what we are doing with regard to
forced conversions, particularly in southern Pakistan where
young girls are, in effect, kidnapped, forced to convert first
to Islam and then forced to marry. And I will want to focus on
human rights in Pakistan as a whole and particularly in Sindh
Province and, of course, Pakistan giving safe haven to
terrorists that attack Afghanistan and India.
Now given the importance of Pakistan, I do not think there
is anything more important than our public broadcasting to the
people of Pakistan. We broadcast over only in one Pakistani
language, Pashtun, which is both a Pakistani and an Afghan
language, leaving out the many tens of millions of Pakistanis
that speak Sindhi. I have offered an amendment which is pending
on the floor and my staff may pull me out of this room and, if
so, it is for a good reason, one that I am sure all of our
witnesses will agree with and that is to increase the budget of
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, so that they can begin a
Sindhi language service.
Whether we will be able to get them the full million and a
half that they have said they wanted for a 24-hour service or
whether it will be less, will depend upon the legislative
process. So whether we get anything will depend upon the
legislative process. But given Pakistan's--I mean Pakistan is,
for example, the only State with nuclear weapons that has
experienced a military coup, and I will turn to the historians
on our panel to tell me just how many military coups Pakistan
has had. But that is 100 percent of all the military coups in
all nuclear States.
So, we do need to reach out to the people of Pakistan and I
am by no means sure that the $70 million we are spending is
sufficient. Further, I will point out that the big thing we are
doing for Pakistan is the IMF loan. While our aid is 70
million, the IMF loan is 6 billion. And, of course, I do not
think that could have happened without the United States and I
hope that I will be told by our witnesses that when Treasury's
over there at the IMF they aren't just checking the boxes for
fiscal purposes, but are, in fact, taking policy direction from
the State Department.
In Afghanistan, we have given 130 billion in security and
development assistance since 2001. The conflict continues. The
Taliban finds safe havens in Pakistan. One of the reasons for
this is because Pakistan fears a united Afghanistan that might
make claims on its territory, particularly at a time when
Pakistan might be preoccupied with India.
The way to make Pakistan calmer and more solidly in favor
of a peaceful, strong, and prosperous Afghanistan is to gain
international recognition from the Durand Line. I will discuss
with our witnesses what we can do at the United Nations to get
the entire world to recognize the Durand Line and to make it
plain to Afghanistan and Pakistan that their border is that
line and that they can live in peace without either side,
particularly without Afghanistan looking for an opportunity to
expand its territory.
As for Sri Lanka, we all express our deepest condolences to
those affected by the tragic Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.
These attacks took place 10 years after Sri Lanka ended its
civil war, and I hope that these attacks will not impede the
reconciliation efforts between the Sinhalese and Tamil
communities.
As to democracy, development, and burden sharing, our
foreign aid has supported development in the Maldives which
might be the first nation submerged if we do not do something
about global warming and global climate change, Nepal and
Bangladesh. And I want to commend Bangladesh for hosting
hundreds of thousands of Rohingya from neighboring Myanmar.
As I have said in this room before, if Myanmar or Burma is
unwilling or unable to be a good government for the Rohingya
people that live in North Rakhine State, then we should
transfer and the United States should support the transfer_that
portion of that State to Bangladesh, which is willing to
accommodate the people. The Rohingya people of North Rakhine
State deserve a government that tries to protect them, not
destroy them.
Overall, our aid can consolidate democracy and advance
development across South Asia. Freedom House scores the region
at 3.7 on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is the highest. This is
better than the 4.8 score of Southeast Asia, but the per capita
income for South Asia is only $6,700 if measured in purchasing
power which is 40 percent less than Southeast Asia.
So there is much development work to be done in South Asia.
In recent years, Australia and Canada have annually given 200
million, Japan gave nearly 600 million, and European countries
have disbursed, apparently, $3 billion to South Asia. I
encourage our allies to continue that element of burden sharing
as we, of course, carry the lion's share of the load when it
comes to defense expenditures.
With that I will see whether there are other members of the
subcommittee wishing to make an opening statement.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No, thanks.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Levin?
Well, with that we will start with our witnesses. We will
start with Ambassador Alice Wells, the former U.S. Ambassador
to Jordan who has headed the South Asia Bureau at the State
Department for 2 years as acting assistant secretary. Of
course, our committee has been urging for the last over 2 years
the administration to actually have permanent people in the
positions, and I know that the party line of the administration
is you do not need permanent people, but I think we do. I am
not saying that Ambassador Wells would not be the perfect
permanent assistant secretary, but the idea that you can
operate the executive branch without appointing people, getting
them confirmed, and filling the positions is absurd.
That being said, we will also hear from Ms. Gloria Steele
who is acting assistant administrator for the Bureau for Asia
at the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. And
then, finally, we will hear from Ms. Karen Freeman who is
assistant to the administrator for the Office of Afghanistan
and Pakistan Affairs, again, at USAID.
Ambassador Wells?
STATEMENT OF ALICE WELLS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SOUTH
AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Wells. Chairman Sherman, Ranking Member Yoho, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify on the Department's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request for
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South Asia.
And before we begin, I want to recognize the servicemen and
women, the diplomats, the development specialists, who risk
their lives in service to our country, particularly one
Department of Commerce employee, Chelsea Decaminada, for her
ultimate sacrifice during the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri
Lanka. Her commitment to public service is a model for all of
us and she served her country with distinction.
I will first talk about our work in Afghanistan and
Pakistan and then continue by describing the progress we have
made on our Indo-Pacific Strategy in India and South Asia. Our
goal in Afghanistan is a sustainable, political settlement to
end the war. Our conditions-based approach is working and the
Taliban have come to the table. As Secretary Pompeo has
testified, the President wants to reduce the risks and costs to
Americans in a manner that protects our counterterrorism
interests. President Ghani shares this vision.
I traveled to Kabul last month where the Afghan Government
agreed to focus assistance on our highest priorities: peace,
self-reliance, and stability. We have been working with other
donors to develop a post-settlement economic plan while not
losing focus on the need to strengthen democratic institutions,
include women, and see credible Presidential elections in
September. This request supports those objectives. We recognize
a durable peace in Afghanistan requires consultation with
Pakistan and Pakistan is encouraging the Taliban to negotiate.
But our relationship with Pakistan is broader than just
Afghanistan. We are asking Islamabad to take sustained and
irreversible actions against terrorists who threaten stability
in the subcontinent. One such organization, Jaish-e-Mohammed,
precipitated the India-Pakistan crisis in February and we have
made clear that there is no legitimate role for these non-State
actors.
On May 1, we succeeded in listing Masood Azhar, the leader
of that organization, at the United Nations 1267 Sanctions
Committee, an achievement that was 10 years in the making. Our
tailored assistance request for Pakistan reflects the
relationship that is moving from aid to a more mature trade-
based partnership.
From Afghanistan and Pakistan, we turn to South Asia where
we support India's rise as the fulcrum of the administration's
Indo-Pacific Strategy. Prime Minister Modi is committed to
strengthening ties between our two countries and we
congratulate him on his decisive election victory. India's
election was free and fair and the largest exercise in
democracy in human history.
As the Secretary said at yesterday's India Ideas Forum,
``It is only natural that the world's most populous democracy
should partner with the world's oldest democracy to maintain
our shared vision for the Indo-Pacific.'' With India at its
center, we have made good incremental progress in our Indo-
Pacific vision since I last testified to the subcommittee. In
July, the Secretary announced $114 million in economic
assistance at the Indo-Pacific Business Forum, and in August he
announced $300 million in security assistance at the ASEAN
Regional Forum.
In November, the Vice President announced the Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative in conjunction with over $400 million
in democracy rights and governance assistance and we thank
Congress for supporting and approving these announcements. The
Indo-Pacific Strategy is beginning to register successes. In
September, the Maldives voted out the preceding corrupt regime
that was implicated in secretive, unsustainable procurements of
debt-financed infrastructure. Maldives instead elected a new
president who is strengthening his country's outreach to both
India and the United States.
Maldives is a concrete example of how our Indo-Pacific
vision can inspire engaged voters in civil society to push back
against corruption through the ballot box. We are happy to see
that Congress supports this vision, and we thank you for
passing the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act with broad
bipartisan support. The President was happy to sign.
To conclude, this has been a year of success in our region
and our budget request reflects that. While Afghanistan
transitions to a more sustainable, post-settlement mission, the
administration is refocusing its assistance request on the
Indo-Pacific. I welcome today's discussion and hope we can
agree to support America's diplomacy in this indispensable
region. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wells follows]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Ms. Freeman?
STATEMENT OF KAREN FREEMAN, ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
THE OFFICE OF AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Freeman. Good morning, Chairmen Deutch and Sherman,
Ranking Members Wilson and Yoho, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for having me here today to discuss the
administration's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request for the U.S.
Agency for International Development's assistance priorities
for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As a career Foreign Service officer, it has been my honor
to serve my country and a privilege to testify before you today
alongside my esteemed colleagues, Ambassador Alice Wells and
Assistant Administrator Gloria Steele. Like those before me, I
would like to thank our colleagues, the women and the men in
our military who have served in Afghanistan, who in some cases
have given their lives. And I would also like to express my
appreciation to their families.
Our gratitude also goes to the brave American civilians who
have served in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, USAID's Foreign
Service officers, development professionals, and Foreign
Service nationals, diplomats at the United States Department of
State, and the men and women working shoulder to shoulder with
us, implementing U.S. programs in the region and around the
world. I have been proud to have served with these people over
the past 30 years and they have my deepest respect.
Under USAID Administrator Mark Green's leadership, our
agency's mission is to support our partners to become self-
reliant and capable of leading their own development journeys.
A key stepping stone on this path to self-reliance is ensuring
governments are responsive and accountable to their citizens
and to the international community. We make progress toward
this by increasing private sector economic growth,
strengthening democratic governance, and enhancing health and
education outcomes.
But we must also reduce the reach of conflict and
counteract the drivers of violence and instability.
Specifically, USAID has three strategic development objectives
in each country. In Afghanistan, accelerating private sector-
driven, export-led economic growth including the growth of high
value agriculture; sustaining and advancing social gains in
health, education, and women's opportunities; and increasing
the Afghan Government's accountability to its citizens
including anticorruption in government and elections--pardon
me.
In Pakistan, our objectives are helping to consolidate
Pakistan's civilian government control on the border with
Afghanistan, particularly in the newly merged districts of
Khyber Pashtunkhwa, supporting civil society's efforts to build
a more tolerant Pakistan, and promoting private sector-led
economic growth including creating opportunities for U.S.
businesses. The President's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request for
assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan reflects our Nation's
efforts to advance our national security interests and increase
regional stability.
The Fiscal Year 2020 request for USAID in Pakistan includes
48 million in economic support funds. It is anticipated that
our request for 400 million for Afghanistan will be adjusted
downward as a result of recent program reviews. As Ambassador
Wells has outlined, this has been a year of reflection on the
appropriate balance of resources both human and financial in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both missions are undergoing intense
scrutiny and consultation with our partners, the interagency,
and yourselves here on Capitol Hill. The lower request
continues a downward trend as our assistance portfolios mature,
adjust, and adjust toward a more sustainable level.
Although the 2020 request is reduced in comparison to
Fiscal Year 2019, both missions will continue to implement a
significant suite of assistance programs which are strategic
and long-term and incorporate our partners, other donors and
the private sector, and of course the countries themselves, as
we engage in dialog on encompassing their aspirations and our
comparative advantages.
Experience shows that women's participation in development
is a key driver for sustainable outcomes including enhanced
economic growth, improved health, education, and community
cohesion and a reduction of conflict. Support for Afghan and
Pakistani women is and will remain an important focus for
USAID. Afghan women in particular have achieved much with the
continuing support from the American people, and furthering
these gains is a cornerstone of USAID's efforts.
Again, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
USAID's programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Freeman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Ms. Steele?
STATEMENT OF GLORIA STEELE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
THE BUREAU FOR ASIA, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Steele. Chairman Sherman, Ranking Member Yoho,
distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for inviting me
to testify on USAID's role in advancing U.S. policy priorities
in South Asia, including the President's vision for a free and
open Indo-Pacific, the South Asia Strategy and USAID's journey
to self-reliance.
First, I will speak to the President's vision for a free
and open Indo-Pacific region. The Fiscal Year 2020 budget
request for USAID's development assistance in South Asia is
$332 million. This request includes support for USAID's
continued leading role in advancing the Indo-Pacific Strategy
in three primary areas.
First is strengthening democratic systems, which are
critical for fostering good governance and transparency. Second
is leveling the playing field for the participation of
legitimate private enterprises, especially in the areas of
infrastructure and digital economy. And the third is improving
the management of natural resources, particularly in energy,
which are important for sustained, long-term growth.
Second, the South Asia Strategy. The South Asia Strategy
recognizes the strategic importance of the region for stability
in Afghanistan. The request supports continued USAID engagement
important to this objective. For example, deepening our
strategic partnership with India, which shares economic and
humanitarian interests in Afghanistan.
And third, the journey to self-reliance. In the words of
USAID Administrator Mark Green, the ultimate goal of
development assistance must be to work toward the day when it
is no longer necessary. He has said, and I quote, ``At the
heart of our work is the core belief that each country must
lead its own development journey.''
We call the path to get there the journey to self-reliance.
In support of this, we focus on building capacity and
commitment of countries to drive their own development. This
includes commitments to open and accountable governance and
inclusive growth and it includes the capacity to mobilize funds
domestically for their development. With Fiscal Year 2020
resources we will continue to strategically focus our efforts
toward achievement of this goal.
I will next provide brief country highlights. For
Bangladesh, our request includes resources for lifesaving
assistance to Rohingya refugees and for ramping up our support
to impacted host communities. In addition, our request supports
programs aimed at restoring democratic processes, political
pluralism and good governance, improving the business-enabling
environment and agricultural economy, strengthening the
conservation of targeted ecosystems in order to mitigate the
impact of natural disasters, and attracting renewable energy
investments. Our program supports Bangladesh in its goal of
achieving middle income status by 2024.
For India, our budget request supports India's integral
role to advancing both a free and open Indo-Pacific region and
a stable South Asia. For example, India is central in our
efforts to facilitate infrastructure and energy investment and
connectivity across South Asia. The request includes new funds
for regional energy activities that contribute to advancing the
President's vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
It also supports Asia EDGE, a U.S. Government initiative to
promote energy security and expand energy access across the
Indo-Pacific region. The request will also enable USAID to
leverage domestic resources, including from India's robust
private sector that is legally mandated to contribute to social
causes in ways that help India better respond to its lingering
development challenges, including poor health conditions,
inadequate resources related to water and sanitation, and air
pollution.
For Nepal, despite steadfast progress the country remains
vulnerable to unsustainable debt, weak institutional capacity
and future disasters. Following on USAID's support for the
historic 2017 elections, the request will allow USAID to
address emerging challenges to Nepal's transition to
federalism. Our request also supports efforts to improve the
country's weak business regulatory environment, advance a
competitive market economy, and address health, food security,
and education challenges.
For Sri Lanka, recent political turmoil compounded by the
April terrorist attacks, growing ethnic religious nationalism,
and slow progress and commitment to transitional justice and
ethnic reconciliation exacerbate the country's development
challenges. With elections on the horizon for late 2019 and
early 2020, USAID will use Fiscal Year 2020 resources to
bolster democratic governance, foster ethnic reconciliation,
and enhance fair opportunities for trade and competitiveness.
Assistance will also provide the Government of Sri Lanka with
technical support for infrastructure development and for
fostering the rule of law.
And, finally, for the Maldives, Fiscal Year 2020 resources
will enable USAID to advance U.S. interests and seize
burgeoning opportunities presented by the country's democratic
opening. We will also use Fiscal Year 2020 resources to support
the government's request for assistance in public financial
management, in countering terrorism, and in managing its
natural resources.
In closing, South Asia is a strategically important region
for the United States. With this request, USAID will continue
efforts vital to increasing partner countries' self-reliance
and advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific region. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Steele follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. I want to thank all of our witnesses. I will
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ambassador Wells, how important is it for us to reach out
to the people of Pakistan in the languages they actually speak
in their home, particularly in the language of Sindh?
Ms. Wells. Very important, sir, and we do through our
Karachi consulate have programming in Sindhi language to the 50
million person audience in that region. We also have local
staff, whether it is in Karachi or elsewhere in-country that
are engaged in Sindhi language outreach.
Mr. Sherman. So you are able to reach people by sending
speakers out, by convening meetings, but if we did broadcasting
in Sindhi we would be able to reach all 50 million people. I
hope you support that record. For the record? Yes.
Ms. Wells. We appreciate additional efforts of outreach in
Pakistan.
Mr. Sherman. Now the big aid, and we are here not talking
about 70 million for Pakistan, the big issue is the IMF loan.
It looks like that is going through.
Ambassador Wells, does Treasury just do what they want for
checking off some economic boxes, or since this is the single
most important thing we do with regard to Pakistan, do they
listen to you?
Ms. Wells. Yes. There is a discussion about the
conditionality that we think would be appropriate for an IMF
package to Pakistan. We have not seen the IMF package yet. We
understand that there has been an agreement reached between the
IMF and Government of Pakistan, but certainly we have
communicated our strong views and Secretary Pompeo has also
done so publicly on the need for any package to include a real
structural reform to reinforce----
Mr. Sherman. If I can interrupt, what about Dr. Afridi? Can
we, should we block this IMF loan until Dr. Afridi, his family,
are free here in the United States?
Ms. Wells. We believe Dr. Afridi is being held wrongly,
inappropriately. With Congress's help we have withheld 130
million dollars in assistance to Pakistan already as a result
of his incarceration, and we continue to raise Dr. Afridi's
case.
Mr. Sherman. But we are letting them get what they really
want which is the six billion from the IMF. And if they default
on that the American taxpayers lose well over a billion. Have
we offered any prisoner exchange, for example, Dr. Siddiqui,
who I know has cooperated in terrorism, but is still, given Dr.
Afridi's critical role are we negotiating or are we seeking to
negotiate with Pakistan some sort of prisoner release?
Ms. Wells. We have not offered a prisoner exchange for Dr.
Afridi. Dr. Afridi is being held wrongly. He is not guilty of
any terrorism charges.
Mr. Sherman. Almost every prisoner exchange--when we
exchanged spies with the Soviets, the spies that we gave up
were people working for communism and the people we got back
were people working for freedom. By all rights they should have
been freed anyway. I would hope that as another committee looks
at those who--the first responders at 9/11, that you would do
more to get Dr. Afridi released and make more, offer more on
the plus side even if it is unjust and withhold on the other
side, because who is going to ever help America stop terrorism
as long as Dr. Afridi is in jail.
I have talked before about the missing persons and forced
disappearances, particularly religious minorities in the Sindh
Province of Pakistan. I will ask both--well, I will ask all of
our witnesses, to what extent do we bring up these human rights
issues in our interactions with Pakistani officials? Ms.
Steele?
And if it Ms. Freeman who pretty much deals with that then
I will just--Ms. Freeman.
Ms. Steele. It is Ms. Freeman.
Ms. Freeman. USAID remains concerned about all of the
reports on human rights violations. And not only do we raise
that with the government officials, but we also try to
encourage the new initiatives with the Government of Pakistan
and strengthen civil society to that end. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman. My time is expired, my list of questions is
not. We will call on other members and we will do a second
round for those who are still here. We will hear from our
ranking member.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony. Ambassador Wells, it was
music to my ears to hear you say moving countries from aid to
trade as soon as possible. From a hearing like this it is
amazing when I look back, it led to the inspiration for the
BUILD Act and that is how that happened. That led to the
bipartisan support to create the new USIDFC, the International
Development Finance Corporation, modernizing OPEC, and
strengthening our foreign development arm moving, again,
countries from aid to trade. You know, so out of this meeting
we hope to move beyond that.
It is such a large region from Afghanistan over to the east
encompassing all the countries in between, I think it is about
1.8 billion people just in that region. And what I hear, again
when we talk about development I hear over and over again we
need to build democracies. And I have been a proponent of I do
not think that is the right way to go. You guys have got
collectively a tremendous amount of experience.
I think more importantly we should develop stable
governments. If I look at the history that has been learned or
the lessons that have been learned from Afghanistan, we moved
into a country that we did not understand. We did not
understand the tribal nature of a country and we tried to
instill a democracy. And as we know democracies are very messy
as we have learned over 240-plus years.
I think we should adapt our strategy and policies to
fulfill the needs of a country and develop a stable government,
because I see right now we are negotiating with the Taliban,
but somebody correct me if I am wrong, they were a terrorist
organization and we had a policy we do not negotiate with
terrorists. Yet they control more land in Afghanistan today
than they did before we went into Afghanistan.
My question to you is, the Taliban will not negotiate with
the current, democratically elected Afghan Government. Is that
not a major problem and should the Afghan Government be brought
into the negotiations?
Ms. Wells. Absolutely. And Ambassador Khalilzad's mission
or his mandate is, you know, first to ensure that we are not
threatened by terrorist groups operating inside of Afghanistan;
and two, to protect the investments we have made over the last
18 years in Afghanistan; and then three, to end the war and
reduce the burden on the United States. And the way he has
approached the negotiations is through four interrelated
elements.
The first element is to, you have guarantees and
enforcement mechanism that the Taliban will break all ties with
international terrorists, with any terrorist group on Afghan
soil; second, to arrive at guarantees and enforcement mechanism
for the withdraw of foreign troops; but three is to ensure
Taliban participation in intra-Afghan negotiations and dialog,
and that would include the Afghan Government. It would include
the political opposition, civil society, and women.
And then the fourth element is a complete and comprehensive
cease-fire. And you cannot have one without the other, all four
interrelated. And, for example, how would we trust the
counterterrorism guarantees if we do not understand the
government that emerges from an intra-Afghan negotiation. And
so, this process is underway. Ambassador Khalilzad is in
Afghanistan right now working to create, working with partner
President Ghani, and also bringing in the region through his
consultations with Russia, China, the Europeans, and Pakistan
of course.
Mr. Yoho. You know, I hear you on the development and the
things that we want and we want to, you know, empower people,
women, and everybody in society. But again, when you go to a
country that is for thousands of years has never had that and
we are kind of forcing this on them, I think there is--if we
know that people want to become more successful economically,
when we go in and do major infrastructure development--and that
was the impetus behind BUILD Act, so that we could develop
infrastructures that would lead to the development of economies
that create the jobs that bring a better outcome--generally, I
would think you would get more stability.
I mean we have been in Nicaragua, we had a hearing on that
yesterday, with Daniel Ortega, and basically, we are still
trading with this guy and he is a communist dictator by all
practical means, but yet we have--we pretend it is a democracy
and it is anything but. And so, if people do not understand a
democracy, I think they would understand a stable government.
And again, it pains me that we are negotiating with the
Taliban after what, 18 years and billions or trillions of
dollars. I just depend on you with your collective experience
to feel bold enough to say I think we should change the
strategy. And if you cannot do it in the State Department, slip
a note under my office door anonymously and I will be happy to
follow through with this committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. We have many methods of communication with all
of you who work hard in our foreign policy agencies. With that
I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you very much for your testimony. Today it is
nice to see some of you again and some of you for the first
time. My question is for Ambassador Wells and Ms. Steele, most
likely, but I would welcome anybody to answer it. Yesterday, or
probably this morning, because we just got out of the HASC all-
day, 24-hour marathon markup, I was able to successfully
include an amendment in the NDAA that directs the DOD to
conduct research on the role of women in countering violent
extremism.
Given the horrific Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka, can
you talk about the ways that State and USAID are perhaps
working with or using women to help prevent the rise of
extremism in South Asia?
Ms. Wells. This is a very strong component, obviously, of
the peace process in Afghanistan in ensuring that women's
voices and views are incorporated. And so, you see that
Ambassador Khalilzad actively soliciting the views of women,
working with women's organizations in Afghanistan, working with
stakeholders to ensure that women are included as
representatives in any dialog or negotiating structure, this is
reinforced by the White House's own initiative to emphasize
women in peacemaking.
And so there will not be peace in Afghanistan if half the
population is not understood and accommodated, and I would just
add that as we come closer to peace negotiations, the demand
for upholding women's education and women's rights has been so
strong, and not just from women in cities but reports of women
under Taliban control, what they want is education and an
opportunity to work and so getting their voices heard is
critical.
In Sri Lanka, the multi-confessional, multiethnic nature of
that society, you have to have women also reaching across those
boundaries, and so I will let Gloria discuss the range of
programs that we have to do so.
Ms. Steele. Thank you. You are absolutely right. A major
component of our programs not just in Sri Lanka, but also in
the Maldives is mobilizing women, the civil society
particularly involving women, in order to help us address the
root causes of violent extremism in both countries. One of the
first things that we did when we provided assistance in the
Maldives, for instance, was to get civil society together
focusing specially on women and the youth in order to help us
try to address violent extremism. This is a major component of
our programs.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And I certainly look forward to
the opportunity to have the DOD do a little bit of research on
all of our behalves on this issue.
And kind of transitioning into that, on Tuesday the
administration finally released its Women, Peace, and Security
strategy. I think it was about eight or 9 months late. And last
month, I joined many of my colleagues on this committee in
sending a bipartisan letter to Secretary Pompeo urging him to
ensure the representation of Afghan women in peace negotiations
with the Taliban.
So I would like if it is OK, Mr. Chairman, to enter that,
ask for unanimous consent to enter that letter into the record.
Mr. Sherman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Houlahan. And for the Ambassador, I was wondering if
you could tell me a little bit about the status of those
negotiations.
Ms. Wells. Ambassador Khalilzad has made significant
progress in getting the Taliban to the negotiating table. And
not just any Taliban, but an empowered negotiating team that
represents various constituencies of the Taliban and leadership
figures. And in these discussions that have taken place in Doha
and in the discussions that are taking place in Kabul with the
Government of Afghanistan, hammering out those four elements of
what are going to constitute a sustainable peace settlement.
And so the progress is ongoing.
The next step, major step that needs to be taken is to
achieve an intra-Afghan dialog and negotiation. There are
certain things that can be discussed between the United States
and the Taliban that are appropriate, but certainly nothing can
be negotiated over the heads of the Afghan people.
Ms. Houlahan. And you feel as though women are being
included in those early conversations?
Ms. Wells. They are. And both in Ambassador Khalilzad's
extensive outreach, but also in President Ghani's own
solicitation of the views of Afghan women, the role of Afghan
women in the Peace Council. I would note that about a third of
all voters in the parliamentary elections in Afghanistan were
women. We have 69 women members of Parliament. Women are part
and parcel of not just government, but in all aspects of
society now in Afghanistan and it is one of the foremost
achievements of the last 18 years.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And my time has expired and I
yield back.
Mr. Sherman. We move from the gentlelady from Pennsylvania
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panelists
for their attendance today.
Ambassador Wells, I want to turn to India a little bit and
have a discussion regarding our ties--correction--India's ties
with Russia, especially on the military side and particularly
their purchase or acquisition of S-400 surface-to-air missiles,
and if that will result or, in your view, if it will invoke
CAATSA sanctions. And what is India's calculation in receiving
that weaponry from Russia and is there any indication that they
did so because they couldn't get some like kind of capability
from the United States?
Ms. Wells. Thank you. I think we have seen India, over the
years, in particular over the last 10 years, start to diversify
its weapons sources. And so, we, our trade relationship in
defense sector went from zero to 18 billion over the last 18
years and we expect a continued progress in expanding that
defense relationship. But it is still the case that about 65 or
70 percent of India's military hardware is Russian origin. And
when President Putin visited in October of last year, there
were additional announcements of big-ticket military items that
were potentially under consideration.
What causes concerns with the S-400 is that it effectively
could limit India's ability to increase our own
interoperability, that at a certain point a strategic choice
has to be made about partnership and a strategic choice about
what weapons systems and platforms a country is going to adopt.
It is the case that 10 years ago we did not offer the range of
military equipment to India that we are prepared to offer
today, and so we are very much engaged in a conversation with
India over how we can broaden our defense relationship.
And you saw a key step forward last year when the Ministers
of State and Defense met each other, when we negotiated and
signed the COMCASA agreement which allows for the sharing of
classified information, one of these basic foundational
agreements that foster military interoperability. So we are
making, I think, significant strides forward in our military
relationship. There is no blanket waiver or a country waiver
when it comes to an S-400. We have serious concerns about a
possible S-400 purchase and we are continuing our conversations
on what the United States or other defense providers how they
could assist India.
Mr. Perry. Were we aware that they were in negotiation for
the S-400 prior to its acquisition? I mean did we know they
were engaging in that with Russia in advance of the acquisition
and the delivery? I mean, were we in the conversation?
Ms. Wells. We were aware of India and Russia's
negotiations. These have been long-running.
Mr. Perry. I am sure.
Ms. Wells. Many, many years in the making, and so----
Mr. Perry. So what did we do to try and dissuade, and
encourage, dissuade India and encourage them to take a
different path, particularly with the S-400, and did we do
anything to offer any alternatives, or was it and is it
inappropriate to do that at this time?
Ms. Wells. Well, I think under the Trump administration we
have been very clear that we are ready to help meet India's
defense needs and we are seeking a very different kind of
defense partnership, building on the major defense partner
designation that India has received from Congress, and so how
to make that as robust and as meaningful of a relationship as
possible.
You know, we now do more military exercises with India than
with any other country. Just a few weeks ago, India, the United
States, Philippines, and Japan did a sail-by in the South China
Sea. In both our bilateral, trilateral, quadrilateral formats,
we are working together in ways that we did not even conceive
of 10 years ago. And so, we would like all aspects of our
military relationship to catch up to this new partnership.
Mr. Perry. What do you envision the relationship with the
U.S. and India vis-a-vis China, strategically? I mean can you
give us like a 1-2-3 overview of what the State Department
envisions for that relationship or of that relationship vis-a-
vis China?
Ms. Wells. Both the United States and India believe in a
free and open Indo-Pacific region. We believe--so, first, we
are worried about China's ambitions and aggressions as they are
manifesting themselves in the Indo-Pacific. I think, second, we
are concerned by a policy of predatory lending, unsustainable
loans, loans that do not adhere to labor, environmental
standards and loans that have led to, in the Indian Ocean
region, the loss of sovereignty, whether it is in Sri Lanka or
Pakistan or what was about to happen in the Maldives.
And so, I think we have a clear-eyed understanding of the
need for us as like-minded democracies to work with other like-
minded democracies like Japan and Australia to provide
alternatives to countries in the region. We are not trying to
make this a zero-sum game, but countries should as they pursue
necessary infrastructure development not have to go down a road
that is ultimately going to compromise their national security
or their economic well-being.
And we have, through our bilateral and now these
quadrilateral sessions that we are doing with India, Japan, and
Australia, we are working on sort of practical steps that we
can take to coordinate on our finance development, so through
the BUILD Act, the practical steps we can take to make sure our
assistance programs, whether it is USAID or the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, are helping to promote regional
connectivity.
And this is really one of the most exciting elements of the
Indo-Pacific Strategy and where I expect to see a lot of
progress. The President will be meeting with Prime Minister
Modi and Prime Minister Abe in Japan at the G20 and we will
have an opportunity, I think, to again highlight this new
partnership of ours.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Sherman. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am deeply concerned about the degradation of democracy in
Bangladesh. When the people of Bangladesh went to vote in
December, some were turned away. They were told polling
stations were closed for lunch, had run out of ballots, and
that is after reporters noticed that when polls opened some
ballot boxes already appeared full. And that is after the
Government of Bangladesh neglected to provide credentials and
visas to most election monitors.
And I would add that my own constituents who went to
participate in--saw multiple, multiple violations of basic
election procedures. Maybe it is no surprise then that the
Awami League won 96 percent of the seats contested. I think we
need to take these issues very seriously. The government-
appointed Election Commission says the election was legitimate,
but I do not think we can leave it at that.
Ambassador Wells, what is the State Department doing to
support thorough, independent investigations into these
allegations of election fraud? With all due respect, it seems
that we are just moving on.
Ms. Wells. In our human rights report and in our public
statement that followed the elections, we were clear that we
did not consider the elections free and fair, given the
widespread reports of irregularities that you have mentioned
included the ballot box stuffing and the intimidation of
opposition polling agents and voters, and certainly the legal
cases that were brought against opposition candidates in the
lead up to the elections.
We have urged Bangladesh and the independent Election
Commission to investigate these concerns seriously. At the same
time, you know, we see that the six opposition members that
were elected to Parliament have taken their seats and we are
encouraging the opposition to participate fully to demonstrate
that there needs to be, the government needs to have an
opposition body to provide alternatives to, to shine a light on
government practices.
We do not lose sight of the fact that Bangladesh over the
last, you know, years, has made significant strides in lifting
millions of people out of poverty and the government's social
indicators are noteworthy. And that is something to respect,
and it is something to respect that this government has taken
in a million----
Mr. Levin. So that sort of mitigates our protection of
basic democratic norms and procedures or it is a mitigating
factor somehow?
Ms. Wells. No, sir. I do not want to suggest that. I mean
we have been very clear about our view on the election.
Mr. Levin. All right. Well, then let me turn to the
situation with Rohingya. The Government of Bangladesh has
raised the possibility of relocating Rohingya refugees living
in Cox's Bazar to Bhasan Char, an island in the Bay of Bengal.
NGO's have expressed concern about this possibility noting that
access to health care and other basic necessities could be
limited on the island. It is particularly vulnerable to
monsoons, and Yanghee Lee, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for
Myanmar has questioned whether the island is even habitable.
Ms. Steele, what is the administration's position on the
potential relocation of Rohingya refugees to Bhasan Char?
Ms. Steele. We have always informed both the Governments of
Burma and Bangladesh that our position is to support voluntary
returns. Voluntary, safe, and dignified returns to Burma.
In terms of Bhasan Char, we have joined other donors in
saying that we need to have an assessment of the island to make
sure that these are livable and safe for the refugees.
Mr. Levin. How long will such an assessment take?
Ms. Steele. We do not know, and we have been encouraging
donors to come together and continue to put pressure on the
Government of Bangladesh. But as of now, the Government of
Bangladesh has continually, as a result of pressure from the
international community, the Government of Bangladesh has
postponed, repeatedly postponed the movement of the refugees--
--
Mr. Levin. All right, thank you. And let me try to squeeze
in one more question, again, about Bangladesh. As a result of
the security situation there, the State Department has ordered
the departure of families of Department personnel stationed
there. State Department employees do not want to go there and
be separated from their families and it is not a great work
situation.
When does State anticipate allowing families to return to
Bangladesh, Ambassador Wells?
Ms. Wells. Right. It is an ongoing process of reviewing the
security situation and the government's ability to deal with
potential terrorist incidents. The drawdown took place after
the Holey Bakery attack that took place, you know, on the
diplomatic enclave. So as somebody who has to recruit our
officers to Bangladesh, I am keenly interested in being able to
take that step forward when appropriate.
Mr. Levin. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from
Utah.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for
holding this committee. Thank you to our witnesses who have
come today. I would like to switch gears just a little bit to
Nepal and reference the election of 2017 which was a pretty
significant mandate and it seems like there has been some
struggling since then.
And I am going to let you all decide who can best answer
this question. Can you give me an update on our relationship
with that government as the U.S. Government and how that is
going?
Ms. Wells. We have a good, close working relationship with
the Government of Nepal, which, you know, the government has
had--there have been many governments over the last 5 years,
and so the prospect of having an election which brings in a
government for a full term offers a greater stability in
decisionmaking and greater opportunity to move forward.
In addition to the assistance that we provide under USAID,
we have launched with Nepal a Millennium Challenge Corporation
compact, which is you have a $500 million program, the Nepalese
are contributing another 130 million, and it is an
extraordinary sign, a signal of confidence in Nepal to
demonstrate that working with Nepal we can create conditions of
good governance that will help serve as a model for other
foreign direct investment.
In addition to the assistance, we have Peace Corps
volunteers who have been in Nepal for over 70 years. We are
growing our defense relationship focused on disaster assistance
and humanitarian relief. We provided over $190 million in
earthquake relief and continue to play a very important role in
helping that government develop the housing standards and the
retrofitting. So it is a robust relationship that is nOt just
limited government to government, but really enjoys a strong
people to people basis.
Mr. Curtis. That is good. You talked a little bit earlier
about China and relationship with some of these countries. We
are worried about that as well and their acceptance of China's
Belt and Road Initiative. It seems like we are going down the
same path there with China with the predatory lending. Can you
speak to that? And is the Millennium Challenge helping with
that or what else can we be doing to change that course?
Ms. Wells. We certainly discuss with the leadership and we
had the Foreign Minister and Foreign Secretary here over the
last several months to have partnership dialogs. We discussed
with the leadership the concerns over predatory lending, the
options that are available, whether it is through foreign
direct investment where American companies are most active.
Obviously, Nepal has a very close relationship with India which
has a major role to play in Nepal and is Nepal's largest
trading partner. So it is a subject of conversation and
certainly Nepal is aware of our concerns.
Mr. Curtis. Is that enough to keep them from going down
that path and do we need to be doing more? I know that is a
tough question and probably applies to the entire world, right?
Ms. Wells. Well, it is interesting. Recently there was a
joint U.S.-Chinese project in Nepal, a private sector project,
a tunneling project, and that was what we sought to highlight
to the government. When--it does not matter whether it is
Chinese, Indian, you know, whoever is the lender, if the
project is transparent, if it is competitively bid, if it meets
international standards, we support it.
Mr. Curtis. Sure.
Ms. Wells. You know, Nepal needs infrastructure. But
everyone needs to be careful about the terms that
infrastructure is offered on.
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele. Thank you. Nepal is one of our biggest target
countries under the Indo-Pacific Strategy and through our
assistance in the Indo-Pacific Strategy we were working with
the government in order to address and prioritize the use of
their public finances so that they can be more productive. We
are helping them to generate revenue through better tax
administration. We are helping them to improve the business
processes in order to be able to attract more legitimate
private enterprise investments so that they do not fall prey to
the what, the offerings of others that would make them go into
a long-term, unsustainable debt.
So that is what we are doing with them, and we are hoping
that they will be able to improve their competitiveness and
address their corruption, which is a major issue for how
countries fall under the debt trap.
Mr. Curtis. I am pleased to hear that. I applaud those
efforts and hope we can continue those and do even more and
that you will continue to let Congress know what our role is in
that. I think many of my colleagues are also very interested in
that.
Ms. Steele. I think the support that you have given on both
sides through the Indo-Pacific Strategy is very encouraging and
a very strong impetus for us to be able to move and achieve the
goals and objectives of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Mr. Sherman. I will now recognize the gentlelady from
Virginia.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ambassador Wells, I have a question for you. According to
the State Department's Congressional Budget Justification book
for Fiscal Year 2020, they write, ``India's emergence as a
regional security provider and global leader is essential to
advancing U.S. interests.'' However, in June 2019, the White
House formally ended concessions for India under the
Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, which exempted Indian
goods worth more than 6 billion from import duties. This move
came in the context of ongoing tensions over U.S. imposition of
steel and aluminum tariffs.
I am curious if you could speak a little bit about what
this impact is, how you think this GSP decision will impact our
strategic relationship with India, and how the State Department
is adjusting our foreign policy and engagement strategy because
of it.
Ms. Wells. We have a multifaceted relationship with India
and, you know, on the whole, this is a partnership that is
moving forward that is, it is the centerpiece, really, of an
Indo-Pacific Strategy, and Secretary Pompeo spoke to that
yesterday in his public remarks. It does not mean we do not
have frictions. And one of the frictions, historically, has
been on trade, on tariff barriers. India has the highest tariff
barriers of a G20 country; historically, it has been a
protected market. And so, our failure to negotiate an agreement
over the course of the last year, year and a half, led to the
decision to suspend the GSP benefits.
And that said, when you look at the trade relationship, we
have 142 billion trade relationship. It increased 12 percent
last year. U.S. exports increased 28 percent. The trade deficit
went down 11 percent, you know, to 24 billion. So, you know, we
see India making strategic purchases of, you know, of defense
industry or defense weaponry, of aviation, of energy. This is
going to very much be at the top of the agenda when Secretary
Pompeo visits India later this month.
Ms. Spanberger. Do we have any concerns or should we be
concerned that both the steel and aluminum tariffs and the GSP
decision together could potentially push India closer to its
cooperation with China, Russia, or even potentially Iran?
Ms. Wells. I do not think so, no. I mean we are India's
largest and best market, you know, 20 percent of India's goods
come here. There is Indian foreign direct investment in the
United States. There is huge interest by U.S. firms in India.
As Prime Minister Modi begins his second term, you know, he is
preoccupied with job creation, and attracting foreign direct
investment is going to be a key part of that strategy.
So, you know, trade properly, you know, conducted can be a
huge strength to the relationship and that is certainly our
focus as we begin our engagement with Prime Minister Modi in
his second term is how do we, you know, affix this part of the
relationship so it better matches the positive trajectory we
see in other areas.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you. And recognizing some of the
challenges and certainly may be a uptick in some difficulties,
in your opinion, is there anything else that Congress could be
doing, could be assisting in to ensure that we are retaining
and building upon the relationship, this already strong
relationship that we have with India?
Ms. Wells. I think congressional support for the India-U.S.
relationship has been extraordinary, you know, and the
designation of India as a major defense partner, the bipartisan
support that the relationship enjoys, has been critical and
will continue to be critical. I mean this is a relationship
where, you know, we have four million Indian Americans who also
provide great ballast to the relationship and perspective on
the relationship. And so I would just say please keep on
providing that, that bipartisan consensus that we should be
moving forward with India.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Ambassador Wells. And I thank
the other witnesses for being here today and I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. We will now go to a second round. I
believe everyone here has asked one round of questions.
Ms. Wells, or Ambassador Wells, I did not promise you you
get by with just one round. The current Sri Lankan Government
came to power with overwhelming support in the Tamil community.
The government has disappointed many in the Tamil community as
far as its dedication to justice, peace, and reconciliation.
There is little movement on a Federal constitution giving
autonomy to the Tamil regions. And of course, much more needs
to be done on accountability for human rights violations that
have occurred during the civil war and especially its last
phases.
The Sri Lankan military--and this is probably the most
important aspect, continue to hold on to civilian lands in
Tamil areas, and of course the longer that is delayed--the
longer they delay the return of that land, the more likely it
is that the military occupation becomes permanent. What, you
know, will we continue to press the Government of Sri Lanka on
these issues of reconciliation with the Tamil community, and
especially the need for the military to give up land that it is
occupying?
Ms. Wells. Yes. And we invited the Sri Lankan Foreign
Minister and Foreign Secretary here to Washington for a
strategic dialog and that was very much a part of the dialog.
We welcome the fact that Sri Lanka, you know, has co-sponsored
the U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution extending the
international monitoring of its commitments to human rights,
reconciliation, justice, and accountability. The progress has
been slower than we would like to see.
Mr. Sherman. I will count on you to continue to make that a
priority for us.
What level of aid have we provided for the Rohingya
refugees in Bangladesh? Yes, Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele. The total amount of funding for the Rohingyas
both in Burma and Bangladesh is approximately $500 million to
date, starting in 2017.
Mr. Sherman. So that is 500 million a year?
Ms. Steele. No, 500 million----
Mr. Sherman. Total.
Ms. Steele [continuing]. Since 2017.
Mr. Sherman. Since 2017, so the--and with the
administration budget request what would it be of the coming
fiscal year?
Ms. Steele. A significant amount of the funding that goes
through the Rohingya is humanitarian assistance which is not
included in the budget that you have reviewed.
Mr. Sherman. Ah. It is not included in the----
Ms. Steele. In the budget that we are discussing. It is,
for instance, for USAID it is part of our Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance.
Mr. Sherman. Right.
Ms. Steele. And Food for Peace, which is separate from the
budget that we----
Mr. Sherman. I realize it is outside the purview of your
agency. Do you happen to know what it is? Can you give us a
number or----
Ms. Steele. Oh, I am not aware of what the number is for--
--
Mr. Sherman. OK, so we will have to----
Ms. Steele [continuing]. For budget outside of my bureau.
Mr. Sherman [continuing]. We will have to put it together.
Obviously, Bangladesh is a poor country and has taken in people
that would otherwise be not only ethnically cleansed but
subject to genocide. And I realize that--well, I believe,
Ambassador Wells, your purview does not extend to Myanmar
Burma? No.
But the question I have, and I guess this affects your
purview, is whether the United States will take the position
that if the Government of Burma, Myanmar does not extend
citizenship and protection to the Rohingya who were born there
that we would support the transfer of North Rakhine State to
Bangladeshi sovereignty. That is right on the border,
literally, of your jurisdiction.
Ms. Wells. Well, I will not speak for my colleagues, but I
think it is a traditional position of State Department that we
support the territorial integrity of countries and the
sovereignty of countries.
Mr. Sherman. But when the people of South Sudan were
subject to horrific treatment by the Khartoum government, we
were in effect the midwives for the creation of an independent
South Sudan. And I will not say that that has worked out well,
but we did support the creation of an independent State when a
government in Khartoum could not.
Ms. Wells. Right. What we have focused on is, you know, can
we get the conditions in Myanmar so you can have Rohingya go
and look and see what their neighborhoods look like. Are the
conditions such that they have confidence in returning, you
know, how can we----
Mr. Sherman. And is citizenship and passports part of that?
Ms. Wells. The U.N. Report recommendations listed, you
know, citizenship as one of the key issues that would help
restore confidence. I think right now, you know, the Rohingya
would like to return home if the conditions support a dignified
return. And for those countries that are working in Myanmar and
supporting the Myanmar Government, is how do we get the Myanmar
Government to create those conditions.
Mr. Sherman. Yes. I would say if the Myanmar Government
does not announce that it is dedicated to the protection of
these people and the issuance of citizenship documents, that we
alter our position and call for the transfer of North Rakhine
State to a country that will protect these people. This is
their land. They have lived there for generations. And they
have been subject to, I think, cleansing, and one might say
attempted genocide.
Certainly, if you lay that out compared to the facts of
South Sudan, a change in international borders would be called
for. Keep in mind, the government of Khartoum never denied the
citizenship of the people of South Sudan.
I will turn to Ms. Steele. What steps can USAID and the
State Department take to partner with the charitable efforts of
the South Asia diaspora community in the United States to help
the people of South Asia? How can you work with the large and
generous diaspora community?
Ms. Steele. We have been working with them, in particular
with the Indian diaspora, in order to identify areas where we
could work together. And they have the same interests as we do
in addressing, for instance, the health issues and air
pollution issues in the country. India--well, I met with a
diaspora group of the Indian diaspora group recently, and they
had expressed deep concern over the fact that India has the
highest TB rate in the world. One-sixth of maternal and child
mortality happens in India, and some of the high--most polluted
cities in the world are in India.
And so we have agreed to work together. Our proposed plan
to create a foundation, the U.S.-India Development Foundation,
using Indian private sector is intended to capitalize and
mobilize on Indian resources to address our joint interests in
development.
Mr. Sherman. I thank you. And we often hear in Washington
of public-private partnerships. When I hear that phrase I get
concerned that maybe the deal is too good for private investors
seeking a profit, but in the case we are talking about here, we
are talking about a public-private partnership with charitable
intent.
And with that I will recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you for the second round, Mr. Chairman.
If we go back to Afghanistan, if a deal is struck with the
Taliban, what concerns do you have with regard to the progress
we have made on the rights of Afghan women? And I want to kind
of focus this again on, you know, we always stress building
democracies versus let's build a stable government, and if we
build a stable government we can progress into these things and
think a lot quicker.
So I would like to hear, Ms. Steele, if you want to answer
that.
Ms. Steele. I do not cover Afghanistan, Congressman. I
would like to defer to----
Mr. Yoho. I am sorry. I am sorry.
Ms. Freeman?
Ms. Freeman. Those proud women are in my jurisdiction.
USAID has had a history since the early years, in fact, the
entrance into Afghanistan of working very closely with the
women of Afghanistan in supporting their advancement. It is
amazing to look back at 2001 when they had no access to
education, to private sector, anything, and now in 2018 when we
can look at--I recently attended a trade show in India that was
between Afghanistan and India and, there, women attended and
they were able to cut $500 million in contracts.
Mr. Yoho. That trade show was in India?
Ms. Freeman. Yes.
Mr. Yoho. And there were women from Afghanistan?
Ms. Freeman. There were, indeed. And their attendance,
their participation really highlighted their experience, the
increase in their capabilities and how much they shine outside
in the business world. Currently, we have been able to leverage
about $3.2 million in private sectors loans to about over 1,700
women.
Mr. Yoho. What are the results of that? What kind of loans?
Are they creating businesses?
Ms. Freeman. These are new business loans, exactly, to----
Mr. Yoho. Are they becoming successful businesses?
Ms. Freeman. Indeed, they are. And we have been working
with them with the Women's Chamber there in Kabul and to expand
their access to not only financing, but also in terms of
leveraging their ability to raise their voices and speak their
concerns to the government as well.
Mr. Yoho. Has the tolerance of the Taliban toward women in
society, education, has that improved since we all remember how
they came in and--I remember that one young girl that got shot
in the eye as a signal that they do not want women being
educated. Has their outlook changed on women becoming educated,
women being involved in business?
Ms. Freeman. I would highly doubt it, but I would----
Mr. Yoho. Me too.
Ms. Freeman [continuing]. Cede to my colleague.
Ms. Wells. The Taliban say that their views on education
have changed and the proof is going to be in looking at the
areas that they control or dominate and what is the situation
there, and you see a variety of practices. You do see girls'
schools operating. In some conservative places they do not. In
some places they have more of a religious education. They
divert from the curriculum of the Ministry of Education.
But in the conversations that the Taliban are having with
us and with other like-minded countries, they emphasize the
fact that their views have evolved when it comes to education
and working outside the house.
Mr. Yoho. Let me ask you this then. What concerns do you
have with the elements of the Taliban splintering off from the
group and aligning themselves with ISIS and how is that going
to affect the progress that we have made if we do not have a
stable government there?
Ms. Wells. It is certainly a possibility for members of the
Taliban to hive off and join ISIS. Some members already have.
And that is why it is going to be critical that any peace
agreement contain those guarantees----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Ms. Wells [continuing]. By the Taliban that they are
opposed to any terrorist presence and will combat any terrorist
presence on Afghanistan soil.
Mr. Yoho. Well, that is why I keep bringing up, you know, I
think our focus should be on a stable government, because look
at South Korea after the Korean conflict. It wasn't what we
would call a democracy, but after a short period of time once
they started gravitating that way, they are our sixth largest
trading partner today.
I look at Vietnam after the Vietnam War, you know, we went
in there to prevent communism. It is a communist country, but
yet today it is a vibrant, market economy and we see baby steps
moving in the right direction for human rights. You know, we
cannot expect them to get to where we are at after our 200-year
struggle and we still do not have it right.
So if we focus on those things that we know will stabilize
a government: rule of law, honor it in contracts basic human
rights, drawing them this way. As the people become more to
experience liberty and freedom, I think then you will see the
changes that we want versus trying to push it the other way
that causes the resentment in governments or groups like the
Taliban.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back and thank you for the second
round. Thank you all.
Mr. Sherman. You are free to leave.
[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. | S000244 | 8218 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | WI | 116 | 1041 |
| Smith, Christopher H. | S000522 | 8046 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 116 | 1071 |
| Meeks, Gregory W. | M001137 | 8067 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 1506 |
| Sherman, Brad | S000344 | 7832 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 1526 |
| Wilson, Joe | W000795 | 8142 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | SC | 116 | 1688 |
| Costa, Jim | C001059 | 7825 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 1774 |
| McCaul, Michael T. | M001157 | 8166 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 1804 |
| Sires, Albio | S001165 | 8055 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 116 | 1818 |
| Chabot, Steve | C000266 | 8091 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 116 | 186 |
| Titus, Dina | T000468 | 7493 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NV | 116 | 1940 |
| Connolly, Gerald E. | C001078 | 8202 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | VA | 116 | 1959 |
| Deutch, Theodore E. | D000610 | 7891 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 1976 |
| Bass, Karen | B001270 | 7838 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 1996 |
| Kinzinger, Adam | K000378 | 7931 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2014 |
| Keating, William R. | K000375 | 7975 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 116 | 2025 |
| Cicilline, David N. | C001084 | 8139 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | RI | 116 | 2055 |
| Bera, Ami | B001287 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2102 | |
| Vargas, Juan | V000130 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2112 | |
| Yoho, Ted S. | Y000065 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2115 | |
| Yoho, Ted S. | Y000065 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2115 | |
| Wagner, Ann | W000812 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 116 | 2137 | |
| Perry, Scott | P000605 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 2157 | |
| Castro, Joaquin | C001091 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2163 | |
| Lieu, Ted | L000582 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2230 | |
| Buck, Ken | B001297 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | CO | 116 | 2233 | |
| Zeldin, Lee M. | Z000017 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2261 | |
| Mast, Brian J. | M001199 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2322 | |
| Rooney, Francis | R000607 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2323 | |
| Espaillat, Adriano | E000297 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2342 | |
| Fitzpatrick, Brian K. | F000466 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 2345 | |
| Gonzalez, Vicente | G000581 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2349 | |
| Curtis, John R. | C001114 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | UT | 116 | 2363 | |
| Wild, Susan | W000826 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 2374 | |
| Pence, Greg | P000615 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 116 | 2401 | |
| Watkins, Steve | W000824 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 116 | 2402 | |
| Trone, David J. | T000483 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 116 | 2406 | |
| Levin, Andy | L000592 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 116 | 2408 | |
| Omar, Ilhan | O000173 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 116 | 2414 | |
| Guest, Michael | G000591 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 116 | 2416 | |
| Malinowski, Tom | M001203 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 116 | 2421 | |
| Houlahan, Chrissy | H001085 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 2433 | |
| Reschenthaler, Guy | R000610 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 2436 | |
| Burchett, Tim | B001309 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TN | 116 | 2440 | |
| Wright, Ron | W000827 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2446 | |
| Allred, Colin Z. | A000376 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2451 | |
| Spanberger, Abigail Davis | S001209 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | VA | 116 | 2456 | |
| Engel, Eliot L. | E000179 | 8078 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 344 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.