[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND
EURASIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-170
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-459 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida--resigned 1/27/ GRACE MENG, New York
14 deg. LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida
LUKE MESSER, Indiana--resigned 5/
20/14 noon deg.
SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin--
added 5/29/14 noon deg.
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PAUL COOK, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Daniel Rosenblum, Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe
and Eurasia, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 4
Mr. Jonathan Katz, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Europe and Eurasia, U.S. Agency for International Development.. 17
Ms. Denise Rollins, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development................ 24
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Daniel Rosenblum: Prepared statement......................... 7
Mr. Jonathan Katz: Prepared statement............................ 19
Ms. Denise Rollins: Prepared statement........................... 26
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 44
Hearing minutes.................................................. 45
REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2015
BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND
EURASIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I call this hearing of the Europe,
Eurasia, and Emerging Threats subcommittee to order. This
hearing is entitled, ``Reviewing the Administration's Fiscal
Year 2015 Budget Request for Europe and Eurasia.
Now, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit
additional written questions or extraneous materials for the
record.
The President has asked that Congress authorize over $50
billion for international affairs programs for the next fiscal
year. Over $620 million of that is allotted for countries in
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. This request comes at a
time when our Government's debt is over $16 trillion and
rising, rising at $500 billion more in debt every year.
At a time when our own country's economy continues to
struggle, Congress has a duty to scrutinize this
administration's request, and the request to provide the
development assistance, and foreign aid to other countries is
certainly something that we need to look at closely. Western
Europe is often cited as one of the greatest examples of U.S.
foreign assistance success.
After World War II, the Marshall Plan delivered $13 billion
to help rebuild a shattered Europe and prevent the advance of
Communism. As much as American aid dollars helped to relieve
suffering, it was implemented in a way that connected it to a
larger U.S. grand strategy, so we were not only helping others
but involved with our overall global strategy.
Furthermore, the German Government took upon itself to
conduct reforms that removed extensive price controls and other
restrictions on trade, production, and the distribution of
goods, and those efforts on the part of the German Government
did much to rebuild that economy. The success of the Marshall
Plan highlights two key aspects for our international affairs
efforts. First, any aid must be linked to a strategy and part
of a coherent vision that serves our country's national
interest. Second, true and sustainable development grows not
from foreign assistance but from systematic economic reform.
Economies grow when the rule of law is established, corruption
is reduced, taxes are low, markets are open, and trade is free.
I believe that our aid programs today fail to adequately
appreciate these two attributes and too often resemble
charitable handouts. Let me note, there is a grave distinction
between humanitarian assistance and development aid.
Of course, we should be ready to respond to natural
disasters, earthquakes, and the likes. However, development
funds can't work if the recipient countries do not undertake
sound economic reforms. The role of government assistance is
not to replace private investment. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses about how more than $600 million has been
requested and how this furthers America's strategic interest
and is effectively encouraging countries to reform their own
economies so that private capital can lift their people out of
poverty.
With that, I turn to my ranking member, Congressman
Keating, for his opening statement.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important hearing today, and I want to welcome Mr.
Rosenblum, Mr. Katz, and Ms. Rollins, who each have extensive
experience in Europe and Eurasia.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union over two decades
ago, the United States has worked to promote stability,
democracy, and prosperity in Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia.
Our assistance efforts have supported the growth of civil
society and independent media and have worked to establish
societies where rule of law, accountable governance, and
fundamental human rights prevail.
Importantly, we have worked together with our European
partners to help these countries on their self-determination
path toward Westernvalues and institutions.
Today, Russia's efforts to destabilize Ukraine and other
former Soviet states threaten to undermine our collective
effort to build a Europe whole, free, and at peace. Russia's
illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea and its subsequent
covert support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine have inflamed
tensions throughout the entire region. Regrettably, Russia's
engagement in similar activities in Georgia, Moldova, and even
the Baltics, in flagrant violation of Russia's own
international commitments, have undermined the sovereignty of
these countries and unnecessarily increased the risk of
conflict. These actions must not be allowed to stand.
I am pleased that our partners, too, have shown they will
not back down from aggression. This week, Ukraine, Georgia, and
Moldova are signing association agreements with the European
Union, and in doing so, they are making clear that their future
lies in strong ties with the West. When these countries
realize, as does the European Union, that the European
integration is not a zero sum game, they realize the importance
of close and productive ties with their regional neighbors,
including Russia. In fact, I would argue that closer
association with the EU is also in Russia's long-term interest.
Ironically, Russia's actions in Eastern Europe ultimately
do the Russian people more harm than they do good. That is why
today's hearing is so important. We need to support these
countries as they work together to build prosperous European
democracies. In that light, I look forward to discussing the
administration's plans to reinvest the liquidation proceeds
from the Western Newly Independent States Enterprise fund in
Ukraine, also known as West NIS. Recent events in Ukraine show
the population is no longer willing to tolerate corruption and
crony capitalism that have permeated Ukraine's politics for the
past two decades.
In the spirit of a fresh start, it makes sense to reinvest
proceeds from the West NIS in Ukraine at zero cost to the
American taxpayers, so we can help Ukraine's pro-reform
government stabilize their financial sector, improve the
business climate and attract foreign investment, all of which
will increase prosperity and all of which will promote
stability.
I also look forward to hearing from our experts about our
strategies for continued engagement in the region, not just in
Eastern Europe but also in the Balkans, Central Asia, and
Ireland. No matter what country or region we are discussing, it
is essential that the United States stands for the rule of law,
democracy, and human rights. While we continue to have strong
allies in Europe and Eurasia, we cannot take these important
relationships for granted. I support a foreign affairs budget
that is focused on continuing support for these relationships
and ensuring that peace and democracy are allowed to flower.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thank you, and we have been joined by
Congressman Lowenthal.
Do you have a 1-minute opening statement or anything you
would like to say? But you have to push the button.
Mr. Lowenthal. I will do a 1-minute opening statement.
First, I am pleased, thank you for holding this hearing,
Chairman Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Keating. I just want to
say that I, along with other--Chairman Royce and Ranking Member
Engel, just before the May 25th election in early May, visited
the Ukraine, and we are very glad to see the May 25th election.
One of the things I was struck with was things that were--a
number of things that Ranking Member Keating mentioned, issues
around corruption, issues around how you unite Eastern--and
what conditions we place on our foreign aid and our resources.
Some of the issues that I was most concerned about was the
disconnect between Eastern and Western Ukraine, some of the
issues around reform that the government needed to do in terms
of decentralization and more attention to the Russian heritage
in folks from Eastern Ukraine, who felt that much of their--
that they were being denied attention, and if there was going
to be one Ukraine, the importance of bringing back all parts of
that country.
Mr. Poroshenko made a commitment to doing that, and--but he
also made a commitment to moving toward the EU, and I think
that when we were there, anyway, there was a lack of Russian
language broadcast by the Ukrainians, and into Eastern Ukraine
what was coming in was only from Russia, and so the people were
only hearing one side, and there was that disconnect. And to
bring people together, it is going to mean that all parts of
the country, just as we see in Iraq and others, all segments
have to be part of that government, and so I would just like to
see how our foreign aid really advances democracy in Ukraine.
Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lowenthal.
And we have three witnesses today, and I will be reading
their biographies and presenting that.
But I would request that as we move into the time of the
testimony, that you would give us your summary in about 5
minutes, and the rest, of course, can go into the record.
We first have Daniel Rosenblum, who is the State Department
coordinator for U.S. assistance to Europe and Eurasia. He
oversees U.S. aid to over 30 countries, mostly in the former
Soviet Union. His office coordinates those programs across more
than a dozen U.S. Government agencies.
Previously, Mr. Rosenblum was--served as director of the
FREEDOM Support Act Division and the deputy coordinator for
that same office. Before coming to the State Department, Mr.
Rosenblum spent 6 years as a senior program coordinator at the
Free Trade Union Institute of the AFL/CIO. He has a BA in
history from Yale and an MA in Soviet studies and international
economics from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies.
And we have Mr. Jonathan Katz, who we have worked with over
the years, and been on this side of the aisle--or this side of
the table and that side of the table as he has worked as a
USAID's deputy assistance administrator for Europe and Eurasia,
was appointed to his current post in March of this year.
Previously, he served as a senior advisor to the assistant
secretary of state and the Bureau of International
Organizations Affairs. Katz joined the State Department 2010
after working, as I say, here on Capitol Hill for 13 years as a
staff director, minority staff director for this very same
subcommittee, and he also served as legislative director for
Congressman Robert Wexler, who we miss. He is a graduate of
Syracuse University.
Finally, we have Ms. Denise Rollins, also from USAID. She
is acting assistant administrator for the Asia Bureau. Before
assuming her current role, she was a senior director--or deputy
assistant administrator since 2011, that organization. Ms.
Rollins has served as USAID's mission director in Bangladesh
and deputy missions director in South Africa. Before joining
USAID, she worked as a legislative assistant to two Members of
Congress. Ms. Rollins received a master's of international
public policy degree from Johns Hopkins University and a
bachelor in arts degree in economics from Howard University. I
would like to welcome our witnesses.
And Mr. Rosenblum, you may proceed, and we will then ask
questions of the entire group after all the testimonies have
been given.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL ROSENBLUM, COORDINATOR OF U.S.
ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE AND EURASIA, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND
EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Rosenblum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks very much. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member
Keating, Mr. Lowenthal, thank you all for inviting us to
testify today on the Fiscal Year 2015 budget request for
Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia.
For more than two decades, the U.S. has been working to
support political and economic reform in the formerly Communist
states of Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
During that entire period, successive administrations have
received strong bipartisan support for this effort, backed up
by generous appropriations totalling $25.4 billion over that
25-year period under the SEED and FREEDOM Support Acts.
I want to start today by directly answering the question
posed by the chairman in his statement that announced today's
hearing. The question was, is our aid to this region being used
in a fiscally responsible manner that helps to put nations on a
path to where that aid is no longer needed? The answer, in my
humble opinion, is yes. From the very beginning of our work in
the post-Communist region, the basic philosophy has been, our
job is to work ourselves out of a job. We want to help
countries get to the point where they no longer require
development aid, and if you look at the track record, it is
pretty good. There are some real successes.
Eleven countries have graduated from development
assistance. All of them are now aid donors themselves. All of
them are members of the European Union and NATO. Other
countries in the Western Balkans continue to make significant
progress toward EU and NATO membership. A few countries in
Eurasia and in Central Asia have also made substantial progress
toward establishing free market economies and democratic
political systems, and if we have time later in today's
hearing, I would like to tell you more about how we measure
these trends and how we determine when it is time to phase out
assistance.
But my main message for the subcommittee today is that the
goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace isn't achieved and
our work isn't done. I have outlined the remaining challenges
in more detail in my written testimony, and Mr. Chairman, I ask
permission that it appear in the hearing record.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection.
Mr. Rosenblum. Our requested budget for Europe, Eurasia,
and Central Asia is $625.3 million, a decrease of nearly 17
percent, or $125 million as compared to Fiscal Year 2013, 2
fiscal years ago. I should note that this budget was finalized
before the onset of the Ukraine crisis. Since that crisis
began, the U.S. has provided Ukraine a $1-billion loan
guarantee and has redirected approximately $131 million in
crisis-related assistance to augment our regular bilateral
budget. This was done by redirecting previously appropriated
Fiscal Year 2013 and Fiscal Year 2014 funds from various other
regional and global pots.
We have not requested any additional funds from Congress to
date. In Fiscal Year 2015, our strong interest in bolstering
stability, sovereignty, and reform in Ukraine and other
countries in the region will likely require adjustments to what
we proposed nearly 5 months ago in the budget request,
potentially including adjustments to overall levels.
Based on Appropriations Committee action in both House and
Senate this week, it appears that Congress agrees with this
assessment and may provide enhanced funding for this region. We
look forward to final congressional action on Fiscal Year 2015
funding measures, and at that time, of course, we will be
consulting with this committee and other committees on any
proposed adjustments from what we requested for Fiscal Year
2015.
So let me briefly, in the time remaining, outline five
strategic objectives for our assistance to the region. First,
we aim to enhance sovereignty, including the right of countries
in the region to choose their own political and economic
relationships. This is playing out today most dramatically in
Ukraine, but it is an element in our assistant strategy
throughout the region. In Central Asia, for example, we are
helping countries in the region develop a diverse set of
energy, trade, and transport linkages under the New Silk Road
initiative.
Second, we are supporting greater European integration for
countries that seek it. This Friday, in Brussels, Moldova and
Georgia will sign association agreements and deep and
comprehensive free trade agreements with the EU. Ukraine will
sign the remaining economic chapters of its association
agreement. Many of our programs are helping these countries
meet the necessary standards to implement these agreements.
Third, we are working to help countries throughout the
region take meaningful steps to root out corruption and shore
up rule of law. We have seen that rampant corruption is like a
cancer that drains economic vitality and undermines faith in
democratic institutions. In the Western Balkans, we have seen
some limited process in the context of the EU accession
process, while in Eurasia and Central Asia serious challenges
remain often due to a lack of the requisite political will to
tackle the problem.
Fourth, we are working to reverse the worrying trend of
democratic backsliding. Our assistance aims at empowering those
who seek to preserve and expand democratic principles, whether
in independent media, the justice sector, democratic political
parties, or other parts of civil society. Where possible, we
seek to engage with government institutions that are open to
reform.
Fifth and finally, we are also supporting efforts to tackle
broader security issues and transnational threats, ethnic
tensions, protracted conflicts, infectious disease, organized
crime, and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. The
President's Fiscal Year 2015 request recognizes that even in a
constrained budget environment, we can still utilize foreign
assistance to advance U.S. national interests in Europe,
Eurasia, and Central Asia.
Going forward, we plan to maintain our 25-year tradition of
working with Congress in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the
resources that the American people provide for this purpose are
being used in the most efficient and effective way possible to
support stability, prosperity, and democracy in the region.
Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenblum follows:]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Katz.
STATEMENT OF MR. JONATHAN KATZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
BUREAU FOR EUROPE AND EURASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Katz. Mr. Chairman, it is especially--it is special for
me to be here before the committee today, so we appreciate the
opportunity. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You are in the hot seat now.
Mr. Katz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Keating, members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify
regarding the administration's Fiscal Year 2015 budget request
for Europe and Eurasia. American foreign assistance is a vital
tool in our effort to realize the U.S. foreign policy goal of a
Europe whole, free, and at peace. To achieve this goal in an
era of shrinking budgets, we are focused on strategic areas of
U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia.
The majority of assistance requested for the region will be
targeted to support democratic, economic, justice sector, and
other reforms, particularly those necessary for Euro-Atlantic
integration. As the chairman and as the ranking member
highlighted, over the past two decades, we have witnessed
significant progress toward these goals, and many countries in
Europe have embraced political and economic reform, leading to
vibrant growth and inspired democratic transformations.
From USAID's 24 original partner countries in Europe and
Eurasia, as Dan pointed out, 11 have graduated from our
assistance, 17 have joined the WTO, 11 have acceded to the EU,
and 12 have joined NATO. The 11 countries that have graduated
from our assistance are some of our strongest allies and are
now providing economic assistance to other countries in the
region.
Despite these advances, the work is far from complete,
gains are tenuous, and much remains to be done to make progress
sustainable. We are working to assist those countries and
people from Sarajevo to Tbilisi to Kiev, that seek to move
forward on a path to an even greater Euro-Atlantic integration,
democracy, and progress.
In Europe and Eurasia, serious challenges remain, including
democratic backsliding, gradual financial sectors, high
unemployment, infectious diseases, ethnic violence and tension,
frozen conflicts, energy insecurity, and corruption, which was
mentioned a number of times. Perhaps most notably, external
pressures destabilize Ukraine and others in the region,
threatening economic and political development across the
former Soviet space.
Our Fiscal Year 2015 request for Europe and Eurasia
addresses continuing and emergent U.S. policy objectives while
also recognizing budget constraints here in Washington. Our
assistance is focused on two main objectives, to continue to
promote democracy and economic reform in Europe and Eurasia and
to strengthen democracy, governance rule of law, and economic
growth. One of our core objectives across the region is to
promote civic--citizen engagement and strength in civil society
to mitigate backsliding on democratic reforms and economic
development.
Ukraine offers a prime example of how USAID support for
civil society and media groups helps stop or limit government
pressure and freedom of expression and association. Our media
programs played a critical role in monitoring and reporting on
attacks on journalists and on government actions throughout the
Euromaidan protests.
Looking ahead, USAID will continue to play a pivotal role
as we work to sustain and strengthen cooperation between
Ukrainian civil society and Ukrainian Government. Already
strong cooperation between civil society and the government has
led to historic reforms over the past 4 months, but that
progress needs to continue.
I want to further highlight our assistance to Ukraine.
Since 1992, USAID has had a longstanding multifaceted
engagement, focused on a more stable, democratic, and
prosperous Ukraine, including on programs to promote economic
reforms, support more democratic accountable governance, and
combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Recent events in Ukraine,
including the election of President Poroshenko and the response
of the United States to them remain critical not only to
Ukraine's future but the region's future as well.
The U.S. is working with our international partners today
to maximize and leverage assistance, provide urgently need
support to Ukraine's people and economy. Our approach in
Ukraine is to support the goals and aspirations of all the
people of Ukraine for piece, prosperity, freedom, and human
dignity, what so many Ukrainians are demanding the Maidan.
Fiscal Year 2015 U.S. Bilateral assistance package is
focused on meeting Ukraine's most pressing need and helping
Ukraine make needed reforms. USAID's assistance will focus on
four areas, which Dan mentioned, strengthen Ukraine's economy
and promoting growth, support for constitutional reforms,
national unity, confidence and confidence building measures,
and help to diversify Ukraine's trade and reduce its energy
dependence, as well as to support a fight against corruption.
Just last week, I joined USAID administrator Dr. Rashad in Kiev
to announce an additional $10 million in USAID funding that
will be largely used to help Ukraine fight corruption.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Keating, members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for this opportunity. The U.S.
has a long track record of successful assistance to countries
in Europe and Eurasia, but as the events of the last several
months have demonstrated, there is much work to be done in this
region. The Fiscal Year 2015 request will enable us to remain
engaged in providing U.S. assistance in Europe and Eurasia at
this critical moment. I will end there and look forward to
answer any questions that you have. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Katz follows:]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Rollins.
STATEMENT OF MS. DENISE ROLLINS, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Rollins. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Keating, and Mr. Lowenthal, I
am delighted to be here today to testify alongside my
colleagues here on the administration's 2015 budget for Central
Asia. This afternoon I wanted to share with you our perspective
on the vital role of USAID's development programs in
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan in addressing regional challenges and advancing
American interests.
More than 20 years after the region first opened its doors
to international engagement, American involvement provides
balance as well as choice for a disparate collection of
countries that face ever more complex challenges in determining
their own futures. These challenges will become even more
formidable during the next 5 years or so against the backdrop
of uncertainty in Afghanistan. Rising geopolitical interest of
Russia, growing Chinese influence and looming political
transition across the region where the Soviet legacy continues
to have an important impact.
From the U.S. perspective, active engagement in Central
Asia and especially the good will and cooperation that result
from well designed and well implemented assistance programs can
help to establish a lasting alternative to forces that would
otherwise destabilize the region.
The President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget request for Central
Asia is $133 million, which will enable both the State
Department and USAID to continue to play an integral role in
strengthening democratic systems of governance and diversifying
economies. USAID's development assistance to the Central Asian
republics also includes meeting urgent human needs through a
focus on health, agriculture, and other issues, such as
combatting human trafficking.
To help--this is to help ensure countries grow peacefully
and sustainably with the wherewithal to determine their own
futures.
So we are tackling complex regional challenges and
advancing U.S. foreign policy through three development
approaches. Number one, increasing regional economic
cooperation and connectivity, which will help accelerate
private-sector-led trade and yield greater prosperity and
stability across the region as more cross-border ties are
forged. Number two, we are addressing regional development
challenges through the three Presidential initiatives: The
Global Health Initiative, Feed the Future, and Global Clinate
Change Initiative. Number three, we are leveraging our new
business model, which is science, technology, innovation, and
partnership, STIP, as we call it, which will extend our reach
and maximize our impact while driving down cost and yielding a
better return for the American taxpayer.
Regional economic connectivity matters because while trade
figures remain modest for now, greater economic dynamism across
the region can provide future opportunities for international
businesses, especially in key areas, such as the services
industry, energy, mining, higher education, and infrastructure.
USAID contributes to U.S. Government efforts under the New Silk
Road initiative to increase regional economic connectivity
between the economies of the peoples of South and Central Asia
and, ultimately, foster greater political and socioeconomic
stability across the broader region.
While originally envisioned as a means to aid in
Afghanistan's transition post-2014, our work toward regional
connectivity in Central Asia is all the more critical in the
current context of Russia's reassertion of influence in former
Soviet spaces.
This regional focus continues through the implementation of
the three Presidential initiatives.
Throughout our work in this constrained budget environment,
USAID is utilizing a new model of development that promotes
partnerships and harnesses science, technology, and innovation
to enhance development outcomes and maximize impact.
Across Asia, we are leveraging new talent and resources
wherever possible--from the growing private sector to expanded
donor collaboration. A prime example of how we utilize this
approach is in Turkmenistan, for example, where through an
innovative public-private partnership with Junior Achievement
and Chevron, USAID is equipping young people in that country
with practical skills that better prepare them to find jobs
upon graduation, and it makes schooling more relevant to the
demands of the modern job market.
Finally, we are leveraging greater funding and support of
development programs from emerging donors, and you heard my
colleagues mention this, such as the Government of Kazakhstan.
For the past several years, the Kazakh Government has provided
two-thirds of the total funding for our economic development
programming and is poised to provide an even larger share of
funding over the next several years.
Mr. Chairman, in today's interconnected world, our success
addressing development challenges in Central Asia matters more
than ever. Continued USAID assistance is vital in order to
sustain gains and contribute to increased stability and
prosperity in a part of the world where progress can pay
dividends across the border region. I appreciate the
opportunity to share what USAID is doing in Central Asia and
look forward to your guidance. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rollins follows:]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thank all of our witnesses for your
concise and very to the point testimony today.
And the chairman intends to yield to the ranking member as
well as to Congressman Lowenthal so that they will have their
time to ask questions first, and then I will take advantage of
my opportunity after they are done.
You may proceed, Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look
forward to working together with all of you for the type of
assistance you describe in your testimony to Georgia, Moldova,
and Ukraine, and despite the constraints we have on our budget
during this very difficult fiscal time, I am convinced that in
the right situations, Congress will continue to do the right
thing.
However, I just want to make clear, and I think I speak for
many members, that it is essential that the administration help
us make the case to our constituents here at home, that this
money is spent wisely, and two of you have mentioned
specifically the pervasive nature of corruption in Ukraine and
through some of the countries in this region. I just wanted you
to comment on what kind of safeguards the administration has
put in place on U.S. assistance on the funds to Ukraine
Government, those funds being raised through the U.S. loan
guarantees in particular, and also comment on any assurances
that these funds won't be used to pay debts to Russia.
Mr. Rosenblum. So thank you for that question, Mr. Keating.
It is obviously something that is of great concern to us as
well, and we know we have to make the case to the American
taxpayer that their money is being well spent. On the--
specifically on the loan guarantee, we provided that on the
basis of a written agreement with the Ukrainian Government in
which they undertook certain--they made certain commitments,
one of which was that the money would be used for the purposes
that we agreed on, which were to contribute to their ability to
meet obligations to the population and social spending.
The adjustments that Ukraine has had to made as a result of
the IMF program have created and potentially will create more
hardship for the population because they are dealing with a
legacy of many, many years of inefficient and poorly targeted
subsidies through their social safety net system. That is being
changed now with help from the World Bank, but in the meantime,
there is going--there is going to be some short-term
dislocation and pain, so we felt it was important for our funds
to go in that direction.
The funds, as you know, are--were raised by the Ukrainian
Government itself through a bond issuance that our guarantee
helped to make possible and then went into their general
treasury to be spent for the purpose of these--the social
payments. I will just make a general--more general point about
the risk of corruption and diversion of funds, and that is that
this mechanism for support that we provided in the case of
Ukraine in May was very unusual for us, and I can only think,
in the years that I have been doing this, of maybe two other
occasions in 17 years or so where we have--where we have
essentially provided budget support to countries. One was with
Georgia after the 2008 conflict and one was in Kosovo, right
after Kosovo's independence, where we provided debt relief. In
general, our assistance is provided through technical
assistance, advisors, grants to civil societies, support to
private business, et cetera, so--and in this those cases, you
know, we are not as exposed to that risk.
Mr. Katz. The only thing I would add, too, is that I think
on the issue of corruption, at least what we have seen so far
since March is a real effort to pass reform legislation,
anticorruption legislation, a lot of it which was gathering
dust previously. And I will just read you the past four really
important pieces of legislation recently, and these are
working--and this is Ukrainian civil society working with the
government that passed a new public procurement law which was
recently adopt. New amendments were adopted to the criminal law
and framework law in preventing and countering corruption.
Legislation was adopted on access to public information,
legislation adopted on access to information of budgetary
expenditures of government.
Mr. Keating. Can I interrupt just because our time is
getting----
Mr. Katz. Sure.
Mr. Keating [continuing]. Short. And I want to see if I can
get one--at least the beginning of another question here. What
recourse is there if they are not doing this and then not
adhering to these guidelines, just quickly? What do we have as
a mechanism or safeguard to enforce that they are?
Mr. Rosenblum. So, well, one recourse we have is to
withhold further aid, and you know, we--our support is assuming
a commitment to reform. I think that the chairman made this
point in his opening about, you know, the success of these
programs only is ensured if governments have that commitment,
have that in the policies in place.
Mr. Keating. We can maybe follow up on that. I just wanted
to get one other topic in.
Mr. Rosenblum. Sure.
Mr. Keating. I am running a little bit over in time but----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will give you one more.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is something
we had a committee hearing on.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We will have second round if you want.
Mr. Keating. A committee hearing on this previously as
well, and that is the issue that we take a lot of pride in our
country and I think in terms of peacekeeping and have another
example of where our country's intervention clearly made a
difference, whether it was political and religious turmoil in
the past, and that is in Northern Ireland, and particularly
given the rise in Euro skepticism and the continuing communal
violence that has been spiking up there from time to time. I
just wanted you to comment on not having the administration
fund moneys, any moneys, zero summing international fund for
Ireland.
Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Keating, the U.S. committed in 2012 to
provide $7.5 million to the IFI in support of a action plan
that was agreed on by all the contributors to it, and the
funding that we provided between 2011 and 2014, so this current
fiscal year, we will have met that commitment. As we looked at
the 2015 budget and given the significant budget constraints
that we faced and the need to focus on the highest priorities,
we didn't request additional funding, as you noted, for IFI,
but that does not bear at all on our strong commitment to
provide diplomatic support for the efforts of our partners in
Ireland, United Kingdom to move forward on the peace process to
work with the Haass proposals that are on the table now. I
think there was just a meeting yesterday where those were
discussed with all the parties, and our assistant secretary
actually in my bureau, Victoria Nuland, is on her way to
Northern Ireland as we speak. I think she is there tomorrow to
continue that engagement, so we are very committed to it.
As things go forward, we are always open to reconsidering
programming and things that we can do to help the process. At
this point, though, again, you know, in our request, we didn't
include the funding for that for those reasons.
Mr. Keating. I hope in part because of our hearing that we
had earlier this year that the House will be engaged and has
been engaged, frankly, in trying to get some of those fundings
because part of the response we had from that hearing was the
necessity to take it that final step, and we are so close to
the process. It had some obstacles that that was particularly
noted that the U.S.--we have been such a strong supporter, had
not come through with that, so that is my comment, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to associate myself with many of the
questions that Mr. Keating asked, especially wanting some of
the specifics in terms of you mentioned rooting out corruption
and eliminating corruption, especially in the Ukraine, which as
I mentioned, I just recently visited, which even as up to the
May 25th election, even though reforms had been put into place,
everyone acknowledged that there still was rampant, rampant
corruption going on.
But as I also pointed out, I would like to know, you know,
us to acknowledge or at least to talk about our funding. There
is a real clear difference--not that it is not one country
between Eastern and Western Ukraine, there were some really
critical differences, and when we were there, we heard lots of
talk about, well, there will be greater decentralization of
power, that is part of the reforms, there will be more control
over some of the budgetary things, there will be more
responsiveness to many of the Russian--Ukrainians of Russian
heritage. Are these measurable objectives that we look at also?
And how are we going to look at to see whether this occurs so
that regardless of the outside Russian coming in, there were
some really legitimate concerns that were going on in this
country? And are we aware of that, and how are we going to at
least condition some of our resources and foreign aid to their
making changes to really bring--have a more unified government?
And then the third question is where does our funding and
what do you see in terms of energy independence for the Ukraine
in the sense of U.S. funding, where are we, and are they going
to need additional resources?
Mr. Rosenblum. Okay. Thank you for three very excellent
core questions for us, and I will look to Jonathan to help
provide some of the answers.
So, corruption, first of all. I can talk specifically about
Ukraine, but what I say applies more broadly which is that it
is--and I think I said in in my opening statement. It really is
like a cancer that eats away at the very, you know, vital force
of the society, and we--and addressing it and dealing with it
is very complex, and we haven't, to be honest, seen a lot of
great success stories around the world and in our region. Where
it has been more successful, you need a combination of high
level commitment, and as we, you know, use the phrase
``political will,'' really willing to do some risks and do
prosecutions and pursue cases against people, but you also need
the demand coming from civil society that is organized and it
is pushing. That has to be there, too.
I think right at the moment, in Ukraine, you do have both
of those elements. You know, the proof is in the pudding as
they say, and we still need to wait to see, you know, Jonathan
referred to these new laws being adopted. They have to be
implemented, and that is one of the areas where our assistance
can help by having--we talked with the government about having
advisors that would actually be in ministries and help with the
implementation. Other donors are committed to that as well. So,
it is a long-term and complicated task, but it is essential and
especially in Ukraine.
On the second question was about the unity of the country,
the east/west divide, and so on. We think it is absolutely
essential that that be agenda item number one. I guess maybe it
is obvious it has to be, given the violence and separatist
activities in Eastern Ukraine. President Poroshenko has made a
very strong commitment, which he is now following through on,
to open negotiations. There is a ceasefire that has been in
effect for--a unilateral ceasefire, I should add--for the past
5 days, and negotiations have begun, discussions have begun.
That is going to have to be in the context of a broader move
toward reforming the constitution, which again, he is also very
strongly committed to, to provide for more decentralization,
more authority, as you were alluding to, to local government.
But the one other element that you didn't mention, which I
think is also critical, is the economic growth in the east
especially. That region, as you know, it is sort of the rust
belt of Ukraine and has lagged behind much of the rest of the
country in growth and has a lot of industrial enterprises that
are not particularly efficient anymore, and grappling with that
has been a challenge for every Ukrainian Government. It is
going to remain one here. We and other donors are right now
thinking about and planning activities that can help jump start
growth in the east in terms of especially small business
growth, more credit access for small businesses, providing
support basically to grow the economy in the east, and that
will, over time, also affect the split, the divide in the
country.
And then the third, the third issue was----
Mr. Katz. Energy.
Mr. Rosenblum. The energy, right. Energy, like corruption
at large, very complex, lots of elements to it. Just in terms
of what we are specifically doing on energy in Ukraine,
together with the EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, and the EU, we are developing a plan to help
restructure the gas supply system, and the company that is in
charge of that, Naftogaz, this is something that, again, the
government has asked us for help with. That company and that
system is a source of a lot of, you know, the inefficiencies,
the losses, and the corruption that plagues the energy system
in Ukraine.
We also have been helpful more in a diplomatic way, not so
much through assistance, on the issue of reverse flows of gas
so that more gas can be coming from Europe back into Ukraine
from especially Slovakia. The EU sort of has the lead on that,
but that is another critical issue.
And then the other area, which is something Jonathan's--
that USAID is deeply involved in is energy efficiency.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Which is not heard of at this moment in
Ukraine.
Mr. Rosenblum. Yes, it is nascent.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is already----
Mr. Katz. Inefficient, one of the worst in the--globally.
Mr. Rosenblum. Yeah. So we have got a program already that
USAID has been doing for years in Ukraine. We are going to
expand that and get more financing for local infrastructure
improvements that will make the efficiency work. So that is--I
don't know if, Jonathan, you wanted to add.
Mr. Katz. Yeah. No. I sort of associate on all of your
remarks as well. I think what you--what Dan was saying about
this being the right moment, a moment I think the--Congressman
Keating mentioned that as well, that Maidan had such an impact
both on the current government but also in the population of
Ukraine, that this is really the right opportunity, and you see
it through the legislation that they are passing, you see it
through the effort, you mentioned the constitutional effort
right now, I think, even today. President Poroshenko laid out
his decentralization amendments to the constitution. This is
what was reported today. I haven't seen what that entails, but
we see as--there is a sense of seriousness within the
government to move forward.
And I wanted to just say, too, just in terms of general of
anticorruption measures, all of our programs, USAID's programs
in the region have a anticorruption measures embedded in our
programs, and so I think this is particularly important. We
recognize that this--because of endemic corruption in the
regions, that we need to have it as part of our programs.
Mr. Lowenthal. Mr. Chair, if I just may follow up on that.
Just to add to one----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Go right ahead.
Mr. Lowenthal. If you will, again, the next time we have
this hearing next year on this, if we could see some of the
results of these measures because, you know, we make decisions
without knowing any measurable results, and I would like to
hear some of these measures that have been put into place
Mr. Katz. Yeah.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you like to--you have something to
add?
Ms. Rollins. My bailiwick happens to be Central Asia, so I
really don't have anything to comment on Ukraine.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
The chair now will take his allotted time. There was
mention in the beginning of the testimony that there was a $1-
billion loan guarantee for Ukraine. Seeing that we have
discussed Ukraine, I guess I might as well ask some of the
details about that. What bank provided the loan that we have
guaranteed to Ukraine?
Mr. Rosenblum. The loan wasn't provided by a bank. It was a
bond issuance that the Ukrainian Government did, and so the
bonds were purchased by people from institutions, individual
investors.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Was there any major investor that bought
those bonds like, Western European investors maybe?
Mr. Rosenblum. I will have to get back to you on that, Mr.
Chairman. I don't have the details on who purchased.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to get a rundown as to who
bought the bonds that we are not guaranteeing because the fact
is, whoever makes the loan is the real recipient of our
largesse. Ukraine is not the recipient. Whoever loaned the
money to Ukraine is making a guaranteed profit via the United
States taxpayers. That is true of all of these guaranteed loans
that we talk about here, and we have to realize that it is a
big issue coming up on the Export-Import Bank. And who is the
real recipient of all of this--all of these billions of dollars
that the Export-Import Bank guarantees. It is not the companies
that they are talking about. It is the banks who are in the
middle who make that money because they have now a guaranteed
profit. And I don't understand how we can--I don't have a way
right now how we can get away from that system, but it seems
that we are paying--that there is a lot of middlemen making a
lot of money off benevolent programs like this.
So it is possible that those bonds that you are talking
about were actually purchased by some financial institutions in
Western Europe; isn't that true?
Mr. Rosenblum. It may--it is possible. It is possible. And
we will----
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is possible.
Mr. Rosenblum. We can get back to you with a more detailed
answer to your question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Now, how were you getting involved with
the Ukrainian problem in the first place? They had their first
real free election, I remember, about 10 years ago, and in came
with the Orange Revolution--and I visited there during the
Orange Revolution in support of the Orange Revolution, and they
had a corrupt government, and they then brought in a
government, and there was an election, and they were elected,
and that government turned out to be corrupt even though they
were pro-Western, and that is why you in a very free election
that was verified by the OSCE that you had Mr. Yanukovych, who
was elected, right, democratically elected President, who was
overthrown by the people who we now are pouring our resources
into, and he was overthrown before the election process, not as
a result of the election process.
I don't think that is a good precedent for us to set. I
don't think that when an elected government is overthrown, that
we necessarily have to come in. We should do some really soul
searching because I believe there were powerful forces at play,
maybe even European financial interests that didn't want
Ukraine to be associated with a Russian common market as
compared with a Western European common market that may have
been at play here. I don't know. It just seems that that may
well be the root of this problem, and here we end up pumping a
billion dollars' worth of guarantee into some financial
supporters who may be those same Western Europeans. It is a
very murky situation, and it is not, as some of my colleagues
believe to be, as simple and as easily definable as, who is the
good guys and who is the bad guys, as you might assume.
Let's get back to your request; $625 billion--does the
billion-dollar that we have a loan guarantee, that doesn't come
off the $625 million request. So for all of your jurisdiction,
you are asking for $625 million, the administration is, and yet
we have just provided one country, Ukraine, with a $1-billion
loan guarantee. Okay. I guess that is resulting because there
is a crisis going on and we need to--because there is a crisis,
we need to get involved in it. I would suggest that we don't
need to get involved in all of these crises. I would suggest
that perhaps it would be better for us not to be doing that,
and unless it is an emergency, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, that we should focus on if there is an emergency
humanitarian situation, that is far different than having us
come into other societies like Ukraine and trying to
restructure the way they have their government and their
society functions, which it seems like we are trying to do. And
our ridding--ridding Ukraine and some of these other countries
like Ukraine of corruption would be the equivalent, I guess, of
ridding Ireland of beer, and it is part--beer is their culture
up there, and you don't try to tell people in Ireland not to
drink beer.
Well, corruption is a way of life with some of the people
that we know, and for us to placate all of our policies on
changing the basic way of life does not make sense to me
because I don't think it is going to happen. I think we tried
that in Iraq, and it didn't work.
We can try--we can try to make--we can try to say to other
people that they shouldn't have religious faith, but it may be
really part of their culture that they have a religious faith,
and maybe even they include it in their government, and our
theory of government is that the church and state should be
totally separate. I think it would be wrong to go into another
country and say to them I am sorry that we are going to try to
put pressure on you to make sure that church and state are
never allowed to be together. And I would hope that our limited
funds that we have are not--I mean, not you--all the goals that
you have outlined today are lofty goals. I mean, certainly
ridding their country of corruption is a lofty goal. It just
seems to me that--I am not confident that we are going to
achieve that goal, and I am also confident that when we try to
get too deeply involved, there are international forces that
are at play that can manipulate our largesse and our
benevolence.
With that said, I will certainly go through another round,
so Mr. Keating can chastise me for using the expression of beer
in Ireland.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must tell you that the issues that we are dealing with
are ones of violence. In Ireland, for instance, it was a
climate of a terrible violence, civil rights issues that would
have continued much further if it wasn't for the U.S.
intervention. It is a sterling example of how our country--and
that is not just an American speaking. That is what I hear
universally from both the north and the south of Ireland. If it
wasn't for U.S. intervention into that era of terrible
violence, the peace that is there, the success we made wouldn't
be there, and certainly I believe we can take it to the finish
line, given Mr. Haass' testimony to this committee and the
progress we have made, I think we are so close
And the issue in Ukraine, from my way of thinking, is not
what Western Europe wants. It is not what the United States
wants. It is not what Russia wants. I think our
administration's position is to allow Ukraine to have what it
wants and the people and its administration, and that is the
kind of assistance we are giving to them now. We tried it in
Poland. We tried it in Estonia. We tried it in Latvia. We tried
it in the Czech Republic, and you know--we tried it in Ireland,
and you know, that kind of assistance did work in those
instances. And we have had the success that our panelists have
spoken about in terms of the progress of those countries.
So I think given that is the way I view it, and I think it
shared with many of the people that have testified, I think it
is important, though, that there are metrics, as Mr. Lowenthal
has said. It is important there is accountability, not because
it is the U.S. making the decisions about Ukraine, but because
it is U.S. guarantees involved. The decisions with Ukraine, if
we are going to be successful, and we will fail to be
successful if we don't, must come from Ukrainians themselves,
and that is why this election, this past election was so
important, and I think it was the fundamental step that we had
to take going forward, so I see some progress.
I did want to, in a second round, just touch base on
another area, Turkey, which is a strategically important
partner for the U.S., and I am concerned about the government's
treatment of political opponents, independent journalists, and
members of the political opposition. What are State and USAID
doing to support civil society and independent media in Turkey?
The strength of our strategic partnership in Turkey should be
based on shared respect for democratic values and institution,
not just regional interests, so I just wanted to touch for a
second on that if we could.
Mr. Rosenblum. I will let Jonathan begin.
Mr. Katz. Yeah. Thank you for that question. You know,
USAID is not present in Turkey. We don't have a mission there,
and so I don't want to speak out of turn. However, you know, as
we, the United States, know from our own experience,
strengthening due process, fighting corruption, encouraging
civic participation, including the media, and political
decision making not only make countries freer but also help
them grow more quickly.
And while the United States is not, and I want to repeat,
will not become involved in Turkey's internal politics, we will
continue to express, as we do around the world, our strong
support for transparent and accountable government.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So we have no money going into Turkey?
There is no aid programs there.
Mr. Rosenblum. We don't have any aid programs there now----
Mr. Katz. That is correct.
Mr. Rosenblum [continuing]. Related to civil society. The
money that is going to Turkey, the small amounts are for--we
have an IMET program, the military, education and training, and
we also have a small amount for a counterterrorism program
related to terrorist financing, so that is--that is----
Mr. Keating. How has that counterterrorism funding been
received by Turkey? Not physically received. How have they
reacted to that? There is an increase in that.
Mr. Rosenblum. Well, actually, it is a little misleading,
and I have to explain the way our budget was presented this
year. It looks like a big increase. Apparently, and as we
learned as we were preparing for this hearing, the same program
that we are going to be continuing in Fiscal Year 2015 is
ongoing, and it was funded previously from a global
counterterrorism fund, and for the 2015 budget, it was decided
to put it into the bilateral line for Turkey in the interest of
the transparency, essentially, to show exactly where the money
is, and it is essentially, it is supporting a resident legal
advisor who works on counterterrorism financing activities and
facilitates interagency capacity building related to that
financing. And I think we--you know, our understanding is that
we are working closely with Turkish counterparts in the
government, and they are supporting their reforms. These are
reforms that they want to make.
Mr. Keating. Working closely, but do they accept the
premise that there is a counterterrorism threat there?
Mr. Rosenblum. Well, they accept the value of our
assistance, so I can't speak to the broader question, but they
must--I think it has to do with their qualification for the
FATF, or the Financial Action Task Force, this international
body, and meeting those standards, which they want to be part
of.
Mr. Rohrabacher. They may have too much to be thinking
about when they are dealing because they spend so much time
helping the groups that are trying to take over Syria now,
those benevolent groups that are trying to take over Syria.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. I am really enjoying this hearing. But I
don't think the analogy of beer drinking in Ireland and
corruption in the Ukraine is quite accurate. I think--I think
that most people in Ireland enjoy their beer and most people
that you speak to in Ukraine abhor the corruption, abhor it.
But it may be difficult, and I do agree with the chair, to have
it imposed and those changes from the outside does not seem to
be a successful way of dealing with it.
I would like to turn to Central Asia. You are on the panel.
We have not forgotten about you. And talk a little bit about
human trafficking in Central Asia and what kind of challenge
that is and what is really--what can we, and you know, and
realistically do and what we can't. I think--I think one
country, I am not sure it is in Central Asia, but it is now a
Tier 3 country, according to the recently released Trafficking
in Persons Report, and how is our assistance tied in any way to
the reduction in human trafficking?
Ms. Rollins. Thank you very much for that question.
So we are also very concerned about the human trafficking
situation in Central Asia, and it is pervasive. We do have a
program that we work through IOM to help set up centers for
women and men. We also have a center in Tajikistan that is
specifically for men who are brought back across the borders.
But we work on prevention, so we have media campaigns to help
deter families from sending their men or women out.
We have centers when they come back so that they are
provided psychosocial support and health facilities, et cetera,
testing and treatment for infectious diseases, and set up kind
of small and medium type enterprise livelihood activities so
that they can go back into their communities.
So it is a very serious concern in that part of world. I
will let my colleague Dan talk about the tier ranking. It is
Uzbekistan that is now on Tier 3. The others, though, have made
some progress throughout the years.
Mr. Rosenblum. It is a serious challenge in the region. All
five countries have, to varying degrees, have shown commitment
to tackling it and have welcomed our assistance in the areas
that Denise mentioned. We actually, in addition to having
centers for victims of trafficking and doing prevention work
on, you know, sort of public announcement, service announcement
type work, there has also been an element on the prosecution
side, where we are actually helping countries in Central Asia
develop the capacity to prosecute those cases under their laws.
Uzbekistan is Tier 3 in a recently released trafficking
report. They are now Tier 3 for the second year. In the case of
Uzbekistan, it really has to do with labor, and you know,
compelled labor for the cotton harvest. That is really the key
issue. There is still--that is still occurring. And now the
positive development is that the Government of Uzbekistan is
allowing the ILO to come in and send observers, and they have
also signed on to a new ILO--to an ILO program that is called
the--what is it called, the Decent Work Country Programme, so
we think--we view these as positive steps. It wasn't enough to
get them to the higher tier this year, but they are moving in
the right direction, we think.
Also, just programmatically, overall in Central Asia, it is
about $3 million that is going toward this whole group of
programs that we have been talking about. So, again, you know,
problems remain, some progress, and we could--you know, if we
had more time, we could go into more detail on that progress,
but it is--you know, it is one area where we actually have good
engagement between civil society and the governments of the
region. There seems to be, you know, the governments have
actually not have welcomed the involvement of NGOs and mostly
through this IOM, International Organization for Migration.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I want to thank our witnesses. I always
appreciate a good discussion, and I also, as is noted, I don't
gavel people down until all the points have been made, and I
certainly appreciate you folks doing your part in this and
keeping us informed.
I would like to have a list of those people who purchased
the Ukrainian bonds. Obviously, there is a disagreement on the
issue of Ukraine. I voted against that billion-dollar program,
and my colleagues, of course, supported it and people can
honestly disagree, and I respect them for their position.
Mr. Lowenthal. We respect you, too
Mr. Rohrabacher. And we are very pleased that you are here
to give us the information we need to know, and we are making
those type of decisions, and then they go out and do a good job
in implementing them, so thank you for the good work that you
are doing, for your service to your country, and we are all
trying to make this a better world, and with that said, this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record