[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FY 2017 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR SOUTH ASIA: RECOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND
ENGAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 11, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-174
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-099PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
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, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio AMI BERA, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State...... 5
The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau
for Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development............ 22
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal: Prepared statement............. 8
The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement............... 25
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 46
Hearing minutes.................................................. 47
Written response from the Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal to
question submitted for the record by the Honorable Grace Meng,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York........ 48
Written responses from the Honorable Jonathan Stivers to
questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Matt
Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona,
and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific............. 49
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Matt Salmon
to the Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal and the Honorable Jonathan
Stivers........................................................ 51
FY 2017 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR SOUTH
ASIA: RECOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND
ENGAGEMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Salmon. This committee will come to order. Members
present will be permitted to submit written statements to be
included in the official hearing record.
And without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 calendar days to allow statements, questions, and
extraneous materials for the record subject to the length
limitation in the rules.
The South Asian's subcontinent is one of enormous
potential. This important region of over 1\1/2\ billion people,
including 40 percent of the world's poor, is often overlooked,
or viewed primarily through the lens of the challenges in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But the rest of South Asia is more significant than the
attention it receives would suggest. India recently surpassed
China as the world's fastest growing and large economy, and the
region is looking to enhance trade connectivity to boost
growth.
On the other hand, South Asia still faces major development
challenges, including weak governance, corruption, and threats
from violent extremism. We will hear from the administration
witnesses today on its efforts in these areas.
Given China's interests in building influence in the
region, I would also like to hear about the administration's
work to maintain relevancy in South Asia.
This hearing will focus on the Fiscal Year 2017 State
Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budget
request for the South Asia region. I look forward to hearing
from the panel about how we are to boost U.S. presence in this
important region.
India is undoubtedly a very important partner for the
United States. We have many interests in India, including
facilitating India's membership in APEC, which I have spoken
many times and checked in with you guys about, ongoing BIT
negotiations, and strengthening defense and security
agreements.
Twenty percent of India's population lives in extreme
poverty, with one-fourth of the total population completely off
the electric grid. If India is to realize its leading role in
the region, it must facilitate reforms to create opportunities
and better lives for its own people.
How are we assisting the Indian Government and leveraging
the private sector to improve the conditions of the people in
India? India is clearly a priority for the administration, but
what progress is now being made? This committee has concerns
about antiquated protectionist policies that hold back India's
full-growth potential and hurt U.S. companies. Restrictions on
market access including direct retail sales, weak intellectual
property protection, and the time required to resolve contract
disputes are among the top concerns for U.S. businesses.
Prime Minister Modi has made economic reform a centerpiece
in his administration, and I am very pleased that he has.
What are we doing to help spur the Indian Government in the
much-needed opening of India's economy? Sri Lanka's new
government has been touted as more American leaning than the
prior administration, but more work lies ahead. The Fiscal Year
2017 budget request for Sri Lanka is a tenfold increase from
previous years, now at 39.8 million. How will such an increase
in funding work toward bolstering democratic change and
strengthening civil society organizations?
Many successful efforts in South Asia are transferable
between countries. How are we ensuring adequate transfer of
successful programs to leverage resources efficiently? Nepal
faced a devastating earthquake last year, and the House
responded with a resolution that myself, along with Ranking
Member Sherman, put forward. We stood with Nepal. And my State
of Arizona even lost one of our finest in the efforts to search
and rescue, and we continue to assist in rebuilding.
This year's budget calls for an increase of 8.3 million for
Nepal for continued relief efforts. Please update us on these
efforts in Nepal, including timeframe and the outlook to
completion.
Bangladesh receives the largest amount of U.S. development
assistance and global funding in the region. Bangladesh is
considered a moderate Muslim country, receives the most
attention for counterterrorism efforts, yet, continues to
struggle.
Since 2013, several bloggers and international activities
have been brutally killed, six in the past 12 months alone. I
offer my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the
USAID employee and local human rights activist, who was
brutally murdered just a few short weeks ago. Bangladesh also
continues to struggle with democratic governance, the rule of
law, and corruption.
The request for assistance to Bangladesh reflects an
increase of $13.5 million. I would also ask the panel to
discuss overall assistance to Bangladesh as it results to
countering violent extremism and providing for further freedom
of expression without violent recourse. I also want to
understand what specific programs are we putting in place to
meet these challenges?
Finally, the Maldives, the smallest nation in the region,
has shown a worrying deterioration of its democracy, as well as
concerning percentage of its population traveling to the Middle
East as foreign fighters. South Asia is an increasingly
important region of the world. It is ripe with opportunity, yet
held back by corruption, weak governance, and danger of
extremism.
With our oversight hearing today, we will be discussing
diplomacy and foreign assistance in South Asia, including
progress made over the past year. The United States should also
look at how to best connect South Asia to the Asia Pacific,
integration that would be vital to facilitating South Asia's
potential. I look forward to the discussion not only on what
was accomplished last year, but what we accomplish next year.
And before I turn the time over to our ranking member, I
would like to recognize the Bangladesh Ambassador to the U.S.
Would you please stand and be recognized.
Thank you, Ambassador. We are really happy to have you here
today.
And I would like to now give time to the ranking member,
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
South Asia, with nearly 2 billion people, by definition, is
a major focus of American foreign policy. As the largest
democracy, second most populous country, maybe soon to be first
most populous country, and the third largest economy in the
world, India is perhaps the greatest geopolitical opportunity
for the United States. The United States and India share many
core values, including religious pluralism, individual freedom,
and the rule of law. Over the past decade, the United States
and India have worked to bring India out from nuclear
isolation, increased defense and security cooperation, narrowed
differences over how to combat climate change, and a number of
other signs of a more intense and high-quality relationship.
Right now, our trade is about $110 billion in goods and
services both ways, and we are running a $20-billion deficit. I
strongly support Vice President Biden's goal of increasing
bilateral trade to $500 billion, and I hope that that is $250
billion in each direction. I know the administration has
continued to pursue a bilateral investment treaty with India,
and I am interested in knowing how this would not only increase
trade and investment, but lead to balanced trade.
And I would admonish the State Department folks, who are
here, including, of course, the Assistant Secretary. Companies
will come to you saying, this is great for America's economy,
and what they want is to make $1 million profit off a $1
million licensing fee. The State Department needs to focus on
the jobs, not the profits.
And, for example, I have seen the State Department actively
market cars made in Germany because, well, Chrysler asked them
to do it. They didn't bother to notice that the car was made in
Germany. So I am hoping that the embassies and others who
report to you are focused on the jobs aspect, not just whether
there is a familiar American company asking for help.
The International Energy Administration estimates that
India will require $2.1 trillion in investment in power sector
loans to meet pent up demand. I want to do everything we can to
ensure that American companies employing American workers
provide a good portion of the plant equipment and technology
that would go into that new infrastructure.
When we voted in favor of the nuclear cooperation
agreement, we were told that India would reform its liability
laws to facilitate American participation. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses as to why India continues to have a
legal structure that provides that level of liability
protection to Russian, French, and Chinese firms that can claim
sovereign immunity, while, in effect, freezing U.S. companies
out of the market.
As to Bangladesh, the chair noted many of the concerns.
Despite development progress, there is the continued instance
of extreme poverty. The growth of Islamic extremism, murderers
working their way through a publicly circulated list of
politically active members of religious minorities. Less than 2
weeks ago, Xulhaz Mannan, a USAID employee, was brutally
murdered for his activism in human rights. The home of a
Christian family was bombed, and just last weekend, a Sufi
saint was murdered. I look forward to hearing how we are
addressing these concerns, particularly with regard to the
significant Hindu minority in Bangladesh.
I look forward to hearing your assessments on Sri Lanka and
its political process of reconciliation. I met recently with
the Ambassador of Sri Lanka and encouraged Sri Lanka to move
forward to increase American import--imports from America, and,
of course, political reconciliation between the Sinhalese and
the Tanuk communities.
He explained that there were elements of progress, but as I
talked to those from the Tamil community, I see that progress
could be moving forward and more quickly toward giving more
local power to local officials and withdrawing the military
from the Northeast.
Even in the smallest country of the region, the Maldives,
with a population of only 400,000, we see important American
interests at stake. President Yameen is crushing democracy. It
is becoming a recruiting paradise for jihadists. More than 200
Maldivians are estimated to have traveled to Syria and Iraq,
the highest record of terrorist recruitment per capita in the
world.
And when Islamic State fighters return to the Maldives,
they don't face prosecution. Of course, there are countries in
Europe where returning fighters do not face prosecution, and
that is a mistake, both for the world and the individual
country to which they return.
Finally, with respect to Nepal, I hope to hear about the
effectiveness of the $130 billion--million dollar U.S. response
to the earthquake in April of last year.
Ms. Biswal, in your written testimony you say the needs are
$6.6 billion. Two-thirds have been committed, but that we are
meeting only 10 to 18 percent of the housing and health
facility needs. My guess is that although the commitment may be
at the two-thirds level, the actual funding may be at the 5 or
10 percent level. And I look forward to seeing what we can do
and how the administration would justify its $109.3 million
request, though. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Salmon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bera for an opening
statement, and then we will get to our witnesses.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member. And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Obviously, this is an exciting time in the U.S.-India
relationship. I mean, it is a remarkable time in terms of the
level of economic cooperation and defense, the defense
cooperation, and the possibilities are endless.
Working with the chairman, you know, a logical next step in
the development of India and, you know, more broadly, South
Asia, is India's membership in APEC, and certainly, this body
looks forward to working with the Department of State to push
for India's membership in APEC, and we continue to encourage
that. That not only is beneficial to India, obviously that, you
know, sets the stage for the next step, as potentially getting
bilateral investment treaty. This also is beneficial to the
entire region of South Asia. Obviously, India is an economic
powerhouse, but, you know, as India's economy rises and
develops, hopefully, that, then, spills over to Bangladesh and
the other countries in the region.
So, yes, I do see this, both from the USAID perspective,
but also from the U.S.-India perspective and U.S.-South Asia
perspective as a great next step to really start to accelerate
the South Asian marketplace and the countries.
So thank you. I look forward to hearing that, and I will
yield back.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. We are happy today to be joined by
Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal of the Department of State's
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and Assistant
Administrator Jonathan Stivers of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, Bureau for Asia. We are appreciative
to have both of you here today sharing your time with us. And I
will recognize Ms. Biswal first. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NISHA DESAI BISWAL, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Biswal. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ranking
Member Sherman, thank you very much for the invitation to
testify today. And I would ask that my full written statement
be submitted for the record so that I may summarize.
Mr. Salmon. Without objection.
Ms. Biswal. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I spent the
formative years of my career working as a professional staff
member on this committee, and so, it has instilled in me a
longstanding respect for the important role of Congress in our
foreign policy, and it is an honor and a pleasure to be here
before the committee.
It is also a deep pleasure to be here with my good friend
and former House colleague, John Stivers. John and I just
returned from Bangladesh, and we were there in the aftermath of
the terrorist attacks on Xulhaz Mannan. And I want to thank
both of you and the committee for the strong support of USAID,
the U.S. Embassy in the condemnation of that heinous act. I do
believe that to so many--Xulhaz' death reminds us of the risks
that our diplomats and development professionals face, and it
is important to honor their sacrifices. And, again, I thank you
for your strong support in that vein.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted, South Asia is at a pivotal
point in its development. It is on the cusp of a new era of
opportunity, but it is also buffeted by stark challenges, as
both of you have noted. A strong U.S. partnership with the
region is critical to addressing global issues of the utmost
importance, mitigating climate change, combating violent
extremism, ensuring maritime security, eradicating disease,
decreasing poverty, and so much more, as well as unleashing a
new era of opportunity of growth and of shared prosperity.
With India, our diplomatic economic and defense partnership
is broader and deeper than ever before. As reflected in the
strategic and commercial dialogue and our trilateral and
multilateral engagements with India, including the
administerial with U.S., India, and Japan. The fact that we
have had an unprecedented six leader-level visits and meetings
in the last 2\1/2\ years, we are India's number one partner in
military exercises, its leading defense supplier, and our
commercial ties continue to expand, even as we explore new
opportunities to further increase our bilateral trade.
In Bangladesh, we are investing in a key strategic partner
in both regional and global challenges, such as climate change,
food security, reducing poverty, advancing health, and
peacekeeping, and many challenges remain in this dynamic
country, despite remarkable progress in many of these areas.
One-third of Bangladeshis still live in poverty. Its
geography makes it susceptible to the impacts of climate
change, and adequate protections for workers are still very
much a work in progress.
Yet, as both of you noted, many of the gains that
Bangladesh has made in human development and economic growth
risk being undermined by escalating extremism violence. As I
noted, the recent slaying of Xulhaz Mannan, a respected and
admired advocate for human rights, has shined an international
spotlight on the increasing threat to Bangladesh's diverse and
tolerant society.
During our visit, John and I underscored Secretary Kerry's
message to the government and to the Prime Minister and the
people of Bangladesh that the United States will work with them
in this fight against violent extremism, and that during a time
of such challenge, it is all the more important to respect the
rule of law, political rights, and the ability for Bangladeshis
to be able to speak freely.
But Bangladesh has a history of overcoming difficult
challenges, and we are hopeful that with determined
partnership, we can also help Bangladesh defeat the extremists
and terrorists that threaten their vibrant society.
For Sri Lanka, the country's strategic position in the
Indian Ocean makes it a key player in regional efforts to
ensure maritime security to protect freedom of navigation and
response to national disasters. Our bilateral relationship, as
you have noted, has been transformed over the past year, thanks
to a unity government led by a President and Prime Minister
that are committed to reforms that can benefit all Sri Lankans.
We recently launched the first U.S.-Sri Lanka partnership
dialogue, and continue to look for opportunities to expand our
partnership.
In Nepal, we continue to help the country recover from a
tragic earthquake that struck in April of last year to ensure
that the development gains from 60 years of partnership with
Nepal are not lost. It is critical that we continue to support
that massive reconstruction effort.
And, finally, given time constraints, I will refer you to
my written testimony for Maldives and Bhutan, but we share the
concern that on Maldives, that deteriorating democratic space
in Maldives creates a breeding ground for extremism, and we are
determined to work with partners and friends in the region and
across the commonwealth to ensure that we can support the
aspirations of the Maldivian people for a democratic society.
Finally, let me just conclude by recognizing that the
rebalance to Asia, that the President has put as one of the
centerpieces of his foreign policy, is fundamentally a
recognition that the security and the prosperity of the
American people is inextricably linked with the security and
prosperity of Asia, and nowhere is that more evident than in
the South Asia region. And we look forward to continued
engagement with the important countries and people of that
region.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biswal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Mr. Stivers.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stivers. Thank you. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member
Sherman, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. Thank
you for the invitation to testify today on advancing U.S.
foreign policy goals in South Asia. It is an honor to be back
again before this committee, especially alongside my friend and
colleague, Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal.
Before I begin, I would like to extend the deepest
condolences to the families and friends of Xulhaz Mannan. He
was a member of the USAID family in Bangladesh, and he was
brutally murdered late last month. Xulhaz embodies the very
best of USAID. He was a heroic leader for human rights
including on LGBTI issues. His tragic loss is a reminder of the
risks that our staff take every day in the field to improve the
lives of the most vulnerable people.
Last week, Nisha and I were able to meet with his family
and friends to better understand his life and legacy and what
he was fighting for in Bangladesh, in addition to the growing
violent extremism in that country.
We are urging the Bangladesh Government, at the highest
levels, to fully investigate this violent attack, and others
and bring the perpetrators to justice. We are also ensuring the
safety and security of our staff as our highest priority in
this difficult operating environment.
The President's budget request of $440.7 million for South
Asia reflects our sustained commitment to this vitally
important region. While the region has achieved much success in
terms of development, significant challenges remain. South Asia
has roughly one-third of the world's extreme poor, both the
highest rates and largest numbers of undernourished children in
the world, and is extremely prone to natural disasters as we
saw last April in Nepal.
We are working through three primary approaches in USAID.
First, we are pioneering a new model of development that
focuses on leveraging our impact and our funding by using
public-private partnerships, science, innovation, and regional
solutions.
For example, in India, while our assistance dollars have
been steady, the total value of U.S. development programs have
doubled, because we are leveraging the private sector and
international donors to move forward and make progress on a lot
of the very important human development and health outcomes
that we want to have there.
Second, we are building pathways out of poverty through
integrated approaches with the three Presidential initiatives
on global health, Feed the Future, and climate change.
And, third, we are promoting democratic governance and
empowering reformers, because we know that the best chance of
promoting democratic change is to empower the reformers to
change their country.
In Bangladesh, USAID has helped the country make enormous
progress in recent years. They have been able to cut their
poverty rate in half. They have reduced deaths of mothers and
children by more than two-thirds. They have improved the
management of 2\1/2\ million acres of forest and wetland, home
of the endangered Bengal tiger, and we have helped introduce
new rice varieties that can withstand flooding and high salt
levels. And as a result, Bangladesh now does not have to rely
heavily on rice imports. Despite this progress and the
tradition of tolerance in Bangladesh, rising violent extremism
is a threat to the country's development.
USAID supports those who represent a democratic pluralist
society in Bangladesh, such as civil society and journalists.
USAID also works to address a weak judicial system by
strengthening the ability of the institution to uphold the rule
of law, and bring perpetrators of violent extremism to justice.
We will continue to analyze, update, and implement our
strategies to best help the reformers increase and maintain the
right of the Bangladeshi people to freely express themselves
through their religion or their political views.
In India, successfully addressing health challenges means
success on a global scale. Accordingly, the bulk of the budget
requests for India will go toward maintaining momentum on goals
related to child and maternal survival, HIV/AIDS, TB, clean
drinking water, and sanitation solutions. Addressing gender
inequality is a crosscutting focus of our USAID initiatives in
India. We are helping to implement a safe cities partnership
that focuses on increasing safety for women in public
transportation, schools, streets, and connects women with
advocacy and support services.
When the earthquake struck last year in Nepal, our 20-year
investment in disaster risk reduction proved critical to
Nepal's ability to respond. From more than 1,000 USAID-trained
first responders who conducted search-and-rescue missions
saving lives, to a major hospital that continued treating
patients uninterrupted, due to the preparedness plan we helped
them establish, the U.S. Government mobilized 130 million to
respond to the immediate post earthquake needs, including
construction of temporary schools, emergency nutrition and
food, and expanding our countertrafficking in persons work to
earthquake-affected districts.
Many obstacles lie ahead. Reconstruction from the
earthquake is likely to take many years with total economic
losses estimated at $7 billion.
U.S. support for the international effort to help Nepal's
recovery is critical to helping maintain development progress.
In 2015, Sri Lankans went to the poles to support a sweeping
democratic reform agenda. Seizing on this democratic
breakthrough, USAID is helping Sri Lanka strengthen democratic
institutions through the Parliament, judiciary, and auditor
general, as well as support for civil rights and human rights.
In addition, we are providing economic help for the poorest
and most vulnerable Sri Lankans, especially in former conflict
zones with resettlement and economically lagging regions.
Mr. Chairman, alongside diplomacy and defense, development
plays an indispensable role in advancing our security and
prosperity. We must address both immediate crises, and the root
causes of poverty, conflict, and instability. This is the heart
of our work in the South Asia region.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Salmon. Thank you. I will ask the first question.
While the U.S.-India policy has been a pretty healthy one,
and our security relations have improved dramatically over the
last 15 years, I don't believe that our economic relationship
has quite kept pace. U.S.-India economic ties and experts
encouraged both supporting India's membership in APEC, and
concluding a bilateral investment treaty in a recent hearing
that I chaired about India and the U.S. economic ties, there is
strong support here in the Congress for India's entry into
APEC. And I have introduced a bill to that end, and Senator
Cornyn released a companion bill just within the last week or
so.
The administration has maintained that it welcomes India's
interest in APEC. Where do we stand on negotiations for a
bilateral investment treaty? And what else are we doing, from
the administration's perspective, to improve economic ties?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank you
and commend and welcome the leadership that you and many of
your colleagues have shown on the U.S.-India relationship and
the ambition that you have injected into that partnership in
terms of where you would like to see it go. I think that that
has been an important voice, and it has been much noted and
appreciated.
I do think that as you noted, that the President has
welcomed India's interest in APEC. I think that the size of the
Indian economy makes it one that we want to engage with, and
engage with in an ambitious but constructive way.
There are a multiplicity of views with respect to India's
entry into APEC. And largely, the conversation is around better
understanding India's desire for membership in APEC, and
India's approach and philosophy as it comes into a largely
economically focused body on important issues of open free and
fair trade. And I think that those are conversations that are
ongoing in the administration with the administration and the
Government of India, and I think that those conversations will
help chart the path for how to move forward on India's
interests. India's interests is one that I think we welcome
strongly, and I certainly heard that not only from our
President, but from across all levels of our Government.
With respect to the bilateral investment treaty, we have
long maintained that a high standard bilateral investment
treaty between our two countries would greatly advance and
facilitate additional American investment into India and would
create a level playing field for American companies and for
American investment so that there are the necessary safeguards
and protections for that investment, and I think that that will
go a great deal toward enhancing confidence in--amongst
investors in India's economy and will facilitate greater
investment flows.
We are already starting to see that U.S. investment is
starting to flow toward India, and, in fact, India became--
surpassed China as the largest destination for some segments of
American investment, and we are likely to see that trend
continue.
We are in the midst of discussions on the bilateral
investment treaty to ensure that there is a firm commitment on
both sides to be able to address some of the areas of
discrepancy between India's model BIT and what we see as a high
standard investment treaty, and we are hopeful and confident
that those discussions can lead to the formal launching of
negotiations.
Mr. Salmon. So we are just really in the position right now
of starting the dance. You know, I know there are serious
issues. You know, I mentioned in my opening remarks concerns
about allowing us to sell on the Internet to individuals.
Amazon has had some real issues in India, and I would like to
get those resolved. I know we have had some agricultural issues
that, you know, have been stumbling blocks in the past. And I
also know that--and I don't know whether this completely
applies to bilateral investment treaty, but a lot of our U.S.
investors and companies that do business in India are really
concerned about the length of time that contract dispute
resolution gets done, gets handled.
The average time in court is about 4 years, and that is
just not acceptable. I know they are trying to move toward
arbitration, but I don't want to belabor that. But I know that
there are several issues. We are very interested in moving
forward. I think there is a lot of support in Congress. I know
that there are issues. But, you know, while doing it thoroughly
and effectively, I would like to also add expeditiously to the
list, because I think it is incredibly important that we
further that relationship.
And the last issue I would like to just bring up is, again,
India. When we had the full hearing a couple of weeks ago, I
was a very loud voice about the potential sale of F-16s to
Pakistan. India has objected mightily to this, because there is
a big fear that--or concern that they might use those F-16s
against India. And it looks as though that sale is kind of in
limbo right now.
Could you kind of clarify to me where that might be, or
what your thoughts are on that?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me start off by saying we have a very
important relationship between the United States and India. And
we also have a very important relationship between the United
States and Pakistan. Each relationship stands on its own
merits, and is in furtherance of our goals and interests with
both countries, and we don't see them in any way as being zero
sum.
The F-16 platform is one that we have felt has been used
successfully in combating terrorism, and that has been the
basis on which the administration put forward the notification
to provide an additional eight F-16s. However, we understand
the very serious concerns that have been raised by Congress,
and those concerns are right now being taken into
consideration. And, so, I don't have an update for you on--with
respect to that notification and where it goes, but I will say
that we have recognized the concerns that Congress has raised
with us.
Mr. Salmon. In fact, I am just going to say one last thing
and then hand it over to Mr. Sherman, but I do believe that the
administration has listened to what Congress said. I believe
you are trying to be responsive, and I want to compliment you
for that. Because this was across the aisle. This wasn't just
Republicans or Democrats. This was across the aisle. A lot of
concern that was expressed, and to its credit, the
administration, I believe, is taking those things into account,
and I want to thank you for that. And I will yield my time to
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I know the staff loves the chairman
very--oh, good. They did start my time over. I thought they
were going to charge my time for the fact that the chairman had
extra good things to say.
People outside of Washington look at Washington and say,
they come up with every weird argument to help Wall Street and
to help corporate America. When you go over to the Ways and
Means Committee, we are told that we should forgo tax revenue,
because we need to create capital, because capital helps the
American worker. So we have a capital gains allowance. We have
a--I used to be able to name 100 things we do to increase the
amount of capital available for investment in the United
States.
Then you, you know, you walk on over here from Longworth
and you come over to this room, and we are told it is just a
wonderful thing if this capital that we have accumulated can be
deployed to India. And what we need is to have taxpayer-paid
officials negotiate a great BIT agreement so that American
companies will feel good about taking this capital, which the
Ways and Means Committee helped them create, and invest it
abroad in India and elsewhere.
Is there an analysis that shows whether a quality BIT
agreement will increase jobs in the United States? Is there--
and is there one that is not paid for by Wall Street?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Congressman, let me just say, first and foremost, that
we are in support of an increase and enhancement in two-way
trade between the United States and India, one that seeks to
grow investment of U.S. companies in India, but equally of
Indian companies in the United States. And a high standard
bilateral investment treaty is not about, necessarily, whether
this will facilitate the outsourcing of jobs. It is about
actually creating the level playing field that ensures that
U.S. investors are getting the same protections and fair and
equitable treatment as investors from Japan, from South Korea,
and over 50 other countries that already have investment
treaties with India and enjoy those kinds of protections.
But I take your point with respect to ensuring that the--
that the trade and investment with the--between the United
States and India is one that accrues benefits in both
directions. And to that effect, I would note that according to
the U.S.-India business council, Indian companies have invested
more than $11 billion in the United States over the past
decade, and we probably can attribute close to 100,000 U.S.
jobs in all 50 States to----
Mr. Sherman. But if I could interrupt. I don't think we
need a BIT to encourage Indian investment in the United States.
I haven't heard too many Indian companies saying they won't
invest here unless we do a BIT, that they feel that they are
being discriminated against as opposed to Japanese or British
investors. We welcome the Indian investment here. It is a small
portion of American investment there, and a BIT will encourage
more American investment there.
And let me shift to another aspect of this. One of the
things we export is planes. I know that the French and German
Foreign Ministers are working every day to sell an Airbus. What
have you and the diplomats who report to you done to get them
to buy American planes----
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Sherman----
Mr. Sherman [continuing]. Other than ask them not--to
ignore the silliness in Washington where we almost eliminate
the Ex-Im Bank. Hopefully, you hypnotized them into ignoring
the craziness here.
Ms. Biswal. Congressman, we do do a great deal of
commercial advocacy on behalf of American companies to ensure
that U.S. companies are----
Mr. Sherman. I will need to interrupt you. This is kind of
a test. I know the standard talking points that you are in
favor of commercial advocacy. I am kind of testing whether that
is for real, because I had a different Assistant Secretary come
here and say they agreed on commercial advocacy and testified
as to how he had helped promote German-made cars without
knowing it.
So that is why I asked a very specific question about
planes to see whether you could point to real specifics or
whether it was just the talking points that we believe in
commercial.
Ms. Biswal. So we have seen a dramatic increase in defense
sales to India----
Mr. Sherman. I'm sorry. Civilian planes. This is a question
about civilian planes.
Ms. Biswal. On the civilian planes, I will have to get back
to you----
Mr. Sherman. Okay.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. On a response on that. But I know
we have seen some major defense and transportation
infrastructure projects where American companies have one,
including GE, locomotive, including a number of defense
contracts with Lockheed, with Raytheon, with Boeing and so on.
Mr. Sherman. I know the defense business is there, and you
will get back to me on the commercial side.
I brought up, in my opening statement, the civil nuclear
industry. Obviously, BHOPAL did not cast America in a good
light. We saw the Deputy Secretary's meeting with the Foreign
Secretary on this issue. How close are we to being able to put
American nuclear companies on the same liability level as
others?
Ms. Biswal. Congressman, I would say that one of the areas
where we have been able to have significant breakthroughs is on
the civil nuclear cooperation. We have seen, in the past year
and a half, significant progress with respect to India's
establishment that its liabilities laws are compliant with the
international convention on supplementary compensation. India
has now ratified, and is now a member of the international
convention on supplementary compensation. India has established
an insurance pool that--that, again----
Mr. Sherman. Has the U.S. nuclear industry said, yes, that
is enough, or do they still regard it as not enough to allow--
--
Ms. Biswal. I think each individual company, at this point,
has to make its own commercial decision in terms of risk and in
terms of opportunity, and I think we are starting to see
companies making those decisions individually. Some are further
along down that road than others, but it is largely, at this
point, a commercial decision. And we stand ready, through the
U.S. Government, through our financing bodies, like the Ex-Im
Bank, to support that.
Mr. Sherman. So you are saying the Indian law fully matches
the protocol on liability?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct. We do believe now that they
have a test that they meet those.
Mr. Sherman. I have gone over time. Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. Okay. I would like to yield to Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen,
thanks for being here. I am not sure who can, or would be
willing to answer the question, but I am hoping one of you can.
So the 2017 budget request for Nepal includes an over 300-
percent increase in OCO, or overseas contingency operations
funding, and a nearly 50-percent decrease in the base. Now,
while the OCO request includes some continued earthquake
assistance, it also includes a significant amount of funding
for seemingly normal programs, like elementary reading
education.
Can either one of you elaborate on the justification for
shifting so much to the OCO account for Nepal?
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
The earthquake that hit Nepal last year devastated the
entire country, either directly or indirectly. There are
reverberations from that massive earthquake that caused more
damage than the earthquake in Haiti in terms of housing,
schools, and overall damage. And much of the budget will
support this longer-term recovery. Again, it is all
interconnected.
You pointed out primary education, but realize, over 8,200
schools were destroyed during the earthquake, and I think that
with reconstruction, certainly in a lot of the other
development we do, it is hard to draw the line between what is
earthquake and what isn't in terms of how we move forward on
development. And so we believe that all of our efforts did meet
the definition of OCO in terms of responding to a natural
disaster in that country.
Mr. Perry. So is the OCO ever present, or is it only
present in times where--I mean, is that account ever present
and just sitting there waiting for something to happen for
country after country, including Nepal? Or how does that work?
Mr. Stivers. I can't speak to the bigger budget issues,
except for just to say that Nepal certainly, in terms of the
earthquake response, we believe does fit under the definition
of what OCO should be used for.
Mr. Perry. Okay. So I guess, then, the next question would
be how long are you projecting the OCO account to be necessary?
Is this going to be forever? You know, I understand we are
trying to figure out what the base should be, and I understand
that there is the circumstance that was maybe unexpected, and
is an emergency situation, which warrants the OCO, but at what
point do--is there a plan? What is the plan to get back to the
base, so the American people can see that we are spending this
much of their tax dollars in Nepal?
Mr. Stivers. We think it makes sense for Fiscal Year 2017
for Nepal to be an OCO country. The decisions on whether in
Fiscal Year 2018 it would meet that definition, I think,
depends on a lot of circumstances, and we certainly need to
consult with Congress on that issue, and at the time the Fiscal
Year 2018 budget is submitted. So I think it has to be
determined at that time.
Mr. Perry. So there, essentially, is--like, you can't say
that in 2017, under this OCO budget, this is what we plan to
have completed, and which will require a continuation of OCO in
2018, or will be substantially completed in 2017 and then go
back to the base? I mean, shouldn't we kind of have some idea
now of where we are going to stand at the end of the year, or
do we just have an expectation we are going to spend all this
OCO money and then at the end of the year, we will to take a
look around and see what we got, and see if we need more?
Mr. Stivers. I think we have to evaluate Fiscal Year 2018
at the appropriate time. I think we can evaluate Fiscal Year
2017. I think over this next year, we can see how much progress
has been made there. It has been very slow progress in Nepal in
terms of earthquake recovery. And I think that is a decision we
have to make, you know, in consultation with Congress.
Mr. Perry. I hear what you are saying. To me, if I know--
yeah, just take--you have an accident with your car and your
insurance company, and the adjuster looks at it and says, Here
is the damage. You didn't expect this, it is an emergency
situation, and you need the vehicle. It is going to cost $3,000
to fix it, right? And so we set up and OCO fund, which is your
insurance company that pays $3,000 to fix the car. You take the
deductible out. We know what we are going to get to, right? We
know it is going to cost this much and then we are done. But
what you are saying is that this thing happened. We have got an
open-ended budget as far as the OCO will go, and we will look
at the end to see what we got, then we have--in other words,
there is no plan; there is no estimate. There is no evaluation
of when this--how far this is going to go, I mean, until we get
to the end? We don't have an idea?
Ms. Biswal. Congressman, I understand the gist of your
question. I think the reason why you are not getting the
clarity in the answer that you want is because we haven't yet
determined, in the Fiscal Year 2017 funds, how much out of OCO
we will be able to put toward Nepal, because of all of the
other contingencies and exigencies that are also right now
under discussion.
When we have a clarity of how much of the Nepal recovery
and reconstruction we will be able to accomplish this year, we
will be able to make a determination if in Fiscal Year 2018, we
will need to pursue that or not. But it is a very finite and
limited use of OCO for--for, essentially, this earthquake
recovery and reconstruction. And we hope to be able to have
clarity for you as we get a better determination of how much we
will be able to do out of the 2017 funds that Congress provided
if we are going to need to pursue any additional in the
outyear.
Mr. Perry. With the chairman's indulgence, let me ask this
one last question. So with the request being a 300-percent
increase in overseas contingency--the OCO fund, a 300-percent
increase and a 50-percent decrease in the base, based on that,
if you get that, you must--you must be planning for something
with that money. You must have come up with some estimate to
arrive at the 300-percent increase and the 50-percent reduction
in the base. Would you be done with the work if it goes as
prescribed as expected at the end of the year or not?
Ms. Biswal. I would--I am sorry. And I misspoke, it is the
Fiscal Year 2016 appropriation, which is right now with us,
where we are trying to make a determination. So the combination
of what we are able to realize in 2016 with what we have
requested in 2017 will, I think, determine whether, if we need
to pursue anything else in 2018 or not. And we hope to be able
to give you some clarity on that. Those are conversations that
we are very much in the midst of right now in the
administration looking at some of the other contingencies that
we are trying to address, and these are also conversations that
we are very much having with the appropriators to also
understand their priorities, Congress' priorities, with respect
to the use of OCO.
Mr. Perry. All right. One last comment before I yield. I
would say, to me, from my standpoint, if I am one of the
appropriators, and you have got a 300-percent increase request
and a 50-percent deduction in the base request, ostensibly to
go toward the OCO, I am less inclined to be interested to
provide that, unless I know there is a plan, right, to spend
last year's money and this current request to get to somewhere
where I know I am going to be. And what I didn't hear--what I
didn't hear was that there isn't any plan. We are going to
spend the money, and then we will let you know if we need more
at the end.
With all due respect, I think that is one of the things
that frustrates the American taxpayer is these programs go on
forever and ever and ever. And we are paying you folks to make
evaluations, determinations, make estimates and put the money--
put the money toward those things to finalize a completion.
And I don't know that--if we just do this, we are ever
going to be complete, because I am sure Nepal is always going
to need more money.
With that I will yield. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, gentlemen.
Ms. Gabbard.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Biswal, in your opening remarks you mentioned the
Maldivia, and I know you ran out of time, so I would like to
ask you to speak a little bit more about the Maldives, and
specifically, the percentage of their small population who are
foreign fighters who are traveling to Syria.
Can you talk about how the United States is working with
the Maldives to counter this strikingly high number of foreign
fighters that they have from the Maldives?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
We have multiple sets of issues that we are concerned about
in our tracking with respect to the Maldives. Certainly, the
fact that there is such a high per capita ratio of foreign
fighters being recruited out of the Maldives is a mounting
concern. The fact that the governance environment continues to
deteriorate, that there continue to be politically motivated
arrests and trials, and that the democratic space has been
consistently deteriorating has, we think, contributed to a
greater--creating a more fertile field for recruitment of
extremist organizations.
And we have maintained over the years, and continue to
maintain programs that are targeting combating terrorism and
engaging with civilian and security forces on specific concerns
with respect to trafficking of narcotics, of persons, and of
financing that can make its way toward terrorist organizations
at the same time that we are working both in our bilateral
engagement, and with our regional and commonwealth partners to
try to address the governance environment to see if we can't
bring enough pressure and partnership to bear on trying to
address some of the grave concerns with respect to the
governance challenges.
Now, I will confess that there is rising frustration in
civil society, in the human rights community, and in the
international community about the lack of progress from the
Government of the Maldives, and I do recognize that there have
been increasing calls for stronger actions with that regard,
including actions, many of who have been calling for sanctions,
or travel bans, or visa bans, to try to exert more pressure in
that direction.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. Shifting over to Bangladesh, Mr.
Stivers, you remembered thoughtfully, the USAID worker and
human rights activist who was slaughtered most recently. On
Sunday, the New York Times editorial board wrote about how
Bangladesh has descended into lawlessness. I introduced a
resolution last year calling on the Government of Bangladesh to
protect the rights of religious minorities in the country,
including Christians, secularists, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists,
et cetera.
Can you speak to what is your sense of the situation, and
the government's response? What more should they be doing than
they are already specifically?
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Over the last few years, the domestic and global situations
have combined to contribute to increasing radicalization. I
think domestically in Bangladesh, increased political violence
and polarization of political parties are key contributors, and
there is a lack of political space and free expression that are
real challenges for the government in Bangladesh.
I will defer to Nisha to talk about her discussions with
the government there. We know the targets include writers,
activists, intellectuals, and certainly religious minorities.
Thank you for your being such a champion on this issue, because
you have identified this issue long before some of these
attacks happened.
And I think our development programs at USAID can help
mitigate some of the underlying drivers of violent extremism,
certainly our support for civil society, human rights, voices
of tolerance, journalists can help push back on some of the
closing space in Bangladesh.
We work with the judiciary, and I know DOJ and the
Bangladesh police support each other on community policing
efforts. And so our work in this sphere to promote free
expression, to promote those reformers who are pushing for more
free expression and democracy and better governance in
Bangladesh, those are the folks that we support at USAID. And
Xulhaz Mannan was really a hero in pushing on those exact
things.
Ms. Biswal. If I may add to what John has said. This is,
obviously, an area of mounting concern for us and was the focus
of our meetings and conversations with the government we met
with not only foreign ministry, but home ministry and law
enforcement officials, and we met with the Prime Minister to
discuss what we could do in terms of both providing support and
partnership, and strengthening the capacity and the ability of
the government of law enforcement to, one, protect vulnerable
communities and prevent acts of terror; but then, two, to
investigate and hold people accountable when there is violence.
And this is incredibly important that there be a very focused
effort to fully investigate and bring people to justice when
there are attacks of this nature, and how we can be supportive
in that context.
We also talked about the need for us to work with civil
society organizations to ensure that they also have access to
tools and training and information with respect to their own
security. And so there is an effort underway right now from the
United States to see what more we can bring to bear in terms of
tools, technology, and resources. We have got a team heading
out this week with my Deputy Ambassador, Bill Todd, who
formally served as the Assistant Secretary in INL, but he is
going along with a team from the counterterrorism bureau, from
the CSO office, and others. And quite frankly, we expect that
we will be engaging in a fairly intensive effort in the weeks
and months to come to see how we can further strengthen efforts
to secure vulnerable populations, and to turn the tide on
extremism and terrorism in Bangladesh.
Mr. Gabbard. Thank you, Ms. Biswal. I am over my time, but
in closing, in all of your remarks, you talked about the tools
that the U.S. is trying to provide to support the Bangladesh
Government, but you didn't talk about the leadership and the
resolve that must begin and come from the Government of
Bangladesh if there is to be any progress. There are tools, and
then there is leadership and commitment to standing against
these acts of terrorism and extreme violence, and a commitment
to hold those perpetrators accountable. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, and thank you for being
here today. First of all, I would like to talk briefly about
Sri Lanka. They held elections obviously in 2015, and it has
kind of marked, I would say, a political shift that is pretty
significant in the country. And I had been to Sri Lanka in the
past, and kind of witnessed firsthand some of the devastation
that occurred during, and in the follow-up to the civil war and
the unrest that they had there for quite some time,
particularly in the north of the country and the area around
Jaffna. What would you say is the situation relative to the
government actually coming together, where Tamils feel an
actual role in the government?
When I was there, and this has been probably 5, 6 years
ago, they didn't feel like they were being treated at all well
by the government. The government obviously had a different
point of view on this. What would you say is the situation, and
especially on the ground in the North? They said they were
being excluded from being in police departments and a whole
range of jobs and things. How are things now?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Congressman. Let me say that there
has been a sea change between what the environment and the
perception was in Sri Lanka amongst the Tamil and other
minority populations in Sri Lanka, prior to the January 8, 2015
election, and what has been the feeling, the perception, and
the reality since then. Now it is and continues to be a work in
progress. There are many, many areas where we want to see more
actions and more progress, but we do see a commitment and a
steady sense of actions from the government, including on the
return of land.
Over 3,400 acres of land have been returned from military
to the original landowners. We have seen the government take
steps to start looking at constitutional reform by convening
its Parliament as a constitutional assembly. We have seen, for
the first time, a Tamil leader named as the opposition leader
in Parliament.
In May, the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Judicial
Independence and Torture were welcomed into Sri Lanka, both of
whom were denied entry by the previous government. And the
government has shown itself willing to examine both the
progress and the shortcomings, and to engage in an honest and
open dialogue on what it needs to do. We need to see some more
progress on things like the establishment of a commission on
missing persons. We would like to see them take a look at their
Prevention of Terrorism Act and to see how it can revised or
reformed in light of changing circumstances on the ground, so
that civil liberties can be ensured, and many other things that
I think we would like to see greater progress on, but we are
encouraged by the fact that there seems to be a commitment to
move forward.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I have got a follow-up questions
however, I have only got a minute and a half, and I wanted to
shift over to Bangladesh, so let me do that kind of quickly
here as well.
The first time I was in Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia was in
power. And when I went back most recently, which was maybe 2
years ago, Sheikh Hasina was in power, and met with both of
them on both those occasions. Obviously they have different
points of view on a whole range of issues. But the most recent
time it was a couple of months before the election that
didn't--well, the election happened, but it was boycotted by
Khaleda Zia's party. A couple of questions. One, do they
anticipate elections any time in the near future, or what is
the status on that at this point? And then most importantly,
relative to the violence that we have seen with the Islamist
extremists that have literally hacked people to death, and
other horrific things, in general, it tends to be when people
have criticized extremism, those people are targeted. Do you
see that as being an ongoing phenomenon? What is the government
trying to do to push--what are they doing to crack down on it
without expressing--without suppressing freedom of speech in
the press, et cetera? All in about 30 seconds.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Congressman. With respect to the
elections, my understanding is that the next elections would
take place in 2019. I have not heard any indication that there
would be an earlier timetable in terms of when the term is set
to expire. We do continue to urge that there be a more
inclusive political process and that the democratic space in
the country be expanded to allow for peaceful political
activity. There has been a history of political violence in
Bangladesh, including a particular spate of political violence
in 2015, which was of concern, and we have noted it both
publicly and privately in our conversations with political
parties.
So I think that that is going to continue to be a space
that we need to engage on and to continue to bring to bear some
pressure to see some additional progress on political inclusion
in Bangladesh, but also a respect for a violence-free space in
politics in Bangladesh.
And finally, with respect to the rising incidences, and the
frequency of incidences of violence, of extremist violence, in
Bangladesh, I think that that is something we are seeing action
and focus from the government on, and that is something that I
think we want to try to, again, further capacitate.
So I did not mean to convey that the Government of
Bangladesh is not seized with the problem. I do believe that
they are. I believe that the Prime Minister was very clear in
her determination to try to address this. I think we can bring
to bear, through our partnership, greater capacity and greater
focus on that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time is expired.
Mr. Salmon. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I want
to go back to Nepal for a minute, and following up on the
gentleman from Pennsylvania's questioning of the use of
overseas contingency accounts. And I may have misunderstood the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, but it seemed like his last
observation was, well, we are always going to have problems in
Nepal. And that is true, but I wanted to put this in
perspective. The earthquake that occurred over a year ago in
Nepal, was it not something like the third largest, most
intense earthquake ever recorded? Mr. Stivers, somebody?
Mr. Stivers. I am not sure if it was the third, but the
devastation was enormous.
Mr. Connolly. And there was a second aftershock that was
almost equally powerful. Is that not correct?
Mr. Stivers. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And it led to complete destruction of
villages in many valleys; I mean, total. Is that correct?
Mr. Stivers. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And destroyed, you know, UNESCO-preserved
shrines and monasteries throughout the country, including in
Katmandu, the capital, and also led to a massive landslide on
Mount Everest itself, which did damage and took lives as well.
Is that correct?
Mr. Stivers. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Any estimate of what the total cost of the
damage done from all those events might have been?
Mr. Stivers. The estimated damages are almost $7 billion.
Mr. Connolly. How much?
Mr. Stivers. $7 billion.
Mr. Stivers. $7 billion. One of the poorest countries in
the world.
Mr. Connolly. Right. And how many people live in Nepal?
Mr. Stivers. I think it is around 100 million.
Mr. Connolly. 100 million? One of the criticisms that has
been leveled about the relief and recovery efforts is that
money has been very slow to be deployed, and as a result,
reconstruction has already missed one monsoon season, and is
likely to miss another, partly due to corruption, partly due to
government incompetence, partly due to international relief
incompetence, but also partly due to the fact that absent
verification and infrastructure for managing these funds,
international agencies and nonprofits are not going to release
them. Could you comment, because there are people in need still
living in temporary housing over a year after the devastating
earthquake.
Mr. Stivers. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman Connolly.
First of all, I think the population number is 20 million.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah, I thought 20-something.
Mr. Stivers. I'm sorry. In terms of the damage, around $7
billion in losses. More than 750,000 homes were destroyed.
About 1,200 health facilities and hospitals, destroyed or
damaged, more than 8,200 public schools destroyed or damaged.
It was devastating. And it occurred in, not so much the
population centers that are more easily accessible, but up in
the mountain areas which are very difficult to get to, to get
reconstruction, or humanitarian recovery, to get that
assistance to the people who need it. That continues to be a
huge problem in Nepal, and reconstruction has been slow. There
have been a number of constraints to that. Certainly the extent
of the damage, the fact that it has occurred mostly in remote
areas that are hard to access, and the limited capacity of the
government are issues. The Nepal Reconstruction Authority has
just begun to operate and international donors have been slow.
There were a lot of pledges, but the money has been a lot
slower in terms of moving forward in terms of reconstruction
from a lot of the countries and entities that committed a
significant amount.
Mr. Connolly. But if I can, one of the things that concerns
me though, I mean, my view about management is, number one, are
you seized with the mission? To allow a whole monsoon season to
go by, it is very difficult to do reconstruction and
construction in a monsoon season. So you have got to wait for
that, and then schedule your construction or building. And we
are now in monsoon season number two, I believe, and we still
aren't seeing reconstruction. That means people are once again
without housing, without shelter, without many of the basic
necessities of life, and at risk, in not a particularly
favorable climate, both in monsoon and in terms of winter. So
what are we doing to try to light a fire under folks to be
seized with the mission, and are we seized with the mission?
Mr. Stivers. Absolutely. In my written testimony, I
explained a number of things that we have done in terms of the
reconstruction and the recovery. We did pledge, commit and
provide $130 million, which was for the initial humanitarian
response, and a lot of that was used for reconstruction. As we
move forward, we are trying to find the funds to do more in
terms of the reconstruction for our part, but it continues to
be a challenge. Certainly it continues to be a challenge for us
to do our part, and for the rest of the international
community, and maybe I will defer to Assistant Secretary Biswal
about the diplomatic engagement on that.
Ms. Biswal. Sure. But let me just make one observation on
the issue of the OCO before I talk about the diplomatic
engagement on Nepal's recovery effort. We recognize that OCO is
not for addressing kind of the long-term development needs, but
for addressing exigent circumstances, and the earthquake was
certainly an exigent circumstance. And the bipartisan budget
agreement----
Mr. Connolly. And excuse me. I wish Mr. Perry was still
here. That was the point of my line of questioning. I don't
disagree with him normally, but what happened in Nepal is
almost unprecedented, and certainly the worst to happen in
Nepal, and it presents and enormous challenge for us, the
international community, and not least, the Nepalese
themselves. That is why--please continue, but that is the
setting for the OCO provision here.
Ms. Biswal. Exactly. And we recognized and I think Congress
recognized in the budget agreement by expanding OCO funds. So
that was putting the earthquake reconstruction in under OCO
was, in a sense, respecting the direction that we received from
Congress in terms of how and where to use OCO, and we hope to
be able to revert to a longstanding, regular development
program in the base as soon as possible. We want to address the
exigent circumstances of the reconstruction and recovery as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Connolly. I know my time is up, and the chairman is
being very indulgent. But just to make a point, don't rush too
much into that. We have just established on the record we are
in the second monsoon season, and we haven't really touched
reconstruction. So the idea that we would go back to business
as usual when we haven't even addressed the crisis at hand a
year after the fact I think would be very imprudent management.
So let's not be rushed into that for form's sake. Let's
make sure that we are using resources in every which way we can
to try to return people to some sense of normalcy in their
villages and towns and cities in Nepal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Salmon. Well, I thank the panelists for being here
today. As always, you were very responsive.
Mr. Sherman. You are not going to do a second and third and
fourth round?
Mr. Salmon. Actually we have a meeting with the People's
Congress, what is it, the Foreign Affairs chairman, and that is
in 10 minutes. And with the chairman's indulgence on my long-
winded responses, yours, all of us, I think we would probably
be here for a little while maybe extended beyond that. You have
been wonderful. I really appreciate it, and I appreciate the
committee members up here and the great questions. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Sherman. We will miss you until next time.
Mr. Salmon. This committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]