[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8] [Senate] [Pages 11601-11602] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION FUNDING Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I had the fortunate opportunity to travel to Africa and South America over the Easter recess, and I want to take a moment to share some of my observations with my colleagues. Mali receives significant U.S. foreign assistance totaling $45 million in fiscal year 2007, $55 million in fiscal year 2008--and $461 million in Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, funding. While Mali appears headed in the right direction, I worry that the MCC is going down the wrong path, specifically by funding a $90 million renovation project for Bamako airport's runway and terminal. I understand that this project may have been formulated through a consultative process, but it seems to me that it should be funded through the African Development Bank or by private investment. I expect the MCC to justify to the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee the necessity for U.S. taxpayers to fund the airport project, and to consult on the reprogramming of funds required by the derailed $90 million industrial park project. The funding disparity and contrast between our traditional development agency--the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID--and the MCC was glaring in Mali. Where USAID--could benefit from a slight increase in overall funding, the MCC was struggling to determine how best to reprogram $90 million. I am very concerned that MCC may not live up to its billing as a more effective aid delivery program, and its deep pockets may create unintended opportunities for corruption. I had the opportunity to visit the U.S. Embassy and learned of the loss of air conditioning for a lengthy period of time which was a burden to American and local staff. This is not the first time I've heard of problems at our newly built embassies, and I encourage the State Department to make sure that no patterns exist at these facilities because of subpar contractors or equipment. [[Page 11602]] Like Mali, Nigeria receives significant U.S. assistance primarily through a new initiative, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Assistance in fiscal year 2007 totaled $350 million and $491 million in fiscal year 2008, of which $282 million and $410 million are for HIV/AIDS activities, respectively. On paper, Nigeria is wealthy country with significant oil reserves, and, we were told, an estimated $57 billion in an excess crude account. Corruption is unfortunately a cancer that stymies development and political progress in that country; Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, 2007, ranks Nigeria 147th out of 179th. Nigeria is a PEPFAR focus country, with a 3.9 percent prevalence rate among adults. Given Nigeria's significant natural resources, it is imperative that the AIDS Coordinator begin a process of transitioning from U.S. to Nigeria-funded programs. America can help the Government of Nigeria spend its health dollars, but I question the efficacy of U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS programs in that country. I will have more to say on this issue when the Senate considers the reauthorization of PEPFAR, perhaps later this year. Namibia is also a PEPFAR focus country, and received $86.9 million in fiscal year 2007 and $103 million in fiscal year 2008 for HIV/AIDS programs. Unfortunately, other programs for Namibia, specifically support for democracy activities, has been in steady decline over the past few fiscal years and is being zeroed out. Given that the ruling SWAPO party is no longer a monolith, and splinter parties are forming, the Administration's reduction in assistance to Namibia may be ill timed and ill advised. My staff and I are exploring ways to ensure that sufficient funding exists for non-HIV/AIDS programs for Namibia, including immediate support for domestic election monitoring activities in that country, and like Nigeria, I encourage PEPFAR personnel to explore sustainment strategies for U.S.-funded HIV/AIDS programs. I am also concerned that the United States is not supporting enough exchange programs with countries in Africa. I intend to increase these programs in upcoming appropriations bills. South Africa is also a PEPFAR focus country and received $398 million in fiscal year 2007 and $547 million in fiscal year 2008 HIV/AIDS funding. South Africa is running a budget surplus--in this case totaling $2.4 billion. I am very pleased that our U.S. Ambassador understands the need for South Africa to assume greater financial responsibility for HIV/AIDS programs, and it is unfortunate that certain South Africa government officials have not been aggressive in addressing this issue. Any future support for HIV/AIDS programs in South Africa should be conditioned on the development and implementation of sustainment strategies to ensure that the Government of South Africa assume the care for its infected populations. Crime remains a significant challenge to everyone in South Africa, and given the increased personnel requirements associated with PEPFAR, it may make sense to allow the use of PEPFAR funds for administrative and operational expenses at the U.S. Embassy, including for security purposes. New initiatives create increased desk and office space needs, and I've asked my staff to take a closer look at this issue in anticipation of marking up the fiscal year 2009 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I also intend to continue to work with Secretary of State Rice on resolving travel issues impacting members of the Africa National Congress, which is an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-South African relations. Finally, although Argentina is not a major recipient of U.S. foreign assistance--some $2 million was provided in fiscal year 2008--relations between our countries have been historically good. I encourage my colleagues to continue to follow counterdrug and counterterrorism developments in that country--and region. ____________________