|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Statement of Frederick W. Schieck
Deputy Administrator-designate, USAID
Before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
December 4, 2001
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing today on my nomination. I am honored that President Bush has nominated me for the position of Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I am equally honored that Administrator Andrew Natsios recommended me for this position which, if confirmed, will give me the opportunity to play an important management and policy role in a key foreign affairs agency at a critical time in our country's history.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my family who are here today, my wife Sara who has been a source of great support throughout my career, and our daughter, Sara Dee, who is making an important contribution to our government in her position at the Immigration and Naturalization Service here in Washington.
I am not a stranger to foreign assistance programs. I have been directly engaged in the management of economic and social development programs around the world for 35 years. For 25 of those years I worked for USAID as a Foreign Service Officer. After leaving USAID in 1990, I worked for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for 10 years. The IDB finances development programs, largely through loans, in 26 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
During my time in USAID, we spent 14 years overseas in five countries. There is no better way to learn the business. For many years USAID could and did say that our greatest comparative advantage was in having experienced field staff who possessed extensive knowledge of the countries in which we had programs, and a good sense of what works and what doesn't. Daily contact with high government officials, staff of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), technical assistance advisors financed under our projects, U.S. Ambassadors and Embassy staff, and, of course, the people in the countries whom we were seeking to assist, imparted many lessons. This knowledge was relied upon heavily in guiding decisions as to which programs should be financed in each country, and what the composition of those programs should be. One size fits all does not work well in our business. I might add too that field staff are indispensable to assuring appropriate and timely implementation of projects. Project-related problems are out there to be solved, and not in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, in discussing this comparative advantage, I imply that we may not be so blessed today, or perhaps not to the same extent as in the past. From my brief exposure to the Agency over the past month or so, it is clear that our field presence has been greatly reduced. Certainly our technical capacity -- the education specialists, economists, and agriculturists -- in our field missions has seriously eroded. Field mission staff today typically consist of a controller, a contract officer, an administrative officer, a mission director, and maybe a general development officer. These people are supported by local staff and by contract personnel who work on individual projects. These contractors may or may not have had development experience in other countries.
No doubt, the costs associated with maintaining people overseas may be one explanation for the current situation. But Administrator Natsios assigns high priority to strengthening our field missions, and has announced that this will be one of his main priorities. If confirmed, this is an area where I hope to make a significant contribution.
Administrator Natsios has announced "four pillars" which guide the Agency in formulating and prioritizing assistance strategies. The recent reorganization of the Agency creates central Bureaus to oversee and manage aspects of three of these pillars: Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade; Global Health; and Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance.
The fourth pillar, the Global Development Alliance (GDA), is managed by a secretariat reporting to the Deputy Administrator. Therefore, this initiative will be one of my responsibilities, if I am confirmed. This is an important initiative because it builds on the reality that government, the private sector, foundations, universities, cooperatives and a variety of other non-governmental organizations have an interest in, and are working on, global development issues. Clearly, the U.S. government is not the only source of American funding and technical assistance for overseas development purposes.
Mr. Chairman, under the GDA, USAID will use its resources and expertise to work with potential partners on issues of common concern. USAID will look for opportunities where relatively small amounts of U.S. funding can leverage larger amounts of non-government funding for agreed-upon objectives. In essence, USAID's role under the GDA will be to work with outside partners interested in jointly financing high priority projects. In this manner, USAID will be able to bring its strongest assets to the table such as technical expertise, field presence, relationships with governments and international organizations, as well as its continuing involvement in broader, integrated development programs. By doing so, GDA will be able to take seriously the task of due diligence prior to engaging with corporate partners, have instruments that protect eveyone's interests, and provide a clear exit strategy.
There are precedents for GDA. Certainly, the American corporate world has made good use of the knowledge and skills of private voluntary organizations (PVOs) in carrying out humanitarian and development programs in countries of interest to them. For instance, large corporations regularly provide funding to PVOs after natural disasters so that they can purchase and deliver much-needed emergency relief supplies to people who have lost homes and jobs. The Association of American Chambers of Commerce of Latin America, for example, has signed an agreement with the Pan American Development Foundation making it the central recipient of corporate contributions by its members after natural disasters. This works because most businesses do not have the capacity to run relief programs, and they are reluctant to turn funds over to entities which do not have proven track records.
The GDA will focus on development, not relief, and by having it's own funding available to contribute, will be better placed to influence the scope and nature of the resulting projects. I look forward to working with the GDA secretariat which, as has been reported to the Committee, is seen by USAID as a temporary organization whose purpose is to get the concept functioning throughout the Agency after first developing appropriate guidelines. Once the program is mainstreamed, the secretariat will be disbanded.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I expect to have a lead role in representing the Agency in the many inter-departmental deliberations where U.S. support for international economic and social programs are discussed. There are many players in this game today, and we find that there is a great deal of interest by domestic agencies in being of assistance. Certainly, our relationship with the Department of State is all-important, and our respective staffs are making great efforts to ensure proper understanding and coordination. If confirmed, I expect to devote large amounts of time addressing questions of budget, country priorities and funding levels with Department of State colleagues.
Administrator Natsios has discussed with you the high priority he has assigned to improving the Agency's internal management practices. The new Assistant Administrator for Management, John Marshall, will have primary responsibility for reforming such key functions as financial management, procurement and human resources management. But I hope to assist by relying and building upon my past experience in these areas. I am especially interested in the personnel function since it has so much to do with the Agency's capacity to field a workforce that can meet the challenges facing USAID.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you, other Members of the Committee and your staff. USAID leadership has long understood the importance of building sound working relationships with the Congress and to listen to what is being said. I have had extensive experience in the past testifying before Congress on a range of matters, including the Agency's annual budget requests. I was always impressed with the interest and knowledge Members showed in our programs. I look forward to doing it again.
I believe that one of the most important insights I have gained over the years is that the development business is not easy. To put it simply, we, the United States, with all good intentions are attempting to influence other peoples' governments and institutions, public and private, to change because we are convinced that this will improve their well-being. These governments and institutions may not entirely agree with our ideas, or even when they agree, they may have other ideas about how to accomplish the same goals. So, 100 percent success stories are hard to come by, and we sometimes must accept less. How much less is always a judgment call, and one of the benefits of sound country knowledge is that these types of judgments, when we are faced with poor performance, can often lead to realistic restructuring of programs to improve their performance. Underlying everything we do, however, is the necessity of making qualitative and sustainable improvements in the lives of the many poor people living in the developing world.
I am excited at the prospect of returning to USAID. Returning after 10 years away is a unique experience. I already sense that the Agency is a significantly different place from the one I left. The obvious changes are easily seen; working with Russia and its former states is one; the great reduction in direct-hire staff is another. The role of NGOs and PVOs has greatly increased. The role of governments in our programs has diminished, and this may be a good thing. But, are we adequately addressing questions related to the performance of important public institutions? I don't know, but, if confirmed, I will want to look at this because ultimately, and particularly in the social sectors (health and education especially), government performance is crucial to assuring the delivery of adequate services for people in need around the world.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any of your or the Committee's questions.
 |
|||
Last Updated on: January 02, 2009 |
