MR. FULGHAM: Good morning.
AUDIENCE: Good morning.
MR. FULGHAM: Come on, all the Starbucks coffee to drink this morning. Come on, good morning.
AUDIENCE: Good morning.
MR. FULGHAM:
USAID and State Department colleagues and members of the press, it is
my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the United States Agency for
International Development. We are honored to have with us today
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as senior members of
her leadership team at the Department of State. Deputy Secretary Lew and
Dr. Slaughter and friends and colleagues, thank you all for coming.
Madame
Secretary, many of our colleagues attended the town hall you hosted at
the State Department on Friday and are eager to learn more about this
important initiative that we are about to undertake. I know that you had
originally planned to come to USAID on Friday, and I thank you for
postponing it until today so that I could be here.
As some of
you know, I was taking my daughter on a college tour. And in fact, one
of the schools we visited was the Secretary’s alma mater. (Laughter.) As
a father, it gives me tremendous pride to know that thanks to the
efforts of Secretary Clinton and those before her, my daughter can now
grow up to be anything she wants to be. (Applause.)
Madame
Secretary, as First Lady, as a United States senator, and now as our
Secretary of State, you have emphasized the importance of expanding the
circle of human dignity to every human being, men and women, boys and
girls. And that is the essence of what we do at the United States Agency
for International Development. We look forward to partnering with you
in the weeks and months and years ahead on this important initiative and
in the furtherance of our national security.
Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in extending a very warm welcome to the 67
th Secretary of State, our fearless leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Well, thank you. I am
delighted to be back here at USAID with all of you. I want to thank
Alonzo for that kind introduction. He’s absolutely right; when I found
out that he wouldn't be here, we waited until he got back from that
college tour. He took his daughter to Wellesley, and one of the
recruiting comments now made as young women are shown around is, “You
have a really good chance if you go to Wellesley to become Secretary of
State.” (Laughter.) Madeleine Albright was there ten years before me, so
I don’t know, something’s in the water.
I am looking forward
to answering your questions, hearing your ideas, and continuing our
conversation that we started here in this atrium about how best to serve
our nation and our world through effective development efforts. I know
that Alonzo mentioned two of the people who along with Alonzo will be
leading up our effort, the
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,
but I just wanted to mention that Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and
Director Anne-Marie Slaughter will be working along with Alonzo on this.
We
see in the Obama Administration development as one of the most powerful
tools we have for advancing global progress, peace, and prosperity. The
President and I believe that it therefore must be a vital part of our
country’s foreign policy. And when I became Secretary of State, here in
this great space, I pledged to elevate development to its rightful place
alongside diplomacy and defense as we tackle the many global challenges
and seize the opportunities facing us.
We are committed to
pursuing peace and prosperity in every corner, not only in the marble
halls of government, but in rural villages, in distant cities, where
people are striving to live and work and learn and raise families and
grow old with dignity. These are universal dreams, and the United States
seeks to make them a reality for more of the world’s people.
To
that end, we have set the United States Government on a path to double
foreign assistance with our 2010 budget request. We’ve made significant
pledges of assistance for the West Bank and Gaza. We’ve made development
an integral part of our approach in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq.
And at last week’s G-8 meeting in Italy, the President announced our
food security program that will come with a major increase in funding
for food and sustainable agriculture. And again, when he was in Ghana,
he focused on the importance of smart development.
So
development stands on its own pillar of our foreign policy, as does
diplomacy and defense. And at their best, they reinforce each other.
When USAID and the State Department work in tandem, we achieve a
multiplier effect, significantly increasing the scope and the impact of
our programs and policies.
To deliver concrete results, we
have to maximize our effectiveness. That’s why I’m excited to be here
today to discuss a new enterprise, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, which I announced at the State Department on Friday.
We
are adopting this idea from the Pentagon. The Pentagon has successfully
used this quadrennial review process to improve effectiveness and to
establish a long-term vision. And I know from my time – about six years
on the Senate Armed Services Committee – that the defense review helped
convey the Department’s mission to all stakeholders, from members of
Congress, to the members of the armed forces and their civilian
colleagues, and to the rest of government, as well as to the American
public.
Diplomacy and development deserve the same rigorous
evaluation and strategic thinking. To protect our nation, advance our
interests, and spread opportunity to more people in more places, we, of
course, need more than a top-notch military. We need talented diplomats
to foster partnerships and negotiate peace. We need experts in
development, like all of you, to steer crucial investments and the
material conditions of people’s lives, from strengthening health and
education to improving agriculture and access to food and water.
We
also need development experts to create the conditions for what
President Obama described in Ghana as transformational change. So we
rely on your expertise to promote and support good governance, fair and
open access to global markets, strong political and economic
institutions, and a thriving civil society.
As we’ve seen in
many places around the world and most recently in Afghanistan, long-term
stability depends not only on the defeat of violent extremists, but
also on the construction of roads, the creation of jobs, and the
strengthening of Afghan institutions to address the needs of the people.
For
the past six months, I have fought on behalf of USAID and the State
Department to get you the resources you deserve to do your jobs well.
We’ve called for our government to increase its support of our work. But
in return, we are also called to improve on that work. So this review
comes at a critical time. We are facing an unprecedented set of
challenges. And too often in the face of these challenges, USAID and the
State Department are forced to play catch up when we should be taking
the lead.
The truth is we know we can do better. We know that,
those of us in this effort together, better than anyone. But it’s also
true that in a time of economic recession in our own country, we owe it
to our brothers and sisters and parents and friends and colleagues and
classmates who are struggling to be able to put their own family’s
future on a strong footing, to explain to them why at this time we are
asking for significant increases in the work of diplomacy and
development.
We therefore have to strengthen and streamline
our organizations. And we have to be sure that we do so in a way that
tells the story of the importance of the work that the State Department
and USAID does for the citizens of the United States as well as for the
people of the world.
So we’re going to launch this major
reevaluation of how we set our priorities, organize our work, and
allocate our resources to make sure that we start looking to the
horizon; to plan, not just react. For the State Department and USAID to
have the greatest impact, we cannot simply strengthen each agency on its
own. We need to maximize the collaboration between us. We want to build
on the existing partnerships and find new opportunities, to share
knowledge, tackle common problems, and align our programs around the
world.
The QDDR will help us create short-term and long-term
blueprints for advancing our foreign policy objectives and enhancing
coordination between USAID and State, a crucial element of exercising
smart power.
We want to be sure that our top priorities are
consistent and clear, and that these then drive not only decisions about
budgeting and programming, but how we approach the training and
development of the new officers coming on board through the Development
Leadership Initiative.
As I told the people at State on
Friday, the QDDR has a different aim than previous reform efforts as
well as a broader scope. It’s designed to tell us where we are and help
us determine where we want to be, and how to bridge the gap between the
two. Through this process, we will be working closely with the White
House to harmonize the activities of USAID and the State Department with
the goals and actions of the entire government. We’re doing this review
at the start of this Administration, rather than a few years in,
because we don’t have the luxury to wait.
We are facing
challenges that demand our best efforts, our best experience and
expertise right now. Each of you will be key to the success of this
process. You are on the front lines. You know what works and what
doesn’t. And we want to rely on you, your energy and expertise, to make
sure this review is substantive and useful. I know there are a lot of
questions about how this will work in practice, and I’ll try to answer
as many of the questions you have today, and then we’ll answer more in
the days to come.
This initiative will have a dedicated
staff. It will be chaired by Deputy Secretary Jack Lew, the first person
to serve as Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
It’s a position that I filled for the first time to make sure that the
Department and USAID are able to perform at the highest level. We’ve
already seen the benefits of having the position filled, and even more
so, having someone of Jack’s experience fill it.
I remember
when we were talking about his new assignment, Jack, who some of you
might recall, was the director of OMB during the Clinton Administration,
said that it was always so easy to cut money from State and USAID in
the budget process because they would never come in in a unified way.
And so divide and conquer in the face of more demands for defense and
more demands for domestic priorities became the order of the day.
When
we presented a united front to OMB this time, they were somewhat
bewildered that we came in and said we are here on behalf of diplomacy
and development, and we are here to move toward the President’s stated
goal of doubling our assistance budget. And we’ve made tremendous
progress.
I also want to thank Alonzo for serving as the
co-chair, along with Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter. Alonzo will be filling
this role until a permanent administrator is brought on board. And let
me say I am as eager as you are to have a permanent USAID administrator
in place. But we’re not waiting, and we don’t think we have time to
wait. So Alonzo will be an integral part of our leadership team putting
this together.
I’m going to work as hard as I can in the days,
weeks, and months ahead to get the resources that you need to do your
jobs better. As part of this process, we will of course be including
PEPFAR and MCC. We will be working through the White House process with
Treasury, Defense, and others to try to get a handle on all of the
resources that go either into diplomatic or development efforts. But one
of my key goals is elevating development to its proper place in our
foreign policy agenda. It is not only the smart thing to do; it is the
right thing to do.
For me, as with many of you, this is
personal. For most of my adult life, I have been an advocate for women
and children and families both here in the United States and around the
world. Way back in the early 1980s, I read about a man named Muhammad
Yunus, and called him up and asked him to come to Arkansas. And we
created a micro enterprise project, the first in the United States
modeled on the Grameen Bank.
And then I heard about a program
in Israel that worked with mothers to help them, even if they were
illiterate as many of the refugees from Ethiopia and other places were,
to prepare their children, and we brought that to Arkansas as well. But
it wasn’t until I had the honor of representing our nation overseas as
First Lady that I fully appreciated the intersection between diplomacy
and development and the progress we can make when the two work together.
In 1995, I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of our
government at the United Nations Conference on Social Development in
Copenhagen. And shortly after that, I took my first trip to South Asia –
to Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. I not only met
AID workers, but I visited AID projects and saw the tangible results of
your efforts.
It had a profound effect on me and my thinking,
and I worked hard during my husband’s administration and later in the
Senate to make sure that development was recognized as the vital tool
that it is, that it was done effectively and intelligently, that we
invested in its potential to advance our national interests, and that we
were serious about maximizing the resources and energy we put into it.
That’s
what this review is designed to do, and I’m counting on all of us to
make it a success. I am grateful for your hard work, and I’m looking
forward to continuing to work with you to build a USAID that is fully
prepared to take on the challenges of the 21
st century. I
want USAID to be seen as the premier development agency in the world,
both governmental and NGO. I want people coming here to consult with us
about the best way to do anything having to do with development. And I
very much look forward to the day when we are able to bring back more
full-time USAID employees to do the work that now has been too often
sent outside of this agency, and to recapture the dollars that should be
spent on delivering results and not just paying contractors.
So
we have a lot ahead of us in the case that we need to make, but we’re
going to rebuild USAID, we’re going to revitalize the mission, and we’re
going to convince not only the Congress but the American people that
this is the best investment they can make. Thank you all very much.
(Applause.)
MR. FULGHAM: The Secretary is going to take
a few questions. There are microphones on the left and right side. We
can start on the right. First person at the mike, I guess, at this
point. Please, don’t be bashful. We don’t get many chances to speak with
the Secretary directly. I know a lot of you have a lot of questions, so
step up to the mike.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I’d appreciate it if you’d identify yourself and where you work.
QUESTION:
Sure. I’m Mike Burkly. I’m a Foreign Service officer stationed in
Washington now. My question is, when I was stationed in Brazil, the
Brazilian Government turned back $38 million of our HIV funding because
we had a difference in policy about abstinence and about commercial sex
workers.
So I would hope, as part of this review, that the
people who are doing it could look at that. And I just wanted to find
out your opinion about, one, abstinence, and whether that’s really
supported by data, which a lot of people, including me, feel it really
isn’t; and the other one is working with commercial sex workers in a
productive way and not stigmatizing them. Thanks.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Well, thank you. Both of those issues are getting a lot of attention
from Dr. Eric Goosby, our new Director of PEPFAR. I believe that the
importance of effective prevention requires that we take a hard look at
the policies that interfere with such prevention efforts going forward. I
think that there is a role for abstinence, but I remember going to
Uganda, which pioneered the ABC approach to HIV/AIDS, and it was a
combined approach that worked. And we’re going to look at how we get
back to what works. This is our highest priority.
We are also
negotiating with the Congress on the commercial sex and prostitution
requirements because we don’t want to again be eliminating effective
routes to preventing and treating HIV/AIDS. So I appreciate your
mentioning both of those.
Yes.
QUESTION:
Thank you, Madame Secretary. My name is Yoni Boch. I’m with the USAID’s
Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance. Thank you for coming to
address us here today.
In your Friday town hall meeting, you
suggested that an eventual administrator of USAID will report to Deputy
Secretary Lew, reporting to yourself, Secretary of State. While this
arrangement and the inclusion of AID in the QDDR as you laid out might
be successful in an administration with a strong commitment to
development and USAID’s priorities as you and President Obama have
repeatedly laid out, it also appears to subject the agency’s ability to
fulfill its mission to the particular ideology and priorities of
whomever is in power.
So my question is twofold: One, can you
please confirm the reporting structure you envision for the eventual
USAID administrator; and two, what institutional safeguards will you put
in place to ensure USAID’s future independence to fulfill its missions
and mandate long term, and that the agency will not become more
vulnerable to subsequent administrations with possibly a
less-than-positive view of AID and its work around the world? Thank you.
(Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. What we are
attempting to do is to strengthen AID and to provide it with the support
that it needs to fulfill its mission. The administrator of AID will
certainly have a direct line to me, but on budget issues and
coordination that will enable us to maximize our impact, I will expect
the administrator to work with Deputy Secretary Lew. We believe that it
will enhance the results that AID will see in terms of budget support.
And
I take very seriously what you say about the changing winds of politics
in Washington, which is why we’re trying to establish institutional
structures like the QDDR so that it stands on its own, it provides a
pathway for USAID no matter who is in charge in the White House or the
State Department, and why we also want to build up USAID again and not
see what’s been happening, which is a transfer of expertise and
experience outside the agency, which we think has undermined the
strength and the authoritative position of USAID within our own
government as well as outside it.
So we’re trying to take
steps that we believe will actually strengthen AID’s position no matter
who’s in charge. But I would just end by saying you know when a new
president is elected, policies change. So we’ve got to try to strengthen
AID to withstand what might be a political atmosphere that was not as
positive about development, and I think the steps we’re taking will
enable us to do that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Mrs.
Clinton, my name is Georgia Sambunaris. I’m with USAID. Let me start by
saying what an inspiration you are to all of us, especially women.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. (Applause.)
QUESTION:
My question deals with why so much of the agency’s resources are
allocated to so few offices and people to manage, and in particular, in
the global health sector, and what – while the rest of us are receiving
crumbs? And I’d like to know what can be done to make the equitable
allocation of resources more appropriate to the agency’s staff?
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Well, thank you for asking that. That is part of what we’re trying to
get a handle on in this review process. It is a fair statement that
certain programs within AID have received a disproportionate amount of
funding to the exclusion and detriment of other programs. Part of what
we want to do is set forth priorities in an integrated way to prevent
that from happening in the future, and we also need to bring the rest of
the government in.
When you think about how much money
PEPFAR spends on health, when you think about our new commitment that
we’ve made in this Administration to global health, and not defining it
just through the HIV/AIDS or even the HIV/AIDS/malaria/tuberculosis
prism, but also maternal and infant health and other chronic diseases
which are becoming very debilitating to developing countries – orphan
diseases. We want a much more holistic view of global health. But at the
same time, we know that education goes along with improved health
outcomes. We know that de-conflicting geographic areas assists help. I
mean, you can’t just take these in isolation. So part of our goal in
this process, which we need your advice and input on, is how we look at
this from a more integrated perspective.
Secondly, I will
admit I have an opinion going into this process that we have contracted
out too much of the core mission of USAID. It doesn’t mean that the
contractors are bad people or doing a bad job; it just means that we’re
not getting the kind of resources into the delivery of services abroad
that we should. Too much of the money stays right here in Washington.
And that, to me, wouldn’t happen if we beefed up our USAID personnel and
programmatic capacity again. We’d get more dollars on the ground where
we are desperately trying to utilize them.
So I go into this
believing we need to integrate and have a more holistic approach, and
that we have to take a very hard look at the outsourcing of so many of
the functions of USAID. And we’re going to have an open process, but I
think it’s fair for me to tell you that that’s kind of how – where I
start from.
Yes.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary,
my name is Jeff Spieler. I’m in the Bureau for Global Health, the part
that gets more than just crumbs. (Laughter.) It’s indeed a pleasure and
an honor to have you as our Secretary of State.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
QUESTION:
And I’m just so pleased as an American and as an AID employee since –
for more than 26 years. I’m glad to hear you speaking about staffing and
how critical that is, and the QDDR is going to give us an opportunity
to look closer at that. The DLI has been a marvelous exercise in
bringing new Foreign Service officers into the agency. I’ve seen many of
them. They’re highly qualified and we’re doing a marvelous job.
And
we also need to think about technical excellence within the agency,
both overseas and in Washington. And we need to maintain our comparative
advantage by having strong technical people within the agency. It’s
important to have generalists that can do development, but we need
specialists. We need them in Washington to backstop the field, because
the field will never have the capacity to have as broad a range of
technical experts in the areas that we work as Washington can, and us in
Washington backstop the field.
So one of the things I want
to bring to your attention, please, is the fact that for a Foreign
Service officer – for instance, a backstop 50, a health officer – if
that person wants to maintain his or her technical work, technical
capacity, there is no career path for them. For them to be promoted in
the Foreign Service, to get to the senior Foreign Service, they have to
stop being a technical expert. They have to move into management.
They’re not going to become a mission director and deputy mission
director by being a strong technical expert working at the grassroots in
countries. They need to have a broader work.
In Washington,
there is no career path for a technical expert. There is no way for a
technical person to move up to senior Foreign Service or to what’s
called SL positions. The only way they can get an advancement if they
want to stay as a technical leader is to move to another agency, because
we don’t have the capacity at AID. We actually have the capacity. We
don’t exercise it. So I would love for you to take on the fact that we
need strong technical people, as you’ve said very clearly, in
Washington. We don’t have to contract it all out. There’s still going to
be a role for contractors because sometimes we need people for a short
period of time --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: -- where you don’t want a full-time staff person.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION:
But we need to build up that excellence across all of the bureaus
within AID Washington, so we can backstop the field. And we need to
create a career path for people who want to be technical experts. Thank
you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that’s great.
(Applause.) Well, that’s why I appreciate sessions like this because
you’re the first person who has said that to me. And I’m very, very
appreciative to you. It dovetails with the general complaints I get
about how we used to have, back in the good old days – I guess, the
‘80s, I don’t know – (laughter) – before I’ll bet some of you were born
or were in kindergarten, and certainly in the ‘90s, that we had
agronomists, more agronomists. We had more engineers. We had more people
with specific technical skills, in addition to Foreign Service officers
who really burrowed in and understood a technical area well.
And
I think it’s one of the reasons why, frankly, we’ve seen a lot of our
responsibility drift to the Defense Department. You stop and think about
it; if we don’t have enough engineers, they’ve got the Army Corps of
Engineers, and it’s hard to compete with that. So you’re doing some kind
of development project, they just say, well, we’ll do it, don’t – you
don’t have to worry about it. We’ll do it. And I want us to be
competitive on the technical expert page. So I think that’s an excellent
point and I thank you for it.
Yes.
QUESTION:
Hi, my name is Bethany Eagen. I’m with the Office of Public Affairs,
currently as an intern. I have a similar frustration, maybe on a
different level, where – as being ready for hire, but pre-masters, I’m
looking for an entry-level type of position where I can utilize the
experience I’ve gotten here at USAID and sort of, you know, transfer
that into the workforce. And so far, I’ve run into a few issues with
that where the DIL program is – allows you to start from the bottom and
work your way up, but it requires a Master’s.
The other
option seems to be a more Civil Service track, which the entry-level
positions are predominantly administrative and stick to an
administrative track. So I’m wondering if there is a way that this can
be, you know, reevaluated and reorganized so that there are entry-level
positions that utilize interns and people who already have, you know,
some USAID experience and training, perhaps, or maybe even experience
from other places that’s limited, but who want to come in on the ground
and grow and professionally develop in the USAID organization.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
I think that’s a really fair question. And one of the purposes of
internship programs is to both convince young people they want to be in
government and, in this case, in AID, and it’s a great recruiting tool
to be able to get a pool of people that you can evaluate. But if there’s
nowhere for you to go, that’s kind of a dead end. So let me look at
that. Again, nobody’s raised this with me.
I mean, part of my
goal is to persuade and cajole and entice a lot of young people into
development work. And that should – there should be opportunities
available. So we will add that to the list of things to look at.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Yes.
QUESTION:
Hi, my name is Ryan McCannell. I’m a democracy officer for the Africa
Bureau. We all have good days and bad days, but after the speech this
weekend in Accra, this is a very good day. So --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good.
QUESTION:
I wanted to talk to you about evaluation. We’re in the process right
now, in the bureau, of putting together our preparation actually for the
senior reviews for the 2011 budget. And one of the challenges that
we’re facing, especially in democracy and governance, is trying to
figure out how to measure the success of our work, and I know that
that’s a very big challenge for all of us and something that you’re very
interested in.
The fact is we at USAID have lost a lot of
our capacity to have evaluate our own programs, and we’re finding it
very difficult to look at in-house ways of measuring our work. We
actually – and sort of simultaneously, I was asked to help defend a
request for our 2009 budget as we wrap up our 2009 budget, to spend some
money on program design and learning to help us measure our programs.
So I just wanted to put that forward before you and just let you know
and sort of ask you what your commitment is to help us evaluate our work
more effectively.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Another really
great point. And we want to have a capacity to measure what we’re doing.
That’s how we’re going to gain even greater credibility and, frankly,
resources that go with that. And it is difficult if there’s no ongoing
process for evaluation in-house. Obviously, there’s a role for
independent outside evaluators, but internally, we do want there to be a
constant evaluation. So again, we’ll look into this. Any thoughts or
ideas that you might have about it would be extremely welcome.
It’s
easier to measure how many children have been immunized or how many
textbooks have been delivered than it is sometimes to measure whether a
democracy or rule of law program is successful. So we have to have
different approaches, not just sort of the input measurement evaluation,
which is kind of easy. It needs to be done, but it’s not that
difficult, but looking more on the ground in terms of effects and
results. And you’re in an area that is more difficult to assess.
And
we also have to be looking at what it is we expect from host countries.
And I think that was really at the core of the President’s speech in
Ghana. Making decisions about the future of African countries is up to
Africans. He was very clear about that. But we have to see how we can
influence and leverage whatever diplomatic and development efforts we
are putting forth. So I think that’s another area where the coordination
between the two will maximize the impact of our development work. So
all of this is really grist for our mills as we begin churning out what
we want to say in the QDDR. And I thank you for raising that.
Yes.
QUESTION:
Thank you. I’m Ira Birnbaum in the Europe and Eurasia Bureau. Given the
recent developments on global climate change at the G-8 as well as on
Capitol Hill and the upcoming negotiations, what do you see as the most
appropriate development role for us in moving forward on this process?
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Great question. I was talking to Todd Stern, our Climate Change Envoy,
this morning, and he said that the results from the Major Economies
Forum in Italy were actually somewhat better than we had expected, but
that we face, as you well know, the challenge of persuading India and
China to figure out what they can do and will – and what obligations
they will take on commensurate with their own development goals.
So
I think that there’s a real role for development expertise in trying to
come up with ideas – clean energy technology transfers, small-scale
clean energy projects that can be upscaled in ways that the Chinese and
the Indians would find attractive, looking at targets that can be met
with increasing aid over time. I mean, there’s got to be a lot of
creative thought as to how we do this.
And of course, it’s
true more generally than India and China, but they’re going to be the
bell cows, if you will. A lot of the developing countries will look to
them. How do we incentivize the saving and restoration of a tropical
forest? What do we do about reforestation? I mean, there’s a lot that we
can be doing both in terms of ideas, but also by example. So I would
ask you and your colleagues who are thinking about and working on
climate change to give us your best ideas about what will work.
Recently, I was in El Salvador and there’s a big project – it’s part of
an MCC with a USAID support – to use single-panel solar for isolated
homes up in the mountains of north El Salvador that are not connected
and not likely anytime soon to be connected to any grid. My husband was
just in Haiti as Ban Ki-moon’s envoy, along with my chief of staff and
counselor, Cheryl Mills, who’s heading up our Haiti effort that some of
you have been involved in. And in one neighborhood in Port-au-Prince,
they are separating garbage and recycling certain elements of waste into
these pellets that substitute for charcoal, which are cheaper and
diminish, obviously, black carbon.
So there are – many of you
know of specific examples. We need – as comprehensive a list as
possible, because the more we can say, look, this is doable, this is not
beyond the reach of a development agenda that, in China and India’s
case, they want to keep trying to grow their economy eight, nine percent
a year because they have to absorb so many people. There are things to
be done on retrofitting and other approaches. And so I would really
welcome – and I’ll speak for Todd Stern here – your specific ideas,
those of you in this area, as to what can be scalable. Because we need –
I’m going to India Thursday night for a couple of days of consultation.
We’re starting a Strategic Dialogue between myself and the new external
minister of foreign affairs. And climate change and clean energy are on
there, but we need to be as specific as possible. So any thoughts any
of you have, please try to get them to me.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you and good morning, Madame Secretary.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
My name is Willy Hardin. I’m the first vice president of American
Federation of Government Employees. And my concern is of those of the
Civil Service employees. Here in this agency, we have the Foreign
Service officers, then we have the contractors, and below those two are
Civil Service – civil servants. Now, it’s inevitable that the number of
contractors we have or given the number of the contractors that we have
here, they are performing inherently governmental duties. And we have
statistics to show, number one, that that is happening; and two, that it
violates the federal occupation regulation.
My question to
you is: What actions do you plan to take to: number one, at least reduce
the number of contractors who are performing these kinds of duties; and
two, the manner in which we here at the agency can anticipate that the
Civil Service numbers will increase? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Thank you very much. Well, it won’t surprise you to hear me say that as
part of our intensive review, we’re looking at the roles people play
and the positions that contractors hold. I’m going at it also from a
cost perspective. I mean, there is increasing evidence throughout the
government that contractors performing the same job as a government
employee are inherently more expensive.
Secretary Gates in
his budget submissions to the Hill is asking to bring thousands of
contract employees back inside the Pentagon because they’ve already
done, through their QDR process, an analysis which proves how much money
they will save by bringing people back into the government.
And
of course, once people become government employees, once again, then
the issues that you’re raising will be obviously addressed and taken
care of. And I look forward to working that through and trying to
determine the best way that we can maximize our government’s capacity at
the appropriate cost, which I think means we have more people in-house
who are government employees once again.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION:
Thank you. I’m very glad that you’re here today with us. I think I want
to ask the question that probably most of the inquiring minds here in
the auditorium would like to have answered. As you’ve kind of laid out
or some information has come out about the QDDR process that we’re about
to commence, and then also the new structure where the head of our
agency, I guess, will be reporting to deputy – to the Deputy Secretary
of State.
The question that I think many of us have is: When
will we be getting political leadership in our agency? And I think we’d
also like to hear from you why it’s taking so long. I think, you know,
we’re very concerned about this. We want to be at the table. We want to
be represented. We know that we’re part of the foreign policy apparatus
of the United States Government, and certainly we don’t see ourselves as
opposed to the State Department, but we do think that we have very
specific interest and insights that we think that political leadership
that is a part of our agency could spend the time to understand kind of
our unique perspective and represent that perspective. So I think most
of us here today would like to know why is it taking so long in terms of
getting someone in place and when might – we might have someone in
place? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re welcome.
(Applause.) Well, let me say it’s not for lack of trying. We have worked
very hard with the White House on looking for a candidate who, number
one, wants the job and, number two – (laughter) – I mean, it’s been
offered. (Laughter.) But most significantly, the process, the clearance
and vetting process, is a nightmare. And it takes far longer than any of
us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words. I pushed very
hard last week when I knew I was coming here to get permission from the
White House to be able to tell you that help is on the way and someone
will be nominated shortly, and I was unable – it just was – the message
came back we’re not ready.
But I have to quickly add,
certainly your senior leadership – Alonzo, Lisa and others – they are at
the table every day at the State Department – (applause) – and you are
well represented at every leadership level, every meeting that we have.
So I know that you and I share a very strong desire to get the political
leadership in place, because once we get an administrator and a deputy,
there are a lot of other positions to be filled. I mean, we’ve got a
long way to go. I mean, as probably many of you know, we don’t have all
the positions at the State Department filled either.
So I
think anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process would
tell you that every administration, it gets worse and it gets more
cumbersome. And unfortunately, with everything going on in the
nomination and confirmation process, it is just taking a long, long
time. And some very good people, you know, just didn’t want to be
vetted. You know, and not that they had done anything wrong, that when
they looked at the burdens of it and the fact that people who aren’t
very well off – I mean, it’s not that they’re poor, don’t get me wrong,
but they’re not multimillionaires – you have to hire lawyers, you have
to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous.
And I’ll say
that as somebody – and then here’s one of the questions you get asked.
(Laughter.) First of all, you have to remember everywhere you’ve lived
since you were 18, and beyond a certain age you can’t even remember when
you were 18. (Laughter.) It’s really burdensome. And then one of my
all-time favorite questions: Please tell us every foreign national you
know. (Laughter.) I mean, some people who are of different ancestry,
they’re a hyphenated American and they have family still living in other
countries finally say this is ridiculous, I can’t even – you know, I
have lots of cousins I’ve never met. You’re going to ask me to put their
names down so they can all be interviewed? That’s ridiculous.
So you’re sensing my frustration. (Laughter.)
MR. FULGHAM: One last question, ma’am.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, right there.
QUESTION:
Good morning, Madame Secretary. I’m Maxine Hillary with Public Affairs
with the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean here at AID. To my
knowledge, there is only one USAID staff person at the United Nations
Mission in New York, and considering that so many AID programs overlap
with UN initiatives, I wondered if there had been any discussion on
enhancing the role of USAID at the UN Mission, particularly in the areas
of indigenous peoples, women, global health, democracy, et cetera.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Another excellent idea. I will certainly look into that because there
is, as you know, so much coordination between USAID and UN programs and
there needs to be even more. So I think that’s an excellent idea, and I
will certainly follow up on that.
There’s two more people standing. We’ll take those very quickly. Go ahead.
QUESTION:
Good morning, Secretary Clinton. It’s such a pleasure to have you here.
I just wanted to introduce myself as one of the contractors that works
directly – (laughter) – here at USAID. (Applause.) We come in many
flavors. Some of us are fellows and some of us are contractors, and some
of are fellows and then contractors. And I think we have the technical
expertise, we have many years of experience, 20 years and more
sometimes, and we’ve been working inside the building but we don’t have
the pleasure of being direct hires. I think there’s many of us that
would really enjoy a career path. And thank you so much.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
I am so glad to hear that. (Applause.) I would love to give you that
career path. And one of the things that I hope we can do, Alonzo, is in
the process of the QDDR have some roundtables with contractors. I mean,
what are the pluses, what are the minuses. My problem is I look at the
numbers. We’re paying somebody else’s overhead for them to hire you to
send you to us. That strikes me as really hard to justify. There are
certain cases, as one of the earlier questioners said, where we have no
choice, where there’s expertise that is short-term or not available. But
I would love to have career paths for qualified, concerned, passionate
people like yourself. So give us ideas about how best to do that. And
with the new hires and with the increased funding that we’re requesting
from the budget, we’ll have an opportunity to start that, too.
Final question.
QUESTION:
I want to thank you also, Madame Secretary, for being here. I’ve been
in government service at Defense for ten years at the beginning of your
husband’s administration, and here at USAID now for five. I’d like to
point out only one theme that cuts across presence at USUN, technical
capability evaluation capabilities, and apex jobs here within USAID,
positions for senior people, SFS and the like. And it was in a bureau,
the PPC, Programs and Policy Coordination, which was picked up and moved
over into State by the Director of Foreign Assistance in the last
administration when the F bureau was created. We would very much like to
hear a bit more about the plans for F bureau and the Director of
Foreign Assistance. And also, I will tell you that there were 60-odd
senior positions in this PPC Bureau here at USAID which handled program
coordination, budget activities, staffed international organizations,
and provided a great deal of our technical excellence and jobs in both
sides of our personnel system. Redressing that absence, if you will, and
all of the fine people over at F, who may now serve great functions in
State but really were, you know, sort of ripped off the top of USAID,
would perhaps be a good way to help revitalize the agency. Thank you.
(Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, this is one
of those issues that we need your ideas about. Obviously, this was done
prior to our arriving, and we want a very clear analysis about what
works and what doesn't work. It’s hard to imagine having an evaluation
and review mechanism without the people to carry it out on either the
budget or the programmatic side. So this is all part of what we’re
attempting to understand better and learn from.
I want to
just end by saying we come in to this without any preconceptions. I
mean, our view is very clear that we want to do this so that we – either
talk about seats at the table – we have as strong a position as
possible within our own government and on the Hill in presenting the
proposals and the future planning for diplomacy and development, and
making a concerted case that will frankly protect the prerogatives and
the funding of both the State Department and USAID. But on a lot of
these particulars which you have mentioned, we don’t have any firm
views, so we welcome your ideas. I mean, one thing that I hope we’ll do
is set up a website specifically for the QDDR process so that you can
either, under your own name or anonymously, submit ideas. Because this
will only be as successful as the involvement that all of you have in
it, and I think we have a lot riding on this. We want to try to get it
done and teed up and get it up to the White House and the Hill in time
to influence the budget process for next year. So we’re on a tight
timetable, but we’re very sure that with the expertise and help we have
here, we can make it.
And so I thank you for your wonderful
questions, but more than that, your very substantive suggestions,
because there’s a lot of real substance here that I want to be sure we
take advantage of. So please continue doing the great work you’re doing,
and keep thinking about ways it can become even greater and more
effective. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)