Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
"Africa's Water Crisis and the U.S. Response"
May 16, 2007
The Honorable Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress
Thank you, Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Smith, for the opportunity to testify and for your important and bipartisan leadership on behalf of safe drinking water and the people of Africa. It is a pleasure to return to this subcommittee on which I was proud to serve in the previous Congress.
Two years ago, Congress passed the "Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act" with broad bipartisan support. At the time, it was called "landmark legislation," as we attempted to give substance to the international commitment to cut in half the percentage of people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Unfortunately, today it is clear that the intent and many of the legal requirements in the Water for the Poor Act are not being met by the State Department and USAID.
Across the world, too many poor people are paying the price for nature's failure to put the water exactly where they live. They are paying the price for pollution from inadequate or nonexistent sanitation. Many poor people are paying far more for water than they can afford because of a lack of water infrastructure. Some people are paying by slowly going blind because of arsenic poisoning in the water system.
I used to think those pictures in the National Geographic of women with water jugs on their heads were sort of exotic. Now, I recognize that they represent the face of poverty and a tragic scene. Young women, particularly, are paying the price. Girls spending hours a day getting water are much less likely to be in school and, in fact, many of them are at risk in terms of personal safety.
Every 15 seconds, a child dies from lack of access to safe water and sanitation. By the time I finish a few minutes from now, up to 20 additional children will have died unnecessarily. In fact, lack of access to water and sanitation is the number one preventable killer in the world.
That 1.1 billion people are without access to safe drinking water and 2.3 billion people are without access to basic sanitation means that $380 billion of activity for economic growth are lost because half of the developing world is sick from a water-related disease. United Nations reports show that increasing access to water and sanitation is necessary to meet any of our development objectives from fighting HIV/AIDS and reducing global poverty to preventing conflict. This tragedy is compounded because, not only is it happening, but we're not doing enough to stop it.
We know that progress is possible, as 2 billion additional people have gotten access to safe drinking water and sanitation over the last 20 years. Experts estimate that we could solve this global water crisis for less than the cost of a takeout pizza per American.
Our legislation was supposed to be a first step to "elevate the role of water and sanitation policy in the development of U.S. foreign policy and improve the effectiveness of U.S. official programs," as the Committee report stated. The Water for the Poor Act required the creation of a strategy, with specific goals, timetables and benchmarks, to halve the percentage of people in the world without access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, consistent with specific statements of policy, as well as the designation of high-priority countries on the basis of statutory criteria. To date, there has not been a strategy developed and no high priority countries designated. In fact, of the seven broad requirements in the Act only one - an assessment of planned and current activities for the provision of safe drinking water and sanitation - has been partially met.
None of this should be read as a criticism of the work being done by the State Department's water team in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs for whom I have great respect. These experts and professionals have been tasked with this major undertaking and not given the resources or the high-level political support necessary from the Secretary of State, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, or the former Director of Foreign Assistance.
While our legislation was specifically written so that it would provide a strategy and coordination among the 14 U.S. government agencies involved in international water issues in order to improve aid quality at any quantity, there was also a call to increase the level of resources devoted to increasing equitable and sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the very poor. The law required an increase in the percentage of assistance going to high-priority countries, defined as countries with the greatest need and countries in which assistance would be expected to make the greatest different. Many, if not most of these countries, would be in sub-Saharan Africa.
One misconception to clarify: there is no Paul Simon Water for the Poor program that has or hasn't been funded. Our legislation was designed to authorize and guide U.S. water supply and sanitation programs, but also to integrate them into other appropriate development sectors, such as health, education, and governance, not to segregate out water and sanitation. As such, to evaluate funding, you have to look at all U.S. government water supply and sanitation programs, not any specific "Water for the Poor Act" program.
In past years, Congress has generously provided funding for international water programs, including an earmark of $200 million in Fiscal Year 2006 from accounts across the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. However, the State Department, in implementing that requirement, has used an overly broad definition of "water" in order to report expenditures above the $200 million level.
According to State Department figures, in 2005 (the most recent figures available), USAID spent almost $400 million on water. Of that total, only $275 million was for water supply and sanitation. Of that $275 million, $100 million was for Iraq, Afghanistan, West Bank/Gaza and tsunami impacted countries through an emergency supplemental, while approximately another $100 million was disaster assistance, which falls outside the scope of the Water for the Poor Act. All told, only $70 million was spent on non-emergency water supply and sanitation. Of this, less than $10 million went to sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the greatest need. For fiscal year 2008, however, the State Department's budget proposes further cuts to less than $60 million and proposes ending our water and sanitation assistance programs in a number of key sub-Saharan African countries.
I understand that the new budget process put in place by the Director of Foreign Assistance is at the center of much of these budgetary issues, as their indicators of success may not demonstrate the true value of efforts to save lives, improve governance, and promote economic growth through access to safe drinking water and sanitation. If the Foreign Assistance reform process, known as "F," misses the fact that Africa, in particular, is in the midst of a water crisis, I think the solution is fixing or ending the "F" process, not cutting back on our water programs in Africa.
One bit of leverage that Congress has is the power of the purse. For fiscal year 2008, I and 28 other Members, including the Chair and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, have requested $300 million be specifically allocated for assistance to increase sustainable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the poor, as opposed to emergency or political assistance, pursuant to the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act. We have asked for this modest, yet still significant increase and that funds be explicitly expended under the authorization in the Water for the Poor Act, as a way to demonstrate the continued intent of Congress that drinking water and sanitation assistance be focused on the countries, people, and places of greatest need, and provide additional opportunities for Congressional oversight by both the authorizing and appropriating committees.
In January, I sent a letter to Secretary Rice that laid out my expectations for progress in implementation of the Water for the Poor Act leading up to the next report to Congress, due in June and I would ask to make that part of the record. However, I have not been led to expect that it will include the strategy required by the law.
When Congress passes a law, it is not an option or a recommendation, but a requirement. It is entirely unacceptable that the administration continues to behave as if Congress has no role in foreign assistance and feels free to openly violate laws which this body passes. If, one and a half years after President Bush signed this bill into law, the State Department continues to ignore not only the intent of Congress but its legal requirements, we will have no option other than to return to the legislative drawing board and limit the flexibility we provided the Department in seeking to deal with the global water crisis. I would welcome the cooperation of and input from this Subcommittee as to how best we do that. It is not a first best option, but it is much better than another broken commitment from the United States.
I appreciate the leadership of both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, as well as the Chairman of the Full Committee, who was an original cosponsor of the legislation, in ensuring that appropriate oversight and follow-up take place. I very much appreciate the chance to appear before you today and the opportunity to continue to push our government to meet this grave challenge.
January 2, 2007
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice,
I very much appreciate the continued willingness of the State Department and USAID to brief our staffs and engage with them on the implementation of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act (P.L. 109-121). Closer cooperation between the executive and Congress is key to achieving our shared aims of fighting poverty, oppression, and insecurity around the globe. I also appreciate the seriousness with which both agencies are working to strengthen our international water and sanitation programs as called for by the Act, as well as the prominent and appropriate role water has been given in the new Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure.
At this time of transition for both Congress and United States foreign assistance, I wanted to lay out my expectations for progress in implementation of the Act leading up to the next report to Congress, due prior to June 6, 2007.
It is my understanding that the inter-agency "water team" is currently soliciting information about opportunities in the water and sanitation sector from approximately 60-70 field missions with the intention of using this information to develop a number of regional strategies, concurrently with the new foreign assistance budgeting process being run by the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (F). I expect that these regional strategies, when integrated into a global strategy, will include programs of sufficient magnitude and ambition so as to reflect a contribution towards the objective contained in the Act of halving by 2015 the percentage of people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation that reflects both the United States' leadership role and the extent of our political and economic power. I further expect these strategies will include specific goals, benchmarks, timetables, and an assessment of funding needs by year to meet these goals, benchmarks, and timetables, as required by the Act, and that these goals, benchmarks, timetables, and funding needs be reflected in the budget submission for Fiscal Year 2008 and future years. I am sympathetic to the challenge of developing appropriate metrics, but believe that significant progress can be made on these before the next report.
The Water for the Poor Act also requires the designation of high-priority countries for U.S. water and sanitation assistance based on two specific criteria: countries in which the need for increased access to safe water and sanitation is greatest and countries in which assistance under such section can be expected to make the greatest difference in promoting good health, economic development, poverty reduction, women's empowerment, conflict prevention, and environmental sustainability. The designation of these countries, as part of the "F process," is the first step in, as the Act requires, "increase[ing] the percentage of water and sanitation assistance targeted toward countries designated as high priority countries." Congress' intent, of course, was to move towards a greater alignment of U.S. water and sanitation assistance with global needs, given an understanding of country-specific challenges. It is my expectation that the next report will include a list of specifically-designated high priority countries and that U.S. water and sanitation sector assistance in these countries will increase in the coming years.
In addition, I also understand that additional progress is needed on four issues, identified by the State Department and USAID: sanitation and wastewater management, access for the poor, urban and periurban issues, and climate variability. I further understand that it will take months to a year for a thorough exploration of these issues. These are all critical issues to U.S. water and sanitation programs, particularly the question of increasing access for the very poor, which was the central Congressional intent behind the Water for the Poor Act. I urge you to make this issue a higher priority and to include in the next report to Congress a discussion of methods to ensure that U.S. water and sanitation assistance is targeted towards increasing sustainable, affordable, and equitable access for the very poor and ways in which those methods are being implemented.
I also note that the report on water and sanitation expenditures includes humanitarian and disaster assistance. While these forms of assistance are critical for saving lives, they do not provide permanent or sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation and were not included in the Water for the Poor Act authorization. For this reason, I would urge you to exclude, or at least segregate, these funds from the other expenditures authorized pursuant to the Water for the Poor Act in future reports in order to give a more accurate picture.
Finally, the initial report to Congress did not include information on coordinating and integrating water and sanitation assistance across the U.S. government and with other U.S. assistance programs, coordinating U.S. water and sanitation assistance programs with those of other donor countries and entities, and an assessment of the commitment of recipient nations to policies that support affordable and equitable access to safe drinking water, as required by the Act. I very much hope that these issues are addressed in the next report.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this letter. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure the full and successful implementation of the Water for the Poor Act.
Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress
cc: Director of Foreign Assistance Randall Tobias
OMB Director Rob Portman
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
