August 23, 2007
Mr. Philip M. Heneghan
1111 19th St., NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC
20036, U.S.A.
Tel: (202) 833-5900
Fax: (202) 833-0075
15 Railroad Row
White River Junction, VT
05001, U.S.A.
Tel: (802) 649-1340
Fax: (802) 649-1396
ghc@globalhealth.org
President and CEO
Nils Daulaire, MD, MPH
Board of Directors
William Foege, MD, MPH
Chair
Joel Lamstein, SM
Vice Chair
Reeta Roy
Treasurer
Susan Dentzer
Secretary
Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf, PhD
Valerie Nkamgang Bemo, MD, MPH
Alvaro Bermejo, MD, MPH
George F. Brown, MD, MPH
Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell
Haile T. Debas, MD
Afaf Meleis, PhD, DrPS, FAAN
Paul Rogers, JD
Allan Rosenfield, MD
Nils Daulaire, MD, MPH
www.globalhealth.org
Chief Privacy Officer
U.S. Agency for International Development
Ronald Reagan Building
Office 2.12-003
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20523-2120
By electronic mail to privacy@usaid.org; bjohnson@usaid.gov; jdenale@usaid.gov
Re: RIN 0412-AA61; Notice, Privacy Act System of Records, Federal Register,
Vol. 72, No. 136, July 17, 2007, Pages 39041-30944; No. 139, July 20, 2007 pages
39768-39770; No. 140, July 23, 2007, Page 40110
Dear Mr. Heneghan:
I write to you on behalf of the Global Health Council, which is the premier
professional association for organizations and individuals working in and studying
the field of global health. We represent over 360 organizations, businesses,
academic institutions, foundations and associations. Virtually all of USAID’s
prominent partners in the field of global health are members of the Council.
We are deeply dismayed by the proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS) and we urge
that USAID immediately desist from implementation of a system that is
unwarranted, unwise, burdensome, and of dubious legality. The proposed PVS
stands to do substantial damage to our member organizations without achieving any
useful public purpose.
1. Lack of transparency and reasonable consultation: It is inappropriate for USAID
to announce that it will implement a major new requirement on the very day on
which comments are due and therefore without regard to any comments it receives
from its partners. A proposed major change in requirements should be preceded by
a reasonable degree of informal consultation. If the requirement is still deemed
advisable after informal consultation (a proposition which in this instance we
sincerely doubt), then there should be a process for issuing proposed rules, receiving
comment and then adjusting the rules to respond to informed commentary. The
process being used by USAID is discordant with the pledges of transparency and
consultation made by Acting Administrator Henrietta Fore. On process grounds
alone, the PVS should be withdrawn until there has been a reasonable and genuine
effort to consult with the affected organizations and their representatives.
2. Sweeping and burdensome demands: As written, the proposed system is
sweeping in scope, encompassing, "…individuals who are directors, officers or who
are otherwise employed by either for-profit or non-profit non-governmental
organizations who apply for contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or other types
of instruments" as well as individuals applying for personal services contracts, who
attempt to obtain “other USAID assistance or benefits” and individuals who are
officers or officials of non-governmental organizations registering with USAID as
private and voluntary organizations.
 On its face, the language would apply to any employee of an organizational recipient
who receives or may receive any emolument derived from USAID funds. This would
quite literally apply to tens of thousands of individuals, ranging from chief executive
officers of major organizations to the person who cleans the office of the most remote
rural office of the smallest NGO benefiting from a USAID sub-grant. The great majority
of these individuals will not be US citizens. Most will not have social security numbers,
passports, telephones, e-mail, employment data or even a meaningful mailing address, all
of which are required under the July 17, 2007 notice. Some will be barely literate.

Every organization experiences turn-over and new hires. The PVS would require that
USAID partners be constantly monitoring changes in personnel to be sure that each and
every person – from the CEO to the sweeper – has filed the requisite information with
USAID.

This is an extremely burdensome requirement that is virtually impossible to meet.

Unwitting non-compliance is virtually guaranteed. We find it shocking that USAID
would propose a system that shows so little understanding of the realities of working in
the developing world.

Taken literally, the potential scope of the PVS extends far beyond the employees of
USAID’s partners, as the language applies to “individuals…who attempt to obtain other
USAID assistance or benefits.” What is the meaning of this phrase? In any given year,
millions of people obtain assistance and benefits from USAID. That is, after all, the
purpose of USAID – to provide assistance and benefits to the poor in developing nations.
USAID’s partner organizations are the vehicles for providing assistance and benefits. The
implication of the PVS, as set forth in the Federal Register, is that USAID partners are
expected to secure personal information on every beneficiary of every USAID program.
We doubt this could be the intent but illustrates that the proposed PVS simply cannot be
implemented as written.

The July 23, 2007 notice estimated that 2000 agencies would spend no more than 500
hours total on this new reporting requirement. The assertion that each agency would
spend an average of fifteen minutes responding to this requirement is implausible. Please
provide the empirical basis for deriving this estimate. What surveys or analyses of
partner organizations were conducted to derive this estimate?

3. Use, misuse and abuse of information: The purported purpose of the PVS is to “vet”
the employees (and beneficiaries?) of partner organizations to ensure that they are not
“associated with terrorism”. The regulations stipulate that the information used in the
vetting process, other than that provided by the partner organization, need not be
disclosed to the public. The July 20, 2007 notice goes on to say that “USAID cannot
confirm or deny whether an individual has ‘passed’ or ‘failed’ screening.”

This creates enormous possibility for abuse bordering on the Kafkaesque. Individuals
who fail the vetting process will presumably be banned from employment or other
benefits using USAID funds. However, they will not be told whether they passed or
failed screening. The factual basis for making a determination will not be shared. The
criteria for determining that an individual is “associated with terrorism” are not defined
though they, in fact, appear to include guilt by association. The sources of information for
making a determination will not be identified. The organizations to which the personal
information will be transmitted are also confidential. The vetting process will include
information from “confidential informants”, leaving no possibility of confronting an
accuser.

Insofar as there is any due process for contesting determinations, it is open only to United
States citizens according to the July 17, 2007 notice, which will likely exclude the great
majority of affected individuals. Even for US citizens, the requesters must “identify the
informed to be changed and the corrective action required”, which they cannot know if
the relevant information is withheld.

We also bring to your attention that the individuals who serve on the Boards of non-
governmental organizations are typically distinguished and prominent individuals who
serve without remuneration as a public service. Many NGOs also deploy volunteers who
may “benefit” from USAID sponsored travel or other support. USAID is now insisting
that these individuals endure the indignity of being screened as a price for their volunteer
service. This undermines USAID’s stated goal of fostering public-private partnerships.
Moreover, it illustrates how the PVS violates the spirit of the Privacy Act, which was
intended to protect innocent American citizens from being capriciously swept into
government data bases.

The entire screening process presumes that USAID can expeditiously review tens of
thousands – and perhaps millions – of records and do so without substantial error. This
presumption strains credulity. It is inevitable that there will be substantial delays and
errors in the screening process, which may yield substantial damage to program
implementation. If the screening were extended to beneficiaries, the delays would be
interminable.

4. Imperiling the lives and safety of USAID partners: We note that the July 20, 2007
notice insists on exemptions to the Privacy Act to “protect the identities and physical
safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel”. Apparently, this
concern does not extend to the lives and safety of the people in USAID’s partner
organizations, including American citizens. USAID is insisting that our members go
about collecting, and turning over to the U.S. government, personal information about
their employees and beneficiaries, the vast majority of whom are foreign nationals.
USAID has been repeatedly warned by its partners of the dangers associated with using
partner employees for law enforcement or intelligence purposes. Creating the perception
that NGOs and other partners are collecting personal information on foreign nationals to
be turned over to US security agencies is inherently perilous. It opens USAID’s partners
to propaganda and charges that, rather than being humanitarian workers, they are law
enforcement or intelligence agents. This can only serve to incite animus and increase the
likelihood of attacks. Rather than alleviating risk, the PVS will create new dangers for
the staff of its partners, who already routinely work in very difficult circumstances.

5. No demonstrated need: The haste with which this program is being implemented is
particularly puzzling in light of the absence of any demonstrated need. We are not aware
of any evidence that USAID funds have been diverted for use by terrorists. Despite
repeated investigations, there has been no such finding by the USAID Inspector General
or any other competent authority. Even if there were, a narrowly targeted and well
conceived program developed through consultation with USAID’s partners might be an
appropriate response. There is no justification for a sweeping and burdensome program
developed without consultation to redress a problem that has yet to manifest.

6. No statutory basis: There is no statutory basis for the PVS and it is not required by
any law or Executive Order, with the possible exception of programs in the West Bank
and Gaza. There is no expression of Congressional intent that underlies the PVS.
USAID appears to have taken upon itself the design of a sweeping new program without
consulting Congress or having a clear legal basis for developing the program. The
absence of a clear legal foundation makes it inevitable that there will be legal challenges.
Rather than reasoned conversation, there will be another contentious, expensive battle
dividing USAID from its partners.

For all the above reasons, we urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to withdraw the
proposal for a PVS. We are prepared to engage with USAID in reasonable conversation
to address legitimate concerns. We believe that USAID and its partners will both be
better served by a patient, thoughtful and well informed consultation. We ask that you
hold the PVS in abeyance pending such dialogue.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Nils Daulaire, M.D., MPH

President and CEO

cc: Henrietta Fore, Acting Administrator, USAID

Joanne Paskar, Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative
Services, Bureau for Management, USAID
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable Judd Gregg
The Honorable Joseph Biden
The Honorable Richard Lugar
The Honorable Nita Lowey
The Honorable Frank Wolf
The Honorable Thomas Lantos
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen