[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED
PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
BARBARA LEE, California, Chairwoman
GRACE MENG, New York HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
NORMA J. TORRES, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Craig Higgins, Erin Kolodjeski, Dean Koulouris, Jason Wheelock,
Jean Kwon, Marin Stein, Jonathan Stivers, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
_____
PART 4
Page
Leading by Action: The Fierce Urgency
for Diversity and Inclusion in the
Foreign Policy Workforce............................................ 1
Critical Management Issues_U.S.
Diplomatic and Development Agencies................................ 113
Global Climate Finance........................................... 203
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)
Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request.................................... 281
Department of State and Related
Programs Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request .......................... 369
Department of the Treasury Fiscal Year
2022 Budget Request................................................ 481
United States Global Covid-19
Response: Actions Taken and Future Needs .......................... 533
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-449 WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DEREK KILMER, Washington DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
GRACE MENG, New York MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin CHRIS STEWART, Utah
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
PETE AGUILAR, California DAVID G. VALADAO, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan BEN CLINE, Virginia
NORMA J. TORRES, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MIKE GARCIA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ED CASE, Hawaii TONY GONZALES, Texas
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
----------
Thursday, March 25, 2021.
LEADING BY ACTION: THE FIERCE URGENCY FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN
THE FOREIGN POLICY WORKFORCE
WITNESSES
HON. GINA ABERCROMBIE-WINSTANLEY, AMBASSADOR (RET.)
HON. NICHOLAS BURNS, AMBASSADOR (RET.)
ABIGAIL GOLDEN-VAZQUEZ, FOUNDING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASPEN
INSTITUTE LATINOS AND SOCIETY PROGRAM
HON. HARRY THOMAS, AMBASSADOR (RET.)
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
Let me welcome our distinguished panel: Ambassador
Abercrombie-Winstanley, Ambassador Burns, Ms. Golden-Vazquez,
and Ambassador Thomas. Thank you for being with us today. We
appreciate your time and agreeing to testify and answer our
questions on this very important topic.
Now, this hearing is fully virtual, and, so, we must
address a few housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting,
the chair, or staff designated by the chair, may mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on
your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
At 1 minute remaining the clock will turn to yellow. At 30
seconds remaining, I can't gently tap the gavel, but I will
remind members that their time is almost expired. When your
time is expired, the clock will turn red, and I will recognize
the next member.
After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow
the order set forth in the House rules, beginning with the
chair and ranking member. Then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority and, finally, members not present at the time when
the hearing is called to order.
Finally, per House rules, the Committee has set up an email
address to which members can send anything that they wish to
submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. That email
address has been provided in advance to your staff. So thank
you very much.
Now, we will begin. Once again, thank everyone for joining
us at this hearing, about the urgent need for reform to
increase diversity in our foreign policy workforce.
Far too long people of color have had a limited voice and
limited opportunities to shape our country's foreign policy.
This chronic and entrenched lack of diversity and inclusion
causes major challenges for our Nation at home and abroad. Lack
of diversity among our workforce can lead to whole classes of
issues, including systemic racism, poverty, inequality, climate
change being disregarded.
Without enough diversity in the people we hire and promote
in our foreign policy workforce, we often face the troubling
reality of groupthink. When people abroad see the uniformity of
our diplomatic corps, they question our commitment to
inclusion. And when Americans of all colors do not see their
priorities acknowledged, they feel alienated by their own
government. When they see fewer opportunities to shape foreign
policy, they are less likely to engage in shaping foreign
policy and in politics generally.
Last year, at the request of Congress, the Government
Accountability Office reviewed diversity and inclusion in the
foreign affairs workforce. That GAO study found that the State
Department has abjectly failed to reflect America in its hiring
and promotions. Between 2002 and 2018, example, the percentage
of African Americans working at the State Department actually
declined from 17 percent to 15 percent. Additionally, the
percentage of African-American women in USAID Civil Service
workforce dropped from 36 percent in 2002 to just 23 percent in
2018. Hispanic, Asian American, and indigenous people face the
same and similar obstacles.
At the Department of State, the GAO found a significant
disparity in the rates of promotion for racial and ethnic
minorities, up to 42 percent less than their White
counterparts. Similarly, minorities at USAID were up to 41
percent, less likely to be promoted compared to Whites in civil
service. And racial and ethnic minorities were significantly
underrepresented in the senior ranks of Civil Service and
Foreign Service.
At State, racial and ethnic minorities make up only 13
percent of the executive level workforce. Most disturbing,
these findings echo those of a GAO study on the same topic in
1989, that is over 30 years ago. Both studies found disparities
in rates of promotion, underrepresentation of minorities in
leadership positions, and institutional barriers just not being
addressed.
Numerous Secretaries of State and administrations,
Democratic and Republican alike, promised to make changes to
increase diversity. Clearly, these promises were not kept. For
years, we have heard commitments from leadership at State and
USAID that they focus on recruitment. The evidence shows that
this mantra is really failed.
After 30 years of failure, we can't wait for evolutionary
change. We need to try something different. It will be
uncomfortable, it will force everyone at State and USAID to
change the way they do business, but I want everyone involved
to understand the fierce urgency of this issue. The United
States Government cannot effectively represent America abroad
unless it hires, promotes, retains, and values a workforce that
truly represents America. The time for study, the time for
debate is over. The time for change is here.
So I stand ready to work with Secretary Blinken,
Administrator Power, and other leaders in the executive branch
and on Capitol Hill to tackle this problem. There are a host of
good ideas to consider. Representative Castro's Diversity and
Inclusion at the State Department Act directs the Department to
establish benchmarks and goals for the assignment of personnel
and reforms to Foreign Service performance review process to
include support of diversity and inclusion as a key criteria
for promotion.
Representative Bass has introduced the Represent Americans
Abroad Act to create a pathway to attract highly qualified mid-
career professionals who are also members of minority groups to
the Foreign Service.
So I hope this hearing will be the start of us moving
toward bold action, experimentation, and implementation to
solve this problem. Especially, I will ask our witnesses to
share what steps they think Secretary Blinken should take in
the first 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months to demonstrate
progress. We can't wait 30 more years for this change. It needs
to change now.
So in my role as chair of the subcommittee, I am committed
to advancing real impactful solutions to address these
entrenched institutional barriers to diversity. I have been
fighting, like so many on this subcommittee, for years to
create more opportunities for people of color in our foreign
policy workforce. It is past time to enact bold, forward-
leaning policy solutions. This hearing is the first step in
that direction.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists
and I want to hear your policy solutions and what, in addition,
can be done administratively, or through legislative action if
necessary.
Unfortunately, our ranking member, Mr. Rogers, was unable
to attend the hearing today, due to a conflict. He asked our
colleague and friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, to provide an opening
statement in his stead. I would like to ask Mr. Diaz-Balart now
for any comments he may have.
Opening Statement of Mr. Diaz-Balart
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. Again,
thank you, and before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent
that the statement of the ranking member be submitted for the
record.
Ms. Lee. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to thank the chair for holding this hearing and to
our knowledgeable witnesses for their service, and for taking
time, as the chairwoman said, for your testimony today.
I share the desire to improve the diversity of our foreign
policy agencies. And I was particularly struck, I will tell
you, by the abysmal low level of Hispanics represented in the
Foreign Services, civil service, USAID, USAGM, so I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses how we can address this
issue.
And, also, how can we improve diversity in areas that
frankly--have not been directly addressed, such as economic
background, region of the country, ideology, religion, and
other key aspects of our country and, frankly, individual
identities? In recent years, there have been a lot of
proposals, numerous proposals, to reform and strengthen the
American diplomacy, many of which relate to new legislative
authorities that are, frankly, beyond this committee's
jurisdiction.
However, I am particularly interested in any
recommendations that you may have for us today as
appropriators. Now, additionally, recommendations last fall by
a task force led by former Under Secretary of State William
Burns, and also Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield,
both of whom now have senior positions in the administration,
suggested that any efforts to reform the State Department
should start from within. It should focus in the first year of
a new administration on what can be accomplished under existing
authorities and without significant new appropriations.
They continue to say that success in those early endeavors
to take initiative and change department culture, they wrote,
would be the best advertisement for sustained congressional
support, and White House backing for a new emphasis on
strengthening American diplomacy.
I am interested to hear from our distinguished witnesses
today on how these goals will be accomplished, and whether
these witnesses concur that it can be done from within and
without significant new appropriations, again, as the task
force determined.
Again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for this opportunity.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. I
yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Okay, Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, Ambassador Burns,
Ms. Golden-Vazquez, and Ambassador Thomas, once again, thank
you for being here. If you each could be kind enough to
summarize your oral statement in 4 minutes, I want to make sure
we leave enough time to get to everyone's questions. Your full
statement, however, will be included in the record.
After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was
called to order, alternating between majority and minority
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in order
of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, please proceed. Again,
thank you for being here.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman,
Representative Diaz-Balart, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you so much for having me speak today on this urgent
topic. As an African American, and as a woman who has worked
her way up through the ranks, I know very well the weight that
so many of my colleagues carry, the weight of being
``othered.''
I had to ignore those who questioned silently my
suitability, my capability, my viability to be a successful
representative of the United States of America, questions that
were based solely on my gender and my race. And I know that my
success in the Department is all too rare.
I have seen many of my colleagues start their journey of
service with commitment and joy, and then struggle without
support, without mentors, without recourse when something went
wrong, certain that the system that they worked under would not
treat them fairly. And this knowledge fuels my passion to speak
out and work for change in the Department, change that will
help it become the organization that deserves the devotion and
the sacrifice and the dedication that so many of us have freely
given.
I am thrilled that today's discussion will focus on what
works. I know from experience that it is important to frame
discussions of recommendations around three specific anchors:
Intentionality, recommendations must be connected directly to
the change that is sought; transparency, everyone must
understand what is being asked of them and why; and finally,
accountability. Once action is determined to be necessary,
leadership, up and down the ranks, must be held accountable for
taking care of it, doing it, and held accountable if they do
not.
The GAO report that you mentioned, Madam Chairwoman, in
2020 is a disheartening picture of the progress that has not
been made at State, but it is a picture that needs greater
detail. The repair and improvement efforts that we all support
must touch every bureau, every office, every action, and every
person at State. No more business as usual.
Secretary Blinken has shown strong commitment, and I know I
speak for many employees, past, current, and future, who are
grateful for his leadership, and the strong allyship of
Congress in this undertaking, allyship that is showcased by the
introduction of the Diversity and Inclusion Act of the
Department of State, and I would like to add to that and, of
course, the Representing America Act, the State Harassment and
Assault Prevention and Eradication Act. This, too, is going to
be very important.
Although the Department can, as you noted, do much of this
on its own, if passed, these pieces of legislation could assist
in the efforts to increase inclusion, and eliminate barriers to
successful careers for minorities and women.
Coupled with your willingness to drill down to what works,
we can improve the professional lives of almost every group at
the Department of State and ensure that the organization is one
that is fit to lead our foreign policy with renewed vigor.
I have been privileged to participate in discussions that
underpinned recommendations in several reports. All are
valuable, including the American Academy of Diplomacy, the
Association of Black American Ambassadors, the Belfer Center,
and the recently released Truman Center report, which I ask to
be entered into the record.
[Clerk's note.--The report can be found at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Among the many outstanding
recommendations that have been offered up from these and other
sources, I cite five that must and can capture important best
practices for what must be done to improve inclusion and
diversity at the Department, and I would be happy to expand on
them during the question-and-answer period.
In brief, ensure diversity, support for diversity and
inclusion is treated as a core competency for promotion;
reenergize a selective and focused mid-level entry program;
reenergize and strengthen the mentorship program; ensure that
employees found to harass or discriminate against minorities
and women are held professionally accountable; and, finally,
ensure that the planned Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer
has full access to data, resources, and staff.
If the Department is to succeed here, any implemented
recommendation must support fundamental change. The world
watches us. We are exceptional, and we will be judged by how
well we do this. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. We will come back to
questions.
Ambassador Burns, can you please proceed with your
testimony?
Opening Statement of Ambassador Burns
Mr. Burns. Madam Chair, thank you. Representative Diaz-
Balart, thank you as well for this invitation to testify. I
know you have my written testimony. I am just going to make
three points, hopefully in 4 minutes, to summarize what is at
stake for America on this issue.
First, I think all of you, led by you, Madam Chair,
Democrats and Republicans alike are right to have this hearing.
There is a crisis--there is a lack of diversity and inclusion
in the State Department and USAID. I think many people feel
there is a cancer that is eating away at the heart of the State
Department and its future.
My Foreign Service colleagues, Ambassadors Marc Grossman
and Marcie Ries and I issued, in November, a report
recommending major reforms across the board to the future of
the Foreign Service. During a year of study, we met with over
200 people in 40 different workshops, and by far, the greatest
amount of attention from all those people was on this issue of
diversity and inclusion.
So, our advice to the administration and the Congress is,
and to all of us as citizens--we have to focus relentlessly on
diversity as a first order of strategic priority; that if we
want to have a revived and rebuilt and high-performing Foreign
Service, it has to reflect the diversity and inclusivity of our
society. And right now, the United States is not meeting that
standard. That is my first point.
Second, there is much that Congress can do, and hopefully
on a bipartisan basis. Congress can help in a very simple way:
to recruit minority college and graduate students, you could
mandate that every internship in the Department of State, in
Washington and overseas, be a paid internship. It is a
fundamental issue of fairness across all income levels, and it
is actually the smartest way to recruit bright, young people
into the Foreign Service.
Congress could create a Reserve Officer Training Corps for
the State Department modeled on the military ROTC. This would
help to recruit minority employees who would train to be U.S.
civilian first responders during international emergencies. We
have missed that as we think about the crises of the last
couple of decades. We have not had that capacity at the States
Department.
As Congresswoman Bass has advocated, and Ambassador
Abercrombie-Winstanley just stated, we could create a mid-level
entry program for the State Department. It would help the
Department to recruit Americans into the Foreign Service who
have skills that are in short supply, like cyber, and IT, and
medical, and public health. And by focusing in part on minority
recruitment for this mid-level program, we could diversify the
Department much more quickly, and at a higher level, and not
wait for generational change. And I do think the leadership of
both parties in Congress will be critical to produce this kind
of major change.
My third and final point, Madam Chair, we also need the
Biden administration to lead, and I think it is do so.
President Biden, of course, has the most diverse cabinet in
American history. The President, Vice President Harris,
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, are all committed to real
change on this issue. Secretary Blinken has created the
position of Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer. It is the
first time ever that position has been created.
The State Department should expand the Rangel, Payne, and
Pickering Fellowship programs. I teach at the Harvard Kennedy
School, and I teach many of these students. They are an
impressive group of people. They want to serve. By expanding
it--and President Trump wanted to expand it, which was a good
idea--you would have a greater intake of minority candidates.
But I think, and this goes to what Representative Diaz-
Balart said, the Department has to recruit more aggressively as
the military does in our high schools and--at the high school
and college level throughout every one of the 50 States, at
Historically Black Colleges, across different income levels and
ethnic groups, and we are not doing that right now.
Perhaps most importantly, the State Department has to ask
each officer to be accountable, ask that change come from
within. And I agree with Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley that
promotions to any level in the State Department, in part,
should be a function of what have you done for diversity and
inclusion, not just having good sentiments, but what have you
done.
So in closing, I am honored to be here with Ambassador
Abercrombie-Winstanley, with Ambassador Thomas, and with Ms.
Golden-Vazquez. I know they have had to live with barriers in
their own careers that I have not, and they have all thought
very deeply about this issue, so I am honored to be with them,
Madam Chair. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Ambassador Burns. We will turn now to
Ms. Golden-Vazquez.
Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Good morning, Chairwoman Lee,
Representative Diaz-Balart, members of the Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Affairs, and Related Programs. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the urgency
of building a modern foreign affairs workforce that reflects
America.
My name is Abigail Golden-Vazquez, and I am a Latina
professional with over 30 years international experience in the
public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Normally, I wouldn't
admit that, but I am not normally on a panel with three
ambassadors.
I have worked on diversity and inclusion as a professional,
as a mentor, as a sponsor, and as a participant in the
International Career Advancement Program, which helps diverse
career foreign affairs professionals break through the glass
ceiling. ICAP provided me with an unparalleled network of
mentors and sponsors that enabled me to secure a career-
boosting senior role at the Aspen Institute.
Despite decades of effort, we have failed to achieve the
diversity in the foreign affairs workforce we need and have
even slid backward in some areas. Study after study show
inclusive, diverse organizations are more innovative and more
effective, suggesting that we fail to diversify at our very own
peril.
The U.S. will become a majority non-White nation by 2045,
and Latinos will comprise nearly a third of the population in
2060. Yet, Hispanic representation is dismal. We can no longer
afford to limit important leadership and decision-making roles
to the same narrow profiles. We need only look at the
humanitarian crisis in Central America spilling out on to our
borders right now to see why more Latino voices and
international policymaking and implementation are critical.
I know this committee seeks solutions instead of a recap of
the problems, so the rest of my remarks will focus on three
priority areas: leadership, retention, and like Ambassador Gina
Abercrombie-Winstanley said, accountability. Anyone interested
can find more fleshed-out solutions in my written testimony.
First, leadership matters. Leaders set the tone for an
organizational culture that is either welcoming or dismissive
of D&I. Only when D&I is modeled authentically by leaders and
flows throughout all aspects of organizations can real change
happen. D&I should be treated as mission critical and led by
example from the top down.
Second, we must move beyond recruitment to retention. Too
often, the pipeline is blamed for the lack of diversity rather
than taking a good, hard look at the organizational culture or
lack of opportunities for advancement. Highly competitive
fellowship programs, such as Rangel, Pickering, and Payne,
bring qualified diverse candidates to State and USAID, but many
of these and other diverse, qualified professionals choose to
leave.
Indeed, work does need to be done to help young people from
diverse backgrounds envision themselves in foreign affairs
careers. The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training,
for example, does just that with innovative curricula
documenting diplomatic history. However, we must also do so
much more to retain the diverse talent that we already have by
offering greater appreciation of the skill sets they bring, and
by providing them with equitable opportunities for advancement.
And last but not least, measuring for accountability.
Efforts to secure D&I must be tracked, improved upon, and
rewarded. By collecting and analyzing disaggregated data on
diversity over time comparing with other organizations, we can
gain insight into what is or isn't working and adjust
accordingly.
Finally, performance must be measured against clearly set
goals, including zero tolerance for discriminatory behavior.
So to conclude, increasing D&I is not just the right thing
to do, it is essential to ensuring we bring our best ideas and
talent forward to the global challenges of today and tomorrow.
Now is the time for courageous leadership and real investment,
or yet more decades will pass and the best ideas will remain
just that, ideas.
So thank you to this committee for your commitment to
prioritizing and investing in promising solutions to close the
foreign affairs workforce diversity gap, and I look forward to
discussing with you further in the Q&A. Thank you very much. It
is an honor.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Ms. Vazquez. Thank you very much. We
are going now to Ambassador Thomas. Please proceed.
Mr. Thomas. Chairwoman Lee, Representative Diaz-Balart, and
members of the committee, I am honored to appear before the
House Appropriations Subcommittee as a member of the
Association of Black American Ambassadors. The ABAA has worked
closely with the State Department's Affinity Organizations,
including the Thursday Luncheon Group, Disabilities at State,
Hispanic Employee Council of Foreign Affairs Agencies, the
American Foreign Service Association, Black Professionals in
International Affairs, and the Asian American Foreign Affairs
Association, to design recommendations regarding diversity and
inclusion in the State Department and United States Agency for
International Development.
My testimony centers on the importance of the Secretary of
State and the USAID administrator's leadership and sustained
commitment in achieving the State Department's and USAID's
diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and objectives, the
establishment of metrics for measuring each bureau's
achievements, the importance of rewarding and recognizing those
leaders who achieve diversity goals, continuing support for the
Pickering, Rangel, and Payne Fellowship programs, advocate for
an increase in the number of Diplomats in Residence, and the
end of the decades-old practice of de facto assignment of
officers to bureaus based on their race, with a particular call
for the end of the majority of African-American chiefs of
missions in the Foreign Service being assigned to Africa and
the Caribbean.
Leadership: We believe that the way to reverse the
institutional failings in these areas is to put the
responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of
State, the USAID administrator, and those in the senior ranks
of the foreign and civil services. We applaud Secretary
Blinken's decision to appoint a chief diversity officer, and
recommend that person report directly to the Deputy Secretary.
We urge the incoming USAID administrator to appoint a chief
diversity officer.
We recommend that the State Department and USAID establish
clearly defined and measurable ways to reward senior personnel
for their achievement in reaching diversity goals. We recommend
that the State Department and USAID should continue support of
the Pickering, Payne, and Rangel programs, and make known the
rigid selection process that these fellows undergo, support and
expand pathway student internships, including presidential
management fellowships.
We recommend that the State Department increase the number
of Diplomats in Residence by at least 10 at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and
other institutions serving significant numbers of minority
students; that the State Department increase the number of paid
internships for members of underrepresented communities.
In assignments, underrepresented Foreign Service officers
and specialists can advance America's foreign policy interest
at all posts, and their assignments should reflect this from
their entry into the Foreign Service throughout their careers.
Additionally, we recommend that State Department and USAID
cease the practice of assigning African-American Foreign
Service officers and specialists predominantly to the Africa
Bureau, especially in ambassadorial and other high-level
positions; that the State Department and USAID end similar de
facto practices with Latinx and Asian Americans in the Western
Hemisphere, East Asian, and South and Central Asian Affairs
Bureaus; that the director general of the Foreign Service
recruit officers from underrepresented groups to bid on
leadership and career-enhancing positions.
In training, we recommend that all senior personnel,
Foreign Service and Civil Service, including noncareer
officials, especially those serving as ambassadors, be required
to take training on hiring and leadership principles, subject
to executive order and State Department policy.
In promotions, we recommend that the State Department
collaborate with the American Foreign Service Association and
the American Federation of Government Employees to rework the
dimensions' skill set to give more weight to equal employment
opportunity principles in the performance evaluation process,
and ensure that members of underrepresented groups serve on
every promotion and selection panel.
In terms of retention, persistent, high-level support for
targeted mentorship of officers and specialists from
underrepresented communities, coupled with promotion-related
incentives, can help officers of color advance and feel that
their contributions are valid.
We recommend that the State Department pay more attention
to retention. Increased payments that reduce or eliminate
student loans might help retain more diverse candidates.
Support external training programs, such as the international
careers advancement program that helps prepare mid-level
foreign affairs practitioners to advance to more senior levels.
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, the ABAA requests that the
committee maintain oversight of the State Department and
USAID's leaderships to ensure that our Nation's diversity,
equity, and inclusion goals are met and sustained through
quantifiable metrics. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, committee,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ambassador Thomas.
And thank you all for your testimony. You all really have
given us a roadmap, and I would like to start with my first
question for the entire panel. You have heard the evidence. We
all know we failed on diversity and inclusion. What we are
doing and have done for decades is just not working, and this
is an issue of institutional accountability. And, of course, in
thinking about this, I said, accountability to what, and how do
you make sure there is accountability, and that the State
Department and leadership know what they are being held
accountable for?
So my question is, what should the Secretary of State do
next? What specific actionable strategies can be employed right
now, in the next 3 months to 6 months, to create this culture
of accountability at the Department to drive institutional and
structural change from the top down?
And, then, what recommendations do you have to ensure that
the Secretary and the new Office of Chief Diversity and
Inclusion Officer drive accountability for inclusion inside the
Department, and how can Congress hold them accountable for
rapid--and I mean rapid--progress?
So, Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, I would like to
start with you. You mentioned intentionality, transparency, and
accountability. What is your take on what we can do in the
first 3 to 6 months?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman. One of the most important things we have to have is
the data, and that means really having it sliced and diced, not
just, you know, general ranks, but where they are, which
offices have people, where the hurdles are with regard to
promotion. So getting either a strong data shop set up or
having it refocused and having the data accessible and known.
People can't address it if they don't know what the problems
are, and most people in the Department really don't know what
the numbers are.
Most importantly, in my view, the Department needs to
figure out a way to include, as I mentioned, support for
diversity and inclusion in the precepts for promotion. I will
tell you, after 30 years, nobody cares about anything strongly
if they are not judged on it.
And all the things that we strive to accomplish as
diplomats, in addition to, of course, excellent foreign policy,
but that leadership, the management, the substantive knowledge,
those things we work not only to accomplish, but to show
exactly how we have accomplished it. And that is how we get
promoted, and that is exactly the sort of specificity that
needs to be in place for diversity and inclusion.
That is going to take cooperation with the American Foreign
Service Association (AFSA) and really working out specific
things that people can strive to do to show that they are
supporting it. And people being judged on it will, I believe,
go to changing the culture of the building.
Ms. Lee. I would like to get to Ambassador Burns,
Ambassador Thomas, and Ms. Vazquez. We have a minute and a half
left. I am trying to stay within my 5 minutes. So if you could
respond, Ambassador Burns, then we will come back around for a
second round with the other witnesses on this question.
Ambassador Burns.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think Secretary
Blinken first can lead and say that this is going to be one of
his priorities, and he has said that. Second, have the new
Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer report directly to him.
He said he will do that. He needs to appoint the person
obviously.
Third, Secretary Pompeo, in his last months of office, said
let's double the Pickering, Rangel, and Payne fellowships. It
is a very good idea, and the Biden team should do that.
Fourth, as Ambassador Thomas alluded to, we have a major
problem with retention, and it gets to the point that he made
about assignments. Are people being given challenging and fair
assignments in the first 10 years? We are losing a lot of
people.
And, fifth, as Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley said, she
is right, there has to be accountability. To be promoted, you
have to now show--you should have to show that you have done
something for diversity and inclusion, not just said that you
are in favor of it. I think that accountability is very
important.
Ms. Lee. Great. Ms. Vazquez, we have 36 seconds left.
Ms. Vazquez. Well, I echo what the other two have said, and
I do think that this issue of leadership is critical, and so,
it is leading by example in demonstrating, which I believe
Secretary Blinken has started to do. It is getting the DEIC
person in place as soon as possible, and it is making sure that
everyone knows that this is what they are going to be measured
upon--and then the flip side, that you will not be promoted if
you are seen to be blocking diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Ms. Lee. Thank you all so much.
Congressman, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart, I yield to you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me talk a little bit about, you know, I mentioned in my
opening statement how Hispanics are underrepresented in frankly
all areas, including Foreign Service, civil service, USAID, and
others. It is really interesting, you might be interested to
hear this, Madam Chairman, if not for the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting, which happens by the way to be in the district
that I represent, I suspect that USAGM's diversity numbers were
even worse than last reported. The number is, frankly, hard to
understand, abysmal 7.1 percent Hispanic, which is obviously
well below the national population.
So, what is being done to encourage Hispanics to apply for
these positions, and what efforts are being done to retain
Hispanics in these agencies, in particular, OCB and elsewhere
at USAGM?
Ms. Lee. Who are you directing your question to?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Whoever----
Ms. Vazquez. So I am happy to respond on the issue;
however, I do not work for the State Department, so I can't
speak to what they are actually doing. But I can share some
recommendations on what I believe does need to be done.
So, first of all, you can't be it if you haven't seen it.
And, so, there have been ambassadors, there are a handful of
senior-level officials at USAID and at State that have been--
who can be role models.
So we haven't seen it, so it is hard for us to be it. So I
think making sure that these stories get out is critical and
really important. To lift up those success stories is one.
Number two, we can reach out to Hispanic-serving
institutions, Hispanics in sororities and fraternities. Also,
we have to recognize that the great bulk of Latinos work over
index in construction, in hospitality, in caregiving. And, so,
we need to show that there are other pathways and other career
opportunities, and we can do that in schools. I think you need
to start young with language, you know, with language
instruction, opportunities to experience, and then, as others
have said, paid internships. Paid internships are critical.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas, would you like to respond?
Mr. Thomas. Yes. I endorse that. I think what I would say,
Representative Diaz-Balart, is that recruitment is important at
the high-school level, and at the college level. I agree that
paid internships are necessary. I think that the Latinx senior
Foreign Service officers should also be given an opportunity to
go around to the colleges and universities to recruit, so that
people see that people like them can achieve.
But, also, inside the Department, our fellow Latino
officers have to be encouraged to seek assignments and be given
assignments outside of Western Hemisphere affairs. It is a
great bureau, but that is not the only part of the State
Department. And if you work in only one part instead of two or
three, your opportunities for senior ranks can be limited.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I associate myself with all of
the above, and what Ambassador Thomas just mentioned made me
smile, because when I joined the Foreign Service, Ambassador
Romero was one of the people who was in the Middle East Bureau,
and I was absolutely heartened, because I didn't need to be,
you know, from that background, or simply a White American to
serve in the Bureau. So having a Hispanic person above me,
before me in the Bureau was inspiring, and I think we can do
that for each other.
The short answer about what is the Department doing for
Hispanics, my short answer is not enough, not enough. And, so,
everything that has been said by my colleagues and more can and
should be done.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns.
Mr. Burns. Two quick points, Madam Chairman, to Congressman
Diaz-Balart. First, when we conducted our report, research
report, I said we talked to 200 people. One of them was a
friend of ours who had been an ambassador in the Foreign
Service, and he goes back 40 years. His view, and he documented
it with figures and data, is that there has been no appreciable
progress in the fortunes of Latino and Latina ambassadors and
senior officers in four decades. So you are right, there is a
major problem.
Second, I would agree, recruitment is going to be critical.
Recruitment outside the Ivy League; recruitment in 50 States;
recruitment, in public universities, not just private
universities; and having recruitment objectives that are really
ambitious. As Ambassador Thomas has said in his testimony, that
has to happen. I don't think it is happening now.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Vazquez. Can I add to that really quickly that
community colleges, to Congressman Diaz-Balart's point about
other kinds of diversity, if we start to look at community
colleges, and not just always going to the same international
relations masters programs, I think we could dramatically
expand the types of people that we attract from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now, I will yield to Ms. Meng from New York.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And I just wanted to echo the comments that were just made
about recruiting at community colleges. As someone who
represents a community college, and a local city university, I
would be a huge fan of that and would love to work with you any
way that we can.
But I wanted to thank you, Chairwoman, for holding this
hearing. Diversity and inclusion is one of my top priorities,
and I am very thankful for your leadership.
This past week, in the midst of a traumatic week for the
Asian-American community, our colleague, Andy Kim, spoke out
about the discrimination he faced when he was at the State
Department. As a Korean American, he was banned from working on
anything related to the Korean Peninsula, even though he had
never applied for positions that covered that region.
This is not a one-off experience. According to a survey
conducted by the Asian American Foreign Affairs Association, 70
percent of 132 respondents believe the State Department's
assignment restriction process is biased, based on an automatic
assumption of dual loyalty. This question is true for Asian
Americans, and for other races and religions. I have heard from
Jewish Americans that they have struggled to obtain security
clearances, or work on Israeli-Palestinian issues, even if they
have zero family in Israel.
Across our government, people are drawn to specific careers
because of their heritage, or personal experiences. Someone who
grew up on food stamps might be drawn to work on hunger policy.
So, too, might Chinese Americans be qualified to work on issues
regarding the U.S.-China relationship.
Diversity should be an asset to our national security, not
a threat. And, in fact, to treat our well-vetted diplomats and
national security officials as untrustworthy because of their
unique understanding of a region creates security threats.
Two questions: Can you touch on the security risks that
come with these discriminatory policies; and two, when these
issues are brought up by those who have experienced
discrimination, they are often met with the excuse that the
information is classified. How can we work in a more
transparent way to examine the assignment policy?
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns, would you like to start and
respond to that?
Mr. Burns. I would be happy to. And, Representative Meng,
thank you so much for your question. I read the interview with
Congressman Kim, and what he said was very familiar to me, and
I think to others who have served in the Foreign Service, of a
situation where if you are Asian American, sometimes it takes
longer to get a security clearance, and sometimes you are asked
not to serve in certain embassies in the Asia-Pacific region.
And my own view on this, I don't have access to all the
facts, I have been out of the State Department for some time,
but this needs to be looked into, and there ought to be a
review of this policy. But I will just say one thing: If we
admit a young man or young woman into the Foreign Service,
regardless of who they are or where they are from, they are
Americans, and we should trust them to represent the United
States wherever they need to be assigned around the world.
To exclude someone because they are Chinese American from
serving in China or Korean American from serving in Korea, we
don't say that. I am Irish American. I don't think I have been
excluded from serving in Ireland, at least no one's told me
that. I think it is something that needs to be looked into.
And, again, I don't have all the information of why these
decisions are being made. But, clearly, when you have this type
of situation it really hurts morale and it limits people's
careers. And it deprives us in many ways of some of our
officers who have native-born language skills, which can be--
and cultural awareness, very important in having us do our job
for the American people.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Representative Meng, for that. It
has been a traumatic week for my family, who are Asian
American. My wife and colleagues are holding a ``Stop Asian
Hate'' conference this weekend as they try to recover and heal.
My recommendation for this is security clearances should be
done on a case-by-case basis not on a blanket basis. It breaks
my heart to see that people are not assigned to an area based
on race. And the reality is, you are correct about Jewish
Americans in the Middle East, about Cuban Americans even
serving back when we had a mission in Cuba.
So I would urge the new incoming Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security to take an audit of this, and work with the
Director General to come up with a comprehensive plan that, as
Ambassador Burns said, treats all Americans equal.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for
holding this important hearing. I am actually in Nebraska City
at the Arbor Day Foundation, which is one of, of course,
America's conservation organizations. Right outside the window
here is the home of Jay Sterling Morton, who served as
Secretary of Agriculture and hosted Teddy Roosevelt's visit to
the Great Plains here.
This is a very important cultural spot for us and important
to all of our work as we go deeper into the value of
stewardship. And I think, honestly, this is what this whole
hearing is about, this deeper American value of care for one
another and ensuring equal access, equal opportunities.
In that regard as well, my district is about 40 percent
rural, and all across this district are volunteer fire
departments. These are men and women who, when there is an
emergency, although they are working in other jobs and raising
families, they will respond. And the reason I am saying this
is, I am very excited about what Ambassador Burns said
regarding a Reserve Officer Training Corps.
And, Ambassador Burns, I actually met with Ambassador
Grossman and Ambassador Ries, who coauthored the report on
State Department reform with you, and we discussed this very
concept. It has been something that I have thought of for a
very long time. And I really appreciate your efforts to try to
think critically about structural modernization of the
Department, including this issue, because it has been since the
1980s since we have done this.
But this is an important point that I think is very
essential to this hearing, that if you did have a Reserve
Officer Training Corps, groups of Americans who might even be
middle-aged, or mid-career, or even later-career, who have deep
expertise, whether it is in engineering or agriculture or
health, that could be called upon in crisis or in special needs
to be in assistance to the diplomatic and development efforts
of the State Department and USAID, would go a long way toward
augmenting the State Department's efforts, diversifying across
specialties, but, also, getting a new wave of Americans who
maybe were more reflective of the diversity of Americans
immediately into service, and not as opposed to, but in
addition to, the long-term structural changes we are talking
about now that would recruit younger people.
So, I am very excited about this. And actually, Senator
Coons and I have talked, not specifically on this idea, but
doing the same thing in the world of conservation, where we
embed conservation specialists in U.S. embassies, but people
who might be on standby-ready reserve to actually help out in
that kind of circumstance. So, I would like you to elaborate on
that because I think this is one of the types of structural
changes that could very well go toward the heart of answering
the question.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Congressman Fortenberry, thank you very much. I am really
sorry I missed that meeting with you that my colleagues had,
but they told me about it. You know, our thinking is pretty
much what you have just said, that the State Department is not
representative of the American people, and we have all
established that this morning.
One way to do it would be to promote diversity and
inclusion, and actually to expand--and Representative Diaz-
Balart was talking about this--other types of diversity,
regional diversity, rural Americans. It would be to establish,
on a pilot basis, a Reserve Officer Training Corps for the
State Department.
We all know how it works for the military. We could recruit
people with skills that we don't have in the department. And
for the three of us here who served as ambassadors, we knew, in
a lot of the crises we faced, after 9/11, hurricanes, natural
disasters, the earthquake in Haiti, we just didn't have in the
State Department the competence to be first responders. We had
to call on the military and FEMA.
And, so, the State Department ought to create that
capacity. We could recruit from all 50 States, from rural areas
and urban areas, and we could have, as a goal, to enhance the
minority representation, so that you would immediately have
greater buy-in and greater participation by all the different
ethnic groups who have been excluded. We see it as a key
vehicle for that, Congressman. We would be happy to work with
you further on it.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Ambassador, for the comments.
And, Madam Chair, if any of our Democratic colleagues are
interested in this question, [inaudible] Because I think this
is the doable mechanism [inaudible] For this template in the
military is absolutely that could provide immediate assistance
to the State Department and [inaudible] Diversity and
inclusion. So thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
convening this hearing. Thanks to our witnesses for pretty
convincing testimony, I must say, about the challenge we face,
and the urgency of that challenge in terms of diversifying our
diplomatic corps and our State Department workforce.
I have been listening carefully and trying to discern the
kind of assumptions that underlie your testimony about the
state of diplomatic recruitment overall. And I think I hear
this correctly, but I want to make sure, because we all know
that diplomatic recruitment overall is in something of a state
of crisis, or I think we know that.
We have certainly had very striking reports in recent years
of the falloff in young people interested in diplomatic
careers. We have had very alarming reports about the state of
morale at the State Department, including people leaving
careers disillusioned and disappointed.
So, I wonder, I mean, I am not sure exactly what you are
saying. Are you saying that we have systems of recruitment and
retention that are working well and that need to be modified
and diversified? Or are you really saying that the whole system
is in trouble, and that we need to build it back, and
presumably, of course, build it back better, as they say, so
that we recruit and retain a much more diverse workforce?
Does the problem look different or does the challenge look
different, if you place it in the context of an overall falloff
in interest among young people in diplomacy and diplomatic
careers? Does the problem look different if you put it in the
context of an overall falloff of morale in the State Department
and reduced retention rates?
I guess the discussion we just had about the possibility of
a diplomatic ROTC implies that we have an overall problem. So I
just ask you to reflect on that. It seems to me, from what we
have heard and observed, especially in recent years, that we
have a huge challenge of rebuilding back the prestige and the
attractiveness of diplomatic service, and that this diversity
issue is an acute issue, but it also takes its place in this
larger context. I wonder if you could reflect on that?
Ms. Lee. Let's start. Ambassador Abercrombie Winstanley,
would you like to comment?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. You really put your finger
on it, sir, Representative Price.
It is twofold. There certainly been a heightened augmented
challenge for recruitment in the last 4 years and challenge for
retention. I am one of those who felt that there was not a
place for me, and my talent and my experience, that it was not
desired by those who were leading the Department, and so I left
to find another way to serve, to serve America.
So it has been worse in the last 4 years, based on the
public rhetoric with which we are all familiar, but as you say,
it has been a longer term problem. The reports certainly point
out that this is not a new issue. What I can say is that there
is a new vigor from young people who are interested in
returning to the Department of State based on the public
statements from the administration, the attention that Congress
is giving this, that people feel this is really being taken
seriously, that they have the opportunity to join an
organization that is an honorable one, that is going to allow
each person who joins it to reach their full potential, that
there is the opportunity for that.
And so we are at the beginning of it. The Department can
fail. But what is being done now has given new hope to, I
think, across the board. So I think we will have the
opportunity to see people from a wide range of backgrounds
eager to join the Department of State again. I was with
diplomats and residents in Ohio this last year, and I can tell
you that Ohioans are talking about should I join, can I join.
And so even over the last 4 years, I have been a strong
recruiter for the Department; it is a lot easier now.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now, I would like to yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Ambassador Thomas, one of the statements you
made was that the State Department and USAID should cease the
practice of assigning African Americans predominantly to the
African Affairs Bureau, especially in the ambassadorial and
other high-level positions. Are you saying that they should not
do that at all, that they should not make that assignment, or
they must diversify their assignment?
Mr. Thomas. Representative Frankel, thank you for that
question. I am saying diversify. In over a hundred years, more
than two-thirds of the African Americans have been assigned to
African nations and not to the entire globe as chiefs of
mission. When Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley and I joined
the Foreign Service, you had to be pretty much on what they
call the Black circuit of Africa or the Caribbean. That still
exists. And what happens is that people do not realize that for
the State Department's leadership, maybe not in the Americas,
but the European, the East Asian and Pacific, Near Eastern
Affairs Bureaus are seen as the more career enhancing, the more
important bureaus.
So if you are not given an opportunity to serve in those,
you leave or you are disparated, and we believe that everybody
should have the opportunity to serve across bureaus. And we
have seen that follow with other minorities and women as they
have joined the Foreign and Civil Service.
Ms. Frankel. So if I can just follow up on that so I
understand exactly what you are saying here. I understand the
message of diversifying across the world. That makes a lot of
sense. In terms of certain nations, though, let's take those in
Africa, are you saying, is it better to have an African-
American Ambassador or not? I mean, should that be a factor or
that should not be a factor at all?
Mr. Thomas. Well, no. Representative Frankel, it should not
be. What I am saying is that the, quote, money-making parts of
the State Department are seen as Europe, Near Eastern Affairs,
and East Asian and Pacific, and minorities and women are not
given the opportunities in great numbers to serve there; and,
therefore, your promotion opportunities become limited.
You enter the Foreign Service often not knowing the culture
and history, and you are happy to go anywhere. And so if you
serve in Africa and you now say, Oh, I would like to go serve
in Europe or Near Eastern Affairs, they go, You have no
experience, no language, we are not giving you the opportunity.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you for sharing that.
Just to change the subject a bit, if somebody knows this or
wants to answer this, in regards to these reports of sexual
harassment. Does anyone have a suggestion in terms of changing
of policies or practices to deal with this issue?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Representative Frankel, if I
may, the SHAPE Act has some very strong recommendations that
can be helpful. It is really important, first of all, to get
support to those who have been victims of this behavior. It is
very difficult when you are out in the field. You do very much
feel alone.
I am hoping that the Department will be putting in place
some kind of hotline on a 24-hour basis that people can call in
and get immediate support and guidance about how to deal with
these challenges. But there are a number of things that can be
done, you know, making sure that follow-through is rapid and,
most importantly, that perpetrators are held to account. It is
one of the greatest challenges that I have heard about
repeatedly in my career.
My own experiences, generally I haven't reported anything
because I didn't think it would make a difference. We need to
change that perception among everyone in the Department, those
who might be victims, and definitely among those who might be
perpetrators, that people care, something will be done about
it.
Thank you.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, madam, and I can assure you that
there will be those of us who will be following up on that. And
I thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
the witnesses for appearing before us today.
This is really fascinating for me. I mean, I am new to this
committee, so I am glad to hear that our first committee
meeting is about diversity and inclusion in the State
Department and beyond.
Now, I previously served on Financial Services, where in
2018, after Democrats took control of the House, Chairwoman
Waters established a new Subcommittee on Diversity and
Inclusion, which was headed by Joyce Beatty. And she asked
every CEO that appeared before us three questions. She asked,
do you have an OMWI director, what is that person's name, and
to whom do they report?
And I was very surprised because she asked every witness
this, and still some of them didn't get briefed by their staffs
that these questions were coming and couldn't answer them. So I
felt really bad for them, but they should have been prepared,
and that is something that every leader of every big
organization should know in today's world.
So I am really, really pleased about Secretary Blinken's
first move was to appoint a diversity and inclusion officer who
will report directly to him. I think that is really important,
especially what I have heard a lot here today.
And I also want to thank Congresswoman Meng for her
questions because she did shine a light on some of the
assignment decisions that are made in the State Department and
USAID which are very concerning.
And, Ambassador Thomas, your earlier statement about the
Black recruits going predominantly to the Africa Affairs Bureau
is very concerning, because it seems like there is a two-tiered
system for how people get assigned, which is, obviously,
inequitable and needs to be remedied.
So I guess my first question is, how can we work with
employee affinity groups, like the South Asian employee groups,
the Black employee groups, and the Latino or Hispanic employee
groups to help forward their concerns, which are not always
exactly the same, obviously. They are going to be working for
their own populations. But how can we work with them to help
them reach their goals?
Ms. Lee. Ms. Vazquez, would you like to start?
Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Sure, sure.
I find that affinity groups are critical for support and
for advocating, and I also find increasingly that young people
are thinking of themselves across affinity groups. And so I
actually would advocate for working both independently and
together with affinity groups. But the most important point
that I wanted to make is very often it feels like the burden is
on us to try and solve these problems within a system that
isn't very interested in changing. And so I think we must work
with affinity groups to hear the concerns but not add
additional burden on affinity groups to solve the problems.
That would be the only point I would like to make.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And because my time is limited, I want to
ask our former ambassadors these questions as well.
Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, starting with you, how
can we ensure that any changes that we make are going to be
long-lasting? Because I would imagine that the State Department
has experienced kind of some whiplash now between the way that
the previous administration dealt with this issue and the way
that Secretary Blinken has made it clear that he intends to
deal with it.
So how can we in Congress ensure that any changes that are
being made are going to be permanent?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Representative Wexton,
thank you. It is a challenging solution, but it really is going
to come down to changing the culture of the building, putting
things in place that are going to outlive any individual, any
administration.
One of the things, as I said, if indeed we find out the
best way of including support for diversity and inclusion and
promotion competencies, that will outlive because that is what
people will be judged on. And so that will allow time and
effort to be built up so that people get used to doing, get
used to changing the way they think about what is going to get
them into leadership positions. So I think that is the most
important thing.
Thank you.
Ms. Wexton. And, presumably, getting better diversity at
the mid and upper levels of the State Department will help with
that as well.
And, Ambassador Thomas, do you have any thoughts on that in
the final moments that we have here?
Mr. Thomas. Yes. I agree, Representative Wexton, with
Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley. I also think that not only
the paid internships but giving the Foreign Service officers
rewards or payments for their commitment to diversity is
important. Before we had adherence to EEO goals, and people
ignored that because there were no rewards or penalty for not
doing this.
Ms. Wexton. Got you. Thank you so much.
And I will yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Chairwoman, I really appreciate
it.
So prior to serving in Congress, I was in the military, as
many people know. I was a judge advocate general in the Navy
JAG Corps deployed to Iraq, and I can attest to the diversity
in the military. I think it is one of the things the military
does right. There are some problems admittedly, and that is for
another hearing another time.
But just statistically talking, the DOD had said that the
enlisted Active Duty servicemembers are actually more diverse
than the U.S. population as a whole. And, obviously, I think
that is a good thing. As the State Department addresses
challenges, as we have been talking about today both at home
and abroad, including issues like countering China, Russian,
Iran, I would recommend that we look in the State Department,
consult with the DOD regarding things like retention, barriers,
and career development.
With that said, Ambassador Burns, I wanted to direct this
question to you. I know that in your recent report, which is
entitled ``U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 2lst Century,'' you
did outline many challenges and recommendations for Congress
and the administration. Some of these were recommendations
referencing the DOD and the intel community on things like
training, education, and other reforms.
Does the hiring of veterans and other mid-career
professionals help meet the goals of the State Department? And
does the State Department currently prioritize veteran hiring
or is this an issue where the Department lacks diversity?
And with that, I will yield to you.
Mr. Burns. Congressman, since I have been out of the
Department, I don't know the figures of State Department
hirings, say, in the last 5 or 6 years, of veterans. But two of
our proposals in the Harvard report that we made to reform the
Foreign Service, I mentioned them today, which can help
diversity broadly defined, not just by race and gender and
ethnicity, which is vital, but also in terms of where you are
from in the United States and what you have done.
And so if we were to establish a reserve officers' civilian
training corps, I would imagine that some of the people that
might apply for that would be veterans who are back in the
civilian workforce but want to contribute to their country. I
have met people like that where I teach at the Kennedy School.
Second, on the mid-level entry program, which is
controversial in the Foreign Service--some people see it as a
threat--but I support Congresswoman Bass' bill because it can
be a vehicle for diversity, particularly for racial and ethnic
diversity. We can take people in at a much higher level and,
therefore, you can produce change more quickly.
The same is true in the military. I mean, some of the
people who come to us in the State Department with the best
skills are people who have served, you know, 4, 5, 6 years in
the military. And I have taught people who want to make this
transition. So I think you are right to make that connection.
And if Congress could legislate in some of these areas, I think
on reserve officer corps, on mid level, and on paid
internships, I think you would begin to see change.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Ambassador Burns. And don't even
get me started on paid internships, because the fact that we
don't pay some of these interns drives me crazy, but, again,
that is another topic for another day.
One more quick followup just briefly. I want to talk about
the personnel system. I know there has been criticism in
recruitment, in retention regarding inflexible career tracks. I
have heard issues with self-defeating hiring constraints and
lack of training in professional developments. With that said,
can you just use the last minute to provide some
recommendations for reforms on these issues and how the
subcommittee can play a role in these fields?
And I will yield to you for the rest of the time. Thank
you, Ambassador.
Mr. Burns. Thank you so much. When we met with two former
chairs of the Joint Chiefs and a wide variety of generals and
admirals, they said to us, you have got to redevelop the
training capacity. You have to have a 15 percent training
float. Congress legislates that for the military. It does not
for the State Department. And I think for the three of us who
have been career-long Foreign Service officers, we just don't
have the training opportunities that the military has. That is
the way to produce an effective officer corps.
And so you will see from our report we have several
recommendations to completely overhaul the way we train. But if
Congress could legislate a 15 percent float for the State
Department, much less costly than for the military, that would
ensure that the Secretary of State always has those 15 percent
of his or her employees who can be trained while the rest
serve. And right now, Secretary Powell didn't have that,
Secretary Clinton didn't have it, Secretary Rice didn't. It is
desperately needed.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Ambassador.
And with that, I yield back to the chair. Thank you,
Chairwoman.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Okay. We will start our second round of questions, and this
is a question I have for the entire panel.
Now, to combat systemic racism, we need to disrupt and
dismantle the structures that often seem innocuous but that
often become powerful bulwarks against a change, things like
lack of diversity of educational background or informal social
networks that reinforce the status quo.
So how do we dismantle this old boys' club? For example,
can you tell me about selection panels for the Foreign Service
and how do they work? Who sits on these panels and what is
their review criteria? And is this something the Secretary
could reform on his own? And what about the Foreign Service
exam or other requirements for entrance into and promotion
within the Foreign Service?
Forgive me for this personal reference, but I have a very
keen sense of this because I wanted to be a cheerleader at age
15. And there was a selection panel, and they had their
criteria. I didn't look like what their criteria met to be a
cheerleader. So I had to work with the NAACP to disrupt that
panel and to make sure then the girls could try out in front of
the student body and could get a vote for who they wanted to be
the cheerleader. And guess what? I won. I was the first Black
cheerleader at Santa Ana High School.
I share that because I know how incestuous these panels can
be. And so I would like to ask about these panels and any other
structural impediments to impede progress toward a more diverse
foreign policy workforce.
Let me start with Ambassador Burns and then go to
Ambassador Thomas on this.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You are right that
recruitment is critical here if you want to break the old
structures, and as I think we have all said, it has to go
beyond traditional graduate schools and traditional
universities, and it has got to get into all 50 States, and it
has to be nonpartisan. Congressman Diaz-Balart mentioned that.
It has got to be nonpartisan, because we are nonpartisan in the
service.
Second, I think you are right to focus on selection panels.
The key people who make these decisions at the State
Department--it is usually chaired by the Deputy Secretary of
State with the other under secretaries--I have served on this
in the past--to recommend ambassadors to the White House. The
chief diversity officer should be on that panel and should have
a vote on that panel. And the people on the panel must be
diverse if we are going to be successful in transforming the
culture.
So those are two ideas that I would recommend.
Ms. Lee. Great.
Ambassador Thomas.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you. I agree with Ambassador Burns, I
think we need to go further.
First of all, paid internships, we formerly had paid
internships at colleges where we did not have Foreign Service
officers, like Nebraska Wesleyan and Johnson C. Smith. Why
don't we go back to those schools and expand on that.
In selection panels, it is not just on the Deputy
Secretary's panel, which Ambassador Burns and I served on, but
it is down in each rank, because you are not going to get to
the top if you don't have a chance as a mid-level person to go
to other places.
Also, the Board of Examiners and the promotion panelists
for the summer, we don't always get our best. People are not
encouraged to serve on those panels. So often the Board of
Examiners have retreads or people who are about to retire, with
rare exceptions. And the same thing with the promotion panels.
Finally, when Powell was Secretary for Veterans, he had
veterans only did not have to take the written exam, veterans
in Peace Corps only took the oral exam as a way and means of
entering. Why don't you go back to that.
And the last thing you could do if you really want
diversity, challenge the Foreign Service exam. Look into a
means of having resume-based hiring. Because if you stick only
to the Foreign Service exam, which the first part is based on
SATs, you will be having this hearing 30 years from now.
Ms. Lee. Ms. Vazquez.
Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Yes, I concur with Ambassador Thomas.
The Foreign Service exam, like past SATs and LSATs and other
exams, have been proven to be preferential for certain groups
of individuals and a disincentive to others and, frankly, ask
questions that do not necessarily lead to success.
And I will argue yet again that we need to find a way to
appreciate, recognize, and reward what diverse perspectives
bring to the table. It is a whole additional set of talents
beyond whether you know where Indonesia is. And so I concur on
that. I think it is critical. And maybe we need to start asking
some questions that would uplift the talent, if we keep an exam
like that, that would uplift the talents that diverse thinking
can bring to the table. And that is why I do agree that
potentially the oral exam, but even that can be a challenge.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, can you respond
very quickly just about these panels and the selection process
and the issue there on diversity?
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Having been one of those
who was a Board of Examiner member, I can tell you that there
is selectivity as to where examiners put the emphasis. The
section on inclusion and diversity I paid a great deal of
attention to because it was important, but all of my colleagues
did not. And just as Ambassador Thomas said, even though we had
EEO respect on our performance evaluations, you could ignore
that, and so examiners could ignore diversity and inclusion as
we looked at people coming in. I have said we don't screen for
sexist, we do not screen for racist, and we do not screen for
unpleasant personalities. And there has to be a way of really
making it serious for us to do that screening as well.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I yield now to Congressman Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think this question is really to Ambassador Burns, but,
obviously, anybody else who wants to also talk about it. I want
to expand a little bit the discussion, the scope of the
discussion. I think if we are going to aim to represent all of
America accurately, we have got to show diversity, right. But
shouldn't we also focus on other types of diversity, such as
economic background, as I mentioned before, religion, political
idealogy, and also even region of the country. I am aware of
the Development Diplomats in Residence program which focuses on
underrepresented places, Florida being one of those, but it is
a small program.
So what more can be done to ensure that States such as
Florida--and I don't want to upset anybody--so also other
places like, you know, the Midwest, Southwest, Southern States
are better represented? And then also, is data even collected
on economic background, religion, political idealogy, region?
Is that data even collected or looked at?
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Congressman. I would just say, I
don't know the answer to your last question as to what is
permissible and what is not permissible as you try to recruit
somebody. I am not sure you can ask about certain things, for
instance, one's political views, but others may have a better
view of that.
I would just say, we are all coming back to one thing, and
that is how do we recruit and do we recruit on a wide basis?
Are we just looking to reproduce in this generation past
generations? And if we can augment the diplomatic residence
program to lots of regional universities, to community
colleges, to public universities throughout the 50 States, we
will find the people, as the military finds them. But the
military takes recruitment much more seriously than we do.
So I think that it is the recruitment and the retention,
and really retention has become as big a problem as the culture
inside the State Department. The Pickering, Rangel, and Payne
Fellows are tremendous talents academically. I know that, as I
have said before, because I teach them, but many of them are
not given the opportunities in the first 10 years that maybe
White officers are being given. That is a true problem as well.
And, finally, you mentioned idealogical diversity. We have
to be nonpartisan in the Federal Civil Service and Foreign
Service. That is our oath of office.
And I think one of the great glories of the Foreign Service
is we have largely been nonpartisan for the past half century.
I worry that in the last administration--I will try to say this
in a way that is, you know, not too critical, but I have to say
it. I think the Foreign Service was politicized by several of
the events that happened in the Trump administration, and we
have got to go back to being nonpartisan, not thinking of
ourselves as Republicans and Democrats but as Foreign Service
officers who serve both parties, no matter who the American
people elect.
I think Congressman Price asked a question about this. It
is another part of the problem that needs to be corrected in
the State Department today.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas? Excuse me, Mr. Diaz-Balart, you
can go on and direct your question. I am sorry.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, no, Madam Chairwoman. I would never
assume to do it better than you, so why don't you go ahead and
do it.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you.
Representative Diaz-Balart, I think if you look at Brigham
Young University, which has an excellent program in producing
people for Federal Government, because they encourage
languages, they encourage travel. The former president of
Johnson C. Smith gave all of his students passports so they
could go overseas and study. It was a tremendous financial
burden, but he was willing to do that. That is important in the
recruitment.
I teach at Yale Jackson School where we have Pickering,
Payne, Rangel Fellows who are outstanding, and they do come
from economically deprived backgrounds. All of these Pickering,
Payne, and Rangel Fellows come from economically deprived
backgrounds. So if we are able to increase and sustain them,
whether they are from southern Florida or Hillsboro County
where I live, Representative Balart, we can get more.
Ms. Lee. Ms. Vazquez.
Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Yes. I would just like to add, on the
recruitment, we can expand our lens a lot wider. Are we looking
at schools like Gallaudet that have diversabilities? Also, are
we recruiting for LGBTQ?
But, again, back to the issue of retention. If they don't
find a welcoming home when they arrive, then, you know, all
that recruitment work is for naught.
I believe the time is up, but I wanted to say Payne,
Pickering, and Rangel students, all professionals, have
complained that when they get there, they are treated as
different class citizens and resented because they didn't take
the Foreign Service exam. So, again, I want to go back to this
issue of the culture, and that has to be addressed as well.
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley.
Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. And I have to correct the
record because they do take the Foreign Service exam. But one
of the challenges, again, is that building culture. As
Ambassador Burns says, these are outstanding candidates, but
the word, the understanding, in the building is that they are
substandard. And the Department has done little to nothing to
correct that. There are many ways of doing it.
While I was working at the Board of Examiners, I suggested
an article be written by HR on the number of fellowship
programs that people can use to get into the Department of
State. It is not just Pickering, Rangel. You can be a Boren
Fellow, you can be a AAAS Fellow, Presidential Management
Fellow, and none of them have to take the written exam. The
only ones who have to take the written exam are the Pickerings
and the Rangels, and yet they are assumed to slip through some
way that the Department has not addressed.
So there are so many things that can be done by the
Department of State to change the culture, and that is what it
is going to take for sustained change in this case.
Sorry for going over.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Okay. I now will yield to Ms. Frankel. Congresswoman
Frankel.
I think we lost her--
Okay. Well, let me--Congressman Diaz-Balart, do you have
another question you would like to pose before we close down?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If you would allow me a very brief
followup. So we talked a lot about recruitment and retainment.
Do we have sufficient data from exit surveys, you know, that
show areas of how to improve? I mean, is there actual data on
this stuff that would be helpful?
Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns.
Mr. Burns. I know from our report that there is some data
about who we are taking in. But, interestingly, when people
choose to leave, the Department does not make the effort to ask
them why are you leaving and to catalog that and to learn some
lessons about who you are losing. And that is one reform that
Secretary Blinken could make today and tomorrow.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Appreciate
it.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Let me see if Congresswoman Frankel would
like to ask a second question. If not, let me first take a
moment to thank our staffs for helping put together this
hearing and for guiding us through it and thank our witnesses
because you have contributed so much to our thinking in terms
of how we move forward on all of these issues around diversity
and inclusion. And I just have to thank you for presenting
solutions, because we can't wait anymore.
And I think that Secretary Blinken will be an excellent
partner in how we move forward, because I am reminded of his
comments. He said that he wants the workforce to reflect the
diversity of our country, and we have a lot of work to do. We
can't wait another 30 years. We are going to look at what we
can insist on in the next 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, a year,
and keep going forward, because this is a shame and disgrace,
and we have to be the example in the world as it relates to not
only what democracy means, but also what diversity, inclusion,
and equity mean, especially in our Foreign Service and State
Department and USAID and all of our initiatives overseas. So
thank you again.
If members would like to submit questions for the record,
please submit them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days.
And I just want to thank someone, who is not with us today, but
I think all of you know Ambassador Ruth Davis, who has had such
a stellar career in the Foreign Service. I have questions for
her that I will be submitting for the record.
And in terms of just the responses from those that should
respond to these questions, we will get the responses.
Sometimes we don't, but we will because this is such an
important moment for this subcommittee to do the work of the
last 30 years, to unravel and dismantle those structures that
have been in place and have been exclusionary and
discriminatory and to build back not only better but bolder.
So thank you all again very much. The subcommittee on the
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 14, 2021.
CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES--U.S. DIPLOMATIC AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
WITNESSES
DIANA R. SHAW, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
THOMAS J. ULLOM, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
ANTHONY ``TONY'' ZAKEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION (DFC)
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. Good morning. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
I would like to start by welcoming our distinguished
guests, Acting IG Shaw, Acting IG Ullom and IG Zakel. Let me
just welcome you all today. We appreciate your time and your
service. Thank you.
Now, we are virtual, of course. We have to address a few
housekeeping matters right now. For today's meeting, the chair
and staff designated by the chair may mute participants
microphones when they are not under recognition for the
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members
are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice
that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would
like staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding,
staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You'll notice a clock on your screen--I hope everyone sees
that--that will show you how much time is remaining. A 1-minute
remaining notation means the clock will turn to yellow. That is
when you have 1 minute left. At 30 seconds remaining, I will
gently tap the gavel to remind members that their time has
almost expired, and because we are virtual, I will just mention
how much time you have left. When your time has expired, the
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next
member.
After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow
the order set forth in the House rules, beginning with the
chair and ranking member. Then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority and, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So, once again, thank you all for joining us for this
hearing on the oversight of critical management issues at the
Department of State, United States Agency for Global Media,
U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation.
I am pleased to welcome State Department Acting Inspector
General, Ms. Diana Shaw; USAID Acting Inspector General, Mr.
Thomas Ullom; and a special welcome and congratulations to the
new DFC Inspector General, Mr. Anthony Zakel.
The Offices of the Inspector General play a fundamental
role in providing independent oversight and equipping agency
heads and Congress in their work to ensure the accountability
and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars. This is especially true
in fragile or conflict settings where the monitoring and
evaluation of these programs are even more challenging. The
independence and the nonpartisan nature of the Offices of the
Inspectors General are absolutely critical to both their
departments and the agencies of jurisdiction but also to
congressional oversight. Unfortunately, the prior
administration and former Secretary of State did not respect
that independence and intervened when they did not like the
direction of a particular report or investigation. This has
truly weakened accountability to the public.
So, as chairwoman of this subcommittee, it is my intention
to support your offices and the indispensable roles that all of
you play in your oversight responsibilities. I also hope the
Biden administration moves quickly to nominate qualified
individuals to fill these important positions.
The Office of the Inspector General issues annual reports
identifying critical management issues where improvements need
to be made and assess whether United States Government
investments in national security, economic growth, global
health security, human rights, and governance continue to be
efficient, effective, and in line with our foreign policy
interests. Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the
latest findings in these reports and other pressing matters.
As chairwoman of this subcommittee, I want to continue
strengthening the integrity of these programs and the agencies
that implement them while promoting equity, diversity, and
inclusion so that people of color, women, and other minorities
have opportunities in the foreign policy sphere.
Secretary Blinken has publicly committed to increasing the
diversity of the Department's workforce as a priority. He has
already taken some initial steps to do just that. In fact, on
Monday, he announced the appointment of Ambassador Gina
Abercrombie-Winstanley as the Chief Diversity and Inclusion
Officer for the Department of State. Ambassador Abercrombie-
Winstanley has been a tireless leader and advocate for
inclusion in U.S. foreign policy workforce, and as chair of
this subcommittee, I will be looking for ways to support her
efforts.
I encourage all of our IGs here today to hold the agencies
accountable to achieve this very worthy goal so that our
foreign affairs workforce reflects the diversity of America.
And I understand the management challenges. They are always a
work in progress, and I am committed to working with all of
your offices, as well as Secretary Blinken, and the future
USAID Administrator, the future CEOs of USAGM and DFC to
address these complex issues while making progress on our
shared diplomatic and development goals around the world.
So thanks to all for being here, and I look forward to your
testimonies.
Let me now turn to my friend, our ranking member, Mr.
Rogers, for his opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
thank you for holding this oversight hearing with the
inspectors general.
As you and I have talked about this some time back, it
gives the subcommittee a chance to talk to people who spend
their waking hours, if you will, going over the details of each
of these departments that we are hearing about today. I believe
there is great value in hearing from these independent and
objective representatives on challenges facing the agencies
that we fund.
This is especially important at the beginning of a new
Congress and even more critical at the start of a new
administration because it shines a light on the most important
matters and issues that need to be addressed.
Although the faces before us today are new, the chronic
management challenges are not. Weaknesses in financial
management, contract and grant oversight, risk mitigation, just
to name a few, are problems that remain unsolved year after
year. I hope the senior political leadership in all three
agencies will take note of our discussion here today because
they will set the tone for how seriously the workforce takes
the findings and recommendations of the inspectors general.
Most of these issues are not the flashy, headline grabbing
topics of foreign policy, but they are key to successful
operations and programs within our diplomatic and development
agencies. However, when an IG report does make the news, it has
the potential to cause irreparable harm in the court of public
opinion. These days, public opinion on foreign aid is a mixed
bag.
With so many families facing economic hardship, it is
understandable that there is great skepticism about sending aid
overseas. We owe it to these individuals and every taxpayer to
have strong oversight of the funds this subcommittee
appropriates each year. We must hold the agencies accountable
for accomplishing what they say they will and in an efficient
and transparent manner. This is even more urgent given the
administration's request to increase funding for State and
foreign operations by 12 percent in fiscal year 2022.
Before I conclude, Madam Chair, I would like to thank these
witnesses for their time this morning but, most importantly,
for their hard work when they are not here and the hard work of
their staff serving around the globe, leading the fight against
waste, fraud, and abuse. We appreciate and value the objectives
of these people and their rigorous oversight on behalf of the
American taxpayer. It is one of the most important
contributions to this subcommittee.
Again, I thank our distinguished chair for calling this
hearing and bringing these important witnesses before all of
us.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. I thank our ranking member Rogers for his opening
statement and also just indicate that we will ask our witnesses
to summarize their statements in less than 5 minutes. I want to
be sure that we leave enough time to get our questions in, but
I want to assure you that your full statements will be inserted
into the record.
After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was
called to order, alternating between majority and minority
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in the
order of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
We will start now with Ms. Shaw. Please proceed. And thank
you again for being here with us.
Opening Statement of Ms. Shaw
Ms. Shaw. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today regarding the work of the Office of Inspector
General for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
Global Media, also known as USAGM.
As you noted, Chairwoman Lee, Offices of Inspector General,
like State OIG, play a vital role in promoting public faith in
government by advancing transparency and accountability through
their important oversight work. Because of our unique role and
access rights, we are able to reach the often overlooked
corners of government programs and operations and, where we
discover issues, shine a disinfecting light. But OIGs do more
than simply identify and report on such issues. Our root cause
analyses and carefully designed practical recommendations arm
the departments we oversee with the information and ideas
needed to drive positive, lasting change. At a time when trust
in government is at a historic low, the need for OIGs has never
been greater. And it is for this reason that I am especially
honored to join you and my OIG colleagues today to talk about
the important work State OIG has undertaken in the last year,
which informs our assessment of the critical management
challenges facing the Department and USAGM.
Despite grappling with the global pandemic that has
grounded our teams and caused us to rethink the way we conduct
oversight, our dedicated staff of inspectors, auditors,
investigators, and evaluators, with the assistance of our
wonderful mission support team, have continued to produce high-
quality, high-impact reports on Department and USAGM
operations.
I am proud to say that in fiscal year 2020 alone, our work
identified approximately $193 million in questioned costs and
funds that could be put to better use, while our investigative
activity led to an additional $3.7 million in monetary results
and 20 suspensions and debarments. This represents more than a
2-to-1 return on investment based on OIG's current funding
level.
Our analysis of the issues identified in this body of work
indicates that the Department continues to face several
critical management challenges, none of which will come as a
surprise to this subcommittee. These challenges are addressed
in detail in my written testimony, and I won't attempt to
discuss them all, but I will highlight three main categories
here--what I will call the three S's: security, stewardship,
and staffing.
Security: Safeguarding the Department's people, facilities,
property, and information continues to be a significant
challenge for the Department. While the Department's efforts to
promote security are commendable, our work continues to reveal
significant deficiencies, including construction design flaws,
residencies that don't meet department safety standards, and
lack of emergency preparedness. Likewise, our oversight of the
Department's IT security program continues to reveal numerous
control weaknesses, putting the Department's IT systems at an
increased risk of cyber attacks.
Stewardship: Stewardship refers to the Department's ability
to efficiently and effectively manage its significant
resources, including financial and property management and
contract, grant, and foreign assistance management and
oversight. OIG's work demonstrates that the Department could
enhance its stewardship of taxpayer resources by improving its
ability to identify and address weaknesses in its own internal
controls.
And, finally, staffing: Our work reveals that many of the
other critical challenges facing the Department are caused or
compounded by staffing gaps, frequent turnover in key
positions, and inexperienced and/or undertrained staff.
Moreover, instances of poor leadership, lack of coordination
between and within Department bureaus and offices and
conflicting lines of authority, have at times, undermined the
Department's effectiveness and have impacted employee morale.
Given the importance of the three S's--security,
stewardship, and staffing--to the Department's success, OIG
continues to devote its precious limited resources to
performing oversight in these critical areas. However, our
ability to support this foundational work and keep pace with
new and emerging issues will require commensurate funding.
OIG's budget has largely remained flat over the past 3 years,
but with increases in our mandated work and rising IT costs,
our ability to take on important discretionary work, including
work in response to congressional requests, has been stretched
to the limit.
In closing, I am incredibly proud of the work done by State
OIG and the value we provide to the Department, Congress, and
the American taxpayer, and I am grateful to Congress for the
investments it has made and continues to make in us. I will
work to ensure that that investment is efficiently and
effectively employed as long as I am fortunate enough to serve
with the talented and committed staff at State OIG, whether as
the acting IG or deputy IG.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Shaw.
Now I would like to ask Mr. Ullom to proceed with your
testimony.
Opening Statement of Mr. Ullom
Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, ranking member, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the management challenges facing U.S. foreign
assistance and USAID in particular.
I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of USAID
Office of Inspector General and its staff, who I have to say
are among the most hardworking and talented and oversight
professionals I have ever known. USAID, along with the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the African Development
Foundation, and the Inter-American Foundation, which my office
also oversees, manages nearly $30 billion in support of U.S.
foreign assistance. OIG safeguards and strengthens these
agencies' programs through timely, relevant, and impactful
oversight, and we promote effectiveness, efficiency, and
accountability and identify instances of fraud, waste, and
abuse. Each year, we report on USAID's top management
challenges, which can limit the success of U.S. foreign
assistance, foreign policy, and national security.
In the wake of nearly 130 million confirmed cases and
almost 3 million deaths, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated
these challenges. It has created economic disruptions, strained
democratic institutions, and deepened humanitarian crises.
While our oversight has helped position USAID to better respond
to COVID-19, the pandemic's sheer scope, scale, and impact have
stretched agency programs and operations.
Today I am going to speak about USAID's four top management
challenges, recognizing the effects of COVID-19 across our
humanitarian and development assistance programs. Under our
first management challenge, providing humanitarian assistance
in crisis and conflict settings demands effective controls and
to manage inherent risks, along with real-time visibility into
those risks. After all, USAID can't mitigate risks that it
doesn't know about.
The billions of dollars that flow into these environments
are vulnerable to fraud and theft, diversions of aid to the
illicit market or armed groups, hurt beneficiaries, and can
fuel further conflict. In response, USAID needs to continue to
develop effective approaches for mitigating fraud risks, third-
party monitoring, responding to exploitation and abuse, and
ensuring and implementer accountability.
Under our second management challenge, the long-term
success of U.S. development assistance depends on program
results outliving the programs themselves. Yet, implementation
of policies that call for planning and monitoring and rigorous
risk assessments too often fall short, risking the
sustainability of those development efforts. Reliance on local
entities with underdeveloped financial systems, internal
controls, and competencies can exacerbate this challenge.
A third management challenge deals with interagency
coordination. Foreign assistance involves many U.S. agencies,
international donors, local actors, including host country
governments. Effective coordination and shared understandings
of roles and responsibilities and priorities is absolutely
critical in this context. USAID has had to adjust the policy
developments outside of its control and interagency constraints
on budget and staffing have affected its ability to obligate
funds and manage and oversee programs in the field. Programs
run through public international organizations or other
multilateral channels require oversight. USAID has adopted
measures to improve Public international organizations (PIO)
oversight, but further diligence is still required.
A fourth and final management challenge concerns agency
core management functions. Effective financial, Information
Technology, award, and human capital management systems ensure
accountability and effective use of taxpayer resources. USAID
must ensure these systems are working well amid today's swiftly
changing and challenging conditions. Across these areas, we
provide relentless oversight consistently delivering a
financial return for every dollar while driving action at the
root of problems affecting USAID's programs and operations. We
will continue to maximize our impact by taking a strategic
approach and leveraging key partnerships within the oversight
community.
In closing, I want to thank you for your support and the
opportunity to speak today. We are grateful for that support of
our oversight work. And I look forward to taking any questions
you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Ullom.
Let me now ask, Mr. Zakel, for your testimony. Thank you
for being here.
Opening Statement of Mr. Zakel
Mr. Zakel. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to
discuss perspectives on our oversight of the U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation, also known as DFC. DFC is
America's development bank created by the BUILD Act of 2018.
DFC's private sector tools provide a critical bridge between
Federal resources and dynamic private-sector-driven development
while promoting U.S. national security interests.
DFC has outlined investments of over $25 billion in
infrastructure, agriculture, and health and aims to mobilize a
total of $75 billion to reach more than 30 million people by
the end of 2025.
Through the passage of the BUILD Act, Congress also
recognized the importance of strong oversight and created the
DFC Office of Inspector General, or OIG, and I was appointed as
its first inspector general in August 2020. Since that time, I
set the course for oversight through careful coordination with
Congress, DFC, USAID OIG, and others in the Federal
accountability community, and I look forward to building DFC
OIG with the expertise, tools, resources, and support needed to
accomplish our mission.
My testimony today will focus on the mission and priorities
of the newly created DFC OIG, the audit and investigative work
we have completed and are planning for the future, and the top
management challenges facing DFC.
First, our main priority is to implement and follow the
Inspectors General Act of 1978, also called the IG Act. Our
mission is to conduct audits and investigations to improve the
performance and integrity of DFC's operations and programs in
providing foreign assistance to developing countries, either
through direct loans and guarantees, equity investments,
political risk insurance, feasibility studies, or technical
assistance.
Drawing inspiration from my experience at the Department of
Transportation OIG, DFC OIG's core values are integrity,
accountability, and respect, and these values will be
demonstrated by our example and through our work and actions.
Our goal is to ensure that we conduct our work in a thorough
and professional manner in accordance with the rigorous
standards of objectivity, independence, accuracy, and
transparency upon which Congress and the American public have
come to rely.
Second, since I became inspector general, we have been
working on setting up the infrastructure to conduct oversight
of DFC and build an OIG that is responsive to the expectations
of this committee, Congress, DFC and its Board of Directors.
This includes applying to the Office of Personnel Management
for out-of-cycle allocations for three senior leaders in our
office, working with the Federal accountability community to
have senior leaders detailed to DFC OIG in the interim, and
creating solicitations to obtain contractor support for
performing audit work.
In addition, we developed the DFC OIG website with links to
all of our products, DFC's open audit recommendations,
whistleblower rights and protections, and, most importantly,
links to our OIG hotline. We have completed several products,
including our first semiannual report to Congress, a
cooperation memo with DFC, top management challenges, and our
OIG strategic plan. We also currently have six administrative
and criminal investigations underway. This summer, we will
start several audits, including those requested by this
committee, and will audit DFC's progress in implementing the
provisions of the BUILD Act.
Third, from recent audits and investigations conducted by
USAID OIG, we identified four top management challenges for DFC
which are critical in promoting the efficiency and
effectiveness of DFC's operations and programs. Managing risks,
increasing partnerships to efficiently and effectively advance
U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, improving
performance management of project data as DFC's commitments
grow, and DFC's organizational transition. DFC OIG's future
audits and investigations will be aligned to address these
challenges.
It is an honor to serve as DFC's first inspector general. I
have been impressed by the commitment and professionalism of
DFC and have a deep respect for its mission to support highly
impactful projects in developing countries while advancing our
Nation's foreign policy. I look forward to working with all of
the members of the board, DFC, Congress, and this subcommittee
while carrying out our independent and objective oversight work
as legislated in the BUILD and IG Acts.
Last, I would like to publicly thank Acting Inspector
General Ullom and USAID OIG for its help and assistance while
we work to make DFC OIG fully operational.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the start of
DFC OIG. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions members of the subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for your testimony, and I will start off now
with my first question directed to Ms. Shaw.
Now, a little over a year ago, your office released an
audit of the performance of the President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR, which is, of course, our
largest foreign assistance program in the United States and has
remained a bipartisan effort.
The audit raised concerns about the country planning
process, or this is called the Country Operational Plan or COP.
Like many things, this process was complicated this year by
the pandemic, but can you review the criticisms that you heard
during the audit and the steps that the Office of the Global
AIDS Coordinator has taken to improve their COP 2021 process?
And how can we be sure that the voices of civil society and
host country stakeholders are included in any streamlined
process?
You know, the audit also raised concerns about the impact
of PEPFAR's leadership, saying, and I am quoting now from it;
it says, ``Department leadership and management principles were
not effectively applied.'' Has this improved since the change
in leadership? And what questions should we be posing to the
new administration in terms of their pick for the next Global
AIDS Ambassador to ensure the continued improvement?
Ms. Shaw. Thank you so much for that question and for the
close attention you paid to our audit work. We appreciate that
very much.
I will start just by highlighting a couple of good news
points regarding PEPFAR. Our work has found that the new PEPFAR
oversight and accountability response team's work has been
driving positive change. They have implemented some monitoring
and evaluation activities that we find are promoting
accountability in the program and the effective use of program
resources through things like quarterly data calls to look at
progress on particular points. We also completed work looking
across four missions in East Africa that have a sizeable
portion of the PEPFAR program and generally found that they
were effective in coordinating among their interagency partners
to reach consensus on Country Operating Plans.
But as you noted, there are some issues that we identified
recently with respect to the Country Operating Plan development
process, and they fall into three buckets.
First, the issue was with setting performance targets for
each mission. The feedback that we heard on the ground was
that, although the process has embedded within it the
opportunity for various stakeholders to provide input on those
performance targets, over time the sense that folks had who
participated in that process was that there was not a true
openness to that input. So, while the input was solicited, it
wasn't taken into account when performance targets were set,
and ultimately the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator was
dictating targets that the missions deemed unreasonable given
their input.
Another issue had to do with the tool that is used to
develop the COP, which people found very, very difficult to
work with, large spreadsheets with glitches and things like
that. And, again, sort of in the same vein, folks that we heard
from said they were providing input, they were making
suggestions for improvements, but they didn't see that input
being taken into account.
And, lastly, with respect to the timeframe in which these
COP plans are developed, it is a very ambitious schedule. It is
supposed to span approximately 3 months, but it is very labor
intensive and time consuming. And what we heard on the ground
was that because it is so ambitious, often times it would
stretch well beyond the 3-month period.
And to your point about leadership and management
principles, when we looked at sort of root cause for some of
these issues, what we saw was a lack of collaboration, a lack
of creating space for open and safe discussion, and the ability
to share countervailing points of view that don't align with
the Department's leadership and management principles.
So we made some very helpful recommendations, and I am glad
to say we have seen some progress. So one of the
recommendations that we made was that the Office of Global AIDS
Coordinator create an action plan to ensure that various
stakeholders are able to provide meaningful input. And so, as
part of the fiscal year 2020 guidance that went out, we saw
that the program teams are allowed to propose targets for those
performance indicators, which is a big improvement.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much.
And we will have a second go-around hopefully, and I have
some followup questions. So thank you again.
Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. I will yield now to our ranking member, Mr.
Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Washington Post has a motto that they print on the
front page of the paper that says, ``Democracy dies in
darkness.'' And that explains why this subcommittee exists, as
a matter of fact, and it certainly says the same thing about
the Inspectors General of the departments, shining the light in
the dark corners of these agencies, at the same time
illuminating the good works that is going on perhaps in a
certain agency. So, thus, we have the flashlight in our hands
on the subcommittee, but also on these inspectors general.
One week ago, Secretary Blinken announced the U.S. would
restore assistance to the Palestinians. This includes bilateral
aid for the West Bank and Gaza through USAID and funding for
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, as they
call them. The announcement comes shortly after the release of
a GAO report with some specific recommendations for increased
oversight of USAID programs in the West Bank and Gaza.
Earlier this year, there were also troubling findings with
UNRWA, education materials that glorified Palestinian militants
and encouraged violence. This was acknowledged directly by the
head of the U.N. agency but it is no less troubling.
Acting Inspector General Shaw, what mechanisms does the
State Department have to verify information it receives from
UNRWA? And do you have any recommendations on how the
Department can tackle longstanding challenges with
accountability and transparency with respect to UNRWA?
Ms. Shaw. Thank you for that question.
I think what we have seen, as a theme across our work, is
the need to balance the desire to provide the assistance with
similar commitment to ensuring adequate oversight. Partly that
has to do with ensuring that we are establishing well defined
and measurable performance indicators for some of that
assistance, making sure that that assistance aligns with
strategic policy objectives, and then, of course, ensuring that
we are doing the sorts of monitoring and oversight activities
necessary to make sure that what we are doing in these spaces
is what we intend and having the intended effect.
So that is an issue that State OIG continues to look very
closely, and, you know, we have obviously made many
recommendations, and it is part of our management challenge to
ensure greater oversight and monitoring of the assistance that
runs through the State Department. But we are also able to
drill down a little bit into some of these areas, and so we
have work ongoing and planned work to ensure that the
Department is exercising good internal controls, evaluation,
and monitoring activities, and part of that is really
prioritizing that as a responsibility and then ensuring that
those responsible for oversight within the Department are held
accountable for underperformance.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we look forward to hearing from you from
time to time about this issue. So keep us posted, if you will,
please.
Ms. Shaw. I will.
Mr. Rogers. Inspector General Ullom, your office has had
deep engagement with the USAID West Bank and Gaza program, much
of which is directed in the annual SFOPS bill. I am sure you
are familiar with the recent GAO report. Do you have additional
recommendations on oversight issues now that funding is set to
resume? How can we make sure the funding is provided in a
manner that fully complies with the restrictions in the State,
Foreign Operations bill, the Taylor Force Act, and other
relevant provisions of law?
Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Ranking Member Rogers.
You know, fortunately, we have staff in Tel Aviv. I think
it is important that we focus strongly on vetting of
implementers in this area as the funding increases.
Antiterrorism vetting is important in making sure that it gets
down to subaward recipients. But I just, you know, want to
affirm the fact that USAID, U.S. foreign dollars can't fall
into the hands of terrorist organizations, and I am glad that
we have staff on the ground with relationships that go directly
to our top management challenge three, talking about these
interagency priorities and interagency coordination to have
appropriate relationships, to avoid redundancies in these areas
as we try to monitor and mitigate risk in these areas.
So I appreciate the opportunity to answer that.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I think my time has expired.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to each of
our witnesses today for the testimony and for the good work
that you do.
Mr. Price. I want to address my first question to Ms. Shaw.
In May of 2020, as you well know, President Trump removed the
inspector general of the State Department, Steve Linick, from
office. That was not an uncontroversial move, and it was widely
reported at the time that he was conducting several important
investigations.
I wonder what happened to those inquiries--that is my basic
question--when Linick was let go? Were all or some of the
reviews he was working on completed by his successor or by
yourself? Are any of these investigations still outstanding?
And, if so, are you able to share which ones?
Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question.
I can tell you that of the projects or reviews that were
ongoing at the time of former IG Linick's departure from our
agency, none of those jobs was stopped or delayed. We continued
to work diligently on each of those projects regardless of who
was sitting in the acting IG seat.
We released one of the projects last summer. That was the
report that we finished on the Saudi arms deal, the emergency
declaration that was made to sell ammunition to Saudi Arabia.
One of the other projects that was ongoing at that time had
to do with representational travel by Secretary Pompeo's wife.
That report was published in December.
And we are in the very final stages and nearly ready to
publish the final piece in that group, which had to do with
questions about use of government resources by Secretary
Pompeo. That, as I said, is nearly final in reporting and will
be published soon.
Mr. Price. So that third piece, the one on the Secretary's
use of those funds, what is the likely timeframe on that?
Ms. Shaw. We are actually teed up to publish it this week.
Mr. Price. That is very soon. All right. Well, thank you.
So that work did continue.
Ms. Shaw. It did.
Mr. Price. And you, yourself, oversaw the work on the arms
sale. Is that true?
Ms. Shaw. I did.
Mr. Price. And those findings are publicly available?
Ms. Shaw. One portion of that report is publicly available.
There is a classified annex that was not published, as you
might expect, but it was made available to Congress in a
redacted form through appropriate means.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Ullom, let me turn to you and ask you again about the
question of the frozen aid, the abruptly frozen aid. There was
a series of reviews ordered by the Trump administration of
foreign assistance to a number of countries, and then funding
was frozen as those reviews went forward. This applied to the
West Bank and Gaza, it applied to the Northern Triangle
countries of Central America, and it applied to Syria. Then, of
course, there was the effect of the pandemic on those aid
programs as well.
I wonder what lessons we have learned by virtue of these
freezes and now the attempt to unfreeze some of these programs.
What were the impacts of the abrupt cutoff of funds on program
effectiveness, on erosion of capacity, on financial waste, on
the morale of the people executing the programs? I am asking
you to generalize here. I am also asking what lessons we can
learn and what conclusions you might want to put forward in
terms of your work as to how these abrupt cutoffs of funds
affected operations on the ground and what it takes to recover
from that?
Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Congressman Price, for that question.
Adaptability is key in the work that USAID does in
performing in their foreign assistance mission. It's often that
they have to be able to pivot the agile to different
administration's priorities in that particular area. I think
they have shown a propensity to be able to do that. There is
always more to be done in that area. And, again, I go back to
the ideas of appropriate monitoring, appropriate risk
mitigation planning in those areas is essential. But
adaptability and pivoting their programming has to be at their
forefront, and that goes to their interagency relationships to
make sure that folks aren't being redundant in those areas but
are still trying to accomplish the same mission, and USAID in
their development work, you know, in coordination with State's
diplomacy work and the Department of Defense work.
So thank you for that question.
Mr. Price. Madam Chairwoman, I know my time has expired,
but let me just say I have some personal knowledge of one of
those programs. It involves educational work with autistic
children with a school in Bethlehem, and I know the effect of
the cutoff on that program, and I know how difficult the
restarting of that has been. I asked you that question because
[inaudible] That has been implicated many times over.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Price.
I would like to yield now to Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I actually have a couple of questions for Ms. Shaw. One of
them is, in the inspector general's statement of the Department
of State's major management and performance challenges for
fiscal year 2020, there was a brief mention made of conflicting
lines of authority between the Western Hemisphere Affairs and
the Special Representative to Venezuela. Obviously, not all of
the relevant positions have been filled now in the new
administration, but are you confident that these issues or that
this issue has been resolved? And, if not, what can the current
administration, again within the Department of State, do to
maintain a cohesive policy on Venezuela?
Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question.
I would have to get back to you to find out whether our
recommendations on that issue have been closed, which would
indicate that the Department has been fully compliant in
implementing the recommendation, but I think that, even if it
hasn't been closed, we continue through a very rigorous
compliance follow-up process to drive accountability by
ensuring that our recommendations are taken into account. And
then, of course, we always have the opportunity to go back in
at some period later and do a compliance follow-up review,
which is additional oversight to essentially measure the
effectiveness of those recommendations. And so it is something
that we will continue to look at and monitor and ensure that
even when our recommendations are implemented, that they are
having the intended effect. So we will certainly continue to
keep an eye on that issue certainly.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that.
Let me stick to this hemisphere, if I may, Ms. Shaw.
Referring to in the testimony, obviously, you couldn't hit
everything, but I notice that I didn't see in your testimony
anything regarding the attacks, the sonic attacks against
basically two dozen U.S. personnel in Havana and their
families. Some of those have led to brain injuries. But those
attacks also took place in some other places, I believe, in
China.
Any comment on what could be done to ensure the safety of
U.S. personnel stationed in Havana, which is where most of
those attacks took place, or in other places as well? How do we
guard against that? Any comments? Any ideas?
Ms. Shaw. Sure. Well, it is an issue that I know the
Department is looking at, and so our work would probably trail
behind that slightly to evaluate what steps the Department
took, whether they followed a reasonable process to ensure the
safety of staff. But security and safety is one of the primary
issues that we look at, for obvious reasons. Its importance
can't be understated. And so we will continue to focus on those
issues and, in particular, if we see an opportunity down the
road once the Department has made some progress on this front,
if there is work to be done on the oversight front, we will
certainly follow up.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that. And I know the
subcommittee, the chairwoman, we are all super concerned about
that and making sure our personnel are safe wherever it may be.
Madam Chairwoman, the ranking member actually already asked
the other question that I had, and so in a very unique moment,
I will actually yield back with a little bit of time left over.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee. The chair will yield now to Representative
Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you to our guests today for being here
and for your work.
I think we know that women make up the majority of poor
people in this world, and I hope we all agree that when women
have access to healthcare, to education, when they are safe,
and have access to financial resources, not only is the
community safer and more prosperous, but the world is much more
peaceful and more prosperous. And the pandemic has certainly
caused a lot more hurt to families everyplace in our country
and around the world.
This question is for Mr. Ullom. There was a very concerning
report that came out in regard to the bipartisan Women's
Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act. That is WEEA. It
came out of our Foreign Affairs Committee. It was embraced by
the Trump administration. That was a rarity that we could
actually be working together finally on something. But the
report indicated that it had incomplete and inconsistent data
about what was going on.
So my basic question is, what was the flaw that you
observed in the collection of the data, and what was the reason
for that flaw, or is it in the actual program itself?
Mr. Ullom. Congresswoman Frankel, thank you for asking
that.
So I think you hit something that is critically important
to any of these programs that any of our agencies operate in,
and that is data quality, data integrity and making sure that
we are getting data in a timely and effective method. We have a
planned audit that is going to focus on women, peace, and
security. But I think that goes directly to top management
challenge number two, when we talk about local capacity and
making sure that we have appropriate sustainability efforts in
place to plan and to measure and progress and evaluate these
programs, right. If you fail to plan, you'll plan to fail.
So planning in these areas is incredibly, incredibly
important, and I am glad you brought up the concept or the idea
of data quality and data integrity. I think that is incredibly
important in everything we do. There is so much data available
to us and to get that and to use it objectively and let the
data speak to you; and letting the data provide you with the
information that the data is going to reveal is going to help
make any of these programs successful.
And like I said, I am looking forward to this planned audit
that we have on women, peace, and security, but I appreciate
you asking that question, and I hope those ideas of planning
and mitigating risk is going to be something that we can
continue to improve on across the agency.
Ms. Frankel. In regard to the implementation of the WEEE
Act, though, the report said that the data was incomplete, and
it was inconsistent. Is that due to--was it due to the pandemic
or what? I mean, what was the cause of that?
Mr. Ullom. Congresswoman, that was not our work so I can't
comment specifically on those particular findings, but that
wasn't our product.
Ms. Frankel. That wasn't your product?
Mr. Ullom. Correct.
Ms. Frankel. I am so sorry. Is there someone else there
who--because it was from GAO, so it would not have involved any
of you?
Mr. Ullom. So GAO does work across the U.S. Government in a
variety of different agencies. So we deconflict with GAO. It is
a force multiplier. It is a big government. There are a lot of
programs to evaluate. So, we deconflict with them, but nobody
here today works or operates from GAO so I can't speak
particularly on that audit.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Well, I will yield back. And, Madam
Chair, I will have some other questions on the second round.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now let me yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, I appreciate
it.
So the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a lab run by the
Chinese Communist Party, and it is also a possible origin of
the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the State Department, in
the fall of 2019, several WIV researchers actually fell ill
with COVID-19 like symptoms. And since 2017, we know that WIV
has engaged in classified research with the Chinese military,
the PLA.
Additionally, this lab in Wuhan was the subject of two
Department of State tables raising significant safety concerns.
The Biden administration, scientists, the media, and now even
the World Health Organization have called for a thorough
investigation of this facility as a potential origin of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
It is also troubling that U.S. taxpayers were funding this
laboratory through Federal grants made to EcoHealth Alliance,
which is a New York based nonprofit. In one instance in
particular, EcoHealth provided upwards of $600,000 to WIV
through a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease
grant.
Unfortunately, this is not the only example of U.S.
taxpayer funding going to WIV. In 2013, for example, EcoHealth
Alliance was awarded $2.5 million in grants through USAID to
study disease emergence.
According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee minority
report and published research, the EcoHealth Alliance used a
portion of USAID grant funding to pay for WIV researchers to
conduct gain-of-function research on bat-borne coronaviruses in
China. It is worth noting that during this same time, the Obama
administration had a moratorium on gain-of-function research.
So, Inspector Ullom, to date, Congress still--we still do
not know the amount of USAID funding that was funneled to the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, if the funding was approved for
gain-of-function research, and if USAID knew the funding was
going to a lab controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. So,
with that, Mr. Ullom, yes or no, is there an active
investigation as to whether how much and to the extent of how
much money USAID was being sent to the WIV?
Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
So, we don't typically comment on investigations so----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Inspector, I am not asking you to
comment. I am just asking if there is an investigation. It is
very common for individuals like IGs, et cetera, to say if
there is an investigation. So just, yes or no, is there an
investigation or not?
Mr. Ullom. Sure. You know, really, I can't confirm or deny
that. What I can tell you, though, Congressman, is when we have
an actionable, credible allegation of fraud and wrongdoing, I
assure you that our office will look into it. Again, I always
go back to the issues of actionable and credible, and, you
know, we have a staff----
Mr. Reschenthaler. I mean, I just gave you that research,
and this is research and documents that were done by the Obama
administration. You know, this is not something coming from a
far right news source. This was the Obama administration and
the World Health Organization, which, clearly, is not exactly
United States friendly.
But I will just take what you said as a no, that we don't
have an investigation. What would your office need to actually
conduct an investigation or at least an audit to see how much
money the U.S. taxpayers were spending for the WIV to do this
biological gain-of-function research?
Mr. Ullom. So, Congressman, one, I would be happy to talk
outside the public forum on any of the investigative
activities. But to your specific question regarding an
investigation, I spent 25 years in Federal law enforcement and
rose up in the ranks of leadership, and what I always talked to
the agents about is making sure that we have actionable,
credible allegations of fraud that we are able to track, have
witnesses, have documents that we can look into to ascertain if
a criminal violation occurred, if potentially there is a civil
remedy in place, or, if we can't deal with something from a
criminal or civil remedy, to be able to refer something back to
USAID----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Inspector? Inspector, are we at least
putting policies in place to prevent U.S. tax dollars going to
overseas laboratories that are controlled by adversaries, such
as the People's Liberation Army or other adversaries
nationally? Do we have any guardrails in place?
Mr. Ullom. So, regarding policy, I can't speak specifically
on policy, but from an oversight perspective, what I can tell
you is the work that we do out of our office is solely designed
to provide value and impact and to help USAID be a more
effective administrator of foreign assistance funds.
Mr. Reschenthaler. I am just going to yield back,
Chairwoman. I am out of time. Thank you for the allotted time.
I appreciate it.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. We will have a second round.
I will yield now to Mrs. Torres from California.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
panelists this morning.
The police and militaries in the Northern Triangle continue
to act outside of their mandates, supporting authoritarian
leaders and too frequently commit violence and human rights
abuses. The State Department inspection of Embassy Guatemala
City found that helicopters provided to the Guatemalan
Government for drug interdiction have been grounded since 2016
due to the government's port maintenance, and questionable
procurement practices prevented them from meeting INL's air
worthiness standards. The Guatemalan inspection also found that
the INL section had not been engaging in proper end-use
monitoring of defense articles provided to the Guatemalan
Government. And a few months after that audit was published,
the Guatemalan Government misused antinarcotic military jeeps
provided by the U.S. Department of Defense.
We have seen police and military attack migrant
populations. IG investigations consistently reveal insufficient
oversight of security assistance and partnering with
questionable actors. This is why I have zeroed out foreign
military financing for Guatemala and Honduras for the last 2
years and El Salvador last year. However, despite these
incidents, the U.S. Government continues to provide funding to
the police and military in the region through other funding
mechanisms. The J8 jeeps, for example, were used to intimidate
CICIG and our people in working at the U.S. Embassy at the
time.
So, Inspectors General Ullom, Shaw, I have two questions
for you. First, are there any funding streams or specific
security sector programs related to the Northern Triangle
region that your investigators have revealed to be particularly
prone to abuse? And, second, what recommendations can you make
to ensure that our security assistance is not used against us
or the people that it is meant to protect?
Mr. Ullom. So what I would like to talk about is something
specifically related to our top management challenge of, one,
of humanitarian assistance and stabilization and then probably
be able to, you know, pivot over to some work we have done in
El Salvador.
But, in this area, especially when you have significant
funding flowing in, making sure that risks and vulnerabilities
are assessed prior to the funding is going to help drive
positive systemic change. You know, especially in areas----
Mrs. Torres. I am sorry. This doesn't relate to any of my
questions. And if you need to follow up with me, I would rather
you follow up and give me something that I know to be
inconsistent.
Mr. Ullom. Sure. Well, I can speak on a crime prevention
audit that we did do in El Salvador that did illuminate some
interagency issues down there, which I do think goes to your
question----
Mrs. Torres. I am specifically asking about funding streams
or specific security sector programs related to that region
that your investigators have revealed to be particularly prone
to abuse, and you can follow up with me. That is fine. I want
to get to the problem here.
Mr. Ullom. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. We will be happy
to follow up with you.
Mrs. Torres. Okay. I will ask a different question
regarding assistance to the Northern Triangle. I am extremely
concerned with any U.S. foreign assistance going to corrupt
leaders in the Northern Triangle. It is our duty, as you
stated, as elected officials trying to effectively address the
root drivers of migration, as well as appropriators, who act as
stewards of taxpayers' dollars, to ensure our money is going
the right people to do the right things. Congress has
appropriated more than $3.6 billion for the initiative since
2016, making it the largest U.S. assistance initiative in the
Western Hemisphere in recent years.
So for the full panel: What was your degree of oversight
over this and other previous Central America strategies? And
have you investigated whether U.S. assistance has had its
intended impact and reached the right beneficiaries, given such
endemic corruption in the region?
Ms. Shaw. So I can start, if that is all right with the
rest of the panelists.
So, unfortunately, I can't cite to specific work that has
been completed. We are continuing to work on issues in this
area. And so I would just highlight some planned work that we
have that I think will go to some of the issues you have
raised, Congresswoman. As you are very well aware, since 2010,
INL has awarded the National Center for State Courts
approximately $225 million in Federal assistance for projects
in the Western Hemisphere, and we have seen red flags, and so
we are in the process of scoping work that would look at these
awards. The awards go specifically to projects promoting police
training, counternarcotics, rule of law. And so it is going to
be incredibly important that this assistant is used correctly,
that they have set very clear policy objectives and performance
indicators, and that there is good end-use monitoring. So we
will do audit work in this space and we hope to be able to
provide some really informative information on this and would
be happy to brief you and you staff when that work is complete.
Mrs. Torres. My time expired.
I will yield back----
Ms. Lee. Okay. We will have a second round.
Now let me yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing. Unfortunately, it collides with my
hearing as ranking member of Agriculture. So I haven't had the
benefit of the discussion, even though I have had it on, on the
side.
I want to ask two questions, one about the Development
Finance Corporation for Anthony Zakel. How does the DFC budget
scoring impact DFC's ability to do its work? In other words,
how are you going to score equity investments? Chair Lee and I
have talked about this extensively because this is one of the
possible impediments to fully leveraging this powerful,
powerful diplomatic diplomacy tool or diplomatic government
tool.
Mr. Zakel. Thank you for the question, Representative.
We realize the challenge, you know, the major difficulty to
date with equity investments is how they are scored for budget
purposes, and they are treated the same way as grant assistance
on a dollar-for-dollar basis. So----
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me interrupt you. Let me interrupt you
for a second.
Mr. Zakel. Sure.
Mr. Fortenberry. Doesn't that undermine the very intent of
the law?
Mr. Zakel. Absolutely. But, again, this is not an OIG
issue. This is really a policy issue for the new administration
to try and address and rectify.
Mr. Fortenberry. I understand. But you are here.
Mr. Zakel. I am here, and, you know, what I can do is take
that question for the record and see what the new
administration is, if you will, proceeding in trying to address
that issue so that----
Mr. Fortenberry. Why don't we just leave it at that?
Because obviously I know you wouldn't be able to provide the
answer, but you are the proxy at this moment for this deeper
problem, and it will become your problem as you intend in the
future, once this is resolved, to measure the outcomes, of
equity investments. So, if you could do that, I would
appreciate it.
In the interest of time, unless you have something
profoundly impactful to the heart of question, I am going to
move on to the next one.
Mr. Zakel. Okay. No problem.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, let me also follow up on what Norma
Torres was asking. $3.6 billion to the Northern Triangle, and I
have been supportive of this but you--many of us recall the
meeting we had about 2 years ago where this money went on hold.
We weren't properly informed. Republicans and Democrats were
both upset. But the heart of the matter that came out of that
meeting of not being properly informed about the hold was, what
are the metrics that we are using here to determine whether or
not we are being successful? And the idea here is to get
underneath the problems of corruption and crime and create
economic space to decrease and mitigate migration pressures and
to give people a chance where they are. So there is a whole
host of beneficial outcomes here. What are the metrics that are
being considered in the evaluation of these programs?
Now I should add as well that, after that meeting, that
hard meeting a couple of years ago, we submitted metrics to the
State Department that they would had begun to implement. But I
am not sure where those are.
Ms. Shaw. If that was a question for me, I will take that
as a get-back and try to get you the most up-to-date
information on the status.
Mr. Fortenberry. Ms. Shaw, I didn't have the benefit of the
full hearing. So, if you can do that, that would be very
helpful. But it has to be very specific. Again, more money with
a good intention is not necessarily the right outcome. This has
to be standards of accountability, metrics that determine, are
we making progress toward the outcomes we achieve? The outcomes
that we want to achieve are good. They are reasonable. They
meet multiple policy objectives, but I am not sure the process
is in place. I think that is what you are telling me. There
isn't a process here for those metrics.
Ms. Shaw. Well, I think our work has borne out that there
has been some progress, but it is inconsistent, and so where we
continue to see issues is in ensuring at the outset that there
are well-defined and measurable indicators that are part of the
assistance and then, of course, the accountability and
oversight once that money flows out the door. So that continues
to be an issue. It is a work in progress, and we continue to do
work in this area to try to provide some helpful
recommendations.
Mr. Fortenberry. So you are intimately involved in defining
those parameters?
Ms. Shaw. No. OIG does not play a role in defining. What we
do is look at those definitions, both the process in terms of
ensuring that they have well-defined criteria.
Mr. Fortenberry. Sure.
Ms. Shaw. But then that becomes the criteria in which we
measure the program.
Mr. Fortenberry. So a reverse engineering is what you are
saying. We are working back toward metrics, because you can't
measure the outcome. So you make the recommendation. That gets
implemented by the bureaucracy. So we can expedite that process
and get in front of this because this has been going on a
while, and it is not clear that this is working properly.
My time has expired. Thank you very much.
Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Ranking Member.
Ms. Shaw, I have sensed that many of my colleagues have
asked questions around this particular issue, but the Office of
Inspector General has stated that the State Department has
failed to consistently and adequately ensure that its foreign
assistance programs achieve the particular goals----
Audio interruption.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you again.
Ms. Shaw, the Office of Inspector General has stated that
the State Department has failed to consistently and adequately
ensure that its foreign assistance programs achieve intended
goals and objectives. This is consistent with my experience
when I tried to get from the GAO an evaluation and idea
regarding the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. They
concluded that they couldn't compare across agencies and
regions. They didn't have the ability to compare the data that
this particular program, the Caribbean Basin Security
Initiative, had across agencies.
And so this seems to be a general problem that some of my
colleagues have addressed in different ways, our ability to
compare or to assess how successful a program that has been
funded is. So what do you recommend that we do? I mean, this--
we are going to continue to give out money without being able
to evaluate how successful these programs are? Because we don't
have the ability to measure the metrics.
Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question, and I think you have
touched on sort of the crux of the issue for some of this.
In order to be able to measure the success and to have good
metrics, you need good data, and foreign assistance tracking
has been an issue with the Department and one that it is very
focused on, in part, because our oversight work is focused on
it, and so we have seen some improvement in the past year or
so. The Department has invested through the Foreign Assistance
Data Review Working Group, somewhere in the tune of $7 million
to make improvements to their enterprise IT systems to better
facilitate good data tracking on foreign assistance so that you
can have a universe of data that would allow to you slice and
dice the information and do some comparative work.
We find that there is still work to be done, as you might
expect. And part of this is ensuring that, as they describe a
process to better marshal this information, that the folks who
will be feeding in that data understand what the expectations
are, are doing it consistently so that there is good data
reliability that will then facilitate some of this data
analytics work that you are referencing. So I think we are
seeing some progress but there is certainly more work to be
done and the foreign assistance tracking efforts are something
we are closely monitoring.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Ms. Shaw.
Mr. Ullom, I am concerned about the process in which
projects are selected, particularly with China's incursion
across the world and in this hemisphere. And so our ability to
compete with China is saddled because, first of all, we really
don't invest to the level they do. But they may do it in a
predatory way and, secondly, because, you know, I am not really
sure how we select projects and that those projects are
consistent with our best interests in regions across the world,
particularly in this hemisphere.
As of December 2020, GAO issued a report indicating that an
estimated $23 billion, or 11 percent, of the appropriated funds
that USAID received from 2009 to 2019 remained not expended as
of March of 2020. So not only am I concerned on how we select
the projects to be competitive but also money is laying around
that we have not spent while China is just galloping and Russia
galloping right across the region.
What do we do to address this, Mr. Ullom? I mean, how do we
select very appropriate projects that are important to
communities across the region? And how do we spend the money
that is just laying around, while China continues to invest
huge amounts of money in major capital projects across the
region and winning the diplomatic war?
Mr. Ullom. Congressman, thank you for asking that.
Your question, it clearly shows the complicated global
environment that USAID operates in. I know we have a planned
Clear Choice audit. We have got, you know, when you are dealing
with China and Russia, countering malign Kremlin influence. We
have looked at USAID's award management systems where we found
that there was approximately $178 million that could have been
used for other projects, to your question.
Mr. Espaillat. That is really peanuts compared to what
China and Russia is spending. It is no money at all. But, I
mean, even that, we have got an issue spending. We got money
laying around. I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, but if
you can conclude.
Mr. Ullom. Sure.
Ms. Lee. Would you like to conclude, Mr. Ullom?
Mr. Ullom. Congressman, we would be happy to get with your
staff and discuss that in a bit more detail outside this forum.
Be happy to do that with you.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Now Congresswoman Wexton. Congresswoman Wexton?
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
And thank you to the panelists for appearing before us
today.
Ms. Shaw, now in your testimony you say that workforce
management issues are pervasive in the State Department, and
the contributing factors include things like staffing gaps,
frequent turnover, poor leadership, and inexperienced or
undertrained staff. Is that correct?
Ms. Shaw. Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. I represent a lot of State Department
staff, and one of the things that was very concerning to me is
the lack of morale, you know, the diminution of morale and
attrition at the State Department over the past term. And so I
want to make sure we don't make the same mistakes again. Can
you talk a little bit more about some of the contributing
factors? I know you cited those factors, but can you dig into
that a little bit more and expand about what the specific
impacts were and what caused them?
Ms. Shaw. Sure. So where we see some residual effects, we
did do work on the impact of the hiring freeze, and that did
have a huge effect, particularly on the family members who are
hired by the Department to complete some pretty critical
responsibilities but also in the Civil Service group. And where
we see impact is, you know, a lot of these folks played
important roles, particularly in the area, for instance, of
contract and grant oversight. So where we don't have
individuals in place to do that important work, then you start
to see the corresponding impact, and we talked a lot about
those issues already today.
We certainly saw some pockets of leadership issues as well,
and I am happy to say that we have a report coming out very
soon on leadership principles within the Department that is a
retrospective look at our leadership analysis across more than
50 inspections and the hope there is to tease out some common
areas of error on the part of leadership but also some best
practices, with the hope of arming new leaders as they come
into the Department with the information they would need to be
successful. Those are some of the issues that we have seen.
Ms. Wexton. So you are saying that the hiring freeze
impacted the ability of State to oversee the programs we
already had, as well as deploy resources for the programs that
we wanted to get out there?
Ms. Shaw. It certainly had an impact, yes.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
Now can you talk a little bit about what attrition and the
loss of expertise at the State Department does to impact its
mission and what you are seeing on the ground there?
Ms. Shaw. So, again, in the area of contractor and grant
oversight and foreign assistance oversight, that lack of
expertise ends up resulting in contracting officer
representatives who don't have the technical skills needed to
really oversee contractor performance and properly evaluate
whether contracts are being executed along the terms and
conditions of the agreements. And so that lack of technical
expertise is a real issue that gets to the broader issue of
ensuring that that the money that is spent on this assistance
is actually having the intended effect.
Ms. Wexton. And I think that Secretary Blinken mentioned in
his confirmation hearings that there are 1,000 fewer employees
at the State Department than there were 4 years ago. Does that
sound right to you?
Ms. Shaw. That sounds about right. I think the number I had
seen was around 850, but I don't know how recent that number
was generated.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. Those are all my
questions, Madam Chair.
I yield back at this time.
Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Yielding back.
Let me ask now and yield to Ms. Meng for her questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all our
guests for being here today.
My questions are for Ms. Shaw. I have been following the
gross mismanagement at USAGM since 2019. My concerns predate
actually the rampant politicization of the former CEO, Michael
Pack and include corruption that had been exposed in a number
of regional programs. The purpose of the programs they oversee
is to combat political propaganda in other countries and to be
a source of true and trustworthy news for people around the
world who don't have access to unbiased journalism. This is a
program in which integrity is needed more than ever to protect
the reputation of Voice of America from being considered yet
another propaganda machine.
The incoming acting CEO, Kelu Chao, will have to address
ongoing suits on editorial interference, nonrenewal of J-1
visas for journalists, misuse of $2 million in taxpayer money
to pay a private law firm to investigate employees. This is not
just a gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds but a slap in the
face to the mission of USAGM and the hard and often dangerous
work of its reporters.
I know that you have investigated some of these reports
over the past year. Can you please summarize for us what your
reports have shown and, more importantly, what policies the
agency's new leadership can implement to rehabilitate the
reputation of the agency?
Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
Some of the more recent issues are the subject of ongoing
work and that we expect will be published, but, as you noted,
we have done oversight work in this area, particularly since
about the 2019 timeframe when some of these integrity issues
came to light.
I would point the committee to our recent inspection on
compliance with journalistic standards which was a major issue.
Former CEO Lansing, when some of these issues came to light,
had started the process of implementing some editorial
oversight reform. And our inspectors went in to look at what
those reforms were, whether they had been implemented, and what
the effect was. What we found was positive to some extent.
Of course, there is always more to be done, but some of the
positive improvements, they were successful in translating the
broadcasting standards and principles that you find in the
International Broadcasting Act into journalistic standards and
ethical behaviors that could be communicated, trained,
monitored, and enforced. And all of the broadcasting entities
had disciplinary processes in place for violations of the
journalistic standards.
We also saw an increase in editorial oversight, such as
consistent editorial daily reviews with at least two levels of
review. We saw annual program reviews being conducted, for the
most part, across the five, but Cuba Broadcasting was a notable
exception also of course, content reviews.
We also saw that they have brought in, or in the process of
bringing in, a standards editor for each of their broadcasting
entities, someone with some subject-matter expertise.
And then we saw for the most part, with the exception of
Cuba Broadcasting, really good tone at the top in terms of
compliance with journalistic standards.
So a couple of notable exceptions: Cuba Broadcasting seems
to be lagging a little bit behind. They, for instance, have not
updated their journalistic standards since I think it was 1991,
and it is not well publicized either to external audiences or
to its own employees, and employees were very unfamiliar with
the editorial oversight reforms that other entities had put in
place and the timeline. So there is definitely room for
improvement there, but we are seeing some good progress.
Ms. Meng. I don't have much time left, but I just wanted to
ask about the new position, Chief Diversity and Inclusion
Officer, at the Department of State and how might that position
effectively contribute to the State Department's work, and I do
want to acknowledge our Chairwoman Lee's efforts and leadership
on this issue. Our first hearing this year was focused on
diversity of our Foreign Service members. And also progress
that the State Department has made in developing joint guidance
to coordinate efforts amongst relevant bureaus and offices
regarding investigation and disciplinary review of sexual
harassment cases.
Ms. Shaw. Madam Chairwoman, shall I respond?
Ms. Lee. Quickly. Because we are going to have a second
round, and I'm going to ask each member if they have a second
question, to limit our question and responses to 3 minutes. So
quickly, Ms. Shaw.
Ms. Shaw. Sure. I would just say I think it is a positive
improvement that they designated a single person to give the
kind of sustained attention to the issue that is needed.
Certainly, too soon to tell what the impact will be, but it is
something we will be looking closely at as that person settles
into the role.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back, Chairwoman.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Second round limit to 3 minutes.
Ms. Shaw, I will follow up with regard to the Office of
Cuba Broadcasting, which has been investigated recently for
violating editorial standards by airing an unfounded and
blatantly anti-Semitic video segment. It is my understanding
the conclusion was that the video, radio, and web content of
Radio Television Marti fell far short of journalistic
standards, noting that the well-established norms of
objectivity in journalism are routinely discarded, something
that I have had long concerns about with respect to the Office
of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB).
So would you describe in more detail within this 3-minute
segment OIG's concerns and whether you have received
documentation that the reforms that your office recommended
have been actually implemented?
Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the followup question.
As you noted, the issues we saw were with nonadherence to
journalistic standards, such as issues with appropriate
sourcing, with attribution. We have seen some improvement in
terms of the editorial reforms that have been put in place. We
did make some follow-on recommendations. We are waiting for a
compliance response from USAGM, and I believe it is overdue so
we are following up with them to determine where they are in
that process, but it seems to be moving along well.
What I will say is that, USAGM has experienced quite a bit
of upheaval on the last few months. And so one of the things
that OIG is interested in looking at is how these editorial
reforms are carrying forward, despite the changes in
leadership. We have a planned inspection that I believe was
actually in response to a congressional request to look at
USAGM's compliance with 22 CFR 531, which codifies a lot of the
journalistic standard principles. We will be doing that work
and look forward to reporting on those findings.
Ms. Lee. Thanks very much.
And we look forward to that report also. So be sure we and
the committee get a copy of it.
Ms. Shaw. I will.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr.
Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me follow up with Mr. Fortenberry's questions about the
DFC, the Development Finance Corporation. It was created in
2018 and directed to combine elements of USAID with the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, into a single
organization, quite significant for any number of reasons.
Let me ask Mr. Zakel some questions about the DFC. It has
been intended to help counter China's worldwide effort to--what
they call a Belt and Road Initiative, China's growing influence
in developing countries especially, and authorized by the BUILD
Act of 2018 for 7 years through 2025. But there is a built-in
contradiction and it is--in DFC's efforts. There is a tension
there. Like its predecessor, OPIC, there is the expectation
that the DFC will create some positive returns for us
economically, returns on investments, interest earnings and the
like. And yet the DFC is at the same time charged with
prioritizing support for less developed countries, poor
countries, if you will, which conflicts in a number of ways
with that other effort.
What do you think? Is that tension that is built into the
new DFC, is that valid? And what do we do about it?
Mr. Zakel. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member
Rogers.
My answer would be I think that is natural tension. As you
mentioned, the BUILD Act, you know, was very bipartisan
because, number one, there is a need to, if you will, mitigate
Chinese and, to a lesser extent, Russian influence in the
developing world. And as you mentioned, you know, the BUILD Act
doesn't require it. But for decades OPIC had a record of
generating earnings for the U.S. Treasury. But the BUILD Act
specifically states that in general DFC shall prioritize the
provision of support to less-developed countries with low-to-
middle-income economies. And that is why the word
``development'' is in our title, and so it is no longer about
generating returns but rather investing in development, and
that is why the expectations for DFC have changed accordingly
from OPIC.
And so that is why we emphasize in our top management
challenges that DFC is challenged to manage risks while
balancing revenues against operating costs. And so there is
going to be higher risk because we are going to developing
countries and, if you will, investing in those low to lower to
middle-income economies, but we will be auditing DFC in the
near future on its progress in implementing the provisions of
the BUILD Act. And while DFC noted in its 2020 annual report
that 66 percent of its projects went to low- and middle-income
countries, we will assess that as part of our audit as well as
to trends pointing to increasing assistance to developing
countries as mandated by the BUILD Act.
Mr. Rogers. Well, there are several legislative proposals
to double DFC's exposure cap from $60 billion to $120 billion.
And on top of that is the worldwide pandemic that we are
dealing with, I think, affecting every country's economy. There
is substantial funding in this bill and likely to increase even
for economies that were weak before the pandemic hit. So do you
have personnel that you anticipate you will need to look after
this greatly expanded role and amount of money?
Mr. Zakel. Well, thank you for the question.
And I will answer this very quickly with a sly joke, which
is right now I am the only employee for the Office of Inspector
General at DFC, and I pointed out in my opening statement that
I really appreciate the assistance from USAID OIG, but we
currently are bringing folks on board, and we will have nine
FTEs by the end of this fiscal year. But, yes, if the role, if
you will, and scope of the work is going to double, as some
reports indicate, then, yes, our oversight role will have to
grow as well.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we wish you good luck.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Zakel. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Yes, thank you. With 3 minutes remaining, I want
to return to Mr. Ullom and give him a chance to elaborate
somewhat more fully on the challenge of dealing with these
stop-and-start situations with respect to aid. We on this
subcommittee learned the hard way in the last Congress how hard
it was and how limited our tools were to deal with a
summarily--and we thought unconstitutional--cutoff of aid to
the West Bank and Gaza and also to the Triangle countries in
Central America. This was duly appropriated aid that was
summarily cut off. And we had many, many reports, as I said, of
the dislocations that the aid cuts caused and how challenging
it was going to be to get these programs up and running again.
There are some legal challenges, as the ranking member made
clear earlier, but I understand those are being addressed.
But I wonder, Mr. Ullom, what you would say about the
agency's ability to get assistance moving again. It is very,
very important that this happen in these next weeks, months,
you know. These programs have been on hold now for a couple of
years.
Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Congressman Price.
We have a couple of pieces of work, and I think that might
be able to illuminate this issue a bit more, but just like,
when we are talking about Afghanistan, so USAID had to
implement cuts. You know, this goes back and forth when we talk
about mitigating risks in these programs. And when you are
starting and stopping programs or changing the priorities in
programs--and Afghanistan is a good example of that--USAID had
to cut staff at the direction of State Department. But, you
know, then there's questions of sustainability.
So, when you are changing these priorities, it does affect
USAID's ability to operate in these environments. In Iraq, we
had work in a past quarterly reporting where we talked about
bringing down USAID staff levels, but then funding began to
increase in that area. So that has a counterproductive response
and could cause issues in making sure that that programming is
doing what it's intended to be doing.
So we hope through our work, we can illuminate some of
those issues to better prepare USAID to be responsive and to be
able to preposition or preplan, to be able to respond to
exactly what you are talking about: is changing in
administration priorities, and I think USAID has shown a
propensity to make some progress in that area, but I do think
that that is still a challenging area.
Mr. Price. Well, it certainly is right this minute in West
Bank and Gaza. So we will look forward to learning from you
going forward as to how to mitigate these impacts. Thank you
very much.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me follow up on the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB)
conversation that took place a little while ago. So the purpose
of OCB--and I know everybody's aware of it--was to--is to break
through the information blockade by the Cuban regime to its
people. You know, we all remember that the Cuban regime is a
murderous, totalitarian, terrorist regime. That is the purpose
of it.
And so it is interesting because one of the issues that
existed with the USAGM leadership was complaining that the
journalistic standards that they were trying to impose required
reporters to ask the regime for a response to stories and for
confirmation of facts, which is highly absurd, ridiculous. I
don't think anybody would disagree that asking the regime for
certain facts of report has nothing to do with journalistic
standards.
Has that changed or is that--I mean, I know it changed in
the last administration. But is there still this request as
part of journalistic standards to require journalists to get
confirmation from the regime, or has that changed?
Ms. Shaw. So my understanding is that it is not as
prescriptive as that. From what I understand----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. It was. It was before, and that was one of
the issues that the journalists would always complain about
that USAGM, under the previous leadership, was demanding those
sort of things, and, by the way, they had to do it, and you saw
that in their reporting that they would actually link to the
regime's stories, which is patently absurd and, frankly, highly
irresponsible.
So I just want to make sure that we clarify because it
sounds good--and not that they don't have issues, by the way--
but it sound good to say, well, we are insisting on
journalistic standards, but let's be very clear: During the
Obama administration and even after--for a while after that,
that is what they were insisting on. They were insisting on
that journalists actually go to the regime for the other side
of the story and also for confirmation of facts. So I just want
to make sure, that you know, that everybody is aware of that.
Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
I was familiar that that was part of former CEO Lansing's
approach to editorial oversight. Where I see it being less
prescriptive now in terms of how this has been translated and
codified within the standards at USAGM and, by extension, the
broadcasting entities is that there is a focus on variety of
sources. There is a focus on obtaining a balance of
information, but it is not as prescriptive as going directly to
the regime and asking for input. And so I think it provides
sufficient latitude for the reporters to use good judgment and
then, of course, there is a much stronger oversight process in
place to ensure that that information is being vetted and that
it is balanced within reason. But I do recall seeing that one
of the things that is not required is providing the
countervailing point of view when it is not supported by good
facts. And so I think that is the effort to strike at the
balance that you are talking about.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. I appreciate that.
Madam Chairwoman, I know my time has expired. I just want
to make sure of that because a lot of things were said that we
understand what we are talking about. You are not talking about
balance when you are asking the regime. Again, the whole reason
for OCB is because of the regime. Balance is not asking a
terrorist state for their version of the story, and so I just
want to make sure we are all clear about that.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You have been very kind and
patient. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me yield now to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Hello.
Well, I will try to ask a question and hope somebody can
answer it this time.
And I think this is for Ms. Shaw. I was concerned to see
that the Office of Inspector General's fiscal year 2020 report
found the State Department poorly coordinates investigative and
in disciplinary processes when cases of sexual harassment are
reported. Can you give me some insight into that and whether or
not there has been any improvement?
Ms. Shaw. Sure. I would be happy to. So that was a very
important evaluation, looking across the Department. And what
we found is that the Department had two different entities that
had some responsibility in this arena, and the coordination
between those entities was deficient in some respects. We were
able to make some good recommendations to better define roles
and responsibilities, first and foremost, to help facilitate
better communication and coordination. That was followed by
stronger processes to ensure that these reports are moving
through the process, being routed to the right entities to look
at them, and being followed through.
One of the other important recommendations we made, which
the Department has concurred with and implemented, is when
reports of sexual harassment and misconduct are received, they
have special investigators who have been trained to deal with
witnesses and victims of sexual harassment and misconduct to
better facilitate the process for doing that fact development
in a way that understands the unique circumstances of someone
in that position. So I think our recommendations have landed
well with the Department, and we continue to monitor them as
part of our compliance follow-up.
Ms. Frankel. Was there a lot of harassment found? And was
this, going on overseas with workers or here domestically?
Ms. Shaw. I would have to get back with you with the
precise statistics that came out of our survey. I can tell you
that it was not an insubstantial number of people who indicated
that they had either been the subject of or witnessed sexual
harassment.
What was also concerning that came out of that survey data
is that it is, as you might expect, highly underreported. We
had far greater people expressing having been either, a witness
to or a victim of, sexual harassment but not having reported it
for some fairly concerning reasons. Such reasons include that
they didn't believe it would be taken seriously or they felt it
would jeopardize their career. So definitely some very serious
issues there.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, the Biden Administration recently renewed
assistance to the West Bank and Gaza but failed to secure
concessions from the Palestinian Authority and also failed to
get concessions and reforms from the U.N. Relief and Works
Agency. This decision ultimately undermines the security of
both the United States and our ally, Israel. The Palestinian
Authority spends millions of dollars annually to fund
terrorists, leaving it up to the international community to
fund humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people.
Taxpayer-funded foreign assistance for Palestinian people must
be conditioned on changes by the Palestinian Authority,
including ending the financial support of this disgusting
program known as ``pay to slay.''
Inspector General Ullom, the GAO recently found significant
gaps in terrorism vetting and specifically gaps in vetting
procedures for USAID, subcontractors working in the West Bank
and Gaza. Yes or no, has your office investigated whether USAID
programs in the West Bank and Gaza are compliant with
congressionally mandated restrictions on aid to the
Palestinians?
Mr. Ullom. Congressman, thank you for asking that.
I am not familiar with the details in that GAO report that
you just described, but I do want to comment on the vetting,
the antiterrorist vetting to make sure that does get down to
the sub-award level to try to minimize, to make sure that
terrorist organizations aren't benefiting from U.S. dollars,
U.S. foreign aid. So our office does work closely with DOJ. And
if those allegations of fraud come in, like I commented before,
we do have staff in Tel Aviv. But using our tools of criminal,
civil, and administrative remedy, suspension or disbarment is a
powerful tool when money goes to the wrong entity, an entity
that is not entitled to go to or intended to go to. Suspension
and disbarment is a key tool that USAID has.
Mr. Reschenthaler. So, IG, given the resumption of USAID to
programs to the Palestinians, will your office actually conduct
oversight to ensure these funds are spent in full accordance
with the law, or do you need--or, as you said, you are waiting
on an actionable to do that? Because I would think with the
Palestinian track record on funding terrorism, your office
would already be on top of this.
Mr. Ullom. Sure. So that's the criminal side. We do conduct
non-Federal audits, and every dollar that goes into the West
Bank and Gaza is reviewed. So that falls into some of the
mandatory work that our office does. And so, yes, we will
continue to review funding that goes into that area.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now I will yield to Mrs. Torres from California.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The BUILD Act included my amendment, which requires the DFC
to develop policies and procedures for assessing whether
foreign entities have in place sufficient enhanced due
diligence policies and practices to prevent money laundering
and corruption.
Inspector General Zakel, I heard your answer to this issue
that you are one employee currently. So I just want to
encourage you to look into these policies and ensure that they
are in place as you begin to build your staff. Thank you. And
unless you have anything to add to my previous questions, I
would otherwise yield back.
Mr. Zakel. I would just answer or respond that we are aware
from previous USAID OIG audits as well as GAO audits that there
have been key weaknesses in OPIC's internal controls and a lack
of attention to process, as well as in 2017, individuals were
able to defraud OPIC of more than $1 million by making
fraudulent representations, including false financial
documents, inflating the value of assets. So we are aware, if
you will, of the past history. And we intend to take that into
account when we conduct our audits and investigations going
forward.
Mrs. Torres. Yeah. I am very concerned about the Northern
Triangle. And in the case of Honduras, you know, we have the
now-deceased sister of current President Hernandez, you know,
saying that it is very easy to create NGOs to use to launder
USAID, you know, back to these corrupt actors. So eyes wide
open going into this. We want to make sure that we are holding
all of these entities accountable for how they use hardworking
taxpayers' dollars. Thank you.
And I look forward to hearing back from all of you on my
previous questions, and we will send them in a written form to
you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me follow up on Mrs. Torres' excellent observation.
And, Madam Chair, it is my understanding that you are
contemplating a hearing on the Northern Triangle issue shortly
and if that is the case, if I could make a suggestion. Perhaps
we could write a letter to State Department teeing up these
questions before that hearing. In other words, what are the
metrics for success here? I think we have all been trying to
get to the bottom of this, and, obviously, it is a little bit
unfair to put the inspectors general in the middle of that
question since they are responding to the metrics that we have
laid down, but since they aren't laid down with clarity, I
think this would be a key component that, if we gave them
enough heads up, there could be a more substantive address of
that. So I would ask you to consider that. From my perspective,
it would be a good idea.
Secondly, I have a letter here, if I could ask for
submission for the record. It is regarding the DFC. I wrote it
to our National Security Advisor, Mr. Jake Sullivan, and the
point of continuing to bring up the Development Finance
Corporation, whether you want to look at this through the lens
of a rethinking of our development diplomacy, humanitarian
relief, attacking the structure for poverty, using the best
aspects of the market system, or whether you want to align that
with stabilization and national security policy, the objective
is all of the above. So I have written this to Jake Sullivan.
If I could include that in the record, Madam Chair, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Lee. Please do.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
And then, finally, I want to talk about Middle East
Partnership for Peace, MEPPA. Our former Chair Lowey and I had
worked on this issue. She was gracious enough and clearly with
intentionality got this into law last year as part of our
Appropriations bill. So it is underway. I would like to hear
the inspector general's comment on how they may be starting a
review process of the beginnings of the implementation of
MEPPA.
Mr. Zakel. I would have to take that question for the
record, Representative, since we are not involved with policy,
and we, frankly, haven't started conducting any audits yet of
internal control. So we will, if you will, add that to the list
but we will look forward to addressing that question of yours.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, it is important because, obviously,
it is in formation. It is in its seminal stages. So, again, I
think what we are struggling with here, if you can indulge me
for a moment, Mr. Zakel, because as policymakers, we get
limited efforts to engage various administration personnel, and
you often times become a proxy for a lot of other issues.
However, when there aren't standards for evaluation properly
built in, then you are hamstrung with the ability to provide us
answers like we are asking for in the Northern Triangle. Does
this work or not? What is the measure for success? We have got
a lot of complexities, a lot of variables. I suspect the same
may be true for MEPPA, and so that going in early so that you
can use your judgment and skills to actually help shape the
parameters of the evaluation is what I was talking with about
earlier regarding reverse engineering on the Northern Triangle
dynamic.
Mr. Zakel. We have done proactive audits in the past, and
that is essentially what you are requesting, and we can discuss
that with your office. I see we are beyond time, but if that is
something you are interested in essentially doing and making--
--
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. An audit doesn't have to be a
pejorative term. It actually helps us understand what we are
achieving. So thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry.
Let me clarify. I believe we are having a briefing on the
Northern Triangle. But I think your request of providing the
questions in advance make a lot of sense, whether it is a
briefing or hearing. So thank you very much.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lee. Let me thank all of our witnesses and members for
your time and testimony today. Also, if members have questions
that they would like to submit for the record, please submit
them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days.
And, again, thank you to our witnesses. You see your jobs
are so important to not only the agency but also to the public
and to ensure the proper expenditure of taxpayer dollars. You
see the interest of our members. We really appreciate your
being with us today and look forward to working with you. Thank
you again.
The hearing is concluded if no one has anything else they
would like to say. Thank you again.
Ms. Shaw. Thank you so much.
Ms. Lee. This concludes the hearing on the State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 19, 2021.
GLOBAL CLIMATE FINANCE
WITNESSES
LEO MARTINEZ-DIAZ, SENIOR ADVISOR ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
MATHEW HAARSAGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AND POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
JEFFREY HAENI, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUREAU FOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOCRACY, AND INNOVATION,
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
JAKE LEVINE, CHIEF CLIMATE OFFICER, U.S. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
FINANCE CORPORATION (DFC)
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. Good morning.
The subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs will come to order.
I would like to start by welcoming our distinguished panel:
Leo Martinez-Diaz, from the Department of State; Mathew
Haarsager, from the Department of Treasury; Jeffrey Haeni, from
the U.S. Agency for International Development; and Jake Levine,
from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. We
appreciate your time and your services. Thank you all for being
here.
Now, this hearing is fully virtual. We must address a few
housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair or
staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the purpose
of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members are
responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice
that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would
like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies during the question-and-answer period. If there
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time. You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute time remaining, the clock
will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may gently tap
the gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired,
and I might just raise my finger and say 1 minute left. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules beginning
with the chair and ranking member; then members present at the
time the hearing is called to order will be recognized in order
of seniority; and, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So, once again, thank you, everyone, for joining us for
this important hearing on ``Global Climate Finance'' and
combating climate change. Again, I want to welcome our esteemed
witnesses: Leo Martinez-Diaz, from the Department of State;
Mathew Haarsager, from Department of Treasury; Jeffrey Haeni,
from the U.S. Agency for International Development; and Jake
Levine, from the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation.
Climate change is often framed as a threat in the distant
future, but the science is very clear: If climate change is not
tackled now and in the most urgent manner possible, we will
have done irreversible harm to our environment and to future
generations. Just as the pandemic has revealed issues of racial
injustice and inequity within public health, climate change
also negatively impacts vulnerable and marginalized communities
disproportionately. And those who are already experiencing
tough conditions only see things worsening with droughts and
floods destroying food security in already fragile,
impoverished areas.
Economic livelihoods are gradually eroding with changing
landscapes and increased conflict and instability due to
shifting resources and simmering social tensions that expose
women, children, and other vulnerable people to exploitation
and violence. Climate change is a direct threat to every
investment made by our bill, the State Foreign Operations bill,
which supports natural resources, food security, global health,
human rights and governance, and peace building.
And I am so glad that the Biden-Harris administration has
realized this urgency and is putting addressing climate change
at the center of the United States diplomatic and financial
priorities. The International Climate Finance plan released
last month announced the intention to double by 2024 the United
States' annual public climate financing to developing countries
relative to what we were providing in 2016.
While much of our development and humanitarian achievements
are threatened by climate change, the programs within the State
Foreign Operations' jurisdiction are central to driving
progress against those threats. Any climate change strategy has
to work globally with countries and communities, as well as the
international bodies that challenge governments to do more and
raise their ambitions. We need to understand the various tools
within the global climate architecture and how these different
pieces combine for a comprehensive and effective approach;
therefore, our witnesses today are the right people to share
their agency's respective roles in the climate agenda
bilaterally and multilaterally, and to inform our committee how
we can support these efforts.
Through the Department of State and USAID, the United
States provides bilateral climate assistance and partners with
international organizations on adaptation and mitigation
programs. These programs assist communities adjusting to
changing weather patterns, as well as to protect the landscapes
that help reduce pollution and allow wildlife to thrive. The
Department of the Treasury will be critical in coordinating
multilateral efforts on climate action at the World Bank and
other financial institutions.
The DFC will mobilize private sector financing into
climate-focused investments in countries with the least ability
to cope. These efforts will help re-establish U.S. leadership
on climate change, as well as revitalize our partnership in the
global community. I am specifically interested in how we ensure
women and youth are part of our climate efforts. Women are
frequently excluded from this conversation, despite being the
most active in their local communities and dealing with the
impacts on their personal household.
And so I want to make sure that we include women in our
climate change discussion because it is so critical to create a
bottom-up effort that starts from within families and
communities. Further, it is our children and youth who face the
inevitable consequences if we fail to act. It is crucial that
we educate our young people to understand the complexities of
this issue and equip them with the knowledge and skills to
carry this responsibility.
So thank you all for being here and for your agency's
leadership on these issues. And I would like to turn now to my
friend, our Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today's hearing allows us to discuss whether President
Biden's promise to put climate change at the center of American
diplomacy, whether that is consistent with his promise to carry
out a foreign policy for the middle class. I am deeply
concerned that, far from supporting the middle class, advancing
a Green New Deal, both at home and abroad, will destroy more
jobs in Kentucky and throughout the United States.
Just a few short years ago, the Obama administration
undertook a full-out assault on domestic energy and production
in Kentucky and throughout the country. Nowhere was the impact
more harshly felt than in the heart of Appalachia, my eastern
Kentucky district. President Obama went on an aggressive and
unabashed regulatory rampage, systematically hammering nails
into the coffin of our domestic coal industry.
In my district alone, we lost 13,000 mining jobs in what
seemed like the blink of an eye--13,000 just in my district.
For every one of these jobs, three more downstream were wiped
out as well. It was devastating and still is. While many in
coal country struggled to find work and put food on the table,
President Obama pledged $3 billion to implement policies in
other countries that would only exacerbate their economic
challenges at home.
It may seem like a long time ago, Madam Chair, but we must
not forget what the true costs are for these kinds of radical
environmental policies.
Now, President Biden has promised to make good on the
commitments made by his former boss and far more. The
President's aggressive climate policy goals, including his
return to the unattainable mandate of the Paris Agreement, make
the far-left Obama era policies look weak. The United States'
economy will suffer while China and other top polluters and
competitors can do whatever they like under this deeply flawed
agreement.
American workers stand to lose the most, and it could not
come at a worst time as families have struggled to hang on from
the unprecedented economic hardships caused by the pandemic.
Internationally, the President has said he will put climate
change at the centerpiece of U.S. foreign and development
policy. This is demonstrated in the fiscal year 2022 budget
request that features $2.5 billion for these purposes,
including $1.25 billion for the Green Climate fund. At a time
when countless crises around the globe present immediate
threats to our own security and that of our allies, this
funding proposal is misguided and irresponsible at best.
It would also serve us well to remember this comes at a
time when foreign aid is under great scrutiny from the American
public. Proposing such a significant sum of taxpayer funding
for international climate change programs while families and
communities struggle to make ends meet adds insult to injury.
Madam Chair, I know we all want to work together to advance
American national security. In this budget season, setting
strategic priorities for the resources made available will be
key to achieving that goal. I urge the administration to
reexamine the priorities they have put forward and focus on the
immediate and growing challenges that are testing the United
States foreign policy every day. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Okay.
And now we will go to our witnesses: Senior Adviser Leo
Martinez-Diaz, Deputy Assistant Secretary Mathew Haarsager,
Acting Director Jeffrey Haeni, and Chief Climate Officer Jake
Levine.
Let me ask you each to please summarize your oral
statements in less than 5 minutes. I want to make sure we have
enough time to get to our questions. Your full statement will
be included in the record. After your testimony, I will be
calling on members based on seniority of the members that were
present when the hearing was called to order, alternating
between majority and minority members. I will then recognize
any remaining members in order of their appearance. Each member
is asked to keep their questions to within 5 minutes per round,
and given the number of witnesses, it would be helpful if you
can indicate to whom you are directing your questions.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz, please proceed.
Opening Statement of Mr. Martinez-Diaz
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Thank you very much.
And good morning, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers,
and members of the subcommittee.
The climate crisis represents an existential threat to the
security and prosperity of communities in the United States and
around the world, at the same time responding to the climate
crisis offers one of the greatest opportunities in history for
innovation, sustainable economic growth, and the creation of
high-paying jobs. This is why the Biden administration has made
tackling this crisis a top priority. Enabling bold action to
reduce emissions and build resilience against the impacts of
climate change will require mobilizing and aligning finance on
a large scale.
Let me say what I mean by climate finance in this context.
Here what we are talking about is the provision or mobilization
of financial resources to help developing countries reduce or
avoid greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to the
impacts of climate change.
Now, the case for the United States to provide and mobilize
international climate finance is compelling. First, avoiding
the worst impacts of climate change does not just depend on the
efforts of the United States. We can only be successful if
other countries join our efforts. Climate finance can help
unlock deep reductions in other country's emissions by
supporting the deployment of existing clean energy
technologies, protecting biodiversity, forest and wetlands, and
for fostering new technologies to accelerate the transition to
a net-zero emissions global economy.
Second, meeting U.S. international climate finance pledges
is crucial for preserving trust in U.S. leadership.
Third, international climate finance is also an investment
in our own national and economic security. Climate finance
supports the most climate-vulnerable people in the world to
prepare for, adapt to, and recover from the impacts of climate
change. This can reduce the risk of resource competition, of
conflict, of displacement of people, all of which can undermine
national, regional, international, and economic security.
Fourth, climate finance helps protect and advance
longstanding international development goals, including
reducing poverty, conserving nature, improving human health,
safeguarding food security, and promoting sustainable economic
growth.
The United States has invested hundreds of billions of
dollars over decades to advance these goals around the world as
Chairwoman Lee observed earlier. Because climate change will
put at risk all of these dimensions of human well-being,
financing resilience to climate impacts will be essential to
protect past investments in human development.
And in the context of the global pandemic, climate finance
can contribute to helping countries restore growth and build
back better through low-carbon, climate-resilient recovery.
Finally, the United States recognizes that in achieving the
goals of the Paris Agreement, we must work together toward
economic revitalization and making investments that prioritize
workers across industries and communities and develop the
industries of the future. There is a crucial link between clean
energy deployment and investments in climate resilience on one
hand and expanding well-paying jobs in the United States on the
other.
Exports of low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies
and related services can be a catalyst for economic and job
growth here at home. By advancing global efforts to address
climate change, climate finance will open up opportunities for
the U.S. private sector to pioneer financial and technological
and natural pathways for decarbonization.
In view of all this, President Biden has made several
announcements at the latest climate summit just last month. The
U.S. intends to double the climate finance it provides relative
to the Obama-Biden peak years of 2013 to 2016 by fiscal year
2024. As part of that pledge, the U.S. intends to triple the
adaptation finance it provides relative to the same baseline.
This will mean significant funding for vulnerable countries,
including least developed countries and small island developing
states.
For the Green Climate fund, the President's fiscal year
2022 budget requests $1.25 billion. And finally in addition to
how much we are providing in climate finance, the summit also
addressed how we provide it. As part of the summit, we made
public the first-ever U.S. Climate Finance Plan and this plan
will focus on the quantity and the quality of international
climate finance.
We look forward to working with the members of the
subcommittee to achieve this vision and fund these vital
programs. America's future prosperity, security, and
international influence will depend in large part on our
ability to confront this crisis. The subcommittee has a long
history of working in a bipartisan fashion to confront global
challenges, and this challenge is one of the most important.
Smart efficient deployment of U.S. climate finance will help us
deliver substantial benefits for U.S. taxpayers.
Thank you for holding this timely, important hearing. We
look forward to listening to your views and to answering any
questions you may have.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Martinez-Diaz.
Mr. Haarsager, please proceed.
Opening Statement of Mr. Haarsager
Mr. Haarsager. Thank you very much.
And good morning Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and
members of the committee.
The United States and the world face a profound climate
crisis. To keep a limit of one and a half degree Celsius of
warming within reach, the Biden-Harris administration has
committed to robust and ambitious climate action that creates
good jobs, fosters opportunity in markets for American goods
and services, and builds a cleaner and more prosperous future.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the U.S.
International Climate Finance Plan and the Treasury
Department's role in using climate finance to support
developing countries' efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions and build resilience to the negative impacts of a
warming planet. In response to the executive order on tackling
the climate crisis at home and abroad, Treasury and interagency
partners developed the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan.
As the world's largest economy, the United States can and
must play a key role in the global effort to mobilize climate
finance, especially to protect the world's poorest and most
vulnerable communities and expedite their transitions to a
cleaner, more sustainable, and prosperous future. For such
countries, smart and ambitious climate action is necessary to
protect livelihoods and enable sustainable economic growth.
This plan provides the U.S. Government with a strategic
vision and covers five areas: first, scaling up climate finance
and enhancing its impact; second, mobilizing private sector
finance; third, taking steps to end international official
financing for carbon-intensive fossil-fuel-based energy;
fourth, making capital flows consistent with low-emissions
climate-resilient pathways; and, fifth, defining, measuring,
and reporting on international climate finance.
Treasury is focusing the full range of its tools and
expertise to increase the U.S. Government's international
climate finance ambition. Our leadership role in the
Multilateral Development Banks, or MDBs, and climate funds
enables us to operate effectively, to deliver action across the
five pillars of the plan. We are also working with partners to
facilitate increased flows of private climate-aligned finance,
which is a key importance to the plan and vital for large-scale
transformative climate action. And let me discuss briefly in
more detail the key avenues through which Treasury is currently
working.
In 2019, the MDBs, in which the U.S. is a member, committed
$36.6 billion in climate finance and mobilized an additional
$43.7 billion, including $22.5 billion from private sources.
Treasury staff are engaging with partners to urge that the MDBs
implement ambitious climate finance targets and policies and to
support additional private sector financing for quality
infrastructure development that incorporates economic, social,
and government standards.
For example, the MDBs are assisting countries in improving
their nationally determined contributions towards combating
climate change, financing energy installations and
transmission, and providing risk insurance products to the
private sector to support investments in developing markets.
Regarding the multilateral climate funds, I am acting as the
U.S. representative on the boards of the Green Climate Fund,
the Climate Investment Funds, and the Global Environment
Facility, which channel resources to the MDBs and other
entities to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions, build resilience to climate change, and overcome
environmental challenges.
And each of these funds has its own comparative advantage.
The Green Climate Fund is linked to the Paris Agreement and
works to foster climate-resilient development and zero-emission
investment across a variety of sectors, including transport,
water, energy, and land use.
The GCF also provides grants or equity loans and technical
assistance to mobilize public and private finance at scale. The
Climate Investment Funds, or CIFs, help to scale
transformational climate finance programs working through the
MDBs. The Clean Technology Fund, which is one of the CIFs, is
launching a new program to help high-emitting developing
countries transition away from coal-based economies and energy
production, a goal of strategic value to U.S. global climate
efforts. And the Global Environment Facility supports actions
in developing and transitional countries to address global
environmental challenges in five areas: biodiversity, chemicals
and waste, climate change, land degradation, and international
waters.
And Treasury made other contributions to the Climate
Finance Plan related to our role in OECD export credit
negotiations, the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation
Act, our work to encourage the IMF to include climate risk into
its work, and our bilateral technical assistance program. And,
also, in response to the significant and growing demand from
the private sector for climate-aligned investments, Treasury is
also supporting efforts to improve the information available to
financial institutions and investors as they make decisions
about where and how to invest.
This includes co-chairing the G20 Sustainable Finance
Working Group, which is developing a climate-focused
sustainable finance roadmap and working to identify ways to
further advance sustainability disclosure and reporting.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mr. Haeni
Mr. Haeni. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the important role the U.S. Agency
for International Development plays in mobilizing climate
finance and addressing the climate crisis. The United States is
leading by example. President Biden recently announced a bold
commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. However,
approximately 85 percent of global emissions come from outside
of our borders, and about two-thirds of global emissions come
from the developing countries.
To avert climate catastrophe, we must work closely with
partner countries to support their efforts to dramatically
reduce emissions. This will require large-scale investments to
transform economies and reshape energy, food, and
transportation systems. But even our most ambitious emissions
reduction efforts will not change the stark reality that the
impacts of climate change are already happening. The climate
crisis is sowing instability and threatening to undo the
progress we have made, and the taxpayer dollars we have
invested in global development, prosperity, and security.
In the developing world, about 2.5 billion people, more
than one-third of the world's population, depend on climate-
sensitive activities, like agriculture and fisheries for their
livelihoods. From flooding to droughts and famine, the most
vulnerable groups are being hit the hardest. What will these
people do, and where will they go, if climate change dries up
their livelihoods and opportunities?
Globally we can only achieve our climate objectives if we
mobilize funding from all sources. Public and private, global
and local, and guide those investments to the most effective
solutions and to the most vulnerable communities. But climate
change is not just an existential threat; it is a major
strategic opportunity for the U.S.
A global green economy offers a massive investment
opportunity for U.S. businesses, new markets for American
science and technology, and new jobs in cutting-edge sectors.
In the countries where USAID works, there are significant
barriers to investment in achieving the promise of a green
recovery: weak governance, lack of regulations, low government
capacity to access international climate finance opportunity,
and meet investment requirements.
USAID works on the ground with partner countries, local
communities, and the local and international private sector to
overcome these barriers, mobilize investment, and drive
transformative change.
Let me give you a few examples of how USAID works to
mobilize climate finance. USAID supported the government of
Colombia's first-ever renewable energy auction that attracted
$2 billion in expected private investment for new large-scale
renewable energy plants, including $255 million of U.S.
investment. Since 2017, USAID has mobilized over $13 billion
for renewable energy projects through auction support.
In Vietnam, USAID's payment for forest environmental
services program has helped generate approximately $720 million
in domestic revenue to support the protection of roughly 6
million hectares of national forests. That is approximately 42
percent of Vietnam's total forest cover.
In climate-vulnerable Pacific island countries, USAID's
technical assistance helped build institutional capacity to
secure $10.4 million in climate change related grants from the
Green Climate Fund, and is supporting another $200 million in
the pipeline.
USAID's resilience and disaster risk reduction programs
provide an enormous return on investment by reducing the cost
of climate shocks and stresses on communities. USAID's climate
change investments in the developing world have direct impact
here at home. We face a huge challenge, but we have never
backed down from leading the world on solutions to tough
challenges. We can succeed if we work now to address the risks.
If we ignore them, we are willingly increasing our own risk and
missing huge opportunities.
As we look to build back our economy and recapture our
position from China as a leader in global manufacturing and
clean energy, USAID is helping to open the world's most rapidly
expanding markets for those goods and services. As we work to
better address core drivers of migration, USAID is working
across the globe to mitigate key climate induced stresses
driving people from their communities.
And as we continue to recover from a record-breaking year
of extreme weather events here in the U.S. and severe droughts
in some parts of the country, we note that climate change knows
no borders. Failure to act globally means dire impacts locally.
USAID is using all of the tools at our disposal in partnership
with the interagency to accelerate the scale and impact of our
climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts to meet the
urgency of this great challenge.
Thank you to the subcommittee and Congress for your support
of USAID's programs, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Haeni.
Now, our final witness will be Mr. Levine.
Opening statement of Mr. Levine
Mr. Levine. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Rogers, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify today and discuss with you the role of the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation, the DFC, in
carrying out the Biden administration's climate finance agenda.
Climate change is not only an urgent crisis, but it also
represents a once-in-a-generation chance to build anew and to
build better. The United States' vision for climate action is
driven by the extraordinary opportunity it represents for
global economic revitalization and equity for job creation,
healthier communities, and racial justice. There is currently a
significant financing gap for climate solutions in the
developing world. DFC has the power to help close this gap by
deploying its financial tools to catalyze private sector
investment in a clean energy transition that will create more
just outcomes and position American companies and values at the
forefront of the greatest economic opportunity of our time.
DFC steps in to help fill the need for financing that would
otherwise go unmet by private investors alone. DFC's tools
include direct loans and project finance, insurance, equity
investments, investments in emerging market private equity
funds, and technical assistance funding. DFC has built a
portfolio that lays a foundation for our ambitious climate
finance goals with more than $5 billion of investments already
deployed in renewable energy and a growing portfolio of food
security and agriculture projects.
One illustrative example is the 100 megawatt Kipeto wind
power project in Kenya's Rift Valley, which is scheduled to be
fully operational this July. It is the second largest wind
power project in Kenya with the capacity to supply power to
approximately 250,000 households.
We are positioned to do much more, and we have made several
new commitments. DFC will expand its support for climate-linked
projects so they account for at least 33 percent of new
investments beginning in fiscal year 2023, and DFC's portfolio
will be net-zero for climate emissions by the year 2040. We
will update our roadmap for impact to prioritize climate-
focused investments, including projects in the power sector, e-
mobility in electric vehicles, mass transit, trade, industrial
processes, and other sectors.
In line with administration policy, we will also triple our
investments in critical adaptation and resilience projects that
help communities cope with the burden of drought, flooding,
food scarcity, and other ongoing climate impacts. As DFC's
first-ever chief climate officer, I look forward to the
opportunity to lead DFC's efforts to deliver on our climate
commitments and integrate a climate-focus throughout all of
DFC's lines of operations.
I will work with our climate experts to ensure that DFC is
reporting on our progress transparently and through credible
methodologies. I will also coordinate with interagency
colleagues to ensure that DFC's investment tools support a
whole-of-government effort to meet the magnitude of the climate
crisis. DFC specializes in supporting commercially viable
projects in low and lower middle income countries that meet our
investment criteria. The efforts of our sister agencies are key
to helping DFC succeed: to identify potential projects, to
foster an environment that supports clean energy investment,
and to advance research into state of the art and breakthrough
innovation that holds the promise of cheap and scalable zero-
emissions technology.
Though the opportunities and potential for climate finance
are great, we recognize that there remain instances in
developing economies where zero-emissions power technology
cannot alone meet the energy needs of the very poor and the
very disconnected. For that reason, we recognize the need to
support the most highly strategic and developmentally impactful
projects within the confines of our net-zero commitment and
only where clean energy alternatives are not feasible. We
believe in the power of climate finance to lift people out of
poverty, to provide pathways into good jobs, and to create
healthy communities. Our focus on climate at its core is about
providing those that aspire to join the growing global middle
class with the dignity that they deserve. The dignity that
comes with clean air, reliable sources of food and water, and
access to electricity.
I look forward to sharing more with the committee about
DFC's efforts to advance this agenda, and I look forward to
addressing your questions.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Levine.
I will start out by asking a couple questions. I think the
first question will be directed to Mr. Haeni. Both here in the
United States and in countries overseas, it is the most
vulnerable and marginalized communities that experience the
worst effects of environmental degradation and have the least
capacity to cope with environmental shocks, such as floods or
droughts.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, women need to be at
the center of these climate strategies to make them effective.
How is the Office of Global Women's Issues at the State
Department going to be involved? I have a bill that would
create a point person, such as a senior coordinator for women
and global climate change, and mandate a strategy to ensure
that these voices don't slip through the cracks. And so I would
like to find out if something like this is being considered.
I will ask my second question also, and then you can
respond.
This is to Mr. Haarsager. One of the most anticipated
portions, of course, of the President's budget is the $1.2
billion for the Green Climate Fund. So I would just like for
you to briefly catch us up on what has happened with this fund
over the past 4 years.
And to Mr. Levine, of course, the existential threat of
climate change to small islands is well-known. While the
Pacific Island countries are often the focus, countries in the
Caribbean also are facing very severe impacts, but these
nations are often overlooked. So how will these finance
initiatives include small island states and especially in the
Caribbean?
So, Mr. Haeni, would you like to start and respond?
Mr. Haeni. Yes. Thank you so much for that question.
Administrator Power highlighted those very points at the recent
G7 meeting, she said: What is true around the world is true at
home. The burden of climate change is falling
disproportionately on the backs of the least privileged, low-
income communities, Black, Brown, indigenous communities,
women, and children. And USAID is strongly committed working
across all bureau to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable
communities, and we look forward to working with Congress to
meet the goals of tripling adaptation financing by 2025.
I think what is important to note is that women aren't just
victims. They are an essential part of the solution to the
climate crisis, and that is why USAID has launched a number of
targeted programs empowering women to be leaders and driving
climate action. These include programs like our Engendering
Utilities Program, which is supporting women in 21 countries to
break in to a traditionally male dominated energy sector. And,
by the way, not only does it support the women; it has helped
to improve performance of these utilities. Our partnership with
NASA and the SERVIR program works to empower women in
geospatial and Earth sciences and to get actionable climate
data to women and girls. And as you noted, we need gender plans
in climate action plans. And through our work in the DR, Peru,
and Zambia, we have helped to do exactly that: to develop
climate change gender action plans as part of the national
adaptation plans.
So we completely agree that we need a very focused effort.
As we develop our climate change strategy, we will be looking
across the agency to determine how we continue to expand these
efforts.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Haarsager.
Mr. Haarsager. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. So, for the Green
Climate Fund, it has, over the past 4 years, really been
focused on improving its capacity to deliver quality projects,
and I think this effort has been focused in two ways: First of
all, they have been--and we, as part of the governance of the
institution, have been focused on ensuring that it has a
complete policy framework, that it has a set of policies on
things like accountability and transparency that are world-
class and are the things that the U.S. demands from
multilateral institutions it participates in. And the second is
improving its mechanisms to efficiently deliver projects. In
terms of how it has done on that, I think since it started
doing projects in 2015, they have really been able to ramp up
delivery. To date, the GCF has approved a total of 173 projects
worth over $30 billion with a bit over $8 billion of its own
resources attracting about $22 billion from other sources. And
these projects have been spread throughout the globe.
Connecting to your question to my colleague from USAID, the
GCF in its projects is really focused on delivering assistance
and financing to the most vulnerable. So it has done 104
projects for small island developing States and least
developing countries, the countries who are certainly most at
risk from climate change. Then just to note in terms of the
finances of the GCF, when we contributed $1 billion in the
Obama administration, that went to the, sort of, first
financial period of the GCF. Since then, donors have negotiated
a first replenishment of that. The United States did not
participate at that time, but other donors decided to
contribute $10 billion in that first replenishment. So, I
think, in addition to success on the ground, other donors are
certainly seeing it as a worthwhile vehicle to contribute to.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Mr. Levine, we will come back to you.
Hopefully, we will have a second round.
I would like to yield now to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz, as I mentioned in my opening remarks,
the Paris Agreement has no means of enforcement. So, while
President Biden is imposing burdensome regulations on U.S.
businesses that hurt workers, China can carry on growing their
economy, expanding their global influence, all while being the
world's worst polluter.
I read the other day that the U.S. and China have agreed to
cooperate on climate change with ``seriousness and urgency''.
As occurred during the Obama administration, I am very
concerned that Beijing believes it can use cooperation on
climate change to gain U.S. concessions in other areas. How can
you assure this committee that any such cooperation on climate
or even discussion of cooperation will not lead to the United
States becoming more accommodating of China and their
destructive policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Tibet?
And given our strategic competition with China, can you
really believe that you can trust the Chinese Communist Party
on these matters?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Thank you very much, Congressman. As
Secretary Kerry recently testified in Congress and the
President has made clear, the administration realizes that we
can't solve the climate challenge without China. At the same
time, we have obviously strong conflicts with China on a whole
variety of issues, including those that you just mentioned.
However, the administration's policy is to figure out where we
can work with them in a targeted and constructive manner while
at the same time keeping the pressure and managing our
conflicts on those other areas.
Secretary Kerry has been clear: There is no linkage; that
is to say, we will not be using trade concessions or
concessions in any other issue areas in order to advance our
interests on the climate question. We are dealing with the
Chinese very much on the climate question alone in a separate
track, and that is what Secretary Kerry has been engaged in.
This, of course, is going to be very important in order to
continue to have this complex relationship with China, but what
is clear is we cannot solve the climate challenge if we stop
talking to the Chinese. Now, we certainly do not take
everything they say at their word. There is significant caution
and trust-but-verify approach with everything that we are
dealing with China on.
At the same time, we are working with other countries that
do have significant influence with China as well. We are
talking to many of our European partners--to Japan, to India,
to Australia--in order to ensure that there is pressure from a
broad, multilateral setting on China. And we are also talking
to developing countries, many of whom China cares deeply about.
They want to be influential. They want to have global supply
chains and global commerce, but many of the countries to whom
they sell and with whom they want to have diplomatic relations
realize that China is the major emitter now, the major
polluter, and there is increasing pressure on China to start
behaving responsibly as the largest economy, second largest
economy and the largest emitter.
And so we are working with a whole variety of countries to
ensure that that pressure begins to really bite and to ensure
that China begins to move in the right direction. There are
some early indications that they are willing to do that. They
have now said they will be carbon-neutral by 2060. That is in
the announcement. We don't think it is enough, and we will
continue to put pressure to improve their commitments. We are
very focused, but we are dealing with this separate track.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Chair, I will wait for a second round.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member.
Now I will yield to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Frankel. Good morning.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all our guest panelists today. Good to be
with you. And for those of us who do believe that climate
change is an existential threat, especially to our future
generations, as an appreciation for these efforts, of course,
my concern is not that you are asking for too much money, but
is it going to be enough to get the job done? And so I am happy
to hear that we leverage our dollars as much as possible.
My question, and whoever wants to take this, is it seems
like such an overwhelming challenge, what do you think is the
best bang for our buck? What kind of efforts? That would be my
first question.
Does anyone want to--Mr. Haeni, do you want to take that?
Mr. Haeni. Sure. Well, as you noted, I think, as we look
at public sector funds, our best bang for our buck is
mobilizing private resources. And we have a good template that
we have seen from the clean energy sector a decade ago. All
clean energy, new energy projects were supported, essentially,
at a pilot scale. Now we have seen commercial scale deployment
across the world as with renewable energy as the least cost
option. The resources that have been mobilized far, far exceed
anything we can provide on the public sector side. I think we
need to look across the spectrum at our natural climate
solutions investments and adaptation investments, and look how
we can similarly attract private investment into these spaces.
Ms. Frankel. Is there an overall strategic plan that you
are following, or is it just what looks good? How are you
making the decisions as to who to fund, and really what kind of
projects do you think are the best bang for the buck?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. If I could add a couple thoughts on this
one. So, Congresswoman, I think it depends on whether it is
adaptation or mitigation. On adaptation we find that some of
the best investments are those that help communities understand
the climate risk they are facing and to manage it. Oftentimes
it is not simply about building the proverbial seawall or
improving other agricultural practices. It is rather how do we
make sure that those communities understand the risk, are able
to manage it through improved information, improved data, and
are able to then make decisions, including with their own
money, about how to become more resilient.
On the mitigation space, I think a lot depends on whether,
you know, which country we are talking about, what is the local
condition, but a lot in some places, it is all about deploying
the existing technologies, right? In some places, we already
have the solutions: It is wind. It is solar. It is better
grids. And it is just about how do we make sure that those are
deployed.
In other places, where that may not be possible or it is
already in place, it is how do we help unlock new technologies
that can help reduce emissions.
Ms. Frankel. Anyone want to add to that?
Mr. Levine. I would be happy to add to that, Congresswoman
Frankel. Thank you for the question.
The DFC, as you know, really specializes in partnering with
the private sector and with crowding in additional sources of
finance that are much greater in magnitude and in scope than
what we can provide as a matter of public financing alone. And
so, you know, we are hard at work.
You asked about what the coordinating strategy is. There is
an interagency process now under way to develop an
international climate finance strategy and implementing plan,
which is being led by the White House and is something to which
we are all actively contributing. And it is a plan that is
really punctuated by some of the key learnings that we have had
in our early experience at DFC in terms of using innovative
tools, debt financing, concessional financing, first loss
capital to think about how we can really make what would
otherwise seem to be riskier transactions attractive to the
private sector so that we are derisking using tools like
insurance, strategic debt deployment, and working in
partnership with private sector investors, institutional
investors, pension funds to create, sort of, blended finance
platforms that really work to mobilize massive amounts of
capital to direct at these real challenges.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now, I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am going to ask my question, give a little bit of
comment, and then come back to the question because it is
broad, but I think it is important. The central question here
is, how does what we currently fund work together in
collaboration for environmental security outcomes, well-being,
and stability around the world? How do we collaborate with
specific metrics so that we can understand those outcomes? That
is the central question.
So if I pull back and look at this, we have the State
Department that does diplomacy. USAID does development.
Treasury has responsibility for a variety of multilateral funds
addressing the issues of environmental security, including the
Global Environment Facility, which is not a well understood
entity, but very impactful around the world, which we funded
significantly for many years and appropriately so. It has got a
bad name; I wish we could rebrand it so it could be better
understood, but, nonetheless, that is a place where we have
planted a flag, and I think that is important. And now you have
the new emerging entity of the Development Finance Corporation
to try to fill some gaps to make some initial capitalization
available so that the private sector can actually function
through mitigated risk of use of public dollars.
How does what we are doing work together collaboratively on
the metrics of environmental security outcomes? What I am
hearing is a lot of parallel tracks that may be oriented toward
the same goals but have quite a bit of overlap. You just
mentioned the interagency process. That might be a place to
start, but that is my question.
How do we collaborate, and what are the metrics?
Mr. Haarsager. If I may, Congressman, jump in from the
Treasury perspective. First of all, I do think we have, as my
colleague from DFC mentioned, a very robust interagency process
to collaborate between us, to figure out how to make our
institutions work in complementary ways towards the same goals.
And there is the Climate Finance Plan, which we are here to
discuss, was an effort to put all that down on paper, and now
we are moving towards implementing that, bringing together all
the tools that we have.
The multilateral tools that the Treasury has oversight
over, I think, are an important component of this. The tools
that we have, the Multilateral Development Banks, the Green
Climate Fund, the Global Environmental Facility, which you
mentioned, as well as the Climate Investment Funds, each have
their own value adds and things they do a little bit
differently. And so we think across the multilateral space, we
have different tools that can do different things, and our goal
is very much focused on ensuring that what they are doing is
complementary and not duplicative and towards results that we
can measure and demonstrate that we are getting value for U.S.
taxpayer money.
Also, then, just to say, we view the multilateral efforts
that we oversee at Treasury as very complementary to our
bilateral work as well that USAID oversees, as well as the
financing that is done at DFC. These are all tools in the same
tool kit to achieve the same end, sir.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. And if I could also jump in on the
metrics, Congressman, very important question. What is
happening in many institutions, including the multilateral
banks, the Green Climate Fund, and USAID, is that we have
gotten a lot better at computing so-called co-benefits. That is
to say, there is a project that has a strong climate resilience
focus, for example. There is enough of them to measure, well,
to what extent is that project also contributing to food
security.
Mr. Fortenberry. Can I interrupt you for a second because
my time is about to run out?
This is the core of the question because this is a holistic
question. And if I could divert quickly to Mr. Levine, the DFC
representative because he mentioned agriculture. The
regenerative capacity and the possibilities of stabilization
for community, as well as new technologies emerging not only to
feed people but to be an active player in environmental
conservation as it lends itself as well to carbon capture and
the other things that we are looking to do, is absolutely
critical here. He mentioned a portfolio, a growing portfolio,
of agriculture projects.
I may have to come back to this, and I am sorry to
interrupt you, but if you could list those--what you are
intending to do and where you are looking at that would be
helpful.
Mr. Levine. Absolutely. And in light of the time, happy to
follow up with you and your team on this, but just as a brief
matter, one of the areas where we have had a real bang for our
buck, to use Congresswoman Frankel's term, on agriculture
projects is investing in small and medium enterprises,
particularly in Latin America, Central America. This is a key
strategic----
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this is also critical to the issue
of attacking structural poverty. My time is up. So let's come
back to that question. But sorry to interrupt you all, a lot to
talk about here.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now, I would like to yield to Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thanks to our panelists.
Chairwoman Lee, thank you for this report that you have
requested from the Congressional Research Office. I have had an
opportunity to review it. I am really concerned about
relationship-building with these countries, specifically where
we are seeing a large number of refugees coming from. The Trump
administration ceased providing financial assistance to
developing countries for activities defined as related to
climate change. The fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint released
on March 16, 2017, indicated that the administration would
pursue a policy that eliminates the Global Climate Change
Initiative and fulfills the President's pledge to cease
payments to the United Nation's climate change programs by
eliminating all funding. So we have had 4 years of destroying
this policy. Now we have to build it up.
We have talked about the different profiles. We have talked
about quasi-private sector assistance involvement in dealing
with these issues. What we haven't talked about is the new
Biden administration's commitment to dealing with this issue as
it relates to refugees, not just cleaning up the air, but as it
relates to refugees. Can you point to me how USAID will be
dealing with the $310 million that was recently announced for
humanitarian relief to address food insecurity and other
programs? How do the people that are most impacted by these
natural disasters feed themselves in that relief program?
So, when we are working to rebuild bridges, infrastructure,
housing that has been destroyed by volcano eruptions and
hurricanes and all of that. The locals, unpaid workers, often
find themselves working side by side with paid crews,
construction crews. So we should not be surprised that then
they have no option other than to flee and to come to our
southern border. So how are you going to make sure that, number
one, when we are looking to allocate aid that we look to create
job opportunities for the people most impacted by them? And
what are some of those challenges?
And don't tell me that it is lack of training because we
can create job training programs to ensure that they are
meeting, you know, the needs of those jobs.
Come on. Don't all jump in at the same time. Let's start
with USAID.
Mr. Haeni. Thank you very much for that question.
Maybe we can walk through a couple of concrete examples of
what we are doing and how it is realizing impact on the ground.
In Guatemala and Honduras, USAID works with smallholder farmers
directly in areas of high migration to----
Mrs. Torres. Okay. But part of the problem is that we are
incentivizing the types of crops that are not culturally
appropriate to the dietary needs of the people. So the people
themselves can't even afford to eat the food that they are
growing. Palm oil seems to be a big problem. We are not
addressing the issues of damming up rivers and lakes, that the
water that is needed to get into these little towns in order
for these small farmers to grow the food that they need to eat.
Mr. Haeni. Well, thank you.
And, you know, USAID has focused specifically on those
issues. We are working to reduce post-harvest loss. So it is
trying to absolutely increase incomes with locally appropriate
crops. We are looking at crops that are more drought tolerant.
So I believe our programs are very effectively targeting these
very issues which you are addressing. We are working with
coffee farmers----
Mrs. Torres. I know they are some really great programs,
and, you know, I am your biggest cheerleader here in Congress,
but I also have to call a spade a spade. And some of these NGOs
that we work with, you know, they have a mindset of the types
of crops that they want to promote in certain regions. And,
oftentimes, you know, that is just not culturally appropriate
to the nutrition needs of the people there.
So we have to think in those terms, and my time has ran
out, but I hope that we can come back at some point.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Chairwoman Lee. I really
appreciate it.
I have a few questions, but I would be remiss if I didn't
talk about what Ranking Member Rogers elicited from testimony.
So let me just revisit that.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz, from my understanding when you were
talking to the ranking member, you said that foreign assistance
programs like the Green Climate Fund by itself will not reduce
greenhouse emissions and will do nothing to reduce climate
change unless bigger polluters like China will also reduce
their emissions. Is that correct?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. What I meant to say, Congressman, is
that we need China as part of the solution because they are
almost 30 percent of global emissions, but we also need all the
other countries that are smaller shares but collectively
represent the bulk of the emissions. So we need everybody to do
their part.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Right. But if China doesn't do anything,
then what we do is pretty much for naught. Even if we continue
to reduce our CO2 emissions, which we were doing before the
pandemic, if China continues to pollute at a three times rate
where we are polluting, all of these efforts are for naught.
I am not advocating that we do nothing. I just want to make
sure that we have got our facts straight, that without China's
cooperation, we are going nowhere in this climate change
battle. Correct?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. What I would say is that China's
willingness and ability to move also depends on what others do.
So, as more and more--so China wants to be a world power?
Right. They want to be influential around the world. They want
to have friends in many places, including their own region.
However, many of those countries are the ones getting it
directly from the impact of climate change, and they are
increasingly starting to realize that China is not doing enough
and that China is part of the problem, not the solution. And
so, as we work with other countries to get them to be
responsible to reduce their emissions, the pressure is building
on China to do more. So these things are connected. It is not
just a one-stop-shop out there.
Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. So I will take it that, yes,
we can't do anything globally unless China comes on board.
And then, to your own admission, you said that there are
actually no enforcement mechanisms of the Paris climate accord
regarding China. Right? There are zero enforcement mechanisms
in that deal?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Well, we negotiated an agreement that,
partly because of our insistence as the United States, relies
heavily on voluntary commitments by all countries including the
U.S. Right?
Mr. Reschenthaler. Right.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. And that we do have to report. That is
an obligation under the agreement. We all have to say what we
are doing and how we are doing it, but a lot of the enforcement
really depends on our ability to work together with others and
to put pressure on others, for example, and through other means
so that we can all achieve those targets.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Right. So we have no enforcement
mechanisms. We just have basically well wishes and empty
promises by the Chinese Communist Party.
So, for example, the Chinese Communist Party is not even
saying that they will reduce their emissions until, what, 2060?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. No. They said that they will reach
neutrality, that is to say, net-zero emissions, by 2060. They
can't get there unless they start doing stuff today because it
is a long curve that you need to bend, and so they would need
to start now. And that is why every time they make those kinds
of commitments, we immediately jump and say: Okay, well, show
us how you are going to do it? What are the midterm targets
that you are trying to put in place? Show us the plan.
Otherwise, we can't take this seriously.
Mr. Reschenthaler. So then am I missing something? Have
they started to reduce their emissions? Because you sound very
optimistic. I mean, how much have they reduced in the last 5
years?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. All I am saying is that in order to get
to their own commitment of 2060 net zero, they need to start
now. So we are asking them, please, show us what is your plan,
and we keep asking questions about how do they do it. At the
same time, we are pushing them hard not to just stop at 2060
net zero, we would like them to do it a lot earlier. In the
U.S., we have announced a target of net-zero by 2050. So we
would like China to be at least at that level.
Mr. Reschenthaler. But you are aware they are greatly
increasing their CO2 emissions. Right? I mean, you realize that
what you are saying is a fantasy, that not only are they not
reducing their CO2 emissions, that while they are giving you
these pie-in-the-sky dreams, they are actually increasing their
CO2 emissions? You know that, right?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Well, the key is they continue to grow
in terms of emissions, but they are beginning to put in place a
set of policies that will help bend the curve over time. For
example, they have announced a major cap-and-trade system that
is going to be placed in China. Right?
Mr. Reschenthaler. Right.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. So it is a big oil tanker. You can't
turn that around overnight, but we----
Mr. Reschenthaler. So just to get this straight, Beijing is
promising to reduce their emissions. At the same time, they are
increasing their emissions, but they are telling the Biden
administration that they are going to make their best efforts
to reduce and go to zero by 2060, and the Biden administration
is buying that nonsense. It seems to me that Beijing is playing
Biden like an absolute fiddle here, and the fact that you are
telling me with a straight face that you believe this, I don't
know if it is laughable, I don't know if it goes to your
competence; but any rational person listening to this is not
believing what you are saying.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Look, Congressman, we don't take what
China tells us at face value on any issue. We always have a
very clear process for verifying. We push them in every
negotiation, at every table to show us the plan, to have
accountability. We are putting in place systems that are
increasingly better at telling us who is emitting what, so it
is not just about taking people at their word.
So, no, we are not trusting anybody in this game. We want
an accountable system with transparency. But what I am saying
is that China is beginning to change its perspectives, and we
have to accept they are willing to do that but then ask for the
transparency and the accountability while we put pressure on
them through other means, through other alliances, and through
other parties.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes, thanks, Chairwoman. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
Now I will yield to Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to our witnesses for
being here.
My first question I want to echo Chairwoman Lee's concerns
that, while climate change impacts every country, just like any
other national security or humanitarian threat, it
disproportionately impacts those who are already most
vulnerable. This is particularly true of women and girls in
communities reeling from natural disasters, climate change,
just like other emergency humanitarian situations exacerbates
and aggravates gender-based violence.
In the aftermath of a natural disaster, there are gaps in
services and humanitarian protection frameworks which can make
it difficult to adequately prevent gender-based violence and
mitigate its impact. For example, in the aftermath of the Gizo
tsunami in the Solomon Islands in 2007, increased rates of
gender-based violence, including rape, were reported.
Three members of this subcommittee, myself, Ms. Frankel,
and Mr. Diaz-Balart, have introduced the Safe from the Start
Act which would codify programs that ensure quality services
for survivors from the very onset of these emergencies.
I wanted to ask how our State and USAID climate change
policies consider the unique needs, protection needs for women
and girls in the aftermath of natural disasters and to what
extent are your offices working with other bureaus or agencies
to address the aftermath of natural disasters, including
gender-based violence?
Mr. Haeni. Well, thank you very much for that question,
Congresswoman.
And certainly we have seen disasters amplify existing
inequalities and vulnerabilities for marginalized groups that,
due to extreme poverty, live in climate vulnerable regions and
dependence on natural resources for livelihoods. USAID, as we
embark on our new climate strategy, which we are committed to
complete in 6 months' time, has convened leadership across the
agency, making sure that we bring in the perspectives of the
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and that we are not only
looking at our development programming but our humanitarian
assistance programming as we look to address the climate
crisis.
And certainly with that type of leadership, we believe that
our strategy will put us in a much stronger place to address
these types of challenges moving forward.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I would love to continue working with
all of you on that.
My second question--I know I am pressed for time--it is
about climate-related water scarcity. Just wanting to know what
steps are your offices taking to address climate-related water
scarcity in international development efforts and,
specifically, how are the Bureau for Development, Democracy,
and Innovation and DFC working with the private sector to
support innovative technology that can more easily produce
potable water out of contaminated water sources?
Mr. Levine. Allow me to jump in, Congresswoman Meng. Thank
you for this question.
And first let me just say that while in the case of sort of
post-disaster relief, DFC typically comes in later. We do
recognize that those are the moments where gender-based
violence is of greatest concern, and we are also working with
the tools that we have available to us to learn how we can be a
meaningful contributor to relief in those scenarios. So, for
example, we are in the early stages of establishing a technical
assistance facility to help our clients and partners address
broader gender-based issues, including gender-based violence.
As it comes to the issue of water scarcity, we are working
actively with the private sector, in particular with small and
medium enterprises, that provide services around adaptation and
resilience measures broadly but also with the specific focus on
water scarcity and drought resilience. This is an area where we
have committed to generally tripling our investments, and we
really look forward to working with you and your team to refine
our approach.
Ms. Meng. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you so much for your patience.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question goes to Mr. Martinez-Diaz or Haarsager. In
March, myself and 40 other of my colleagues wrote to the
administration urging for a $4 billion fiscal year 2022
commitment to the Green Climate Fund, the world's premier
mitigation and adaptation climate financing institution. This
will pay off our $2 billion debt from 2014 and begin a new
round of payments which our global allies began in 2019.
President Biden's fiscal year 2022 summary budget request
includes a $1.2 billion ask for the Green Climate Fund. While a
significant step forward, I believe it fails to meet the
challenge of this day.
In 2019, our global partners doubled their initial pledges,
meaning if we fall in line with them, we will need to pledge an
additional $6 billion by 2023. The $1.2 billion layout by the
administration doesn't even cover our existing debt, let alone
set us on a path to be in line with our global partners.
So the question is, does the administration plan to make a
new pledge to the Green Climate Fund of $6 billion? And what is
the administration's plan to make up the rest of our
outstanding debt?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz or Mr. Haarsager.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Let me kick it off. Congressman, thank
you for the question.
So the GCF, as you mentioned, is a really important part of
the climate finance architecture. It is not the only part, but
it certainly is a very important one. And so what we wanted to
do was to provide a very important down payment on the $2
billion that is outstanding from the Obama administration, at
the same time to make sure that we had enough left over for
significant increases in other parts of the system. So,
overall, the administration is asking for $2.5 billion for
different parts of the climate finance landscape here. And
then, of course, there is President Biden's commitment to
double overall by 2024 and to triple the adaptation component.
If we are able to get from Congress what the administration
has requested on climate finance, we will be very well on the
way to doubling by 2024. And so we look forward to working with
you closely to make sure we can get that.
On GCF----
Mr. Espaillat. We are not on path with our global
partners. They seem to be doing better than us, and so----
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Certainly so much. I think Germany and
the U.K. have been very good. Given the size of their economy,
they have been more ambitious, there is no question. And we
need to get there, and we would like to get there. Recall that
during the Trump years, the climate finance collapsed by 50
percent. So we are digging out from a significant hole, and we
want to make sure we can ramp up quickly. We are just concerned
about our ability to do that from one year to the next because
if we are able to do that, then our credibility could be in
question. So we want to make sure that we have a strong,
ambitious but achievable, level of finance, and so we are
hoping that the $1.25 billion would put us on that step, and we
will be able to pay off our full debt by 2023 if we are able to
secure these funds, and then we will be in a very great place
to make a significant pledge in the future, as you alluded to.
Mr. Espaillat. My last question, because I know I am
running out of time, Madam Chair. When do you think the U.S.
will reach a point of where 50 percent of the climate finance
it provides will be for adaptation? When do you think we will
be there, any of you?
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. If I can start that, I think the
crucial question is, how do we improve the balance right now
between mitigation and adaptation. I think overall we are not
spending enough on everything as you pointed out. We probably
aren't spending nearly enough on adaptation in particular. The
needs are urgent. The communities are suffering now. That is
why the President committed to tripling adaptation finance by
2024, even as we double, right. So you can already see that we
are doubling overall, but we are tripling adaptation, meaning
we are starting to shift the balance already.
I can't give you a precise date by which we would hit that
50 percent mark or whether even it makes sense to have such a
mathematical approach to it. What is clear to the
administration is that we need to do much more on adaptation,
and we are beginning to do that through that tripling pledge.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Members and witnesses, we are going to go to our second
round, but we are going to ask everyone to keep your time to 3
minutes. There are many subcommittee hearings taking place now,
so we will do another round with 3 minutes a piece.
I would like to continue with Mr. Levine with regard to the
Caribbean and finance initiatives. You know, while these
islands face real challenges, they also have tremendous
opportunities. And how can we help these island economies use
their biodiversity and renewable energy resources to their
advantage? And how is our system supporting these island
countries in their efforts to overcome these challenges? And
what kind of a focus do we have in the Caribbean in terms of
our overall engagement on climate?
Mr. Levine. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Just a few thoughts there. As a starting matter, 30 percent
of DFC's portfolio is presently at work in Latin America and
the Caribbean. We are intent on increasing the portion that is
going to the Caribbean specifically, and that is in large part
because, as you know, the Caribbean is particularly vulnerable
to the impacts of climate change, both in terms of sea level
rise, hurricane, and storm intensity. So we feel it is ripe for
further investment, especially on this question of climate
adaptation and resilience projects.
One of the ways that we are working to source more
opportunities is by engaging with stakeholders on the ground.
Just in the last couple of months, we held a stakeholder
townhall in Port-au-Prince, and we have also recently invested
in a number of loan portfolio guarantee funds that focus on
deploying funds to small and medium enterprises, really shoring
up financial markets for clean energy and adaptation and
resilience because we know that that is a key piece of growing
the overall work that we are doing.
Ms. Lee. Would anyone else like to comment on that?
Because I know all of you have some part of this as it relates
to the island nations of the Caribbean.
Mr. Haeni. Yes. I would like to comment on behalf of USAID
that we have got a robust portfolio on the climate space. On
the clean energy side, we are about to launch a $25 million
Caribbean Energy Initiative. That is going to support countries
like Barbados that have set ambitious 2030 targets to
transition from heavy fuel, oil, and diesel to renewable
energy. And it is going to focus very intently on improving the
resilience of energy systems in the face of ever-increasing
storms.
And then we are also working in Jamaica and other islands
to support climate adaptation and mobilize climate finance.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
I would like to follow up with all of you specifically
about the Caribbean islands and your jurisdiction and the
specifics in terms of what we are doing in terms of financing
the climate projects.
I will yield now to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Levine, the Development Finance
Corporation was created in large part to push back against
China's predatory lending policies under the Belt and Road
Initiative. It was envisioned as a key tool in the great power
competition with the possibility of unlocking tremendous
economic development abroad by giving developing countries an
alternative to the debt trap diplomacy of the Chinese Communist
Party.
It seems this administration has chosen to use the unique
authorities provided to you by Congress prominently in their
climate agenda.
My opening remarks probably tipped you off on how I view
these issues, but as a supporter of the DFC, I am particularly
concerned about the possibility of your agency getting off
task. How can the DFC continue with its objectives of
countering Chinese influence with the most appropriate type of
investments when so much of your program has been
predetermined, the focus on climate change, through arbitrary
targets?
Mr. Levine. Thank you, Ranking Member, for that question.
And I would say that I think that we are in large agreement
on this issue. As you know, the U.S. and China take different
approaches in terms of development, and China has spent
hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure projects
around the world, using coercive techniques to drive spending
and debt traps, particularly in strategic regions that we would
like to be in as well. But we take a different approach. We
partner with the private sector. We do not employ exploitative
labor practices, and we catalyze additional investment using
the free market to crowd in private finance.
And I would offer that clean energy provides a unique
opportunity to accomplish this mission. This is where the
private sector is moving. There have been record investments in
clean energy from renewable energy sources to zero emission
vehicles to clean industrial processes, such as the production
of hydrogen and low-carbon materials like cement. And if we are
going to compete and win in the 2lst century economy, we need
to continue investing in those resources.
But I would just emphasize that the U.S. and China really
have a different approach on this. Our hope is that our partner
countries around the world, other democracies, allies will find
a noncoercive free market approach to be the more palatable and
attractive option than the one that China offers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Now I will yield to Representative Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Jeff, if we can go back to the point I was trying to get
you to make, and that is related to creating job opportunities
for the people that are most impacted, you know, by these
natural disasters. I mean, I have seen really good programs in
South America, in Trujillo specifically, USAID program, a
little town of mostly women who you tasked to build their own
homes, gave them the materials, all of the lumber and supplies
that they needed, and they were able to do that working side by
side with other people.
So how can we duplicate programs like that, where the
locals are seeing a future for themselves integrated in these
jobs that are being created?
Mr. Haeni. Well, it is an absolutely essential component of
success in our climate agenda, and I can provide another
example. In Colombia, where USAID supported the government to
establish their own domestic carbon markets, what we have seen
since that was established is $20 million of revenue flowing to
indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities so that they are, in
fact, as you note, realizing the upside of protecting forests
rather than destroying it. So I think these are exactly the
type of models that we need to explore globally to make sure
that the benefits are occurring to those most vulnerable.
Mrs. Torres. Yes. And, in Chile, the former President
committed to me $20 million for infrastructure improvements to
roads that lead to indigenous populations. I don't know if that
project was ever completed. You know, we have not been able to
travel to the region. So I have seen some really good projects
and partnerships with other countries, but I don't see that
coming out of the Northern Triangle, and I hope that, you know,
we have very limited time, but that we can follow up to ensure
that the language that I am working on for our appropriations
bill that requires local hires, that requires job training
programs, as we help to rebuild in these areas, that that
continues to be at the very top of our agenda.
Mr. Haeni. Well, thank you so much for your leadership on
these issues, and USAID looks forward to working with you.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I will yield now to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Madam Chair. This is a
great, important discussion.
I want to build on some of the comments that Ranking Member
Rogers has made. Listen, China is on the march. They have a
hybrid capitalistic/communistic system that directly subsidizes
industry. They have lax labor standards, lax environmental
standards. And so, for instance, in Beijing, it takes 5 years
off your life if you live there because the air is so polluted.
A group of business people recently said to us--these are
American businesses looking to invest in Central America--they
found that labor and environmental costs add 60 percent to
their bottom line. This is in Central America versus going to
China. China pushes these externality costs onto the world,
onto us, and then we are expected to clean it up.
So, while we are doing the righteous, noble thing here, an
appropriate thing, nonetheless, this issue of holding China
accountable, why don't we hold China accountable to
international environmental standards in all trade agreements
and other agreements?
And I will give you a very specific example of the
unfairness of this all. As I mentioned earlier, I am a big
proponent of the Global Environment Facility. I think they do
tremendous work across a spectrum of environmental issues. We
fund them significantly, and properly so. China has a seat at
their governing table. China basically contributes nothing to
it but lives off, again, our effort.
The key consideration, one of the key considerations here
is, of course, a number of the good things you are doing,
particularly in terms of development finance and special
projects of grant-making that advance environmental security
but also this issue of holding China accountable.
I would like the panel, Madam Chair, to respond to that,
please.
Mr. Martinez-Diaz. If I may start, I think, Congressman,
the issue of China doing its fair share is really important. On
the finance piece, we pushed, at least since the Obama years,
for China to also play a role as a provider of climate finance,
not just as a user of it. Over time, I think the pressure is
beginning to work. Back in 2015, China committed $3.1 billion
to a South-South Fund for Climate Cooperation. However, we are
not entirely convinced that that money really was disbursed. So
we keep pushing on that.
We intend to make sure that China is a contributor as part
of the past agreement conversations in terms of money, and I
think it is increasingly clear for them that they can't simply
be the largest emitter and not provide any money.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, obviously, I am asking my question
and trying to be in solidarity with you and the responsible
community of nations to continue to basically hold China
accountable here.
But let me pivot very quickly back to Mr. Levine. List the
agricultural projects you are working on.
Mr. Levine. Thank you, Congressman.
I had begun to mention a series of projects. For example,
we just launched One Acre Fund for smallholder farmers, a
majority of whom, by the way, are women. One Acre has built----
Mr. Fortenberry. Glad you took up our initiative on that.
We have been working on that.
I am out of time. Look forward to continuing that dialogue
with you, though.
Mr. Levine. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Levine. I would very much welcome the chance to
continue the conversation. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much for being with us today. I
want to thank you all for your time and your testimony. This
was a very enlightening and important hearing. We all have a
great responsibility ahead of us to not just act quickly but to
act wisely in order that U.S. diplomacy and financing
effectively address the climate crisis.
Finally, if members have questions that they would like to
submit for the record, please submit them to the subcommittee
within the next 7 days.
And I am sure, to all of our witnesses, that our members
will definitely follow up with you with additional questions
and hopefully additional interaction with you.
And so this concludes today's hearing. And I want to, once
again, thank you very much. The State and Foreign Operations
and Related Programs hearing stands adjourned.
Thank you all again.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, May 27, 2021.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) FISCAL YEAR
2022 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
SAMANTHA POWER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and
related programs will come to order. Good morning, everyone. I
would like to start by welcoming our distinguished guest for
her first time before this subcommittee in her new role, USAID,
Administrator Samantha Power.
Now, as this hearing is virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair or
staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
Let me remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute
clock still applies during the question and answer period. If
there is a technology issue, we will move to the next member
until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of
your time. You will notice a clock on your screen that will
show how much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the
clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may
gently tap the gavel or raise my hand to remind members that
their time has almost expired. When your time has expired, the
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next
member.
After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules,
beginning with the chair and ranking member. Then members
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be
recognized in order of seniority, and, finally, members not
present of the time of the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So, now, I will proceed to welcome Administrator Samantha
Power back to the subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs. You are certainly no stranger to members
of our subcommittee from your years serving as United Nations
Ambassador, to your various other roles championing human
rights, atrocity prevention, democracy promotion, and
multilateralism. It is really wonderful to have you with us
today, Administrator Power. This is, of course, our first
opportunity to welcome you as administrator of the U.S. Agency
for International Development, a role to which you bring a
depth of knowledge and exceptional qualifications. We are
grateful to have you at the helm of America's foremost
international development agency, and for being with us today.
Tomorrow, the administration will release the detailed
fiscal year 2022 budget request for programs and activities
under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. USAID's portion of
the request is expected to increase at least 10 percent above
the current level. I want to start with this fundamental
question: Will the administration's budget request place
development on an equal footing with diplomacy and defense?
One of the many painful lessons of COVID-19 is that we
could no longer afford to underprioritize USAID's mission of
saving lives, reducing poverty, strengthening democratic
governance, and helping people emerge from humanitarian crisis.
These objectives are just as important to our security as our
alliances around the world and our military operations.
Of course, poverty and poor governance are not problems the
United States can fix with a magic wand. USAID does its best
work when we work alongside local people and communities to
help them develop themselves, their countries, and their own
communities. To be enduring, our development efforts must
support these local actors and make sure their priorities are
reflected in our programs. Your predecessors, such as Raj Shah,
Gayle Smith, and Mark Green, have prioritized this, and I am
interested to hear your plans to work directly with more local
partners, as well as how our appropriations legislation can
help these efforts.
The core strength of USAID is and always has been its
devoted and passionate public servants from the top down, yet,
I remain very concerned about longstanding institutional
barriers to diversity that exist in many of our foreign policy
agencies.
Administrator Power, I know you are working on diversity,
equity, and inclusion strategies for USAID, so I would like to
know how we can partner with you in ensuring that the agency
draws strength from the diversity of America.
The administration's request is expected to propose
necessary investments to respond to and recover from the
coronavirus pandemic as well as ensure that we are much better
prepared for future global health threats. For both moral and
scientific reasons, America must act with great urgency to help
other countries contain the virus.
The scope of the problem, as you know, is enormous. COVID
threatens to erase decades of anti-poverty gains. This means we
must make investments at the scale of the challenges in front
of us. But beyond recovery, we need to catch up to ensure that
we are able to help our partners achieve the sustainable
development goals on schedule by 2030. I look forward to
hearing your detailed strategy for achieving the SDGs.
Democracies backsliding is a real challenge. Even before
the pandemic, there was enormous concern, and yet, we have seen
authoritarian tendencies grow even stronger over the last year.
Freedom House reports that nearly 75 percent of the world's
population lives in a country that faced deterioration last
year in democratic freedoms. I would appreciate hearing your
views how the United States can advance democracy abroad, even
as we acknowledge and commit to fixing our democratic
weaknesses at home. Does USAID have the resources it needs to
work in new and creative arenas, not just on political parties
and elections, but on also cultural norms and institutional
changes needed to truly advance democratic values.
Lastly, I am hopeful that your leadership will bring a
renewed commitment to prioritizing women at the center of
development. This should include making up for lost time in the
area of family planning, which has not received an increase in
funding in over a decade. We can't make long-term gains toward
any of our development goals while leaving out the reproductive
healthcare needs of women, especially after a global pandemic
which we know disproportionately affected it. When women,
especially those living in underserved remote areas, have
access to family planning information, contraceptives, and
services, they have healthier pregnancies and babies. They
contribute productively to their families and communities, and
their children are much more likely to go to school.
Women and their health should be integrated into all of our
developmental efforts, and be central to all of our other
goals.
So, Administrator Power, I wanted to thank you, once again,
for being here today, and for your tireless work to promote
human rights and dignity around the world. I look forward to
your testimony, but let me first turn to my colleague, Ranking
Member Mr. Rogers, for his opening statement.
Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome,
Ambassador, to USAID. Ambassador, you have taken up your
position in very turbulent times, I don't need to remind you,
when global humanitarian, health, and development needs are
great, I am pleased we have someone at the helm with your level
of commitment to these issues and experience in world affairs.
I look forward to working with you in the months ahead.
Turning to the President's budget request for fiscal year
2022, until the full budget request is released tomorrow, we
have a limited view of what is being proposed at this point,
but I understand it will make history as the biggest request to
date for USAID's funding. This will be within the request for a
10 percent increase over last year's enacted level for both the
State Department and USAID. That increase goes up further when
you add in the other agencies and related programs funded by
this subcommittee.
I opposed the draconian cuts proposed by the previous
administration for State foreign operations, but I am also
concerned about the magnitude of the increase being proposed in
this year's request. Once we have the details, I intend to give
it fair consideration, but budgets of this size will be
difficult to justify given our country's unprecedented deficits
and now its debt.
What also should give us pause when considering this
request is the significant sums of funding available to USAID
that remain unobligated and unexpended. According to the most
recent data from the Office of Management and Budget, as of the
end of the second quarter of this fiscal year, more than $20
billion remains unobligated from the Development Assistance and
Economic Support Fund accounts, and an additional $13.2 billion
remains unexpended. Together, that is more than $33 billion
still sitting on the books, and that is only two accounts. It
will take years to make a dent in those figures.
This is not a new phenomenon for USAID, but the size of the
problem has grown significantly. This massive pipeline of
funding should be carefully considered by this subcommittee and
USAID, particularly at a time when there are urgent needs
abroad, and when fiscal restraints should be taken into
consideration.
Oversight of funding is another concern that I have with
the administration seeking double-digit increases on top of
such significant balances yet unspent. Your agency's ability to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by having eyes on your programs
has been curtailed because of growing insecurity around the
world, and continued COVID restrictions. It is unclear how
either or those constraints will change in the coming year as
you are seeking more funds.
I hope you will address some of these concerns here today
as well as some of our shared priorities, such as countering
Chinese and Russian malign influence, and supporting key
partners like Colombia. There are more topics that I will
address in my questions.
So, in closing, I want to acknowledge that these are not
easy times to be engaged in international development, to say
at least. I salute the dedicated members of USAID's Foreign
Service, Civil Service, and Foreign Service Nationals for their
hard work and commitment to their mission. I thank the chair,
and I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Now, I would like to yield to our full committee chair,
Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, for any comments she may have.
The Chair. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee and
Ranking Member Rogers, for holding this hearing. I, too, would
like to welcome Ambassador Samantha Power today, thank her for
testifying, and thank her for decades of work supporting our
world's most vulnerable people. We are so fortunate to have
such an experienced principal diplomat and leader at the helm
of the U.S. Agency for International Development. And this is
at a time when American foreign assistance is more important
than ever.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored just how imperative
it is to care for our neighbors abroad. It has brought into
stark relief the principle that when one of us suffers, we all
suffer. When one of us gets sick, we all get sick. But when
development efforts are well-funded, the rest of the world is
healthier and safer for all of us.
As you know, the world needs strong American leadership,
especially through development and humanitarian assistance. And
that is why I am glad that President Biden's discretionary
request for fiscal year 2022 recommits to those values. To
support the global fight against COVID-19, the pandemic, the
Biden-Harris administration has requested $10 billion for
global health programs and reengagement with international
organizations like the World Health Organization. This includes
$1 billion, an $800 million increase from 2021, for global
health security. This will not only help our nation and the
world recover from this pandemic today, it will also ensure
that we are well-prepared to tackle any healthcare threats in
the future.
In addition to the proposals embodied in the discretionary
request, I want to thank you, Ambassador, and President Biden,
for helping to deliver COVID-19 vaccines to at-risk populations
around the world. It is so good to see that America is taking a
rightful role in leading the continuing fight against this
pandemic. And I call attention to my colleagues of the article
in The Washington Post just about 2 weeks ago ``Samantha Power
wants to restore U.S. prestige by getting American-made
vaccines into arms around the world.'' We thank you for that
effort.
Along with increased funding to fight COVID-19 worldwide,
USAID needs more resources to advocate for human rights and
democratic values to combat corruption and democratic
backsliding and to protect against authoritarianism. I am
confident that USAID will similarly recommit itself to
advancing development, specifically for women and mothers and
girls around the world, as the Chair pointed out, including in
family planning and in education, leadership, and economic
opportunities.
None of this will matter in the long run, however, if we do
not address the existential threat of global climate change.
And to that end, I am pleased that USAID is requesting $691
million, an increase of $200 million, to help developing
countries adapt to climate change, expand clean energy
production, and reduce emissions.
Ambassador Power, I know that you are a tireless advocate
for the world's most vulnerable people, and I hope you know
that this committee will be your partner as you lead USAID. The
Chair will be sure of that. I look forward to our discussion on
the administration's budget request, and USAID's goals for the
coming year, and I thank you for testifying this morning, and
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Now, Administrator Power, if you could summarize your oral
statement in less than 5 minutes, I want to make sure that we
have enough time to get to our questions. Your full statement,
of course, will be included in the record. And after your
testimony, I will be calling on members based on seniority of
the members that were present when the hearing was called to
order, alternating between the majority and minority members. I
will then recognize any remaining members in order of their
appearance at this committee meeting this morning. Each member
is asked to keep their questions to within 5 minutes per round.
Administrator Power, please proceed. Thank you again for
being here.
Opening Statemwent of Ms. Power
Ms. Power. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member
Rogers, Chairwoman DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee.
Let me start by expressing deep gratitude for the continued
bipartisan support for the work we do at USAID. This support
for development and humanitarian assistance has saved and
improved millions of lives, and it is critically important for
advancing U.S. interests around the world.
You have long recognized that diplomacy, defense, and
development are vital components of our foreign policy, and
President Biden does as well, which is reflected in the
discretionary budget request, and in his decision to elevate
the USAID Administrator to become a standing member of the
National Security Council.
Our investments in development and humanitarian assistance
have grown even more necessary in light of today's challenges,
and here, let me respond--I know I will have other occasions--
but to Ranking Member Rogers' concerns about the increase in
the budget and offer a context for the request. A persistent
pandemic that, as we know, has left nearly 3.5 million dead,
swelled the ranks of the extreme poor for the first time since
the late 1990s; authoritarian regimes like China and Russia,
acting more aggressively each year, exploiting not only COVID,
but vulnerabilities in our democracies; a rapidly changing
climate sending fiercer storms our way and inflicting droughts,
deep freezes, and wildfires upon communities; mass displacement
at its highest since World War II.
And just when you think it can't get worse, every day it
seems a new horrific crisis is emerging, such as that in
Ethiopia's Tigray region, where Ethiopians are facing the worst
food insecurity the country has seen since the 1983-84 famine
killed over 1 million people. And, of course, as was mentioned
against this backdrop, China increasingly using its financial
power as leverage to advance its interests.
These are obviously not positive developments, but as an
American, I am very glad that USAID--the world's premier
development agency--is uniquely positioned to confront the
world's toughest problems, and to catalyze our partners to do
the same. The steps we take to combat COVID, climate change,
conflict, and other ills make us safer, while demonstrating
compassion for and cooperation with people all around the
world.
As has been indicated, when we fight COVID, we reduce the
risks of variants that could lead to outbreaks at home. When
incomes rise in the developing world, these countries become
more self-reliant and less dependent on donor support.
USAID delivers aid to those affected by natural disasters.
We demonstrate the best of American values and build the type
of good will that inspires cooperation from our allies. Our
investments help support civil society under extreme stress.
They address the drivers of violent extremism and the root
causes of conflict and migration.
They meet the needs of the most vulnerable and marginalized
populations with resilience to extreme weather patterns--itself
a good investment--meaning we need to spend less humanitarian
assistance on the back end, combat infectious diseases, of
course, and now, especially, contribute to a global economic
recovery.
We know that the enormous level of need far outstrips any
one country's ability to meet it, nor do we believe that the
United States has to bear all of the responsibility for the
world's ills. This request will allow the U.S. to lead on the
global stage and to leverage our activities to get our allies
and private sector partners to do more.
We also need to make ourselves more capable and nimble as
an agency, and we are seeking to adapt our systems, processes,
and procedures to that end, including by seeking to expand our
engagement with the private sector. We also need to build
USAID's institutional capacity given its role as an national
security agency.
We are focused on our workforce. During the pandemic, many
of our staff at home and abroad have been working 24/7 to
provide life-saving aid around the world, even while their
loved ones are battling COVID-19 at home. Moving forward, we
are not seeking to return to the previous status quo, but,
rather, wish to harness the capabilities of our staff and
support them in the ways that they need.
Underpinning these efforts, Madam Chairwoman, will be a
strong focus on creating a more diverse, equitable, and
inclusive USAID. With your support, we will move aggressively
to tackle the world's toughest challenges. I look forward to
our continued partnership in ensuring that American taxpayer
dollars are spent effectively.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Administrator Power. Let me
ask you a couple of questions on the supply and distribution of
vaccines abroad. You know, by increasing the supply of
vaccines, it is only useful if we have the means to deploy
these doses once they reach vulnerable countries. But the loss
of India's production capacity in the short run has created
quite a crisis.
Of course, I have spoken with Gayle Smith and Secretary
Blinken in terms of when we will see a plan for distributing
the 80 million donated doses. And we want to know where this
plan is, and what are the plans, especially with regard to
small countries in our hemisphere and in Africa. We have heard
reports that close to 20 million people on the continent of
Africa received one dose and may or may not receive the second
dose.
So what is USAID doing? And what is your role in making
sure that the vaccines are distributed to vulnerable
communities? And how is USAID coordinating this on the ground
in partner countries?
Ms. Power. Great. Thank you so much for the question, and
above all, thank you for your personal leadership, but also the
committee's leadership in securing the $4 billion donation, the
capacity to donate to COVAX. That has been extremely
significant in the sense that prior to that, COVAX lacked
really the kind of capital that it needed to be able to get in
the queue with the big pharmaceutical companies who are making
these doses. And so you saw, I think, probably last week,
Congresswoman, a 500 million dose deal, for example, that COVAX
did with Moderna. The challenge, of course, is that that will
not roll out until next year, it looks like.
And you alluded to why it is so urgent that we get more
doses in the hands of COVAX. There is the obvious global
urgency, but the fact that Serum Institute of India that has
had to pull back already 140 million doses that COVAX had
expected, and several hundred million doses more that were in
the queue to come later in the year and into next year.
So COVAX needs supply. That is the gaining issue. That is
why President Biden made the announcement that you alluded to
of donating 80 million doses.
Now, you asked about the plan. It is a great and fair
question. I just was on the phone with Gayle Smith before this
hearing talking about just that, what we are doing as the
country selection procedure takes hold, and finalizes in the
interagency, and, believe me, that is an area of great focus.
We, USAID, are very focused on ensuring that countries are
ready to receive vaccines. And, so, of the ARP money, I think
there is $75 million that has been invested in strengthening
health systems to make sure that with UNICEF, PAHO, especially
PAHO in our hemisphere, that countries, you know, when those
vaccines come off the planes, that the recipients have been
identified, especially those who need second shots because of
India pulling back its supply. Because just to underscore that
point that you made, the issue is that COVAX delivered a whole
set of first shots, anticipating then that the Serum Institute
would continue supplying, and so now, you have again this
population that has one but not two which is suboptimal, to say
the least.
Ms. Lee. And I have a minute remaining. Let me just ask you
about the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strategy with USAID.
I am very pleased to see that you are developing a strategy
because this has been quite an uphill battle over the years, as
it relates to inclusion and diversity.
So how is this going to roll out? And how will USAID be
held accountable to achieve these very worthy goals laid out in
your strategy?
Ms. Power. Thank you. Well, let me just say, I embrace the
premise that a strategy is as good as the results on the
ground, as they say. And, you know, just digging into this
issue, and I know this is something that you are very
knowledgeable about. But I have seen the GAO study, and just
reading it here, that racial and ethnic minorities, as of 2018,
were 31 to 41 percent less likely to be promoted in the civil
service, so we have data that really causes, I think,
significant concern.
Partly, it is a recruitment issue. I think raising the
profile of the recruitment that we are doing at historical
black colleges and universities and other minority-serving
institutions. It is sitting down with the Hispanic Caucus and
the Congressional Black Caucus. I talked to Chairman Meeks
about this also a day or two ago. Just how do we get the word
out that we want to recruit starting early in high schools,
colleges, and graduate schools. If you wait until graduate
school, you are likely not going to be able to really broaden
the pool, so we have to start earlier. We have internship
programs, including the Payne Internship and others that you
are familiar with, but we need to do more.
And I know my time is out, but retainment has been a
challenge, and that is about culture and promotion and other
methods like that, so I count on you to hold me accountable. I
will hold myself accountable. We are digging into the metrics
now and trying to set reasonable goals, calibrated, of course,
a barrier analysis is where I want to start to understand what
is standing in the way of creating the agency that we need.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Administrator Power. And
maybe we will have a briefing or drill down with some members
of the committee whose focus has been this issue for several
years.
Now let me yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers.
Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ambassador Power, we all know that Russian President Putin
and his aggressive foreign policy and authoritarian approach to
governance seeks to weaken NATO, undermine our European
partners, and challenge the American and western Democratic
system. What role do you see USAID playing in seeking to
support democracy and market-based economies that are under
assault by Moscow?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Congressman. As you might recall,
when I was U.N. Ambassador, my time in New York coincided with
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, its interference in our election,
its carpet-bombing of Aleppo, along with the Syrian Armed
Forces, so I am very familiar with Russian aggression and very
disturbed by it.
I would offer a few thoughts, first, to say just how
compounded the challenge posed by Russia has been by the extent
to which China has stepped up its activities in terms of
spreading misinformation, providing technological surveillance
capacity to governments, really helping fuel democratic
backsliding right alongside with Russia. So now I think it is
important--they are different, but there are some overlapping
tactics that we have to stand up to.
And you asked about USAID specifically, so let me offer
just a few thoughts there. First, I think one of the things
that--I have only been in the job a few weeks, but that I am
digging into--is our democracy programming and our governance
programming. Given that we are in the 15th year of freedom in
decline around the world, it seems to me we have to ask
ourselves the question of, to your opening statement as well:
Are our programs optimal for this moment and for those threats?
You know, some of these programs might have been conceived of
in a different era before Putin or President Xi began, you
know, being as assertive and aggressive when it comes to
undermining democracy abroad.
I think, for example, fighting misinformation and
disinformation, which is one of the things that these actors do
both by flooding the zone with their own propaganda, and by
backing illiberal actors within countries who are, for example,
denigrating civil society, cracking down on independent media
and so forth. So I would put misinformation--I think that is
important.
Second, anticorruption is going to be a huge area of
emphasis for me and for President Biden. And I have already
appointed an Anticorruption Coordinator, who is a terrific,
seasoned U.S. Government hand to think about how we look at
corruption. We have always thought about corruption in terms of
not wanting our foreign aid to go to waste, and that is
incredibly important, but what kind of programs can we support
because the Achilles heel of Russian-backed elements and
illiberal elements around the world, I think, is the extent to
which they are squirreling away their citizens' resources,
whether natural resources or other funds.
And the last thing I would say, sir, just real quick, is
that there are bright spots in the world, like that in Sudan.
And so I just thank this body and you and others who have
supported our effort to secure resources to be able to support
Sudan at this time of fragile transition.
Mr. Rogers. Let me turn to Belarus and the Russia allies,
the hijacking of a Ryan airplane, and the detention of a
dissident blogger, a frontal assault on democracy. German Prime
Minister Angela Merkel has said questions remain about the role
of Russia and the forced landing of the plane by Belarus. What
information about a Russian role, if any, can you provide to
us?
Ms. Power. I don't have anything additional to share at
this point, but I am happy to dig into it when I get back to
the office and to reach out to you later today. But I have been
preparing for these hearings, and have not been read into what
we might know in other channels.
Mr. Rogers. Well, what can we do? For example, should we
increase support for journalists both inside and outside
Belarus and target the Russian speaking-audience? Go ahead.
Ms. Power. Sorry, sir. That is what I have been digging
into since this outrageous action is what are the ramifications
for our programming. I mean, right now, our emphasis is on
diplomatic pressure to try to bring about the release of Raman
and his colleagues, but this is a structural problem. I mean,
extraterritorial apprehensions are becoming--and harms caused
extraterritorial, so not just arrests, but the kinds of
poisonings and other things that we have seen, I mean, these
norms are being charged recklessly by the Russian Federation,
and by the Chinese Government as well. So I think that is a
broader conversation.
In terms of our assistance, yes, we are digging into to see
how much more we can do for independent media, including those
actors who are now, unfortunately, in exile, but still trying
to reach the brave Belarusian people who have stood up and are
not giving up on democracy in their country.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now let me yield to Ms. Meng, please.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking
Member, and thank you, Administrator Powers, for being here
today. We are so thrilled to see you in this role and look
forward to working with you on a host of issues.
I just wanted to backtrack for a quick second about the
issue raised by Chairwoman Barbara Lee on the diversity of the
workforce and would encourage that you also add CAPAC, the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, in your
conversations as well.
I wanted to take a minute to address an issue close to my
heart, water, sanitation, and hygiene. While countries around
the world await vaccine distributions, we can't take our eye
off the ball to ensure that there is adequate non-emergency,
humanitarian WASH programming, including sustainable hand
washing stations in marketplaces, schools, travel hubs, and on
key travel routes.
I am also committed to ensuring that menstrual hygiene
products are included as a part of PPE donations made by the
U.S. Government to other countries. In many countries,
including India, female doctors and nurses report bleeding
through their PPE because they couldn't waste it when changing
their menstrual products and report increases in UTIs due to
lack of access to bathrooms.
Can you give us an update on the drafting of the next
global water strategy and how issues like climate change, water
scarcity, gender, and COVID can be integrated in the strategy?
And how can we be helpful in ensuring that the strategy
reflects the current needs on the ground?
Ms. Power. Thank you. If I could, would like to get back to
you on the WASH strategy, as I don't have details just off the
top of my head like I would like to. Give me a little time in
the job, and I will be able to summon those.
I have focused on the menstrual health and hygiene issue
just in the last few weeks, because I just agree with you so
wholeheartedly that this is so integral to the dignity and
empowerment of women and girls, and just such, such an
important issue, and it just hasn't gotten the attention that
it has needed over time in the humanitarian or development
sectors.
We have just--in honor of Menstrual Hygiene Day, which, as
it happens, is tomorrow--USAID will be launching a new standard
definition of menstrual health and hygiene which will set clear
expectations for multisectoral investments in product access,
improvement of sanitation, and water accurate information, not
just for women and girls, and efforts to confront menstruation-
related taboos and stigmas which we know persist around the
world.
So if I could get back to you on the WASH strategy and the
timing of that and the content of that, I would be grateful.
Ms. Meng. Sure. Thank you so much. And my other question is
I want to know what steps USAID is taking to ensure that its
programs take into account risks of gender-based violence at
the onset of emergencies, including COVID. Three members of the
subcommittee, myself, Ms. Frankel, and Mr. Diaz-Balart, have
introduced the Safe from the Start Act which would codify
programs that ensure quality services for survivors from the
very onset of emergencies, including pandemics.
Ms. Power. Again, especially from my time at USUN when I
pushed for much greater emphasis in peacekeeping missions and
female peacekeepers and police to be included, this is an issue
very near and dear to my heart. I think what we are looking at
is not only separate, dedicated gender-based violence
programming of the kind that USAID has supported for a long
time, but what does it mean to integrate gender-based violence
accountability into, for example, our wash and sanitation
programming, you know, into our economic growth programming,
into, as you mentioned, humanitarian emergency response. I
think USAID has come a long way.
One thing I have to mention, I know we are short on time,
but just is the sexual exploitation and abuse challenge, where
it is not just a question of, you know, are emergency
responders looking out for this on the ground, but now we have
to deal with the recognition that emergency responders and
those most counted on to support people in their hour of
greatest need are themselves, in many credible cases, accused
of committing wrongdoing and sexual exploitation abuse
themselves.
And, so, USAID is working really hard now to write into its
contracts requirements as it relates to sexual exploitation and
abuse to make sure that zero tolerance is not just a slogan,
but something that is lived at every stage of our contracting
process.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman,
Ambassador. You talked about the importance of accountability,
to hold you accountable, and to hold yourself accountable. I
have got some serious concerns. You have a record, both in
words and action, that is--I want to be respectful--but that is
concerning.
I am concerned of your description of the Israeli
occupation. I am concerned of your reference to the need of,
quote, ``alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous
political and financial import,'' end of quote. That is
referring to pro-Israel groups in the United States. You also
have further said that the U.S. should provide, quote, ``less
automatic deference to special interests,'' again, referring to
those same groups. Those are comments that have been
characterized by some as being anti-Semitic.
And equally as concerning is your failure to oppose an
anti-Israel resolution in the U.N. in 2016. That, by the way,
is an unprecedented, shameful betrayal of Israel, without
precedent, in the history of the relationship between the
United States and Israel.
So, having that as your history in, again, both words and
actions, do you still stand by those statements? And do you
still stand by your action in front of the U.N. of abandoning
Israel, or do you now admit that those were mistakes? And would
you care to explain, if they were, your new attitude?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Congressman. I hope we can talk at
some point about human rights work and humanitarian work that
we can do together as we did, I think, on a couple of occasions
when I was U.N. Ambassador.
With regard to my actions at the U.N., I would just like to
share because it sounds like you are familiar only with a
portion of what we were able to do.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No. Madam Ambassador, I am familiar----
Ms. Power. If I--if I may, sir. If I may just--excuse me.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I know, but I want you to answer. Excuse
me. I don't want you to--if you might, Ambassador, I don't want
you to go into other wonderful things that you may have done. I
specifically am referring to some specific statements that you
have made about pro-Israel groups in the United States, and
specifically, this unprecedented betrayal of Israel in front of
the U.N. We can talk at length about all the wonderful things
that you have done in history, but I am talking about those
specific issues, if you would, please. Were those mistakes, or
do you stand by those decisions?
Ms. Power. I secured the recognition of Yom Kippur as a
U.N. holiday. I convened the first-ever General Assembly
session----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. You don't want to answer the specific that
I am asking you. That is okay.
Ms. Power. We will come to--we will come to your question,
sir----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right.
Ms. Power [continuing]. If I may--if I get some time to
speak as well. I convened the first-ever General Assembly
session condemning anti-Semitism in the history of the United
Nations in the same chamber that the Zionism racism resolution
was passed. I secured Israel's membership in caucus groups from
which it had been excluded for its entire time within the
United Nations.
With regard to the resolution that you ask about, it was a
resolution calling on all sides not to do things that would
make a two-state solution less likely, including the building
of settlements, but also incitement and violence of the kind
perpetrated by extremists and terrorist groups.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And so, you stand with that decision to,
in essence, unprecedented decision, something that no previous
administration, either Democrat or Republican, had ever done,
you stand by your decision to abandon Israel at the U.N.?
Ms. Power. What I am focused on now is supporting something
that seems ever more elusive, especially in light of the
conflict and horrors and trauma that people have gone through
on both sides in the last days. So that includes ensuring that
USAID is in a position to deliver humanitarian assistance, to
honor the legacy also of Congresswoman Lowey in the Middle East
Partnership For Peace initiatives, to generate reconciliation,
or to support reconciliation programs, both between the
Israelis and Palestinians, and between Israeli Jews and Israeli
Arabs as those tensions have also been exacerbated in the
recent days.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that, Ambassador. I have
tried to give you time, but again, I was fearful, which is why
I had to interrupt you, but that you would not answer the
question, and you have yet refused to answer the question
whether you stand by that decision and by the statements that
you have made.
Ms. Power. President Obama makes the decision. You work for
the President. But the resolution is one that includes the
tenets that administrations in both parties have stood behind
for a long time, namely, support for a two-state solution.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, again, I yield back, Madam
Chairwoman, but again, I will try to see if I can get those
answers, those questions answered, one of these days.
Appreciate that.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Let me yield now to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Ambassador.
We are very happy to have you in this position and look forward
to working with you in many, many ways.
The budget for our bill, our State Department, Foreign
Operations bill, which includes, of course, various aspects of
foreign aid, is a reminder of just how many aspects there are--
from global health to the focus on education, especially girls'
education, to economic empowerment, to climate resilience,--so
much in the way of complementary, and sometimes competing
channels for assistance.
I want to return to the answer you were giving to Mr.
Rogers about the place of governance, democratic development,
the place of that aid stream alongside these others. Of course,
in many ways, governance is basic, basic to everything else.
And, yet, we know sometimes governance is harder to influence,
harder to shape, and, certainly, it is harder to measure the
results. I am co-chair of the House Democracy Partnership, a
bipartisan commission that works with developing democracies
all over the world, a couple of dozen countries. It ranges from
key strategic partners like Kenya, Indonesia, Peru, to the
struggling smaller countries that this country has a particular
relationship with, Liberia, Timor-Leste, Kosovo. Perhaps you
are familiar with our work, because the work of USAID is really
supportive of our work. We actually couldn't do it without the
partnership we have with the National Democratic Institute, the
International Republican Institute, and with USAID's support.
So we find ourselves often in these countries, valuing the
work of USAID, and sometimes providing some feedback about the
kind of emphasis that is needed on legislative strengthening,
in particular, in working with these parliaments, and sometimes
urging that one aspect or another of aid shouldn't be
prematurely terminated. So we really do engage with your
agency.
And I just want to ask you about your view of this
governance support. You know, democracy promotion in some
quarters got a bad name. I mean, there are some methods and
approaches that are, of course, more effective than others. HDP
takes the collaborative approach, one that does not presume to
impose our system or our solutions, but certainly, we do think
our 225-year history is relevant, and our partner countries
find that as well.
So I wanted to ask you to reflect on governance support,
and, perhaps, legislative strengthening within governance
support as a mission of the agency.
Ms. Power. Thank you, Congressman. I have learned about the
House Democracy Partnership, and I think what I like about it
is that, frankly, what we are seeing more and more of are
illiberal networks, again, funded often by sort of extreme
forces--you know, anti-Semitic forces that are anti-LGBTQ or
anti-minority. You see the networks actually getting
strengthened across countries, taking advantage of echo
chambers and social media and other avenues. But there is even
financing, you know, again, that is going across borders, and,
sort of, this more virtuous cooperation, right, where we are
comparing notes, for example, on some of the issues I mentioned
earlier, like how to fight misinformation, how to stand up for
the rule of law, and doing so in a spirit of humility, given
that we know, you know, that we face many challenges here at
home. I think it is incredibly important, and, you know, I
would love to talk more about it. I also think networks of
judges and people who constitute independent judiciaries, you
know, defenders, public defenders, or defense attorneys and
prosecutors as well.
We see a growing kind of majoritarianism where, you know,
even in democracies, the checks on majoritarianism are kind of
melting away, whether legislatively, or in terms of enforcement
of constitutional provisions.
So, I think what you are doing is really important. And I
think this question, you know, of not only elections, but what
are the institutions that have to be strengthened that protect
minority rights, and protect the rule of law and protect
civilian control over the military are the tenets of liberal
democracy, and of respect for human rights. I think that is
where we want to dig in more to see, you know, whether our
programming needs to be adjusted in light of the assaults on
some of these institutions being undertaken in different
quarters.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me yield now to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate you
holding this hearing.
Ambassador Power, would you prefer to be called Ambassador,
Madam Ambassador, or Administrator Power?
Ms. Power. Normally Samantha. But Administrator, I suppose,
for the purpose of this hearing, but I go back and forth. I
debate with my kids, you know, when I am trying to get them to
show me respect.
Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Administrator it is.
Let me preface my questions with a comment. I believe that
a key priority, a central role, if you will, is that of
regenerative agriculture and conservation as it leads to
community well-being, sustainability, as well as stability.
That is an architectural framework for me, but I want to
address three issues in the time that we have in this round.
First is MEPPA, the Middle East Partnership Peace Act,
which you referenced earlier; second, a small program that has
big implications, Farmer to Farmer; and finally, China and
vaccines. This is a delicate issue right now, obviously given
the trauma in the Middle East, and the sensitivities and the
difficulties. However, for many years, I carried this bill, the
Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, was so pleased that
Chair--our former Chair Lowey, wanted to shepherd that into
law, and took the leadership of that last year.
So the question becomes any roadmap for peace has to have a
foundation, and that foundation has to be built on trust. And
this is the heart of MEPPA, if you will; traditional people-to-
people exchange programs, but also, a new instrument used in
the Development Finance Corporation, a little bit of subsidy of
public monies to create the conditions for equity investments
by persons of both sides, to create the long-term continuity of
economic well-being that is harder to unwind whenever you have
politically explosive situations.
So the question is, how are you working with the State
Department and the Development Finance Corporation to implement
MEPPA as a central policy for diplomacy, particularly in this
delicate moment? I think this is timely. I recognize the
sensitivity of it. If you can address that in 1 minute, I will
probably interrupt you to try to get my other questions in, but
there you go.
Ms. Power. Why don't I just be very brief on that which is
just, again, to applaud the program, the spirit behind it. You
know, as there is more and more separation among communities,
these programs, several of which I visited while on a trip I
took to Israel as U.N. Ambassador. Indispensable.
You asked specifically about our plans to move out on it.
One of the first things I need to do is constitute an advisory
council, according to the legislation, and then we need to move
out to ramp up our programming, especially, again, in light of
recent events.
So on the specifics, I can get back to you, but again,
there is a structural component that I think needs to be built
out in the very, very near term. So any ideas you have and
others have for how to constitute that council, I would be very
open to, or, again, on specific programs.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. We look forward to trying to give
constructive input in the spirit of what we intended in the
law. And I think you are right; a quick implementation of this
is absolutely necessary to begin to rebuild some trust, but
with programs that have viable, viability and long-term
continuity that built that foundation.
So let me move to Farmer to Farmer right quick. And, again,
back to this idea of how do we leverage technical expertise and
goodwill in America from our citizenry, who are not going to be
able to join USAID, who are not going to become members of the
Foreign Service, or who aren't going to be able to spend
significant times overseas as a volunteer and other sort.
We are working on a concept right now, the conservation
corps, but the earlier implementation of Farmer to Farmer is
exactly that idea. Here is the problem: It is a USDA program
given to USAID, which is then shipped out to NGOs, fragmented,
not a holistic strategic approach, from my perspective. Can you
consolidate that effort and make it one of the premier programs
for regenerative agriculture and conservation around the world?
Ms. Power. I love this program, and I didn't know of this
program as a private citizen before I got into my job. But the
fact that we have 20,000 farmers who volunteered, and I think
it is 136 million people in more than 115 countries have
benefited from this. It didn't even shut down, hasn't shut down
under COVID. They started doing this virtually which I think
creates all kinds of possibilities.
Mr. Fortenberry. The Foreign Service Act, it could be
embedded in embassies with much more structure, shepherded by
your agency. There is a lot more to talk about here, and I need
to get to vaccines in China, vaccine diplomacy. I will have to
do it in the next round. Thank you, Administrator.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
Okay. Now, I will yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Administrator, congratulations. It is so great
to have you in this position.
I want to talk to you about women and girls. I know you
obviously have an interest. The past year, really, the last few
years have been tough with the global gag order, with the
pandemic. And so my first question is plans for women and young
people to receive accurate information about and access to a
full range of contraceptive methods and increasing the U.S.
funding for international family planning and reproductive
health, and your knowledge, if any, of some of the setbacks
over the last few years, because I know a lot of clinics shut
down. That is question one.
The other one related, really, has to do with expanding
women's economic empowerment and education. I read a study that
the gender gap between men and women has been set back by a
generation internationally. Just interested in knowing what you
are doing to scale funding for women's rights organizations?
And do you have the staffing and training needed to ensure that
gender policy is integrated across all programs? That is a lot
of questions. Okay. Do the best you can.
Ms. Power. Thank you. That is all I can ever do.
In terms of ramping up programs and partnerships that were
scaled back or cut, I think we are in the position of doing
that now. I can follow up with you in terms of details of what
that delta is. But, you know, at the same time, we are
continuing to follow the law and the regulations that remain in
place, but, you know, the restrictions on funding definitely
caused us to scale back programs.
And I think it is important to state the context, the fact
that there are 218 million women globally who have the need for
modern contraception, and are not able to access it. I mean,
this is incredibly important in thinking about economic
development, in thinking about security, you know. We can see
where voluntary family planning is in place, and people can
access these resources that knock on positive development
effects across just so many vectors.
Then the other context for your question which, you know,
of course, but is just the uptick in gender-based violence, the
fact that not only are there 1.6 billion kids around the world
out of school because of the pandemic, but there are estimates
that 400 million girls will not go back to school, but for
intervention and programs that will support their return.
So, just as we have seen disparate impact on women even in
our own country as it relates to the pandemic, I think we are
seeing that around the world.
And, again, I come back to Ranking Member Rogers' very
important questions about the scale of the budget request in
our budget-constrained environment. The only way I can think
about it is it is as if a meteorite has hit the planet, and so
much of the progress that had been made on so many vectors, and
again, Chairwoman Lee mentioned the sustainable development
goals, so many of those just inching upward in terms of
education, in terms of women's empowerment, in terms of women's
representation in power, in terms of sanitation, in terms of
food security, and just so many of those set back. And so to
try to mitigate the damage and get back on track, given the
amount of taxpayer money we have already invested in these
programs, I think this is just an inflection point that is
really important and, you know, this is exhibit A of why
surging these programs is essential right now.
Ms. Frankel. From what you can tell, do you have the
staffing and the training needed to ensure that the gender
policy is integrated through all the programs?
Ms. Power. Well, we are reviewing the gender policy that we
inherited and will want to consult with you and others about
that, you know. This is not a desire to replace it wholesale,
but the last gender policy didn't include LGBTQ people, as I
understand it. And the process to comprise it or to constitute
it was not as transparent and inclusive as I think we are
looking to do.
So on the policy, there is getting that right and getting
it mainstream. I think on staffing, we have some exciting
people coming on board, but again, there is so much expertise
within the USAID career workforce that my sense is that we are
in a good place. But if you have other insight, you know,
please bring it to me, as I am just digging into each of these
questions.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. And I want you to know there were
two very good bipartisan efforts, the Women's Entrepreneurship
and Economic Empowerment Act, and the Women, Peace, and
Security Act, so there really has been some bipartisan efforts
to advance women and girls. I look forward to discussing that
more.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I will yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really
appreciate it. And, Administrator Power, thanks for being here
today.
Administrator, would you agree that through published
research that has recently come out that scientists at the
Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted risky experiments with
the novel coronaviruses from bats? Would you agree with that
statement?
Ms. Power. This is beyond my area of expertise. So I think
on things related to the virology institute--I, like President
Biden--am eager to see, what our investigation turns up.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Sure. Well, I can tell you that in a
2015 study, it was actually entitled ``SARS-like Cluster of
Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human
Emergence.'' That was funded, in part, by USAID grant money
that utilized what is called gain of function research.
Additionally, I am not sure if you have been paying to the
news, but just in recent weeks, especially this week, USAID and
NIH denied authorizing this type of dangerous research.
With that information I just provided you, do you support
investigation into organizations, including EcoHealth Alliance,
to determine if they conducted unauthorized gain of function
research?
Ms. Power. I think I need to say a word about the
programming that you are referring to. I mean, as part of the
PREDICT surveillance effort to try to anticipate viruses of the
nature that has caused such devastation in the United States
and around the world, over a period of 10 years, USAID, you
know, did support programming in the institute but not of the
kind that you are referring to and----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Administrator, with all due respect, the
question is very simple. Do you or do you not support
investigation into this money going into the Wuhan Institute of
Virology to study gain of function research? It is a simple yes
or no.
Ms. Power. If I could just finish the point that I was
making is that----
Mr. Reschenthaler. No, because you are running all over the
place. It is a simple yes or no. If you are not going to answer
that, answer me this: USAID currently--is USAID currently
funding or not funding gain of function research elsewhere?
Ms. Power. I will have to look into that and get back to
you.
Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. All right. In 2019, President
Trump ended USAID activities in China, including the Predict
funding that you mentioned. Did you support this? Do you
support that?
Ms. Power. Did I----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Do you support ending gain of function
research in China?
Ms. Power. I have been in the job for a few weeks. I want
to dig into that question. I mean, I think, you know, given
the----
Mr. Reschenthaler. So do you support, then, USAID money
going to China? This is a very basic, elementary question.
Ms. Power. Excuse me.
Mr. Reschenthaler. This is a very elementary question. You
either support USAID money going to China or you don't. It is
very simple. Do you or do you not?
Ms. Power. Right now, I think that we are looking at what
the right posture is with regard to China all around the world.
And as part of that, as part of that review, I think we will be
looking very hard at the question of whether there is any
scenario in which USAID would be doing anything in China.
Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. Would you support USAID
funding going to CCP labs like it has in the past?
Ms. Power. I have been in my job for a few weeks. I need to
dig into all of this. You mean--let me----
Mr. Reschenthaler. I mean, with all--I could read you where
the money is going. I mean, we know that money was going----
Ms. Power. You know more than----
Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. To the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. We know the EcoHealth Alliance sent at least $600,000
in NIAID grants. I mean, this is very basic information. It is
public. It has been public for a year now. I find it astounding
that you are finding out about it now.
Ms. Power. No. I am not finding out about it now. I am well
aware of the PREDICT programming and so forth, but I know that
you are very focused on this single issue. It turns out USAID
has programs in a whole host of areas in a whole host of
countries.
Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. Well, in the last 20 seconds,
let me ask you this. Yes or no? Do you support a probe of
Federal funding going to the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Yes
or no?
Ms. Power. I am not going to answer these questions without
doing further----
Mr. Reschenthaler. It is absolutely amazing. You are the
Administrator. We know we have been sending money to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. We have been doing it for years, since
2015. I just read you the study. And you can't answer a basic
question, yes or no, if we should be sending more money to a
Chinese communist lab. That is my understanding.
Ms. Power. No, no. That is not the question that you posed.
Ms. Frankel. Madam Chair, I object to this bullying of this
witness. Madam Chair, this member is bullying this witness. I
object.
Mr. Reschenthaler. I am asking legit questions. The
Administrator has failed to answer.
Ms. Lee. Excuse me. I am going to yield now to
Representative Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Administrator
Powers. Thank you so much for your patience and for joining us
today.
I want to also join my colleagues in thanking you for
suspending aid to the government of El Salvador last week. We
cannot continue to give taxpayers' hard-earned dollars in
foreign assistance to governments that misuse it to advance
their own corrupt interests counter to our own policy goals.
We need to be clear-eyed about our partners in the region,
and unfortunately, this is not unique to El Salvador. I don't
need to go into detail about concerns with narcotrafficking,
co-conspirator number four in Honduras.
In Guatemala, despite strong calls from the international
community and civil society, Guatemala proceeded with a totally
nontransparent process to stack the Constitutional Court with
judges who have clear conflicts of interest and links to
corruption. In one of the court's first moves, it overturned an
earlier ruling, and allowed a controversial law targeting civil
society to move forward. And just last week, a Guatemalan court
dropped a graft charge against former President Perez Molina.
And two anticorruption prosecutors have been arrested in the
middle of major prison riots that are currently happening in
Guatemala. It is more evident than ever that we cannot trust
these governments to administer aid to fight corruption and
bolster the rule of law.
So, Administrator Power, given these events, are you also
evaluating assistance to the governments of Guatemala and
Honduras in a similar manner to your assessment of our aid in
El Salvador? And what assistance does USAID currently give to
the Attorney General and the judicial sector, including the
constitutional court, the high-risk court, and penal courts?
Ms. Power. Thank you. I am still recovering.
Mrs. Torres. I know. I am so sorry about that. We really
need to focus on the really important issues here.
Ms. Power. It is okay, but I feel I need to just for the
record say that USAID did not fund the research to which he was
referring, but I think what is really important context to
offer is that the reason that the prior administration and the
Obama administration thought it a good idea to be active in
this lab was precisely because of concerns about biosecurity,
wet markets, and the risk of animal-to-human transmission of
virus.
So the notion that this was a program abetting, you know,
what the Chinese Government was doing as distinct from actually
looking out for our interests and conducting surveillance is
absurd.
Mrs. Torres. And the people on this committee that, you
know, are not involved in the politics of the last 4 years
understand that. And, you know, we only have this pandemic that
we are in, the reason why we are working remotely, to
understand the importance of the U.S. being a part of that
program. So thank you for clarifying that.
Ms. Power. Well, I think, again, had I been able to just--
and thank you for letting me finish a sentence--to be able to
explain why it would be that there would be any connection
between USAID and this lab that, of course, definitely needs to
be subject to a transparent and much more independent
investigation than has occurred so far.
With regard to your question--so I, first of all, thank you
for mentioning the decision to reroute funding away from the
Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court, and the Civilian
National Police. These were the entities that, you know, had
been politicized by the President, we thought, and I think you
agree, inconsistent with the rule of law and the constitutional
requirements. I think we are now in the process just of
building up our programming in these three countries, because
it was, as you know, suspended or terminated, in many cases,
under the last administration.
So in the interest of trying to get at the root causes of
migration, one of which is a lack of rule of law and corruption
and, of course, great physical and personal insecurity that
citizens in these countries feel alongside the economic
conditions and push factors that cause people to flee. We are
just digging into, again, what those rule of law programs
should look like. So I can get back to you on specifics about
now what the residuals are given the rerouting to civil society
of the money that we announced last week.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I am out of time, and I hope we can
have an opportunity----
Ms. Lee. I will add another 50 seconds given that
Administrator Power clarified her last response.
Mrs. Torres. I will come back in a second round. Thank you
so much, Chairwoman Barbara Lee.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Now we will go to Representative Wexton.
Representative Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,
Administrative Power, for joining us today.
I would like to speak to you for a moment about Gaza. Now,
I am happy to see us taking a more active role in the region,
and I am grateful that the cease-fire is holding. But, as you
know, now that the shelling has stopped, now comes the hard
part which is preventing a full-on humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Food, fuel, water, and medicine are all in short supply. What
little critical infrastructure there was, was damaged in the
bombings, and tens of thousands of Palestinians were displaced
in just the last couple of weeks, most of them children. And as
you know, it is the hopelessness and lack of opportunity that
helps fuel the cycle of violence. So Secretary Blinken's
announcement this week of $360 million in assistance to the
Palestinian people for emergency shelter, food, and healthcare,
as well as $75 million in development and economic assistance,
is welcome news.
But what are some steps that we are taking to ensure that
this money actually benefits the people of Gaza, and does not
go to help fuel terrorism in the region?
Ms. Power. Thank you so much. Just to underscore the
premise of your question, which is how important this
assistance is. Right now, we are working with the Catholic
Relief Services, a world food program to provide, I think, more
than $15 million in immediate medical supplies. We are
supporting the East Jerusalem Hospital Network and trying to
use sort of cash and food vouchers that go directly to
citizens, pivoting programs, also to water and sanitation
because there are real concerns about disease outbreaks. And
then, of course, there are displaced persons given the
destruction that occurred whose needs also we are looking out
for.
You asked about vetting. It is incredibly important. We
know we have to be faithful to the taxpayer above all, and that
we need to prevent these resources from falling into the wrong
hands. Everything in that region is vetted in accordance with
the Taylor Force Act, and, of course, that is, you know, in
order to prevent anything being diverted to Hamas.
In the case of the Taylor Force Act, it also cannot benefit
the Palestinian Authority. And there is the most vigilant and
stringent scrutiny of our prime awardees but also, those
subgrantees or grantees under the prime awards. And, so, again,
I think people can have confidence that this is going to the
intended beneficiaries. There certainly are systems in place.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Now, Secretary Blinken pledged to
address the underlying conditions. What does that mean, and how
is it different from ways that we traditionally supported the
Palestinian people? What does that mean by addressing the
underlying conditions?
Ms. Power. I mean, I think it means the development
programs, and not just the emergency humanitarian responses,
but also programs along the lines of what we discussed in the
prior exchange on the Middle East Partnership for Peace
initiative, because I think those programs that enhance, expand
context across communities, a context that are fewer these days
than they might have been 10 years ago. For example, as more
separation is happening, I think those programs are incredibly
important, you know. So as to----
Ms. Wexton. Related to that, it is clear that children
suffered the most during this entire cycle of violence. The
U.N. Children's Fund reported that one in three children in
Gaza required mental health support, even before the latest
round of violence, and now it has been exacerbated since this
most recent violence in Gaza.
How is USAID supporting the need for mental health services
for children in the region?
Ms. Power. On the specific programming, I would have to get
back to you, but it is incredibly important and always what our
emergency responses look to do in the first round of disbursal
of funds. But again----
Ms. Wexton. Can you give us an update on USAID's West Bank
and Gaza mission, where we are at in terms of staffing levels
and restarting programs that were halted under the previous
administration? Can you give us some kind of update on where we
are?
Ms. Power. I can. Our new mission director arrived in
country last week, well-timed, given the emergency needs. On
the holds, I believe Senators Graham and Risch lifted their
holds on a significant subset of what had been held up in the
development context. Again, we were able to move humanitarian
money from the beginning of the recent Gaza conflict. So, I
believe there is still some programming being held, but the
sanitation programming, the support for East Jerusalem Hospital
Network, all of that funding is now being spent.
Ms. Wexton. Good. And I hope that mission is able to do the
right kind of vetting to ensure that this money doesn't fall
into the wrong hands. So thank you very much. I see my time has
expired. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me yield now to Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Administrator Power for meeting with us today.
I know that in the skinny budget, you have requested $58
million, which is a 10 percent--$5.4 billion or a 10 percent
increase from last year. However, the hurricane season is
projected to be a very serious one for Latin America and the
Caribbean. In fact, FEMA has substantially increased their
budget in preparation for this. And I know that you engage
countries with proposed hurricane or proposed natural disaster
work that needs to happen in many countries across the world. I
just find that the increase is not high enough, considering the
level of demand that may be out there in the world, not just in
Latin America and the Caribbean. I think that there are hot
spots all over the planet that need to be addressed, and this
is just a drop in the bucket.
I know that there is this misconception out there that we
are giving away the store, you know, with regards to foreign
aid when, in fact, that is not the case. It is probably less
than 1 percent of our entire budget. And I think for us to be
competitive, right, for us to be competitive with China and
other countries that are clearly making a move in our backyard,
in our hemisphere, we have got to really come up with
substantial help for these countries. So that is one question.
Do you think there could be a substantial increase in that?
And second is regarding vaccine distribution. I know that
vaccine diplomacy is important, and frankly, they are eating
our lunch out there. And we are very late, and even with the
U.N.'s program, we are extremely late, and you know, we need to
be there because those countries are being ravaged now. People
are dying from COVID. [inaudible] Are absent. I think we need
to be there on that. We wrote a letter to the White House
asking for the Central American countries and the Caribbean
countries where you get a big influx back and forth to the
northeast coast and the rest of the U.S. to get the excess
vaccines first. So I wanted to know where you were on those two
questions, the funding fees and where the vaccine distribution
is?
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir. The number of humanitarian
emergencies that we are confronting every year is increasing. I
mean, we now have more conflicts happening in the world than at
any point since the end of the Cold War. I mentioned in my
opening statement more displaced persons since Hitler, since
World War II.
And you mentioned just the natural disasters, the climate
emergencies that are compounding that. There is an uptick
almost on, you know, on a graph. You can just see the straight
line going up the vector, and going very much in the wrong
direction. It is also the case that, you know, the U.S. has
been more generous every year, and we seek to leverage our
dollars to try to get other donor Nations to do more, and that
is what I would intend to do if this discretionary request is
granted.
I mentioned also trying to build out the infrastructure at
USAID to get our private sector where there is a lot of
generosity, and then, also, a lot of, you know, enlightened
self-interest as well, recognizing that we need to strengthen
countries internationally that, over time, helps build markets
for U.S. goods.
So, you know, again, the need outpaces what any one country
can do. But you are right, that it is very, very difficult
right now. I must say our humanitarians at USAID, I don't envy
their jobs because every day, they are deciding, you know,
about how to allocate a fixed amount of resources between an
imminent famine in Yemen, you know, the recent hurricanes,
let's say, in Central America, an imminent potential famine in
Ethiopia in the Tigray region, you know, and this is all
against the backdrop of us also experiencing more severe
weather events domestically, so this is very challenging.
With regard to vaccines, I would only say because we have
had an exchange on this already that I know the goal, and
President Biden indicated this, is for there to be more surplus
supply made available in the months ahead. So, right now, we
are focused on this 80 million, which is what he has announced
publicly, but we are, of course, looking at domestic needs. As
we make more progress domestically, we are now over the 50
percent of adults being fully vaccinated. We have this
ambitious----
Mr. Espaillat. Will Latin America and the Caribbean be the
first location where you will send them?
Ms. Power. I think the country allocation procedure is
underway at the moment. There is, of course, a great interest
in looking out for our friends in Latin America, but, again,
the specifics have not yet been decided upon.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you. We are going to go now to our
second round which will be limited to 3 minutes per member, and
let me just remind our members to please treat our witness with
respect.
Let me ask you, Administrator Power, a question with regard
to Cuba. Now, on this committee, this subcommittee, there are
differences of opinion as it relates to Cuba. But I have long
supported the reestablishment of our relationship with Cuba and
remain deeply committed to restoring U.S.-Cuba diplomatic ties.
The policies of the previous administration punished both Cuban
and American citizens alike and played right into the hands of
China and their strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Now, I understand that the Biden administration is
currently reviewing its policy options toward Cuba, though not
nearly as quickly as I had expected or wanted. I wanted to find
out if USAID is contributing toward this policy review, and can
we expect a decision fairly soon, or if not, when?
And also, since 1996, Congress has appropriated over $350
million in funding for democracy efforts in Cuba, including $20
million in each SFOPS bill since 2014. And, so, I am wondering
if this is something that you will be reviewing as it relates
to this funding, and how has it helped Cuban civil society or
empowered human rights activists. And do you see us building
any better ties with the Cuban people by supporting the NGOs
working in other sectors, such as health and education?
Ms. Power. No. Simply to say that I don't have any insight
at this moment about the review or the timing of the review.
In terms of our programming, which is more within my ambit,
USAID has been responsible, I think, for around $6 million of
the $20 million that you reference. So far, that programming,
as I understand it, has gone to a diverse range of actors,
independent activists, meeting basic needs for political
prisoners. You still have NGOs in Cuba defending those who have
been arrested and so actually continuing to try to work to
fight persecution. So I will look into that programming.
I think the question of, you know, how to do work in social
service sectors, given the government and the government's
repression of citizens, I think that makes that challenging.
But again, I would want to dig into the specifics of our $6
million----
Ms. Lee. And let me just make a statement. I think given
the opportunities we are continuing to miss, now we see China
and Russia with regard to vaccine distribution in Cuba, and it
would just seem to me, once again, we are missing an
opportunity to engage with a country right next to our own
country, and allowing other countries, such as China and
Russia, to weigh in early, unfortunately, in this pandemic.
Now I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr.
Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Ambassador, from Capitol Hill, it appears as though
China will be one of the primary imperatives of the Biden's
administration foreign policy. Your predecessor, Mark Green,
was determined to make USAID not just an aid, but a policy
player in the U.S. strategy to counter malign Chinese influence
in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
How do you view the role of USAID within the interagency on
our broad strategy? Is the agency part of our national security
infrastructure, or is your mission more narrowly focused on
merely delivering assistance to countries in need with
reference to the China challenge?
Ms. Power. You know, I think that, first of all, USAID is
very focused on democracy programming, on support for civil
societies. We have talked about anticorruption efforts,
strengthening elections. We talked about the House Democracy
Partnership and strengthening legislatures and the rule of law.
So, there is a dimension given that China and its program stand
in opposition to that where, by definition, there is tension.
We want to see more democracies in the world and more human
rights in the world, and they want to see the world looking
more like China. So that is one dimension.
But I think much beyond that, you know, the United States
has, and I think USAID programming really shows this, a set of
comparative advantages over the Chinese model for development.
And I think I see this very similar to my predecessor, Mark
Green, where, you know, we support a free and open digital
infrastructure. We support governments being held accountable
to their people. We want countries to move towards self-
reliance. That was a big flagship, as you know, a signature
approach by Mark Green, which I very much agree with. China
takes the other approach, right, you know, in loaning money and
in charging exorbitant debt, that leaves countries, you know,
much more under pressure from China, and you see this at the
United Nations, where China in a transactional way, says: Okay,
we have given you this loan. Now we need you to vote with us to
dial back this human rights norm. So we just operate in a
totally different way.
And I think the hunger also for U.S. private sector
investment is something that the Development Finance
Corporation and we, in trying to strengthen regulatory
environments to make--create more hospitable climates for
foreign direct investment, I think that is another example of
how USAID kind of contributes to a battle between two models
around the world.
Mr. Rogers. We are in global competition with China. You
are in charge of the weaponry.
Ms. Power. I agree with that. I hope that was clear in my
answer, that that is the approach. I mean, but we also are
meeting humanitarian needs, and there is an intrinsic good in
that as well. But you are absolutely right. So many tools in
the USAID toolkit are the tools that are incredibly important
to strengthening democracy around the world, and standing up to
China's efforts to roll that back.
Mr. Rogers. Amen.
Ms. Lee. Okay. I yield now to Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First, I just want
to thank and associate myself with Mr. Fortenberry's comments
about MEPPA. Thank you for that.
I have a question about the promise of young leaders around
the world, whether here in the U.S. or abroad. Young people
have long been at the forefront of building peace in their
communities by creating youth-led movements, organizations, and
networks to mitigate the negative effects of conflict and to
prevent recurring cycles of violence. And yet, COVID-19's
secondary effects disproportionately disadvantage youth. The
pandemic has kept nearly 1.6 billion students out of school,
and one in six young people have stopped working since the
onset of the pandemic.
The U.S. must invest in young people who carry
unprecedented power to prevent climate change, promote
democracy, good government, social justice, and spread American
values. And, in countries in conflict, it will be the young
people who bear the burden of sustaining peace over
generations, leading their societies from reconciliation to
prosperity.
With the largest youth population ever, what is USAID's
strategy to ensure young people are at the center of the U.S.
Government's pandemic recovery strategies? How is USAID
measuring the amount of funding from the international affairs
budget account that is currently impacting young people? And,
lastly, what is the status of USAID's review of its decade-old
youth development policy, and what should the priorities of the
updated policy be?
Ms. Power. I will have to get back to you on the Youth
Development Policy and that review. I was tracking the Gender
Policy review, but actually, I just have not been briefed on
that. Apologies.
With regard to, I think, the broader approach, I mean, take
the continent of Africa. 69 percent of the population is under
30. It is the youngest population in the world. There is
tremendous dynamism in that, but, you know, given particularly
the challenge posed by the pandemic and the wallop to local
economies, that is a lot of people looking for work, and,
likely, in the very near term, not being able to find it, and
that is inherently destabilizing.
So I think you are going to see the mainstreaming of
attention to youth, specifically in our economic growth
planning, in our attention to the need to grow small
businesses, in our partnership with the DFC, just again
thinking of who is most affected by these large unemployment
rates.
You asked about it in the context of the pandemic. There, I
would need to think a little bit more about that. Right now,
you know, in developing countries, you don't even have health
workers who have received their two shots, right. It is under 2
percent, I think in Africa, that has been vaccinated. So, in
terms of age groups, you would tend to go to the older and more
vulnerable communities first after the health workers, as we
have done in this country. So I would want to think about that,
and maybe hear more from you about what you have in mind. Thank
you.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much.
And Ms. Ambassador, you know, we might have differences,
but I think one area where most or all Americans agree is that
the scourge of human trafficking is something that the United
States has to be a leader in fighting, you know, any form of
human trafficking, and I am sure you agree with that.
Are you aware that the State Department says that the Cuban
medical missions have the hallmark of human trafficking, and
they have done, again, reports talking about, again, how that
program is, in essence, human trafficking of medical
professionals? Are you aware of that history of human
trafficking with the Cuban medical professionals program?
Ms. Power. I am familiar with those reports. I have not
read the State Department reports, but I have seen some press
coverage.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Again, it is not new, as you well know. I
am concerned, because in a speech that you gave, when, again,
reversing the longstanding tradition of the United States
supporting, the Cuban people as opposed to the regime, you
talked about how the Cubans' medical mission programs was awe
inspiring, and the fact that they had, sent medical
professionals to fight Ebola. But, again, if we agree that
human trafficking is unacceptable in any form, and if there
have been reports, including recent reports by even the United
States State Department, that that program is, in essence,
human trafficking, and by the way, I would more than gladly put
you in touch with folks who have suffered from human traffic--
have been trafficked by that regime program.
It is concerning that you would, again, say that is awe-
inpiring, that something that is clearly human trafficking can,
in any way, be awe inspiring. Do you want to clarify that, or
were you not aware when you made that statement of the fact
that that regime-sponsored program is, in essence, human
trafficking and that they, the regime, receives the funding?
They take the passports away from those that are trafficked.
They go after their families. Were you not aware of that when
you made that statement and that speech in front of the U.N.
about how awe inspiring that was?
Ms. Power. So I traveled to West Africa at the height of
the Ebola epidemic, and was very struck by the work of Cuban
doctors, risking their lives on the front line to care for
patients who were literally, you know, dying prior to the
arrival of medical doctors from the United States, from Cuba
and from other countries, were dying at the doorstep of
clinics. And so that is what I was referring to.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Were you not aware that--yeah, but were
you aware not that that was----
Ms. Power. I was not aware. I had not read those reports at
that time, no.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. Well, again, I just hope that--again
that is----
Ms. Power. I just--[inaudible] Which is Cuban doctors
risking their lives to stand with the people of Liberia----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure. Human trafficked people are victims,
and they do wonderful things. But to say that it is awe
inspiring, a program that, again, the U.S. State Department
states is, in essence, human trafficking, you would understand
why it is a worrisome thing when you say that.
Again, if you weren't aware of it, it is interesting that,
again, as being Ambassador to the U.N., you were not aware of
it, but I am hoping that you will look at that and that you
will reconsider your statement of calling human trafficking or
anything related to human trafficking awe inspiring because
some of the victims are doing good things. I am out of time, so
I will yield back.
Ms. Lee. Yield? Okay. Thank you.
I would like to yield now to Mr. Price.
Ms. Power. Could we just correct the record and note----
Ms. Lee. Sure.
Ms. Power. I was just accused of calling human trafficking
``awe-inspiring''. So let me just say that that is never
anything that I have done. I have dedicated my entire career to
fighting human trafficking.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I will show you that speech and refresh
your memory.
Ms. Power. I did not refer to human trafficking as ``awe-
aspiring''. Please----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ambassador, you referred to a program that
the U.S. State Department has referred to human trafficking as
awe inspiring. You can try to sugarcoat that how you would
like.
Ms. Lee. I yield now to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. With limited time, I
want to just briefly refer to a couple of other discussions,
and then possibly pose a third question.
With respect to the work of the House Democracy Partnership
with these parliaments in developing countries, I want to
stress, Madam Administrator, that it is precisely the work of
USAID and its contractors that lets us take this work with
parliaments beyond conventional exchanges, and actually gives
it substance, actually improves parliamentary performance and
effectiveness, so it just couldn't be more important.
With respect to Gaza and the West Bank and the deeply
destructive policies of the last administration, halting duly
appropriated assistance funds to the West Bank and Gaza,
closing the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem, closing the PLO office
in Washington, all of that needs to be reversed. I am
encouraged by your assurance that the aid that the previous
administration stopped is now starting up again, and I
encourage you to do that with respect to projects that had been
approved and were receiving approval, and we intend to consult
with you about some of the specifics of what it will take to
get that aid restored.
Finally, let me turn to Afghanistan with limited time. I
know this is a big question, but it is an important question,
and this is an area where HDP has engaged with the Afghan
parliament and with Afghan women in politics. There is just so
much at stake in the faltering and struggling Afghan democracy
surviving this period.
I am wondering what kind of assistance programs, of the
many that we have engaged in, you think we will be able to
continue? What will be most important to continue? And what are
your concerns about the ability to administer and carry out
this aid?
Ms. Power. This is such an important question. I thank you
for asking it. It is an area of huge focus at the White House,
of course, at the State Department, the Defense Department, and
at USAID. I mean, fundamentally, as we draw down, the security
environment is--you know, there is risk of deterioration. And
the strength of the Afghan National Security Forces is going to
be incredibly important, you know, to them holding the line.
And our programs, though, we have gone through them, and are
looking at how we can continue to support them, even with a
smaller embassy and smaller USAID presence, civilian presence,
how oversight and vetting can continue to be done, given how
important that is to us and to you and to the taxpayer.
I think the one thing I will say, sir, is that many of our
partners were in Afghanistan before U.S. troops arrived in
2001, and they have every intention of doing everything in
their power to stay and support the Afghan people. So whether
that is on, you know, seeking to keep girls in school, or the
credible health gains. Maternal mortality has been cut by more
than half, child mortality by 75 percent by virtue of these
programs. And, so, it just couldn't be more important to try to
sustain them and to stand by the Afghan people as they continue
to suffer, you know, horrific pressure from the Taliban and
attacks that we read about every day.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Power, I am going to have to move fast. Two
questions on vaccine diplomacy as well as plan Haiti. First,
though, I want to return to the point that was made earlier
about the Chinese model for development. It is basically this:
predatory lending, resource extraction, and support for
authoritarian methodologies in governance. And while we spend
about $25 billion a year around the world in humanitarian
efforts to address the whole need, the holistic person, the
holistic needs of communities, China also makes a play while
contributing virtually nothing in this regard for multilateral
institutions, power, control, or institutions which we
underwrite. It is not clear to me how much they contribute, but
they certainly look toward control of those institutions.
In regards to vaccine diplomacy, we see this manifesting
itself again, China on the march, seemingly ahead of us. Other
countries around the world knowing that perhaps we have the
best vaccines available, but China getting out in front of us.
Is the WHO inordinately influenced by the Chinese? That is one
question. And then secondly, what is our vaccine diplomacy
trajectory?
Then let me turn to the third question right quick or the
second question, Plan Haiti. We spent so much money trying to
help attack structural poverty at our doorstep here, and it is
a bipartisan effort. But the idea here is to go deeper in terms
of place-based strategies, fix the broken border situation,
which is an underlying constraint in terms of normalcy and
economic function, and then, also, create a few places where
regenerative agriculture and conservation can become a
realistic model based upon constructs that we consider to be
not only supportable, but fair. That is going to be Plan Haiti.
I would like your comments on that.
Ms. Power. I want to dig in on Plan Haiti, but just to say
how important the governance element is. It is a sine qua non,
and how important it is that the country get back to regular
order and legislative and presidential elections
Mr. Fortenberry. Can I interject there?
Ms. Power. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. I completely understand that, but without
a specific set of examples that we know that this is a model
that is scalable for development across not only Haiti, but
across other regions, I am afraid that we focus on these larger
structural issues that may take the long term, obviously, to
solve that are critical to the underlying premise of any sort
of economic well-being. That is my comment. Go ahead.
Ms. Power. I hear you. Maybe we should have a longer
conversation about this, because just with the investments we
make, if we have government leaders who are pilfering money
from the programs that we are putting in place, you know, those
programs aren't going to be accountable to you or to us or to
the----
Mr. Fortenberry. That is by U.S. standards. That is what I
am saying. That is place making. Go ahead, please.
Ms. Power. Okay. Maybe I should pivot. Maybe I should dig
further into Plan Haiti with you offline, but I do think USAID
has done important work. And as you say, in Haiti, the problems
are so chronic and longstanding, it is hard to show those
returns, but the penal codes look different because of USAID's
engagement.
The COVID effects have been less severe. They were
horrible, but less severe, again, because of the global
health--because of the health program we put in place. On the
WHO, just briefly, I think that the United States being back at
the table is incredibly important to offset Chinese influence.
I will say as a former U.S. Ambassador, you know, when you
represent a country, you are seeking to ensure that
international institutions go your way, and you seek to
influence those institutions. We want the United Nations to be
promoting human rights around the world, women, peace, and
security, et cetera, you know, non-sloppy lab practices, for
example, when it comes to viruses.
So, every country is in these U.N. bodies, you know, trying
to acquire more leverage and more clout. I think stepping back
from international institutions gives China a free pass, and I
do think that they use that influence, as in the early days of
the pandemic, perhaps to delay, for example, the declaration of
a global pandemic or an international emergency.
Beyond that, though, I think, you know, again, our best way
on all fronts in which we and China are presenting these very
different models, and I agree with your characterization of the
Chinese model is for us to be in the game, and for us to
leading on the vaccine diplomacy, which I hope is the path that
we are now on. And I think watch this space, because I think 80
million is what we have to get out the door in the very near
term. But this is what countries most want from us right now,
not only in our hemisphere, but all over the world.
Mr. Fortenberry. Take the continent, like Africa, which I
think pretty much belongs to our model of development but has
the Chinese model imposed upon them. We will leave it there. I
look forward to more dialogue with you on these topics. Thank
you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I will yield now to Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Administrator, thank you for your thoughts on
this, taking the time to learn your job. I don't know if I will
agree with everything you say or do, but I do know you have an
astonishingly spectacular background that you bring to this
job. You have heart, you have intellect. [inaudible]
Ms. Lee. Let me yield now to Representative Torres, and we
will come back to you, Ms. Frankel.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman, and
Administrator Powers. I want to refocus to the Northern
Triangle. Without the political will from the governments in
the region, as you know, we need to prioritize working with
capable, credible, civil society partners, and those committed
to reform accountability. Yet, I hear daily attacks against
those who are carrying out this very important work. Internet
trolls prompted by the governments and propaganda net centers
in the region hurl conspiracy theories, share ugly racist and
sexist slurs, and even share the location of the homes and
workspaces of journalists, activists, and attorneys,
threatening their safety and the safety of their families.
We cheer the groundbreaking work of CICIG in Guatemala, yet
many of the Guatemalan staff are unable to find work, having
been outcast, blacklisted by the political and economic elites.
Too often, we see those who are making real progress have to
leave the country.
So, Administrator Power, how does USAID help protect and
support civil society activists and independent investigators
in repressive environments? How does USAID ensure their safety
while also enabling these workers to continue this work within
the country?
Ms. Power. In my--I think it was my second day on the job,
I met virtually with activists from El Salvador and Honduras
and heard firsthand, really, the level of concern and fear that
many of them are living with, feeling as if, as you say, the
pulpit is being used to disparage their work to claim, as we
have seen in other countries, including close to home, you
know, a kind of us versus them, you know, mindset when, in
fact, you know the work that these groups are doing, and these
are vetted groups that we have worked with over many, many
years is some of the most patriotic work you could imagine. So,
you know, this is a very worrying set of developments.
And you mentioned CICIG, you know. Now there is not even
CICIG there, both not to employ the individuals that you
mentioned who are now having trouble finding work, but also to
continue to carry out the prosecutions that, you know, chipped
away at the culture of impunity that abets corruption and
violence. So, I think what we can do is we raise our voices. We
have a lot of leverage, you know, as a country with such
important, you know, people to people and financial connections
to these countries. That is what Vice President Harris has done
already multiple times. I know it is what she will do on her
trip. It is what I have done in my role.
And I think people know on the ground that our embassies
and our ambassadors and our mission directors and our staff are
people who are going to, you know, stand up for them, you know,
if they are suffering harassment or intimidation or worse, and
that is what we can offer. But above all, it is really just a
tribute to the bravery of these individuals. They put
themselves out there every single day because of how much they
care about their countries.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to yield to Representative Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you again, Administrator Power, for joining us
today. And before I forget, I definitely want to thank you for
your advocacy for the Uyghurs and Turkic Muslim minorities and
Xinjiang and your strong stance against forced labor and in
support of human rights in that region.
You know, I represent a region in northern Virginia that
has one of the biggest populations of Uyghur Muslims in the
United States, and they are all very, very concerned about
their family members in China. And many of them haven't been
able to communicate with them at all. So your words mean a lot
to them, and I wanted to say thank you.
I also represent a lot of Indian Americans who are deeply
concerned, as I am, about the resurgent wave of COVID-19 in
India, and they have many, many family members and friends who
are directly impacted. But I am happy to see the U.S. standing
with the Government of India and Indian people during these
difficult times. Can you please give us a brief update on our
assistance to India during COVID and what we are doing now?
Ms. Power. Thank you so much. And this is where the funding
that you all generously supplied through the American Rescue
Plan has been so helpful to be able to do bilateral emergency
response in the first instance to India. I think we have done
seven planeloads of supplies which range from masks and PPE to
oxygen concentrators and the like. You know, we hope also to be
moving out on vaccines. Even though India is a big manufacturer
of vaccines, it is still a very small share of the population
that has been vaccinated.
One thing that I would flag that I think is a template for
what we could do in the future is that we are developing a
really important partnership with the U.S.-India Business
Council, which is comprised, I think, of 25 CEOs of some of the
most--the largest American companies. And, as you know, the
private sector has moved incredibly, robustly, and swiftly,
with its own deliveries of supplies. And, now, we are seeking
to sync up, so that we are coordinating our responses so as not
to duplicate and to be able to ensure that we are meeting the
needs as the Indian Government and civil society defines them.
We have also moved now with planes to Nepal and trying to get
supplies to other countries in South Asia, because the spike
that we have seen in India has now spread across the region.
So, again, what we are looking to do is be able to respond
in an emergency way, while also deepening our investments in
global health securities so as to ensure that these health
systems are better able to respond in the future. One need that
exists right now in the world is oxygen, and oxygen
concentrators. And, so, working with the private sector, we are
looking to see is there a way to source manufacturing of that
to deal with that global supply shortage, because there are
certain things that the private sector is going to be able to
do much more quickly than governments.
Ms. Wexton. Great. Thank you so much. And I am glad to hear
that your public/private partnership is working, and it is
going to be a model for the future.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
For our final question, I am yielding to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. First of all, Administrator, thank you for
your candor and your----[inaudible]
Ms. Lee. Ms. Frankel, you are frozen.
Ms. Power. Maybe if she turns her video off, it is probably
easier to get the mic.
Ms. Lee. Ms. Frankel, can you turn your video off and just
do audio? You are frozen. [inaudible]
Well, first of all, Administrator Power, let me thank you
so much. You have been very generous with your time and with
your testimony. Also, I want to recognize, once again, your
history of service to our country, to the world, and really
wanting to work on behalf of the most vulnerable everywhere
throughout the world. You can see there is much interest from
all of our committee members in terms of the important work
that you do for the millions of people who rely on us and
yourself leading this effort throughout world.
So you have a huge task before you, but we want to partner
with you in whatever way we can. I just want to thank you
again, and look forward to our continuing conversation, and I
know members will reach out to you individually.
Finally, let me just mention to members. If you have
questions you would like to submit for the record, please
submit them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days. And so
thank you all again. I want to thank our staff for helping us
through this virtual hearing, and we look forward to our
continuing work. So this concludes today's hearing. Thank you.
The hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Power. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Monday, June 7, 2021.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET
REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. Good morning, everyone, again. The Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to
order.
I would like to start by welcoming our distinguished guest
for his first time before our subcommittee, Secretary of State
Antony Blinken.
Now, as the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair or
staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
And let me remind all members and witnesses that the 5-
minute clock still applies during Q&A. If there is a technology
issue, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time. You
will notice a clock on your screen that will show how much time
is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn
yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may gently tap the gavel or
I will raise my hand to remind members that their time is
almost expired. When your time has expired, the clock will turn
red and I will begin to recognize the next member.
And now after the panel presents their testimony, we will
follow the order of recognition set forth in the House rules,
beginning with the chair and ranking member, then members
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be
recognized in order of seniority, and finally members not
present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules requires me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So, once again, let me just welcome our Secretary of State,
Antony Blinken.
Secretary Blinken, we are truly fortunate to have your
determined, effective, and respective leadership at the helm of
the State Department, especially during this time of tremendous
upheaval and discord. Thank you for your service to our country
and for being here today.
One of my priorities as chair is finding new ways to better
engage the American public in global affairs, especially
communities and people who have historically been felt at least
disconnected and marginalized from foreign policy. This begins
with making sure that Congress is able to play its full role in
foreign policy decisionmaking.
In our first conversation after your confirmation as
Secretary of State, you expressed your desire to make the State
Department more open and accountable to Congress. It is still
early in your tenure, but I have really been very pleased to
see clear evidence of your efforts, and look forward to working
with you more on this effort, which is critical to ensuring
that we have a foreign policy that reflects the values and
priorities of all Americans.
The tools of diplomacy and foreign assistance have been
undervalued and underresourced for far too long. Today's
hearing will provide members of our subcommittee a timely
opportunity to hear directly from you how diplomacy and foreign
assistance can effectively be utilized to respond to the
growing challenges around the world.
First and foremost, of course, is bringing the COVID-19
pandemic to a close, which includes the rapid distribution and
administration of vaccines, and helping the developing world
recover from the pandemic's devastating impact across all
sectors. I am especially eager to hear the latest on the
administration's efforts to make vaccines available in low- and
middle-income countries.
Of course, one of my priorities as chair is eliminating
longstanding barriers to diversity that exist in our foreign
affairs workforce and that perpetrate a system where minorities
and women are chronically underrepresented. I know you share
this goal.
Your recent appointment of Ambassador Winstanley as chief
diversity and inclusion officer is a very positive step.
Nevertheless, previous secretaries of state did not effectively
tackle the deep-rooted institutional and structural barriers to
diversity at the State Department. And so I am anxious to hear
how you will hold yourself and the rest of the building
accountable to finally breaking through and putting in place
longstanding and effective solutions.
I am also eager to discuss the administration's approach to
traditionally underprioritized regions of the world, including
Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Additionally, I am also
concerned about the lack of action on Cuba policy, which, in my
view, has not had the level of priorities that I had expected.
We need to turn the page from the previous administration's
outdated and counterproductive policies and return to
engagement and dialogue to resolve our differences and to press
the chain. What I see so far is just the opposite. And so I am
especially anxious to know the rationale for not reversing the
last-minute listing of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism by
the Trump administration.
And, Mr. Secretary, the recent outbreak of conflict between
Israelis and the Palestinians was and is deeply concerning. And
I wanted to thank you for your work in achieving the cease-
fire.
The last 4 years have been extremely difficult ones for the
Palestinian people. The previous administration's cruel and
irresponsible policy resulted in closed diplomatic missions,
the suspension of humanitarian and development aid, and
unprecedented levels of mistrust and resentment toward American
involvement in the Middle East amongst the Palestinian people.
Let alone, further setting back--and I really believe that the
setting back of our cause for a two-state solution really did
occur in the last few years. And so I appreciate the
President's commitment to restarting our assistance to the
Palestinians, to advancing prosperity, security, and freedom
for both Israelis and Palestinians in tangible ways.
The fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 enacted State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPs) bill included
for humanitarian assistance and development programs in the
West Bank and Gaza, which was passed without controversy or
partisan debate. I am pleased that your fiscal year 2020
request proposes $218 million for such assistance, although I
believe that we can and we should do more.
Also, I am pleased the administration is renewing
diplomatic focus and resources to the Northern Triangle
countries. The halt in our assistance during the previous
administration not only set us back from addressing the root
causes of migration, it caused critical time and credibility
needed to make progress on human rights, economic opportunity,
combatting corruption, and upholding the rule of law.
Nevertheless, before committing to a 4-year and $4 billion
plan, which includes $860 million request this year, Congress
needs to really understand how we will measure progress and
ensure long-lasting impact, particularly on combatting
corruption and impunity in the region.
The Biden administration budget also includes the
commitment to restoring America's standing in the world through
robust engagement with the United Nations and funding for the
World Health Organization, UNFPA, and the U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights, among other international
organizations.
I fully support efforts to reinvigorate our multilateral
partnerships so that we are better positioned to tackle today's
global challenges from COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and
the many secondary impacts of both.
Before I conclude, let me just say I am also very
disappointed that over the last 4 years, the United States has
not paid its full United Nations peacekeeping assessments, and
that we have accrued over $1 billion in arrears. And so as
chairwoman, I am fully committed to partnering with the Biden-
Harris administration on meeting our annual assessed payments,
paying down our United Nations' arrears, and putting in place a
realistic solution that prevents this type of staggering
dereliction of responsibility by the United States again.
Mr. Secretary, it is clear we have much to discuss today,
but I want to thank you again for your tireless work on behalf
of the American people, your leadership and dedication to the
most pressing foreign policy issues of our time. I hope this is
the first of many discussions between you and the subcommittee,
and I look forward to your testimony.
And, now, I would like to yield and turn the time over to
our ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his opening statement.
Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the subcommittee, albeit at a
distance. We want to thank you for being able to be with us to
answer questions about your budget request for fiscal year
2022.
Each year when the Secretary of State comes up to testify
before this subcommittee, I reflect upon the seemingly endless
global challenges, and I am struck by the number of complex
problems the Secretary of State must address on any given day
or even hour. This year, in particular, stands out given the
number of crises around the world testing our country's foreign
policy. And I would say, Mr. Secretary, you have your work cut
out for you. But we are here to try to help any way that we
can, and we thank you for being willing to answer our
questions.
The request for fiscal year 2022 is $61.96 billion. That is
an increase of more than 11 percent, almost 12, from the fiscal
year 2021 enacted level.
While I oppose the sweeping cuts to the State Department
put forward by the previous administration, I am also concerned
about the magnitude of the increases being proposed in this
request. I intend to give it fair consideration, but budgets of
this size will be difficult to justify given our country's
unprecedented deficits and debt.
In addition, increases in the President's budget for this
bill and other nondefense programs appear to come at the
expense of our military. I hope the committee will carefully
consider the potential consequences from these kinds of
tradeoffs as allocations are decided.
Mr. Secretary, although I believe this budget request has
some seriously misguided priorities, which I will address in a
moment, there are a number of things I applaud in your
proposal.
I appreciate that the request fully funds the enacted level
for Israel's foreign military financing at $3.3 billion. And I
was pleased to learn the administration supports additional
funding to replenish the Iron Dome and other depleted systems.
They were essential to preventing massive casualties in Israel
from Hamas' aggressive rocket attacks last month.
I am also pleased to see funding maintained without
conditions for Egypt, another key partner in the Middle East. I
may return to Egypt in my questions, but I was glad to hear
they were given credit for their role in helping to end the
recent conflict, and of your productive meeting with President
Al-Sisi.
Turning to embassy security, the funding is maintained at
current levels, which is a notable improvement from the two
previous administrations. You can count on my support in
remaining ever vigilant in the defense of U.S. personnel and
facilities overseas.
I also support the increased funding you are seeking to
counter Chinese malign influence. Unfortunately, the
environmental policies and projects in the President's budget
will significantly disadvantage the United States against
China. Under the deeply flawed Paris Agreement, our economy
will suffer while China can do whatever it likes.
I am also disappointed to see, Mr. Secretary, cuts proposed
in the budget for Jordan and Colombia, two key strategic
partners that need our support now more than ever. I also have
serious concerns with the approach taken in this request for
the United Nations and other international organizations that
appear to have abandoned any efforts at reform and burden-
sharing, while doubling down on the funding.
The unprecedented actions against Israel at the U.N. Human
Rights Council and the ascension of Syria and Belarus to the
World Health Organization's Executive Board are just two recent
examples of how deeply flawed and dangerous some of these
international bodies can be.
There are other concerns that I will try to address in my
questions, but before I close, Mr. Secretary, I want you to
know that I take my role in providing oversight of your
department very seriously, and have for the last 36 years. I
value the work of the inspector general. And I hope you will
too, especially in addressing chronic management challenges at
your agency that persist year after year.
To that end, I was very pleased to learn that the position
of deputy secretary for Management and Resources was finally
filled. Hallelujah. It has been a long crusade. But I am glad
to see, Mr. Secretary, that you have seen the wisdom in that
position. The Department has needed someone at the highest
levels to focus on the daily business of managing both
operations and assistance, freeing up the Secretary to do the
policy chores that demand most of his time. I spoke with Deputy
Secretary McKeon shortly after he came on the job, and I look
forward to staying in touch with him as we go along.
Mr. Secretary, let me conclude by thanking the men and
women of your department, foreign and civil, as well as the
locally employed staff advancing American leadership abroad. I
salute their dedication and want them to know their sacrifices
are appreciated on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being open with us. You
pledged early on that you would communicate well with the
subcommittee, and this is a really good start. So thank you for
being here.
I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
Let me just say, I don't see the chair of our
Appropriations Committee with us, Chairwoman DeLauro, or
Ranking Member Ms. Granger. If they attend, we will definitely
stop and yield to them for any questions or statements that
they may have.
So, first, Secretary Blinken, I know that, as I said
earlier, you shared our goal of addressing long-stand failures
to diversify the State Department workforce. So, ultimately, it
is an issue of institutional accountability, and so I am just
curious as to how you are going to hold yourself and the entire
department accountable for making real progress on this issue
and what specific reforms are employed now and in the next 3 to
6 months. Because I know, and some members on this committee
know, how long we have been trying to get the State Department
to address racial equity, gender equity, inclusion. And so I
know there is some systems that may need to be reformed.
But, also, we have to put some accountability measures and
some initiatives in place to make sure that the strategy for
targeting underrepresented minorities and women in the foreign
service and everything State Department does, that we move
forward. So can you just kind of share some of your specific
ideas on this?
Opening Statement of Secretary Blinken
Secretary Blinken. Well, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member
Rogers, first of all, let me just say what a pleasure it is to
be with both of you and all the members of this subcommittee.
And, Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to submit my opening
statement for the record, if that is what you would prefer.
Ms. Lee. Please go on and give us your opening statement at
least for 5 minutes.
Secretary Blinken. Okay.
Ms. Lee. You can include your answer, if you want to, in
your opening statement.
Secretary Blinken. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it. And, again, it is really a pleasure to be with both of you
and all the members of this subcommittee. And I really
appreciate this opportunity to talk about the administration's
proposed budget and how it will help achieve our national
security priorities and deliver results for the American
people, which is our common objective.
I do think this is a critical moment for the United States
and our global leadership. As you both alluded to, we face
major tests, including stopping COVID-19, rising to the
challenge of the climate crisis, supporting a global economic
recovery that delivers for American workers and families. We
have to revitalize our alliances and partnerships, outcompete
China, and defend the international rules-based order against
those who seek to undermine it, renew democratic values at home
and abroad, and push back against malign activity by our
adversaries.
In a more competitive world, other countries are making
historic investments in their foreign policy toolkit. We need
to do the same thing. That is why in this budget we requested
$58.5 billion for the State Department and USAID for fiscal
year 2022.
And, Ranking Member Rogers, I just want to point out, I am
already saving you some money right there. I think it is $58.5
billion. So I have been responsive to your concern. And let me
just give you some specifics about how we plan to spend these
funds if you support them.
First, the budget will strengthen global health. The United
States has been a leader in this field for decades, in Africa,
around the world. We are asking for $10 billion for global
health programs, including nearly $1 billion for global health
security, to help us prevent, prepare for, and respond to
future global health crises, so we can stop outbreaks before
they turn into pandemics that put our safety and prosperity in
danger.
This budget will accelerate the global response to the
climate crisis by providing $2.5 billion for international
climate programs, including $1.25 billion to the Green Climate
Fund, to help developing countries implement climate adaptation
and emissions mitigation programs, which is directly in our
interest.
The budget would double-down on the fight for democracy,
which, as we all know, is under threat in too many places. The
budget request includes $2.8 billion in foreign assistance to
advance human rights, fight corruption, stem the tide of
democratic backsliding, and strengthen and defend democracies,
for example, through technical training for elections and
support for independent media of civil society. It also
requests $300 million for the National Endowment for Democracy.
The budget will support a comprehensive strategy to address
the root causes of irregular migration from Central America. It
will invest $861 million in the region as a first step toward a
4-year commitment of $4 billion to help prevent violence,
reduce poverty, curtail endemic corruption, and expand job and
educational opportunity.
It will reestablish American humanitarian leadership, with
a requested $10 billion in assistance to support refugees,
victims of conflict, other displaced people, and to rebuild the
Refugee Admissions Program.
It will support our partners in the Middle East by fully
funding our commitments to key countries, including Israel and
Jordan, and by restoring humanitarian assistance to the
Palestinian people.
It includes a budget request of $3.6 billion to pay our
assessed contributions in full to international organizations,
initiatives, and peacekeeping efforts, including to restore our
annual contribution to the World Health Organization.
As China and others work hard to bend international
organizations to their world view, we need to ensure that these
organizations remain grounded in the values, principles, and
rules of the world--role, excuse me, that have made our shared
progress possible for so many decades.
Finally, to deliver in all of these areas, the budget will
reinvest in our most vital asset: our people. It will provide
new resources to recruit, train, and retain a first-rate
diverse global workforce, with nearly 500 additional foreign
and civil service positions, the largest increase in state
staffing in a decade. And it will modernize our technology and
cybersecurity, protect our embassies and consulates, and
include a direct appropriation of $320 million for consular
services worldwide so we can continue to provide these vital
services to Americans and those who seek to travel, study, or
do business with the United States.
Our national security depends not only on the strength of
our Armed Forces, but also our ability to conduct effective
diplomacy and development. That is how we solve global
challenges, forge cooperation, advance our interest in values,
protect our people, and prevent crises overseas from turning
into emergencies here at home. And that is why diplomacy and
development are smart investments for American taxpayers.
A top priority for me as Secretary is to restore the
traditional role of Congress as a partner in our foreign
policymaking. That is the spirit that I bring to today's
conversation, and I am very grateful for this opportunity and
the chance to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
And let me just mention a couple of things. First, I want
to reiterate, I will be calling on members based on seniority
of the members that were present when the hearing was called to
order, alternating between majority and minority members. And
then I will recognize any remaining members in the order of
their appearance. And each member is asked to keep their
question to 5 minutes per round.
So, Secretary Blinken, you heard my first question
prematurely. I would love to hear your response.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Making sure that we have a
workforce that looks like the country it represents is a top
priority for me. And I have said both publicly as well as
privately that I will consider a measure of the success or not
of however long I am in the job whether we succeed in putting
in place a much stronger foundation to have that workforce that
looks like this country.
You noted that we appointed the first chief diversity and
inclusion officer. That is an important gauge of the
seriousness of purpose that I am bringing to this, but let me
just speak previously to the challenge writ large, including
the mandate of that office.
We have to tackle this, and we will tackle this, in a
comprehensive way, starting with work that needs to be done
before anyone gets anywhere near the doors of C Street; that
is, with recruitment. And that has to start a lot earlier than
it presently does. In part, by opening minds, especially in
traditionally underserved communities represented in the
Department to the possibility of having a career serving the
country and serving our foreign policy.
And so we are going to be engaging even more, and I hope
more effectively even, with high schools, colleges,
universities, especially those that serve diverse populations.
And that is going to start with me, but it is going to be an
expectation that I have of the team across the board.
Second, once people get into the C Street doors, that is
not enough. Because the problem, as you know very well that we
have had, is that we do bring people in, and then they leave.
We have a serious retention problem. And that starts with a
need to have genuine inclusion. This can't be a check-the-box
numbers game. It actually goes fundamentally to the culture of
the Department and the way we understand and act on the
different challenges that our colleagues coming from different
backgrounds and different communities may face and that,
honestly, many of us may not fully understand or appreciate.
And that is going to be part of the work of the Office of
the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer to help us better
understand that. We are also going to incorporate that into the
Foreign Service Institute's training.
Third, I think you are going to see that in the
appointments we make, the senior positions, again, a better
reflection of the diversity of our country. Because it is
vitally important that when people start out at the Department,
they can imagine having a career that leads to the most senior
jobs. And if they are not seeing colleagues who come from the
same backgrounds or communities that they do, then that vision
is not going to be there and they may not stick it out.
Finally, we need to have accountability. And one of the
things that I have asked the chief diversity and inclusion
officer to do in that office, because it is an office that
reports directly to me as Secretary. We are going to have
actual numbers, analysis, understanding. We are going to try to
disaggregate data in ways that we have not done effectively in
the past so that we can understand and we can show whether, in
fact, we are making progress in having a genuinely diverse
department.
Last thing I will say on this, our greatest strength--it is
a cliche, but it is true. Our greatest strength as a country is
in our diversity. And that is all the more true when it comes
to our foreign policy, because we are dealing with an
incredibly diverse world. And as you know, the ranking member
said, the sheer multiplicity and complexity of the challenges
we face has probably never been greater. It would be to
penalize ourselves not to have, as full part and partner in our
foreign policy, a true reflection of the diversity of our
country. We are going to be much more effective in engaging in
the world when we have that.
So I am determined that we show real sustainable progress,
and I think we are putting in place the tools to do it. The
chief diversity and inclusion officer is developing a 5-year
plan for this that we will share with you, and I think that
will be ready in the weeks ahead.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that,
because in trying to develop a closer collaboration, I really
do want to look at the plan and work with you on it. But also,
just know that I want to see something 3 months, 6 months,
because this is such a longstanding issue. A 5-year plan is
great, but we have to have benchmarks throughout this 5 years.
We can't wait that long to have a State Department that
reflects the country and the aspirations of people who really
would want to enhance our presence in the world. So thank you
again.
I would like now to yield to Mr. Rogers, our ranking
member.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, the Department's request for the U.N. and
other international organizations includes an increase of $630
million over the current level. That includes costs associated
with your plan to rejoin several international organizations,
to pay arrears, and to pay peacekeeping dues above the
statutory rate of 25 percent, a cap that has not been changed
by the Congress since it was negotiated during your time at the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
A little over a week ago, the U.N. system demonstrated why
there is so much skepticism and concern about continued
investments in the absence of significant reform from top to
bottom. On May 27, the U.N. Human Rights Council took the
unprecedented step to open an investigation against Israel for
alleged war crimes. You are asking for resources that will
help--will end up funding that effort, and the American
taxpayer has a right to be outraged.
One day later, on May 28, Syria and Belarus were elected to
the World Health Organization's executive board. Now, a
murderous regime and a desperate dictator are part of the
governance structure of the World Health Organization, as if
the list of problems of that organization was not long enough.
U.S. officials could have called for a vote and voiced
objections, but, instead, they did nothing, until the deal was
done.
Mr. Secretary, your administration has acknowledged the
deep flaws of many of these organizations, but you have
proposed the United States to rejoin, with payment, in an
effort to make change and see better results. How can we
believe that you will be able to make or even attempt to make
any changes at these organizations when we just witnessed a
failure to act on such an important matter?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Ranking Member. I very much
appreciate the question. Let me just say one thing at the
outset. I do think that repaying our arrears and also trying to
be current is very important in these organizations because it
goes directly to our ability to have influence. When we are not
paying up, we are listened to less. And it also goes to their
operations and their ability to do the job in ways that advance
our own interests. But we can come back to that.
I think with regard to the Human Rights Council, with
regard to the World Health Organization, it is our judgment
that we stand a much better chance of advancing the important
reforms that both need, on that I can strongly concur with you,
if we are at the table as opposed to outside the room. And when
we are not at the table, someone else is. And you alluded to a
couple of countries in one case who might be. We can think of
others who also would be. And our ability to actually advance
meaningful reform, to shape the way these organizations work is
gone.
And so with regard to the Human Rights Council, we are
going to be a candidate for membership for 2022 to 2024. Last
time we were actually in the room at the table, we were much
more effective, for example, in dealing with the bias against
Israel and one-sided actions that the Human Rights Council
takes to single out Israel unfairly. We cut by about 30 percent
the number of such initiatives when we were there. When we are
not there, these things, unfortunately, tend to proliferate.
And I think with regard to the World Health Organization,
we stand a much better chance in actually advancing the vital
reforms--I strongly agree with you--that are needed if we are
there and making good on our commitments, and then insisting
that it make good on its responsibilities.
Mr. Rogers. I have got only a few seconds left. Is it
possible to ask for another minute?
Ms. Lee. Yes. Go right ahead.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see that the President's
budget request maintained the current level of funding for
Egypt, because they are a critical partner in the Middle East.
That U.S.-Egypt relationship is complicated, but very
important. I was in Cairo meeting with President Al-Sisi when
the two church bombings happened on Palm Sunday in 2017.
Sometimes I think we lose sight of the very real terrorist
threats they face there and continue to face.
You met with President Al-Sisi recently, following the
cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. To the degree that you
can, tell us about the role Egypt played in helping to end the
recent conflict, and tell us of your view of the U.S.-Egyptian
relationship.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Egypt played an absolutely
vital role in getting the cease-fire. I don't think it would
have happened without their engagement. It is as simple as
that. Something that we have both appreciated and applauded
publicly. And to your point, it also plays a very important
role in Middle East stability, in countering terrorism. We have
important defense cooperation that focuses on border
challenges, maritime security, counterterrorism. And, of
course, ISIS in the region, the affiliate there, is wedged
between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai and poses a very
significant challenge. Egyptian forces are losing several
people a week in this effort to deal with it. So Egypt is a
vital partner in many ways.
We do have real concerns about human rights. I had a very
lengthy conversation with President el-Sisi about that and a
very direct and honest exchange. And, you know, I would say--
and we have met with human rights defenders, civil society, and
others. I think we have seen some progress in some areas,
particularly religious freedom, as well as women's empowerment,
dealing with gender-based violence, trafficking persons. We
appreciate that.
On the other hand, when it comes to freedom of expression,
when it comes to civil society, there are very significant
problems that we need to address directly with our Egyptian
partners, and we are. So we hope and expect to see progress
there, even as we sustain this partnership that really is vital
for our common security.
Mr. Rogers. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
I now will yield to Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here today to
testify. And congratulations. We are thrilled that you are here
in this role and look forward to working with you on a host of
issues to work to ensure that the money that our committee
appropriates is put to the best possible use and is equitably
distributed through programs that lift up those who are the
most vulnerable in the world.
For my district in Queens, New York, one of the most
diverse districts in our country, foreign policy is not just an
esoteric issue of solving faraway problems, but many of my
constituents have strong family and business ties to their
countries of origin and many of their families directly benefit
from our foreign assistance.
My first question is about divided families. As you may
know, there are thousands of Korean Americans who were
separated from their families in North Korea by war. These
Americans have lived without knowing whether their spouses,
children, or grandchildren are still alive. While there have
been over 20 opportunities for divided families to have
reunions between Seoul and DPRK, none of these reunions have
actually included Korean Americans. Seoul, as well as other
international organizations, has committed to helping
facilitate the inclusion of Korean Americans in these reunions.
Obviously, time is running out as these family members age into
their 80s and 90s.
Can you update us on how humanitarian issues such as this
one will be included in any talks at any level with our allies
in Seoul or with the DPRK?
And in order for this issue to really get the attention it
deserves, we need a special envoy on North Korean human rights.
The former President did not appoint anyone to this position,
which I really think was a mistake. Can we expect a nominee for
this role expeditiously?
Secretary Blinken. In answer to your second question, yes,
you can, and we are moving forward on that. As you know, the
usual challenges with vetting and everything make some of these
things a little slower than we would like them to be or should
be. But short answer is yes.
And with regard to family reunification, I am deeply
sensitive to that issue and appreciate everything you have
said. Because at the end of the day, so much of what we do and
we sometimes forget comes down to real human beings, to real
people. And this is just heart-wrenching knowing that people
have been, not only separated, but don't even know the fate of
their loved ones.
So what I can pledge to you is that we will absolutely work
on this, including with our South Korean partners, to make sure
that the interest of Korean Americans who have been separated
from families are reflected in the efforts that we make and
that are made. As you know, it is very challenging, and we
don't know what kind of engagement we are going to get from the
DPRK. But thank you for putting a light on this issue.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary.
And I don't have much time, but I just wanted to briefly
address the international affairs budget which broadly supports
funding for gender equality and equity. The $200 million Gender
Equity and Equality Action Fund is the only amount specified.
Given this wide swath of issues, do you think that the $200
million is sufficient? And how would the proposed GEEA Funds
complement or differ from other accounts that seek to advance
global gender equity?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. We are trying to work on this
through a variety of programs and approaches that hopefully
will complement each other. We have, as you know, significant
work that we will be doing that is also reflected in the budget
on combatting gender-based violence, which has gotten worse
under COVID for reasons that I think you know. We are also
trying to make sure we have an emphasis on women, peace, and
security, working to support the participation, the leadership,
the empowerment in decisionmaking of women and peace and
security issues.
And then to your point, we have this proposed Gender Equity
and Equality Action Fund that we are seeking support for in the
budget to promote economic empowerment, to also help deal with
gender-based violence, to support some of the underserved
populations, and also some of the areas where there is a
disproportionate impact on women and girls, notably the
pandemic, climate change, conflict.
I think that if this budget is approved, we are resourced
appropriately. With technology, for example, we found that
there are some things that we can actually do more efficiently
than before. Having said that, if there are specific areas or
ideas that you think we should be pursuing, I very much welcome
having an opportunity to talk about that and making sure that
we are resourced appropriately.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I will yield now to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you, sir. Let me bring us to
Venezuela. I don't have to tell you that the Maduro regime
continues to violate human rights. There are obviously no free
and fair elections. Political prisoners are still held in
captivity. There is a lack of democratic institutions,
independent media, free and fair expression, and obviously
ties, continuous ties with anti-American terrorist groups and
regimes.
Am I to believe, and I hope I am, because I have read in
different instances that those factors and maybe others mean
that you will continue to support sanctions against the Maduro
regime in Venezuela?
Secretary Blinken. The short answer to your question is
yes. Not only, Congressman, will we continue to support
sanctions, but we want to try to work as effectively as
possible with others to bring them along in increasing the
pressure on Maduro and on the regime.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, that is good to hear, Mr. Secretary.
And U.S. leadership matters, right? And so, let me now go to a
different country. The OAS Secretary has called an army of
occupation of Cuba and Venezuela. Those same conditions that I
just mentioned in Venezuela that merit the sanctions exist in
Cuba. Are you aware of any those conditions that don't exist in
Cuba? And so, therefore, why would we not be supporting
sanctioning the Castro regime? But on top of having those same
conditions, they also have spread their influence in other
parts of the hemisphere, including, obviously, Venezuela and
Nicaragua. So I am assuming that the answer would be the same,
correct?
Secretary Blinken. Congressman, when it comes to Cuba, this
is a policy that we are reviewing very carefully. And as part
of that review, we are seeking the views, including yours and
other Members of Congress, other stakeholders, people with
different perspectives on the issue, whether it is in Congress,
activists, journalists, faith-based leaders, academics,
experts, inside and outside of Cuba, because we are really
focused on trying to make sure that we think through and work
through the best way to advance the goals that we all share,
which is for a free and democratic Cuba.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, but you would agree that
the same conditions that I just mentioned about Venezuela apply
to Cuba, if anything more so, right.
Secretary Blinken. I think there are differences in
specifics between the two, but the overall concerns that we
have both with regard to the absence of democracy in Venezuela
and the absence of democracy in Cuba, yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good. And, Mr. Secretary, I don't see how
one could say that the conditions that exist in Venezuela,
again, and they also exist in Cuba, if anything worse, and they
had been there longer, then why you can then say that one
merits sanctions and the other one doesn't, particularly when
Cuba has thousands and thousands of, again, what the OAS
Secretary calls the army of occupation of Venezuela. So just,
you know, something to consider.
I want to thank you, by the way, while we are speaking of
Cuba, for providing the $20 million for democracy assistance to
Cuba, something that I think is desperately needed at this
time. You talked about, in your opening statement, about your
budget support to democracy programs, and you also talked about
free and independent press.
I am concerned, however, about, and very disappointed, that
less than $13 million was requested for the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting. That is nearly $7 million less than what was
provided in fiscal year 2021. That was done by Congress in a
bipartisan way.
And, again, you know, the reason I am behind massive
increases in other areas and yet specifically targeting OCB--
and, again, I am always concerned about why is the regime in
Cuba somehow treated differently than other places around the
world, including in this hemisphere. So again, I am very
concerned about that rather substantial cut from what Congress
had done in the last few years.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And, look, I will certainly
take a look at that. We are, you know, across the board are
trying to make sure that we are as effective as we can be,
particularly in these programs. We have other tools and
resources that can hopefully help achieve some of the same
results. For example, the Global Engagement Center, where we
are asking for some additional resources, that has been very
effective, for example, in rooting out some of the
misinformation and disinformation, to include things coming
from Cuba and from other anti-democratic sources. But we
welcome hearing from you, from your office of the ways you
think we can do this more effectively. We welcome hearing it.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I look forward to working with you.
Actually, again, the $20 million to Democracy Assistance
Program, that is priority of yours, right?
Great. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now, I will yield to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We welcome you to our subcommittee,
and we appreciate your good work thus far. I want to express
support for many items in a very strong budget, including
assistance for democratic governance around the world. I have a
special role in this, I suppose, by virtue of chairing the
House Democracy Partnership, our bipartisan commission that
engages with parliaments and emerging democracies to learn from
one another, to build their democratic institutional
capacities.
And I am sure you are aware that democratic governance
assistance from our government, from your department, leads
directly into our attempts to engage these parliaments and to
improve their capacity. It means that this isn't just
parliamentary exchanges. It means that on the ground, we are
able to work to constantly improve performance and enhance
professional capabilities. So we welcome the increased funding
for democratic governance and for legislative strengthening in
particular.
This leads me to a couple of questions with countries that
we have engaged with. And for very different reasons,
engagement in these countries has become much more difficult
recently. I am speaking of Burma and Afghanistan. Let me first
ask you about Burma.
The military coup there has been devastating. And among
other things, it has effectively removed the country from
international parliamentary engagement. I support the sanctions
the Biden administration has already imposed on Burmese
military officials and businesses.
I wonder, apart from these ad hoc sanctions, what more can
we do to affect Burmese military officials and the military
affiliated businesses? How effective have these sanctions been?
What would your judgment be? And are you working with our
international partners to restrict the Tatmadaw's access to
military equipment, financial support, and whatever might be
done in the way of increasingly effective measures?
What kind of engagement do you have with the National Unity
Government? Do you have any plan to work with them further?
And then, how does the U.S. plan to conduct assistance
programs--there are some in your budget--in ways that do not
benefit the military junta, do not contradict what local civil
society groups have been urging, and as a matter of fact, does
something to address the flaw in the previous government and in
this government, the flaw they share with regard to the
treatment of the Rohingya?
Secretary Blinken. Very much share your deep concern. We
need to see an end to the violence. We need to see prisoners
released. We need to see Burma return to the democratic path
that it was on.
To your point, we have sanctioned coup leaders. We
sanctioned major military affiliated companies supporting the
military. We have been engaged in a comprehensive review of our
assistance to make sure that we can focus assistance that gets
directly to people who need it and does not get to the regime.
We have stringent export controls in place. And we want to make
sure that we are trying to build some support for civil
society, humanitarian, and ethnic communities, and all of this
in coordination with allies and partners, including ASEAN.
One aspect of this is--and this is something I have been
very engaged in--is trying to get countries that have
investments or other economic relationships with enterprises in
Burma that directly support the military and that it depends on
as an economic lifeline, that those countries reconsider those
investments and those relationships. And we are doing some work
there.
We are also very much supporting the work that ASEAN is
doing. The regime agreed to a 5-point program that starts with
getting an envoy from ASEAN to Burma to talk to everyone,
including, of course, the National Unity Government and others.
We are pressing to see that that happens. We are engaged with
the government, with other members of the National Unity
Government, with other members of the now opposition.
Having said all of that, you know, this is a really deeply
challenging problem that is going to require a lot of work and
a lot of international coordination.
Finally, to your point about the Rohingya, I couldn't agree
more, this has been a deficit not just of this regime,
although, they were among the worst perpetrators in the past of
violence against Rohingya and other ethnic groups. But it was
also a deficit even of the democratic administration. And we
are very focused on that as well, and among other things,
making sure that countries that have refugees among that
community make good on their nonrefoulement commitments not to
forcibly send them back to Burma where they will encounter
very, very difficult circumstances.
So we are working on this across the board, but it is a
hard problem.
Mr. Price. Yes. Certainly, yes, but we do commend your
involvement. And there is a need to stay the course here and
figure out ways to tighten the screws, if we possibly can. I
think that sentiment is widely shared.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now, I will yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you so much
for joining us today.
Madam Chair, thank you, Ranking Member, thank you for
holding this important hearing.
Mr. Secretary, let me start out by just commending you for
two things you said earlier. First of all, you consider
Congress a partner in foreign policy. I really appreciate that.
I think this whole committee very much does. We are brimming
with good ideas and want to help constructively meet
challenges.
Secondly, you talk about foreign policy as ultimately about
people and places, and I couldn't agree more. Ultimately about
human dignity and creating conditions for flourishing human
life and stability. So thank you for those comments.
I want to try to address, if I can, the Middle East
Partnership for Peace Act, China, and the WHO, as well as the
Northern Triangle.
Regarding the Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, any
roadmap for peace needs a foundation. Chair Lowey last year
picked up the legislation, got it into law. I am so grateful
for her leadership.
As a part of this law, we are trying to do two things:
Enhance rent making through traditional people-to-people
programs, as well as build out new forms of economic well-
being, utilize and developing finance cooperation with equity
partners for the benefit of both Palestinian and Israelis. Our
State Department has a lead coordinating role in this regard.
Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with this law? How are you
going to advance State Department's implementation? And thank
you for funding it, by the way.
Secretary Blinken. In short, Congressman, yes, very
familiar with it, very much supportive of it, and we intend to
do what we can to move out on it, because I couldn't agree more
with the basic objectives and the basic premise.
And, particularly, we need to use some of these new tools
like the DFC, which I think was a very good development, and
look at ways of doing this more effectively.
So I would really welcome working with you and your office
on this. It is something we very much support.
Ms. Lee. We will go now to the chair--and thank you very
much, Madam Chair, for joining us--Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro,
chair of our Appropriations Committee.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am very, very
excited about today's testimony.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. And,
again, first time to be able to say congratulations. We are
very excited about you and the role that you are in.
I just have a couple questions.
In the funding request for fiscal year 2022, the
administration has talked about $10 billion for global health
programs, $800 million increase to global health security
programs, and that is over the 2021 amount.
In January 2021, the administration announced it would
reengage with the WHO. And, in the fiscal year 2022 request,
there is the repayment of arrears to WHO and other
international organizations.
The $10 billion for global health programs, including an
additional $1 billion would expand the Global Health Security
Agenda capacity-building programs--so could you just tell us a
little bit about how the funds will be used and which programs
would be supported by these additional funds?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. Thank you very much.
First, let me just say that this is really an effort to
build on the very significant resources that Congress has
provided over the past year in response to COVID-19. I think
your leadership in trying to help address both near-term and
long-term global health security challenges has been vitally
important and is very much in line with the Global Health
Security Agenda that we have.
I think we need to be looking at this in two ways. One is
COVID-19 itself, of course, and making sure that we are
effectively prepared to hopefully prevent and, if not prevent,
at least see and mitigate and deal with more effectively the
next pandemic. So a significant portion of these resources are
dedicated to doing that and building much greater capacity
around the world in this ability to both prevent, detect, and
mitigate.
Parenthetically, a Senator by the name of Joe Biden, way
back in 2003, 2004, had legislation called the Global Pathogen
Protection Act, because he identified way back then that
various countries did not have in place the tools to be able to
detect the outbreak of a pathogen turning into a pandemic.
Unfortunately, that legislation never made it through. I am
very pleased that Congress today is really focused on this, and
that can help give us the tools. So there is that piece.
The broader Global Health Security Agenda is vitally
important, too, because one of the things that has happened
during this pandemic is that other aspects of global health
security have been significantly compromised because of the
inability, for example, to effectively deliver global health
services for a variety of other challenges, whether it is
malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and so on down the list. And
so we want to make sure that we are able to address this
deficit, as well, and, as we say, build back better with our
global health security programs.
The Chair. Well, my hope is that, in light of what you
said, the last portion of it, I understand Ebola, Zika, and now
coronavirus, but the other piece of this is, as we are looking
to restructure our public health infrastructure domestically, I
think we have to participate in a public health infrastructure
worldwide as well. We do it with Africa where--similar to the
CDC, et cetera. Because we are not safe unless the rest world
is safe from these illnesses and diseases and so forth. So I
want to work with you on that effort.
I am going to try to get another quick question in.
We have a number of crises around the world that threaten
democratic institutions, the rule of law. And the budget you
have proposed emphasizes the need to defend democracy, freedom,
rule of law--extremely important. And I know you are poised to
play a critical role in crafting what the U.S. response is to
these crises.
How do you plan to carry out that mission in a way that
achieves our objectives while reengaging with our allies in a
way that we did not during the previous administration?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I think, from our perspective, the
first order of business has been to reengage with allies and
partners, both on a bilateral basis but also in different
institutions, because the challenge is twofold.
I think if we look at pretty much any of the big-ticket
items that are actually going to have an impact on the lives of
our people, whether it is this pandemic, whether it is climate
change, whether it is the disruptive impacts of various new
technologies that so shape our lives, I think the one thing we
know is that we can't effectively deal with these challenges
doing it alone. Even the United States, with all of our power
and resources and know-how, we benefit from being able to work
in cooperation and coordination with other countries to deal
with these challenges.
At the same time, we also know--and this is the other
reason why our lean-in on diplomacy and engagement is so
important--we know that, if we are not engaged, for example, in
these very imperfect but nonetheless important international
institutions, then one of two things: either someone else will
be in our place, and probably not in ways that advance our
interests and values, or, maybe just as bad, no one is, and
then you tend to have chaos and a vacuum filled by bad things
before it is filled by good things.
So I think there is a premium on our engagement, on our
diplomacy, on just showing up. And I think we are in a better
place to advance the needed reforms if we are actually, as I
said, in the room and at the table than not even in the
building.
So that is the sort of premise that we bring to this. And
we have, thankfully--and if we are resourced properly, I think
even more so--an incredible resource here at the State
Department to make sure that the U.S. is present, is engaged,
is playing the lead role in shaping the norms, shaping the
rules, shaping the standards that govern so much of our lives.
That is what we need to be doing, and we are grateful for the
support we can get for the budget to do it.
The Chair. Okay. Thank you.
And thank you for indulging me going over time, Madam
Chair. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Now I will yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I appreciate
it.
And thank you to Secretary Blinken for being here today. I
appreciate that as well.
Secretary, in late March, President Biden supported calls
for the 2021 MLB All-Star Game to be moved out of Atlanta,
Georgia. And then, literally just hours later--I mean, you
can't make this up--within 72 hours of requesting that the All-
Star Game be moved out of Georgia, he then came out opposing a
boycott of the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Secretary Blinken, why do you think the administration is
silent when it comes to China hosting the Olympic Games but is
so outspoken when it comes to moving the All-Star Game out of
Georgia?
Secretary Blinken. Well, first, let me say, one of the
great benefits of my job is that I don't do politics. I will
just focus on policy.
I have to tell you, I am not aware of the President taking
that position, but what I can say is this: With regard to the
Olympics, we are consulting very closely with allies and
partners to look at the common concerns that we have and,
ideally, to establish a common approach. That is what we are
focused on right now.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, I mean, you have said that China
has a host of atrocious human rights violations. And I think
that Joe Biden thought that, by pulling out of the MLB game,
somehow it would send an overture that we support voting
rights. There are no voting rights in China. It is a communist
state; they can't vote.
So even Speaker Pelosi has come out saying that she
supports at least a diplomatic boycott of the Games. Would you
support a boycott of the Olympic Games in China?
Secretary Blinken. Again, what we are doing now is
consulting with other concerned countries and trying to make
sure we understand their thoughts and perspectives on this and
then, as I said, developing a common approach, which will be
much more effective than doing something on our own.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, you would agree that in the past
when adversarial nations, such as 1930s Germany, such as when
the Soviet Union, hosted the Games that they then used that
opportunity to then actually invade neighboring countries. Do
you fear that might happen with China, that after these Games
are hosted they would try to invade, let's say, Taiwan? Is that
a concern?
Secretary Blinken. Well, we have real concerns about the
increased aggression that the government in Beijing has shown
toward Taiwan. Whether there is any relationship or not to
China hosting the Olympic Games I couldn't say. We are focused
on that irrespective of the Olympics.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay.
Well, your administration has pressured corporate sponsors
of the Games to drop their sponsorship--I am sorry. Biden has
pressured corporate sponsors of the 2020 Olympic Games to drop
their sponsorship due to human rights concerns. So the
administration actually has taken steps on that.
Special Envoy John Kerry has taken the same tack against
banks that discriminated against U.S. companies in the fossil
fuel industry.
So this tactic has been used not only on the fossil fuel
industry but also on the 2022 Olympic Games. Do you think that
those further tools like that should be used to further put
pressure on China?
Secretary Blinken. As I said, I want to make sure, from
where I sit and given my responsibilities, that we are
consulting with other concerned countries, that we understand
their perspectives on this, and that we come up with a common
approach. And that is what we are focused on.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Secretary Blinken. I
appreciate it.
And, Chairwoman Lee, with that, I would yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I will now yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to have you
here, and thank you for being here.
Let me start just with a statement, and then I have a
couple questions. I want to just say thank you for the $3.3
billion that maintains United States support to Israel. It is
without conditions, and I believe it should be without
conditions, so thank you for that. And I know there will be
another $500,000 in a different budget.
But I have some questions--hopefully I can get to both of
them--in regards to family planning and education. And I have
to say, though I love most of your budget, I am a little
disappointed with this aspect, and I will tell you why.
In terms of reproductive rights, I know--and you probably
know this--that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating
impact on women around the world, especially when it comes to
reproductive rights and health. And the United Nations recently
estimated that, 1 year into the pandemic, 12 million women have
experienced disruptions in their family planning services.
And what made it worse was, under the previous
administration, budget proposals consistently cut global health
funding. And President Trump went even further by reinstating
and expanding the very harmful global gag rule in a way that
crippled global health assistance to women and girls because it
forced clinics around the world to choose between receiving
U.S. funding or providing critical care and family planning
services like access to contraception, HIV prevention, and
maternal healthcare. And we know these are critical health
services.
I am pleased that President Biden has rescinded the global
gag rule. And, although we don't know the full impact of the
pandemic yet, we do know that the United States' leadership in
this arena is important.
I know you had a small increase in bilateral family
planning, but I think and respectfully suggest we need a much,
much robust increase.
So my question to you is, given so much of the unmet need
and what is going on around the world, how do you expect that
we will even make a dent in this unless we put more funding
into international family planning?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And I very much appreciate
the question, appreciate the concern. And I share a lot of that
concern. As you have rightly said, we have seen so much
devastating impacts of COVID-19, but, in particular, women and
girls have been harmed significantly in this in ways that
others have not.
I think part of the answer is that we are taking steps to
resume funding to the U.N. Population Fund. And that is a very
important vehicle for advancing these services to people in
need and to women and to girls. So this is obviously a new
development and one that I hope will make a significant
difference. There is $32.5 million dedicated to that
proposition in the budget.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
Let me get just quickly to another subject, which also is
related to the pandemic. Recent United Nations reporting
estimates that over 11 million girls may not go back to school
after COVID. And that is really sad. But your request, your
administration budget, reduces education funding.
So maybe you could explain that. And, more importantly,
what is the proposed administration efforts to get girls back
into school and stay in school?
Secretary Blinken. There, too, I agree with you, I think
this is vital. And the efforts that we are making to make sure
that there is greater and meaningful access to education are
really vital.
I think that, insofar as the budget goes, I think we have
found that there are ways, including with technology, to do
some of these things even more efficiently and, I hope,
effectively that can also be cost-savers. And so we are looking
at making sure we can do this in an effective way, in an
efficient way.
Having said that, if you think or see particular problems
that we are not effectively addressing or meeting, I would
welcome knowing those, and we can see if there is more that we
can do on that count.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Will do. Thank you so much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now I will yield to Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us here today and
for your service to our country.
I want to preface my questions and my comments by
mentioning that I represent one of the largest Uyghur diaspora
communities in the United States, so their plight is very, very
important to me and my constituents.
I want to talk a little bit what is happening in Xinjiang
and the treatment of Uyghurs and other Turkic ethnic
minorities, because, despite all the recent attention to this
issue, the internment camps are still expanding, products made
with Uyghur forced labor continue to flood our markets, and
stories of rape and forced sterilization in the camps are
growing worse.
And I agree that we should step up the pressure not only on
the Chinese Government but also on global corporations and
institutions that are turning a blind eye toward these gross
human rights violations and even genocide.
Now, I know that the administration hasn't yet made a
decision regarding what to do about the 2022 Beijing Olympic
Games, and I agree with you that it should not be about
politics. But I just don't see how we can go on with business
as usual while the host country is committing genocide. At the
very least, we should be pressuring the IOC to move the Games
and not take a full boycott off the table.
So there is no question right now, but I just want you to
know that this is something that affects people on both sides
of the aisle and that the world is really watching us, and they
are going to be assessing what we do, moving forward.
Now, sticking with the Uyghurs, I am a co-lead on a
bipartisan bill led by Representative Ted Deutch that would
give Uyghurs Priority 2 refugee status, which, as you know,
would give them direct access to the U.S. refugee system and
kind of fast-track them.
Now, we have seen media reports that China is pressuring
Turkey and probably other countries to crack down on Uyghur
dissidents through economic pressure and even threatening to
withhold vaccine from those countries. And Turkey's parliament
is even considering an extradition agreement with China that
would make it easier to extradite Uyghurs.
Is this something that the State Department is keeping an
eye on? And what are you doing to help the Uyghurs in this
situation and work with our third-party allies to ensure that
they are not really susceptible to this pressure?
Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. And thank you for
flagging that, putting a spotlight on it. And I have actually
raised this with my Turkish counterpart.
We have also been very focused on making sure that Uyghurs
who have made it to other countries, that those countries
respect the non-refoulement obligations that they have
internationally and do not send people back to dire
circumstances.
I think, across the board, as you know, we have worked to
build a course of condemnation for what the PRC is doing in
Xinjiang to Uyghurs and other minorities. There have been joint
actions and sanctions, in coordination with the U.K., with
Canada, with the European Union, that China certainly took
notice of, given its reaction.
We are focused, as well, on trying to make sure, to the
best of our ability, that products made with forced labor in
Xinjiang camp don't come here, and we are working to open the
eyes of other countries to that as well.
At the same time, we want to make sure that none of our
companies are, inadvertently or otherwise, engaged in exporting
technologies or products that can be used in any way to
perpetuate the repression of Uyghurs or anyone else.
And all of this is in the works. We continue to look for
ways to bring to bear meaningful pressure on China to change
its practices, to stop the repression of Uyghurs and other
ethnic minorities.
Ms. Wexton. And it seems it is accelerating, unfortunately,
so we have to step it up even more. So thank you.
Now, I understand that the State Department has a number of
useful resources to counter disinformation and misinformation,
and I know a number of those are included in your budget.
Specifically in China, what are we doing to counter the massive
state-sponsored propaganda machine?
Secretary Blinken. Yeah, this is a really important piece
of things.
We have, as you know, the Global Engagement Center, which
is, I think, an increasingly effective vehicle in finding and
sharing and then acting on misinformation and disinformation,
whether it is from China, whether it is from Russia, whether it
is from many places. It has become the premier platform for
sharing information about misinformation and disinformation
with several dozen countries, including some of our closest
allies and partners.
And the budget request reflects the fact that we believe
for the State Department this is an important and increasingly
effective vehicle to deal with that challenge.
Ms. Wexton. I am a big fan of the GEC. And I also think
that Radio Free Asia is one of the best bangs for the buck in
terms of countering disinformation----
Secretary Blinken. Yep.
Ms. Wexton [continuing]. And getting the Uyghur story out
there, so I appreciate your continuing support of it.
And, with that, I will yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
I don't believe Mr. Fortenberry is back yet.
Mr. Fortenberry. I am back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Okay. You have two minutes left, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, what I did hear is that you
are committed to implementing MEPPA--thank you--the Middle East
Partnership for Peace Act. I think it is a critical new
architecture for, again, establishing trust and economic well-
being with continuity, using the best of the private market
system with a little bit of subsidy. So thank you very much for
that.
Let's talk about China and the WHO. There is increasing
concern and a possibility that this may have very well come
from a Wuhan lab. It looks like, obviously, if that was the
case, that there was a massive cover-up by China and the WHO.
I would like to hear your perspective on this and how the
administration is monitoring the developments in this regard,
researching this possibility, and how China will be held
accountable, should the findings point in that direction.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. A couple of things on this.
First, back in March, President Biden instructed the
administration to, on a whole-of-government basis, look into
what we could determine about the origins of COVID-19. And we
had a report come back to us that basically narrowed it down to
two most likely hypotheses--that is, a natural occurrence from
animal to human and coming out of a lab. But it was unable to
conclude with any degree of confidence which, if either, of
those was the most likely.
And that inspired the President, just recently, to ask the
intelligence community to--again, whole of government, bringing
in expertise from the labs, from the National Institutes of
Science, HHS, et cetera--90 days, to do everything we can to
see if we can determine with any greater degree of certitude
where COVID-19 originated.
So that is one piece.
The second piece is WHO. And I think you are exactly right
that, both with regard to WHO and with regard to the PRC
Government, from day one we have seen a tremendous deficit in
meeting the responsibilities that they should have been
meeting, particularly with regard to the government in Beijing.
Transparency, information-sharing, access for experts,
international experts--none of that happened early on and when
it really could have made a difference.
And now, even with the report, the Phase 1 report done by
the WHO, we have deep, deep reservations about the methodology
used and, again, the lack of appropriate access and
information-sharing. And that is why this Phase 2 report needs
to go forward to see if it can actually get to the bottom of
what happened.
If we can't get to the bottom of what happened, it is going
to make it so much more difficult to put in place the measures
that are needed to hopefully prevent and certainly to better
deal with the next pandemic. And that is also profoundly, one
would think, in China's interest.
So I think what you are seeing around the world is a
growing focus, on the need for countries, starting with China,
to step up to their responsibilities. That is what we are
looking for, and that is what the international community is
insisting on. So that is how we are moving forward, both here
in the United States and with the WHO. We need and we are
determined to get to the bottom of this.
Mr. Fortenberry. And then accountability metrics after
that, should the ugly side of this manifest itself?
Secretary Blinken. We need to have accountability.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. I yield now to Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And it is good to see you again, Secretary Blinken. Welcome
to our subcommittee.
I want to align myself with the comments made by my
colleague, Ms. Frankel, on aid to Israel.
I will focus my questions on Central America. Thank you for
visiting the region. I hope to hear more about your recent trip
to Costa Rica and the meetings related to the Northern Triangle
region.
I appreciate you appointing experienced and committed
officials like Special Envoy Zuniga to tackle the issues in the
Northern Triangle region. However, I must stress to you that we
need strong, experienced, and permanent leadership to represent
our values and challenge undemocratic behavior along with
partners in a multilateral forum.
Secretary Blinken, what is the timeline for naming
ambassadors to El Salvador and Honduras?
Ambassador Popp in Guatemala has shown impressive
leadership despite the challenging partnership. How do you
ensure that our ambassadors working in the region are not
pressured and intimidated from the governments and elites, as
we have seen in the past?
And, given El Salvador's recent actions that seem to have
gone against the Democratic Charter, will you prioritize
appointing a permanent representative to the OAS?
Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. I think you are exactly
right. We are determined to have the strongest people in place,
both in those countries and at the OAS.
With regard to El Salvador, as we are trying to work on
getting an ambassador, we asked--and, thankfully, she said
yes--we got Jean Manes back to El Salvador, who is an
extremely----
Mrs. Torres. I cannot celebrate temporary appointments,
sir. I must, you know, demand that we do better. Hopefully, it
will be her, because I understand that she is a true, tried
leader that would do well, but not on a temporary basis. That
is just not acceptable.
Secretary Blinken. No, I agree with you, and we are working
as fast as we can to get people in place. As you know, the
process, including all of the vetting, the confirmation process
is probably not as fast and efficient as all of us would like.
But we are working through it with great determination.
Mrs. Torres. I hope that my colleagues here, my Republican
colleagues, will work with us in a bipartisan way to ensure
that the Senate does everything in their power to prioritize
appointments, ambassador appointments, and confirmations to
this region, as I know that they are so concerned about the
issues that we have seen at our southern border as a result of
public corruption--ingrained public corruption in the region.
I was glad to see USAID suspend aid to the Government of El
Salvador and, instead, reprogram it to civil society. We cannot
give taxpayers' foreign assistance to governments that misuse
it to advance their own interests and act counter to our policy
priorities and goals.
These problems, unfortunately, are not limited to El
Salvador, as you very well know. Guatemala's Constitutional
Court used nontransparent processes to stack the court with
judges who have clear conflicts of interest. The new court
sidelined the only judge willing to fight for the rule of law,
Gloria Porras, as you know.
They have also wasted no time proving its priorities and
reaffirming our fears. It first overturned a ruling to allow a
controversial law targeting civil society to move forward. And,
in the days before the Vice President's visit, the court moved
to dismantle FECI, one of the few remaining effective
independent investigative bodies in the government.
So how do we work with such a country that is doing
everything possible, you know, in their hands in order to work
against progress in the region?
Secretary Blinken. I engaged my counterpart in Guatemala on
exactly those questions and concerns just a few days ago, and I
know the Vice President will be taking them up, as well, during
her visit.
Look, our strong preference is to be able to work with
governments, but if the governments are unable or unwilling to
do what is necessary to be an appropriate partner for the
United States and for our taxpayer dollars, then we will
continue to work with, as we have in the past, with the private
sector, with NGOs and with civil society, with international
organizations and other implementing partners, and with
communities.
And there are many ways of effectively delivering
assistance and support that don't require working with a
government that, for one reason or another, is not going to
effectively use that support to do what we are trying to
achieve, which is to actually help people make meaningful
improvements in their lives.
You know, when I was just meeting with the Central American
Foreign Ministers in Costa Rica a few days ago, one of them
said very eloquently, when it comes to dealing with the drivers
of irregular migration, that we know what they are, and we know
what needs to be done to address them, although it is not like
flipping a light switch. It takes real time, real investment,
sustained. But it is doable. That minister talked about that
there should be, in effect, a right to remain. People should
not be living in conditions where the only rational choice they
have, from their perspective, is to leave everything that they
know behind--families, loved ones, language, culture,
community--to make an incredibly hazardous journey here. And,
of course, our border is not open, so they are going to get
turned back.
We need to find ways to help countries actually give
meaning to the right to remain. And that is, better governance,
fighting corruption, dealing with security, and, especially,
opportunity. If people can put food on the table, if they can
provide for their loved ones, they will make a go of it and try
to build their own communities.
That is what I think we can partner for and with. The
private sector has a critical role to play in this. The Vice
President had a call to action recently to try to get even
further engagement from the private sector. But, again, I want
to emphasize--and you know this better than I do--it is not
like flipping a light switch. It takes a lot of time, a lot of
effort, a lot of focus.
Mrs. Torres. Madam Chair, I yield back. I apologize for
taking longer.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I will yield now to Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary, thank you so much.
I know that corruption and violence and all those negative
aspects of rogue governments don't contribute in any good ways
to the population that they are supposed to service and
represent and will contribute to migration patterns. But, also,
the fact of the matter is that, as a nation, we have turned our
heads away from Latin America and the Caribbean for far too
long.
I think that we have abdicated our leadership in that
region for far too long. We wander all over the globe, and
right back in our backyards we are allowing other countries, in
many cases our competitors and our adversaries, to fill up that
gap of leadership in meaningful, sustainable ways--for example,
with important projects for the development of those regions.
And, of course, with the COVID-19 pandemic, Latin America
has witnessed 30 percent of the deaths--and the Caribbean--
while they only make up 8 percent of the global population.
And, you know, we have given money, and I know that there has
been lots of money allocated. And, finally, the White House
said that they will distribute the vaccine, long after China
has been snooping around and providing help in the region.
So my question is, Secretary: I know that the Department
reported $153 million to Latin America and the Caribbean--
although, as I said earlier, they make up 30 percent of the
deaths--and for fiscal year 2022 you requested close to a
billion dollars. Is there any way that we are going to see an
increase in funding going to those regions that are adversely
affected by COVID-19 so we can compensate for some of the time
lost?
Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate the question, and
I agree with you that we need to be, and we are, focused on our
own hemisphere, on our own region. This is something that
starts with the President, who, as you know, was very much
engaged as Vice President, particularly in Guatemala, Honduras,
El Salvador, also in Colombia, and a number of other countries.
I think with the COVID piece of this, let me just say a
quick word about that. We needed to make sure that Americans
are vaccinated. And we have made, as you know, major, major,
major strides in getting that done. We now have 80 million
vaccines in excess that we are pushing out very deliberately
over the next weeks, between now and early July, and a
significant destination for those vaccines is, in fact, our own
hemisphere, Latin America.
And, once those 80 million vaccines are distributed, we
will have, by a factor of five, shared more vaccines than any
country on Earth, including China. China has sold vaccines in
other places----
Mr. Espaillat. Oh, I understand.
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. But, in terms of actually
sharing them, by a factor of five.
And we are not stopping there. We will continue, as we have
excess vaccines beyond July, making them available. We are
doing it on the basis of equity, of science, of need, working
with COVAX on a lot of this, which has an equitable
distribution model, but also making sure we have in reserve the
ability to target vaccines to the places most in need, where
variants are popping up, where second shots may be needed, et
cetera.
And, as I said, our neighbors are among the most important
beneficiaries of that. I think that is going to have a real
impact. Certainly, I have heard in almost every conversation I
have had, including in the region, this request for help. Help
is now there.
Mr. Espaillat. Good. I am glad. As we know, Mr. Secretary,
this pandemic has cycles, right? And some of those countries
may be in their second cycle of the pandemic. And they have
already lost hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions,
right? So they need that help as quickly as possible.
My second question was regarding the appointment of our
diplomats. And I share my concerns with my colleague, Norma
Torres, that I think that we should expedite the appointments
of those representatives of our nation in that region, in
particular, which is right next-door. The Caribbean is our
third border, and we see what is happening on the border, on
the southern border. And we need to address that, we need to
have folks on the ground that will be able to address this as
quickly as possible.
Finally--well, my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Secretary, for giving time to us.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thanks very much.
Okay. In the interest of time--and, Secretary Blinken, you
have been very generous with your time--I would like to go to 3
minutes per member now, as we go to our second round of
questions.
I will start with this question.
Mr. Secretary, ahead of your visit to the Middle East, I
wrote to you to urge that the Biden administration reset U.S.
relations with the Palestinians, which have suffered enormously
over the last 4 years with policies that marginalize and really
starve the Palestinian people of assistance and fail to address
the underlying conditions that made it harder for Palestinians
to see a dignified future.
So, now that you have returned from the region, could you
update us very quickly on what role the U.S. is playing in the
international reconstruction efforts for Gaza; the realistic
timeframe for donor funds; also, the timeframe for reopening
the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem?
And, finally, as Israel forms of a new government, what, if
any, assurances do you have that the new leadership will work
to deescalate tensions, such as avoiding and displacing
unlawful evictions of Palestinians from their homes or further
settlement and expansion? We all know that this is essential to
the security of Israel also and still believe in a two-state
solution and a path forward for a two-state solution.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
share your perspective and appreciated your communication and
letter. Just a couple of things on this.
One of the main purposes of the trip, besides making very
clear our commitment to Israel's security and ability to defend
itself, was to truly restart our engagement with the
Palestinian people and with the Palestinian Authority.
We had already, before this crisis, as you know, started
the process of restoring humanitarian, economic, and security
assistance consistent with the law. And, on the trip, I was
able both to add to the assistance already provided to account
for what had happened in Gaza as well as on the West Bank and
to start the process of reopening our consulate, which is a
vital platform for us to be able to engage Palestinians from
all walks of life as well as the Palestinian Authority.
So all of that is in progress. There is a process that we
have to go through, in terms of the consulate. I am happy to
share with your office exactly what that is and what the rough
timeframe we expect would be.
Second, the urgency of two things: Gaza humanitarian
assistance, water, electricity, sanitation, sewage, all of
which are in very dire straits as a result of this conflict. So
we are really very much focused both in terms of the resources
that we are providing, the resources we are getting others to
provide, and the work that we are doing to make sure that can
go forward as smoothly as possible. That is an intense focus
for us right now.
After that, we then need to focus on actual reconstruction
and rebuilding, to do it in a way that elevates the Palestinian
Authority and puts it in some pride of place in delivering that
assistance, does not go to Hamas, and is done in coordination
with Israel, Egypt, the United Nations, of course, front and
center. So we are working to put in place the plan, the
mechanism to do that and to meet those different requirements.
Finally, this cycle risks repeating itself if we are not
able to meaningfully address some of the flash points that
could come up going forward, and you cited several of them.
Whether it is the potential evictions of Palestinians who have
been living in their homes for decades, for generations,
whether it is some of the settlement activity, whether it is
the way things were dealt with in the al-Aqsa Mosque, whether
it is violence committed by some of the settler community,
those flash points need to be addressed.
Similarly, incitement to violence coming from Palestinians,
payments made to the families of those who have committed acts
of terrorism, that all needs to be addressed as well.
So our diplomats, our engagement is very focused on trying
to make sure that neither side engages in actions that could
light another spark and turn it into a flame.
Then, I hope that, as we are reengaged, we can start to
build back some greater degree of trust, confidence, start to
meaningfully improve people's lives, and then maybe see
conditions emerge that makes the pursuit of two states more
possible. Right now, the conditions are very challenging for
that.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being very candid
and for your leadership. And, also, I know many of us would
like to continue to work with you on the path forward from this
subcommittee. Thank you.
Now I yield to Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Can we switch to Afghanistan? You have promised the full
weight of American support in the peace talks, if they move
forward. But how can the U.S. help advance a political
settlement without boots on the ground? What sources of
leverage can be employed?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. It is an important question,
and I think there are significant sources of leverage, absent
boots on the ground, that can be and are being used.
There are a number of things that the Taliban says it
wants, to include international recognition; to include, if it
is participating, you know, in governance, international
support. And more in the near term, it is looking for things
like prisoner releases; it is looking for the lifting of
sanctions against its leaders, including at the United Nations.
And all of those things we would have a significant voice in.
Simply put, if the Taliban in any fashion tries to roll
back the gains of the last 20 years, then it will be a pariah.
And I don't think that that is in its interest.
Beyond that, there is another dynamic that is important. A
whole series of countries neighboring Afghanistan and a little
bit beyond Afghanistan, which basically for the last 20 years
have been free-riders on our engagement there, now have to make
very hard decisions about how to sustain their interests and
how to use their influence as we remove our forces. None of
them have an interest in a civil war in Afghanistan and the
instability that would result, including possibly pushing
extremism and drugs outside of the country and toward them. And
so we are very much engaged with virtually all of these
countries and are looking to see how they use their influence.
The final thing I would say, sir, is that, even as we are
withdrawing our forces, we are not withdrawing from
Afghanistan. We are determined to sustain a strong embassy
presence, programs to support Afghanistan, its people, and its
government, economic development, humanitarian, the security
forces. All of that will remain. We are working with other
partners to make sure that they remain as well and that we stay
deeply engaged supporting the government, supporting the
people.
So I think all of those things are important levers that we
can use and build upon.
Mr. Rogers. Quickly, Madam Chairman.
Since 2013, China has been the principal source of fentanyl
flooding the U.S. market through Mexico. In 2019, Beijing
finally cracked down on the supply of fentanyl from China to
the U.S., with China finally enacting new laws prohibiting the
production, sales, and export of those fentanyl-class drugs.
To what extent is China actually enforcing that law?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. We are looking at this very
closely and very carefully, because your point is exactly
right. We have seen progress in actually putting in place laws
and requirements; what we are now focused on is making sure
that it is implemented. And I am happy to come back to you with
our best assessment of that.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
I have been informed that the Secretary has a hard stop at
4:35 East Coast time. So, for those who don't get a question
in, we will be sure to have your questions for the record and
get a response.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your last
two answers, both regarding Afghanistan and also regarding the
Israeli-Palestinian situation and the steps that you have
underway to reverse some of the damage from the last
administration, where diplomatic engagement on the Palestinian
side was essentially stopped and assistance was stopped as
well. You plan to start this assistance up again, both
restoring some of what was withdrawn earlier, as I take it, and
also responding to the needs from the latest conflict.
And I welcome your indication of diplomatic vigilance with
respect to provocations on either side and, certainly,
violence, incitement from the Palestinian side, but also
settlement expansion and evictions and demolitions from the
Israeli side--all of this profoundly unhelpful for the
prospects for peace.
Any elaboration you want to give on that I would welcome.
Your answer to Mr. Rogers with regard to Afghanistan also
is a hopeful response. I hope you are right. I hope you are
right that the diplomatic presence can continue and will be
effective and will offer substantial incentives for the
maintenance of the gains that the Afghan people have made and
that we have made in engaging with their institutions of
governance and other institutions of civil society.
Let me very specifically ask you as you talk about our
presence continuing--how will the shape of our relationship
change, do you think? I mean, surely that will be different,
without the military there.
And, in particular, is there some kind of realistic process
for continuing engagement in governance? You have a good budget
for governance. Is Afghanistan going to be on the agenda?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And, in short, yes. As I
said, we are determined and working very hard on sustaining a
very strong embassy presence and all the programs and
engagement that goes along with that, including engagement with
the Afghan Government in Kabul and including the various
programs to support Afghanistan economically, humanitarian,
development, and the security forces, as well as enlisting
others to make sure that they are doing the same and sustaining
their own support.
As long as we have the platform with the embassy and the
women and men who are incredibly dedicated to this task, then I
think the overwhelming bulk of our programming and support can
go forward and go forward in a way that also provides the
appropriate oversight that is necessary.
So what we are working very hard on right now is putting in
place all of the pieces necessary to do that.
Mr. Price. We want to work with you on that. It is
extremely important.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Price.
Now I will yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Chairwoman, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience. Two questions.
I will try to do them quickly.
You know the challenges that Colombia is facing. They have
been an amazing ally. They have made great progress against
narcoterrorism, but now they are struggling with, you know, the
humanitarian crisis across the border, et cetera. We all know
about the demonstrations that took place.
Do you and your administration support the democratically
elected Duque administration? Can they still count on your
support?
And let me just, if you would allow me, Mr. Secretary, to
pose the second question, since we don't have a lot of time.
In Haiti, the President has announced I guess they are
going to a referendum, a constitutional referendum, in June.
Obviously, many Haitians are concerned that that may not be a
free and fair election.
So what are your thoughts about the upcoming elections and
what potentially the State Department can do to promote
democracy, the rule of law in Haiti, while still ensuring that,
obviously, that crucial humanitarian aid continues to be used
effectively?
So, again, two questions, and I apologize, but we don't
have a lot of time.
Secretary Blinken. Sure. No, I appreciate it.
Quickly on Haiti, we oppose moving forward with the
constitutional referendum. We don't think that can be done in
the timeframe suggested in a way that would make sense and be
truly representative. We are looking to see whether what is
necessary can be put in place to actually go forward with
elections later in the year, but not the constitutional
referendum.
It would be important to get back to more representative
democracy in Haiti and not rule by decree, which is what we
have seen recently. So that is why there is importance to
elections, but they need to be able to go forward in a free and
fair way.
As I think you know, there is an OAS delegation there
almost right now that is looking at all of this. And we can
report back on how that is going.
With Colombia, I couldn't agree with you more. Colombia is
a vital strategic partner for the United States. President
Biden has been deeply engaged with and deeply committed to
Colombia for many, many years, starting with Plan Colombia way
back, then our strong support for the peace process and the
agreement reached with the FARC in 2016, and now. I just had my
friend, the Foreign Minister, and Vice President visiting at
the State Department just a few days ago. And we remain deeply
engaged with Colombia.
The government's important efforts to bring together the
various stakeholders in a real dialogue to address the concerns
and grievances that have been expressed in these protests is
very welcome and, I think, very important. So is his commitment
to look into and provide accountability for any excessive use
of force against people who were protesting peacefully and have
the right to do so.
But we have, as you know, a comprehensive partnership with
Colombia, working on so many different levels, that remains
vitally important to us.
The last thing I would mention is the incredible generosity
of Colombians when it comes to bringing in and supporting their
brothers and sisters from Venezuela, including offering
temporary protective status to them. As you know very well, the
number of refugees is very significant, and yet we have seen
tremendous generosity from Colombians. Part of our budget goes
to humanitarian assistance to make sure we can help Colombia
support the burden that it has taken on.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I will yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
Well, I guess this is my day to unburden my anxiety. First
of all, I just want to say that I am very, very, very worried
about women in Afghanistan, and I hope you are going to do
everything diplomatically possible at your end to help them,
those who have gained their rights, to maintain them and to
keep them safe and secure.
But I have another worry, and that is the rise of anti-
Semitism, not only in our country but around the world. It
seems like every time there is violence in Israel, which, in my
opinion, clearly was caused by Hamas, but we see this rise in
anti-Semitism.
And I am interested to know, what, if any, steps will the
State Department be taking to combat and denounce it?
Secretary Blinken. I very much share your concern. And we
have seen, as you know very well, a significant rise in anti-
Semitism over the last several years and yet another spike,
deeply disturbing spike, now. As just one example, on social
media recently, including in the wake of events in Israel,
17,000 tweets, ``Hitler was right''; attacks that we have seen
here in our own country against synagogues, places of worship,
that are deeply, deeply disturbing. I don't do the domestic
piece, but when it comes to internationally, we are seeing this
in different parts of the world.
We are very focused on this. As a department, we will be
naming an envoy to full-time work on combating anti-Semitism
around the world. That person should be forthcoming very, very
soon. And in virtually, you know, all of our engagements around
the world, when it is necessary and appropriate, this is
something that we are raising, we are putting a spotlight on,
we are bringing up.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I am going to yield, maybe let somebody else
get a question in. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Lee. Thanks very much, Ms. Frankel.
Now I will yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, you made your position known earlier on
this, but, in good conscience, I must make mine known as well.
And this is a sharp division on this committee, but we might as
well put this out in the open, regarding renewed funding for
international organizations involved in the provision of
abortion as well as the U.N. Population Fund.
I believe this is inconsistent with sound diplomacy. It is
a projection of our own ideological divisions on the poor
throughout the world, and it disrespects the cultural norms of
other peoples.
Look, you have made your position known, but, again, good
fences make good neighbors. I don't, obviously, think we are
going to work through this today, but I would like you to be
aware that there are a great deal of sensibilities in this
regard.
In this matter, though, again, getting back to the earlier
question as to how we can work successfully together on
projects that we believe to be of mutual benefit for the entire
world, I believe that regenerative agriculture are real keys to
development diplomacy.
And, in this regard, we have a lot of new ideas brewing,
one of which is building a successful program like Farmer to
Farmer, where we are taking American expertise around specific
technical areas and using people who may not ever be a part of
the Foreign Service or have the time to enter into the Peace
Corps but can provide specialties, in forestry, in
conservation, in diplomacy. [inaudible] Is this idea a
diplomatic corps for enhanced surge capacity when you need it.
Can you work with us? We have got lots of things, some of
which are taking legislative form, and we would love to have
the opportunity
Secretary Blinken. The short answer is, we would welcome
working with you on that. And I agree with you, I think there
is a lot we can do, and I would really welcome getting your
ideas on how we can do that more effectively.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Great.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I yield now to Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Secretary Blinken. I think I am the last
person standing between you and being done after a very long
day, so I really appreciate it.
Ms. Lee. I think we have one more member.
Ms. Wexton. Oh, okay. Very good.
Well, never mind then. You still have a little ways to go.
But I will make it brief.
You know, you recently told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that the State Department has 1,000 fewer employees
than 4 years ago. Is that correct?
Secretary Blinken. It is.
Ms. Wexton. And have those losses been concentrated in any
one area, in the Foreign Service or in the Civil Service side?
Secretary Blinken. Primarily Civil Service.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And I know that that is the result of a
16-month hiring freeze but also is a result of a lot of
attrition during the last 4 years. Is that correct?
Secretary Blinken. That is.
Ms. Wexton. So I was very pleased to see your proposed
budget call for 485 new positions, which aren't really new
positions, are they? They are just rehiring some of the people
that--filling some of the vacancies that we have had.
Secretary Blinken. Yeah. It is a combination. That is
right.
Ms. Wexton. And I am glad that you are going to look to
fill these positions with diversity and inclusion that we
haven't had historically. But how confident are you that we can
meet this goal in the fiscal year?
Secretary Blinken. We are determined to meet it. We need to
meet it. We need to make sure that we are resourced not just
financially but in terms of our human resources to address many
of the things we have had an opportunity to talk about today,
particularly in areas where we really do need to strengthen our
capacity.
Whether it comes to global health; climate; China, where we
have a very significant program to, you know, increase the
human resources dedicated to the different manifestations of
that challenge; emerging technologies; cyber--all of that
demands not just people but a certain amount of expertise as
well. So we are trying to find ways to bring that in, as well
as fill some of these gaps.
We also have about a 10-percent or 12-percent vacancy rate
overseas in our embassies and consulates. Some of that is
seasonal, as people are in between assignments, but we want to
make sure, particularly in places of great importance, that we
don't have gaps.
We have found temporary ways to deal with some of those
gaps, with temporary deployments of people, bringing back
retirees, using eligible family members, for example. But we
also are, for example, with our consular services, because
under COVID there, alas, has been a huge drop in demand for
those services, which we need to build back, we do have some
flexibility there, where incoming officers can be--some can be
shifted to other assignments where we have gaps.
So we are trying to use all these flexibilities, but it is
critical for us to get the support we need to bring in these
additional roughly 500 people.
Ms. Wexton. Well, I wish you great success. And I think
that I speak for the committee when I say that we look forward
to working with you to help you do that. So thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Ms. Wexton. And, with that, I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I know your time is up. I would like to see
if we could just get on the record Mr. Reschenthaler's question
and Mrs. Torres's question, and then----
Secretary Blinken. Certainly.
Ms. Lee. So they will be on the record, and then you could
respond to them----
Secretary Blinken. Certainly.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. In writing.
Ms. Lee. Thank you again.
Okay. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to
yield my 3 minutes to Jeff Fortenberry.
Ms. Lee. Okay.
Mr. Fortenberry, could you just ask the question? Because
we are over time. And then I will----
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. Yield to Mrs. Torres. And we will get
the response.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Yes.
Mr. Secretary, we have States around the country that have
excess vaccines that are going bad. We can help donate those
overseas. I would like you to just find a pathway to help us
get that done.
Secretary Blinken. Got that and will follow up on it. Thank
you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Okay. I yield now to Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Secretary Blinken, again.
I agree with your comments regarding Colombia, and I want
to thank you for addressing our concerns there. They are a very
important anti-narco-trafficking partner with us, so I want to
make sure, you know, that we investigate recent issues
carefully.
I want to continue our conversation around the Northern
Triangle. How does the State Department ensure that U.S.
funding is not misused, politicized, or used against our
interests?
I am particularly concerned about foreign military
financing in the budget, as we have seen the security forces in
the Northern Triangle commit human rights abuses, support
nondemocratic actions, and even intimidate our own embassy.
And I look forward to you addressing this issue in a
written form.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mrs. Torres, very much for
that.
Thank you, members, for helping us with the time, keeping
within the timeframe.
Mr. Secretary, you have been very generous with your time.
Before I close this, I want to call your attention to a
question I plan to submit for the record regarding Nagorno
Karabakh.
Secretary Blinken. Nagorno-Karabakh.
Ms. Lee. Okay, with the State Department, and your recent
decision to extend the waivers to Section 907 of the Freedom
Support Act. And I would appreciate the State Department's
prompt response.
I don't believe our ranking member is still with us, and I
would just like to just say thank you very much for being with
us, on behalf of our ranking member and myself, all of our
members. You have such important work to do. I mean, the world
is in your hands. And we look forward to working with you and
your continued leadership. And if there is anything we can do
to assist you during this process, please let us know.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you so much.
And my only addendum would be to say, I think the world is
in our hands, collectively. And very eager to continue working
very closely with this subcommittee and other colleagues on
this multiplicity of challenges. We are going to be so much
more effective if we are doing it together, and I am determined
to do that.
I really appreciate both the substance of the conversation
today as well as the way it went forward. And I heard a number
of really good ideas that we are going to follow up on, and
look forward to working with you on those.
So thank you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you again.
The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, June 10, 2021.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. JANET YELLEN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs will come to order.
Good afternoon. Good morning for some. I would like to
start by welcoming our distinguished witness, the Honorable
Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury.
We appreciate your time and willingness to testify. And, of
course, I take a lot of pride knowing of your connections, of
course, to Berkeley and the Bay Area, and as professor emeriti
at my alma mater, the University of California at Berkeley. So,
so happy that you are with us today, Secretary Yellen.
Now, this hearing is fully virtual. We must address a few
housekeeping matters first.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute
your microphone.
And let me remind all members and witnesses that the 5-
minute clock still applies during the Q&A.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the
balance of your time.
You will also notice a clock on your screen that will show
how much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock
will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may gently tap
the gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired.
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules,
beginning with the chair and ranking member, then members
present at the time that the hearing is called to order will
then be recognized in order of seniority, and, finally, members
not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Lastly, I may need to step out of the hearing temporarily,
and apologize in advance for having to miss some of the
discussion with the Secretary and my colleagues. However, in my
absence, I have asked Congressman Price to chair the hearing,
and I appreciate Congressman Price agreeing to do this. And I
am sure he will lead a constructive discussion, and I will
return as quickly as possible.
So thank you again for being here this afternoon. And let
me just say I appreciate all of our members being here, and
thank our Secretary for being here as we discuss the Department
of the Treasury's fiscal year 2022 budget request for
international programs.
The Department of the Treasury has a very unique role in
coordinating and facilitating our multilateral partnerships. As
we tackle complex challenges, we need to work with our allies
and partners in a manner that treats our partners as partners
and demonstrates a willingness to listen.
Our contributions to multilateral institutions are signs of
our commitment to support global partnerships in order to
reduce poverty and to build shared prosperity in developing
countries. And this shared prosperity is for all peoples--for
the most vulnerable, for women and children, for those who
identify as LGBTQ+, for indigenous people, and others who are
marginalized and discriminated against.
Our commitments to resolve some of the world's most
challenging problems cannot be accomplished if we don't uphold
fundamental values of racial equity and inclusion within the
very institutions that we participate in. By acknowledging and
respecting our differences and valuing that diversity, we can
foster understanding, spur innovation, and promote
accountability.
Madam Secretary, I will continue elevating this issue and
look forward to working with you on this.
Now, the pandemic has devastated economies, and the World
Bank estimates that an additional 88 million to 115 million
people will be pushed into extreme poverty. The scale of need
is vast, and we must demonstrate our commitment to these people
and countries. Otherwise, the lack of U.S. leadership opens the
door for malign influences from Russia and China that undermine
the systems of governance and entice governments to accept
deals that plunge countries into debt and further poverty. And
so I welcome your insights as to how best to coordinate with
our multilateral partners to mitigate the humanitarian and
economic impacts stemming from this pandemic.
The fiscal year 2022 budget includes $2.5 billion to
address the climate crisis, including a $1.25 billion
contribution for the Green Climate Fund. This is a step forward
in reestablishing United States' leadership and commitment to
combatting an existential crisis that ignites the root drivers
of hunger, strife, and instability, and that undermine the
objectives of the very programs we fund to protect people and
promote prosperity. It demands attention now, and I support the
administration's urgent call to action.
This year's budget also addresses the looming problem of
unmet commitments to international financial institutions,
totaling over $2 billion. Some of these arrears date back to
the 1990s, and we should no longer ignore paying down these
obligations. So I support this administration's recognition
that this is a key priority. How can we be viewed as a credible
partner while continuing to shirk our full financial
responsibility.
Finally, the Treasury Department's Office of Technical
Assistance is an example of how a modest appropriation used
effectively can make outsized impacts. I look forward to
learning more about how the office works with ministries of
finance and central banks in developing countries to strengthen
accountability and transparency by improving the management of
public finances and safeguarding financial sectors.
Madam Secretary, the Treasury Department's international
programs are a very important tool that complement the programs
and activities of the State Department and USAID. As such, it
is important that we use our influence and leadership to build
partnerships and coalitions that collectively seek effective,
long-lasting solutions.
We have many issues to discuss today. I look forward to
your statement and engagement with our subcommittee. But before
turning to you for your statement, let me yield now to our
ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Madam Secretary, welcome to the subcommittee. We look
forward to hearing your testimony on the budget request.
I know you have been hard at work advancing U.S.
international economic policy in preparation for the Group of 7
leaders' summit that will take place in the United Kingdom in
the coming days. So we appreciate your very timely appearance
before the subcommittee.
Madam Secretary, as you know, one area of continuity
between the prior administration and the current one is a focus
on renewed great power competition, particularly with China. As
the Secretaries of State and Defense have acknowledged, China
is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military,
and technological power to seriously challenge the rules-based
international solution.
If we are to ensure that the global balance of power
continues to favor democratic governance, Treasury will need to
play a key role in challenging Beijing's model of authoritarian
capitalism with a more transparent and market-oriented system.
I hope we can discuss the elements of a successful
international economic strategy to counter China in the Indo-
Pacific and beyond, including our ability to offer a meaningful
alternative to Beijing's predatory trade and development
financing.
The Department's budget request for next year is nearly
$3.3 billion for Treasury's international programs. This amount
is a staggering 73 percent increase over the prior year. Key
elements of the request include massive increases in funding to
address climate change, meeting the annual replenishment
commitments of the World Bank, and other multilateral
development banks, as well as the new proposals related to the
International Monetary Fund.
The increase over last year is due in large measure to an
exponential increase in funding for the Green Climate Fund and
its predecessor, known as the Climate Investment Funds, the
latter of which was, in fact, supposed to sunset upon the Green
Climate Fund becoming operational. This seems like the very
definition of duplicative and wasteful spending, especially
when the impact of these funds is questionable.
At a time when American families continue to struggle to
make ends meet and foreign aid is under great scrutiny,
proposing such a significant sum of taxpayer funding for
international climate change programs adds insult to injury.
Finally, there are your requests related to the
International Monetary Fund and the issuance of additional
special drawing rights, an international reserve asset, to all
IMF member countries. As you know, this is a highly
controversial proposal that appears to be at odds with other
administration policies, including efforts to counter the
malign influence of Russia and China.
This plan could result in billions in additional reserves
being sent to the world's most notorious dictatorships and
state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and
China.
Not only does this scheme go against stated goals and
objectives of the White House, but it could also hinder your
Department's efforts to penalize and pressure these malign
state actors through your extensive sanction regimes. Why go to
all the trouble of putting in place and enforcing these
sanctions when your proposal through the IMF could
significantly undercut years of pressure carefully designed to
advance our national interest?
Beyond these criticisms, Madam Secretary, I want to point
out the vagueness of Treasury's IMF-related appropriations
request. It asks the committee to provide $100 million to
finance the cost of a grant or a loan or some unspecified
combination thereof to the IMF's Poverty Reduction and Growth
Fund or perhaps some other unnamed IMF facility. The details
are wholly insufficient.
Your motives may be well intentioned, but acting with speed
is often the enemy of sound policy, and I urge you to reassess
your options and pursue alternative means to provide targeted
and conditional financial assistance to countries suffering
from COVID-related economic distress.
Madam Secretary, I look forward to discussing these and
other issues related to your testimony today. Thank you for
being with us today. Thank you for your service to your
country.
Madam Secretary, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now, I will yield to Madam Secretary Yellen. If you could
please summarize your oral statement in less than 5 minutes. I
want to make sure that we leave enough time to get to our
questions. Your full statement, however, will be included for
the record.
After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was
called to order, alternating between majority and minority
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in the
order of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
Madam Secretary, please proceed. Welcome again.
Opening Statement of Secretary Yellen
Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to join you today.
When I took office, one of my greatest concerns was a K-
shaped recovery from the pandemic, a recovery where high-income
households rebounded quickly or even emerged better off while
low- and middle-income families suffered for a very long time.
We can be confident now that is not going to happen, thanks in
part to your support of the fiscal stimulus in the American
Rescue Plan.
The same, though, cannot be said of the global economy.
Low-income nations haven't had the fiscal space to implement
sweeping relief as we did with the American Rescue Plan. Even
their ability to access vaccines is limited. There are still
roughly two dozen countries, all of them low-income, where more
than 99 percent of the population is unvaccinated.
In some ways, the economic divergence we feared here in the
United States is happening on the world stage. By the end of
the year, COVID-19 might push as many as 150 million people
back into living on less than $2 a day.
America is better off in a wealthier, vaccinated world than
a poorer, unvaccinated one. That is undeniable. It will be much
more difficult, for instance, to address global security
threats, like climate change, if a good portion of the globe
cannot make the effort necessary to green their economies
because they are still dealing with the lingering effects of
the pandemic.
The United States must lead in addressing this global
divergence. The Treasury Department is prepared to be part of
this leadership. We just need the resources.
By now, I am sure you have seen the administration's budget
proposal, and I call your attention to four areas.
The first is funding for international financial
institutions like the World Bank and the African Development
Bank. During the pandemic, they have provided more than $200
billion to help developing countries stay afloat and fight the
virus, including for vaccines. But they require more support,
in part because the United States has not always fully
contributed what it has committed.
We have over $2.7 billion in unmet commitments to
international financial institutions, and this will grow unless
Congress appropriates funding to meet our current-year
commitments and pay down our remit balance.
The second involves low-income country debt. The pandemic
has wreaked havoc on the finances of these nations. And if they
are going to rebuild, many will need to address their debt
vulnerabilities. The United States led in creating the G20 Debt
Service Suspension Initiative, or DSSI, and the Common
Framework for Debt Treatments for precisely this reason. But
now we need to fund both. Without new funding, the United
States could be forced to delay the multilateral debt process
under the Common Framework and charge much higher interest
rates on DSSI debt service suspensions.
Third, our budget includes funding for the IMF's Poverty
Reduction and Growth Trust, an authorization to lend special
drawing rights to it or another appropriate fund. This would be
America's first direct contribution to the Trust, and it will
also help establish a trust fund that would support the
recovery of low- and middle-income countries, as well as
broader economic reforms that will improve the lives of their
people. We are working with the IMF and other international
partners on this.
Fourth, on the other side of the pandemic, we have to help
low-income nations grapple with the reality of climate change,
because that is the only way we will reach net-zero emissions
as a global community. Treasury's request includes roughly a
billion dollars for this purpose. The money is to make sure
that developing countries can adapt to the change in climate,
but it is also to ensure that as these nations continue to grow
and develop, they do so sustainably. Among other things, the
funding would go towards expanding clean energy production and
conserving rainforests, which reduces emissions.
The speed and strength of the world's recovery depend on
the leadership of the United States in general, and I believe
on United States Treasury in particular. I look forward to
working with you to ensure that we can indeed lead in the years
to come.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Let me start
out by asking you a couple questions.
According to the World Bank, the pandemic will push an
additional 88 million to 115 million people into extreme
poverty. Furthermore, the United Nations projects that there
will be nearly a 40 percent increase for humanitarian
assistance and protection in 2021. What is the impact of this
level of poverty and humanitarian need on the economies and
stabilities of low- and middle-income countries?
Secondly, in terms of just the administration's strategy
for combatting the pandemic's global economic impact and
protecting these countries from sliding further into economic
and social instability, I am curious as to how your department
complements the work of the State Department and USAID.
Secretary Yellen. Well, thank you very much for those
questions. It is really a dreadful thing to see the impact that
the pandemic has--has had on low-income countries, and the
World Bank, the IMF, the Asian Development Bank, all of the
multilateral development banks are providing funding, first for
vaccines--their purchase, their deployment, protective
equipment. They are providing emergency budget support, cash
transfer programs, credit to the private sector, help for food
security, technical assistance, trade finance.
The total amount of support is impressive. I believe it is,
for all of those things, around $85 billion to the end of 2020,
since the pandemic began. And they plan to and we will work
with them to continue to provide support this year.
The pandemic is having a very adverse effect, obviously, on
the economic situation in many of the affected countries. As I
mentioned in my opening statement, we have considerable fiscal
space to address its impact, and, unfortunately, many low-
income countries do not.
Many of them are also mired in debt and unable to meet
their debt service burdens. So it has been high priority for us
to help them address these debt service burdens that are--have
become unsustainable, to provide support to them for debt
restructuring where that is necessary.
And I think we have encouraged all those countries that
can. This was a message I sent to the G7 and to the larger G20,
that we need to use the fiscal space we have to boost recovery,
which will spill over positively to them. So we are trying to
help both directly and indirectly.
Ms. Lee. I ask you just as it relates to corruption, we all
know that corruption really metastasizes within people and
institutions, and so I am pleased that the Biden-Harris
administration has come out in front to tackle corruption head-
on.
So, Madam Secretary, how is Treasury combatting global
corruption through its bilateral programs and multilateral
partnerships, and what does coordination across agencies look
like?
Secretary Yellen. Well, combatting corruption is one of the
key priorities of President Biden, and we are working to
achieve that in a whole-of-government effort, certainly with
the State Department, and it is a priority in all of the work
that we do bilaterally.
The support that we give, for example, through our Treasury
programs is directed toward shoring up government institutions,
combatting corruption, aiding transparency. All of these things
are really necessary for countries to be able to support their
citizens and attract private investment.
And in our role with the multilateral development banks and
the IMF, we have exactly the same approach. And we monitor
projects that are approved very carefully to try to make sure
that they address corruption and certainly do not sanction or
promote it.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Now I will yield to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, it is little noted, really, but the
epidemic that is going on inside the pandemic is opioids. The
flow of fentanyl and other opioids into the country has been
phenomenal in these last few months. In fact, the only data
that I can really point to definitively is the CDC's statement
that there were 90,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months
ending in September 2020. Seventy percent of those are opioid
related. So this epidemic is killing Americans at an alarming
rate, and it is getting worse by the day.
Under your leadership, what priority does the Department
place on combatting transnational criminal organizations,
Chinese drug kingpins, and other foreign fentanyl suppliers who
are engaging in the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic
opioids and the laundering of proceeds from such illegal sales?
Secretary Yellen. Thank you so much. That is a very
important question and concern.
Treasury considers fentanyl and synthetic opioids an
immediate threat to U.S. national security, to our economy, and
to productivity. This year, Treasury has met and briefed the
bipartisan U.S. Opioid Commission on our activities, and that
would particularly include sanctions against synthetic opioids.
You mentioned the Kingpin Act authority. And under that
authority, Treasury has designated and will continue to
designate foreign traffickers of fentanyl and other synthetic
opioids in their network--their networks with prioritized
targeting of fentanyl trafficking by putting really significant
investigative resources on this problem. And we focus our
efforts against actors in the illicit fentanyl trade because we
see them as vulnerable to sanctions. It is a place where
sanctions works.
This is a matter where Treasury very much values our
partnership with Congress, and look forward to working with you
closely on this critical issue.
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you for that.
Drug traffickers and consumers increasingly use what is
called the dark web to buy and sell their deadly wares, often
paired with online payment systems and virtual currencies to
further make anonymous fentanyl purchases and distributions.
How is Treasury and your interagency partners working to
counteract these criminal techniques?
Secretary Yellen. Well, I mean, that is a core part of our
sanctions regime that we--we focus on all the different mediums
by which these illegal payments occur. And we are certainly
aware of the use of the dark web and cryptocurrencies and so
forth to facilitate these payments. We are focused on that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I appreciate that, and I wish you well in
this corner of your responsibilities. It is an indeed
troubling, dangerous phenomenon that is occurring and taking
Americans' lives, and you are in a position of great importance
in this fight, and we thank you for your dedication to it, wish
you good luck in that effort, and Godspeed.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you very much, Congressman Rogers.
Much appreciated.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I yield.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price for his questions.
And, also, I will pass the gavel to Mr. Price while I step away
for a few minutes. Thank you again.
Mr. Price [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome, Madam Secretary, to the subcommittee. We
appreciate your service and certainly your appearance before us
today.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
Mr. Price. I want to focus on the international financial
institutions. The Biden administration has announced its
determination to not only take the U.S.' seat at the table, so
to speak, but to actually bring more proactive leadership to
this space and in these multilateral financial institutions, so
I would like to ask you for a progress report on that in
general. How have you shifted the U.S. engagement compared to
the previous administration and how have the other countries
responded?
You have begun to answer the question in your opening
statement, and so let me just ask you more specifically the
impact of the focus on climate change.
There was a Presidential executive order on January 27,
very early in the administration, on tackling the climate
crisis, and it had these interesting words with respect to your
office. You were charged with developing a strategy--and I am
quoting--``developing a strategy for how the voice and the vote
of the U.S. can be used in international financial
institutions, including the World Bank Group and the IMF, to
promote financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and
debt relief initiatives that are aligned with and support the
goals of the Paris Agreement.''
And, of course, that followed on a U.S. reentry into the
Paris Agreement.
What are the implications of this? Does this have an
impact, for example, on the kind of appointments we are likely
to see to the key U.S. positions in these institutions? What is
the range of implications that this has for our participation,
especially compared to what that participation has looked like
in the past? I wonder if you have a tentative progress report
to offer us today.
Secretary Yellen. Sure. I would be happy to do that. Thanks
for this question.
You know, in my view and in the President's view, the
United States and the world face a very profound climate crisis
that we are committed to addressing. And part of the plan
beyond what we are doing domestically is to substantially
increase overall U.S. climate finance to developing countries
to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also to take
the remediation measures that will be needed for them to avoid
the most catastrophic impacts of the crisis.
So we are very focused on working through the IMF, through
the World Bank, and through the various climate funds--the
Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the
Climate Investment Funds. All of these funds provide support to
help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions, build resilience to climate change, and, in the case
of the Global Environment Facility, address other challenges.
Just to give you an example, we clearly have asked in this
budget request for an increase in resources to these funds, a
substantial additional contribution to the Green Climate Fund
and the Climate Investment Funds, to be able to provide
meaningful support to developing countries to achieve these
goals.
We are working with the World Bank to make sure--and the
IMF and multilateral development banks, to make sure that their
objectives, operations, and goals are aligned with the Paris
Agreement.
We are working in other international fora, particularly
with the G7, the G20, to ensure that combatting climate change
is integrated into their work plans. Treasury agreed to colead
a working group of the G20 on sustainable development and
finance. We are doing that jointly with China to promote global
cooperation around climate change.
And I would say--you mentioned the change in approach, and
I would say that most countries express great appreciation for
the involvement that the United States is showing in engaging
actively in all of these matters.
Mr. Price. I would think that one of the implications of
the shift you are talking about would be the need for very
carefully considered appointments so that we have the expertise
that is required in the people on the ground to actually move
in these areas.
Secretary Yellen. Treasury has set up a climate hub to
marshal some resources and make sure that what we are doing is
well coordinated within Treasury and across the government. And
we are focused on appointing people with expertise and
dedication on these matters.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your willingness to serve.
Yesterday, the Treasury Department announced sanctions on
individuals associated with the most recent crackdown of the
political opposition in Nicaragua, and I thank you for that,
Madam Secretary, and obviously urge you to continue America's
leadership in maintaining pressure on these anti-American
dictatorships and regimes in our hemisphere. Thank you for
that.
Let me shift to, again, a neighbor next door to Nicaragua,
close to Nicaragua. The Trump administration imposed very
strong sanctions against more than a hundred Venezuelan
individuals as well as the banking sectors; Petro digital
currency; industries involved in corruption, human rights
abuses, drug trafficking, and also, again, hurting the
democracy in Venezuela.
They also sanctioned, by the way, some Russian entities or
entities tied with Russia, including a couple of ships--oil
ships, including, some corporations like AVITAL Finance, which
is a Venezuelan-Russian entity.
Do you intend to maintain these sanctions and to continue
to aggressively identify those subverting democracy in
Venezuela or are hurting, you know, human rights, and, again,
impose tough sanctions, continue the enforcement against those
who already have the sanctions, and potentially even have
additional sanctions against those that violate human rights in
Venezuela?
Secretary Yellen. Absolutely committed to that, Congressman
Diaz-Balart. There is a humanitarian crisis going on with
Venezuela, and it is really driven by the Maduro regime's
corruption and repressive policies and economic mismanagement.
We have an active and committed program of sanctions there. We
have worked hard to ensure at the same time that humanitarian
goods can reach the people of Venezuela who need food,
medicine, and the like.
We have very broad sanctions in place and continue to work
to refine and calibrate our approach.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that. And obviously count on
me as one--if you think we can be helpful in any way.
Let me shift to stay in the same hemisphere. The Trump
administration also imposed tough sanctions, prohibiting
transactions with the Cuban military, the same Cuban military
that, according to the OAS Secretary, says that they are--
basically has an army of occupation in Venezuela that we just
talked about; also sanctioned Cuban operatives involved in
human rights abuses.
Do you support these sanctions as well, and will you
continue to enforce them and provide this subcommittee with
updates on enforcement actions? And, again, will you be looking
for others to also sanction like you just said you would do in
Venezuela and, by the way, you are already starting to do in
Nicaragua?
Secretary Yellen. So it is absolutely Treasury's role to
administer and enforce sanctions, and OFAC is doing that with
respect to the Cuban assets control regulations that is
consistent with legislation and the administrative policy.
I would say more broadly, though, that the administration's
policy with respect to Cuba is under review. Whatever comes out
of that, Treasury will play the role that we are assigned to to
implement policy. And, certainly, we are actively implementing
sanctions.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I get that. Again, obviously you
have expressed strong support for the sanctions against the
human rights violators in Nicaragua, and I appreciate that. You
have expressed support for the sanctions against human rights
abusers in Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Do you support, again, sanctioning human rights abusers or
sanctions against the military and intelligence services and
those who deal with human trafficking in Cuba?
Again, you know, that is pretty consistent, right? I mean,
if you support the other two, I would assume--but I don't want
to put words in your mouth, Madam Secretary--that you would
also strongly support those on Cuba as well. Would you not?
Secretary Yellen. Well, Congressman, this is a matter that
our relations with Cuba--that the State Department and others
are reconsidering. And, of course, I agree with you that
corruption and repression are things that the United States is
opposed to, but there is a broad review of Cuba policy, and I
don't want to try to----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure.
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Get ahead of that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No [inaudible] Madam Secretary, but do you
see any less corruption, abuse of human rights, any of the
issues that we already talked about in Nicaragua? Do you see
that being any less aggressive by the Cuban regime than the
other two countries?
Again, I have never understood--and not on your part. I am
not--because I understand what your role is, but I have just
never understood this double standard.
Secretary Yellen. I must say it is hard for me to--I am not
sufficiently knowledgeable about the details to offer you that
comparison.
Mr. Price. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I look forward to----
Mr. Price. Ms. Frankel is recognized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hello, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being with us.
I think we all know that the pandemic has had an especially
disproportionate impact on women, not only here domestically,
but around the world. In fact, there was a recent World
Economic Forum report that said the pandemic has increased the
global gender gap by a generation, which means now that--this
is sort of ridiculous. Women must wait for gender parity to
close the gender gap. It jumped from 100 to 136 years. So it
wasn't really good before, right?
So the question is: Can you highlight some of the aspects
of your budget request that will help advance women around the
world, and especially those in developing countries?
Secretary Yellen. As you noted, the pandemic has had a
disproportionately negative effect on women in the United
States and all around the world, and we are supporting relief
efforts from the pandemic all around the world, especially in
the lowest-income countries, very actively through aid of the
type I have discussed--vaccine distribution, economic aid, debt
relief. And the favorable impact of that will accrue
disproportionately to women.
But, beyond that, we have worked with the multilateral
development banks and with the IMF in--over a number of years
now to focus more heavily on women's issues and women's
empowerment. It is something that Treasury, as a shareholder in
those institutions, has pushed to do to have a focus on women's
issues and women's security in the area of health, particularly
to focus specifically on women's health issues. And I think
some progress is being--is being made. It certainly is a focus
of our work with those institutions.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
I think we are all here--were alarmed by, again, the recent
violence between Israel and Hamas. And I to make it clear,
there is no equivalency between the two. Hamas is a terrorist
organization. And though I definitely support relief--
humanitarian relief to Palestinians as long as the relief is
not used in a terrorist or negative way.
I would like to know, what role does the Treasury
Department play in implementing sanctions or to limit support
to Hamas, or what role could you play?
Secretary Yellen. Well, we do play an important role there.
Hamas has been designated as a target of the U.S. Government
Counter Terrorism Sanction programs. We prioritize targeting
Hamas and their supporters, including operational and political
leadership, operatives, financiers, investors, and key global
procurement networks.
We have targeted a large number of Hamas-affiliated
individuals and entities around the globe, and that includes a
host of charities around the world that have served as critical
fundraising mechanisms.
We also work closely with our jurisdictions that are
vulnerable to Hamas' illicit financial networks. That includes
partners in the Gulf we have--we have worked with them to
improve their anti-money laundering and countering the
financing of terrorism frameworks. We provide assessments of
the state of Hamas' finances and work with foreign partners as
well on sanctions designations.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you so much for appearing with us
today. We appreciate your time.
Madam Secretary, the World Health Organization's
credibility is on the line. When the virus--the pandemic first
hit, the reports or the theory that this was leaked out of the
Wuhan lab were roundly dismissed by experts. Now we have some
credible intelligence that we shouldn't be so fast to dismiss
that theory.
But, again, the World Health Organization is entangled in
this as well. And given that you oversee funding to them, what
are you doing to engage with the World Health Organization, the
WHO, to clarify what it knew and when regarding the growing
evidence that the virus may have leaked from the Wuhan lab?
Secretary Yellen. Congressman, I think we are not directly
involved in that investigation where--in overseeing the World
Health Organization. I mean, we do a lot of work on health
through our representation in the World Bank and the IMF and
others, but we are not directly involved with the World Health
Organization.
I am certainly aware of the point that you made, and I know
President Biden has asked for an investigation into what
happened in that episode, but I think we are not directly
involved in that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for
clarifying that.
Let me speak to you as well about China on another topic.
China is, by far, largest creditor to low-income countries
across the world.
Now, are you aware how much China gives in direct
humanitarian assistance and payments to multilateral funds to
which they belong? The United States, just on humanitarian
assistance, gives away about $25 billion, and China's
development strategy, frankly, is this: It is predatory
lending, it is resource extraction, and it is payment to
authoritarian regimes.
So, in that regard, are you working to assure that U.S.
funds and other multilateral funds are not being used by debtor
nations to pay off Chinese debt? This would be an indirect
subsidy to Chinese debt obligations by the United States and
others.
Secretary Yellen. Well, I think that is a real concern, and
it is one that we have, particularly in the context of our debt
relief programs, that we have arranged the debt suspension
initiative and the Common Framework, which is a framework for
reducing--writing off some debt that is unsustainable for very
low-income countries.
So, we have spoken with China about their participation.
They have promised to participate as equal partners in these
debt frameworks. We would be very concerned to see resources
that are provided to these countries used to repay Chinese
debt. That would defeat the purpose of the programs.
There are entities within China that do lending that have
not fully participated in these efforts, and that concerns us
and we have spoken to the Chinese about it. But this is a very
valid concern, and it is one where, looking through--you know,
transparency is also an important way of ensuring that funds
aren't misused.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I appreciate your sensitivity to
this. It sounds like we need better parameters around it, that
we are at the sort of the beginning of this question, and then
putting an--rather, an implementation process to ensure that
our subsidies to multilateral funds or assistance aren't going
to pay off Chinese debt. That is egregious.
Let me turn to the other question, though. Are you aware of
how much China gives in humanitarian assistance and to the
multilateral funds that we all belong to?
Secretary Yellen. They certainly contribute. I don't have
any figures on that in front of me.
Mr. Fortenberry. I think that is the point, is we need a
baseline on this because, again, China has this hybrid
capitalistic, communistic system that has caused grievous
concerns around the world [inaudible] Resource exploitation,
lacks labor standards, lacks environmental standards, and then
tries to achieve leadership positions in the very funds that go
to clean up its messes many times. That is the point.
Maybe we can return to it, Madam Secretary. Thank you.
Secretary Yellen. It is an important issue. I agree with
you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mrs. Torres
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
And good afternoon, Secretary Yellen. Thank you for being
with us today.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
Mrs. Torres. As you are aware, I am deeply concerned about
democratic backsliding and blatant disregard for the rule of
law in the Northern Triangle of Central America. And as an
appropriator, I feel strongly that we must ensure our U.S.
taxpayers' dollars help the people and do not go against our
policy objectives. We cannot directly or indirectly prop up
wannabe dictators and allow these loans to support their attack
on democracy.
Looking to El Salvador, in April of 2020, the IMF approved
El Salvador's request for emergency financial assistance of
about 389 million U.S. Dollars under the rapid financing
instrument to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. That is not a small
sum of money.
The emergency assistance came from the commitment from El
Salvador's government--and I quote--remain committed to
strengthen competitiveness by improving the business
environment, reduce public debt, combat corruption, and
strengthen the financial supervision and regulatory framework
and the governance and anti-money laundering, counter-financing
of terrorism frameworks.
The staff report also notes that the President assigned the
International Commission Against Impunity in El Salvador, also
known as CICIES, to inspect the COVID-19 emergency funds and
nominated a committee in charge and accountable for
administering the fund.
Unfortunately, El Salvador's newly installed Attorney
General canceled CICIES after that body referred 12 cases of
potential corruption and procurement fraud to the former
Attorney General, including misuse of funds for COVID relief
purchases by the Ministry of Health. This was after the
legislative assembly already passed a law granting immunity for
COVID-related contracts.
So, my questions are: Has your team and your colleagues at
the IMF seen reports from CICIES on how this money was spent
per the commitment that was made? And, if not, will you be
requesting these reports and additional information? And given
recent developments and the government's clear efforts to avoid
accountability and shield corrupt, are you confident that this
money was spent as intended?
Secretary Yellen. So you have asked a question that I need
to do some research in order to give you a satisfactory answer.
I mean, I am certainly aware of the money that went to El
Salvador. It was, as I understand it, mainly intended to help
with COVID-19 and as budget support to strengthen fiscal
reforms.
I am not knowledgeable about all of the details that you
just gave, and I would be glad to get back to you or have my
staff meet with you to review the situation.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you very much.
I do appreciate you following up in--from our last meeting.
I had a briefing with your folks, ensuring that we are
utilizing all the tools at our disposal to file sanctions
against corrupt individuals. That has to be a priority. When 70
cents of every dollar spent in the region, you know, goes to
corrupt hands, we must be eyes wide open at ensuring that we
are protecting this money.
With that, I hope that we have a second round, Madam Chair.
I yield back.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
Ms. Lee [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Mr. Price, thank you very much for steering our very
important committee hearing and for your leadership. Really
appreciate you filling in for us.
Mr. Price. Certainly. Glad you are back.
Ms. Lee. Now I yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I appreciate
it and good to see you back. I appreciate it.
So, as everybody knows, the Biden administration supports a
$650 billion allocation to IMF member nations for special
drawing rights. These are, as you know, Secretary Yellen, known
as SDRs. This funding is decided as aid to low-income countries
that--I am sorry. This aid is disguised as aid to low-income
countries, but the money actually goes to support nations
carrying out genocide, terrorism, and even war crimes.
Secretary Yellen, you and I are in agreement on SDRs. You
were quoted as saying that SDRs are, and I quote, an extremely
inefficient way to deliver foreign aid since the money goes
mostly to G20 countries that have no need for this, end quote.
So, Secretary Yellen, my time is limited. Yes or no, would
a new allocation of SDRs, could that money be sent to countries
like China or Russia?
Secretary Yellen. Those countries will receive allocations,
but it is very unlikely that either country will use the
allocation. Russia----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, I am going to reclaim
my time.
So, yes, China and Russia will get an allocation. We can
talk about recycling later.
But now, yes or no, if sanctions are removed from Iran,
U.S. taxpayer dollars could be used--could be sent to the
Iranian regime with SDRs, right?
Secretary Yellen. I am sorry. Could you say that again?
Mr. Reschenthaler. If sanctions on Iran are removed, if the
sanctions are removed, U.S. taxpayer dollars could go to
support the Iranian regime through SDRs.
Secretary Yellen. I mean, Iran is a net holder of SDRs but
to use them, they would need to find a country that is willing
to supply them with hard currency and----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Sure.
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. And U.S.----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Reclaiming my----
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Countries would not do that.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Reclaiming my time. I am sure the
Chinese would make an exception to Iran.
Yes or no, these SDRs will benefit Burmese generals with
millions of dollars in foreign aid following their military
coup and slaughter of innocent people. Yes or no?
Secretary Yellen. No. Burma will not be able to use its
SDRs. When the government has taken power by force, the IMF
will not transact with it unless a majority of IMF shareholders
say they recognize----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, reclaiming my time.
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. The government----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. And that hasn't happened.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, from my understanding,
there are no conditions on SDRs. So, because there are no
conditions, this money could go to the generals that committed
a coup, and it could go to other nefarious actors.
Secretary Yellen. They will not be able to access them
unless a majority of IMF shareholders say that they recognize
the Burmese Government, and that has not happened.
Mr. Reschenthaler. But it----
Secretary Yellen. They will not be----
Mr. Reschenthaler. It is----
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Allowed to do it.
Mr. Reschenthaler. It is possible additionally SDR
allocation could go out to bail out financially mismanaged
countries like Lebanon, for example. Yes or no?
Secretary Yellen. I am not sure of the situation with
Lebanon, but countries get----
Mr. Reschenthaler. I can tell----
Secretary Yellen. SDRs allocations----
Mr. Reschenthaler. I can tell you, Secretary Yellen, the
money will all go to Lebanon.
Yes or no, American adversaries alone will receive more
money than low-income countries through the SDR allocation,
correct?
Secretary Yellen. Well, the lowest income countries will
get about $21 billion worth of SDRs and emerging markets and
developing countries, excluding China, will get about a third
of the allocation or about----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, you said--so low-
income countries will actually get less than 10 percent of this
money. As you just said, they will get $21 billion. Our
adversaries will get collectively $68 billion. Even if you take
out China in that calculation, this will greatly--this will
greatly enhance our adversaries and other G20 actors that,
frankly, don't need the money.
Are you aware that you would need congressional approval to
allocate anything above $650 billion of SDRs?
Secretary Yellen. I can't remember exactly what the cutoff
is, but yes.
Mr. Reschenthaler. And do you think that is maybe why that
you are trying to do--be under $650 billion, so that you can
push this money out without congressional approval?
Secretary Yellen. Well, we try to evaluate what the global
reserve needs are, and we work with the IMF to do that, and----
Mr. Reschenthaler. So----
Secretary Yellen. For----
Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. You are telling me we are
borrowing money, we are sending it to our adversaries, we are
sending it to mismanaged countries that mismanagement--
mismanage their budgets, we are sending it to G20 countries
that don't need it, all so your administration does not need
special approval to do a special allocation. Is that correct?
Secretary Yellen. Well, it is almost a costless thing to do
to allocate SDRs. In the first instance, there is no cost at
all. And if we agree to exchange SDRs for hard currency for a
country that comes to us and we are not obligated to do that--
--
Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen----
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. But if we do it----
Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. Even the Wall Street
Journal calls this monetary alchemy. There is a true cost. If
there weren't a true cost and it was neutral, we would just
give trillions and trillions of dollars out. The reason there
is a true cost is, if we are lending this money at, let's say,
2.3 percent interest, over 30 years and interest rates spike,
which the yield rates probably will spike, we will lose the
opportunity----
Secretary Yellen. We receive interest. We pay interest on
issuing Treasury debt. We receive interest from countries that
acquire the SDRs. So it is----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary, you are--you are not counting
for risk of----
Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Loss----
Mr. Reschenthaler. You are not--with respect, you are not
counting for--you are not counting for risk, which these
countries could default. You are also not accounting for--
Secretary Yellen. It is not----
Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. The yield--steep yield
curve with inflation. With all due--even The Wall Street
Journal called----
Ms. Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. This monetary alchemy.
Ms. Lee. I need to yield now to Ms. Meng.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you, Secretary.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
Madam Secretary, it is an honor to have you here today and
thank you so much for your work. I have a few questions and I
will try to be respectful and allow you time to actually answer
these complex questions that members on both sides of the aisle
are asking, knowing that ``yes'' or ``no'' won't suffice.
So my first question is about Hezbollah financing. While
programs to combat terrorist financing are funded through FSGG,
I did want to take a minute to ask about Hezbollah's financing,
particularly using cryptocurrency. In August 2020, the
Department of Justice announced the seizure of 300
cryptocurrency accounts--including 150 that laundered funds to
and from accounts of Hamas' al-Qassam Brigade.
Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reported Hamas has
seen a surge in cryptocurrency donations since early May. The
report cited a Hamas official who admitted that cryptocurrency
is becoming a larger proportion of the group's revenue.
I wanted to ask what steps the Department of the Treasury
is taking to address the growing threat of terrorist financing
through cryptocurrencies and other digital assets, and how will
innovations in technologies in the financial industry,
particularly cryptocurrencies, impact transnational terrorist
groups and plots against the U.S. and our allies?
Secretary Yellen. Well, cryptocurrencies are often used by
illicit actors who are trying to escape detection in moving
funds, and so it does pose challenges, but a core part of
Treasury's mission is to impede and immobilize funds when
sanctions are in place. We have sanctions targeting Hamas and
Hezbollah and their supporters, and we have designated a large
number of Hamas and Hezbollah individuals and so-called shadow
bankers that have helped Hezbollah move money, particularly
through the Lebanese financial system. And, while
cryptocurrency has posed challenges, this is the core work of
Treasury and its sanction regimes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I wanted to ask, switching gears, a different question,
about the climate plan, the directive announcing $20 billion
from the administration to develop an Amazon climate financing
plan for an important forest region of our world. As you know,
tropical and intact forests play a critical role in both
mitigating carbon emissions and adapting to the ecological
disruption from climate change and biodiversity loss. What
progress has the administration made in developing a climate
finance plan for a tropical and intact forest in the Amazon,
the Andean Amazon, five forest regions of Central America, and
elsewhere?
Secretary Yellen. I probably have to get back with you on
details on that, Congresswoman. I can tell you that our
Tropical Forests and Coral Reef Conservation Act is something
that we have been using to enable countries that are eligible
to redirect debt payments to support tropical forest and coral
reef systems. I know we have a number of agreements. We are
really running out of areas where we can expand where we have
official bilateral debt.
But maybe I can get back to you with more details on what
we are doing in some of the countries that you asked about.
Ms. Meng. Great. And in addition, you mentioned the
Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act. Would love to
hear about some of the timelines on completing negotiations on
the different swaps in the pipeline.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Okay. Madam Secretary, I believe you have a hard stop at
3:30 eastern time.
So I am going to ask members to comply with our 3-minute
timeframe so that everyone can get in a second round of
questions at 3 minutes.
I will start, Madam Secretary, by just asking about the
budget request to pay down U.S. unmet commitments to various
international financial institutions, which total over $2
billion. These arrears damage U.S. credibility and really cede
influence to countries like China and Russia. So I would like
to just know what the plan is for catching up with our payments
and why prioritizing paying down these arrears now with these
funds could support other programs such as food security,
global health, and what have you. So we would like to hear your
take on that. Thank you very much.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee.
We believe that sustained U.S. leadership can only occur if
other countries know that we meet our commitments, and we
currently have $2.7 billion worth of unmet commitments. Some of
that dates back to the 1990s, and really what we have seen over
many years is that these unmet commitments just undermine our
credibility and the role that we could play in leadership. So
we have requested a start. We have requested $489 million to
reduce the unmet commitments we have.
We are focusing the paying down of unmet commitments to
IDA, to the African Development Fund, and to the Asian
Development Fund, which are the concessional arms of
multilateral development banks that really go toward helping
the poorest countries that are in need. And when we make these
payments of previous commitments, they immediately enhance the
ability of these banks to fund projects in the poorest
countries. So they are augmenting the resources that are
available for those purposes.
We hope in future years to pay down further unmet
commitments but we think that this is a reasonable start and
moves us in the right direction.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I will just ask this question. You don't need to respond,
so I can yield to Mr. Rogers, but I am curious about the
Treasury's role in helping to advance the sustainable
development goals through our multilateral partnerships. And so
I am going to, offline or in a written response, written
question, ask you to respond to that question.
Thank you again.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Ranking Member Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, the United States has not contributed to
the Green Climate Fund since 2017 and the fund has not been the
subject of extensive oversight in Washington since that time. I
understand that funding for the U.S. contribution is intended
to come from both Departments of State and Treasury. Which
agency will oversee the fund, and how is that oversight
conducted and with what degree of regularity and specificity
are the results shared with this committee?
Secretary Yellen. So, in this year's budget request, the
administration has asked for $625 million on behalf of Treasury
for the Green Climate Fund and an equal amount on behalf of
State Department. So the total request for the Green Climate
Fund is divided between Treasury and State and, you know, we
work closely with the Green Climate Fund. We have an
outstanding commitment to the fund. In 2014, the United States
pledged $3 billion to the fund. We believe strongly in the work
that they do and that it is the centerpiece really of providing
impactful and innovative climate finance to the world's poorest
and most vulnerable countries, and we conduct oversight in
connection with our contributions to the fund.
Mr. Rogers. What I am wanting to know is: Who is going to
oversee that fund we can turn to ask questions? Is it State or
is it Treasury or----
Secretary Yellen. We do it jointly with State where we
jointly represent the United States and the fund, Treasury and
State.
Mr. Rogers. What steps have been taken to strengthen
transparency, accountability, anticorruption, public oversight
in this climate finance governance?
Secretary Yellen. Well, there have been issues that have
risen in connection with the governance of the fund and
management shortcomings, and, you know, we have worked with
other board members and management to try to address issues
that have arisen. The executive director has replaced, over the
last year, the head of human resources, hired an ombudsperson,
and we have been active with other members of the board to look
for those management improvements.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I yield.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, I am happy for the chance to ask you
another question. I promise you I will not demand a yes-or-no
answer. It seems to me that kind of tactic--we have just seen
the demonstration of how unhelpful that is at a hearing
involving complex questions. I will share with you what I have
sometimes said to people who demand such an answer in my town
meetings. I have said to them, ``If you don't tell me how to
answer the question, I promise you I won't tell you how to ask
it.'' Keep that in mind. That occasionally works, not always.
So, about the health work of these international financial
institutions, I would like to give you a chance to elaborate on
that. I wonder what your assessment might be in general of the
international financial institution's response to the pandemic.
Have some been more successful than others in their response?
Have they coordinated it successfully?
I am particularly interested in vaccine distribution, and
maybe the World Bank is the appropriate focal point here. Are
there additional steps the World Bank should be taking to
financially support COVAX? What additional steps could they
take in coordination, of course, with USAID, Gavi, and the
World Health Organization? What are some additional steps that
might help us make sure that low-income countries are prepared
to deliver large numbers of vaccine doses later this year?
Secretary Yellen. So we have worked very closely with the
World Bank and the multilateral development banks to address
the impact of the crisis and particularly to make sure that
funding is available for vaccine purchase. The World Bank is--I
can't give you the exact figure, but I believe the World Bank,
the Asian Development Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank
have collectively provided over $20 billion for the purchase of
vaccines. They have worked collaboratively with COVAX. Their
support programs go beyond vaccine purchase to PPE,
distribution of vaccines, and other medical supplies. So there
has been a joint effort to provide vaccines, to speed the
delivery of vaccines.
And the World Bank is also beginning to provide critical
financing for vaccine manufacturing as well. In our judgment,
vaccine manufacturing capacity is a significant bottleneck to
increasing global vaccine access, and we have been working with
the World Bank and with our partners in acting to address
supply chain bottlenecks there. The IFC has supported vaccine
manufacturing efforts in both Africa and Asia, and, quite
recently, they invested in South Africa to boost manufacturing
efforts there. So these organizations have been, I think, very
active and effective in using their resources to address the
pandemic.
Mr. Price. Thank you. And, of course, we all know what kind
of redoubled effort is going to be required here.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Madam Secretary, while logic and common sense and much
evidence shows a potential lab leak, Wuhan lab leak, you
already mentioned obviously that there is an investigation
underway, and I understand that but as to, you know, where it
came from. But what is clear is what the Chinese regime did. A
report in Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, biophysics discovery
found that the PRC used, quote, deliberate destruction,
concealment, or contamination data--of data; Chinese scientists
who wish to share their knowledge have not been able to do so
or have disappeared. And we know lots and lots and lots of
reports about that.
While the investigation is taking place as to whether it
was a lab leak or not--lab leak or not, what is not debatable,
I think, at this stage is that the Chinese regime held
information, covered up. So here is the question. Are you
looking at sanctioning of those responsible--not for the leak
because I understand that part is still under investigation--
but for the coverup? It is fully evident that the Chinese
regime did a very extensive coverup of what actually was taking
place. So are you looking at sanctioning those who may have
been responsible for the coverup?
Secretary Yellen. So I think it will be up to the President
when he sees the results of the investigations that are taking
place to craft an appropriate response, and sanctions is always
an available or typically an available tool that might be on
that list. To the best of my knowledge, no decisions have been
made yet.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. And I get that and you answered the
question that no decision has been made yet, but, again, I just
would note that there is, I don't think, very much in dispute
as far as the fact that the disappearance of scientists,
journalists, a doctor like Yu Zhen Zhou (ph), Ai Fen, Li
Wenliang, Fang Bin, Li Zehou, Chen Qiushi, and others who have
died in the coverup. So I just hope that you would be
aggressive.
And I guess the investigation, to my understanding, as to
where it was a lab leak or not, but the coverup, it seems to me
there is a lot of evidence already. So I would hope would you
have an opportunity to look at that, and I appreciate you doing
so.
With that, I will yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. I would like to yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. I was going to yield and let some of the other
members ask a question.
I do have one question for you. Again, thank you for being
here.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
Ms. Frankel. So, as you think about all this, what do you
see as really the most important right now that you as Treasury
Secretary, your agency can bring some economic vibrance back to
the international community?
Secretary Yellen. So, on many different dimensions, we are
determined to reestablish U.S. leadership in international
organizations and to work constructively, collaboratively with
our partners to address issues of global scope where we can
really only make progress if we cooperate. And that includes
such issues as poverty and the impact of the pandemic, the debt
problems of low-income countries. Absolutely climate change is
very high on our list of areas where we are providing
leadership to collaborate with other countries that, as we do,
see climate change as an existential threat.
I think our partners around the world know we are back at
the table. We value their collaboration with them in addressing
matters of common concern, and we are coming to the table with
leadership, with resources, and with effort to address common
challenges.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, I think this might be a helpful exercise
that if we listed every multilateral fund that we are a
participant in, along with other countries and their
contribution, along with the benefits that are received by a
list of countries and then, this more specifically, the
governance structure; this is the broader point: What are we
doing internally to watch governance structures in these
organizations to ensure that they are reflective of our values
proposition, the very reasons for the missions that we are
participating in these multilateral funds, and that they aren't
redirected, so to speak, by other countries that have massive
economies like China. China is making plays for leadership in
multilateral institutions all over the world, but these funds
tend to get overlooked in this regard.
That is the first question. I think that would be a very
helpful exercise to actually have this down on paper but also
go fund by fund and address the government structures. Do you
have a system internally to do that?
Secretary Yellen. We serve typically on the boards of these
institutions and are shareholders of them, and Treasury very
actively is involved in the governance of all of these funds
down to the project level. I believe my staff told me that we
reviewed something like 1,700 projects last year to make sure
that the design of these projects and the values in it meet our
own governance standards, that we are concerned with
anticorruption, that we are concerned about the impact that
projects may have on indigenous people or particularly on
women, and that we are very active in making sure that we are
funding projects that will make a real contribution to reducing
poverty, addressing human needs.
Mr. Fortenberry. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for the
answer. I just have a few moments left.
Let me give you a specific example as well. Global
Environment Facility, we fund them in the hundreds of millions
each year. I have been a support of their programs. I think
they do tremendous work. The point being, though, I get
concerned that we don't do enough internally to make sure our
case, our vision, and the possibility of shifting visions for a
more holistic approach to environmental health and security
simply get fragmented as we are looking at individual programs
and projects. So the metrics by which we are determining the
investment outcome of our money and the governance structures,
I think I am trying to get a better feel for how robust we are
doing that.
Ms. Lee. Madam Secretary--Mr. Fortenberry, could the
Secretary respond to you in writing? Because we have one more
member to ask a question.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Yellen. I would like to do that.
Ms. Lee. Congresswoman Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, again, Secretary Yellen. I want to
quickly say thank you again to you and your OSAC team for its
engagement with me and commitment to work with State and others
to increase the quantity and effectiveness of the Global
Magnitsky sanctions for the Northern Triangle.
President Biden recently rightly highlighted corruption as
a national security priority and the creation of a regional
anticorruption task force for the Northern Triangle countries
of Central America should put that into action. I was also
thrilled to see Treasury's budget justification include a
little over $185 million, of which not less than $3 million is
for addressing human rights violations and corruption,
including activities authorized by the Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability.
Secretary Yellen, of that request for additional staffing,
how many new staff members will be dedicated to Central
American to meet this mandate of the Biden administration?
Secretary Yellen. It is a good question. I promise to come
back with you with details on that Congresswoman.
Mrs. Torres. Yes. I appreciate you so much and your
eagerness to work with our office.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Well, Madam Secretary, first of all, thank you so much for
spending time with us today and for your testimony. I think our
members have learned a heck of a lot from you as it relates to
our responsibilities of partnership with the Department of the
Treasury. It really was a very informative hearing. It is
really important that we stand by our commitments to our
multilateral partners and show that the United States does not
believe in a going-alone policy or approach to addressing some
of the toughest global challenges.
Finally, just let me say to members: If you have any
questions that you would like to submit for the record, please
submit them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days.
This concludes today's hearing. The Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs is adjourned.
Again, Madam Secretary, we really appreciate the time you
spent with us. Thank you.
Secretary Yellen. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. Thank
you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, October 27, 2021.
UNITED STATES GLOBAL COVID-19 RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN AND FUTURE NEEDS
WITNESSES
GAYLE SMITH, COORDINATOR FOR GLOBAL COVID-19 RESPONSE AND HEALTH
SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
JEREMY KONYNDYK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE USAID COVID-19 TASK FORCE
AND SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
LESLEY ZIMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION,
REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SARAH CHARLES, ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee
Ms. Lee. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. Let me just start by welcoming our
distinguished witnesses back to our subcommittee: Gayle Smith,
Coordinator for COVID-19 and Global Health Security at the
Department of State; Jeremy Konyndyk, who is the Executive
Director of USAID's Task Force on COVID-19; Lesley Ziman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of State's Bureau
for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and Sarah Charles,
Assistant to the Administrator in USAID's Bureau for
Humanitarian Affairs.
We appreciate your time and your willingness to testify.
Now, as this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a
few housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair
or staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the purpose
of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members are
responsible for muting and unmuting yourself. If I notice that
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like
the staff to unmute you. If you indicate an approval by
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5 minute clock
still applies to the Q&A. If there is a technical issue, we
will move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and
you will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30
seconds remaining, I may gently tap the gavel to remind members
that their time has almost expired. When your time has expired,
the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next
member.
After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules beginning
with the chair and the ranking member or his designee. Then
members present at that time and when the hearing is called to
order will be recognized in order of seniority, and following
that, members not present at the time the hearing is called to
order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Okay. I would just like to begin by welcoming our guests
once again and will proceed with my opening statement. First of
all, we all know that the COVID pandemic has been raging
globally for more than 18 months. It has taken millions of
lives and devastated even more livelihoods, setting back the
hard-earned progress we have made against poverty and disease.
Eighteen months into this global catastrophe, and the end,
unfortunately, is still not in sight.
There is no way to end this pandemic except to combat it
globally. Americans will continue to be threatened by new
emerging strains of the virus the longer we allow it to
circulate. We can't get complacent. The COVID virus itself is
not slowing down as it adapts to our efforts with new variants.
Speed is of the essence. Until we control COVID everywhere,
American lives are at risk.
That is why hearing from our witnesses today is so critical
as we review United States leadership in confronting this
pandemic globally. The United States has been noticeably more
present and active in the global response in recent months,
culminating in September's White House Global COVID-19 Summit.
I am so glad to see us stepping up in this way, but we can and
should be doing more to rally others and address ongoing
failings in the international response. We need to understand
in greater detail the actions taken to date and the future
needs.
In March 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan
Act, which includes $10.8 billion for USAID and the Department
of State to address the global impacts of the pandemic.
According to information from these agencies, as of September
30, 57 percent of these funds have been obligated. These
resources have enabled critical support for the distribution of
vaccines in low-resource settings, continued provision of
supplies and expertise to countries suffering from new waves of
COVID infections, and given humanitarian support to people made
more vulnerable by the pandemic's impacts.
The landscape has changed significantly since Congress
approved the American Rescue Plan resources. The devastating
Delta variant has become the dominant strain of COVID. A
barrage of new data shows the crippling impact COVID has had on
food security, education, and diseases like tuberculosis.
Meanwhile, the COVAX mechanism has been strained in its
efforts to deliver vaccines, and there remains incredible
inequity in vaccination distribution. It is deeply troubling
that, while countries like the United States approve booster
shots and many other wealthy countries make steady progress,
most countries in Africa have vaccinated less than 10 percent
of their eligible populations.
I am hoping the witnesses today can help us understand
several things. First, how does the United States determine
priorities for the resources provided for the global response?
How do we balance the need to respond to still climbing
infection rates, prevent new infections through vaccination,
and mitigate the equally harmful economic and social costs of
the pandemic?
Second, given the increase in the Biden Harris
administration's commitments made throughout summer to the
global response, commitments that I applaud, are there adequate
resources to continue the fight against this ongoing pandemic?
And, third, it seems urgent needs are frequently crowding
out long-term needs rather than tackling both at the same time.
The IMF has warned that failure to end the pandemic globally
could cost up to $5.3 trillion in economic losses over 5 years.
So how are we working across the United States Government to
ensure we are not going to beat back one health crisis only to
face a crisis of food security, poverty, and death? Are the
State Department and USAID looking at the longer term impacts
of this pandemic and addressing these destabilizing needs?
Recovering from the pandemic must mean more than just
recovery from the COVID-19 disease. We need to think through
how we can help countries build their resilience for the long
term and preserve our development and health gains. We also
need to be talking to the American people about how our
domestic economy and security are inextricably linked with the
rest of the world and that addressing their interests
positively impacts our interests.
And so I look forward to hearing from each of you on these
topics, but before turning to our witnesses for their
statements and given that Ranking Member Rogers was not able to
be with us today, let me yield to Congressman Diaz-Balart for
any opening remarks that he may have.
Congressman Balart.
Opening Statement of Mr. Diaz-Balart
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
And, like you, let me first start by thanking the witnesses
today. I look forward to hearing from them.
I think you have spoken clearly about some of the concerns
that we all have. I particularly remain concerned about China's
active COVID-related so-called assistance programs globally. It
is no secret that China is using COVID-19 and the vaccine of
COVID-19 to pressure our allies around the planet and including
here in our own hemisphere. So China continues to use that,
however, not to help countries but to coerce other countries to
confirm to its foreign policy priority.
So I look forward to hearing a little bit also about, you
know, how we are doing vis-a-vis China. Are we competitive with
their efforts, and what are you seeing out there in the world
as far as China's aggressive activity and activism, using COVID
as a way for them to get their foreign policy taken care of?
So, again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for this hearing,
and I look forward to listening to our witnesses.
And, with that, I will yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me ask if our chairwoman, Chair DeLauro, is on. If so,
would she like to have any comments.
Hi, Chair DeLauro.
Opening Statement of Chair DeLauro
The Chair. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am delighted
to be with you today and with the subcommittee. It is an
important hearing.
And I want to say thank you to the witnesses who are
testifying.
Even as we have turned a corner with COVID-19 in the U.S.,
as you pointed out, it is far from over across the globe.
Infections are rising in 55 countries. COVID-19 vaccines have
been widely available in more developed countries for more than
10 months. However, disparities in vaccine access between
wealthy and developing countries has meant that, even as some
of us here are receiving third dose booster shots, many people
in lower income countries have not yet received a single does,
by some reports.
If there is something that we have learned from the
pandemic, it is that when one of us suffers, all of us suffer.
And, when one of us gets sick, we all get sick. John Donne
famously wrote in 1624 during another global pandemic: ``No one
is an island. Anyone's death diminishes all of us because we
are all involved in mankind.'' It is not just our moral
imperative to care for those around us, it is the only way to
keep ourselves and our own communities safe.
So I am glad that the United States, under the leadership
of President Biden, has purchased 1 billion Pfizer doses and
donated 100 million vaccine doses from the U.S. stockpile to
allocate through the global COVID-19 vaccine collaboration,
known as COVAX. And I am proud that 200 million of these COVID-
19 vaccines have already been delivered to more than 100
countries around the world.
However, there is still much work to be done to support our
partners around the world as they fight COVID-19. The United
States has to play a leadership role in ending the virus'
uncontrolled speed in the world's less developed countries. We
need to enhance equitable access to vaccines across the world,
making tests, therapeutics, personal protective equipment more
widely available. We need to begin the work now to prevent
future pandemics by aligning around common global targets,
tracking progress, and supporting one another in fulfilling our
commitments.
I also want to add a note that, given that the United
States has so heavily invested in the development and
production of the vaccines, I think it is critical that our
pharmaceutical companies work to speed up the production of
vaccines, and are actively engaged and involved in assisting
countries and allowing countries to, with a TRIPS waiver,
manufacture these vaccines and we provide the technical
assistance for them to be able to deliver them. I think that is
just a moral responsibility that we have.
So I am grateful to our witnesses for joining us today to
detail actions we have taken thus far and to tell us more about
their future needs. I look forward to hearing more from you
about the strategies that we can use to distribute these
vaccines as efficiently and as equitably as possible because,
ultimately, if we fail to bring the virus under control in
every corner of the world, then we must not ask for whom the
bell tolls; it will toll for all of us.
With that, let me thank you to Chairwoman Lee, Ranking
Member Rogers, and others of the subcommittee, and I yield
back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Now I would like to ask if Ranking Member Granger is with
us.
If not, let me now yield to our witnesses, Ms. Smith, Mr.
Konyndyk, Ms. Ziman, and Ms. Charles. If you could summarize
your oral statements in less than 5 minutes. I want to make
sure that we leave enough time to get our questions. Your full
statement, of course, will be included in the record.
After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was
called to order, alternating between majority and minority
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in the
order of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
Ms. Smith, please proceed.
Opening Statement of Ms. Smith
Ms. Smith. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Lee and
Congressman Diaz-Balart and also Chairwoman DeLauro. It is a
pleasure to see all of you and all the distinguished members of
the committee.
We are quite pleased to be back with you. I think we have
got some good things to report, but we agree with many of the
challenges you have set out in your opening remarks. You do
have my written testimony. So let me just summarize on three
fronts where we are and some of the challenges we face and how
we plan to go after them.
First is on ramping up the U.S. global response. Since we
last met and have been supported very strongly--and thank you
for that--by the American Rescue Plan, we have been able to
dramatically increase the scale, scope, and impact of our own
response.
Chairwoman DeLauro, you mentioned that we crossed the
threshold of sharing over 200 million vaccines to over 100
countries. As soon as we announced that, the number was 210
million, then 215 million. In other words, we are going out on
almost a daily basis with shipments, and what we are starting
to see is two things: One is increasing global coverage, and
the second is the beginnings of more robust vaccine uptake in
many parts of the world.
A couple of other things on the vaccine front I do want to
mention. We announced yesterday that we have been able to
facilitate a deal between Moderna and the African Union for the
African Union to buy additional doses from Moderna. It is 50
million with an additional 60 million as an option. The reason
that is important, A, we know that vaccine coverage in Africa
is the lowest in the world; but, B, and importantly, the
African Union asked us to meet them halfway. They organized
themselves to purchase half of the continent's vaccine
requirements, are now rolling out J&J doses that they paid for,
so we are both sharing doses with them as well as facilitating
their efforts to procure them.
Additionally, the Pfizer doses, with the President having
announced an additional 500 million doses at the summit in
September, bringing us to a total of 1 billion, are rolling
out. These are designated for what is called the 92 AMC
countries and the African Union because there are 8 countries
in Africa that are not in COVAX, targeted towards low- and low-
middle-income countries, those are rolling out now in tranches
sufficient to allow us to work with countries to make sure they
have got the uptake and all the systems in place and then
accelerate the flow on a monthly basis.
As you know, the DFC continues--and the acting head of the
DFC, Dave Marchick, has just returned from an overseas trip--to
identify additional places where we can make investments as we
have in India and the Aspen pharmaceutical plant in South
Africa, which has already increased its dose levels.
Finally, on the vaccine front, we are really trying to get
our partners to accelerate the delivery of vaccines. Out of the
G20 or the G7 summit and since that time, we have had robust
commitments, particularly from the U.K. and the European Union.
We are very pleased about that. We are urging them to again
deliver those doses as quickly as possible and seeking to share
with them the knowledge that we have gained from basically
building a machine to share vaccines.
Against this backdrop, and you will hear more about this
from our USAID colleagues who are working with CDC and with
PEPFAR, where we are leveraging back platform, we are very
focused on delivery throughput, uptake. How to make sure that
as the supply increases, not sufficiently but significantly,
that we actually have shots in arms? How do we make sure that
PPE, therapeutics, these other needs that are required for
caring for people now who are facing the disease, and how do we
continue to respond to surges? I think we all know that the
Delta variant was not anticipated in terms of its strength.
When all of this began early in the pandemic, we know that that
has triggered a great deal of need. I will let my colleagues
speak more to how we have responded to that.
The second thing that has been, I think, a big development
since we last met is acting on the need for the United States
to use its leadership to mobilize the rest of the world. I wish
I could say that the entire world was lined up exactly where it
needs to be, arm in arm, totally committed to doing everything
that needs to be done. That is not the case, and that is why it
is critically important that President Biden convened heads of
State in September.
I will share with you that other than a virtual meeting of
the G7 leaders shortly after he came into office, this was the
first convening of heads of State on this pandemic, and it was
extremely important to do several things. One, we laid down
some markers, in part by the robust nature of our own response
and our own announcement to do more there, but also by setting
ambitious targets. We know what it is going to take to end this
pandemic. We decided we needed to put those targets out there,
but also, importantly, measure our progress against it. So we
have been working with ACT-A, the suite of organizations you
all know well, The Global Fund, COVAX, WHO, CEPI, and others,
but also with what is called the Multilateral Task Force--this
is the heads of the World Bank, IMF, WHO, and WTO--to make sure
that collectively we can track the world's progress against
these targets, hold ourselves and others available, and measure
constantly where we are and where we need to be.
Another goal of the summit was to create some momentum. We
could have convened a summit, had it be very successful, and
then just reverted back. What we have decided to do instead was
generate the momentum that is needed. So we had the summit. The
G-20 summit is upon us now. In November, the Secretary of State
will convene foreign ministers. Again, this is the first
convening of foreign ministers to mobilize the political and
other capital we need from them. In December, we anticipate a
G7 meeting on vaccines hosted by the U.K., and there will be
another summit after the first of the year.
These action-forcing events allow us to drive others and
ourselves towards key targets. So we really think it is vital.
Also, and importantly, the summit and these other events
aren't just about governments. We have engaged the private
sector extensively. We think there is a real possibility of
additional significant support from there, particularly on
vaccine delivery, foundations, and NGOs.
Finally, the third point I would just like to refer to is
the long-term global health security. I am seeing my clock, and
I will simply say I will come back to this in Q&A, but we
believe and are laying down some markers now because we can't
wait until we have ended this pandemic to lay the ground for
preparation for the future. Happy to say more about that, but
let me revert to and return to my colleagues. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.
Let me ask now Mr. Konyndyk to please proceed.
Opening Statement of Mr. Konyndyk
Mr. Konyndyk. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Lee,
Representative Diaz-Balart, and Chair DeLauro, for the
opportunity to testify today about USAID's role in the global
COVID-19 response.
Chairwoman Lee, your opening statement actually hit so many
of the points I was planning to make, I am not sure I need to
say anything, but I will make just a few comments.
You know, no crisis in our lifetimes--and I have managed
many in my career--has matched this pandemic in terms of scope
and complexity. It is three overlapping crises: a health
crisis, a human crisis, and an economic and development
crisis--each of those historic in their own right,
unprecedented in scale, and each of them hitting at the exact
same time.
Thanks to Congress' generosity, as Gayle also referenced,
USAID has been able to expand our response to these crises, and
we have now provided pandemic aid to more than 120 countries,
totaling more than $9 billion in resources. Our work remains
guided by the White House's global response and recovery
framework for COVID-19 with five objectives that are laid out
in my written testimony and which we have briefed you on
before. That framework also provided the foundation for the
commitments that President Biden laid out and the targets that
he laid out at the summit that Gayle just discussed. We focused
that in line with our strategy on vaccinating the world, on
saving lives now, all of the things beyond vaccination, things
like oxygen and testing and so on that are critical to the
front line health response, and to building back better against
future pandemics.
But, as you said in your opening, Chairwoman, the world has
been changing since the ARP was passed. And the evolution of
the pandemic and the risks it has posed has also forced
adaptation in how we are responding, and I want to just cite a
few of the specific ways here.
First, we have seen enormous challenges with vaccine--with
global vaccine supply and much lower than expected, and lower
than hoped for, production of vaccines, particularly some of
the key vaccines that were expected to be the front line
vaccines for low-income countries, and that slow delivery is
due to a few things. It is due to very tight supply chains for
global vaccine inputs. In effect, what the world is trying to
do is produce an extra 11 or more billion vaccines on top of an
architecture that is normally built to produce 5 billion doses
a year. That has also contributed to major production delays at
some of the large vaccine manufacturers.
The way that those vaccine manufacturers are allocating
doses across their different contracts is very opaque, but it
does seem that low-income countries and COVAX are consistently
at the end of the queue there. And then there have been export
restrictions, especially some of the export restrictions put in
place by India, that have taken a lot of Indian production off
the table for the rest of the world.
The administration has responded to this, as you know, by
ramping up our own sharing of vaccines abroad. And so we have
up until now shared more than 200 million doses total, on track
towards 1.2 billion planned, which will be 1 billion doses that
we are committed to purchasing from Pfizer for global
distribution as well as plans to share a total of 200 million
surplus doses from our own domestic supply.
The second major change has been that country vaccination
costs are rising, and the complexity is growing. And so we are
finding a lot of variation in country readiness for
distribution of vaccines, and the complexity, in particular, of
the Pfizer vaccine, which is a phenomenally effective vaccine
but has more complex and onerous handling and cost
requirements, has added to the ticket price there, as it were.
And, third, I think as others have discussed, the Delta
variant has greatly magnified global risks. We are now--we have
been responding to more and worse hot spots than had been the
case previously. I think everyone tracked the crisis in India
in the spring, but we have seen those kinds of conditions on
other scales in many other countries, and so that has placed an
additional burden on our budget. And, you know, the net outcome
of all of this is that, as this race between the vaccines,
other response, and the variants continues, we are running
down, we are running through our resources very quickly. Of the
ARP funds that have been made available to USAID, we expect to
have not more than around $250 million left as we head into
next year, and next year will be the most operationally
intensive phase of the response as we work to roll out vaccines
globally to hit the 70 percent global coverage target.
So we look forward to your questions. We are very glad that
Congress continues to focus on this issue, and we are grateful
for your support. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Konyndyk.
Now I would like to ask Ms. Ziman to proceed with your
testimony. Thank you again.
Opening Statement of Ms. Ziman
Ms. Ziman. Thank you. Chairwoman Lee, Congressman Diaz-
Balart, Chairwoman DeLauro, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today. I look
forward to sharing with you how the Department's Bureau for
Population, Refugees, and Migration has utilized the
supplemental funding generously provided by the committee and
the entire Congress, not once but twice, to allow us to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic for
some of the world's most vulnerable people.
As you noted, the existence of COVID-19 anywhere is a
threat to global health and security everywhere, and the ARP
resources have allowed PRM to focus on mitigating COVID-19
among those most often overlooked.
Even before the pandemic, the world was facing the highest
levels of displacement ever seen, an 88 percent increase
between 2010 and 2020. Those displaced are regularly without
healthcare and have risked going untested and untreated for
COVID-19. Further, they faced immediate and profound economic,
education, social, and mental health impacts.
PRM's international organization partners rapidly issued
emergency appeals that moved from immediate COVID-19 prevention
and case management support to sustaining education, responding
to alarming spikes in gender-based violence, expanding mental
health support, and sustaining livelihoods.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, PRM has provided more
than $831 million in more than 80 countries. Through the ARP
funding, our partners are providing essential healthcare, clean
water, sanitation, shelter, protection, and last-mile COVID-19
vaccination efforts.
Humanitarians are responding to a global twindemic of
COVID-19 and displacements through immense dedication,
innovation, and partnership. In our response, we have
recognized the importance of established local community
partners. As borders closed and movement of people and goods
ground to a halt, PRM and U.N. support to local organizations
provided continuity of assistance. The trust local
organizations built allowed them to quickly implement an
unprecedented response, even when asking people to take very
difficult steps to mitigate the spread of the disease. As a
result, with the ARP funds, we have prioritized increasing
direct programming to our NGO partners.
A second lesson was ensuring interventions involved host
communities and promoted innovative delivery strategies, such
as an expansion in community-based mental health services where
trained neighbors provided support to others. With the increase
in gender-based violence, PRM is also supporting our partners
to mainstream gender-based violence prevention and support
services and to help education and livelihoods programming.
PRM-funded partners innovated GBU case management by creating
support lifelines, whether by phone or trained community
members.
We recognize that vaccinations will be the critical
pandemic off-ramp for vulnerable populations. In March 2021, 59
percent of country vaccination plans did not include refugees.
PRM and our partners have been strongly advocating for the
equitable inclusion of displaced persons in vaccine planning.
Thanks in part to these efforts, the U.N. refugee agency is now
reporting that 121 out of 123 countries have begun providing
COVID-19 vaccinations for refugees or other peoples of concern.
We know it is possible to achieve high coverage vaccination in
refugee communities when supplies are available and
humanitarians are engaged in a coordinated vaccination program.
COVID-19 has demonstrated how interconnected we are from
the spread of the disease to the global economic impacts. This
has driven home the imperative that the world not forget to
ensure health and security through humanitarian assistance for
refugees and other displaced persons. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I am happy to
answer your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Ziman.
Let me now ask our final witness, Ms. Charles, to come
forward. Thank you again.
Opening Statement of Ms. Charles
Ms. Charles. Chairwoman Lee, Representative Diaz-Balart,
Chair DeLauro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify about the U.S. Agency
for International Development's humanitarian response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic is a crisis multiplier, making complex
emergencies even more complex and compounding the effects of
conflict and climate change to not only exacerbate the
humanitarian needs but also change the way in which we deliver
humanitarian assistance.
There are record levels of need globally: 235 million
people are in need of humanitarian assistance and protection
this year, a 40 percent increase over last year. More than 2
billion people do not have access to adequate food. Almost a
decade of progress against malnutrition has been erased.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also given rise to a second
nefarious pandemic, the shadow pandemic of gender-based
violence against women and girls. Loss of income from the
economic downturn, limited mobility due to public health
regulations, closures of schools, markets, and support
services, and widespread stress have led to an increase in
violence in the home while also creating barriers for women and
girls to access lifesaving services. And the grim reality is
that, while the number of people in need is growing, the number
of people we can reach with the same amount of funding is
decreasing due to global supply chain disruptions.
Despite these challenges, thanks to the generosity of the
United States Congress, humanitarian assistance from the
American people has helped mitigate the worst of the crisis
through a robust global response that has helped millions of
vulnerable people around the world. We have programmed more
than $2.3 billion in supplemental humanitarian assistance
across 53 countries, including more than $1.8 billion in
American Rescue Plan resources to meet these increased needs.
We have also worked with our partners to make strategic
adaptations to our programs to ensure continuity of services
and to protect communities and aid workers from disease
transmission. For food assistance, this means increasing the
frequency of distributions to avoid overcrowding and even
providing door-to-door distributions for elderly and other
higher risk cases.
For health, this means delivering critical medical
supplies, countering misinformation about COVID-19, and
educating local communities about how to stop the spread.
For survivors of gender-based violence, it means Zainab and
her team in northern Nigeria shifted to remote case management
by telephone in order to continue to providing services to
survivors despite restrictions on movement. Being a gender-
based violence survivor herself, Zainab knows well the
difficult circumstances that women are facing due to the shadow
pandemic. And, through her work, she is dedicated to helping
other survivors and creating a more equitable world for her
daughters.
USAID is also making strategic investments to build the
capacity of the international humanitarian system to respond to
public health emergencies in the future and to make vulnerable
communities more resilient. I am proud of our work to respond
to the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain ongoing programming and to
stand up critical new responses to emerging crises in
Afghanistan, after the earthquake in Haiti and in northern
Ethiopia, the Northern Triangle and beyond.
We have almost depleted our supplemental resources
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are preparing to make a
series of difficult choices in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 as
the divide between humanitarian needs and resources continues
to grow across all sectors. Our work is needed now more than
ever. Going forward, the international community must continue
to work together to scale up services, adapt and innovate
programming, and prepare for future outbreaks in humanitarian
settings.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Charles.
Let me go straight into the questions now, and I will be
very brief with mine because many of my questions I asked in my
opening statement.
So I would just like to ask, Ms. Smith, the question about
the United States using its power of influence to get greater
action from other donors, including the private sector,
especially pharmaceutical companies, and international bodies,
such as the World Bank.
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Congresswoman. Look. This is
absolutely critical, and I think we know from all of our work
over the last decades that, when we step up and lead, other
countries follow, but also, quite frankly, that we can use our
leadership and the resources that we have put on the table to
leverage those from others. So that has been--that is what we
have been doing on a number of fronts.
I think with our key partner countries that are also major
donors, we are working aggressively with them to encourage that
they increase some of their numbers. We are very fortunate to
have ARP resources, but we want to see increased resources from
them, and, as I said earlier, to accelerate the flow of their
surplus vaccines, we really need that to speed up. We are
getting some traction on that, including through the summit and
these other action-forcing events.
As I referenced, our conversations with the private sector,
I think they have been of a very different nature than I have
ever seen, I have been in this work for a long time, where we
urge them to respond at scale and systemically; in other words,
are there ways they can come together? Those discussions are
very, very fruitful, and we are hoping in the not-too-distant
future, we will have more to say about that, but it has been a
very serious, indepth discussion there. We have seen American
foundations step up, but, also importantly--and we have
discussed this with them--reaching out to other philanthropies
around the world so that we are leveraging both from the public
sector and the private sector.
Our engagement with the vaccine manufacturers is extensive.
Importantly, at the summit, we called for greater transparency
in supply, production, and availability of vaccines because one
of the challenges we face is being able to plan out one
quarter, two quarters, and know what we are dealing with. Much
of that engagement is led by the White House task force that
has led on the U.S. response. And, again, I think we are having
impact there, but those are all relationships that we are going
to have to continue to engage on.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Smith. It is a big priority across the board.
Ms. Lee. I will now yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
Again, let me thank all of you for what you do and your
service to our country, and I know that you have difficult
tasks, difficult tasks.
In my very short opening remark, I talked a lot about China
and about my concern about China. And, even though I think
summits are going to be positive, the summits are not a
solution, or summits are not a victory, you know. The historic
Abraham Accords took place without summits. China hasn't had a
lot of summits, and, yet, they are being very, very aggressive.
The vaccines were produced in the United States in less than a
year without summits. They were produced by just, you know,
hard work and a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure and hard
work.
So I am a little concerned that I have heard a lot about
summits, but--and even though some good numbers were posted--
and I think that is helpful, and that is great--I still haven't
heard anything about the contrast between what we have been
able to do----
Ms. Smith. Sure.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. And what China has been able
to do. So, if somebody wants to give me an idea as to how we
are doing vis-a-vis what China has been doing, I think that
would be very helpful.
Ms. Smith. Sure. May I? And my colleague, Jeremy, may want
to add to this.
Congressman, I agree with you. Summits are a means to an
end, not the end in themselves, and we clearly saw the summit
as a means to an end. And these other events we see the same
way because they are action-forcing events.
With respect to China, you are absolutely right that China
has been very aggressive, very assertive, and, quite frankly, a
bit transactional with respect to vaccines. What we have found
at a very practical level is that, number one, the demand for
the vaccines that we can make available--Moderna, Pfizer, J&J--
are extremely high. There is a great level of confidence. So
that is number one.
Number two, we have found that, because our posture with
vaccines is that these do not come with political strings--in
other words, we are not saying that we will provide you
vaccines if you will do A, B, or C; we are saying that these
vaccines are tools to end the pandemic that threatens all of
us, and we are taking the lead in the world to get everybody
vaccinated. That resonates with people. I think it resonates
with citizens. It resonates with governments who are looking
for vaccines for the same reason.
I think part of what we have done is we are not going to
compete on the same terms. We are not going to use this as a
chess game. We are going to stand on some fundamental
principles, number one, that these are not political tools.
This is acting on our values and our collective and national
self-interest. And, secondly, we are going to count on the
science and the efficacy. Again, the reputation of these
vaccines is very, very high, and the demand is great.
I don't want to discount in any way the importance of the
issue that you raise. But I think if your question is how are
we doing, I think the world greatly appreciates both our
science, innovation, and industry but also the fact that we are
sharing vaccines with no strings attached.
Mr. Konyndyk. If I could just add to that briefly. I think
we are--we and China are taking different approaches. And I
think part of the contrast and part of the soft power dimension
here, frankly, is that we and they are doing very different
things.
They are trying to sell vaccines, for the most part. They
are not donating them. They are--and as I think you said,
Congressman, you know, they are using this often as coercion
rather than as assistance. I think we are very explicitly, and
as the President has repeatedly said, doing this as assistance.
And we are far, far ahead of them on that front. We have now
given more than 200 million doses abroad already. Their
donations lag far behind that. We have committed to provide
another billion beyond what we have already done.
And I think the feedback we get from countries, frankly, is
that they prefer the vaccines that we are providing and want
more of them. And I think that, as we are making more of our
vaccines available, which countries generally prefer, that also
limits the--that limits the room, frankly, for China to exert
coercive tactics because countries have a choice. And, when
countries have a choice, we are seeing consistently they would
prefer to choose the vaccines that are coming through COVAX and
from the U.S.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great.
Madam Chairwoman, I only have less than half a minute. So I
will yield back. Thank you so much.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much.
I will yield now to the chair of the Appropriations
Committee, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro.
The Chair. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and
Congressman Diaz-Balart.
I just have a quick comment. I was pleased to hear about
the discussions with Moderna and increased production. However,
I think what we need to do that because there simply isn't
enough vaccines being made by the pharmaceutical companies, but
I am also very concerned about what I view--and I will be clear
about this--as exploitation of intellectual property, their
monopolies on intellectual property by refusing to negotiate
with other capable manufacturers around the world. That is
something that I think that we have to address.
Let me get to a question on why our emphasis is on donation
versus production. This is about surplus doses. What is the
administration's estimate of surplus doses by the end of 2021?
Are we going to donate these? If not, why not? What steps are
we going to take to donate some or all of these doses, and do
we have a plan for shipping vaccine doses that are close to
expiring to countries that are desperate for vaccines?
Ms. Smith. I am happy to take a start at that and then hand
it over to my USAID colleague.
Thank you, Congresswoman, for those questions. And I am not
sure I would state it as that donation is prioritized over
production. We are trying to do both. So, for example, the DFC
investment in Aspen is a little bit of a twofer. It increases
production over the long term, which is critical, but it also
increases production in the urgency of now where we are trying
urgently to contain this virus.
We very much agree that long-term investment for the kind
of architecture that we need, where we have got more
geographical distribution, more availability and access to
vaccines is absolutely critical, and that is one of the things
we are looking at. Yes, these surplus doses are donated, and in
addition to the surplus doses from our stock are the 1 billion
Pfizer doses, which the United States paid for and is donating
to COVAX. So we are not--we are not getting into the business
of offering to sell, for example, surplus doses or those Pfizer
doses to low and lower middle income countries. Those are
absolutely donated.
Second. We have had to build a bit of a machine to be able
to deliver those. There are a lot of regulatory, legal,
logistical, and other hurdles that must be gone through on our
end and on the receiving country's end. I am pleased to report
that, due to the work of a lot of agencies and our colleagues
on the domestic task force, we have got that system down. We
are not aiming to share vaccines that have a short expiration
date. That is a really high risk to receiving countries that
they won't be able to deliver them on time, and, frankly, it is
just the wrong thing to do.
So, with the Pfizer doses, they have a long--they are just
coming off the production line; they have got a sufficiently
long timeline on expiration that delivery should be quite
possible without any risk of expiration. Thank you.
Mr. Konyndyk. And what we are seeing from our colleagues on
the domestic side--and we are coordinating very closely with
them--is that, very consistently, as they are receiving the
deliveries from the manufacturers, if those are surplused to
the point in time domestic requirements or anticipated domestic
requirements, they are turning around and donating those.
So, for example, we recently received the completion of the
deliveries from Johnson & Johnson, and a large chunk of that we
turned around and have committed now to the African Union, 17
million doses to the African Union. So the doses that we are
holding onto are really those that are being and expected to be
used domestically. We are not otherwise sitting on doses.
And, on Gayle's point about the doses close to expiring, I
think I would distinguish between those that are already out in
the States and those that have been received and are still in
the possession of the Federal Government. Once those have gone
out to states, it is very hard to donate those abroad because
of chain-of-custody issues. So we have looked hard at that. HHS
has looked hard at that. And we defer to HHS on this, but so
far, they haven't found a reliably safe way to do that,
unfortunately.
The Chair. Just a couple comments with the remaining time
that I have is that I will go back the intellectual property
monopolies that these pharmaceutical companies have and their
refusal to negotiate with other capable manufacturers around
the world. That is an issue that has to be addressed if we
really are going to make a difference in fostering a
humanitarian effort here, and that we have to break the back
of.
The final point is what will the administration do to
deliver a final waiver deal by November 30 at the WTO
ministerial? The U.S. has supported, but it is down to Germany,
the U.K., and Switzerland versus the rest of the world on this.
Ms. Smith. Yeah. I would refer you to USTR on this in terms
of the very latest. As you know, these negotiations are
happening in real time, and you and I have discussed this
before. I can assure you that, on USTR's part, the State
Department's part and others of us, we have been actively
working with other countries to see what progress we can
achieve. But USTR will have the latest on that because it is
all happening in real time right now.
The Chair. And the continued effort with the pharmaceutical
companies.
Ms. Smith. Yes.
The Chair. And Moderna would not have been able to provide
the vaccine unless there had been over about $10 billion of
U.S. taxpayers dollars to produce that vaccine. Thank you.
Ms. Smith. No. Thank you.
The Chair. I appreciate it.
Ms. Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Now I yield now to Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I appreciate
it, and I would like to echo the sentiments of my good friend,
Mario Diaz-Balart, when he said thank you to the witnesses for
not only being here but all the hard work you do every day and
everything you do for everybody.
I do want to focus, though, on some funding, of course.
Now, just so you know, in May, when Administrator Samantha
Power was here and testified, I asked a few questions regarding
the COVID-19 pandemic and specifically funding that was going
to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The Administrator told me she had only been on the job for
a few weeks. I get that. I was told that she would get back to
me; I would get my questions. We are 5 months past that; I
still have gotten zero answers from any of my questions.
Now, in that time, we do know that information has come out
that confirmed what I said in May of 2020, and that is that the
Wuhan Institute of Virology was likely the epicenter and the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the EcoHealth Alliance was
sending money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to do gain-of-
function research.
Dr. Fauci testified just a few months ago that the NIH has,
and I quote him, has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-
function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, end
quote.
Now, look. We can have a discussion on gain-of-function
research, where it should be done, if it is appropriate,
totally separate discussion on that. But I just want to repeat
to the witnesses the questions that I had asked Administrator
Power a few months ago. Mr. Konyndyk, is the U.S.--are we--is
USAID currently funding authorized or unauthorized gain-of-
function research?
Mr. Konyndyk, I will yield to you, and then I will go to
Ms. Charles.
Mr. Konyndyk. Thanks. And I can handle that one. It is not
under Assistant to the Administrator Charles' remit.
So, just to be very clear, USAID does not approve through
its funding dual-use or gain-of-function studies to increase
infectivity, transmissibility, or lethality of viruses.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. I appreciate that crisp,
clear response, and I am not trying to be snarky when I say
that. Truly, I appreciate it.
Then does the Biden administration support the decision
from the last administration, then, to end USAID activities in
China beyond WIV? I mean, just all USAID activities in China.
Mr. Konyndyk. So we have not--you know, on the broader
China question, I think it would probably be--I can't really
speak beyond the health and the COVID space in my current role.
So I would defer to some of my colleagues in the Asia Bureau
about whether there are other things that they would advise we
should be doing in terms of development and cooperation with
China. I think there are potentially arguments for that.
I can say that, with respect to our global health security
investments, we have not made any additional global health
security investments and funding in China, whether to the WIV
or elsewhere. And I think that, as a general rule, the
administration has been very clear that we expect to see
greater transparency and greater accountability from China. And
I think there are a number of questions that we want answered
that, you know, the President has talked about and that others
in the administration have talked about in terms of greater
transparency on the track record of that lab.
So I think, at this point, while I can't say we definitely
would not, I don't want to rule out every circumstance. We are
not currently, and I think we will stay on that course for the
time being.
Mr. Reschenthaler. What about a prohibition on funding? If
we just want to narrow it down, what about a prohibition on any
funding going to any labs that are controlled by the PLA?
Mr. Konyndyk. Well, as I said, we are not--you are
referring to labs inside China solely or----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes. I am sorry. Yes. I am just focused
on China. I mean, what about a prohibition on just any money
going to labs that are controlled by the People's Liberation
Army?
Mr. Konyndyk. Well, you know, again, we are not putting any
additional funding at this point into cooperation, laboratory
cooperation in China, whether controlled by the People's
Liberation Army or not. So, I mean, I think that that would be,
you know, consistent with what we are doing now just as a
policy matter, but----
Mr. Reschenthaler. Oh, yeah. I get--no. I totally get that.
I was just saying if we move forward and start to refund, how
about a prohibition?
Mr. Konyndyk. I see. Okay.
Mr. Reschenthaler. I am saying prospectively, yeah.
Mr. Konyndyk. I see. Yeah. You know, we can study that. It
is kind of a speculative answer, depending on what parameters
would we put on to something that if we started doing something
we are not doing currently, so it is--but I think, in general,
what we do want to be sure of is that any--and some of the new
work that we are doing in this area outside of China under some
of our new programs, we have built in new and more robust
training and accountability requirements--including detailed
bio safety plans and so on--from anyone receiving direct or
subgranted U.S. funding. And so, you know, any entity that
couldn't or wouldn't sign that kind of an agreement wouldn't be
eligible for our funding.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Konyndyk.
And, Madam Chair, thank you for your generosity with the
time. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
I yield now to Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to all
our witness for being here and for the important lifesaving
work you have led throughout this pandemic.
Just to follow up a little bit about funding, I appreciate
what you just mentioned about some of the transparency
standards that have been used. You know, I just wanted to know
where international funding has been going. In general, how are
those decisions made? As of today, how much U.S. Government
funding has been allocated for the global COVID-19 response?
How much of that money is left? When will that money run out? I
know that our subcommittee, under the leadership of Chairwoman
Lee, appropriated almost $11 billion earlier this year, but we
know that this is likely not sufficient to meet the global
need. But it was a very important place to start.
Mr. Konyndyk. Gayle, do you want to talk to the picture,
and I will talk to USAID?
Ms. Smith. Sure. I mean, the fact of the matter, and,
again, I just want to underscore the gratitude that we feel for
having those ARP resources because it has really enabled us to
ramp this up with both the financial and other support from all
of you.
The bulk of that funding, in fact, is either obligated out
in the field, planned for, or otherwise designated by the terms
of the ARP itself. So, I mean, that is the way to look at it.
And our decisions on spending have been guided in the main by
the categories and the direction contained in the ARP which,
thankfully, is very coincident with a very, very smart
response.
So, for example, if you take the funding that was allocated
to The Global Fund, half of that has been made available. Thus
far, we still have the other half, but it is designated for The
Global Fund, so we count that as basically planned for. So we
will see that we are going to face a shortfall in funds at some
time in the not-too-distant future. We are tracking across
agencies where that is, where we still have leeway, where we
don't, and again, trying to augment by leveraging others and
getting other countries to stand up and bringing in the private
sector and other actors.
But, again, while not all of it has been spent on the
ground, the bulk of those resources are sufficiently obligated
or planned for that we will face a time when we do run out of
sufficient funds in the not-too-distant future.
Jeremy, would you like to add to that?
Mr. Konyndyk. Yeah. So, speaking specifically to some of
the work that USAID has been doing, so there was about $4.2
billion from the ARP that has been made available to USAID.
Some of that was directly earmarked to us in the bill, and some
of that was appropriated as shared USAID and State money and is
being shared between our agencies.
So, of that $4.2 billion, we have now obligated around $3.5
billion. We have additional pending allocations that will we
will be sending up notifications to the Hill on shortly,
related to some of the Summit targets and a few other
obligatory activities that were called for in the bill that
will run down most of the rest of that funding.
And so we anticipate that, as we head into the end of the
year and early next year, we will be--out of that $4.2 billion
that we have been working with, we will be down to around $250
million left to allocate as we head into 2022.
And that will be the most intensive operational period of
the pandemic as we try to roll out vaccines across the entirety
of the world and get low-income countries to 70 percent
coverage.
Just to get a sense of kind of the scale of what we are up
against, some of the funding targets that were referenced in
the President's summit, we challenged the world to generate up
to $10 billion for vaccine readiness and deployment, up to $2
billion to support global oxygen.
Oxygen support is--after vaccines, oxygen support is the
next biggest request that we get from other countries,
including--and this was obviously famously a huge challenge in
India. We think it is a fixable challenge with resources. There
is a path to get the oxygen crisis dealt with, but it will take
resources.
We also challenged the world and ourselves to come up with
$3 billion for other therapeutic treatments for COVID-19, as
well as costs related to diagnostics and other priorities.
So there is a lot of work yet to do in the coming year, and
I think we have burned through the ARP resources rather rapidly
because, as we talked about at the very beginning, the Delta
variant and some of the other changes that have driven in the
pandemic over the past year.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Now I will yield to Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I also want to
add my voice to the chorus of folks on this committee thanking
all the folks who are here today for all the work they have
been doing during the pandemic to help stop the spread and keep
people safe.
I do want to build on some of the questions from Mr. Diaz-
Balart and Mr. Reschenthaler about China but also about Russia
and what they have been doing in terms of spreading their
vaccine around.
Have you seen them be aggressive about distributing the
Sputnik vaccine, and what kind of response have you received
from--what have you seen from countries about taking it from
them?
Ms. Smith. I will make just a couple comments and again
turn to my colleague to add additional comments. Actually, we
have seen relatively little uptake of the Russian vaccine. It
has not been approved by WHO, and to most countries, that
matters because that emergency authorization does give an
indication of safety and efficacy. Excuse me.
And we have actually seen some countries that had ordered
it or planned to use it have now ceased using it out of some
concerns of reports on some of the side effects.
So there is a great contrast between China and Russia in
terms of the push for availability of that vaccine, as well as
near as we can tell, production of the Sputnik virus is not as
high as production of some other vaccines. So that is kind of
where it stands on the Russian vaccine.
Jeremy, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Konyndyk. Yeah. I mean, the Sputnik vaccine has a very
active Twitter account. It doesn't have nearly as active a
global distribution.
And again I think Gayle is absolutely right. You know, they
have dramatically overpromised what they can do. They are not
meeting their deliveries, and it is not an emergency-use listed
vaccine by the WHO.
So we are not seeing much of an appetite for Sputnik from
other countries, and yeah, I think that, you know, the Chinese
vaccine, Sinovac and Sinopharm, are just much, much larger
factors in the global production landscape. Sputnik isn't
really registering in that sense.
Ms. Wexton. Well, I want to thank you for providing the
perfect segue to my next question, which is that it is my
understanding that there are some groups that may be driving
disinformation about what the efficacy and safety of Western
vaccine.
What information do you have about groups that are doing
this, and what can we do to combat it? I understand----
Mr. Konyndyk. Well----
Ms. Wexton. But it does have a great impact on, you know,
social media and everything of what people believe.
Mr. Konyndyk. Absolutely. I think some of that we should
probably get into not in an open setting, but we would be happy
to provide a classified briefing on some of that.
But, in general, there is no shortage of vaccine
disinformation. Some of that is coming from state actors,
certain Twitter accounts and so on. Some of that, of course, is
just coming from the enormous antivaccine voices that we have
seen in many countries, including our own.
We are, through our programs that are promoting vaccine
uptake around the world, we are working to directly counter
that, and we are working with country partners but also
importantly with civil society and private sector partners to
counter that.
One of the things we have been discussing with some of our
private sector partners that Gayle referenced earlier is how
they can use their outreach networks, their communication
networks, some of their advertising to promote vaccine
confidence.
And so that is an intentional focus of some of our
programming, and I think it is going to be very important as we
head into the next year. We are already seeing in some
countries, including Haiti and parts of southern Africa, that
even at fairly low levels of vaccine supply availability, there
is so much hesitancy that they are not able to find enough
demand for what they are supplying. So I think that is going to
be a significant challenge in the year ahead.
Ms. Wexton. Yes. And that is of great concern to me,
because the social media groups, you know, the WhatsApps and
the Facebooks and everything, their minimal protections are
even less in other languages--in languages other than English.
So that is a great concern for me.
Mr. Konyndyk. Absolutely.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much.
Now, Ms. Ziman, how can we support--how can we reach
vulnerable populations in insecure environments? You know, so
groups like the Uyghurs in China or the women in Afghanistan,
how can we ensure that they actually have access to vaccine?
Ms. Ziman. Thank you. I will start answering and then let
others jump in. But we--most of our partners have been able to
stay and deliver due to our ability to provide them with safety
equipment and protection.
And many of our partners, particularly the International
Committee of the Red Cross, is regularly operating in areas of
conflict that are hard to reach, and they have been providing,
through our contributions, both COVID mitigation and COVID-
response assistance, and are working with us to provide last-
mile vaccinations in efforts that other than government
countries cannot reach.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you.
I see that my time has expired, so I will yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Wexton.
Now I will yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, are you able to get on?
There may be some technical problems. If so, we will come
back to Ms. Frankel.
Is Mr. Price on?
If not, I will yield to Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
For Jeremy Konyndyk, the question is basically, in 2020,
when most Caribbean countries were forced to close down their
borders to curb the spread of COVID-19, resulting in a halt to
their economy.
And many of the economies there are driven by tourism,
obviously. This led to a contraction of their economy estimated
at 8.6 percent of the entire region.
And, as you know, the Caribbean is the United States' sixth
largest trading partner and really our third border.
Now, China and others have--did very well with Latin
America and the Caribbean regarding vaccine distribution. But
now we have slowly turned the page, and there is an opportunity
to help rebuild their economies, right?
So I wanted to know if you can provide an update first on
vaccination efforts in the Caribbean, and what could be our
plans to potentially, you know, help them more so that they can
get their economies up and running again?
Mr. Konyndyk. Thanks so much for that question, and yeah, I
absolutely share your assessment of the importance of
increasing vaccination in the Caribbean as well as helping to
foster economic recovery.
So we--so far, during the pandemic, USAID has allocated
around $63 million in development relief and assistance to
COVID-related needs in the region, and that has run the gamut
from health and COVID assistance, economic growth support, and
humanitarian assistance.
Forty million of that has been directly for health
assistance related to COVID in countries like Haiti, Jamaica,
the DR, and smaller island states in the region, and that has
included things like PPE, testing and diagnostic support,
training for healthcare workers and so on.
We have also been providing--we have also been providing
vaccine doses to many countries across the Caribbean, including
some of the small island States, and we have done that in
partnership with the regional body CARICOM and with the Pan
American Health Organization.
So I think we are doing a great deal in the region, and
Gayle may want to say more about some of the specific vaccine
distribution that we have done with CARICOM.
As we look ahead, I think, would agree that there is going
to be a need for more support to spurring the economic recovery
there, and I think, on that front, you know, as we look at the
development of resources that are available to the agency over
the next few years, in the Caribbean, as in the wider world, it
is going to be a real priority for us to make sure that we are
working to accelerate the economic recovery as the pandemic
hopefully begins to recede.
Ms. Smith. If I may, I would just add one quick point on
the end of that. We are pleased that our vaccine distribution
and allocations to CARICOM are on the upswing, and that will
continue, by the way.
But the other thing I want to mention here is that one of
the critical roles in this--and particularly the recovery and
resilience side--is the Treasury Department and its work with
the Bank and the Fund, including on special drawing rights, the
creation of a new facility at the IMF designed to respond,
Congressman, to exactly the problem you have described,
countries that have seen dramatic falls in, for example,
tourism or other revenue, and then have been hit on top of that
by the direct pandemic itself.
So, in addition to what we do through USAID, we are also
more at the macro level, but I think quite significantly, in
terms of resources, very much supporting Treasury's effort to
leverage and make those funds available because this is going
to be a long-term, very, very significant recovery.
Mr. Espaillat. Real quick now to Ms. Lesley Ziman, what is
being done at the border to help vaccinate asylum seekers,
refugees, and immigrants? It seems that we are not doing
enough, and as a result, they are wide open to get COVID-19 and
spread it.
What is the protocol to deal with refugees, asylum seekers,
and immigrants at the Del Rio border area?
Ms. Ziman. I would have to refer you to CDC and DHS for
specifics of vaccinations and COVID mitigation on the U.S. side
of the border.
However, in Mexico and throughout Central America, PRM is
utilizing its resources through the ARP to provide COVID
mitigation and response measures. So, again, we are responding
to vulnerable migrants in those areas, much like we are
throughout the rest of the----
Mr. Espaillat. But you are not sure what happens on the
U.S. side of the border? Once an immigrant comes across, what
happens with regards to vaccination?
Ms. Ziman. So we are currently operating under title 42
order through CDC. I would note under that there are pathways
available for humanitarian needs, in that process, there is a
COVID mitigation processes, but, again, I would have to refer
you to CDC on more specifics on in the U.S.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Now I will yield to Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Sorry I had to leave
the hearing for just a moment. I do want to make note of the
various testimony that we have heard this morning about
vaccines alone not being enough--vaccine delivery, the vaccine
delivery workforce, such an important element in all this.
The COVID summit set this very ambitious goal of 70 percent
of the world being vaccinated within a year, and there is no
way to do that, of course, with vaccine support alone. It is
going to have to involve a lot of work to get those vaccines
delivered in the parts of the world we are talking about.
I want to use my time to raise a question that hasn't been
directly raised, but it is, I know, of direct interest to our
AID witnesses and to all of us. And that has to do with
governance and the relationship between governance in the
countries of the world that we are talking, which is virtually
every country, and the interaction between governance and the
progress of the pandemic.
On the one hand, I don't know if you have any studies or
any conclusions thus far about which kinds of governments have
done the best with the pandemic.
I know the picture is mixed, but there is some sense that
the pandemic is better controlled by strong, even authoritarian
governments. I don't think the evidence bears that out, but I
wonder what we do know about that.
But then the other side of the equation, the converse is
that the pandemic certainly threatens democracy, and there are
many instances that we know of where pandemic measures have
been used to tighten controls and to tighten autocracies and to
shut down pluralistic forces.
So that is, of course, a work in progress, but I would
appreciate your reflections on this and what the evidence so
far shows because we, of course, in this country have a strong
stake in human rights and in supporting democratic governments
worldwide.
Mr. Konyndyk. Thank you very much for that, Congressman
Price. I would--I think the, you know, the evidence certainly
does indicate that authoritarian governments are better at
containing the pandemic. I would, first, stipulate, of course,
that a lot more research needs to be done as we see how this
continues to play out.
But I think one of the things we see emerging--and this is
something that Tom Bollyky at the Council on Foreign Relations
has written about and researched--trust in government is a
really important factor in a country's ability to control the
response.
And where you see higher trust in government, you see
better compliance with public health measures, more confidence
in the vaccines, and so on.
And where that trust in government and in institutions is
low, it is harder to control the pandemic.
Ultimately--and, you know, this is a lesson, I think, not
just from COVID but from many outbreaks that many of us have
fought over the years--is just the centrality of trust, at a
community level, at a national level.
Gayle and I worked in the past on the Ebola outbreak in
West Africa, and we saw there as well trust being so important,
because ultimately what you need--communities need to own the
response. They need--and people need--to adapt their own
behavior to avoid risk and to take the measures they need to
take.
And, if they don't trust the sources they are hearing that
from, they won't necessarily take those measures. And we saw a
real turnaround in West Africa when communities were hearing
risk messaging from credible voices that they trusted, and I
think we have seen now on the global scale with COVID as well.
Mr. Price. What about the converse effect, the governments
using COVID as a pretext for what they probably wanted to do
all along in terms of autocratic measures?
Mr. Konyndyk. We have seen a lot of that, and it is always
a little bit of a kind of chicken-and-the-egg challenge to know
what would have happened.
You know, the counter factual is not always clear. So, you
know, would a crackdown not have happened if not for COVID?
You know, clearly a government that is cracking down wants
to crack down. They are not just doing it because of the
pandemic. But I think, you know, there are a number of
instances where the pandemic, as you say, provided a pretext or
a cover for a political crackdown that, you know, may have been
desired in any case.
It is--you know, it is hard to parse those apart, but, you
know, we have seen a number of places, Ethiopia being one for
example, where a political crisis that had much deeper roots
than COVID was accelerated and exacerbated by COVID.
And I think it just gets to a larger point that, as long as
this pandemic continues, we will face major systemic risks, and
elevated systemic risks, it is hard to predict where and when
those will blow up, but I think we can predict broadly that
more will continue.
Mr. Price. Well, engaging with parliaments, for example,
and the House Democracy Partnership, and of course the IRI,
NDI, these NGOs on the ground are engaging.
You know, this is a question of how the pandemic is
handled, how those countries are faring but also the
implications for governments. These questions loom large, and I
think they will be with us for a long time to come.
Mr. Konyndyk. Absolutely agree. We are going to be dealing
with the fallout of this for many years.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Price.
Let me now yield to Ms. Frankel if her technical issues
have been resolved. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Madam Chair, I don't even know where to start
because I have been--I couldn't get on, then I got thrown off,
and then I got on. Then I got thrown off, so.
Ms. Lee. Well, welcome. Glad you make it back.
Ms. Frankel. I apologize. So I might be asking you
something that has already been discussed, but I think I really
just had a very overall general question, which is, you know,
what is the prognosis?
I mean, I know for us to get our situation here under
control, there has to be some way to help the other countries,
but what is the real prognosis of us being able to do that?
Ms. Smith. I am happy to make a comment on that, and I
would like to express my solidarity to the Congresswoman for
the experience of being thrown off and on web-based meetings.
We all experience it quite a lot.
But I think yours is really the vital question. I think,
you know, we are all fond of saying nobody is safe until
everybody is safe. But it is actually true. It is a really good
slogan, but it is really, really true. So the imperatives are
clear.
I think our view is that what it will take is meeting the
targets we have put out at the summit. In other words, we need
to get to that 70 percent vaccination coverage in every
country, in every income category. It isn't sufficient just for
the wealthy countries to achieve that, right? The virus pays no
attention to what country it is in or what border it crosses.
I think our prognosis--and that is only one proxy for what
we need to do because, remember, we also need to be building
the foundations that we need so that we don't do this again.
I think our prognosis is positive but not locked. What I
mean by that is that, in order to get there, it is going to
require a lot in the way of resources.
Although I can promise you that it will cost much less to
end this pandemic than to pay for its duration. So it is money
well spent.
It is going to take a great deal of political will, and I
think one of the steps taken by the President to be followed on
by the Secretary of State and, again, across U.S. Government
senior leadership, is that we have got to mobilize that
political will.
We have got some. We do not have enough political capital
globally to really join forces and do that. We have made
progress certainly since I started, since we last met with you,
but that is the second variable.
I think there are a couple of other variables here that
inform the prognosis that have been referenced. I think the
questions about hesitancy and about vaccine delivery are real,
and I am very pleased that our USAID and CDC and other teams
are working hard on how do we ramp up delivery and make sure
that vaccines actually become vaccinations.
But conquering this hesitancy--and we have seen this in the
United States as well--is going to be another variant. So the
prognosis is positive, but we have got a tremendous amount of
work to do to realize the potential and possible goal of ending
this pandemic in 2022.
Mr. Konyndyk. Yeah. The kind of core message of the
President's summit was that this is an achievable goal and to
lay out the targets that would be necessary to achieve it.
And I think to Gayle's point, you know, we face a choice.
We can end this pandemic--or we can control this pandemic in
the next year--or we can let it run for several more. And I can
tell you it will be both cheaper and easier to control it in a
year than to let it run for 3 or 4 more.
The longer we let this run, the greater the risks. And we
have seen with the Delta variant--the Delta variant emerged
overseas at a time that it looked like things were on the
return to normalcy here in the United States, and it really
threw things off course.
So we can't be fully secure at home until we have really
extinguished this everywhere and gotten this under control
everywhere, and the best way to do that is going to be by an
aggressive campaign of global vaccination to just give this
virus fewer and fewer chances to replicate.
Every time it replicates, we roll the dice on a new variant
emerging.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Can you comment on what appears to
be a gender sort of gap or diversity? It seems like more men
are getting vaccinated than women. Is that true?
Mr. Konyndyk. I don't know if I have the statistics on that
in front of me. We are--you know, the vaccination rates in many
low-income countries have just been so low overall that it is
kind of hard to generalize at a population level, but I think
we can follow up on what we have and provide you with more
information on on that.
Ms. Smith. I would add two quick points on that, and I
think we do need to provide more information. The first is
that, yes, as in most cases, I think there is a gender
disparity built into a lot of this given the nature of
employment.
Women, many of them, are caring for families and so on.
There are a lot of governments that I think are trying to
balance that.
On the flip side, in most countries, a majority of
healthcare workers are women, and they tend to be, in most good
vaccination programs, at the front of the queue. One of the
first things you want to do is vaccinate your healthcare
workers. We can get you more data on that.
I think the last broad point I would make on this is our
conversations--and this is consistent with the question on
governance from a Congressman previous--is to work with
governments to make sure that they have got equitable vaccine
delivery programs, that they are not discriminating against any
group, any gender, or anything else. So we are trying to work
on that, but we can get you more info.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lee. Okay.
Ms. Frankel. But thank you all for your good work. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Ms. Lee. We see you, we hear you. And let me just say to
members, if any member has an additional question, we will do a
3-minute round at this point.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Usually it is
me with the technical difficulty so I am glad it is
Congresswoman Frankel this time and not me.
By the way, I thought Congressman Wexton asked a very
important question about how do you deal with some very
difficult areas?
Let me refer to an area that is not quite as difficult but
that USAID frankly has done, I think, a remarkable job, and
that is dealing with the, you know, just this huge inflow of
Venezuelans that have fled socialism in Venezuela and now are
in Colombia.
And so I know that USAID has done a lot of work there, but
it would be great if you could give me a bit of an update with
how the situation is there, with being able to vaccinate that
vulnerable population of Venezuelans that are in Colombia now.
I want to make clear that I was talking about Colombia. So
how are we doing there, and how is the situation with those
refugees who are Venezuelans who are in Colombia?
Mr. Konyndyk. Sarah, do you want to handle that one?
Ms. Charles. Sure. I can start and my colleague, Lesley
Ziman from the State Department, may want to jump in as well.
I think you are right to point out that there has been a
very robust effort, frankly, led by the government of Colombia,
to ensure that Venezuelans are part of their national action
plan for vaccination.
And Colombia has shown just tremendous leadership with U.S.
support, both from USAID and the State Department, to ensure
that Venezuelans are both provided broader temporary protective
status, the access to education and employment, and access to
vaccines.
But my colleague Lesley may want to jump in as well from
the State Department's perspective.
Ms. Ziman. Yeah. I would just add Colombia is certainly one
of the better examples of including refugees and vulnerable
populations in their national plans, and we are seeing some of
the success to that is, again, not only the vaccine and the
COVID response and mitigation but also the full response to
secondary impacts.
And the humanitarian response has also been coupled with
support from the development banks to ensure that not only are
we able to provide jobs and opportunities for the Venezuelan
refugees but for the broader host communities.
So we do hold that up as a model while COVID rates continue
to be high and applaud the work of the Colombian Government.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I thank USAID and others for the work
that you are doing there, and obviously it helps when you have
a partner that wants to be helpful and has their act together,
so.
As I started before thanking all of you and others who work
in these efforts, thank you for your efforts there. I yield
back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Let's see. Ms. Wexton, I believe you are next, but I don't
see you, and so, therefore, I will yield now 3 minutes to Ms.
Frankel.
Oh, here you are. Excuse me. Ms. Wexton, you are back, 3
minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Actually, Madam Chairwoman, I have to go, so I
don't have any further questions. I will yield to the next.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you for your participation today.
Okay. Now I yield to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I yield back. I will listen.
Ms. Lee. Well, first of all, I think, to our witnesses
today, first of all, you have heard the questions and the very
bipartisan level of interest in this and I want to thank you
again for your time and testimony.
You really did give us a better understanding of the work
being done around the world to address this pandemic and the
enormous challenges that remain.
We didn't have time this morning to talk about the U.S.
contribution to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria,
to support their COVID-response mechanism, but perhaps at some
point the State Department can send us, for the record, how
these funds have been used and how it has complemented our U.S.
bilateral programming.
So I appreciate the very hard work of the people at the
State Department and USAID to address the needs in difficult
circumstances, and we look forward to our continuing
partnership.
You know you have a willing partner in this committee, and
I hope that you continue to keep us apprised of both your
progress and your needs because this really is a matter of life
and death, not only for people abroad but for our own country
and really, quite frankly, for the planet. So I just want to
thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you have any closing remarks?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No further comments. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. So, if members have questions they
would like to submit for the record, please submit them to the
subcommittee within 7 days.
So this concludes today's hearing. The Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands
adjourned, and thank you, and thank you to the staff.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]