[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
BARBARA LEE, California HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
GRACE MENG, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
NORMA J. TORRES, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Steve Marchese, Craig Higgins, Erin Kolodjeski, Dean Koulouris,
Jean Kwon, Marin Stein, Jason Wheelock, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 3
Page
Oversight of United States Agency for International Development
Programs and Policies............................................. 1
Department of State Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020........... 131
United States Efforts to Counter Russian Disinformation and Malign
Influence........................................................ 261
Management Challenges and Oversight of Department of State and
United States Agency for International Development
Programs........................................................ 345
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
BARBARA LEE, California HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
GRACE MENG, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
NORMA J. TORRES, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Steve Marchese, Craig Higgins, Erin Kolodjeski, Dean Koulouris,
Jean Kwon, Marin Stein, Jason Wheelock, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 3
Page
Oversight of United States Agency for International Development
Programs and Policies............................................. 1
Department of State Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020........... 131
United States Efforts to Counter Russian Disinformation and Malign
Influence........................................................ 261
Management Challenges and Oversight of Department of State and
United States Agency for International Development
Programs........................................................ 345
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-682 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, Georgia
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, Texas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
----------
Wednesday, February 27, 2019.
OVERSIGHT OF UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
WITNESS
AMBASSADOR MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey
The Chairwoman. The subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
I welcome you all, especially our new members. [Laughter.]
The Chairwoman. I don't know. This is not a good sign.
But I will mention them anyway because they would want us
to acknowledge them, Ms. Torres; Ms. Frankel--I think she lost
her voice, too--Mrs. Roby; and my friend, the former chairman
and ranking member, Mr. Rogers. I look forward to a very
productive year.
Administrator Green, thank you so much for joining us. I am
constantly impressed by you and the wealth of experience of our
development professionals.
USAID helps the world's most vulnerable people, assists in
the recovery of millions from natural disasters and conflict,
and supports democracy and the rule of law. These development
efforts are the front line of our national security.
This is a tumultuous time around the world.
Globally, democracy is in crisis. The right to free and
fair elections, freedom of the press, and the rule of law are
under assault.
Yemen is on the edge of catastrophe as the world's worst
humanitarian crisis, with 20 million civilians facing
starvation. The second-largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded
rages in a fragile Democratic Republic of the Congo, resulting
in more than 500 deaths so far, including nearly 100 children.
Political turmoil in Venezuela continues. More than 3
million people have already fled, and some 25,000 more flee
every day in what has been called Latin America's worst ever
refugee crisis.
In Burma, since 2017 some 700,000 Rohingya Muslims have
fled their homes in the northern Rakhine province to escape
persecution and violence.
And in Syria more than 6 million people are internally
displaced, and the vast majority of the 5.6 million refugees in
neighboring countries live below the poverty line.
It is clear that our humanitarian and development efforts
are needed now more than ever. For USAID to succeed in leading
these efforts the agency must have sufficient resources and
staffing to nimbly and effectively respond.
But several of this administration's policies have
hamstrung your agency, reducing response time and preventing
the U.S. from partnering with some of the most capable and
experienced implementers. Perhaps no better example is the
administration's expansion of the global gag rule and the Kemp-
Kasten determination against UNFPA.
These terrible policies undermine our effectiveness and
make it much harder to reach people who need us most.
I can clearly remember, my friend, Administrator Green, and
I just have to take a break from these notes because we all
have experiences that we will never forget. I remember visiting
a place where abortion was legal, and I think of this woman
with all the little babies following her, and I think today if
she were taken to a clinic and that clinic dared to provide any
kind of guidance on abortion they would be out of business, and
this woman would not be able to get any guidance at all.
I know you are in a difficult position in this
administration, but if I wanted to take the time I could
probably give you another half dozen or more examples where
birth control is health. It is survival. And to put these
clinics out of business if they are threatened with providing
full direction on Women's health is an abomination.
So, my friend, these self-inflicted wounds compromise the
quality of our efforts and are a disservice to the American
taxpayer.
Another example is the administration's suspension of
assistance during policy reviews and subsequent breaks in
programming that have led to negative consequences. President
Trump also appears to have a flawed view of foreign assistance,
in my judgment, as a reward to our friends and its withdrawal a
punishment to our enemies.
Moreover, the administration's approach to multilateral
engagement, whether it be at the United Nations, the World
Bank, or elsewhere, has been reactionary and shortsighted. Our
assistance has direct impacts that alleviate suffering, save
lives, and enable stability that is essential to our own
interests.
In our interconnected world, our national security is
strongest when development, diplomacy, and defense are all
well-funded and equally prioritized.
I want to make it very clear: This subcommittee stands
ready to work with USAID. To do so effectively will require
ongoing, open communication, especially on areas where funding
needs are outpacing available resources.
Failing to maintain our position as the leader in global
development and humanitarian assistance will cost lives, risk
the spread of infectious diseases, and reduce American
influence around the world. I hope--and I should change that,
my friend, to: We can count on you and your team to help
strengthen communication and consultation with us throughout
the 116th Congress.
I thank you very much for testifying today, and I look
forward to our discussion. Before we move to your testimony I
would like to turn to my friend, Mr. Rogers, the ranking
member--we just take turns, but I don't want to take any more
turns in the next year--the ranking member for his opening
statement.
And then I want to make it clear I will call on members
based on seniority of the members who were present when the
hearing was called to order. I will alternate between majority
and minority. Each member is asked to keep their questions to
within 5 minutes per round.
Administrator Green, we will be happy to place your full
testimony in the record. If you would be kind enough to
summarize your oral statement, I want to make sure we leave
enough time to get to questions, Mr. Green.
I will turn to Mr. Rogers. That is what happens when you
don't have a voice. Okay.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Congratulations
on your accomplishment--historic accomplishment--being the
first female chairman of the full committee.
The Chairwoman. So maybe there is a kind of plan. Was my
voice taken away as the first woman? I don't know what is going
on around here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Green. No. No, it can't be.
Mr. Rogers. I know it is going to be difficult to fill both
the roles of being a full committee chairwoman and this
subcommittee chair as well, but I am pleased that you are
staying on and leading the subcommittee, and I look forward to
working with you and being as helpful as we can along the way.
You and I have had a great working relationship down through
the years of time in various roles, and I have found you to be
very effective, and reliable, and honest, and true, and above-
board. So I appreciate our friendship.
Ambassador Green, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to
your old stomping grounds here on the Hill. You spent a good
number of years--was it four terms--on the Hill, and a member
of this body. Among your other accomplishments, we appreciate
your service up here.
And it is good to see you again for your third appearance
testifying before this subcommittee as USAID administrator. You
have demonstrated your willingness to appear when called upon,
to engage our members in a meaningful conversation about your
work at USAID. I asked this of you in your first hearing as
administrator in this very room. I believe you are upholding
your end of the bargain, and I sincerely appreciate that.
I would hope this hearing would allow us to discuss the
president's budget request for fiscal year 2020. If the
speculation holds true, we are looking at another proposal for
steep cuts in the international affairs budget being
recommended in the president's budget, despite being roundly
rejected by Congress for 2 years in a row now.
Unfortunately, the budget submission has been delayed until
mid-March so we will need to have those discussions at another
time.
Therefore, today we are going to focus on oversight. USAID
plays an important role in contributing to our country's
national security. Across the globe USAID is on the front lines
promoting democracy, growing economies, reducing disease,
providing lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
That is why it is critical to make sure USAID is the most
efficient and effective agency it can be. Taxpayers should feel
confident their resources are being invested wisely, and they
should be proud of what is accomplished overseas on their
behalf.
You are fortunate to have a capable inspector general
keeping an eye on the agency. She and her staff have done
important work to help you achieve greater transparency and
increased effectiveness, and I know you take her
recommendations seriously and have made progress addressing
them lately.
But there are some challenges that never seem to get
resolved. They get written up year after year.
I will probably return to this topic with a question, but I
am concerned that the USAID I.G. continues to raise the issue
of vulnerabilities in financial management. These are the
fundamentals, basics of tracking each and every dollar.
I understand you have made some improvement recently, but
that doesn't mean you should take your foot off the gas. I
discussed this and other issues in a hearing with the inspector
general when I became chair of this subcommittee, and I intend
to follow it until it gets resolved.
I strongly encourage you and your management team to remain
focused on making this an agency strength rather than a
perennial challenge.
The situation Venezuela, a topic of great interest, of
course. The Maduro regime has caused desperate conditions in
Venezuela, has threatened counternarcotics efforts and economic
development throughout the region.
In turn, this has forced unprecedented numbers of
Venezuelans to flee their homes. The outcome of this political
crisis will have a substantial impact on Latin America for
decades to come. I know you intend to address this in your
remarks, so I look forward to hearing your update.
I hope you will address other important topics, such as
your agency's role in countering Russian and Chinese influence
around the world, efforts to suppress our partners in the Near
East that continue to face turbulent times, and critical
investments being made in global health security.
Before I close, I want to thank the men and women of USAID
for their continued hard work and their commitment. I know the
shutdown was difficult, sometimes demoralizing for so many
federal employees, including USAID. I hope their dedication to
their mission will stay strong, and I look forward to doing
what we can to support them in that effort.
I know, Mr. Administrator, that you must be weary. You have
been on the road--the air, if you will--for many months. I
understand you were in Colombia recently twice in 4 days, I
think, so we are glad to have you back here and we hope to give
you a little rest amidst your troubles.
I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Again, Administrator Green, we will be
happy to place your full testimony into the record. If you
would be kind enough to summarize your oral statement?
I want you to do whatever you are comfortable with. I want
to make sure, though, that we leave enough time to get to
everyone's questions.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Opening Remarks of Ambassador Green
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And up front I apologize for my voice. I picked something
up on one of those travels, and until this morning I actually
thought I was winning. Now I am not so sure, but I appreciate
the forbearance of the committee.
So, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Rogers, Members, it is
good to be with you. Thank you for this opportunity.
I would like to begin this morning by discussing USAID's
efforts to address a few of our more-pressing humanitarian and
development situations across the world. As many of you have
alluded to, at USAID we have urgent work to do, and that work
has never been more important.
To name one, I have just returned from Cucuta, Colombia, a
short distance from the border with Venezuela. There I saw
firsthand the devastating effects of the Maduro regime's
corruption, economic mismanagement, and oppression. I heard
stories of unimaginable suffering: children starving, hospitals
running out of medicine, and people walking, in some cases
hundreds of miles over several days, to reach the border in
search of help.
Of course, this tragedy is all the worse because Venezuela
was once one of the region's wealthiest countries. At the
request of Interim President Juan Guaido, we have been
prepositioning humanitarian assistance close to the border for
eventual delivery into Venezuela.
While in Cucuta last week, I welcomed the arrival of a new
tranche of humanitarian assistance. Since February 4th, USAID,
with support from the Departments of Defense and State and
others, has prepositioned approximately 195 metric tons of
crucial relief supplies, including emergency medical kits, food
aid, hygiene kits, and nutritional supplies.
This past weekend, as I am sure you were watching, this
past weekend was tragic, as thousands of Venezuelan, Colombian,
and other humanitarian volunteers sought to transport
lifesaving food and medical supplies into Venezuela. They were
met with death, tear gas, rubber bullets, and violence ordered
by the Maduro regime.
The United States, over the last couple of years, has
contributed more than $195 million in funding to support
Venezuelan migrants and the communities hosting them. We are
far from alone in that effort: 54 countries now recognize the
interim presidency of Juan Guaido. Many of our closest allies
have pledged assistance, and many private citizens have already
provided assistance to the region.
However, as I know you agree, in order to fully respond to
these crises, we need to address their underlying causes. Just
as we lead the world in humanitarian assistance, we should also
lead in our commitment to democracy, human rights, and citizen-
responsive governance.
USAID stands in solidarity with Interim President Guaido
and those in Venezuela who seek a government that represents
their interests and is responsive to their needs. So long as
Maduro and his cronies continue to crush the people of
Venezuela, their economy, and their hope, we know this crisis
will continue.
The people of Venezuela, like those in Cuba and Nicaragua,
who are also suffering under authoritarianism, deserve freedom
and a return to the rule of law.
Some observers talk as though democracy is in irreversible
decline, but the only way that freedom and democracy will fall
is if we let them. As President Trump recently said in Miami,
we can see the day ahead when all the people of Latin America
will at last be free.
Members of the subcommittee, we are hard at work in
addressing another humanitarian crisis, this one of a
fundamentally different nature. The outbreak of Ebola in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, where health officials have
recorded at least 869 confirmed cases and 544 related deaths
all since 2018, should be of concern to all of us.
USAID disaster and health experts, part of the U.S.
Government's Disaster Assistance Response Team, are on the
ground working side by side with WHO and the Ministry of Health
in DRC. The team is applying tools and valuable lessons
learned, developed in the 2014 epidemic response in West
Africa. The strategy is to break the chain of transmission and
ultimately end the outbreak.
It is a complex working environment. Poor access to certain
areas, security concerns, and community distrust have presented
remarkable hurdles to our work.
But despite these challenges, responders are conducting
their vital work in affected areas, including surveillance and
case-finding, case management, and raising community awareness
about transmission. We will continue to monitor and adapt
accordingly, in coordination with our colleagues from the CDC.
This response is a priority not only because of our
commitment to those affected, but also to prevent the outbreak
from spreading throughout the broader region and, quite
frankly, beyond.
Unfortunately, we are experiencing humanitarian crises in
nearly every corner of the world. And what makes the tragedy of
the Rohingya even more painful is that, similar to Venezuela,
it is entirely manmade.
Bangladesh now holds 1 million Rohingya refugees from
Burma, as well as the world's largest refugee camp; 730,000 of
these migrants arrived in the wake of an ethnic cleansing
campaign conducted by the Burmese security forces that began in
August 2017.
I traveled to Bangladesh last May to visit the refugee
camps and to hear from those who escaped the violence and
bloodshed. I met with government representatives. I conveyed
America's gratitude to Bangladesh for hosting the refugees, but
I also encouraged them to allow humanitarian organizations to
provide refugees with the full range of support necessary for
their wellbeing--not just food assistance and health care, but
access to education, weather-resistant shelter, and livelihood
opportunities.
USAID, in close coordination with State, continues to
provide emergency food and nutrition assistance to refugees in
Bangladesh. We are also working to ensure their host
communities are not overly burdened by this significant
population influx, and we continue to call on the government of
Burma to take concrete actions to respect the dignity and the
rights of all Rohingya in Burma to return voluntarily, safely,
and in a dignified manner.
Members of the subcommittee, those are just a few of the
most pressing situations at the forefront of our work. But I
would also like to say a quick word about USAID's redesign
process, or transformation.
When I last appeared before the committee in March of 2018,
I provided an overview of several planned initiatives. After
consultations with many of you and your staff, we have since
launched many of them and we are eager to answer any questions
that you might have as you look to review our remaining
Notifications.
As you have heard me say before, private enterprise is
perhaps the most powerful force on Earth for lifting lives out
of poverty, strengthening communities, and building self-
reliance. And so, just in December, we launched the Agency's
first-ever Private Sector Engagement Strategy. This policy is a
call to action to increase and strengthen our work with the
private sector, moving beyond mere contracting and grant-making
to true collaboration, co-design, and co-financing.
Another key initiative--and, Chairwoman Lowey, I have to
thank your unbending leadership on this issue--aims to enhance
a core aspect of our work: improving learning outcomes,
especially for marginalized youth and communities in need. One
aspect of USAID's new Education Policy that I am especially
excited about is its focus on ensuring that we tailor our
education programs to the unique needs of each country.
We are engaging all stakeholders in order to deliver
quality, sustainable education. This includes universities,
traditional education institutions, and, where appropriate,
private sector faith-based organizations, and more. These new
education strategies will ensure that we are considering every
innovation to achieve the very best possible learning outcomes.
Finally, I would like to mention USAID's support for the
White House-led Women's Global Development and Prosperity
Initiative, also known as WGDP. On February 7th, I joined
Ivanka Trump in launching this initiative and announced USAID's
new fund to support and scale up innovative programs that
advance women's economic empowerment around the world. This
fund will have an initial allocation of $50 million and will
support high-impact proposals including those that support
training and skills development, expand access to finance, and
reduce barriers to women's free and full participation in the
economy.
Members of the subcommittee, with your support and guidance
we will ensure that USAID remains the world's premier
international development agency.
And with that, Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for the
opportunity to appear and to continue our conversation. I
welcome questions.
Thank you, Madam.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. A pleasure to welcome you, Mr.
Administrator.
A few weeks ago the administration rolled out the Women's
Global Development and Prosperity program, or W-GDP. Now I, as
you well know, fully support increasing women's economic
empowerment. The inconsistency, however, of this
administration's policies on such an important issue is
baffling.
And I won't say just Ivanka Trump; I will talk about the
whole administration. Because you and I know that financing
alone won't solve this problem. Our programs will not be
effective if we don't see women and their challenges
holistically, and address the environment in which they are
raising their families and supporting their communities.
So do you believe this administration has put the policies
in place to effectively encourage women to take advantage of
economic opportunities? You will probably say yes, so I will
let you give a quick response.
Mr. Green. Yes.
The Chairwoman. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
I wouldn't even think of that.
I hope we can work together on W-GDP, but is this
administration reconsidering its stance on funding for
important women's health and education programs that would be
necessary for women to better contribute economically?
Mr. Green. The administration, in terms of women's
education, very much is looking to boost women's education and
to tackle the barriers to women's education. As part of the W-
GDP Initiative we are taking a look at all the--country by
country--all of the barriers to participation in the economy.
The Chairwoman. Including health barriers specific to
women?
Mr. Green. Taking a look at health barriers, all the
barriers.
The Chairwoman. I hope you look very, very carefully at the
health barriers that this administration advocates.
So let me be very specific, will the administration reverse
its position on an expanded gag rule or misguided prohibition
on UNFPA funds to ensure women are able to take advantage of
this new initiative?
Mr. Green. I will give you a two-part answer.
In coming weeks we will be producing, as we have pledge to
do, a report on the impact of the Protecting Life in Global
Health Assistance policy announced 2 years ago. We will make
that report public. I do not believe that it will be reversing
its standing position and policy.
The Chairwoman. I thank you, frankly, for your frank
answer. As I mentioned before, I have traveled to so many
places, and you see what empowerment of the women does when
they can have appropriate health advice and assistance.
The last USAID administrator under a Republican
administration, Henrietta Fore, launched the Development
Leadership Initiative with a vision to double the number of
permanent Foreign Service officers at your agency. And I was so
proud to support this initiative when I was last chair of this
subcommittee. In fact, the Development Leadership Initiative
garnered strong bipartisan support in recognition of the
invaluable role USAID personnel play in our national security.
The Obama administration continued this Bush administration
initiative, but this administration has significantly reduced
staffing. Can you respond? I know I just have a few seconds
left.
Mr. Green. As you know, a year-plus ago we were under a
hiring freeze. Since then we have taken steps to hire
approximately 140 career Foreign Service officers, which we
will do between now and the end of Fiscal Year 2020, which is
in line with available O.E. budget. And beyond that, we will
continue to hire staff and begin to power-up since the freeze
was lifted.
The Chairwoman. Maybe I can ask you directly: Should USAID
be expanding, or is your current staffing level sufficient? And
what is the impact of the dramatic workforce reductions,
including on morale and workload?
Mr. Green. So we will be expanding our staff in line with
available budget. So it is not a set number; it is making sure
that we have the right people in the right place to do the jobs
that are necessary.
I can tell you that during the lapse in appropriations in
which a good percentage of our staff were furloughed, that did
delay a number of operations that we would normally take on,
including oversight. So when we have staff reductions like that
it certainly hurts our effectiveness.
The Chairwoman. Well, I thank you very much.
And before I turn this over to Ranking Member Rogers I want
to say this committee, whether Chairman Rogers is in charge or
I am in charge, and all the members, are passionate about the
important work of USAID and feel there have been some mistakes,
wrongheadedness in terms of the cuts. So we are happy to be
your partner; we are happy to have open and honest discussions,
and continue to support the very essential work that you are
doing.
So thank you for appearing before us today.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Administrator, China. Anecdotally, all of
us on various trips around the world have noticed of late very
active Chinese involvement in that country. They have emerged
as a major provider of export credits, infrastructure
financing, symbolized by their very ambitious Belt and Road
Initiative, they call it.
Unlike the U.S. and most Western donors, China's lending
policies are not guided by standards of anticorruption,
transparency, or the ability to pay the loan back--
sustainability. Many of us are concerned that this model gives
Chinese companies a big advantage in emerging markets and
allows Beijing to use large projects as a way to gain
geostrategic influence and power.
Understanding that the U.S. response must involve many
agencies, what is USAID's role and strategy to counter the
China model of development around the world?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Ranking Member, for that question. It
is a topic that I am passionate about.
First and foremost, when you ask countries why they accept
or turn to China, in most cases they will say, because they are
there and the U.S. is not. So the first answer is we need to
engage in more places more often with countries. I think we
need to be there and show what it is that we offer.
Secondly, I think we need to do a better job in helping
countries analyze the terms of what China offers. You and I
wouldn't really refer to what China does as assistance. It is
predatory financing is what it is. And so I think helping
countries to be able to analyze the cost-benefits of the China
package is important.
Most importantly, we have to be clear about what it is that
we offer and what the end game is. So what I say is in many of
these countries it is a choice between self-reliance, which is
what you get in the end of your partnership with us, the
ability to lead yourself, provide for yourself, guide your own
future, versus servitude, in which you are in perpetuity
indebted to an authoritarian power. I think we should be full-
throated in pointing out the clear differences. So I think it
is a combination of all of them.
We have got to be there. I think we have to do a better job
in describing what it is that we offer. And I think we have to
do a better job in describing the downside, the cost of what
China offers.
Finally, I think that the new DFC, which will be coming
online towards the end of the year, is an important tool in the
toolbox. We shouldn't try to be China-light. We shouldn't get
into a bidding war with China. But what we can do, with quality
financing from the DFC and other parts of the U.S. Government,
is incentivize the kinds of policy reforms that can help a
country rise. Every country wants to lead itself, and we want
to make it clear that we can help them get there.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is a juggernaut. The Chinese are
launching--have launched a juggernaut.
They are all over the world and they are pouring billions
of dollars into questionable loans for projects that probably
will never see the light of day. But they have made their
presence there. They have made friends.
Mr. Green. If I can, a term that I heard in talking to some
businesses in Latin America, they said that they refer to
Chinese assistance as ``loan-to-own'' because there really is
no sense of providing financing. It is essentially indebtedness
that will allow China to take over assets.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. And we have never seen anything quite like
this, have we?
Let me quickly switch to Venezuela. A lot of focus on the
situation inside Venezuela, and rightly so.
You have provided us with helpful overview of recent
events. We would like to hear more about what we have done and
will do for other countries in the region that have been
strained by the more than 3 million people that have fled
Venezuela. Could you help us out with that?
Mr. Green. Thank you, and it is an important question.
One of the things that makes Venezuela different in terms
of its scope is the fact that it is happening as we speak. As
the Chairwoman pointed out, we are seeing the flight of
migrants increase each and every day, getting on for 4 million
now, and it is affecting the entire region.
So we have been providing assistance to host countries to
support those migrants who have come over as well as the
communities that are, in fact, hosting them. It is moving as
far as the Caribbean, where the economies--just by World Bank
numbers--may be prosperous but they are fragile. If they are
tourism-oriented you can see how the presence--sudden presence
of migrants would be burdensome. So we have been trying to
provide some support there.
This is not a bilateral problem; it is not U.S.-Venezuela.
This is a problem, a challenge that affects the entire region,
and that is why it is receiving the attention, and it should
be.
Mr. Rogers. I think my time is expired.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Good to see you, Mr. Ambassador.
First, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
leadership.
I have several questions. I apologize, I have to go into
another hearing so I am going to try to summarize my questions
all in one round.
Of course I have been concerned about the Trump
administration's cuts to UNFPA and the impacts that these cuts
have on the health and wellbeing of women and girls around the
world. As you know, UNFPA provides critical voluntary
reproductive health care, including family planning services,
to the world's poorest women living in over 150 countries
around the world.
Now, I know you have previously stated that USAID was in
the process of reprogramming U.S. funds that were going to
UNFPA, but we never got a handle on where those funds were
reprogrammed for, what accounts they went into. And, you know,
how in the world, now, are you ensuring that women and girls
are--in vulnerable situations, such as the child health care
and refugee camps in Jordan--how are they accessing care now,
given the shift in funds?
So I would like to know what accounts they are going into.
Secondly, of course, I am back talking about democracy
programs in Cuba. Of course, the ZunZuneo program, covert Cuban
Twitter designed to stir unrest, funding for Radio Marti and
Television Marti are, I believe, a waste of taxpayer money. And
we have learned recently that it was TV Marti described as an
anti-Semitic segment against George Soros. I don't know if you
conducted an investigation or not.
But why are we continuing to fund these programs wasting
taxpayer dollars, and what is the status of the investigations
into all of the wasted money? And is USAID playing a
constructive role in what seems to be really an organic opening
in Cuba?
There are about 830 Wi-Fi hotspots, and so, of course we
know under the Obama administration we moved toward at least
trying to normalize relations and engage in some dialogue and
some diplomacy, but yet now these--under Trump the policies
have turned us back. And so I am wondering what your assessment
is on the Cuban people, in terms of curbing trade and travel.
My next question just has to do with HIV and AIDS in terms
of country ownership. And are countries, which we all agree
need to happen, but is the groundwork established to insist on
country ownership?
And then finally, what are we doing in the West Indies and
the Caribbean? We discussed this a little bit, but I know there
has been very little involvement in the West Indies and the
mainly black Caribbean countries, and I do know that China is,
of course, there, and I am wondering why we haven't engaged
much in the West Indies.
So thank you again.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. You may be in and
out but you have gotten all of your questions in and I will
attempt to address them as best I can. And I enjoyed our
conversation yesterday.
So first, with respect to UNFPA and the reprogramming of
dollars, with respect to last year's funding, the 2017 fiscal
year funds, those were--those funds were put into maternal and
reproductive health--voluntary family planning and maternal and
reproductive health activities in priority countries. In
addition, part of the money was used for the prevention of
cervical cancer in Malawi and Mozambique as part of an
integrated program on women's health.
With respect to Fiscal Year 2018 funds, those are still
being under review and we will supply a Congressional
Notification to your office to make clear our intention as to
where those funds will go. So as always, we will make sure that
we are very clear where those funds go.
With respect to Cuba, we have increased humanitarian
assistance in Cuba to political prisoners, and we do continue
to provide access to independent media as much as we can in
Cuba. With respect to the precise question you asked, I will
have to get back to you. My office will supply a written
response. I just am not entirely familiar with that.
On PEPFAR, I support Ambassador Birx's efforts to begin to
build stronger sustainability of our PEPFAR investments in some
of the countries that have increasing capacity. I think we all
recognize that in the long run the right answer in nearly every
sector is to help countries to be able to lead themselves.
In the case of health systems in countries with high AIDS--
HIV/AIDS burdens, it is building their capacity, slowly getting
them to mobilize more and more of their own domestic resources
so that eventually, sustainably they can take over leadership
themselves. That is what Ambassador Birx is trying to do.
Obviously USAID is part of the larger PEPFAR effort, and we
are committed to doing that. It is challenging in many
environments, but we think it is important.
With respect to the Caribbean, and the West Indies in
particular, as we discussed yesterday, I appreciate and, quite
frankly, welcome your passion on this. These nations are our
neighborhood, and I think that we should engage them more, and
as much as we can.
We often engage only during moments of humanitarian crisis,
when there are storms and other natural disasters. And I am
proud of the fact that we do. It would be nice to engage with
them outside of storms and natural disasters. Those
relationships are important.
And again, I think that if we can bolster the economic
vitality of our own neighborhood, the Americas, the Western
Hemisphere, I think every American benefits. I think it is good
for us as well as being good for them.
So you have my commitment to sit down and work with you on
that. I share your passion. I think it is great.
The Chairwoman. Excuse me.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you feel
better.
Before I make my comments, if I could ask Ms. Lee a
question. Are you coming back to the hearing? The reason I ask
is you know you have a particular passion for Haiti and I have
some questions in that regard. If you are coming back I will
probably save those for the----
Ms. Lee. I am not sure. No, go on.
Mr. Fortenberry. I will have to do it by myself then, okay.
Ms. Lee. Yes. Thank you very much. But I am sure I
associate myself with your remarks on Haiti. [Laughter.]
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Thank you.
Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the time. And, frankly,
it is a privilege for me to serve on this subcommittee.
Mr. Administrator, I never, frankly, know what to call you:
congressman, administrator, ambassador, or Mark. So welcome.
Mr. Green. Mark works well.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mark is okay? Yes.
Thank you for your long-held leadership and public service.
We are really grateful.
Before I ask you a few questions starting with northern
Iraq I would like to give a few reflective comments.
I think that the United States Agency for International
Development, that title doesn't appropriately capture the
fullness of what we are trying to do here. And if I had a
chance to rename this, this would obviously have to be
shortened, but I do believe you have one of the most important
jobs in the country, perhaps the world, because it is about a
couple fundamental things, promoting human dignity, attacking
the root causes of structural poverty, and attempting to create
and imagine a 21st century architecture for diplomatic
relations that is based in authenticity, in service--and this
is the key point--in service to America's humanitarian impulse,
international stability, and our own national security.
Now, if you can find a way to take all of that and press it
into a new title I think we could rename the agency because I
think it is broader than the two words ``international
development'' captures. And I know you have a particular
passion for this, and I am grateful for your service.
You did mention we have humanitarian crises all over the
world. And again, I think all of us who have been given this
great gift of public service have to reflect on the more
fundamental question as to why.
We can move economic aid; we can move assistance. But why
do we continue to have these humanitarian crises, especially in
an age of unprecedented prosperity in some places,
unprecedented development of the sciences and technology? The
world is still screaming for meaning, and ultimately I think
that meaning is found in the philosophical proposition of human
dignity.
Let me fast-forward, and I would like to--Madam Chair, I
haven't had a chance to visit with you about this, but if we
could do so privately I would appreciate it.
Administrator Green and I traveled to northern Iraq last
summer, and what we were doing there at the request of the vice
president's office was to evaluate the aid programs that were
targeted to the religious minorities that once flourished in
northern Iraq. Christian communities, Yazidi communities,
certain minority Muslim communities once formed an ancient
mosaic tapestry of religious pluralism. The Iraq War and then
the consequences of ISIS have--and their genocide, their
twisted, dark ideology--has decimated these peoples.
So the United States, again, very generously, has
transferred aid. I believe it is near $200 million.
My findings were that there is possibility that this aid
has the potential impact that we desire: a regeneration of
these communities, helping Iraq save, again, what once was a
vibrant disposition toward pluralism. The situation, though, is
urgent. The Christian community has trickled back; the Yazidi
community, many of whom are trapped in refugee camps, there
will be pressures for out-migration more than there have been
if we don't act quickly.
But the more fundamental issue is security. Without
security there is really little prospect that the aid that we
are giving and other countries are giving is sustainable in the
long run.
So, Mr. Administrator. I have taken up a lot of my time.
But I would like you to respond to that prospect. And what I am
trying to do is, working with Chairmen Engel and McCaul, a
resolution through Congress that lays down a marker talking to
this issue of security and integrating, frankly, Christians and
Yazidis and minority Muslim communities into the Iraqi security
forces with some authority to protect themselves.
Mr. Administrator, if you could respond to this?
Mr. Green. Thank you for your question and for your
concern. And obviously you and I have had a number of
conversations about this.
I have been struck by the way that the Iraq government in
its approach to the flourishing diversity that was once there
in northern Iraq, how they refer to it. They don't refer to
minorities; they refer to ``component communities,'' with the
idea being that Iraq cannot be whole if it is missing those key
components.
We do believe, I do agree, that if we are to defeat ISIS
once and for all we must undo some of what it tried to do,
which was to destroy that diversity of freedom of conscience.
And so we think it is important work to be done.
Yazidis, Christians, as you have pointed out, a number--a
range of minorities, there are two pieces to it. As you know,
and thanks in part to your leadership, we are providing
valuable assistance to these communities to try to provide the
infrastructure that allows them to return and have economic
livelihood.
The two challenges that I see, which will determine whether
we are successful in the long run, are: number one, they have
to--they must not argue amongst themselves. In other words,
they cannot allow the fragmentation of the communities to
finish the job that ISIS started in terms of breaking apart
what was a wonderful mosaic.
But most importantly is security. And as I often say, I am
not in the wish projection business. I try to be clear-eyed.
And unless these communities feel as though there is some
security around them I find it hard to believe that they will
either stay or return, as you and I both hope they will.
So I think addressing security is a key part of our long-
term success.
Mr. Fortenberry. Great. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
And I just want to say to my colleague I remember to this
day--the name of the person who gave us that briefing on what
happened in Iraq, and I voted for that war. It was probably the
most misguided vote I ever took in my life.
And I agree with you, that was a tragedy, and I look
forward to working with you on this enormous challenge.
And I know my good friend feels the same--well, I won't say
you agree with everything I just said, but we have an enormous
job to do and I thank you again on that effort, as well.
Ms. Torres, a pleasure. A new member of the committee, and
we are delighted to welcome you here today.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you so much. It is an honor to be here
with all of you.
Thank you so much for being here, Mr. Green. As you know, I
have traveled extensively within the Western Hemisphere and
have looked at all of the work that USAID is doing, and I am
grateful, and I am a fan of the work that is being done by your
employees that I think are just wonderful ambassadors of the
U.S. as we continue to look for opportunities to expand
democracy within our hemisphere.
So you have a big job. Part of that is dealing with issues
of public corruption.
In the 2019 budget justification for Guatemala, USAID
programs were to address corruption by improving internal
controls and transparency of public financial management and
procurement at the national and local levels. We were to help
them increase transparency.
How is that happening, and what is your assessment within
the Guatemalan government? Recent actions have been tearing at
the rule of law, violating the rule of law, tearing at the work
that we have been focused on doing there.
In Honduras $4.4 million were to go to NGOs to serve as
watchdogs for government actions, to conduct social audits and
evaluations of government programs and services, and advocate
for reforms, and promote transparency there, again, and
accountability.
Can you talk about those two countries and how--what is the
progress there? And I know that the administration was calling
on a review of the funding within the Northern Triangle. What
is the status of that review, the assistance that we are
providing to the Northern Triangle?
El Salvador has elected a new president. We are all
hopeful. My glass is always half full. But we will see.
Mr. Green. Thank you for the questions, and also for your
passion for the region. We think it is very important.
First off, you raised the issue of corruption and impunity
in those three countries in particular, and it is right for you
to raise and elevate that concern because it really touches
almost every other aspect of their economy, their governance,
and the environment that too often drives people to leave their
homes and head northward.
With respect to Guatemala, what I can say is some of the
investments that we have made, the support of the special
prosecutor's office for extortion and anticorruption, it has
helped increase the number of final verdicts in extortion cases
from 26 in 2015 to 512 in 2017. The number found guilty of
extortion increased from 41 to 735 over the same period of
time.
Mrs. Torres. I have had several meetings with the attorney
general in Guatemala, Ms. Porras. Those numbers sound really
great, but we are talking about the little guy, right? We are
talking about, you know, the little guy hitting up the liquor
store, or the convenient supermarket, or the restaurant.
The major cases of public corruption dealing with members
of congress, narcotraffickers in congress, we have yet to hear
about those.
Mr. Green. I wish I could tell you that we had easy wins
and victories to point to in there. It is difficult work. It is
very difficult work. We will continue with it. I share your
concerns and your priorities.
Mrs. Torres. So as far as how much money has been spent in
helping to improve the justice system, the judicial system in
Guatemala?
Mr. Green. I will have to get back to you. I don't have
that number at my fingertip.
Mrs. Torres. Okay. I apologize for not meeting with you
ahead of time. I don't like to do the surprise questions.
Mr. Green. We will make sure we get that to you.
Mrs. Torres. Okay. Will you continue with Honduras?
Mr. Green. Yes.
So in Honduras our support has been to the Mission to
Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras.
It has enabled the hiring of a record number of anticorruption
judges, prosecutors, and investigators in Honduras.
And so working closely with the national Attorney General,
it has achieved three high-profile convictions and taken on
three other high-profile corruption cases. So it is beginning
to show some progress.
And I agree with you, as you alluded to in Guatemala, sort
of getting the big fish, if you will, is not only important for
a sense of justice, but symbolically message-sending. So we
will continue to push and to provide support where we can. We
think your priorities are well-placed.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
My time is up and I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I just want to say before I turn to the next person, to my
friend Ms. Torres, I was part of the administration's strategy
led by Vice President Biden.
And if I recall, Mr. Green, there was $3 billion
appropriated over 4 years for the Triangle strategy.
But I think you ask a very important question and I would
love to have a follow-up meeting with you to see--I am not sure
at this point whether all that money was spent. In some areas
did it accomplish something?
The reports we get back, and I know you get back, are
extremely serious. People's lives are at stake.
So I would like to follow up with you at some time to talk
about that money, unless you know right now how much of that $3
billion was spent and did it accomplish anything, before our
friend goes to another hearing.
Mr. Green. I don't know off the top of my head. I will make
sure that we have a briefing for you. But that is great, and I
really appreciate the interest. Again, it is our neighborhood.
This is important.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
And thank you. Welcome to the committee, and thank you for
bringing up an important issue.
And I am delighted to turn it over to Ms. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Administrator Green, thank you for being here. Thank
you for your service. And I appreciate all the time that you
spent with me yesterday. It has been a hectic couple of days,
so I appreciate your flexibility.
And, Madam Chair and our leader, Mr. Rogers, I just want to
tell you how grateful I am to be a member of this committee. I
look forward to working with all of you. This is a very
distinguished group of members of Congress, so I am very
honored to get to join you here in this subcommittee.
The Chairwoman. We are honored to----
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. Thank you.
A couple things that we talked about yesterday, and I will
just throw them out there and then give you an opportunity to
respond. We had talked about some success stories between
coordination between USAID and DOD, and I wanted to give you an
opportunity to kind of expand on that.
Also, as you know, my interest has been mostly focused on
Afghanistan. Over the past 8 years I have spent quite a bit of
time traveling there, and there are programs that are in place
that there has been a little bit of frustration in terms of
measuring outcomes instead of inputs.
And one of the things that we also talked about was a
change in the metrics of how you demonstrate that the
investments are equating to positive outcomes. And so that also
is of interest to me. And you can talk about that across the
board, but you know my interest has been mainly focused in
Afghanistan.
And then I would leave you with just an open-ended question
that is what do you need from Congress right now to continue
the work of the agency? And in the immediate future what do you
foresee as being pressing policy or budgetary matters that we
need to be aware of so that you can continue to do the work
that you do?
Mr. Green. Great. Thank you.
In terms of civ-mil relations, it is probably one of the
best-kept secrets in terms of our work. We work very closely
with the Department of Defense, largely in two different areas.
First off, let me say that we have 23 staff from USAID who
are embedded either at the Pentagon or in the Combatant
Commands, and it has been that way for the last several years,
certainly in crisis response.
A few weeks into my tenure as Administrator we were
responding to the second earthquake that hit Mexico City, and
it was a crisis, as you can imagine. There were people trapped
in buildings.
After a phone call from Mexico Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as well as from the White House, we turned around, worked with
our partners at DOD, and we were able to get a search-and-
rescue team there by the next morning before breakfast. That is
a clear case of where we partner with DOD to move our
humanitarian people the most quick, effective way that we
possibly can.
More importantly, we work closely with DOD in stabilization
efforts. So in conflict zones where there is success in the
battlefield you only really lock up that success if you replace
the vacuum with citizen-responsive institutions that begin to
create a culture in which people have a stake in the survival
of the community, and that is what we do, and that is what DOD
doesn't want to do. And so we work hand in hand.
I traveled with General Votel to Raqqa, Syria to take a
look at our stabilization work there. So it is a wonderful
relationship. We think it works well, and we look forward to it
continuing to grow.
With respect to Afghanistan, obviously a difficult working
environment for a number of reasons, part of what we are trying
to do in Afghanistan is to create economic vibrancy to create
inclusive development that stabilizes some of the areas that
have been rocked by years of conflict. We helped the Government
of Afghanistan launch air cargo corridors that connect the
country to markets in India, in the Gulf, in Europe.
We have been working with the Government of India in which
we bring young Afghan women craftsmen, if you will, to India to
be trained in how to market and run small businesses and then
bring them back. And I have seen some of that firsthand.
What we try to do in our metrics is to not so much look at
outputs as take a look at outcomes. Our view is that every
country wants to lead itself, and so we should take a look at
what the impediments are to its self-reliance, recognizing that
every country is in a different place in its journey and every
country has got external factors that have affected it, and
Afghanistan is certainly one of them.
But we are working to try to build their regulatory
capacity and their access to markets so that hopefully we have
a vibrant market-based economy for the future.
Mrs. Roby. My time is up, but I just--I want to ask you
that before my next trip specifically to Afghanistan I would
like--I would love an opportunity to sit down with you to go
over the specific programs and really drill down so that I will
have an opportunity to ask questions while there. So thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
And you can respond to my last question some other time,
but I am sure you will let us know.
Mr. Green. Most definitely. We would be happy to provide a
briefing and show you projects while you are there.
The Chairwoman. And I would like to say, Ms. Roby, I look
forward to working with you.
And I can remember the number of girls, it was about a
million girls who were in school. I don't know if those million
girls are still in school, and it has become harder and
harder--and you have been there so many times; I have been
there several times--to actually go out and see the schools and
see if they are there.
In fact, I do recall an incredible Afghan woman was a
member of their congress, and her daughter was killed not too
long ago. You probably remember that, too, because she looked
so much like her mother.
The education of girls has been a key priority for us, and
I would really appreciate the opportunity to do more and to get
an update from you on how many girls and women are in schools
now, and are those schools still in existence, and are they
still enabling other girls to have that opportunity, among
other issues.
Thank you for your work.
Mr. Green. The only response I have is that your priorities
are well-placed, that inclusive development is the key to
Afghanistan, not merely development, but inclusive development
that creates a broader investment by all parts of the
community. Women and girls for too long have been entirely
marginalized, and we know that is inherently unstable and
inherently doesn't produce the development outcomes that we all
want to see, including the Afghans themselves.
The Chairwoman. And there has been Ms. Roby and Ms. Davis,
other women members--I don't know if you allow men to go with
you on this trip.
Mrs. Roby. Not on that one.
The Chairwoman. Not on that one. But they have been keeping
up on these issues.
So I thank you, and we look forward to--I am so pleased
that we were joined by Mr. Price. There are many hearings at
the same time.
So we can turn to you if you are ready to ask a question.
Mr. Price. I think I better be ready--miss the chance
here--I do apologize for the back-and-forth act here with all
the different hearings.
I want to let you know about a request that you already
have, and I will not dwell on it because I want to move to
another question. But we really do appreciate your long history
with and support of the House Democracy Partnership, the work
we do with emerging democracies in legislative strengthening in
particular.
I am going to submit a question for the record. I think
your staff has already got this underway. We want to make sure
we have a good baseline as to where legislative strengthening
has gone on, where it is still going on, how much of this is
USAID contracts, how much may be happening through other
offices, and so forth. So we do want to support that work and
would appreciate a good information baseline.
I want to address West Bank funding, and I come to this
with some evidence brought to me by constituents who have
worked for many years in the West Bank, and in particular with
a school in Bethlehem, the Hope Flowers School. These
constituents were there a few weeks ago. They have seen the
work done there to help Palestinian children.
The chairman and I have visited this school some years ago.
They have worked for years teaching nonviolence, citizenship,
social and community skills.
Using a USAID grant, the Hope Flowers School trained and
provided special education teachers and therapists to work with
Palestinian students with trauma, learning disabilities, and
autism. They have just been awarded a new USAID grant to expand
this work into the local community.
Now, my understanding is without this grant the classes and
staff helping students with autism will be eliminated, there
will be no services for more than 200 children who get referred
to the Hope Flowers School for diagnosis and an educational
plan. How could anyone think cutting off that aid is in this
country's interest?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congressman Price.
What I can tell you is that we are working under the Anti-
Terrorism Clarification Act, or ATCA, as it is called. As a
result of the passage of ATCA, the Palestinian Authority, at
the end of January of this year, requested that we no longer
provide funding, and so we have ended all ESF projects and
programs funded with the assistance and under the authority
specified in ATCA in the West Bank and Gaza.
Welcome the chance to continue discussions with you on the
future of West Bank-Gaza assistance. But as a result of the
passage of that law we have been directed by attorneys at the
State Department and USAID, and again, as a specific request of
the Palestinian Authority to cease assistance. And so we are
having to take a look at the very footprint of our operations
there.
Mr. Price. Well, there are reports, as I am sure you know,
that USAID tried to find a workaround to allow the continuation
of certain development assistance projects, but that request
was denied by the White House. I would appreciate your comment
on that.
And also it sounds to me like a fix to the Anti-Terrorism
Clarification Act might be indicated. Would you support that?
What would it look like?
Mr. Green. We would welcome an opportunity to work with you
with respect to that legislation and any changes that you would
seek to make.
Mr. Price. All right. You know, the list is very long.
One incredible--incredibly wasteful and counterproductive
project involves Jericho: a nearly complete multimillion-dollar
sewage network in Jericho. It is going to have to be buried
under asphalt and abandoned, because of this pulling of aid.
And it just seems wasteful, seems counterproductive in
terms of this country's interest and in terms of the kind of
effort we all should concentrate on to strengthen the forces of
moderation and democratic development in the Palestinian
community. Many, many frustrations here.
But one of the bright spots has been our very targeted,
very discriminating aid efforts, and this just appears to be a
wrecking-ball operation, as we come in and wipe these away.
Mr. Green. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.--Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. I would like to just follow up because my
friend--excuse me--Congressman Price makes a very important
point.
And, Mr. Green, assistance was stopped before ATCA by this
administration's review. As you know, the United States is
currently not providing bilateral aid to the Palestinian people
in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In my judgment, this is a decision that doesn't make any
sense. It reverses more than 2 decades of bipartisan support
for humanitarian, economic, and security assistance, and I have
long argued that such funding with stringent conditions plays a
critical role in improving the lives of Palestinians, helping
to improve economic opportunity and providing stability to both
sides in the conflict.
I don't want to put you on the spot because I know you very
well, but you are working for this administration. I would like
to know what, in your view, will cutting off bilateral aid
accomplish, putting aside ATCA. This decision was made before
ATCA.
And if you could share with us the impact of these cuts,
especially on the United States' ability to influence a future
two-state solution--that is--I am still hoping, and I have been
working for that for a very long time--a two-state solution
between Israelis and Palestinians. So ATCA is a problem, but
this administration took that position before ATCA.
And I just want to say, because I know my good friend was
involved as well, people like Dennis Ross used to give me
advice, lists of groups that were doing important work, which
we funded, in the West Bank. So if you can explain to me what
will cutting off all bilateral aid accomplish, I would be most
appreciative.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
What I can tell you is--and you are correct. In 2018 the
President had a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinian
Authority and in the West Bank and Gaza to ensure that these
funds were spent in accordance with U.S. national interests and
were providing value. And that review at that time froze the
assistance that was going.
As a result of that review we did redirect certain funds.
And then on top of that came the Anti-Terrorism Clarification
Act and the resulting correspondence that we received from the
Palestinian Authority.
So I can tell you that that is how we got to the situation
where we are. Obviously we are all hopeful--we are hopeful, in
particular--for a long-term solution that allows us to continue
doing what we think is important work.
The Chairwoman. I guess it is my turn.
I just wanted to add to my good friend, because this is of
great concern to me, we are waiting for this great peace plan
that Jared and Jason Greenblatt are waiting to produce, but I
haven't seen anything yet, and I am very concerned.
I will say that I have met with a group like Arava, which
is doing some important environmental work, working with those
on every side of the issue, Palestinians and Israelis. So there
are some groups like Arava.
But since I am asking the question now, maybe you can
discuss further the impact of these cuts, especially on the
United States' ability to influence a future two-state solution
between Israelis and Palestinians.
And maybe you can share with us, if you have any idea. Does
Jason Greenblatt talk with you, or Jared talk with you? Do we
know about this great peace plan while they are cutting off all
funds that I think is so destructive?
Mr. Green. I don't know the details of the peace plan. It
is no surprise to you.
I have met with Jason just once. This was some time ago. I
can't tell you what the pillars of that peace plan are, to be
honest.
In terms of a full-on description of what the review and
what ATCA--what the ramifications are, I don't have that on my
fingertips but I can pledge to you that we will provide a
briefing. We don't seek to hide any of that.
The Chairwoman. I think that would be very helpful because
we keep hearing about this great peace plan. Then on another
day, we are hearing, well, maybe there won't be a peace plan.
In the meantime there is suffering, and for those of us who
still have dreams of a two-state solution one day--and I have
been in Congress for a long time, but it seems that cutting off
all aid takes us backwards and doesn't move forward in a
positive direction.
ATCA is another story, and I think that this doesn't help
in moving the process forward. But I would like to, and I know
Mr. Price and others would like to, have a complete briefing. I
would appreciate that.
On another area, since we solved the West Bank and Gaza
issue: The Russian government is pursuing efforts to undermine
democracy, weaken multilateral institutions, and reverse
economic progress. If you could share with us what role USAID
should play in countering the malign influence of Russia in
Europe and Eurasia, and does USAID have programs designed to
counter Russia disinformation?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for that question.
As someone who once led an organization that was declared
undesirable by Vladimir Putin it is an issue of particular
relevance and significance for me.
We are crafting and unveiling something that we call the
Countering Kremlin Influence initiative, and it really has
several prongs.
Number one is economic independence by those countries
which the--which Moscow and the Kremlin seeks to influence. So
it is no surprise as to what they are, countries like Ukraine,
particularly energy independence.
Secondly, working to foster independent media and media
literacy for markets. I have seen a number of studies that show
what the Kremlin is trying to do in terms of their messaging
and their media work, and most of it isn't attempting to
convince everyone that the Kremlin is right; it is instead
trying to undermine basic democratic institutions and to break
apart coalitions.
So I think we need to continue to have a concentrated
effort to create media literacy so people can spot the
disinformation, and strengthen those independent media tools.
I was in Prague not so long ago and had a chance to meet
with some of the civil society groups based in that region that
are attempting to do this work, and we will continue to support
them. We think it is very important.
The Chairwoman. Since we have so few people here I can't
resist continuing this discussion for a minute.
How has the administration's previous proposed spending
cuts for Europe and Eurasia affected individual missions in the
region? Does USAID plan to close or downgrade missions in
Europe and Eurasia?
Did I ask that question right?
If you could respond.
Mr. Green. Sure. We have no plans to close missions at this
time. We naturally adjust footprints of missions around the
world based upon changing conditions, progress that is made in
self-reliance, but we do not have plans to close missions.
The Chairwoman. Now, as I understand it the 2019 request
would have cut assistance for the region by approximately 55
percent. I would be interested in your view as what message
does this send to our partners in the region, and how does it
impact your job and USAID's effectiveness in pushing back
against Russia?
Mr. Green. Well, inevitably cuts of that level, that
significance, would force us to readjust operations and
readjust our presence. Inevitably those are the costs, so yes,
that would have forced us to reduce operations in that region
and other areas affected by the impact.
I obviously believe strongly in our team and our programs
and stand up for them. On the other hand, we do the best we can
with the resources we are provided to make them go as far as we
possibly can and to prioritize countries on the basis of
metrics like our journey to self-reliance. But restrictions in
assistance certainly reduce that which we can do.
The Chairwoman. I don't want to put you into a difficult
position, but as you know, members of this committee choose
this committee because they have a real commitment to the work
of USAID and the important role of the United States throughout
the world. So perhaps we can have another discussion and talk
with you about how we could be helpful in advocacy and helping
you do your job, because we know of your commitment and we have
a great deal of faith in you, but we are very disappointed in
some of the decisions that are being made.
Maybe they come from a lack of interest of some people in
the administration; maybe it comes from a real divergence in
opinions about leadership of the United States. But I am hoping
that we can put together a briefing, and I know my good friend,
Mr. Price, and his Democracy Partnership have been totally
focused on how we can help move these governments in a positive
direction.
So perhaps, Mr. Price, we can have a follow-up briefing,
which would be very helpful, because we are all--and I believe
it is bipartisan--very concerned about these cuts that are
being made. And I would be interested to know on what facts
they are based.
So I thank you, and I am very pleased----
Mr. Green. If I might, just to provide a clarification for
the record, in Europe and Eurasia, in the case of Albania we
will be entering into discussions on an evolving footprint
there and what those programs look like. That is not an
immediate mission closure decision, but just to--in the
interest of full transparency, and this is not the first we
have brought this to your staff, but just to be clear, we are
taking a look in Albania at adjusting programming as they
continue to rise in their self-reliance.
The Chairwoman. Now I don't want to cut you off, so we look
forward to that briefing. But if you have any other positive
information that you care to share that isn't a cut in programs
I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be
happy to extend your answer time. Or if you would rather wait.
Mr. Green. Well, I will just say I am a big fan of the
House Democracy Partnership, and I think it is the one program
that is out there which allows us to not only reinforce
democracy in countries, but also the dispersion of power.
Oftentimes at the State Department and at the country-to-
country level, we think only chief executive-to-chief
executive, but the value of the House Democracy Partnership is
to build those legislative institutions that we all believe are
the hallmark of Western democracies, and so I am a big fan of
the work.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me harken us back to the more mundane part of the world
that deals with the bureaucracy. I know it has to be done.
In my opening statement I mentioned my concern about a top
management challenge that the USAID Inspector General has
identified many years in a row now. Vulnerabilities in your
financial management remain a challenge, she says.
One of the issues has to do with USAID's financial
statements and reconciliation with the Treasury Department.
Your books show one thing and Treasury's show another. And they
are off by hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is something we should not ignore, and work on, and
you have worked on it. You have made noteworthy progress, she
says, to address the problem. And yet, it is once again
identified in the I.G.'s fiscal year 2019 Top Management
Challenges report.
In coordination with the OIG, have you developed a
remediation plan to address issues with financial
reconciliation?
Mr. Green. There are two different pieces to that.
Number one are recommendations with respect to management
of programs and grants, and yes, in that case we have been
undertaking a number of significant reforms that will change
the entire way that we do that.
Secondly, what you are referring to is a historical fund
balance with Treasury, $131 million, resulting from a change in
our financial management systems. This resulted from USAID's
systems not properly recording all outlays.
There is no evidence, as the OIG confirms, that we over-
expended any of our accounts. We have identified and resolved
the problems that have led to the discrepancies, and we are, in
fact, working on a plan with OMB on how to resolve that
imbalance.
Mr. Rogers. When do you think that will be approved,
assessed, and the like?
Mr. Green. I am sorry?
Mr. Rogers. When will that be concluded?
Mr. Green. I don't know. I can't tell you for certain. But
we are working on it actively.
The OIG sits in our regular senior management meetings so
we are in constant communication on that. But I will make sure
we get back to you with a specific timeline.
Mr. Rogers. I would encourage you to get it over with. It
is a----
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Burr under the saddle that doesn't need to be
there.
Mr. Green. Right. But I would say, again, there is no
evidence of an over-expending; it is a discrepancy in outlay
timings. But we will definitely work on that and we will get to
you a plan, a timeline.
Mr. Rogers. Secondly and differently, you mentioned in your
opening remarks about reorganization. We didn't give you a
chance yet to expound on that or expand on it.
You have a different name for it I think. What is it
called?
Mr. Green. Transformation.
Mr. Rogers. Transformation. Tell us about it.
Mr. Green. And it is called transformation at this point
because we are in the implementation phase of the whole
operation. So in terms of all of the measures that we have
brought before you, the one that is furthest along is the
creation essentially of a new Bureau for Humanitarian
Assistance, and that is the C.N. that all four committees of
jurisdiction have approved, and so we are in the process of
implementation.
Our commitment to you is to be transparent each step of the
way so that you can see how we are doing it, doing it with full
consultation, because we want this to be sustainable and we
want it to last. We have provided a timeline to you that shows
when and how we plan to take each of the steps along the way,
again, the humanitarian assistance bureau being the furthest
along.
Another aspect to our transformation plans is captured by
the Private Sector Engagement Policy that we unveiled last
year, as well as the procurement reform that we are
undertaking. People naturally focus on the structural changes
because those are the most visible externally, but in many ways
it is the, if you will, the software of our changes--private
sector engagement, procurement reform--that I think will have
the longest-lasting changes.
The idea is when we are done with all this that we will
have an agency that is more field-focused than ever before and
is more nimble than ever before. All of the reforms that we
seek to undertake have been led by career-led workstreams.
We want to make it clear that it is not a political or
partisan matter. It is a matter of taking the best ideas that
we can find from this administration and past administrations
and taking the opportunity of the mandate of a redesign to try
to bring them to pass, in consultation with all of you.
Mr. Rogers. I think there are nine pieces of your
transformation, and you have submitted those to us. We have
evaluated them over the last months and years even, and I think
we have approved five of the nine.
Mr. Green. This committee has, correct.
Mr. Rogers. This committee has. And yet it still needs to
be done in the full committee and wherever else.
Is it important that we approve these changes to give you
this transformation you are referring to? How important is
this?
Mr. Green. It is very important to us because it helps us
do our work more effectively and efficiently. You know, these
are changes that need to be sequences and will--and we know
will take some time.
The journey to self-reliance metrics framework is the first
stop that we have undertaken, but certainly we are committed to
working with you and we would like to keep these on track. But
yes, they are very important. They will allow us to be more
efficient in what we do.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Chairwoman, this is something important,
I think, for us and him--more important to him--for us to bear
down and approve those nine pieces of this reorganization so we
can get on with a better way of doing business.
Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Let's turn to the Northern Triangle countries of Central
America. Our foreign policy and our immigration policy in
recent years has focused on these countries by virtue of the
migrant flows, the huge numbers of families, women and
children, unaccompanied children that have sought refuge in
this country, have come north and turned themselves in,
usually, at the borders and sought refugee status.
I remember when this first occurred, when this pattern
first became apparent. Ms. Granger led a CODEL to Guatemala and
Honduras and the then commander of Southern Command, General
Kelly, flew to Guatemala City to confer with us. I will just
speak for myself. It was the first time I had focused on the
need for in-country support, in-country assistance in these
Triangle countries to make life more tolerable, to make life
more secure, yes, but also to invest in health, education,
other things that made it more desirable and feasible and safe
for people to remain in those countries and not to seek to
migrate.
And General Kelly, others from across the political
spectrum, had a large influence, as you know, on the Obama
administration and on Congress. And in fiscal years 2016 and
2017 we worked with the Obama administration to increase
assistance to that region by something like 50 percent. And it
was a diverse package of assistance, but a lot of it had to do
with conditions in the home countries that would enable people
more safely and securely to stay there.
When the Trump administration came in and set up their
first budget, they proposed slashing assistance to each of
those three countries. It was a devastating budget. I remember
asking General Kelly how he accounted for this and he really
couldn't account for it.
But whatever the reasons were, it was a devastating
proposal and totally, totally ignored the reasoning--the very
sound reasoning, I think--that had gone into those increases.
Now, I give Mr. Rogers a lot of credit for this: Congress
did not accept those budgets. Congress restored funding in
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador in many respects. We didn't
fully do that. There has been a decline since 2016 and 2017,
but the worse of the damage was avoided.
On the other hand, the potential of this has not been
realized, and so now we are awaiting another budget. We hope
that the past is not the prologue here, but we will see what
the new budget looks like with respect to this item.
But I want you to comment on it. You are someone in a very
good position to know what might be feasible here. I don't mean
budget-wise. I mean feasible in terms of having the desired
impact.
This clearly isn't a border security problem mainly. And so
that is the--of course, realizing that we have in the past
looked at the situation in the home countries and how to make
some impact on that.
So I wonder what you think the potential there is and what
the consequences should be for the way with think about our
foreign affairs budget in the Triangle region.
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question.
So what we are--well, first off, as you know as a general
matter, what we are trying to do in the region is to tackle the
conditions that you and I both believe are drivers of irregular
migration: problems of crime, problems of lack of economic
opportunity, problems of a lack of meaningful education and
workforce skills, and also governance in all of this enhanced
by corruption.
Two things that we are trying to do that I think--I hope
will make our programs even more effective.
Number one is trying to target our investments in those
places the statistics tell us are the origins of many of those
fleeing and heading north. So we are working with Customs and
Border Protection to try to identify geographically what those
communities are.
Secondly, we are putting into our programs in the
performance evaluation trying to measure the impact these
investments have on those who are heading north so that it is a
little bit better tailored. You and I both believe that the
investments that we have been making are important and are
having a positive effect. What we are trying to do is make that
more precise so it is easier to document and we can make sure
that we are placing them right where they need to be in terms
of those investments.
Mr. Price. General Kelly, at about the time we visited, had
written a much-circulated article for the Military Times. You
may remember that. And he didn't quite use the term, but the
implication was that something like a Plan Colombia was
required for the Triangle countries in order to have the
desired impact with all hands on deck, in terms of government
agencies and forms of support.
We seem some distance from that now, but the prescription
still may be on target. And so I think the kind of approach you
are talking about--of course the funding level is important,
but also a discriminating appreciation of what kinds of aid
have the most impact and where we should be targeting our
efforts, that is important, as well.
So we simply must work with you on this, and we appreciate
your attention to it.
The Chairwoman. First of all, I want to say thank you to my
colleague. When Ms. Torres was here we were talking about that,
because I remember I was part of that Biden team and I was
looking at the numbers: $750 million 2016, $650 million 2012,
$600 million 2018, $527.8 million, total of $3.528 billion for
4 years.
Given the administration's focus on immigration, I know the
administration would like to increase those numbers to provide
assistance. I should keep the smile off my face when I say
that, but these are important discussions, and I know we all
are concerned with what is happening in that region of the
world.
And having been part of the original effort, I think it is
important to Mr. Price, myself, both sides of the aisle that we
have an in-depth briefing. What did we spend? What did we
accomplish? What can we do differently?
And I thank you again. The importance of this issue is
clear to this committee.
Thank you for bringing this up again, and I know Ms. Torres
and many of us will work on it, so thank you so much.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Administrator, let me just put everything else I have
got on the table and then we will try to unpack as much as we
can: Haiti, Colombia, Farmer-to-Farmer, and the new DELTA Act.
Let me start with Haiti. Maybe if we have a little time to
get to Russia after all that.
As I know you are aware, Haiti is one of the larger
recipients of United States aid, and understandably so. The
conditions there of, again, structural poverty, being in our
neighborhood, is just such a deep scandal for so many of us.
The country's dislocations, the current political upheaval, and
on and on, make your work there both very important and very
difficult.
But one of the underlying issues, obviously--well, not--it
is not obvious; this is a problem--is the border area between
the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The consequences of economic
dislocation because of the, let's say, underground movement of
goods there or--movement of goods there that defy both market
logic and disrupt the economy of Haiti are one of the key areas
in which I think we need to focus on. We put in the bill last
year some considerations in this regard. Could you address
that?
Let me secondly move to Colombia right quick. One of the
principals in the Colombian congress had spoken to me one time
about if they just reforested the acres that they have lost due
to the FARC and that war against them, that that could
potentially offset 20 percent of the emissions in the United
States. Again, reforestation is a part of the broader
conservation set of initiatives, actually gets us all to a
place where we agree on the approach to environmental
stewardship and the impact of manmade activity on the
environment.
Farmer-to-Farmer, my predecessor, Congressman Doug
Bereuter, who I happened to see this morning, conceived of this
idea. A great concept linking farmers across America who have
expertise with some of the world's poor to help them advance.
As we look at Feed the Future countries and better
coordination of strategy there, using a program like Farmer-to-
Farmer as a pull strategy, that actually implements two things:
our expertise worldwide to fight against hunger and create the
right types of long-term structural development there in the
agriculture space, but also enhancing diplomacy to me is the
right thing to do.
We tried to reform Farmer-to-Farmer in the Farm Bill. We
got part of the way there.
Part of a metric that I think we need to use is what we
call yield gap analysis, which actually can determine whether
or not what we are doing in Feed the Future countries is
actually resulting in the outcomes that we want to see in terms
of addressing the needs of poverty and hunger.
Finally, the DELTA Act. Very proud of this initiative. You
are familiar with it: Defending Economic Livelihoods and
Endangered Animals. What we have done here is basically create
the possibility of a transnational--tri-national conservation
area between Botswana, Angola, and Namibia to protect the
extraordinary ecosystem of the Okavango Delta.
Beyond that, though, thinking about, again, the creative
ways in which conservation and preservation of delicate
ecosystems actually lead to economic livelihood, and then
promote almost unimaginable possibilities in new emerging
diplomatic relations in areas in which we in the past have had
some difficulties.
So you got a minute and 30 seconds to do all that.
Unless, Madam Chair, you will be kind enough to extend me a
little flexibility.
The Chairwoman. Always my pleasure.
Mr. Green. And thank you for the questions.
I traveled to Haiti in December, and it wasn't really until
that trip that I took that I began to appreciate just how much
the dysfunctional border between Haiti and Dominican Republic
impacts the economic prospects in Haiti. It is hard for me to
see Haiti becoming at all self-reliant as long as you are
having the problems that we are of smuggling of goods and
ineffective revenue collection in that D.R.-Haiti border.
Mr. Fortenberry. Can I stop you there?
Madam Chair, would you be willing, perhaps with Ms. Lee, to
go deeper into this issue? Because all of the good work that
the administrator and we are trying to do in Haiti is impacted,
or undermined potentially, by this singular problem. And it is
a severe dislocation but it is not well-known.
The Chairwoman. I won't go into detail, but I think you
probably remember that we had a briefing--was it about a year
ago or 2 years ago?
Mr. Fortenberry. Four years ago.
The Chairwoman. But two of the best people USAID has ever
had that were assigned to Haiti. They were extraordinary.
Now, I went on my honeymoon to Haiti a long time ago.
Mr. Fortenberry. Really?
The Chairwoman. I have also been to the Dominican Republic.
Mr. Rogers. And look what happened to the economy.
[Laughter.]
The Chairwoman. But I would like to say that was probably
one of the best briefings I ever had. And I think what you are
saying is important because I was so proud of our
representatives. I wish I could say that the results equaled
the talent and expertise of our representative.
We can go into this further, but I would be most eager to
work with you to get--I think my good friend, Mr. Rogers, was
there as well, and----
Mr. Fortenberry. For your honeymoon, too? [Laughter.]
The Chairwoman. Not on my honeymoon.
It is a good thing I could be excused because my voice is
so bad you don't understand what I am saying anyway.
But I would like to follow up with you. All I am saying, it
seems to me we have this discussion, we put some of the best
people there, and unfortunately the progress doesn't measure
the talent. And I would love to have further discussions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. The point of raising it and using so
much time is, again, if you could help us help you with the
right kind of language embedded in our bill that addresses
this--because again, we did so as a first step last year, and
of course that bill is just being implemented--it would be
helpful to us.
I don't pretend to have a fullness of an answer here. I
just know this is a problem. And we have a huge investment in
Haiti, but the preconditions for that investment to be made
whole rely on this--an--a successful outcome here. So can you
help us?
Mr. Green. Yes, I don't disagree with you. This last trip I
think really laid that bare for me.
I met some young entrepreneurs. You know, they are working
hard at it. You saw some economic growth, but they were being
undercut by smuggled goods and they can't rise. I mean, it is
impossible to have a full, vibrant economy with a dysfunctional
border like that.
So you have my commitment. We are starting to put together
a working group. Haiti is a country that has tremendous
bipartisan support. We all want to see success, so I would very
much like to take it on with all of you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay.
Reforestation, Farmer-to-Farmer, and DELTA.
Mr. Green. Farmer-to-Farmer, we have expanded the grants
from Fiscal Year 2018 and we are trying to embed that more with
our cutting-edge research capabilities. As the son-in-law of a
farmer and a believer in farm diplomacy, we want to keep
expanding it. We think it is like the Peace Corps, it is
American diplomacy at its best.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let's brand it.
Mr. Green. And----
Mr. Fortenberry. I think the brand has been lost.
Mr. Green. Let's work on that.
And in terms of reforestation, we think this is--it is
sound from a biodiversity point of view, but it is also really
important economically. Unless we create economic self-interest
in the areas around these parks there is no reason that parks
and forest land are going to survive.
Creating economic vibrancy so that people have a stake in
the park's survival is key. We have seen it work in so many
places. So we would like to reinforce that.
Mr. Fortenberry. So you will have an implementation plan on
the DELTA Act?
Mr. Green. Sure, yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. To be continued.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. I will be brief and allow you to answer the last
part of my previous set of questions.
But, Madam Chair, one of my children once complained about
not wanting to go to school and said, ``Why do you not have to
go to school, Mom?'' I think today's hearing is, as are many,
is evidence that we learn a lot in this job every single day,
and I am grateful for the opportunity to continue to work on a
deep dive with all of the specifics of these very necessary
programs that exist throughout the world.
And so again, I just can't tell you how grateful I am to be
here, and I appreciate you taking the time to be with us.
The last part of my question was very open-ended, and we
will give you an opportunity to tell us what you want us to
know, but how can Congress--what do you need from Congress
right now to continue the important work of your agency? And in
the immediate future, what do you foresee as being a pressing
policy or budgetary matter that you want us today, here right
now, to be aware of?
Mr. Green. I think it is continued attention to at least
one aspect of Ms. Lowey, the Chairwoman, has begun to address,
and that is how we provide basic services to displaced
communities.
What I always tell people, what truly worries me and gets
me up in the middle of the night is the fact that we have 70
million displaced people in the world. We have children being
born in camps, raised in camps; we provide nutrition but we are
not adequately tending to their needs to keep their
connectivity to the outside world so that someday, God willing,
the fence comes down, the gate opens up, they are able to be
productive members of whatever society they are in.
So I am really worried about providing service in conflict,
post-conflict, and crisis settings. With the Chairwoman's
leadership we have been able to use the generous education
funding to begin to address that. We are just scratching the
surface. We have a long way to go.
That is the single most important challenge I would point
to for all of you.
The Chairwoman. Well, I thank you and I know you had a hard
stop at 12 noon. But I really do appreciate the wisdom of all
the members of this committee.
And I would just say in closing, I hope this is not
difficult for you, but I would hope you would give us a budget
request that is real.
Mr. Green. Sure.
The Chairwoman. So let me also say I appreciate your
leadership. I thank you for your time.
As you can see, there is a lot of depth of all these
members. They are interested in these issues, and I am hoping
we can continue this discussion informally and help you by
giving you the resources we need and the technical assistance
that you need, frankly, to do the job.
So I thank you so much.
I thank you, for both sides of the aisle, for your wisdom.
There is so much interest here and we look forward to
continuing to work together.
And I hope our throats clear up. I hope you feel better.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Okay, I have to say this concludes today's hearing. The
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
stands--it stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
WITNESS
HON. MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey
The Chairwoman. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs will come to order.
Secretary Pompeo, while it has taken some time for you to
come before the subcommittee, and we realize you are traveling
all around the world, I do want to thank you for joining us
today. It is important that this subcommittee, with direct
jurisdiction over your Department's funding, hears from you on
the fiscal year 2020 budget.
Before I address the President's inadequate 2020 budget
request, I must respond to the Mexico City announcement you
made yesterday. Your additional expansion of the Global Gag
Rule compromises our ability to support comprehensive, life-
saving care to those most in need. International NGOs should
not be forced to choose between accepting life-saving
assistance from the United States or providing legal
comprehensive care with their own funds. This policy expansion
could dramatically impede the effectiveness of our foreign
assistance and life-saving programs. Not to mention this type
of coercion runs contrary to the basic tenets of freedom that
our country was founded upon. Excuse me. I hope you are good
and healthy and don't have this cough.
Now, I want to address your recent comment that President
Trump has ensured that the State Department has the resources
it needs. Frankly, I find it hard to fathom when his first two
budgets propose cuts to diplomacy and development by more than
30 percent and the current request proposes a cut of 21
percent. These are resources that the State Department needs.
The State Department has never had to operate under the
draconian levels proposed by the President as they have never
been approved by the House even in the Republican majority.
This committee consistently provides bipartisan support to
maintain United States global leadership. I am astonished that
3 years into his administration, the President still does not
appreciate the merits of sustained investments in diplomacy and
development.
Mr. Secretary, I have seen firsthand how United States
foreign assistance alleviates suffering and promotes stability.
Our efforts, as you well know, save lives, promote good will
and partnership, and support American investments and national
security.
If the President's budget were enacted, it would undermine
U.S. leadership and stymie worldwide efforts to counter violent
extremism, terrorism, and disinformation. As you know, there is
tremendous turmoil around the globe, including increased
attacks on democratic principles such as: freedom of the press;
the rule of law and the right to free and fair elections;
millions of refugees and internally displaced persons
throughout the world; the chaotic situation in Venezuela; the
continuing reign of terror of the murderous dictator Bashar al-
Assad in Syria; a rapidly expanding global population, which
further exacerbates conditions that contribute to hunger and
poverty, which can lead to conflict and migration; the spread
of infectious and neglected tropical diseases, some of which
are becoming drug resistant; and, lastly, ongoing threats posed
by North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China that undermine the
security and prosperity of the United States and our allies.
Mr. Secretary, not one of these dangers is positively
addressed by shortchanging the federal agencies tasked with
executing United States foreign policy. Additionally, I am
concerned about the long-term damage this administration is
inflicting on State and USAID through policies that reduce
response time, result in inadequate staffing levels and low-
staff morale, and prevent partnerships with some of the most
capable and experienced implementers.
There is no better example than the Kemp-Kasten
determination against UNFPA which undermines our effectiveness,
making it harder to reach people who need us the most.
I am also very troubled that President Trump seems to view
foreign assistance as a reward to our friends and its
withdrawal as punishment to our enemies. Moreover, the
administration's approach to multilateral engagement at the
United Nations, the World Bank, and elsewhere has been
reactionary and shortsighted at best.
These self-inflicted constraints compromise the quality of
our efforts, make it harder to maintain American leadership in
the world, create risk to our national security and are a
disservice to the American taxpayer.
Our national security is strongest when development,
diplomacy and defense are all well-funded and equally
prioritized. As Chairwoman, I intend to work with my colleagues
to reject the insufficient request and maintain responsible
investments in foreign aid.
Before we move to your testimony, I would be delighted to
turn to Mr. Rogers, the Ranking Member, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Secretary, welcome back to your old stomping grounds,
the House, on the Hill. We are proud of your service here in
the House when you were here, and we are delighted to see one
of us has--done good.
Mr. Secretary, I firmly believe that strong investments in
diplomatic and development programs are a central component of
our national security. In fact, our most senior military
commanders have told us time and again that these critical
tools help provide the means by which we prevent the need for
military intervention. That is why I was once again
disappointed, frankly, after reviewing the budget request for
programs funded by this subcommittee. You say in your
congressional budget justification that the request prioritizes
the security of U.S. citizens, increases American prosperity,
and supports our allies and partners. I believe you would see
more support in Congress if the proposed funding level matched
that rhetoric.
Instead, the request is a cut of nearly $11.5 billion, 21
percent, from fiscal year 2019. Although this year's
international affairs request represents some improvements from
the previous two fiscal years, it is still woefully inadequate
to achieve the administration's foreign policy and national
security goals. I wholeheartedly agree that taxpayer dollars
must be used wisely and that programs need to be more effective
and efficient. Lord, yes. I am committed to working with you
and the State Department to find the best ways to do that. But
if we were to accept cuts of the magnitude proposed, it would
make our nation less safe, and make it harder to achieve the
effectiveness we all seek. In particular, deep reductions are
proposed to important priorities like security assistance,
global health, democracy promotion and even lifesaving
humanitarian assistance.
These programs demonstrate the character of our country.
Given what the world looks like right now, this approach seems
detached from reality. During a time of record displacement of
individuals and families, a growing number of countries facing
instability and rising geopolitical tensions, U.S. leadership
abroad is even more critical. The budget request we have before
us will simply not get that job done.
That being said, there are some proposals in your budget I
fully support and hope we can pass, including the $3.3 billion
for Israel, reflecting our steadfast commitment to Israel's
security and military strength. I am also pleased to see $1.3
billion requested for Egypt's Foreign Military Financing.
Yesterday, we celebrated 40 years of peace between these two
American allies, who have achieved much together, despite
perpetually high tensions in that region. I appreciate your
continued prioritization of these relations, Mr. Secretary.
I also note that the budget request appears to have moved
beyond the proposed cuts of personnel levels we have seen in
prior years. There is still a long way to go to make up lost
ground from the hiring freeze but I applaud this progress,
nonetheless.
Another priority is the management and oversight of the
Department. I continue to believe there needs to be a position
at the highest levels that brings together both operations and
assistance. And you and I have had this conversation several
times. But right now, these two sides of the House don't really
talk. And that continues to hamper the Department's ability to
address its management challenges.
Ultimately, the Legislative Branch has the responsibility
to equip leaders like yourself with the resources that you need
to advance our economic and security interests. And so we are
eager to hear from you on these important funding issues today.
I also look forward to hearing about your travels. You have
just returned from the Middle East. We are interested in your
impressions while there. Iran's continued nuclear pursuits,
missile development, and support for terrorist activity, weigh
heavily on our minds as well as yours.
Before that trip, you were in Asia. We all want to see
North Korea denuclearize and hope that the people of North
Korea might one day experience freedom and prosperity. China's
role in how that turns out is questionable as are their motives
throughout the globe. The Chinese government's practice of
predatory lending to developing countries is not just immoral,
it has real security consequences for our partners in the
region and beyond. I may return to that during the question
period but I fear much of the world is not awakened to the
reality of the potential damage China could do to international
security.
You have also visited Europe this year so we would
appreciate your update on how we can help assure and defend our
allies and partners in Europe. The Russian bear only
understands strength. We must do everything in our power to
help our friends in Europe stand strong to resist rampant
Russian aggression on all fronts.
Lastly, you returned from Latin America at the beginning of
January. The outcome of the current crisis in Venezuela will
shape the future of that region for decades to come. We must
remain in solidarity with the people of Venezuela and the
democratic interim government. A free and democratic Venezuela
that can restore what once was a thriving economy is the first
step to addressing many of the other challenges in the
neighborhood, including combating transnational criminal
organizations and stopping the flow of drugs into this country.
We can't let Maduro and his cronies further destabilize that
whole region.
Finally, before I close, I want you to know you have my
unwavering support for your efforts to protect the rights of
the unborn. We were not provided with the details of your
announcement yesterday, but I look forward to receiving a full
readout of your plans.
Secretary Pompeo, I want to thank you again for your
service to our country as well as the men and women of the
Department. I hope you will continue to engage with our
subcommittee as we begin our work for fiscal year 2020. This is
a partnership and your input is appreciated and valued. And we
will be a true partner with you.
I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
After the secretary presents his testimony, I will call on
members based on seniority of members present when the hearing
was called to order. I will alternate between majority and
minority. Each member is asked to keep questions to within 5
minutes per round; we will be doing two rounds today.
Mr. Secretary, we will be happy to place your full
testimony in the record. If you would be kind enough to
summarize your oral statement, I want to make sure we leave
enough time to get to everyone's questions. But Secretary
Pompeo, please proceed as you wish.
Secretary Pompeo. Chairwoman Lowey, thank you. I will
absolutely summarize.
Opening Remarks of Secretary Pompeo
Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Rogers, thank you.
Distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for being
with me this morning and thanks for the opportunity to discuss
the president's F.Y. 2020 budget. I am glad I am here. It is
the first hearing in front of the 116th Congress and I am glad
it is with you all.
In order to support the president's National Security
Strategy and achieve our foreign policy goals, we this year
submitted a request for $40 billion for the State Department
and USAID. It will protect our citizens at home and abroad and
advance American prosperity and values. It will support our
allies and partners overseas. And you should know there are
difficult choices when budgets are to be made. You face these
constraints too and we should always be mindful of the burden
that American taxpayers have and our obligation to deliver
exceptional results on their behalf.
This budget request will help us achieve our diplomatic
goals in several ways. First, we will make sure that China and
Russia cannot gain a strategic advantage, in an era of renewed
Great Power Competition; we will continue our progress towards
the final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea; and
we will support the people of Venezuela as they work toward a
peaceful restoration of democracy and prosperity in their
country.
We will also continue to confront the Islamic Republic of
Iran's maligned behavior and we will help our allies and
partners become more secure and economically self-reliant. And
I will also make sure that our world-class diplomatic personnel
have the resources they need to execute American diplomacy in
the 21st century.
I look forward to continuing to work with each of you on
these key foreign policy priorities and many more issues as
well. I want to allow enough time for questions, so I will keep
these remarks short.
With that, I look forward to taking questions from you,
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and other members of your
committee. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. There are so many
questions and I know our members are eager to have a
conversation with you.
Firstly, I want to say I really do appreciate the time you
have spent with allies in the Middle East in an effort to
strengthen our partnerships. However, I do have concerns
regarding the direction of our policy under this
administration.
Let me start with an issue I have worked on during my
entire career in Congress, Arab-Israeli peace. Do you support a
resolution to this conflict that results in two states with two
peoples living side-by-side in peace and security and mutual
recognition?
Secretary Pompeo. A year while I have been the Secretary, I
have the simple, realistic goal of providing a vision for the
Israelis and the Palestinians to find their path forward. What
that path will be will certainly be up to them. But we have
been at this a long time, as you described it, we have been at
this decades, to try and resolve this incredibly complicated
issue. I think we have some ideas that are new, and fresh, and
different and we hope that those will appeal not only to the
Israelis and the Palestinians, but to the larger set of threats
that have prevented this conflict from being resolved over the
past years and decades.
The Chairwoman. I appreciate your commitment, I appreciate
your answer, and I do look forward to working with you because
I remember being on the White House lawn when Yitzhak Rabin and
Yasser Arafat were shaking hands. The contours of any agreement
have historically focused on borders, settlements, Jerusalem
refugees and mutual recognition. Are these still the parameters
around which you believe the two sides would return to the
negotiating table?
Secretary Pompeo. I guess I would say two things. First,
those are the parameters that were largely at hand in the
discussions before and they led us to where we are today, no
resolution so we are hoping that we can actually broaden the
aperture, that we can broaden this debate. The goal, it is a
goal founded in the facts on the ground and a realistic
assessment of what will get us a good outcome. How can we make
the lives of the Palestinian people better? How can we do the
same for the people of Israel? And how can we find a path
forward so that this historic challenge that has presented
conflict and risk throughout the Middle East for decades can be
resolved?
The Chairwoman. I appreciate that answer, and I want to
make it very clear, given the demographics in the West Bank and
Gaza and given Israel's longstanding democratic principles,
wouldn't you agree that a two-state solution is the best way
for most people, for both people, to coexist peacefully and
with dignity?
Secretary Pompeo. If you will permit me to demur again, you
will see this administration's vision. And then ultimately, it
will be the peoples of those two lands that resolve this and
make that decision about how it is they will come together and
what the contours of that resolution will look like. Our
mission set is to help them with new ideas, fresh ideas to
create a real opportunity that America and others who have
tried to resolve this have not been able to do for years, and
years and years.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. I know we will be continuing
that discussion.
I want to address one other issue quickly, because by the
end of fiscal year 2019, the United States will owe
approximately $1.1 billion in arrears to the United Nations,
roughly $750 million of which comes from fiscal year 2017,
2018, 2019 and $328 million prior to fiscal year 2001. The
failure of the United States to pay its bills has delayed
payments to countries whose troops support peacekeeping forces,
raising concerns about the sustainability of the U.N.
peacekeeping system. And just three months ago, the United
States supported the General Assembly's new scales of
assessment, which slightly lowered the U.S. peacekeeping
contribution to 27.89 percent for the next three years. Yet,
the fiscal year 2020 budget request would support a rate of
only 16.2 percent, and this doesn't reach the assessment rate
agreed upon in the 1990s, not to mention what the U.S. just
agreed to. Why don't we make good on the agreements that we
just made?
Secretary Pompeo. So, Madam Chairwoman, we are working our
way through this. I have had a handful of discussions with
Secretary General Guterres on this issue.
It is the case that this administration is trying to get
others to step up, particularly I think you mentioned with
respect to U.N. peacekeeping costs, others to step up and share
this burden. We think that is important. We have been working
on this. We continue to work at this.
The leadership at the U.N. acknowledges that there has been
a historic imbalance with respect to how this how this has been
done and our efforts continue. We still pay far and away the
largest share of those forces. We have done so for decades. We
did so last year as well. And I am confident we will do so
again this year.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Rogers, we are delighted to hear from you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, it was about 30 years ago that I led a
delegation to Indonesia, and one of the stops we made was Bali,
and we had a rare meeting with the man known as the Prince of
Bali. He was known that way because he would have been the King
of Bali had they not been absorbed into Indonesia. But a sage,
a wise, old man, he was probably at that time in his mid-80s.
He was one of the founders of SEATO. And he agreed to meet with
us, which was a rare occasion for him, in his compound, because
he was worried about a decreased presence of the United States
in his region. We had a long talk over cigars after a wonderful
meal. But he had the theory that China was out to assemble all
of the countries and people whom they deemed were Chinese
descendants, which included Bali.
Now we are seeing that prophecy come to life. The military
preparedness that China has invested in the Indo-Pacific is
overwhelming. They are able to bully many of these peaceful
Asian countries with economic enslavement with what is it
called? The Belt and Road Initiative, the economic investment
that they make in a country and then jerk out that financing at
a later time. What are we doing in Indo-Pacific to be sure that
we protect the people like the Prince of Bali and all of the
millions of people in that region from being dominated by the
bully China?
Secretary Pompeo. Mr. Ranking Member, I think he was ahead
of his time in recognizing this threat. And I think the United
States and indeed, the Western world didn't pay attention to
this in the way that was necessary. We are hopeful our
administration has made substantial steps in--that. You saw it
in our National Security Strategy. We changed the way we think
about China from a national security perspective.
We all know the important economic relationships that the
United States has with China. And happy to compete around the
world with them when it is fair and transparent and under the
rule of law. But the increasing risk that China poses to the
United States and the West is real, and it is even more true in
their backyard. And I hear that each time I travel throughout
Asia or Southeast Asia. They want the United States there.
So we have put forward what we have called our Indo-Pacific
Strategy, and it has a handful of components to it. Certainly,
one piece is the capacity of our military to be able to ensure
that we have free and open navigation of waterways there. But
there is also an enormous component that is diplomatic. It is
America being present. It is us assisting our companies,
ensuring that when there is a bid tender in Indonesia or
Vietnam or in Australia or Japan or South Korea that the
competition's fair and free, and that the Chinese showing up
with that diplomacy or, worse yet, corruption and bribery isn't
something that drives the rule of law and transparency out of
the way.
We are committed to and I will be travelling to Asia, at
least I plan to twice here before the middle of the year to
continue to work to develop this. We work through ASEAN. It is
central to this effort. The ASEAN nations are more aware of
this risk today, and we also have the mission to make sure that
we share with them our understanding of these threats and help
them understand the facts as they really are.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the Prince of Bali was concerned 30 years
ago that we would vacate the region and leave them at the mercy
of the Chinese. So the American presence there was what
concerned him. And I heard the same story that you have as
well, of course. Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, you name it,
they have the exact same feeling toward China that I found on
Bali.
Our military people tell me that this has to be a whole-of-
government approach that we make in Indo-Pacific; that the
State Department, USAID, all of the agencies of the federal
government, including the military, must be present there in a
unified, holistic approach to the problem. Do you agree with
that?
Secretary Pompeo. I do.
Mr. Rogers. I think It is important that we maintain that
South China Sea presence that we have historically. I think
that is very symbolic to the Asian people that we are there,
and we intend to be there in defense of their freedom so I
thank you, Mr. Secretary, for you service and your travels.
Welcome back to your old home.
Thank you.
Secretary Pompeo. One last thing to say. The legislation
that you all passed last year, the BUILD Act, and now
resourcing the BUILD Act will prove an important component of
our efforts that you just talked about, the need that we have
to ensure that countries understand that America is there and
present and we will continue to be so.
Mr. Rogers. Good, thank you.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking
Member.
And thank you, Secretary Pompeo, for being with us today.
I wanted to ask about refugee funding. I am concerned that
a 24 percent across-the-board cut is not only irresponsible but
dangerous to our national security. As you know, there are
currently more people who have been forcibly displaced than any
other time in our history--68.5 million according to UNHCR. At
least a whole generation of children have been born and will
live their formative years in refugee camps. Since the
president has dramatically reduced the role of the U.S. as an
option for resettlement, the role of the U.S. government in
this context has become increasingly political and diplomatic.
I am concerned that decoupling refugee programming from the
diplomatic efforts of the State Department by transitioning
almost all MRA money to the International Humanitarian
Assistance Bureau will reduce the effectiveness of U.S.
diplomacy on refugee issues. How do you envision the balance
between the diplomatic and development roles required in U.S.
engagement on refugee issues?
Secretary Pompeo. Appreciate that question. There is a
lively debate about how that ought to proceed. I have come to
my conclusion. The State Department needs to be at the front of
that, needs to be needs to be incredibly involved in those,
need to be incredibly well-connected so that we execute the
U.S. policy on this appropriately. I will say today I believe
that is happening. I will give you an example from the last--
what is today? Wednesday, the last 5 days I was in Lebanon
talking about approximately 1.5 million Syrian refugees that
are in Lebanon today, the burden that places on Lebanon, the
cost, the risk that presents to Lebanon and its democracy and
it was the State Department leading that discussion about how
we can get the conditions right on the ground inside of Syria,
how the United States and our Arab and Western partners can get
the conditions right on the ground in Syria, such that those
refugees can return to their homes.
And that is the mission set that Lebanese people want. I
frankly believe it is best for those individuals, as well. But
we have got to make sure that the conditions are right, and it
is something that the United States Department of State will be
at the front of.
Ms. Meng. I appreciate you saying that you are prioritizing
it. I am concerned that we will not be able to do that if so
many resources have been stripped from the State Department.
Have duties of PRM already begun being transitioned to USAID?
Secretary Pompeo. You know, I don't know the answer to--I
want to make sure I give you an accurate answer to that. If I
may get back to you, I would prefer to do that.
Ms. Meng. Yes, that would be great.
Secretary Pompeo. It could be that not in a significant
way, but it could be that there is a handful of things that--
that have happened that you might characterize that way. I want
to make sure and give you a real picture of what it is we are
actually doing.
Ms. Meng. Okay, great. Thank you so much.
My second question, I will try to do this quickly. How does
the State Department intend to target the critical issue of
women's economic empowerment while cutting fundamental women's
health and education programming. Does this not ensure that
WGDP will fail to be sustainable over the long term?
Secretary Pompeo. Well, we created it, and we intend to
urge you all to fund it. And I hope the next administration,
whenever that comes, will continue to build on this, as well.
We believe this is an important program for women across the
world.
The whole team has been involved in this: the State
Department; the White House with Ivanka Trump; DHS; DOD; it has
been a whole-of-government approach from our administration to
build this program out to make sure that we have the
infrastructure in place that is appropriate, and then to
resource it in a way that meets not just enough money, but make
sure that whatever money we have, we are able to use
effectively to achieve the aims of the program.
Ms. Meng. Yes. Well, as you know, this is a bipartisan----
Secretary Pompeo. It is.
Ms. Meng. Program and goal that we share here in Congress.
Over a hundred countries place restrictions on the types of
jobs that women can hold so this Initiative's emphasis on
eliminating these barriers to participation and creating more
enabling environments is a worthwhile one. So thank you.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Meng. I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this
important hearing.
Mr. Secretary, good morning. Thank you. Nice to see you.
First of all, let me commend you for taking diplomacy on
the road not just abroad, but here in America. It was great to
see you in Iowa talking about the importance of diplomacy to
America. I would have preferred that you had done that in
Nebraska, but close enough.
Secretary Pompeo. I would--in Kansas. I owe you one.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay.
Secretary Pompeo. All right.
Mr. Fortenberry. It is the neighborhood, so but again,
great job. We really appreciate you coming out.
Last summer you convened a ministerial of foreign leaders
to speak to the issue of religious pluralism and the respect
for human dignity, the sacred space of conscience and the
exercise of that right. Around the same time, at the behest of
the vice president, I traveled to northern Iraq, along with
Ambassador Sam Brownback, as well as Mark Green, USAID
Director, to look at the dynamics of how our substantive aid
that had been shifted to help the religious minority
communities there who have been so decimated by the genocide of
ISIS, how that aid could be sustained. I came back from that
experience with three words in my mind: It is possible, it is
urgent, but it depends on security.
You and I have had this conversation before, but I would
like to take just a few moments to unpack it a little bit more
publicly. In response to that last piece, the security piece, I
am very shortly--perhaps even today introducing a Northern Iraq
Security Resolution, along with my good friend Anna Eshoo, a
Democrat from California. We have worked very closely with the
Foreign Affairs Committee and, I am hopeful that the United
States Congress rallies around this concept of simply laying
down a marker that urges, with international community help,
the Iraqi central government, and the Kurdish government to
integrate Christians and Yazidis and other religious
minorities, Islamic minorities, into the regularized security
forces with some degree of authority to protect Nineveh and
Sinjar.
If we don't do this, all of this aid is not going to be
sustainable. There are willing international partners. There
are certain sensitivities, sensibilities to this all over the
world, among the Iraqis, among the Kurds, other international
partners, with you, with the Vice President's Office, with the
administration so I would like your response to this concept,
again, of the United States just laying down a marker saying
this is an important long-term strategy to restore the ancient
tapestry of religious pluralism that used to thrive,
particularly in northern Iraq, as well as Baghdad, but has been
so decimated. And without that, we are going to lose that rich
tradition, there is going to be more pressure for outmigration.
Can the Iraqis ever achieve peace without this fundamental
concept of tolerance and the space for religious pluralism?
Secretary Pompeo. You and I have had a chance to talk about
it some. I am happy that you raised it here this morning. The
State Department and I can absolutely agree that this is a
priority. I look forward to seeing the legislation. I haven't
had a chance to see the legislation that you and Ms. Eshoo are
going to present. I will be happy to work with you to see how
we can effectuate that.
Our mission set has been pretty clear to try and work with
the Iraqi government to help them understand how important this
is to get to the political resolution of a free, independent,
sovereign Iraq. It is central that every religious minority be
respected, have their opportunity to have their voice heard.
And so, yes, I think this is a priority. It is a priority for
the individuals affected, the religious minorities affected. It
is a priority for the people of Iraq. And it is certainly
important for American values, as well.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you for that response, Mr.
Secretary.
You just recently traveled to the Middle East. I want to
turn to the question of Egypt and our relationship there. The
Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, rightfully pointed out the
importance of this relationship and we are at the 40-year mark
of a peace treaty that has held between Israel and Egypt.
In 1979, I entered the Sinai Desert as young man, and on
this pile of twisted concrete and rubble which, sadly, is so
typical as seen now throughout the Middle East, were scrawled
the words in spray paint both in English and in Arabic. This
had been the scene of the fighting in the 1973 war, and it
said, Here, was the war. Here is the peace. That was a really
important formative moment for me. This peace treaty, which at
times has been cold, but has come at great sacrifice for both
the Egyptians and the Israelis, brokered by the United States,
is a template, a model. So Mr. Rogers', as well as your own,
highlighting the importance of the relationship with Egypt,
particularly in terms of the budget to me, it is a very
essential priority because as we talk about potentially
restoring Egypt's rightful place as a leader in the Arab world,
without a strengthening of that relationship and quickly, I am
afraid we may miss a critical moment here but there, again, is
possibility.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you. I agree. If you saw on this
trip to the Middle East, I did not visit Egypt. I did on the
previous one, where I gave some remarks in Cairo that talked
about that very issue in language very similar to what you just
described. There are challenges in Egypt. There are human
rights challenges in Egypt. We don't shy away from talking
about those but that is an important strategic relationship, it
is there, a linchpin of the Middle East and they have been a
good ally in the counterterrorism fight as well.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Appreciate it.
And for your service.
Let me just start by saying this, my concern for your
budget proposal is not so much what is in it, but really the
cuts that are being made which some of my colleagues have
pointed out.
And Representative Lowey is a very kind person. And I think
to call the budget inadequate is being very kind, because I am
going to just say, I think it is embarrassing and dangerous.
Okay. Now, so I have had my cathartic moment. Because I
don't mean to be unkind. So I am going to start with something
hopefully we can agree with. And that is, I am going to make a
general statement, when women succeed, the world succeeds. And
so, when women and girls are better educated, when they are
healthier, when they are free from violence, not only are their
families better off, but we find that their communities and
there is more prosperity and It is more secure. Would you agree
with that general proposition?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. Wholeheartedly.
Ms. Frankel. All right. Good so we are on the right track
here. So and I also want to say this. I am very interested in
your proposal on economic empowerment, which I want to have you
get into it more, with the $100 million Women's Global
Development and Prosperity Initiative.
But I do want to follow up with Representative Meng's
comments. And I want to say this because I really want you to
take this to heart. I don't want to be mean-spirited, but I
really hope you will take what some of us are saying and really
think about this because some of these cuts on women's programs
are going to undermine what you and Mrs. Ivanka Trump want to
do in terms of getting women more economic power.
You are slashing international family planning programs by
more than half. You are eliminating all assistance to the U.N.
Population Fund, which makes efforts to end child marriage and
female genital mutilation and seeks to have healthy babies
born. You are erasing the reproductive rights sections from the
annual Human Rights Report. You have been pushing to remove
reference to sexual and reproductive health care at the annual
U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. Yesterday, you expanded
the inhumane Global Gag Rule. I am telling you, your
administration is abortion-obsessed. You are so obsessed with
it that the side effects are devastating to health and are
going to continue to devastate the health of women around the
world.
So before I get into that, let's just go back to some good
news, I think. Which is, could you explain exactly what this
new program, the Women's Global Development and Prosperity
Initiative, is? And I would like to know whethe0r you have had
to take money from other gender-based programs to fund it.
Secretary Pompeo. So I appreciate the question. We have not
had to do that. We may--I want to leave open the possibility,
we may conclude that there is a better way to use other
resources to more effectively deliver what this program is
designed to do. And if we do, we may make a decision to do
that. We will obviously ensure that Congress is fully informed
and knows as we move money around.
Look, the mission statement is really clear, when the
president announced this in the Oval Office now, a couple
months back. It is to do precisely what you described, it is to
find the methods by which we can create not only laws, but
cultures in countries where women are empowered, women are free
to work, to raise their families in the way that they want to
and have all the opportunities that we are counting on women to
be able to have here in the United States, and have them all
around the world.
There will be lots of streams to this program, if you saw
the announcement. I think almost every Cabinet, I think HHS was
there, I think Commerce was there, State Department was
present. There will be programs that will be rolled out. They
are not fully fleshed out yet, to be sure, but will be rolled
out all across the United States government to deliver against
the primary objectives that the president set out that day. And
I think he enunciated it pretty well and there was that
wonderful bipartisan support thematically, for those
objectives.
Ms. Frankel. Well, I would just say this and I am going to
have to have, I guess, a second round of questioning on some of
the issues I brought up. But it is very important, really and
you agreed with me, that if you want women to be economically
prosperous, they have to be healthy, correct?
I just want to stress that your budget and your actions by
this administration is devastating the health of women around
the world.
And with that--and I am sorry to say that. Really, I am.
Secretary Pompeo. I will say you suggested that you
wouldn't be kind. You have been very kind. We simply disagree
on that point.
Ms. Frankel. All right, all right. I will kindly yield back
to----
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Ms. Frankel. The chair.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you. And I
hope your family is well. And we appreciate your service to our
country. And, again, we are just really glad to have you here
today.
First, I want to thank you for the announcement that came
out of the State Department yesterday. The Mexico City Policy,
which prohibits U.S. government funds from going to NGOs that
perform abortions, was expanded to include NGOs that provide
financial assistance to abortion providers. American tax
dollars are not allowed to fund abortions in this country, and
countries around the world should be no exception. I am glad
that the Trump administration has made the commitment to expand
upon this Reagan-era rule. And I thank you for your leadership
in protecting the unborn.
In regard to the State Department's budget request, I too
am glad to see that women's economic empowerment was made a
priority. And so to build upon my colleague's--some of her
statements, as you know, the State Department's request
included a hundred million for the new program in USAID called
the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative. And
in my role as a member of Congress, I have had the privilege
and have been fortunate enough to travel to several countries
many of which are seriously lacking in policies conducive to
economic freedom for a woman and her ability to be financially
independent.
And so I wanted to ask you--and I know you just said that
some of these programs are being developed as we speak but in
which countries do you foresee that we will be focusing these
investments?
Secretary Pompeo. So we have not set out yet how we are
going to prioritize. But as a matter of logic, you can imagine
these programs going in many places, certainly in countries
throughout Africa, countries in the Middle East as well, places
that just don't have the history of empowering women, allowing
women to behave in the way that--engage in activity the way we
know every human being has the right to be.
Mrs. Roby. I appreciate that. And, of course, a lot of the
work that I have been fortunate enough to be able to engage in,
is in Afghanistan, and where as we have seen many, many gains
for women, we also know how fragile it is as well. And so as
you move forward in developing these programs, I hope that you
will continue to make us aware of exactly what this looks like.
We know that the success of women is a key indicator of the
success of a country. And so, I hope that you will keep us
informed.
The only other thing I would build upon as it relates to
this question is making sure that we have also mechanisms in
place to ensure that the beneficiaries of these investments are
held accountable. And so, if you have any comments about that.
I think some of the frustration in the past has been we make
these investments in an attempt to offer opportunity, but then
we are not able to measure--or we don't come back and measure
real outcomes. And so, if you want to just comment on that.
Secretary Pompeo. I welcome the opportunity. It is a very
valid criticism, and not only of programs that relate to
women's empowerment, but of U.S. government and I will speak
for the State Department programs as well. We as taxpayers,
invest lots of money and it is difficult to, 5, 10 years later
to identify the effectiveness of those resources. You see it in
IG reports, you see it--workings at the State Department. More
importantly, you see it in the world, you see this money and
you see the relatively little change has been achieved.
We are going to try in that program that you were referring
to, the Global Women's Empowerment Program. But I and my team
are trying it in every program we have, whether It is foreign
assistance or humanitarian assistance, that we are providing,
to ensure that when we do that, we have an objective, there are
criteria, there are outcomes that are measurable, even if not
always quantifiable, but measurable in a way that we can
determine whether we achieved the goals that we set out to do.
There is nothing sadder than to look at a history of a program
and see that you have asked the taxpayers for hundreds of
millions of dollars over years and years and years and the
situation is no better or worse along the key criteria that
were intended to be achieved.
Mrs. Roby. I appreciate that very much. And I thank you
again for being here today.
And, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
And before I turn to my colleague Ms. Lee, I just want to
make a very, very simple statement.
Reference to this mysterious global abortion industry puts
abortion politics at the center of every health program, rather
than advancing the effectiveness of programs that saves lives.
U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize or promote
abortions, period. I want to say that again. U.S. taxpayer
dollars are not used subsidize or promote abortions, period.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Secretary. First let me ask you about the HIV-
AIDS accounts. Of course, you know, the United States--we have
had long-standing bipartisan leadership on global health,
especially on global HIV and AIDS epidemic. At the end of last
year, we passed a PEPFAR extension. It was legislation that I
authored with Congressman Chris Smith and President Trump
signed it into law. And that was to reauthorize PEPFAR for 5
years.
Additionally, Congressman Smith and I sponsored a
bipartisan letter that was cosigned by 137 members in support
of a strong United States contribution to the Global Fund's
upcoming Sixth Replenishment Conference. At the same time, we
know that our progress on preventing new infections is stagnant
and that tens of millions of people will need sustained access
to antiretroviral therapy over the next decade. A 2018 report
by the Lancet Fund found stagnant or reduced funding coupled
with a weakened global resolve to end the disease could result
in a backsliding of our gains and allow the epidemic to
rebound.
The administration's 2020 budget request cuts the PEPFAR
budget by 29 percent and proposes a new structure for the
Global Fund pledge that would change the maximum U.S. share
from 33 percent to 25 percent. Now, public reports have
indicated that the administration intends to implement at this
significantly lower match unless Congress mandates it.
So this administration has put, of course, additional
resources which we are pleased about--into the domestic HIV
epidemic, but you are stepping back now from our leadership on
the global side. It is really robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So, Mr. Secretary, given the significant needs that we know
exist, how does the U.S. expect to maintain its long-standing
leadership role in addressing global health challenges with
these steep cuts? As well as why in the world would you make a
decision to reformulate the 33 percent for the Global Fund
which we have maintained through eight Congresses and three
administrations?
Secretary Pompeo. This administration is absolutely
committed to the mission set that you have just described. It
has been--to your point, it has been a bipartisan effort from
certainly my time in Congress and through today.
There is no nation, including in the most recent fiscal
year and including in the fiscal year ahead, that has been as
generous and has asked their citizens to contribute as much to
ending the scourge of AIDS, in not only the United States, but
around the world. We will continue to lead. We will continue to
be part of this program. I get updates from our team
constantly. I have seen what we think that the 2- and 5- and
10-year outlook, we think we have been effective. This is one
of the programs, I was just talking with Mrs. Roby. This is one
of the programs where I think we can show demonstrable
effectiveness for taxpayer dollars. And there comes a time in
every program when you have to begin to think, you have been at
this a long time, is there a way that you can deliver on this
better? That is the objective that we have set out in our
budget. Our aim, our mission, I think is shared, but we are
always having to make decisions about how to apply resources
against the problems set. And that is what we did on this one
as well.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, I think, because of what you just
said, we are making progress, why would we pull back now and
reduce our contribution to PEPFAR and the Global Fund, when in
fact the American people want us to succeed, and every report
that we have, shows that if we pull back, the infection rates
will increase and we won't succeed?
Secretary Pompeo. We are going to succeed.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, with this type of a cut, we haven't
seen any plan that would show that we are going to make sure
that new infections don't emerge and that we are able to get
this epidemic under control. But hopefully we will be able to
get--go back to the drawing board on this.
Also, let me just ask you about your 2020 budget, which
proposes to cut bilateral aid to many of our key partners in
Africa by at least 10 percent. This is after a well-documented
track record of controversial statements, of course, from the
president, identifying certain--***-*** countries, and, quite
frankly, attitudes toward the Continent generally.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. The
budget would cut bilateral assistance to Ghana by 56 percent;
Ethiopia by 33 percent; Mozambique by 14 percent, a country
which is facing a huge challenge in the wake of the cyclone
that killed more than a thousand people; South Sudan by 44
percent; South Africa by 71 percent, mostly in critical global
health funds. Given these cuts, it is difficult to believe that
the administration's Africa strategy is sound. And even, it
almost demonstrates that the president meant what he said when
he identified countries ***-*** countries so I would like to
hear why you made these cuts.
Secretary Pompeo. First of all, the predicate of your
question is, in my judgment, fundamentally unsound. I am deeply
aware of the State Department's Africa strategy, led by Tibor
Nagy, wonderful officer in our Department. We have re-looked
not only at Africa but every country, in terms of evaluating
where we can most effectively achieve the United States'
interests. This is what we are using taxpayer dollars, it is
America that we are tasked with keeping secure and safe.
And you have to make decisions. You have to demonstrate
priorities. You have to ask your partners to step up. You have
to ask your bilateral recipients of this aid, they have to step
up and demonstrate that they are using your dollars and
resources in the ways that you would intend them to do. And
they have to take on economic challenges and security
challenges in their own country, and get the politics right in
their nation. And we have evaluated each of these criteria,
both inside of the countries and how it fits inside the
American strategic security objectives, and we are reallocating
foreign assistance in that way. It is that straightforward.
Ms. Lee. Do I have?
Thank you. Okay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. We will come back.
The Chairwoman. Come back.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Pompeo. Good morning.
Mr. Price. Glad to have you with us. I want to return to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One of the guiding schools of
thought on all sides I think, for years, has been the need for
the U.S. to facilitate direct negotiations between the two
parties. And in fact, you acknowledged that this morning in
your answer to Mrs. Lowey.
So now, outside the framework of any negotiations, outside
the framework of any anticipated final status agreement, this
administration has made a series of moves.
One, you moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
unilaterally, apart from the kind of broader agreement previous
administrations have sought.
Two, you closed the Palestinian embassy in Washington, D.C.
Three, you shut down the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, the
main U.S. eyes and ears on the ground in the West Bank and the
main interlocutor for communicating with the Palestinians.
Four, you cut off all U.S. contributions to UNRWA, closing
schools in Gaza and exacerbating the severe humanitarian crisis
there.
Five, you cut off all assistance to the West Bank, even
assistance going through American-led implementing partners on
the ground, for things like food security, education for
children with autism, I have an explicit example of that from
some people working with a school in Bethlehem on that autism
challenge, water treatments, oncology medicine, as well as
programs that bring Israelis and Palestinians together for a
dialogue and conflict mitigation.
Now you are about to unveil a long-awaited peace agreement
that you have drafted, no doubt with demands to follow, that
the Palestinians be grateful for that plan and regard the U.S.
as a fair-minded arbiter who respects their aspirations. Can
you tell me how this is supposed to work? Am I missing
something?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. Yes, you are.
Mr. Price. Well, please, tell me.
Secretary Pompeo. You are missing the history. Those things
that you identified, the recognition of Jerusalem as the
eternal capital of Israel, the homeland for the Jewish people,
the decision to take the Israeli sovereignty, to recognize
Israeli sovereignty, those are all things that are different.
What went before didn't work. I think you would have to
acknowledge that. Decades of trying the old way failed to
resolve this conflict. It just----
Mr. Price. The idea of----
Secretary Pompeo. I met with each of the--if I may, just
one more moment.
Mr. Price. Yes.
Secretary Pompeo. I met with each of the individuals who
have been involved with this, at different times, over
different times in my life. I have talked to them about the
complexity of the situation. And to a person, they would
acknowledge that the efforts that they made, the theories that
they used, the strategies they developed failed to achieve the
outcome that I think you and I share.
Mr. Price. So you are satisfied that this administration
has reached out effectively to the Palestinians and has assured
them of your good faith and your goodwill, and that the
Palestinian reaction to this is somehow off-base?
Secretary Pompeo. Our vision will demonstrate our
commitment, that we want Palestinians to have a better life as
well. And I personally have had a number of interactions during
my time in the Executive Branch with the leadership inside of
the West Bank. I hope they will view us as a fair arbiter. We
want a better outcome for both Israel and the people living in
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well.
Mr. Price. What does closing their embassy in Washington
have to do with being a fair arbiter? Or closing, I think,
equally serious is closing that consulate in Jerusalem. That
basically cuts off diplomatic ties in both directions. And----
Secretary Pompeo. I would just----
Mr. Price. And the Hope Flowers School has an autism
program that this country has supported and that many people
are invested in, and all of a sudden, that funding's removed.
When you have to pave over an infrastructure project in Jericho
because the money is running out, is that demonstrating the
kind of--and you know in the case of Venezuela, you have been
very persuasive about the need to show empathy and support for
ordinary people. I don't know how that lesson is lost--it
appears to me, honestly, Mr. Secretary, that it has been lost
on the Palestinian community.
Secretary Pompeo. I appreciate your view. It is different
from mine.
I was just in that space. I was just in--at the facility
that you referred to. Our connectivity--the people at the State
Department that have worked on this issue in the West Bank for
years are continuing to work on it.
Mr. Price. So how do you assess the Palestinian response to
closing their embassy and closing our consulate and cutting off
all this aid, freezing the aid and then cutting it off? They
are somehow supposed to be grateful for this?
Secretary Pompeo. What we are aiming to do is resolve a
decades-long conflict.
Mr. Price. And this is the path forward, you are confident,
to totally marginalize and alienate the Palestinian side?
Secretary Pompeo. I am very confident that what was tried
before failed. And I am optimistic that what we are doing will
give us a better likelihood that we will achieve the outcomes
that will be better for both the people of Israel and the
Palestinian people as well.
Mr. Price. Well, we certainly share that objective. And we
will await the response on all sides to your peace plan. And
also hope for a very measured response if that plan is
criticized from the Palestinian side, as surely one can
anticipate it will be.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, sir. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, before I turn to Ms. Torres,
just following up on Mr. Price's question, when should we
expect the Jared Kushner peace plan that has been talked about
and worked on?
As someone, similar to Mr. Price, who's worked on this
issue for my whole career, I hope we don't have to wait another
20 years. Could you tell us when we will see the Jared Kushner
peace plan?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. I think we can say in less
than 20 years. [Laughter.]
The Chairwoman. How about being more precise?
Secretary Pompeo. I just prefer not to be more precise. I
am very hopeful that we will present our vision before too
long.
I am not trying to evade. I don't know precisely when and
how it is we will present this. We have been working on it a
while. We want to make sure we have it as complete and as
effective, as good as we know how to do. When we get there, we
will unveil it.
The Chairwoman. Well, shall we say, many of us are
cautiously optimistic that we can see some kind of a
breakthrough. As I mentioned before, I do remember sitting on
that White House lawn when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin were
shaking hands. So I would like to join you on that lawn again,
or any place you suggest.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. I would love to be there with
you as well.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Ms. Torres.
Ms. Torres. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your attendance
and for that quick laugh. As the founder and co-chair of the
Central America Caucus, I have been very focused on addressing
the root causes of migration from that region. Providing
foreign assistance is an important part of the answer, but it
simply isn't enough. And if we are going to make progress on
the very tough issues this region is facing: corruption, gang
violence, and poverty, severe poverty--we need a comprehensive
approach. And I know that you agree with that.
For one, we urgently need an ambassador to Honduras,
preferably someone with diplomatic experience and expertise in
the region. We also need high-level engagement, regular
meetings with the region's leaders to make sure that they are
making progress on their commitments under the Alliance for
Prosperity. And sometimes, we need to take tough actions when
these leaders do things that are contrary to our mutually
agreed goals for the region.
So, I was surprised to see that on September 1, 2018, the
day after Guatemalan officials decided to misuse J8 Jeeps that
U.S. donated to them for the purpose of counternarcotic efforts
at the border of Mexico, and utilized these vehicles in an
effort to intimidate our U.S. embassy diplomats. And I was
surprised to see that on September 1st, a tweet from your
account stating that our relationship with Guatemala is
important, and we greatly appreciate Guatemala's effort in
counternarcotics and security. Now, your budget request
includes $256.3 million for the Central American Regional
Security Initiative. Combating corruption in the Northern
Triangle has been a major priority for the U.S. strategy for
engagement in Central America. Can you tell me, how does your
budget request prioritize the fight against corruption in the
Northern Triangle?
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you. Thank you for your question.
Thanks for your attention to this important place that frankly,
I think doesn't get the focus that it needs. You see the
challenges at our southern border, you see challenges more
broadly, not only in Mexico but in South America, that result
from ineffective governments in the Northern Triangle countries
in Central America. So not only State Department but other
elements of the United States government, DHS, DEA, and others
are all focused on taking the RSI, the Regional Security
Initiative, and delivering against it.
I think Secretary Nielsen's actually down in the region
today. I think she was flying--I think to Honduras today, to
work on a number of issues that surround borders there and
security there and political stability there. My team will join
her in many of those meetings.
Our priority really is to find the leaders in that region
that are prepared to do the things, the difficult things,
things that haven't been done for an awfully long time under
different administrations, different administrations in the
United States as well, and convince them that getting more
stable, more democratic outcomes there can truly benefit the
people of their country and lead to stability in the region.
We know we have a role where we can assist them from a
security perspective in countering transnational criminal
organizations that are moving people and drugs out of there
into the United States through multiple methods, and we are
committed to doing that. And we think we have got this
resourced in a way that is reasonable. And as President Trump
has made clear, we are going to reinforce success. Where we see
progress, where we see good programs, effective leadership, we
will continue to assure that we apply resources against them.
Ms. Torres. I agree that we need to encourage them. But at
the same time, we don't need to encourage bad behavior,
especially when they try to intimidate our diplomats in that
region. I think that that was a slap in the face to us as
Americans and I think that we should have responded accordingly
by removing those vehicles and not rewarding them by giving
them four additional vehicles after that incident occurred. How
are we going to deal with these presidents that are refusing to
hold themselves accountable and to allow the attorney generals
to investigate massive corruption in the region?
Secretary Pompeo. Well, we have seen challenges on all
sides in each of these countries, both from the leaders and
sometimes from the investigators too. The U.N. has a role, you
are probably referring to CICIG in Guatemala as well and their
role. You saw decisions we have made where we didn't see the
transparency and the rule of law from those folks in the way
that we needed to see that too. Look, it is difficult, you know
this as well as I do. We are trying to find those who are
prepared to set up truly transparent rule of law, democratic
institutions, and support them.
Ms. Torres. My time is up, sir----
Secretary Pompeo. We hope the people in the country will
support them as well. And you should know too, I take it as a
priority to make sure and protect my diplomats and officers
that work under chief of mission control, even those that
aren't State Department officials, to ensure that we do right
by them every day. I think we did that there in Guatemala as
well.
Ms. Torres. I sent you my questions and concerns ahead of
time and I hope to be able to continue that----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes ma'am.
Ms. Torres. Dialogue in the next round. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. We are going to go for another round. And I
appreciate your time. Keep thinking you should be on a plane
someplace.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to be----
The Chairwoman. Is it not nice----
Secretary Pompeo. To be sitting----
The Chairwoman. To be here?
Secretary Pompeo. Right here.
The Chairwoman. That's right.
Secretary Pompeo. Exactly. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. This is an issue I have been concerned
about for a very long time, so it is not just you and this
administration. The Russian government is engaged in a
concerted effort to undermine democracy, weaken multilateral
institutions including NATO, and reverse economic independence
and prosperity in Europe and Eurasia. I am extremely concerned
about increased corruption, democratic backsliding in the
region.
The fiscal year 2020 request would cut assistance to the
region by approximately 55 percent. I am sure that cut would
turn things around but that is something we could discuss. What
message does this send to Russia and our allies and partners
about U.S. resolve? What is the State Department doing to
counter the malign influence of Russia in Europe and Eurasia
including through support to civil society, human rights, and
the rule of law? Does the State Department have a counter
Kremlin strategy similar to that of USAID? Tell us about your
view of what Voice of America is doing, what the BBG is doing?
They have a budget of about $800 million if I am correct and
$250 million is for Voice of America. Are we just watching the
change in Europe and the anti-American, anti-U.S. observations
or is there something that we are doing to counter this?
Secretary Pompeo. Boy, a handful of questions there. Let me
just talk about what we are doing and then you can guide me to
what you would prefer to talk about. The threat you identify is
real. It is the case that Russia has interfered in elections
here in the United States. It is going to try and interfere
with one in Ukraine in a week and the half or so that is left
and weeks that are left before government formation, but they
are not the only country. There is lots of countries. China's
done similar things. Iran has done similar things as well. But
with respect to Russia, I think we have demonstrated our
commitment, and I think Vladimir Putin gets that. I think we
have demonstrated our commitment to pushing back against the
threats that he poses to Europe and the West.
I can cite along a long litany of not only the sanctions
that exceed what any other administration has done, not only
the kicking out of 60 Russian spies from the United States, the
increase in the United States defense budget is certainly not
something that the Russian leadership can be happy about. In
fact, that we are exporting crude oil and national gas all
around the world. Competing with Russian crude and natural gas
is something I can tell you the Russians are deeply concerned
about.
The list goes on with respect to the seriousness we have
taken, the risk that this presents to the United States, and we
have done so all the while trying to places and I did so as CIA
Director as well, trying to find places where we can find a
shared, overlapping set of interests with Russia so that we can
get better outcomes. If we can get to a better outcome in Syria
by talking and working with them, if we can find ways to ensure
that Americans who are flying on aircraft travelling around the
world aren't harmed by Chechens out of Russia and the
surrounding region, those are good things and things the
administration has not only--it is not only a good thing that
we are dealing with the Russians on them it is necessary and
proper.
The Chairwoman. Yes, I think the Global Engagement Center
is still in existence.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. It is.
The Chairwoman. Do they do anything?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. They do.
The Chairwoman. Tell us about it.
Secretary Pompeo. Let me talk about broadly you mentioned
both the BBG and the Voice of America. You put the Global
Engagement----
The Chairwoman. Voice of America's really part of the BBG--
--
Secretary Pompeo. Right, and then I mentioned the Global
Engagement Center. Each of which has a mission of overt
communications, talking about sharing, spreading American
values, countering propaganda that comes from all across the
world. The Global Engagement Center, we now have Lea Gabrielle
on board leading the charge. She has a couple of primary
missions. Russian is one of those primary missions and we are
happy to give you a briefing on what she is doing and what our
team at the Global Engagement Center is doing. We think this
will be important. You all have funded this quite well and we
appreciate that.
I want to come back, though, to the BBG. It is a challenge.
It still has a leadership challenge because we all know the
history of the BBG Board and how it came to be fractious and
had become political. We still have not resolved that situation
and I would urge to get a CEO of that organization in place so
that the BBG will have the right leadership so that they can do
the traditional mission perhaps in a different information
environment than we did back in the Cold War that can perform
its function in a way that is important and noble and reflects
the enormous resources that American taxpayers have put towards
that and I am very concerned about it.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I would like
to schedule a briefing. This is an issue I have been working on
for a long time. I am not blaming just this----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
The Chairwoman. Administration. I have met with many
people. At one point we were off in L.A. and we thought the
movie industry could give us some advice and spread our message
of democracy and hope and freedom, but frankly I think it is
just getting worse.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. I would be happy to have Ms.
Gabrielle, and speak with you or your staff or however you
think that would be appropriate.
The Chairwoman. I would like to do it and invite as many of
the members who are interested.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, as you know, some 3.5 million
Venezuelans have fled their country, and of those more than a
million have gone to Colombia, and I am worried about what
effect the Venezuelan problem is going to have on the whole
region. Is your budget request sufficient to manage the
humanitarian needs and the other challenges spilling over from
Venezuela?
Secretary Pompeo. It is a fair question. I think what are
things to say about where they are today, I think the resources
are likely sufficient but I think the best analysis is there
will be another 2 million refugees from Venezuela or displaced
persons from Venezuela. They will go somewhere, many to
Colombia, some to Brazil, some to other nations in the region.
It could be that we will come back and say we need additional
assistance to address that need. We are trying to resolve that,
right? We are trying to work with the Venezuelan people to
ensure that Maduro leaves and we can begin to create--and this
will be--just so we are all eyes wide open, this will be a
years-long undertaking to provide the assistance in Venezuela
to get the Venezuelan people back on their feet, the decimation
that has taken place long before U.S. sanctions. Right, we are
now years and years into the Maduro decimation of this country
but we think we have got the resource level about right today.
I do worry. Along that border, along that Colombian-
Venezuelan border, ELN, FARC are using this uncertainty, this
movement of peoples, this movement of goods and narcotics
across that region to rebuild and strengthen. So that is not
just a State Department function. There are other elements of
the USG that will have a role in that but I do worry about the
increased risk from the FARC and from ELN in that region as
result of the chaos that Maduro has created.
Mr. Rogers. Well finally, we have gotten the new president
in Colombia on the right track and returning to aerial
eradication of coca. I mean, we obviously support him heavily
in that effort, yet I worry that any progress we have made with
the new government on counter narcotics could be jeopardized by
the chaos next door in Venezuela. What do you think about the
effect of the counter narcotics effort?
Secretary Pompeo. So we are concerned about it, and
President Duque is concerned about it, too. He shared that with
President Trump when he visited here and he shared it with me
when I was in Colombia now a couple months back. He is
concerned that about that as well. I guess there is three
things to say, one: it is why the urgency can resolve the
situation in Venezuela is so strong; second, it is why we have
to continue to support President Duque and Columbia in their
efforts, these counter-narcotics efforts, which have truly, I
don't know the most recent numbers from the past weeks, but
over the past years have escalated dramatically, much of that
has moved here to the United States; and then finally, it is
why the work that the State Department's done to build out this
coalition, the OAS has been spectacular on the issues in
Venezuela, the Lima Group, which largely, South American-led,
but America's been an important partner in ensuring that the
Lima Group gets this set of issues right.
We need to continue to work with our friends and allies in
the region to deliver better outcomes for Colombia. The risk
that this issue of coca gets away from us is very real.
Mr. Rogers. Quickly, on another topic, we have significant
work ahead of us to counter Chinese espionage and technology
theft. It will require extensive cooperation with our European
and other allies like Japan and South Korea. I believe this
will require deepened intelligence sharing and stricter review
of foreign direct investment, export controls, communications
procurement policy. Are we on the same page as the European
Union is now regarding China?
Secretary Pompeo. So it is mixed to be sure, the State
Department has led a U.S. government-wide effort to share what
we know, the threats as we see them, to make sure that not just
France and Britain and Germany but every country all throughout
Europe understands the risks as we see them and to provide our
best wisdom on how to prevent those risks, the security risks
that are presented.
There are deep commercial issues here, as well. Big telecom
providers find it lucrative to deal with Chinese businesses and
put Huawei or ZTE equipment inside their infrastructure and
networks. We have done our best to share with those businesses
and the countries in which they reside the threat that we see
from engaging in that, some of them simply have come to believe
that they can mitigate these risks in ways that we just don't
believe are possible. When you have telecommunications that are
deeply connected to state-owned enterprises inside of China, we
don't see that there is a technical mitigation risk that is
possible and we have communicated to them and we are very
hopeful that the Europeans will begin to move further in our
direction in their understanding of those risks.
Mr. Rogers. Well, a close American ally, Italy, has signed
on to the Belt and Road Initiative of China. And apparently,
China is making a big push into the European Union. Seeing that
it is individualized, rather than a massive unified place,
which is open country for them, China. Do you think that we can
finally get the E.U. to stand up tall against China?
Secretary Pompeo. I think we have made progress and I know
that we are going to continue to push.
Mr. Rogers. Good enough. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Along the line of
reasoning that Ranking Member Rogers just said, Mr. Secretary,
your agency and USAID, we give, together, give about $25
billion a year in humanitarian assistance, antipoverty
programs, global health. How much does China give? It is a
hypothetical. I don't mean to put you on the spot.
Secretary Pompeo. A very, very small number. It would be--
--
Mr. Fortenberry. So one of the largest economies----
Secretary Pompeo. It would be a tiny fraction of this.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So one of the largest economies of
the world that has been progressing through our trade
relations, through trade relations with the others, takes
minimal or no responsibility for the world's development
wellbeing. The point here is I think the world is rapidly
catching on that they are predatory lenders, without taking
full responsibility for the broader ideals of an echo system of
development.
And in that regard, I am going to weave a little tale here.
I want to follow up on Ms. Torres's comments.
Our immigration debate is one that is obviously complex and
difficult but part of the solution is to move it off the one-
yard line and to get back upstream into the countries where
there is significant pressure either because of unrest, crime,
or just economic need for people to leave. And so several years
ago we shifted a number of funds to the Northern Triangle to
try to work constructively on systems of justice and systematic
economic reforms to create the conditions in which people can
thrive there, which is a part of our broader immigration policy
and I agree with this.
You mentioned the BUILD Act, though, tying back to the
proper echo system for development. China runs around the world
building large infrastructure projects with their own labor,
taxing the internal resources of countries, particularly in
Africa, leaving large debt behind in those countries. We are
running around the world trying to help people who are sick,
trying to attack the structures of poverty, trying to create
food security and the types of micro-development assistance
which lead to long-term stability and just government, just
economic outcomes and just governance.
The BUILD Act is hopefully, an attempt for us to re-create
and reimagine what development systems ought to be because we
have got our own problems frankly with fragmentation. So could
it be one of the pathways, particularly in the Northern
Triangle, in which we think about the ecosystem of development
more creatively, rather just a large terminal or a large road
and calling it development but how we get underneath the
structures of the deep wounds and structures of poverty and
assist economically but also assist with stability so that
people can have flourishing lives where they live?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. I believe that the model, the BUILD
Act model----
Mr. Fortenberry. Is it a significant pathway for that kind
of----
Secretary Pompeo. It is significantly different than the
way we have done before in multiple dimensions, not the least
of which is, it involves the private sector, as well. We have
watched other countries tie their government to their private
sector in ways that we would never do and we are proud that we
have this separation in the United States. I am not suggesting
for a moment we should behave the way they do with their
governments' state-owned enterprises but being connected,
having understanding, having American values talked about
explicitly in the way we engage in the world I think is
incredibly important. I think the BUILD Act is a very good
model for that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, sometimes the market doesn't
function properly.
Secretary Pompeo. That is right.
Mr. Fortenberry. It needs capital assistance from public
sources to actually springboard into viable partnerships with
the private sector who should be virtuously committed to again
the long-term ecosystem of proper economic well-being and
development, and I think this is getting us there. I do see it
as one pathway for reform of the fragmentation that we have.
The ideal of again correcting market failure but leveraging the
best of the market in private outcomes so that there is
continuity and sustainability of the initial aid. Sometimes we
do the right thing by trying to build out a school but when our
soldiers or troops leave, it reverts back to what it was and it
is not sustainable.
So, anyway, I am sorry for the speech here, but I am trying
to immerse myself in this space and I actually need to talk to
you, Ms. Lowey, about this. We want to convene a mapping
strategy with key principles in this area. All the way from the
World Food Program to the World Bank, to the International
Agriculture Fund and others----
Secretary Pompeo. The IMF, others who are involved in these
financing relationships.
Mr. Fortenberry. To try to rethink whether or not we are
overlapping, we are too fragmented and more creative,
imaginative ways to approach a whole variety of poverty
assistance programs worldwide.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes sir.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, I asked you earlier about countries in
Africa and the deep cuts that are being made by this budget.
Now I would like to ask you about the cuts proposed for the
Western Hemisphere, which I believe you proposed about one-
third of the U.S. assistance to Western Hemisphere countries be
cut. Again, these countries include countries in Latin America
and the Caribbean. We know there are very real challenges that
the region faces from the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and
the migration challenges it has created in the region, to the
recent civil unrest in Haiti, to the vulnerability of countries
in the Caribbean. So these significant cuts, which cut across
the board in your proposed budget for the western hemisphere
appear to be at odds, quite frankly, with the State
Department's own policy to promote economic growth and
prosperity and democratic governance.
I am sure you know that China, and I know these countries
very well, China is filling the void in many ways that have
historically been neglected by the United States. In addition,
I am concerned that your budget again--you are pulling PEPFAR
funding from several countries in the Caribbean and with your
intent to not continue such policies. It is already done this
in countries like Haiti, where only 35 percent of 30,000 people
living with HIV were accessing retroviral therapy.
So I would think we would go in the opposite direction and
try to help these countries in terms of economic growth, in
terms of development assistance and given the geopolitical
issues that our country has with China, I think that we would
see what China is engaged in, in the Caribbean countries and
really, in many ways send a signal that we do care about this
region.
My second question, and I will just ask you very quickly
with regard to Cuba, I want to know what impact has the
reduction of staff at the U.S. Embassy had in Havana on embassy
operations, and I would like to know the status of the 26
members of the U.S. embassy community stationed in Havana in
terms of the health injuries, including hearing loss and
cognitive issues.
What is the status of the investigation into these
unexplained health injuries? We have been following this very
closely and there seems to be no conclusion yet, and yet the
efforts toward at least people to people exchanges, and moving
towards some semblance of private sector and people involvement
in Cuba has been stopped, and the health issues have been used
as a rationale for beginning to pull out, quite frankly.
Secretary Pompeo. I will try and take your first question
at least in part. You began by talking about Chinese import or
Chinese influence in the Caribbean region. It is real. It is an
attempt to undermine Western democracy and Western values in
those countries.
We are the first administration to actually take this issue
seriously and those issues long predate this administration. We
have confronted it. You can look at State Department demarches,
you can look at our State Department mission statement. You can
look at the priorities that I set out when I had ambassadors
from all across that region in the world into the State
Department in January this year. We understand and are
directing our foreign assistance directly aimed at competing
every place that China is trying to compete. It is a fact that
we will never show up with as much money as China is going to
show up with. That will never be the basis of the competition.
If it is, we will fail. Rather we----
Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, I am not asking us to show up with
as much money. I am asking us why are we cutting where we have
never really invested.
Secretary Pompeo [continuing]. We are going to make sure. I
agree, the previous administration failed to invest there, I
will concede that. We are very focused on this issue. I want to
save a bit of time to talk about the very important issues you
raised in your second question if I may.
I was and remained very concerned about those who have
suffered health incidents in Cuba. We have expended enormous
resources. We more broadly than just the State Department have
expended enormous resources to identify the cause of this issue
and importantly to take care of the broadly defined needs of
those who have been injured by these health attacks.
We have not been able to resolve this yet. Some of the best
minds not just in government but across the global medical
system have not yet been able to identify and connect up so
that we can find the cause so that we can go attack the problem
set. It has proven incredibly vexing. I continue to worry for
the officers that we have there. We have--we are doing all that
we can to make sure that they do not suffer health incidents as
well. We have a reduced staff there as a result of this.
It absolutely reduces our capacity to perform our
diplomatic function there. We have asked the Cuban government
to help us. They have done nothing to help us identify the
cause of this. They say they had nothing to do with it and in
some cases, they have suggested we are making it up or it is
not real.
My Deputy John Sullivan, runs a Health Incident Task Force
that meets each and every week to talk about the status of
every dimension of this, how we are keeping our current
officers safe, do we have the right staffing level, have we
provided the resources to assist those who have been injured,
are we doing the right thing to protect not only ours but other
Americans that travel to the country? We are incredibly focused
on this issue, but it remains a real concern.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Price.
Or Ms. Meng is next?
Ms. Meng. I wanted to ask about Iran and Syria. We have
seen over the last several years of the conflict in Syria that
Iran has managed to entrench itself deeply within Syrian
territory. What more can the United States do to stem Iran's
involvement in Syria? And in the context of your administration
talking about the U.S. retreating, how will a retreat from
Syria affect Iran's presence?
Secretary Pompeo. Well, we are not retreating, and had the
previous administration not refused to take any action that
might have upset the apple cart with respect to the JCPOA, we
would not have the problem today not only with Iran and Syria
but Iran's support of the Houthis in Yemen, Iran's running
militias inside of Iraq, Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon. The
list goes on.
When we took office, Iran was on the march. We have done a
number of things to try and turn that around: first of all, we
acknowledged that the permanent pathway to a nuclear weapon
that was the JCPOA made no sense for the United States of
America; second, we have put on historic sanctions which are
having an impact and I don't know if you all saw the leader of
Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, now it has probably been 6-, 8-,
10-days ago rattling his tin cup around the world begging for
money. That is a good thing. When Hezbollah can't pay its
soldiers, when its people in the field are dying, that is a
good thing for freedom and stability in the Middle East.
We are working with allies and partners. We convened 60
plus nations in Warsaw to talk about the threat from Islamic
Republic of Iran. We had Israel and Arabs working together to
find ways to resolve this threat that the Islamic Republic of
Iran presents to the Middle East and the world. We are
incredibly focused on it, we are going to stay at it, and I am
confident that the Iranian people will be the ultimate
beneficiaries of the work we are doing. I am confident the
Iranian people will get what they so richly deserve. This is a
nation with a rich history, a highly educated population, and a
country that deserves better than the kleptocracy that is the
Khomeini regime.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. President Trump, your president has
been very clear in wanting to retreat, so, you know, I was just
confused and I thank you for clarifying.
Secretary Pompeo. Well, you are just wrong about that.
Ms. Meng. The president was very clear in wanting to
retreat.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to respond to that if you
would like. I mean, this is untrue.
Ms. Meng. We can pull video clips but my next question if I
could finish----
Secretary Pompeo. I liked to say, if you give me just 30
seconds----
Ms. Meng. If I could finish my question because I am
running out of time.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Meng. In talking about rebuilding Syria, how are we
ensuring that rebuilding efforts aren't benefiting Assad or
Iran? What kind of messaging are we delivering to entities who
are wanting to participate?
Secretary Pompeo. That is a good question. Let me answer
your previous comments as well. So we have along with the
Europeans made very clear that we will not provide
reconstruction dollars to areas that are under the control of
the Assad regime and that we are supporting Geir Pederson in
his U.N. efforts to implement U.N. Resolution 2254. Ambassador
Jeffrey is hard at work at that every day to get a political
resolution inside of Syria as a precondition to U.S. dollars,
frankly European dollars too, and we are hopeful the Arab
countries will agree, it makes no sense when Assad is in
control to begin to do rebuilding. We will still do
humanitarian assistance in certain places where there is
desperation, but it is our full intention to get the political
resolution.
And I want to pivot to talking about our strategy. It is
not retreat. The previous administration invited the Russians
into Syria. I mean, it is just a fact. This administration took
down the caliphate along with great partners we developed to
defeat coalition of some 80 countries that took down the last
inch of real estate owned by ISIS.
The threat from radical Islamic terrorism remains. It is
not going away. It is in West Africa. It is in Asia. It is in
lots of places. It remains in the Middle East. We are
determined to do this. We will move force levels. Sometimes we
will increase, sometimes we will decrease but to describe what
this administration has done, the complete destruction of the
caliphate, where there were--you remember the pictures, people
in cages, heads cut off on beaches. We took that down. To
describe that as retreat, it is just not an accurate
description of----
Ms. Meng. I am just repeating what I have seen in the media
and we can have a whole other discussion----
Secretary Pompeo. I think you ought to be----
Ms. Meng [continuing]. On Iran and Syria and the support of
Russia under this administration as well.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, let's return to the Northern Triangle. This
is a critical issue I think that needs serious attention. When
we see people fleeing their home countries, women, children,
families fleeing violence and corruption, we naturally look to
the humanitarian conditions, the economic conditions in their
home countries, what is driving the migration.
Now, in the previous administration, late in the previous
administration, with the support of Congress and as you know,
General Kelly, then at Southern Command played a critical role
in this, the U.S. greatly increased assistance to Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras. You also know that consistently now,
three budgets in a row, the Trump administration has proposed
to cut this assistance by something like 30 percent. Now, the
president has actually publicly threatened to cut all
assistance to the Northern Triangle essentially as punishment
for the ongoing outmigration that we need to figure out how to
mitigate. Let me just quote the tweet. This is from the
president, Honduras Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing
for the United States but taking our money. Word is that a new
caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about
it. We will be cutting off all aid to these three countries
taking advantage of the U.S. for years.
Now we have a news report saying that the funding that we
have voted and as you know, the Congress has largely restored
the funding that the president wanted to cut in the intervening
years, well that money now is sitting there undistributed. This
is quoting one of your State Department officials, we have
paralysis moving this funding through the Northern Triangle
because people don't know what the president wants, one State
Department official said, that is a quote.
Secretary Pompeo. Do you----
Mr. Price. I am quoting, no one wants----
Secretary Pompeo. Can I have the name----
Mr. Price. Wants to do something----
Secretary Pompeo. Of that person?
Mr. Price. No one wants to do something that looks like
they are not following his guidance. It is being slow walked.
The paperwork impasse threatens to undermine efforts to address
the root causes of migration from the region, the official
added. Okay, what can you say about that? We have had in the
past bipartisan agreement that these root causes need to be
addressed. The president apparently doesn't like that way and
now the aid that we have voted is being held up. I mean, is
there anything inaccurate about these reports? What is U.S.
policy? Guess that is the basic question that comes through all
this.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to take the basic question. I
must say, I would strongly prefer that we all avoid using
unnamed sources from the media to make argument, I just think
that is not constructive. I will always talk about the things
we are doing in the places----
Mr. Price. Well, since you make a point of it----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Price. You know, it is very common practice to have
officials quoted in that way. Now, maybe your official was out
of line, but is your official, as quoted here, is that
incorrect?
Secretary Pompeo. Let me talk to you--I am happy to about
to talk about the policy. President Trump has made it very
clear that we are going to make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars
are going to achieve the outcomes, it is not enough to talk
about them, it is not enough to feel good about them, it is not
enough to be able show how much money we spent. Indeed, none of
those are metrics that deliver.
You talked about all the money that is been spent over the
past years, previous administration and the first couple years
of this one, and you then said we still have an enormous
problem. That is proof of its own that this has not been
affective. And so our mission, the mission President Trump has
given to me, Secretary Nielson's as we are trying to address
these sets of issues, is developed a set of programs that
reward effective outcomes, that reward good leadership to get
us to a place where we actually achieve the outcomes. This is
about reality, not--not feeling good that we spent money. It is
about delivering on these programs, it has proven vexing, both
that administration and this one, to stand up, effective
governance. To your point you made a mention of caravans, we
have people coming across the border today from these countries
in numbers and in groups, it was onesies and twosies, mostly
single males, that has now changed dramatically, it is now
families coming across in significant numbers, in the dozens
and dozens.
I think this is evidence that the policies that we had
before have not been effective and so we are trying to take the
money that you have appropriated and the taxpayers have
graciously provided, to actually achieve important outcomes for
the United States. That is the president's policy.
Mr. Price. Well, we would certainly welcome some indication
of what that policy consists of. You know, you seem to be
saying, let me check you on this, you seem to be saying that
because this is a vexing problem because we have not solved it
that our efforts to solve it have proved very, very challenging
and very, very difficult, that therefore the rational response
is to become punitive about these countries, to cut off aid
entirely or to hold up the aid that has been approved and what
your official says, seek clarification. That is what we are
seeking this morning, clarification. What is going on?
Secretary Pompeo. I hope I didn't use the word, punitive, I
didn't intend----
Mr. Price. Well, I----
Secretary Pompeo. I may have misspoken.
Mr. Price. You don't think the tweet is punitive? The
quote?
Secretary Pompeo. I think our policy is aimed at getting an
effective outcome and that is what we are trying to achieve. We
are making very clear to the leaders of those governments, not
just their presidents, not just the most senior leaders, we are
making clear throughout their immigration teams, their security
teams, their economic teams that we have expectations for how
their behavior must change in order to continue to maintain
U.S. taxpayer support. That seems eminently reasonable.
Mr. Price. Word is that a new caravan is forming in
Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be
cutting off all aid to these three countries, taking advantage
of U.S. for years. You would not define that as a punitive
statement?
Secretary Pompeo. I am not going to comment on--my
evaluation, you asked me about U.S. policy and I have done my
level best to articulate it for you, this morning.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. I do want to express my appreciation to Mr.
Price for referencing that aid. In fact, I have been very
concerned for a while having been part of Vice President
Biden's Task Force, and I remember it very clearly. I cannot
say we were successful, but I don't think we can give up, and I
look forward to continuing the discussion, Mr. Price, and with
you, Mr. Secretary, about what more can we do to deal with the
root causes, because these root causes and the effect of these
causes directly impact what is happening at our border. So I do
hope Mr. Price and this committee can work with you and see if
these programs can be more successful in addressing root causes
more successful in those regions of origin. So I thank you, Mr.
Price, for referencing it.
Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Secretary, you, and I, I think we are getting along
very well right now because we did agree that when you educate
girls and women and they are healthier, it is better for the
world. Let me find something else we can agree on. It is wrong
to torture, to rape women, who are merely protesting for their
human rights. Would that be wrong?
Secretary Pompeo. I want to make sure I don't get a double
negative, that would be wrong.
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Frankel. All right. There we go. We have agreed on
something else. But seriously, I want to ask you about what is
going on to some of the women's rights activists in Saudi
Arabia.
We know that there are some--many--who were protesting for
the end of the ban on women driving and for abolishing the Male
Guardianship System, they had been thrown into prison where
they are being subject to torture, rape, electric shock, sleep
deprivation, really no justice occurring there. And I would
like to know what if any interaction the State Department has
had to try to alleviate what this situation?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes ma'am. We have had interactions at I
think nearly every level about specific cases that we are aware
of as well more generally the policies that we have every hope
and expectation that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will engage
in. When I say every level, I have had this conversation with
the most senior leaders, including the king and the crown
prince and my counterpart the foreign minister. I know my team
has had similar ones. I know our team on the ground, I hope I
will get an ambassador confirmed in Saudi Arabia before too
long, his directive for me will be to continue to talk about
these things in a way that we have done for--I think this
predates me, but certainly for my entire----
Ms. Frankel. Are you putting any pressure on them to do
something? I mean----
Secretary Pompeo. We have seen some progress, right, we
have seen----
Ms. Frankel. We have?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, oh, sure. Oh, absolutely. I
absolutely think----
Ms. Frankel. But their women----
Secretary Pompeo. There has been some progress.
Ms. Frankel. Are still being tortured. All right, well
listen, I just want to say this. I think it is very important
that you put as much pressure as possible to stop that--the
torture that is going on to these women.
All right, I am going to find something else we can agree
on. I know this.
Secretary Pompeo. We are three for three.
Ms. Frankel. We are three for three, now we are going to go
four for four, and that is that we can't--and I don't mean--
listen, I am going to say this as an expression, we can't wall
off the world. I am not talking about south of the border,
okay. One of the reasons, not just humanitarian reasons that we
go into let's say places like Africa to stop the spread of
disease, whether it is HIV, Ebola, tuberculosis, all kinds of
horrible things, because we know these diseases spread.
Correct?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, ma'am. Global----
Mr. Franke. Sure.
Secretary Pompeo. Pandemic, is always a real risk.
Ms. Frankel. All right so this is why I want to go back to
the discussion that some of us had about the Global Gag Rule,
what I called this ultra-obsession that your administration has
with abortion.
It is one thing we don't use federal funds for abortion, I
may disagree with that but the fact of the matter is your new
interpretation of what was called a gag rule now is harming
organizations that are doing just general healthcare, whether
it is contraceptive care or HIV or just maternal care. And I am
going to give you an example, there is an organization called
AMODEFA, I think I said it right, which is the only private
health provider in Mozambique, and they have lost funding due
to the expansion of the Global Gag Rule, estimated that it
affects 500,000 people who are receiving care for HIV,
tuberculosis and malaria, because they are closing their doors.
So here's my question to you is, what kind of analysis have
you done or you are doing to see or to understand the effect of
cutting off these funds?
Secretary Pompeo. So I appreciate the question, we do
disagree on abortion, and I will take that as a fact in how I
respond to this. I cannot see how--first of all you call it a
gag rule, no one's stopped from speaking anywhere.
No, the gag implies----
Ms. Frankel. Well, let me just----
Secretary Pompeo. There is no place that can't speak.
Ms. Frankel. I don't want to cut you off but you know----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Frankel. You have taken it so far that an organization
that doesn't even do abortions if are asked a question where
they can get an abortion, they are not allowed to be told. They
are not allowed to even have a pamphlet lying around that gives
women alternatives. So yes, it is a gag.
Secretary Pompeo. Oh, it is?
Ms. Frankel. Okay, well, maybe you want to look into it.
Secretary Pompeo. I am happy to look into it. But there is
no one being denied their right to speak. They can say what
they want----
Ms. Frankel. Okay, well, how about getting the healthcare?
Secretary Pompeo. What they can't do is take U.S. taxpayer
funds and perform abortions or abortion related services.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Listen----
Secretary Pompeo. These are the activities, and we have
continued to provide--there are not a single dollar reduction
with respect to women's healthcare that is associated with the
president's Mexico City Policy and all the ways that we are
implementing that, not one single dollar reduction, it is
perverse to think, when I think about places like China where
most of the abortions that take place are women, it is perverse
to me to say----
Ms. Frankel. Well, listen----
Secretary Pompeo. That denying abortion somehow----
Ms. Frankel. Let me just reclaim my time, because----
Secretary Pompeo. Somehow harms life, I----
Ms. Frankel. Let me just reclaim my time----
Secretary Pompeo: Yes.
Ms. Frankel. To say this. Some of things we agree. I mean,
I don't believe in forced abortions, Okay? But I don't believe
in forcing women to have children if they don't want to have
children.
But here's the thing, I am urging you, I am begging you to
please do an analysis of how this gag rule is affecting
healthcare around the world because you and I both agree that
when women succeed, the world succeeds.
And with that I yield back.
The Chairwoman. And with that, I turn to Ms. Torres.
Ms. Torres. Thank you.
We are back to Central America. I am concerned about the
reliability of some of our security partners in the region,
specifically in the Northern Triangle and I want to make sure
that we aren't sending good money, you know, after bad. I am
not confident that Honduras government is a reliable partner in
the fight against narco-trafficking. They recover less than one
percent of what is trafficked through the country, that is not
even the cost of doing business for a narco-trafficker so on
that note, are you aware that on November 26, 2018, the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
indicted Juan Antonio Hernandez Alvarado, President Hernandez's
brother, on drug trafficking charges?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Torres. So----
Secretary Pompeo. I didn't know the date, but I knew of the
indictment, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Torres. So according to the indictment, Mr. Hernandez
had access to cocaine labs in Honduras and Columbia. This
cocaine was tagged or marked, stamped T.H. for his initials,
Tony Hernandez. Are you confident that President Hernandez was
unaware that his brother is an alleged narco-trafficker?
Secretary Pompeo. May I answer that for you in a different
forum, please?
Ms. Torres. That's okay.
Secretary Pompeo. But here's what I will try to answer the
question that you are getting to with respect to the policy----
Ms. Torres. I am happy----
Secretary Pompeo. But we do have real concerns.
Ms. Torres. Do a----
Secretary Pompeo. Yes.
Ms. Torres. A classified briefing on this.
Secretary Pompeo. Just, there is ongoing--anyway, I would
just prefer to do that, if that is acceptable?
Ms. Torres. I can respect that. I am very concerned that we
continue to work with people and invite them to ground-breaking
ceremonies for our U.S. Embassy buildings, when we should not
be doing business with these people and we should be holding
them accountable for the crisis that is happening on our
southern border.
We have to be serious about holding these three governments
accountable for what they are doing, forcing young children and
women out of their countries. Look, I was one of those kids, my
parents didn't see a future for me in Guatemala. They sent me
to the U.S. to live with my father's oldest brother. No parent
should have to make that decision. No child's future should be
robbed from being able to have a successful life where they
were born. And I think we can agree on that. And I hope that we
will continue to pay attention to the region and hold people
accountable, including the State Department.
The State Department is severely underfunded. I don't blame
them for some of those missteps that they have taken, but at
the same time, we have to put on a serious face in front of
these people. The attacks against CICIG, while we may disagree
on press releases that might have been sent, and it wasn't from
them, it was the Attorney General's Office. You and I know that
CICIG is an investigative body. Their charge is to investigate
corruption and hopefully someday that these governments will be
able to do their own investigations. That is not happening, not
with Morales, it is not happening with Moxie, with President
Hernandez in Honduras. I am hopeful that in El Salvador, with
the new president, we will have an opportunity to do better,
but we can't do better with the new administration when we are
showing a terrible example of continuing to support bad actors
in these two other countries.
Secretary Pompeo. I am sorry. You didn't ask a question.
Ms. Torres. I didn't. But I would like you to respond and
commit. Last year we passed an amendment in the NDAA, which
required the State Department to provide Congress with a
report, a report that includes a list of corrupted elected
officials. They were supposed to do this 180 days after the
NDAA was enacted. To my count, it is 226 days now, long
overdue. Can we expect that sometime in the near future?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes. I will look into that. I was unaware
that we had a due out and it was overdue. And I will absolutely
look into that and get you a response on when we believe we can
complete that task.
Ms. Torres. It is.
Secretary Pompeo. That legally required task.
Ms. Torres. Thank you. And I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Before I turn to Mr. Rogers, I
want to thank you Ms. Torres for your comments.
And I do want to say, Mr. Secretary, I think there is about
$1.2 billion left in that account from it was called the U.S.
Strategy for Engagement in Central America. We had appropriated
$4 billion and there is about $1.2 billion left in the account.
I would hope that we can continue this discussion. It would be
good to know, from your perspective, what we have accomplished,
what remains to be accomplished, a great deal, and what we can
do about it. I am not sure it is just another $1 billion, that
is a lot of money, but I would like to see, from you a review
of all of our actions that have frankly addressed the serious
challenge in the region.
Secretary Pompeo. We will provide that to you and your
Committee and to the Ranking Member.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, Syria. I understand the top U.S. objective
there is the enduring defeat of ISIS. I assume that means not
only the destruction of the caliphate which has occurred but
also preventing a return of the conditions that allowed ISIS to
arise in the first place.
During testimony before Congress earlier this year, the
U.S. Commander of CENTCOM said, and I quote, the coalition's
hard won battlefield gains must be secured by continued
interagency efforts on mobilizing the international community
to prevent a return of the conditions that allowed ISIS to
arise. To accomplish that goal, what sort of sustained efforts,
political, diplomatic, military would be required of us and our
partners in Eastern Syria?
Secretary Pompeo. So with your permission let me extend to
Eastern Syria and Western Iraq, the place that the caliphate
existed as a contiguous institution. It will take efforts in
each of those two places that have mostly a political and
diplomatic component to them so there will be an element of
diplomacy, pure political diplomacy, humanitarian assistance,
reconstruction aid; we will need to continue the defeat ISIS
coalition which we cannot only bring people but resources,
money to this challenge, the reconstruction in these places is
going to be an enormously costly undertaking.
Second, there is the political piece which is the work that
we need to do. I will meet with the Speaker of the House
equivalent from Iraq who is travelling here to the United
States this week. I will meet him this week to work with the
political leadership in Iraq, to assist them with building our
their own, the Iraqi Security Forces so that they can maintain
control and keep their own countries secure so that ISIS can't
arise.
And it is not just ISIS, right? In Idlib and in Syria we
have got all other forms of radical, we have got Al-Nusra
Front, the list is long, so this threat of terrorism in the
region remains. It is going to take a political resolution in
Syria to create the conditions where Syria can both begin to
rebuild and begin to build out its security forces as well; it
is an enormous undertaking.
Mr. Rogers. But you don't request any funds for Syria in
your budget.
Secretary Pompeo. We don't. We are not there yet. We can't
operate in two-thirds in Syria today and we won't operate while
Assad continues to be there and wreak the devastation that he
has until we have got a pathway where we have a political
resolution. So we believe we have the resources to continue to
do the work in the Eastern third, the northeast part of Syria,
the work frankly with the Kurds and the Turks so that we get an
outcome there that is stable and lasting as well that
underwrites the capacity to take U.N. Security Council 2254 and
implement it. That is the mission statement and we believe we
have the resources to do that. And by the way, there are also
resources that aren't inside the State Department budget,
right. Your quote was from someone at CENTCOM if I remember
correctly. Our DOD resources will be a central component of
that as well.
Mr. Rogers. In the short term, how are we going to help our
friends, the Syrian democratic forces? How do we help them cope
with the large number of captured foreign fighters?
Secretary Pompeo. I am glad you asked this question. This
challenge of foreign terrorist fighters that reside today
mostly in Eastern Syria although some are being transported to
other places is a real threat. I had a pretty senior military
leader who reminded me that he did not want his children and
grandchildren fighting these same terrorists, the same human
beings because we detained them. He risked his life to get them
and that we were risking putting them back out on the street.
The State Department has led an effort to repatriate these
places to countries where they have justice systems and the
capacity to hold them for an extended period of time but I am
mindful some of the terrorists that were captured early on in
this fight after 2011 had 20-year prison sentences, they will
be getting out pretty soon. This risk of foreign terrorist
fighters and their reentry when they have not changed their
ways and their desire to destroy America, destroy the West and
commit acts of Jihad is a very real challenge.
Mr. Rogers. Are they are of many different nationalities?
Secretary Pompeo. Yes, we have repatriated to countries in
Northern Africa. We have repatriated to Arab countries. We have
asked every country to take back those that are own and then we
have many that we won't be able to return for a host of
reasons, and we have got to find a solution which we have not
yet done. The State Department and Department of Defense are
working closely with the Iraqis and others to figure out the
best way to ensure they don't return to the battlefield. It is
a real challenge.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, you have been very generous with
your time with us today. We thank you very much.
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I
appreciate that.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, I, too, want to thank you
again for spending this time with us. I would like to ask you
if you think the State Department has gotten its swagger back,
do you have adequate resources to fund your important work both
here and overseas? And as we contemplate your budget for 2020,
if there are specific requests, we would be happy to assist you
in your very important work. So has the State Department gotten
the swagger back?
Secretary Pompeo. I hope so, but I will leave that to
others to judge. I will leave those here in America and those
around the world to make that decision. I hope they have. It
has been an incredible privilege to lead amazing diplomats,
civil servants, foreign service officers, and local employed
staff around the world who are doing remarkable work while I
have been the Secretary of State. I have been so fortunate to
be their leader. I hope I have helped them perform their
function better, and that is what I really meant, if we get
swagger back.
The Chairwoman. Well, I appreciate that and I must say I am
honored to be Chair of this Subcommittee, it's a choice and all
of us who serve on this Committee made this important choice so
we want to be sure that we are responding to your requests, to
the urgent needs. I know we can't solve all the problems of the
world but we certainly would like to work with you to address
the many, many challenges we have.
So in closing----
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
And this concludes today's hearing. The Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands
adjourned.
And I thank you very much----
Secretary Pompeo. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. For being with us.
Secretary Pompeo. Thanks for conducting a very professional
hearing.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Secretary Pompeo. I appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs stands adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, July 10, 2019.
UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO COUNTER RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION AND MALIGN
INFLUENCE
WITNESSES
JOHN F. LANSING, CEO, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA
LEA GABRIELLE, SPECIAL ENVOY AND COORDINATOR OF THE GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT
CENTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
JIM KULIKOWSKI, COORDINATOR FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE, EURASIA, AND
CENTRAL ASIA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALINA POLYAKOVA, DIRECTOR FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
AND FELLOW AT THE CENTER ON UNITED STATES AND EUROPE FOREIGN POLICY
PROGRAM, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
NINA JANKOWICZ, GLOBAL FELLOW, THE KENNAN INSTITUTE AT THE WILSON
CENTER
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey
The Chairwoman. Good morning. The Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome John Lansing, the CEO of the United
States Agency for Global Media; Lea Gabrielle, special envoy
and coordinator of the State Department's Global Engagement
Center; and Jim Kulikowski, who used to sit right over here--
welcome--assistance coordinator for Europe and Eurasia at the
Department of State, for today's first panel.
For our second panel we will be joined by Alina Polyakova,
director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging
Technology at the Brookings Institution, and Nina Jankowicz,
global fellow at the Kennan Institute.
Since World War II the mission of the United States
international broadcasting has been to provide accurate news to
those abroad who lack access to a free press and accurate
information. But in today's interconnected world information
spreads more rapidly than ever before.
While the United States is committed to advancing
democratic principles, including freedom of speech and the
press, Russia and others who do not share our values continue
to utilize communication tools, from traditional print to
social media to targeted ads, to do harm.
Russian interference in the 2016 election was perhaps the
most resounding wakeup call to this threat. Three years later,
the United States still lags in responding to malign foreign
influence in the information space. Technological advancements,
such as deepfakes and synthetic videos, have made these risks
even greater.
Our goal today is to better understand these threats and
how our investments in the United States Agency for Global
Media, or USAGM, are informing, engaging, connecting people
around the world, and how those audiences receive, perceive,
and share content.
It is also helpful to understand whether our efforts
through the Global Engagement Center, or GEC, to counter
propaganda and disinformation from international terrorist
organizations and foreign countries are effective.
I should read that statement again because that is really
our concern. We appropriate many millions of dollars, and it is
important for us to understand whether our procedures are
effective.
In fiscal year 2019 Congress appropriated $808 million to
the United States Agency for Global Media and more than $55
million to the Global Engagement Center. This included
significant resources for a 24-hour Russian language television
and digital news network for Russia, countries in Central and
Eastern Europe, and around the world.
In the House-passed fiscal year 2020 appropriations we
provided funding to support data-driven programming and efforts
to counter propaganda and extremist rhetoric. The United States
has some of the best technology and marketing minds in the
world. However, Russian disinformation campaigns only seem to
be growing stronger.
So it is clear to all of us that we have to adapt, innovate
to effectively deliver programming and inform audiences. This
is critical as disinformation has the potential to weaken
democracies and to fan the rise of nationalists and anti-
European Union sentiments in the region.
We just can't continue to operate in a vacuum. The United
States must utilize all our tools of public diplomacy to get
our message out and win hearts and minds.
To achieve this goal we need a broader strategic dialogue
backed by research that considers audience reach, media
consumption, behaviors, evolving information technology
practices, and perception of messaging from various sources.
To make significant progress against malign influence we
must consider how we can leverage the vast expertise and reach
of the private sector in partnering to combat disinformation
campaigns. So I truly welcome your thoughts today on all these
topics.
Before we hear your testimony I would like to invite my
ranking member, Mr. Rogers, to make remarks.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
calling this very timely hearing. I want to join you and the
others on the panel to this hearing, and we look forward to
hearing the testimony in what I hope will be an interesting
discussion on a very important topic.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge Jim Kulikowski. Jim
K, as we call him, served this committee knowledgeably and
adeptly as deputy staff director and chief counsel for the full
committee, among several other distinguished positions, during
his 24 years of service with House Appropriations.
Jim was a shrewd negotiator. We could always count on him
to ensure House priorities came out on top in conference with
our Senate brethren and sisters.
So we are glad to see you back here in a new capacity and
warmly welcome you back to the committee.
During my time chairing this subcommittee I had the
opportunity to lead several of our members on two trips to all
corners of Europe so we could see firsthand what Russia was up
to. At each stop we were confronted with the Kremlin's malign
activity in one form or another. It is pervasive throughout
Europe, Eurasia, Central Asia, as well as the Arctic.
On the last trip we went to Lithuania. There we had
extraordinary conversations with several of their legislators,
and members of civil society as well, who describe to us in
detail a sophisticated disinformation campaign that they called
Russian active measures.
We were reminded that efforts by Moscow to discredit the
United States and weaken the West are not new. In fact, these
nefarious techniques date back to the former Soviet Union and
include tactics such as written or spoken disinformation,
efforts to control media in foreign countries, use of front
organizations and other proxies, blackmail, personal and
economic, and political influence operations.
Those examples of Soviet era tradecraft still resonate with
us today. As our Baltic friends explained, what is new is the
transition to digital and online communication and Russia's
relentless efforts to sow division by exploiting these new
social media platforms.
During the Cold War the Reagan administration established
the Active Measures Working Group, an interagency body
consisting of the old U.S. Information Agency, CIA, FBI, State
Department, and several elements of the Department of Defense.
As one study has noted, quote, ``The purpose of this group was
to respond comprehensively to disinformation, to define it, to
create institutions to tackle it, and to draw attention to it
at the highest level.''
I raise this perspective because the U.S. and our European
friends are the targets of a ruthless adversary in the Russian
Bear, one bent on suborning our democracies and undermining our
historic trans-Atlantic alliance. That cannot be disputed.
Perhaps a similar interagency effort and strategic
communication strategy is required today if we are to
successfully combat the Kremlin's influence and disinformation
campaigns both here in the U.S. and abroad. While our
subcommittee focuses on the funding of what must be a broader
national strategy, I welcome a discussion on these and related
matters.
Lastly, Madam Chair, there are numerous adversaries that
require our time and attention when it comes to countering
disinformation and malign influence, but this subcommittee felt
it was important to focus on Russia.
The countries and regions facing attacks and other forms of
aggression from the Kremlin remain one of our top priorities.
We have included funding and policies in our annual
appropriations bills on a bipartisan basis to demonstrate this,
and we want to continue to provide you with the tools and
resources that you need to ensure the U.S. is doing everything
it can to shore up our allies and partners in combating Russian
aggressions in all its forms. We look forward to hearing your
thoughts today.
I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
After the panel presents their testimony I will call on
members based on seniority of those members present when the
hearing was called to order and I will alternate between
majority and minority.
We will be doing two panels today, and I want to ensure all
members will have an opportunity to question all the witnesses.
Therefore, each member is asked to keep their questions to
within 4 minutes per round, which includes the response from
our witnesses.
Mr. Lansing, Ms. Gabrielle, Mr. Kulikowski, we will be
happy to place your full testimonies into the record, if you
would be kind enough to please summarize your written
statement. I want to make sure we have enough time to get to
everyone's questions.
Opening Statement of Mr. Lansing
Mr. Lansing, please proceed.
Mr. Lansing. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member
Rogers, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the efforts of the U.S.
Agency for Global Media to counter Russian disinformation.
USAGM is an independent agency that provides accurate,
objective, and professional news and information to parts of
the world that do not have the benefit of a free and open
press. We accelerate that mission through the work of our five
networks: the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting
Networks, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.
Our programs reach a measured, unduplicated audience of 345
million people on a weekly basis in more than 100 countries in
61 languages on a wide range of all broadcast and digital
platforms.
Your hearing today could not have come at a better time. We
are living through an explosion of disinformation, lies, and
distortion spread by those very same authoritarian regimes that
our networks report on.
The weaponization of information that we are seeing is
real, and the Kremlin is one of the primary aggressors on this
front. Based on my observations, Russia's goal is to destroy
the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts. From
their perspective, in a world where nothing is empirically
truthful, any lie will do, and if everything is a lie, the
biggest liar wins.
It is not an understatement to say that the information
battlefield may be the fight of the 21st century. While the
Kremlin seeks to control information, our journalists are on
the front lines, often risking everything to shine a light on
the truth. Those efforts create security concerns for our
journalists and increasingly dangerous operating environments
for USAGM personnel.
Nevertheless, we are meeting the challenge head on. We
reach Russian-speaking audiences through direct programming and
expanded distribution of our new 24/7 Russian language digital
and TV network known as Current Time. Current Time is a play on
words. The most famous media brand in Russia, in Russian, is
known as ``time,'' and Current Time in the U.S. would be like
saying ``60 Minutes''' or the ``Real 60 Minutes.'' So Current
Time is like the real news to Russian speakers.
I am proud to share with you the incredible arc of success
we are seeing with our groundbreaking network, which launched
in 2017 thanks to your support. Current Time's aim is to reach
Russian speakers anywhere in the world, not just within the
boundaries of Russia, and to engage younger, savvy audiences
with a heavy emphasis on digital and social media content so
that they can share it with people within the Russian
Federation.
The network covers social, economic, and political issues
that the state media ignores, such as protests, and challenges
Russian viewers to form their own opinions.
Our impact in Russia is clear. Due to Russian restrictions
on broadcasting inside the country, Current Time operates with
a fresh, digital-first, cross-platform strategy to reach around
the broadcasting platforms not available to us in Russia.
Of Current Time's 520 million video views--that is right,
520 million video views--on social media last year, more than
half came from within the Russian Federation. That wasn't true
2 years ago. But we are aiming higher than that with our global
distribution strategy. When Russian speakers anywhere in the
world tune in to Current Time, here is what they might see.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Lansing. These efforts are part of our strategic focus
on global language-based programming rather than limiting
ourselves to national boundaries. We launched a similar effort
in Farsi earlier this year, and we are currently developing a
similar 24/7 network in Mandarin that we hope to launch in the
spring of 2020.
In addition, VOA and RFE/RL jointly lead two highly
impactful fact-checking websites known as Polygraph.Info in
English and Factograph in Russian. The sites evaluate Kremlin-
controlled disinformation on an hourly basis and immediately
separate facts from fiction, adding context and debunking lies.
Now looking to the future, USAGM will continue to
prioritize Russian-language broadcasting and programming in
other languages that will combat the Kremlin's sustained
disinformation campaigns. Our work is providing an alternative
to the false narratives and manipulated information
disseminated by a regime that blocks a free press and is afraid
of the truth.
We provide journalism based on fact, balanced in
perspective, and adhere to professional journalistic standards.
This is something that Russians living in Russia rarely see if
it weren't for the USAGM, journalism that reflects the values
of our society, freedom, democracy, and hope. This is a core
tenet for us, honest and truthful journalism as a catalyst for
change, and it represents our best weapon on the information
battlefield.
All of us at USAGM are passionate and committed to ensuring
that the global work we do delivers on our mission for the
United States Government and the American people. We cannot do
this without the support of Congress, and we are particularly
thankful to this committee and the Appropriations Committee in
general.
Mrs. Lowey, we are grateful for your support of our work,
and we value your oversight role and your advice here today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Ms. Gabrielle.
Opening Statement of Ms. Gabrielle
Ms. Gabrielle. Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Rogers,
thank you for inviting me to testify before your subcommittee
about the Global Engagement Center's work to coordinate efforts
of the Federal Government to counter Russian disinformation.
This is an important topic, and I very much appreciate that you
have devoted this time to this issue.
I am pleased to be joined here today with Coordinator
Kulikowski and CEO Lansing. The various work of our
organizations complement one another, and I think it is
important that by testifying together we can paint a better
picture of the work that is being done to expose and to counter
Russian disinformation.
The GEC's mission as defined by Congress is to direct,
lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the
Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and
counter foreign state and foreign non-state propaganda and
disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the
policies, security, or stability of the United States and
United States allies and partner nations.
Secretary Pompeo has called upon the GEC to employ a broad
suite of tools to stop America's adversaries from weaponizing
information and using propaganda to undermine free societies.
It is clear that the Kremlin has been attempting to damage
America's credibility among our allies and our partners,
undermine trans-Atlantic unity, and to sow discord in target
societies and weaken Western institutions and governments.
Russia attacks those it perceives as adversaries by
overwhelming target audiences with lies, questioning the very
concept of objective truth and increasing polarization in
societies. Russia has been aggressively deploying propaganda
and disinformation since early in the Soviet era, but new
information technologies allow it to cause harm on a much
larger scale than ever before.
Now, as then, free societies must unite and we must work
diligently together to build public awareness, to promote
resilience, and ultimately to defeat this threat to our values
and to our institutions.
The GEC is actively working with our allies and our
partners in Europe to identify, recognize, and expose Russian
disinformation and to promote accurate messages about the
United States and our allies and our partners in the pursuit of
freedom, prosperity, and security.
We are also an active participant in the Russia Influence
Group, which is co-chaired by the commander of U.S. European
Command and the assistant secretary of the Bureau of European
and Eurasia Affairs at the Department of State. This
interagency body has been coordinating the lines of effort of
the U.S. Government agencies to counter the various aspects of
Russian malign influence in Europe for almost 4 years.
The GEC has funded specific initiatives to counter Russian
disinformation, and these include deploying technology to
provide early warnings of foreign disinformation, analyzing
which foreign audiences are most susceptible to targeted
disinformation, developing partnerships with key local
messengers to produce content to reach critical audiences,
building the technical skills of civil society organizations,
NGOs, and journalists to shed light on the spread of
disinformation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We
appreciate this subcommittee's support for the GEC's mission,
the attention to this subject, and I look forward to answering
any questions that you have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Kulikowski.
Opening Statement of Mr. Kulikowski
Mr. Kulikowski. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey,
Ranking Member Rogers, thank you for your kind words, members
of the subcommittee, and for this opportunity to discuss our
role in countering Russian disinformation.
The Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe,
Eurasia and Central Asia's historic efforts over 30 years to
build free and democratic partners among states transitioning
from communism are now focused on the central obstacle to this
transition, Russian malign influence, including their use of
disinformation.
Of the $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2017 foreign assistance
funds we coordinated in the region, we allocated over $103
million to support independent media programming, including $56
million in supplemental funding to help build resilience
against Russian disinformation. Of the $1.3 billion in 2018
funds, we have allocated thus far $54 million to support this
media sector work.
We use these funds to build resilience against Russian
disinformation for four kinds of programs.
First, media literacy, programs that teach producers and
audiences of all ages how to separate fact from fiction. For
example, in Montenegro the embassy public affairs section
funded a digital forensics center that uncovered evidence of
Russian involvement in a local protest designed to stoke ethnic
tensions to destabilize Montenegro, and their work discredited
the effort.
Second, access to independent media and reliable content
for local audiences. This helps shed light on all the levers of
Russian malign influence. In Moldova, for example, a USAID-
supported virtual newsroom exposed 700-plus Facebook accounts
spreading disinformation in advance of the February
parliamentary elections. In Ukraine, NED is using our funding
to support the two most popular online sources of objective
information in Ukraine's Donbas region.
Third, improving the professionalism, management, and
financial sustainability of media outlets. For example, USAID's
Balkan media assistance program helped to increase the online
advertising revenue of one outlet nearly 500 percent and the
audience traffic of another 113 percent. Likewise, State is now
bringing Central Asian journalists to the United States to
develop their professional skills.
And fourth, we support strategic communications analysis to
determine vulnerabilities and specific action needed. DRL, the
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau of the State
Department, for instance, uses our funds to support research on
the characteristics of audiences in the Baltics and the Balkans
to help decisionmakers determine how best to raise awareness
about disinformation, research that is also being used by the
European Parliament.
Madam Chair, our work to build resilience to Russian
disinformation across the Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
region builds on the work of U.S. Government partners across
the interagency. Each partner brings its own comparative
advantage to the table to complement our programs. Our
collaboration will help us reach our common goal of countering
this disinformation that is central to Russia's efforts to
exert malign influence over each of the countries in which ACE
works.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I would like to begin the questioning, and we will go from
Democrat to Republican in the order in which you have arrived.
This is a question for the whole panel. I see little
evidence that we are successful in using all our tools of
public diplomacy to get our message out and win hearts and
minds.
And I really question, even though we saw this beautiful
commercial, how do we evaluate if we are effective in
connecting the much larger operations and assets of the U.S.
Agency for Global Media, the Department of State, and other
agencies of the United States Government to assist in our
efforts to counter state-sponsored disinformation or terrorist
narratives?
We have in the United States the best technology and
marketing minds in the world. Are we harnessing these talents
in this important area? Are we using all the platforms of the
United States Government to counter the messages of ISIS and
other terrorists? How do we redirect the conversation and
better contest the digital information space?
When you look--and many of us have visited many countries,
spoken with many leaders--we are not doing so well in these
efforts, and we have seen the impact of disinformation in some
elections. So if you can address the last--why don't we begin
with Mr. Lansing--address the last question. Are we really
effectively using the digital information space?
Mr. Lansing. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Lowey.
It is the right question. In the 4 years that I have been
leading USAGM we have had a dramatic shift towards digital
platforms, where in the past our primary method for reaching
audiences was through, frankly, shortwave radio and AM and FM
radio and some television.
Our most recent efforts, including the Current Time network
that we just discussed, are all digital first. And the primary
method for reaching audiences with that network is on social
media platforms on mobile platforms, and on other digital
platforms.
As I mentioned in my prepared statement, we are reaching
540 million video views on social media platforms. That is,
short-form videos that are traveling on social media platforms
to the former Soviet space and within the Russian Federation.
Our key is finding not just anybody, not just Russians
generically, but young, savvy future leaders, people who will
influence others, influencers.
We are measuring our work not just by media reach. While
reach is important--you can't influence anybody until you reach
them--we are holding ourselves accountable to you and this
committee based on our impact. And so we have measurements of
impact that we measure every day against our media. And what
are those measurements of impact? Do people find our
information trustworthy? Do they share it? Do they like it? Do
they do something with the information as a result of having it
reach them?
I can tell you that in Iran, for example--I know we are
here to talk about Russia--but in Iran our trustworthiness is
measured at 85 percent, and we are reaching fully a quarter of
all Iranians within Iran with our content on Voice of America
and Radio Free Europe. But generally across the globe, all of
our content on average has a trustworthy factor of 75 percent.
And so the one thing that we are exporting beyond a
particular message or platform is the fact that it is
believable. And in a world where you can't believe anything, to
be able to reach people and have them believe it is truthful is
really our number one export.
The Chairwoman. I am going to turn to Ms. Gabrielle, but I
would be interested, do you poll on a regular basis?
Mr. Lansing. Yes, ma'am, we do. We use Gallup and other
third parties just as U.S. media does, and we poll around the
world.
The Chairwoman. And the elections throughout Europe reflect
all this outstanding media. Is that correct?
Mr. Lansing. As far as I know.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Gabrielle.
Ms. Gabrielle. Yes, ma'am.
Well, first of all, I appreciate your thoughts behind all
the different, unique capabilities that we have, not just in
the United States but really across the world in terms of our
allies.
You know, our adversaries, like Russia, they have weak
alliances that are based on convenience, whereas the United
States has true friendships that are based on trust, and that
is because of the principles that we promote. So leveraging
those alliances and leveraging those relationships and
leveraging that trust is key.
The GEC was essentially formed to answer the call
specifically that you are asking about in terms of bringing all
the different capabilities and technologies to bear. So we have
four key priorities of the GEC that is leading our U.S.
Government efforts to counter propaganda and disinformation.
There is so much good work being done in this field across
the U.S. Government, but if there is not a body that is
coordinating those efforts, then we are going to be duplicating
and we are not going to be supporting each other's efforts in
the best way possible. Some of those efforts are in a
classified space. Some of them are in an open space.
So the GEC is building essentially a mission center that
can coordinate all of these efforts. And within our mission
center we are building the expertise. We are bringing in data
scientists. We have people who used to work in advertising. We
have experts in languages and in regional expertise. We have
people who are influence experts, who are information
operations experts, so that we can essentially be not just the
mission center, but the center of expertise across the U.S.
Government's efforts in countering propaganda and
disinformation.
Our second line of effort is working with our international
partners. Our international partners, as I said before, these
are true alliances based on trust, and they share information
with us and we can share best practices and make sure that we
are all working together to defeat the adversaries who want to
use our basic vulnerability of our desire to communicate
against us. They want to use our basic freedoms, that the
principles that make us great, they want to use those as
weaknesses. So we work with our allies to prevent that.
Our third line of effort right now is leveraging all of the
wonderful work that is being done in the private sector, the
civil society and tech companies, the tech industry, as well as
the media, bringing all of those efforts to bear, because there
is so much work being done to counter propaganda and
disinformation. It would be a huge mistake not to bring that
together.
And finally, we have to continue to assess and adjust as we
go along. So this is something we are working on. The GEC
received its mandate to counter state-sponsored disinformation
a couple of years ago. We are building this effort, and I think
that this is something that will ultimately bring us together
so that we can make sure we are not duplicating efforts and we
can make sure that we are bringing these efforts to bear in the
best way possible.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Kulikowski.
Mr. Kulikowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So our efforts, as I said, are based on building
resilience. So we don't put out messages. We teach people
within each country how to respond, how to react to the
messages they receive.
So, for instance, in Ukraine the Learn to Discern program
brings in people of all ages to teach them how to discern
reality from falsity and has been used successfully in the
elections leading up to the Presidential election. And that
teaching is not only teaching them how to discern reality, but
teaching them how to be responsible content creators so that
they can become the messengers of truth, if you will, and put
it out on the net.
And the evidence is that those efforts are being successful
and are being adopted by Ukraine to be spread throughout the
entire educational system. So by creating users who know both
how to discern reality and how to project true reality we build
the resilience that no matter how large the effort is that
Russia is putting out there, that the audience is not receptive
to it and is able to respond on their own.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I know my colleagues will pursue these issues, so I will
turn this over to Mr. Rogers, although it is tempting just to
keep going.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kulikowski, there is a multiplicity of U.S.
Government actors involved in countering Russian
disinformation. It is unclear to me at present how well
coordinated these efforts are. A recent study by the RAND
Corporation, for example, said that a wide list of agency
responsibilities suggests the absence of a clear overall lead
agency to coordinate U.S. Government activities to respond to
the Russians.
The State Department has their Global Engagement Center.
State has, of course, the Bureau for European and Eurasian
Affairs, U.S. Government Interagency Working Group. The Russian
Influence Group, RIG, includes a lot of different agencies from
DOD, State, DHS, and so on.
Help me ring a bell here.
Mr. Kulikowski. Yes, sir. Happy to, Mr. Rogers.
So coordination overall with respect to Russian malign
influence is my job, is the job of my office, my bureau. We
coordinate through the agencies that you mentioned, and, in
fact, each of those does something slightly different and has
different authorities and ways to work.
So we work with USAID. We provide--we coordinate on getting
funding to them. And USAID works primarily on a development
model, which is a program to develop capabilities and
capacities over 5 years. The public diplomacy section in State
works on a much shorter timeframe, and each embassy has its
public diplomacy section that can take short-term projects and
respond to immediate needs with agility to provide responses to
issues as they come up.
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, another Bureau in the
State Department, has the ability to reach into countries that
and work with those right on the border with Russia that we do
not have the ability to reach into. The GEC has the ability to
do messaging and other things that we don't have the authority
to do.
So there is a reason why these different agencies are
involved in the effort. They each do different things. And it
is really our job--my job--to help coordinate those efforts and
make sure they fit into a coherent pattern, which we do on an
annual basis planning out the program of operation with the
money that we have for each country.
Mr. Rogers. How can we know that you are succeeding?
Mr. Kulikowski. Thank you.
Obviously, we do evaluations. The evaluations are being put
into place. We have short-term indications of the effectiveness
of each of those programs. We measure them to show that they
are accomplishing their task.
I guess maybe you have to look at some of the bigger
issues. You have to look at the results in North Macedonia, for
instance, where a massive effort was put into place by Russia
to make sure that the agreement was not accepted by either
country. And through the combined efforts of all these agencies
that we have talked about, we successfully battled that back
and the people of North Macedonia and Greece gave us a huge
victory, which is really an example that leads the rest of the
West Balkans forward and gives them hope.
So that is maybe not quite the answer you were looking for,
but in terms of results, the Ukraine elections is another one
where the efforts of Russia to disrupt the Presidential
elections did not work.
So at the 30,000-foot level at least there are many
instances that indicate that these combined efforts are, in
fact, succeeding against the huge effort Russia puts in to
disrupt. That is not to say the war is won. That is to say we
are winning battles as we go.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. My time is expired.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Actually, if I may take the liberty of following up with my
good friend Mr. Rogers on the coordination. Can you just
address the Global Engagement Center, DOD's Joint WebOps
Center? Is this new DOD center performing duplicative
functions? Are they doing a better job? Are they coordinating
with you? If you can just describe this, I would be most
appreciative.
Mr. Kulikowski. I will do my best, Madam Chair.
There are mechanisms in place that coordinate with DOD and
with DOD centers. There are two mechanisms at the State
Department, as Ms. Gabrielle explained. There is the Russia
Influence Group, which is jointly chaired by DOD and State and
coordinates with all the actors throughout the spectrum of
malign influence activities.
There is also with European Command, EUCOM, there is also a
joint effort with State. State has a deputy commander at EUCOM.
We were just there 2 months ago for a conference among all of
the State Department heads of mission and all of EUCOM staff to
coordinate our efforts, and this is an ongoing effort.
So there are mechanisms. Some of these, some of the units
that you referred to are fairly new. We are learning how to
work with them. But the effort is underway and 5 months into
the job I am trying to get there as quickly as I can. But the
mechanisms and the structures are there to do it.
The Chairwoman. Well, I am going to turn to Ms. Lee, but
you look like you are so anxious to address this. Am I correct?
Ms. Gabrielle. Thank you very much. I would appreciate the
opportunity to address it.
A couple of things. You mentioned the Joint MISO WebOps
Center. I led a delegation from the State Department to visit
because we will be playing a major role in coordinating the
efforts of the WebOps Center.
The Chairwoman. Where? Where is the WebOps Center?
Ms. Gabrielle. It is in Tampa. It is co-located with SOCOM
currently.
So I led this delegation so that we could bring regional
bureaus and membership from the regional bureaus to go and see
what this is all about.
Ultimately they are building a very strong messaging
capability. So the GEC's role, as I have mentioned before, is
to lead the U.S. Government's effort and to coordinate our
effort in countering propaganda and disinformation, not all
malign efforts, not all malign influence, but those specific.
So as we build this mission center we are building the
expertise so that the interagency can know that we are the
place to come when you need expertise on countering propaganda
and disinformation and also so we can lead those efforts.
But we are new. In the past 2 years we have this state-
sponsored disinformation mission. The Russia Influence Group
and others were 2 years ahead of us in their build. So a lot of
places in the U.S. Government coordination had already started
and been led. So our objective is to get involved in that
coordination, show that we have the expertise, and then take
the load off of the different organizations who are focused on
their specific efforts so that we can do that coordination as
we go.
So Russia Influence Group is a good example. How the DOD--
how the GEC will be doing coordination and assisting with the
DOD Joint WebOps Center. We are not focused on messaging at the
GEC. We are focused on the strategic efforts to counter
propaganda and disinformation. Words are not influence. Words
are, you know, just words. We are working on influence in
coordinating the efforts of the U.S. Government to counter
disinformation and propaganda using influence.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. I am pleased to turn to Ms. Lee and save
other questions for later.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. I want to thank our
chairwoman and ranking member for holding this very important
hearing today.
I am very familiar, I think most of us, with state-
sponsored disinformation in our own campaigns here in America.
It is well documented that Russia, for example, tried to
influence and turn African American groups against each other
through their interference in our elections. Russians'
interference, of course, was very clear in terms of which
candidate they supported for the Presidency. So we are very
clear on what is taking place.
I have been a longstanding member of this subcommittee, and
I have long had concerns over the effectiveness of some of the
programs run by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including the
Office of Cuba Broadcasting and Radio and TV Marti, which
serves, quite frankly, no useful purpose. It is a waste of
taxpayer dollars and it actually should be defunded.
I am also concerned about recent reports that a project
called Iran Disinformation Project, which was funded by Global
Engagement Center, was attacking U.S. persons, human rights
advocates, and journalists and academics on Twitter, including
formally imprisoned Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian.
Special Envoy Gabrielle, as you know, the Global Engagement
Center's approach is to work through credible partners to
counter state propaganda, which you have laid out. Yet the
selection of Iran Disinfo and their attacking online of U.S.
persons raises serious concerns about GEC's vetting and
oversight processes.
I am also gravely concerned that Iran Disinfo also tweeted
out patently partisan opposition to the Iran nuclear deal,
which has nothing to do with countering state-sponsored
propaganda.
So what steps have you taken to ensure stronger oversight
and accountability over grantees, and what safeguards are in
place to ensure that GEC-funded programs do not violate U.S.
values or norms that are nonpartisan and not opposing any
specific policy that this administration just happens to
oppose, such as the Iran deal?
Ms. Gabrielle. Thank you so much for bringing this up this
important topic. There is actually a lot of misinformation out
there--and I say ``mis''' because I don't think it is
intentional--about what happened with the Iran Disinformation
Project.
Essentially the GEC does find third-party partners to work
with because the idea is to create force multipliers, right, to
be able to spread truthful narratives using third-party
implementers. That was the intent of that project. The intent
was for it to unveil Iranian disinformation.
The GEC learned that someone had tweeted a few tweets on a
Twitter handle associated with that implementer that were not
in the conduct that was intended. They were outside the scope
of the agreement that we had with this implementer. I
immediately suspended this within hours of learning that there
were several tweets that were outside the scope of our
agreement.
I immediately suspended it, and we conducted a thorough
review. We have since terminated our agreement with that
implementer. Never the intent of the Global Engagement Center
to have anyone tweeting at U.S. citizens.
And I just have to add, because you mentioned Jason
Rezaian, I am a former journalist myself. I was reporting on
his situation. I was saddened by it. I was concerned for him,
and I am very happy that he made it home safely.
Ms. Lee. What accountability measures, though, have you put
in place----
Ms. Gabrielle. Thank you for asking.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. To make sure that this does not
happen again?
And also the partisan nature of what you are doing, in
terms of the messages, how do you ensure that, for instance,
one of our partners does not tweet out or support a policy of
the Trump administration, example, in opposition to the Iran
deal? That is very undemocratic.
Ms. Gabrielle. Again, this has to be a nonpartisan issue,
and us coordinating efforts to counter propaganda and
disinformation has to be nonpartisan because our adversaries
want to create divisions among us to separate us. So I
completely agree with you that this has to be nonpartisan going
forward, and we are a nonpartisan organization.
As far as the use of freedom of expression by our
implementers, that is not something we can control, but what we
can do is put mechanisms in place so that we are aware of what
is happening. And if they go outside the scope, we can more
quickly realize it, assess it, and terminate those agreements.
Ms. Lee. You have got to do it in advance. You have got to
put some accountability measures in before they actually sign
the contract.
Ms. Gabrielle. Completely agree.
Ms. Lee. And then you have got to make sure that there is
some oversight and transparency during the process or during
the timeframe of their contract.
Ms. Gabrielle. We absolutely agree with you. And, in fact,
we are tightening up the scope of agreement in agreements like
this to lay out specific requirements. We are also putting
oversight mechanisms in place. My team has conducted a thorough
review of our other similar mechanisms so that we can assess
them and be better about recognizing earlier.
Again, if someone tweets a few tweets, those things happen
fast and the damage is done very quickly. I couldn't agree more
with you that we need our implementers to stay within the scope
of our agreements because this has to be a nonpartisan issue.
This is a national security issue, and we have to work together
as a country.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me, first
of all, express my appreciation for you holding this hearing. I
think this is very important.
I have worried for some time that our government media
outreach initiatives were in serious need of replenishment and
regeneration. And, frankly, I am inspired by your
presentations. Obviously, you all embrace this with a great
passion, and you are looking at the tools of the modern media
economy to better leverage successful outcomes here.
In that regard, let me ask you, Mr. Lansing, you have a
measurement of 520 million views that you put out. Each week I
get a report where my own tweets and my own Facebooks, how many
people have looked at them. And by the time you start adding
that up, you know, you are in the tens of thousands of people.
I mean, 2,000 might look at this one. Sometimes one breaks and
it is 20,000 or 30,000. And so that adds up and piles up quite
a bit. So I get what you are trying to say with 520 million
views.
But going back to what you said, measurement of impact, is
that really an accurate number? There are other ways in which
you can determine impact, and I think we ought to unpack that.
I have several other questions, so if I cut you off it is
just going to try to get to a whole spectrum of things, so if
you could give me some assessment of that question.
Mr. Lansing. No, that is a great question, Congressman
Fortenberry.
We hold ourselves accountable, as I said earlier, to impact
over reach. The reach is measurable because it is social media
platforms and they report their analytics and so that makes it
even easier for us to understand the reach versus broadcast
media.
But we don't really think reach is the primary measurement
for us. It is really what do people do having received our
content. Do they share it? Do they like it? Do they take some
aggressive or nonaggressive or civic action as a result of it?
We measure all that through qualitative research that we do in
the field.
The most important measurement, in my mind, honestly----
Mr. Fortenberry. What does that mean? Polling?
Mr. Lansing. Polling. Yeah, just like in the United States.
I came out of the private sector as well. It is Gallup and
other polling companies that do interviews by phone and in
person.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Good. And I think this is a softer
place, a softer science. It is harder. Sometimes we in
Congress, we look at how much money we are spending and how
good our intention is, and we determine that that is a
measurable outcome that it is effective, and that is not
necessarily the case. So that is one of the areas that
obviously we need to do work on. You are clearly skilled at
that.
Secondly, though, how does our effort compare to Russia's,
for instance? Now, there is different intentionality, and I
don't want to say our intentionality is the same at all. There
is different intentionality. But in terms of the actual
outreach efforts, by what measure can you compare us to what
Russia is doing?
Mr. Lansing. Well, I don't know exactly what they invest in
RT and in Sputnik and in other Russian media, but I know that
it is more than what the United States Government invests. Of
course, all media in Russian is----
Mr. Fortenberry. Right. Ten times? A hundred times?
Mr. Lansing. I think it is around a 10X factor, absolutely.
Mr. Fortenberry. Back to the question that both Ranking
Member Rogers and Mrs. Lowey also raised, our chair, how can
you assure us that in, for instance, your use of partners to
leverage outcome, that that isn't a force multiplier, that that
may be a force multiplier or it may be indicators of
fragmentation?
Again, until you have come along, my impression is of this
whole entire government effort, that it is very fragmented, and
that, again, it was in serious need of replenishment and
updating.
So explain how your work--and perhaps, Jim and Mr. Lansing,
your work all go together--or I should say Mr. K, sorry, as we
used to call you when you worked around here--explain that a
little bit clearer because it seems like there are a whole-of-
government approach going on here or a fragmented approach
going on here.
Ms. Gabrielle. Coordination is certainly one of the biggest
challenges across any number of institutions. So it is a very
difficult job, as I am sure you are aware. But that is our
primary focus, is doing that coordination piece.
So we have looked at best practices at the Global
Engagement Center in building a strategy for how we can conduct
coordination across the government. And since our mission is
global, we have to focus on every threat of disinformation and
propaganda and globally how that is applied. So we are building
an interagency and international coordination cell based on
best practices that we have seen in doing coordination.
Mr. Fortenberry. Where? At State Department?
Ms. Gabrielle. So, again, yes, at the State Department.
Now, let me clarify. There is some confusion because the
GEC is at the State Department, but our mandate is the whole-
of-government coordination, not just within the State
Department. So one of the first things I had my team do when I
came on board is build a slide for me to show us who are we
supposed to be coordinating----
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So you have a map of this? I think
we need to see the map of this. I think my time is up, but----
Ms. Gabrielle. I am happy to share with you our diagram.
Mr. Fortenberry. To the degree you can, I get it.
Ms. Gabrielle. I call it my spaghetti diagram, because
essentially we are coordinating the entire world of countering
propaganda and disinformation. But we are using best practices
to do it. It takes some time.
And as Mr. Kulikowski was saying, you know, it is not a
matter of who is in the lead for what specific objective; it is
a matter of us making sure we are working together and deciding
who is leading, and for us it is coordinating----
Mr. Fortenberry. I get it. I have oversimplified it. You
have laid down a mapping strategy.
Madam Chair, I think that would be important for the
committee to see.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. And Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member,
for holding today's important hearing.
I wanted to ask Mr. Lansing, I know today's hearing is
about American efforts to combat Russian disinformation
campaigns, but I wanted to address and to hear about concerns
over USAGM's management that have risen again in the past few
days in the news.
The credibility and transparency of USAGM is critical to
ensure that we are able to provide a counterbalance to the
corruption in many of the countries where your programming is
being broadcast.
Can you please address for us your plans and ensure us how
you are fortifying these safeguards at USAGM that ensure that
your reporters are providing accurate and unbiased news to
viewers and also now you are conducting oversight in relation
to financial management, for example?
Mr. Lansing. Sure. Thank you for that question.
So we have redoubled our efforts at program review with all
of our networks and all of our content. We broadcast, as I said
earlier, in 61 languages to over 100 countries 24/7.
We have a process in which each of the five networks
reviews its content on a rolling basis that has already been
broadcast, reviews it for professionalism, for accuracy, for
discipline, and for adherence to the highest standards of
professional journalism. And all of those reports, all of those
reviews roll up to me to review on a regular basis.
We have redoubled our effort in that. We have added more
resources and more people so that we can do that on a more
consistent basis.
The most important thing that we have, Congresswoman Meng,
is our credibility. That is what we are actually exporting to
the world, honesty and credibility and professional journalism.
And we hold ourselves to the highest standards of professional
journalism in our review process, and in our editorial
development process. It is something that I have done my whole
professional career.
We have an excellent team of people leading our networks.
Amanda Bennett leads the Voice of America, a twice Pulitzer
prize-winning journalist. Ambassador Alberto Fernandez is
leading MBN and has really in the last year and a half reshaped
the entire Arabic strategy for our business. Radio Free Europe
launched Current Time and has completely rebuilt our Russian
media strategy. And I can go on and on, so----
Ms. Meng. Actually, so sorry to cut----
Mr. Lansing. Yeah.
Ms. Meng. I wanted to know, you have increased your
personnel resources; I assume. Do you know how many personnel
there are? What is the number of the increase? And how often do
they undergo this kind of review?
Mr. Lansing. It is a rolling review. It happens constantly
as we roll forward. Each network is of a different size. Voice
of America has 43 language services. Radio Free Europe has 21
language services. MBN has one language; it is in Arabic. We
have a Latin America Division within Voice of America.
So each one is tailored to that particular network, so
there are many more people at Voice of America doing program
review, for example, than, say, at Middle East Broadcasting
Network since there are just more languages to review.
Ms. Meng. What about TV Marti, for example?
Mr. Lansing. TV Marti, we are currently undergoing a
complete, bottom-to-top review of all of its editorial
processes. We put together a panel of five Spanish-speaking
journalism professors to review the content of OCB over the
last several months. They put a report together for me that
indicated there were serious lapses in the professionalism of
the journalism at OCB.
And, as a result, I have taken actions to remove several
people from OCB, and we are currently reviewing the entire
management structure and the mission of OCB. And we are in the
process right now of evaluating what steps we will be taking to
strengthen and fortify the content and journalism coming out of
OCB.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Will you be able to report back, as you are
making improvements, increasing resources on some of the these
improvements that you might have made, to our committee?
Mr. Lansing. I absolutely will.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Lansing. Thank you for your question.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all of the panelists for being here this
morning for this very important hearing, and I thank the
chairwoman and the ranking member for holding it.
And, you know, I, too, along with my colleagues, as you
have heard, share the concern about this coordination across
government agencies.
And I think, Mr. Kulikowski, we talked about--or you
mentioned in response to one of the questions about reporting
annually. And I would just like to start and say, I wonder if
there is an opportunity maybe for you to revisit with this
committee a little bit more often than just annually with some
updated information as to how those coordination efforts--
because, again, I think that there is an overlying concern here
about those coordination efforts.
So, to the extent that the chairwoman would also agree, I
think it would be beneficial for this committee to hear more,
rather than just waiting for a full calendar year or fiscal
year before we hear back from you.
But my specific question is for you, Special Envoy
Gabrielle. I understand that GEC has developed, as in your
testimony, your own counter-Kremlin strategy. And I would like
to know, specifically referring to, as you said in your
testimony, analyze, build, and communicate this model.
What does that mean? What accountability measures are in
place? If you could drill down on that. I guess, in other
words, how do you know that the strategy has been effective?
And, again, this goes back to these overlying concerns
about, you know, what are the metrics by which we are grading
success with all of these efforts.
Ms. Gabrielle. So, as I mentioned before, the GEC's
counter-state-sponsored-disinformation mission is still
relatively new. So we received our first dollars, our first
funding for this about a year ago.
So we are building into all of our programs and all our
initiatives measurements and evaluation techniques. We actually
have brought on a team that can establish at the beginning of
each initiative what some of those points are that should be
evaluated as we go along.
I think that that is key, having almost somebody from the
outside but that is within the organization hired specifically
to be looking at that and helping us identify measurements of
success. Because evaluating how well you have influenced
someone or a target audience is not easy to do unless you have
a specific marker on the board when you start out.
I think a good example is our support, which we worked with
Mr. Kulikowski's organization, on the--worked with the North
Macedonian Government to help ensure a free and fair vote in
the lead-up to the September 30th naming referendum. We
actually provided people on the ground there to support, with
insight reports, giving demographic and micro-targeting
information, really using data scientists to support that
effort.
That is a good example where at the beginning you want to
know, here is the marker. If people are getting out and voting
and if that is the measurement of success, well, then that is
the thing that is easily measurable. Identifying how well
someone has been influenced is more difficult, but we are
putting mechanisms in place. That is just one example.
You asked about the ABC's. So what that really means--and
thank you for reading this--is, you know, we first begin with
analyzing. We have to analyze what the tactics are that are
being used against us by our adversaries, really understanding
them and understanding what the target populations are and
whether or not our adversaries are being effective. Because if
they are not, then we are not going to put our efforts there.
But analyzing the target audiences and understanding how they
are being targeted.
The second is building, really building the capability and
the capacity of foreign partners to be able to identify
disinformation and to be able to respond quickly to it. Right
now, we have a number of international initiatives, including
working with foreign governments, and then on the ground,
working with civil society actors and that.
And the third is really communicate; the ``C'' of the ABC
is communicate. You know, Russian disinformation takes
advantage of vacuums of information. So, with our partners, we
fill that information space with, as directed by Congress,
fact-based narratives.
Mrs. Roby. And just real quickly, using that model, have
you been able to identify areas of the world that are most
vulnerable to malign information attacks?
Ms. Gabrielle. Yes, we certainly have. And I think that,
you know, for the purposes of this committee, you know, we are
talking about Russia and where Russia is effective.
We know that Russia specifically targets the U.S. And there
was a question earlier about, you know, how much effort does
Russia put at this. Well, the United States, we have to look at
the entire world, whereas Russia very much focuses its
adversarial behavior on the U.S.
So we are constantly using data scientists, data analysis
to identify what are the most vulnerable audiences and where we
should focus our efforts. And that is part of our coordination
piece. As the interagency looks to us to be the experts in
countering propaganda and disinformation, that data science is
key in helping them understand where those efforts should go.
Mrs. Roby. I appreciate it.
And I have gone over my time, Madam Chair, but I do think
that there are some good followup questions here, as this is
being laid out for us, in terms of being able to measure the
success, not only from State on reporting the impact of the
coordination of these government agencies, but also, as more
information becomes available, that this committee be made
abreast of what is going on and the successes and the
challenges that you are facing moving forward. I think that
would be very helpful.
So thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing today.
I appreciate it.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I am going to turn to Mr. Price, but, at another time and
maybe a followup question, when you said Russia primarily
targets the United States, it is hard for me to believe that
they aren't very involved in elections all throughout Europe
and in other places of the world.
But I will turn to Mr. Price now, so you can save that for
another time.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Kulikowski, I want to welcome you back to the committee
and, particularly, thank you for raising the issue of the
disinformation efforts underway in the former Soviet states and
in the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe.
You mentioned Montenegro and Moldova, both notorious cases, and
I assume there are more where those came from.
And, of course, Mr. Lansing, your outlets are broadcasting
in most, if not all, of these places.
And, also, Ms. Gabrielle, if you wanted to chime in on the
question I am about to ask, you are welcome to do so as well.
I am interested in what patterns you are seeing in terms of
Russian efforts in these countries. I know that is a broad
question. What kind of generalizations can you make?
And I am particularly concerned about the kind of
democratic backsliding we have seen in many of these countries.
Many are fragile democracies to start with, and then others
that we had thought were joining the Western community of
nations have backslid in some pretty alarming ways. I wondered
how that has changed Russia's approach and your approach to
countering Russian influence.
I suppose there are a number of things one could ask. Has
this democratic backsliding made it easier for Russia to
interfere, or has it altered the character of that
interference?
In terms of the local outlets that you champion, Mr.
Kulikowski, that you try to empower, what kind of threats and
dilemmas and problems has this posed for them, these
developments in their own countries?
And then how do we cover it? How do we deal with this? Let
me just take Hungary as a case study. How do we describe it
when President Trump welcomes Viktor Orban to the Oval Office?
Do we cover the Republican and Democratic Senators when they
warn him not to do this? Do we, in our broadcasts, indicate how
controversial this is in our own country? And certainly how it
relates to what is widely perceived as democratic backsliding
in Hungary.
I would love to see transcripts of our coverage of that
Orban visit to the Oval Office. If they are available, I think
that would be very useful. I think this would be a pretty
interesting case study.
But you see the kinds of issues this raises. And I wonder--
maybe we will start with you, Mr. Lansing--as to how we deal
with it.
Mr. Lansing. Thank you for the question, Congressman Price.
We will absolutely provide you transcripts of our coverage
of anything, but particularly of the Orban visit to the White
House.
Our role, through Voice of America, is to cover America for
the world. And we do it in a professional, unbiased,
journalistic manner. We don't carry a particular point of view,
Republican or Democratic or the administration. Our point of
view is to give all sides of any particular story and report
that in parts of the world that don't have a free media.
I will tell you--it was a multifaceted question. One point
I wanted to make. You asked, how are the Russians influencing
parts of the world where we are seeing backsliding in
democratic institutions? Well, we are seeing that more and
more, as you know, in even NATO countries like Romania,
Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary. And so, just this year, we expanded
Radio Free Europe's coverage into Romania--Romanian--and
Bulgaria, so that we are there now, present where we weren't
before, because it had become more democratic. Now that it has
backslid, we are in there now confronting Russian
disinformation and lies with truthful and factual information.
We are also, at this very moment, exploring an expansion into
Hungary, as well, for the same reason.
One of the things I thought the committee might find
interesting--and I am sure you are already aware of--while we
saw the malign interests in our 2016 election was done by, you
know, warehouses full of Russian trolls and robots even, what
we are seeing now it is stepping up into artificial
intelligence. And so the Russians are using AI to create
information, to create personalities, to create actual people
that don't really exist as a means of communicating and
disrupting societies--democratic societies or societies that
are teetering on the edge of a democracy.
I will reflect back on my testimony earlier, but the very
fundamental strategy of the Kremlin when it creates an attempt
to disrupt a democratic society is to just sow chaos. It is
about making the truth seem so elusive that nothing can be
believed. And that is what we are really up against.
You know, they say a lie can go around the world while the
truth is putting its shoes on. And so it is a very, very
difficult thing to combat a persistent attempt to just make
everything seem to be a lie. Because if everything is a lie,
then the Russians can step in, and then whatever they want to
do they do.
And so that is the battlefield that we are on. And we are
engaged on many, many levels, both in terms of our journalism
and our content but also through our fact-checking websites
that are, on an hourly basis, disputing Russian lies with facts
and truthfulness. It is a battle out there. I mean, I can't say
we are at the promised land or that we have reached the
epiphany of making all of this going away, but we are engaged.
I think the one thing I guess I would ask--and I know you
get asked a lot since you are on the Appropriations
subcommittee--is, you know, just help us fund the effort. It is
becoming more and more expensive, because the Russians are
sparing no expense in disrupting all of these democratic
institutions.
And I hope that answered your question.
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mr. Kulikowski. Thank you.
Just to add to that, I agree very much with the pattern
that was referred to. The pattern is to create chaos, to seize
any opportunity to go in and confuse and divert and undermine
processes that are underway. It is opportunistic, and it is
opportunistic across the board.
In terms of backsliding when some of the countries, are EU
and NATO members in Eastern Europe, the importance is to make
sure that the institutions and the media capabilities that we
have built remain in place. And so, when the Secretary was in
Hungary last February, he announced a program, a regional
program, to invite investigative journalists from Eastern
Europe to the U.S. to make sure that they had all the tools at
their availability to continue to be able to watch out for the
kind of corrupt influences that is one of the means Russia uses
to insert its messages.
So those efforts, those regional efforts are underway. A
$700,000 grant program has hit the streets. The grant
applications are in, and we are going through them as we speak
to make sure that that capability remains.
We are also able to work with NED, for instance, in the
region, and NED has several grants funded to promote freedom of
information and democratic ideals in the region.
So we have ways of making sure, even as we pursue the
strategy of engagement with the democratic leaders of those
countries, to assure that the capabilities that are necessary
to battle back remain in place and are renewed and
strengthened.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. I can't resist again, before I turn to Ms.
Frankel, but we won USA's soccer match, right? I can't believe
that, how difficult it is, we can't win this battle. So I am
really interested in pursuing the questions that Mr. Price
asked and I think we are all asking. We know it is a battle,
but we have to win.
And there is certainly a lot of money being put on the
table. And the reason we wanted to have this hearing, to ensure
that we are spending the money in the most effective way and
not just continuing business as usual. Because I have seen many
of the buildings, talked to many of the people, and the
expertise is there, certainly in the private sector. And I am
hoping that we will clearly focus and win this battle.
But Ms. Frankel is next. Thank you.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I think you are being kind when you
call it a battle. I would say we are in a war. And what I would
be interested in, Madam Chair--and I thank you for this
hearing--is to have a comparison between how much we are
spending on military hardware versus how much we are spending
to counter this cyber warfare. Because it seems to me that this
is the war of the--are we in the 21st century? Yes.
I want to ask you specifically, what is the line--the lines
of Russian propaganda, what are they basically--what kind of
information are they getting out, specifically? What are the
tails that they are telling, their fake news? What do you see?
And let me just--I am going to add something to the
question. Do the Russians ever use any of our President's
statements in their propaganda, such as the Russian
interference in our elections is a hoax or that he believes
Putin when it comes to Russian interference?
Ms. Gabrielle. So, as far as the lies that Russia tells,
you know, Russia is, of course, the most expansive and
aggressive actor in this space--and I want to clarify what I
did said earlier. When I say that Russian primarily targets the
U.S., what I mean is us, our allies, our Western institutions,
those bonds that we have, anything that basically undermines
the type of society that they want to have.
But as far as the lines of effort, you know, we have been
saying they covertly plant false stories, they use----
Ms. Frankel. Just give me a couple of examples of fake
stories. Because we have been talking in generalities. I would
like to know what kind of information they are spreading. What
are they saying, for example?
Ms. Gabrielle. Well, it really depends on the country, and
I----
Ms. Frankel. Well, just give me an example. Pick a country
and give me an example.
Ms. Gabrielle. Okay.
Ms. Frankel. Anybody can help her.
Mr. Lansing. I will help her.
Ms. Frankel. Go ahead.
Mr. Lansing. No, she doesn't need help. She is doing a
great job.
You know, the thing is, it is interesting, the Russians are
really not pushing a particular narrative other than ``nothing
is true,'' that you can't have any faith in any institution,
that a democracy----
Ms. Frankel. Well, give it to me. I don't want to be----
Mr. Lansing. It just matters----
Ms. Frankel [continuing]. Rude. Just tell me how they do
it. What do they say? What do they show? What do they----
Mr. Lansing. For example, when MH17 was shot down in
eastern Ukraine, the Russian narrative on that was that the
Americans loaded the plane with a bunch of dead bodies and shot
it down themselves so they could blame the Russians.
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Mr. Lansing. There is an example.
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Have they ever used any of the words of our President in
any of their disinformation?
Mr. Lansing. I am sure they have. Of course.
Ms. Frankel. Well, you are sure they have; of course. You
would know. Can you tell us?
Mr. Lansing. Yeah. I mean, they take the news as we receive
it--or as we broadcast it, and they distort it and change it
and----
Ms. Frankel. Well, how about the President's comments, over
and over, that the Russian interference with our election is a
hoax? How about his statements in--was it Helsinki?--where he
stood up next to Putin and said, ``Well, why shouldn't I
believe him?'' He said the Russians didn't interfere with the
election. Have you ever--know of any times where that
information was spread by the Russians in other countries?
Ms. Gabrielle. So we are developing analytics and research
capabilities where we can look into and we can assess things
like that.
I want to just answer your question that you asked before
about some of the other----
Ms. Frankel. No, no. Answer that.
Ms. Gabrielle. Okay.
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Ms. Gabrielle. So I will tell you this.
Ms. Frankel. Yes.
Ms. Gabrielle. The Russians will use every division
possible to fragment us as a country. They will use your words,
they will use my words, they will use the President's words,
they will use any words they can to divide us and to separate
us. So, absolutely, any little string we give them of division,
they will exploit that. That is their tactic.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you. I guess you are answering my
question, is, yes, they have used the President's words.
All right. So--and thank you for that example. Are there
any other examples any of you can give me?
Ms. Gabrielle. The poisoning of the U.K. citizens in
Salisbury, England; energy development and distribution; NATO
exercises and deployments; the crisis in Venezuela; and
countless other topics. Again, they will use your words, they
will use my words, they will use any words they can to divide
us.
Ms. Frankel. Now, how do you pick your targets, which
countries you are going to be working in?
Mr. Kulikowski. Well, we pick our targets--we work with
basically all countries in the region that we work in. We pick
our targets in conjunction with the guidance that you provide
us. So our targets are your targets, which prioritize Ukraine,
Georgia, Moldova.
But we work with the balance of the countries. The Western
Balkans are extremely important to us. But we work with you on
determining where the funds go and how we choose our targets.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you.
Madam Chair, my time has run out, but I do again want to
just request that I really think it would be interesting to see
the amount of money we spend on this counterintelligence work,
because you have different--you are TV, internet, and so forth.
I would like to see how much we spend and compare it to the
money we spend on military hardware, and even on our troops.
And, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. I was just discussing with staff that I
wish we had a couple more hours, because this panel is so
invaluable. We are not finished yet. We have Mrs. Torres, and
then we have another panel. So we will have to bring you back
another time.
But Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I am going to try to be very brief
with my questions, piggybacking on what was just asked.
How is the information and the images of toddlers behind
jail cells and having nothing but a sheet of aluminum to cover
themselves, pooping themselves, nobody feeding them, how are
those images being portrayed to the world about America?
Mr. Lansing. In the same way that any American journalistic
enterprise is reporting that story, our journalists report the
story----
Mrs. Torres. Are they being truthful about----
Mr. Lansing. Yes.
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. What is going on out there, or
are they spinning that to----
Mr. Lansing. We don't----
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. Create an image----
Mr. Lansing. Congresswoman Torres, we don't spin anything.
We report the----
Mrs. Torres. Not you. I am asking how the Russians----
Mr. Lansing. Oh, how the Russians are----
Mrs. Torres. Yes.
Mr. Lansing. Well, I can't give you a specific example of
how they are covering----
Mrs. Torres. You are the friendly ones.
Mr. Lansing. We are the friendlies.
Mrs. Torres. Yes.
Mr. Lansing. I don't have a specific example. I can only
assure you that they are looking for a way to report that story
in a way that makes America look like it is----
Mrs. Torres. Will you report back to the committee on----
Mr. Lansing. Yeah, of course.
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. How those images are being spun?
I am very concerned about how----
Mr. Lansing. How the Russians are reporting on that story?
Sure.
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. How the Russians are reporting
that and how that information is being utilized to diminish,
you know, our standing as a global leader.
So I want to bring the conversation back to our hemisphere
and Latin America. So, beyond Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua,
where have you detected significant Russian influence in Latin
America? And to what extent does corruption make countries more
vulnerable to Russian influence?
Mr. Lansing. You named the countries that are most
influenced by the Russians, starting with Cuba and Venezuela,
Colombia, El Salvador. I think wherever you see a Latin
American country that is backsliding in democratic ideals, I
think you will find the Russians there helping to make that
happen.
Mrs. Torres. Specifically to the Northern Triangle, how is
corruption there being----
Mr. Lansing. The corruption, I think, is something that is
largely the result of Russian influence.
Mrs. Torres. All right.
Any of you have anything else to add to that?
Ms. Gabrielle. Well, we are certainly seeing Russian
influence in Venezuela, of course, as well as other adversary
actors in Venezuela trying to influence their local
populations.
And for the GEC, part of our mandate is recognizing and
understanding where propaganda and disinformation are occurring
globally. That is part of the reason that we have dedicated
intelligence officers from the intelligence community who are
detailed into our spaces of the GEC to assist with us and to
point out when there are specific areas that we need to look
at.
Mrs. Torres. I think we have to pay attention to our
hemisphere.
Mr. Lansing. Yeah.
Mrs. Torres. You know, about 3 years ago, I was in Chile.
They had a partnership with Russia with satellites, satellite
infrastructure that was being built there.
So I think that we need to pay special attention to our
hemisphere and how this administration is treating migrants
that are coming here seeking asylum and how that information is
being utilized against, you know, our moral values as American
citizens.
And, with that, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. I know that all of us would like to
continue, but we have a second panel waiting. So I certainly
would like to thank our witnesses. And you can be assured that
we will invite you back sooner rather than later to continue
this discussion. Thank you very much for being here today.
And we will recess just for one moment to transition to the
second panel, because we took so much time with your excellent
presentations. Thank you.
Mr. Lansing. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairwoman. Ms. Polyakova, Ms. Jankowicz, I want to
really thank you for joining us today. If you would be kind
enough to summarize your written statement, we would be happy
to place your full testimonies into the record.
And after your testimony, I will call on members,
alternating between majority and minority. Each member is asked
to keep questions to within 4 minutes per round. I do want to
say, because this subject is of such interest to all of us, we
get a little carried away, so we are going to have to keep to
our timeframe.
And so, after your testimony, I will call on members,
alternating between majority and minority.
Ms. Polyakova, please proceed.
Opening Remarks of Ms. Polyakova
Ms. Polyakova. Thank you. Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member
Rogers, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is truly
an honor and privilege to address you today on this important
issue. Thank you for inviting me to testify.
President Vladimir Putin's Russia seeks to weaken Western
governments and transatlantic institutions, discredit
democratic values, and create a post-truth world.
Russian disinformation doesn't stop when the ballot box
closes. Elections may provide an ideal, high-impact opportunity
for a disinformation actor like the Kremlin, but the barrage of
disinformation against Western democracies, including that of
the United States, continues long between election cycles.
Disinformation, as one tool of Russia's political warfare,
is certainly not new. But what is new is that, today, what used
to take years simply takes minutes. The advance of digital
technology and communication allows for the high-speed spread
of disinformation, rapid amplification of misleading content,
and massive manipulation via unsecured points of influence.
I have been working on Russian disinformation long before
it became the issue du jour 3 years ago. Likewise, Russia's
democratic and pro-Western neighbors, especially Ukraine,
Georgia, and the Baltic states, have contended with Russian
disinformation attacks for years. The United States and Western
European countries woke up late to the challenge.
But since the 2016 wake-up call, as you said, Congresswoman
Lowey, European governments, the European Union, Canada, and
the United States have moved beyond, quote/unquote, ``admiring
the problem'' and have entered what I think of as a new period
of trial and error, where we are trying new efforts and new
policies to counter this threat.
Four insights have emerged over the last 3\1/2\ years.
These are based on my many, many conversations with my European
colleagues on the research side, European governments, and
others in the private sector, including the social media
platforms.
First, there is no silver bullet for addressing the
disinformation challenge. Governmental policy on its own will
not be enough. What we need is a whole-of-society approach that
includes stakeholders from the private sector, independent
media, and civil society.
Second, exposure and identification of specific malicious
entities like Russian bots and trolls is necessary but not
sufficient to curb the spread of foreign disinformation. As we
respond, our adversaries evolve.
Three, the democratic response to state-sponsored
information warfare must be rooted in democratic principles of
transparency, accountability, and integrity. As we learned
during the Cold War, we need not become them to beat them.
Lastly, malicious disinformation attacks are not limited to
one country; all democracies are equally affected. That is why
the Transatlantic Alliance should be the basis of a counter-
disinformation coalition in which the United States should play
a leading role.
Unfortunately, the United States, as you rightfully noted,
has fallen behind Europe in both conceptualizing the nature of
the challenge and operationalizing concrete steps to counter
and build resilience against disinformation.
In my written testimony, I have detailed the nature of the
Russian threat, European and U.S. responses, and what else
needs to be done by this legislative body and the
administration. Here, I will focus on a few specific policy
recommendations relevant to this committee and the
administration.
I apologize. I will go about 30 seconds over.
During the Cold War, the United States developed and
invested in a messaging and media infrastructure that was well-
suited for the communications environment and the time. I can
speak from personal experience, growing up in the Soviet Union
in the 1980s, that we relied on Radio Liberty and Voice of
America to provide truthful information about our own country
that we certainly did not receive from the Soviet authorities.
Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. After the Cold
War, the U.S. ceded that space and, with it, our ability to
project democratic values and principles into the frontline
states.
Today, the communications environment has been
revolutionized and transformed by the digital revolution, but
the U.S. media apparatus has not kept up. A 20th-century model
for countering 21st-century disinformation will fail. We need
to take urgent and critical steps today.
First, the U.S. Congress should invest in a real way in
rebuilding our messaging capabilities to reach vulnerable
populations in the frontline states. As you have already, but
on top of that, we need to focus on building and appropriating
appropriate funds to build capacity of civil society media and
other nongovernmental organizations.
To that end, Congress should authorize and appropriate
funds to further develop RFE/RL's and VOA's ``Current Time''
program that we heard about earlier today and allow it to
expand further into the former Warsaw Pact countries.
Lastly, this Congress should also continue to put pressure
on the administration to ensure the administration continues to
impose sanctions on foreign officials or officially controlled
purveyors of disinformation and their sponsors.
I can go on, but just to close, I will say these
recommendations, as are outlined in my written testimony, are
low-hanging fruit. They will not, in themselves, curb the tide
of disinformation. We must take the leadership in this space in
addressing foreign disinformation specifically. To do otherwise
will be to leave this arena open to authoritarians to set the
rules of the game.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Jankowicz.
Opening Remarks of Ms. Jankowicz
Ms. Jankowicz. Chairman Lowey, Ranking Member Rogers, and
distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to
testify before you today on a topic of utmost importance to the
United States, our values, and our standing in the world.
For the past 3 years, I have been on the front lines of the
information war, most recently in Ukraine, Lithuania, and
Georgia. I have worked alongside, interviewed, and briefed
policymakers throughout the region, and these experiences
present a grim picture: The United States is abdicating its
leadership in countering Russian disinformation.
Where we ought to be setting the rules of engagement, the
tone, and the moral compass in responding to Russia's
information war, the United States has been a tardy, timid, or
tertiary player, with much of our public servants' good work on
this issue stymied by domestic politicization.
Disinformation is not a political issue; it is a democratic
one. By convening this hearing, I know the members of this
subcommittee recognize that, and I hope you continue to reflect
this sentiment in your appropriations decisions.
Beyond that challenge, the U.S. has not invested sufficient
resources to become competitive in this fight. Russian
information warfare continues to target the U.S. And our allies
as well as the rules-based international order. It does so
through increasingly hard-to-track tactics that I outline in my
written testimony. However, countering it has not been a
budgetary priority. Russia has not met the same budgetary
challenge.
After struggling to gain an informational foothold during
the 2008 war with Georgia, the editor in chief of RT, Russia's
state-sponsored foreign propaganda outlet, described the
conflict as a watershed moment. She said, ``In 2008, it became
absolutely clear to everyone why we need such a thing as an
international television channel representing the country, and
of course they began to pay more attention and understand that
it costs money,'' end quote.
The budget for RT, arguably one of the least effective arms
of Russian disinformation, is $277 million in 2020. I am not
advocating that the U.S. match the Russian Government's
spending on information warfare, nor am I arguing that we mimic
its tactics. Instead, we must invest more in the tools already
at our disposal, with an eye on empowering individuals, not
endlessly fact-checking or playing whack-a-troll.
Congress should invest more in programs that, first, teach
people how to navigate the modern information environment,
including through digital literacy training outside of the
context of Russian disinformation.
Second, we should inject more reliable information into the
ecosystem using existing trusted vectors, such as Radio Free
Europe and the Voice of America, and invest in the
sustainability of local and independent media outlets rather
than just training and capability-building.
Third, we should engage people in countries on the front
lines of the information war with firsthand exchange
experiences in and about the United States through programs
including Fulbright, IVLP, and FLEX. It is time for the U.S. to
get serious about addressing disinformation and to do so, in
part, by targeting those most affected by it: regular people.
None of these initiatives are political. They focus on
empowering individuals to be active and informed citizens
through generational investments in democratic discourse, civic
engagement, and truth. Ultimately, these recommendations are a
manifestation of America's greatest strength: our values.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Well, I want to first thank both of you for
appearing before us, and I know we will continue our dialogue.
We appreciate your expertise, and I know that all of us on this
panel understand the urgency of the messages you are sending.
So I am going to be brief and turn to my colleagues--or
maybe I will conclude and turn to my colleagues for their
questions.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Can you tell us, what is the impact of Russian
misinformation? What damage is it doing, and to whom, and why?
Either of you.
Ms. Polyakova.
Ms. Polyakova. I will be happy to begin, Congressman, and I
am sure my colleague will follow up.
One, if we start asking the question whether Russian
disinformation leads to specific outcomes, like the outcome of
an election, that is the wrong way to look at this. I think of
it as a slow drip of a desire to shape the public narrative and
the public view around specific events that are of strategic
national interest to the Kremlin.
Specifically, when the Maidan revolution was happening in
Ukraine in 2013 and 2014, the Russian narrative was that a
democratic demonstration that was peaceful was actually a
fascist coup led and orchestrated by the United States and
especially the State Department and the CIA. At the time, this
view propagated and was amplified in mainstream media,
including seeping into our mainstream media.
So, to my mind, the effect is that it damages the United
States' and our allies' images abroad, it undermines our
society at home, and it continues to drive wedges between us
and our allies internally and externally.
Ms. Jankowicz. And I will follow up with a recent example
from the Ukrainian elections in 2019.
I think the main narrative that Russia was trying to push,
although it was less active in these Ukrainian elections than
it had been in the past, was that the outcome was already
decided, Ukrainians shouldn't bother going out to vote, there
were all this oligarchic interests involved in the election,
and, really, there was no democracy to be had there. Of course,
Ukraine proved Russia wrong, right?
But the idea here is to build distrust in the democratic
system writ large. It encourages people not to go out and vote,
not to participate, and to question everything that they are
saying to a conspiratorial kind of degree, rather than
participating in democratic debate and discourse to support the
democratic system.
And I think that, of course, is damaging to United States'
interests and damaging to the democratic system writ large
around the group.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
I yield.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you both for being here.
I think I would address this question to Dr. Polyakova.
I recently traveled to Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia with
the bipartisan House Democracy Partnership, where we heard and
saw firsthand the impact that Russian disinformation has on
undermining political stability and democratic processes. Of
course, it was very familiar to me, as an American.
You stated in your testimony that a democratic response to
state-sponsored information warfare must be rooted in
democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and
integrity and that these principles should be guiding United
States' policy.
Now, I have grave concerns about just how transparent and
accountable the U.S. Government is when it comes to addressing
the significant challenges around countering Russian
disinformation machines, particularly in our own country. It
certainly has done damage here.
You also stated in your testimony that the U.S. has made
little progress in addressing the misinformation challenge and
that it remains unclear who in the U.S. Government owns the
problem.
Now, of course, we know Russia took sides in the
Presidential elections here in America. That is a documented
fact. And their candidate, Donald Trump, won. That is a fact.
So let me ask you, how can the United States Government
better utilize what tools we have, including diplomacy and
coordination across the whole of government, to ensure our
success in countering the influence and disinformation by the
Russians both here at home in America and abroad?
Ms. Polyakova. Thank you very much for this very good
question, Congresswoman.
Firstly, to focus on what we can do here at home, as you
heard from the earlier panel, there are multiple U.S. agencies
that coordinate the response to the disinformation problem. It
remains a problem with no clear high-level political leadership
at the, say, Under Secretary level or above.
In a recent report that I co-authored with a longtime State
Department Foreign Service officer, Ambassador Dan Fried,
called ``Democratic Defense Against Disinformation,'' we
outlined a long series of recommendations. And I would be happy
to share that full report with you, as well, following this
testimony.
Some of the highlights that I would include is that best
practices from European governments that are ahead of the
United States in this space, notably Sweden--I would point to
that--Estonia; and, to a certain extent, France has taken the
international leadership role in crafting a set of common
understandings of allied and like-minded democracies.
Some of the best practices from the European context are:
One, there needs to be high-level political leadership that
coordinates U.S. governmental efforts at the interagency level.
Multiple versions of this have been proposed, whether that
be in last year's minority report from the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that proposed an NCTC-style model for
counter-disinformation. A fusion cell is something it has been
called as well, to be housed in any of the U.S. agencies, but
DHS clearly has the homeland mandate. And DHS so far has
focused on the hard security versus information security.
So that is on the domestic front. If you will allow me 1
second on the foreign front, which of course is the main
concern of this committee, we need to reinvest in supporting
independent civil society in those frontline states. The
Balkans I would put as a potential area that will lead to some
conflict in the near future.
Russia owns that media space. What I see over and over
again is RT and other similar services provide the local-
language information in the same way that AP provides cable
news that is then pasted, usually without any attribution, into
local newspapers.
And you can imagine what kind of ``information,'' quote/
unquote--I put that in quotes--that is. It is certainly not
information that is anything positive about the West or the
United States.
Ms. Lee. Madam Chair, I would suggest that if these
recommendations have been made and if they haven't been
embraced by the highest level of our government as it relates
to our own efforts to stop the disinformation, then we are
complicit in this. And so we need to really figure out why
these recommendations haven't been addressed, especially with
elections coming up. Because, otherwise, you know, it is, like,
hands off, you know?
Ms. Polyakova. If I may have 1 second, I think if we want
to understand the kinds of threats that we will face in the
future here in this country, we must look to those frontline
states, like Ukraine, who have been undergoing these kinds of
attacks for decades. And everything that we have seen happen in
this country has happened there before.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I am going to ask a few questions, and hopefully you can
all sum up, because, clearly, we are going to meet again. And I
apologize, but there are so many other hearings going on, it
was not for a lack of interest that colleagues on both sides of
the aisle have wandered off. So I am going to ask a couple of
things, and then I know we will meet another day.
First of all, in the first panel, we heard from CEO Lansing
of the United States Agency for Global Media. My first question
is, how can we use their platforms, including the VOA and Radio
Free Europe, which you touched on, to reach audiences, break
through the noise and clutter of the 21st-century media
environment? Or are these agencies not relevant today?
Secondly, what role can and should U.S.-funded independent
media play in fighting Russian disinformation and malign
influence?
What role does forceful diplomacy play in the battle
against disinformation? Do the United States and our allies
adequately prioritize disinformation efforts for our diplomatic
discussions with Russia, China, and others who engage
aggressively in these attacks?
I don't mean to have you taking all these notes, but I
would like you to sum up addressing these issues.
And which countries have done the best at responding to
disinformation campaigns, and can we learn from these lessons?
And, Ms. Polyakova--or Dr. Polyakova, you have cited the
EU's Rapid Alert System as an example of progress in Europe in
fighting disinformation. I thought it was interesting that,
over the weekend, The New York Times carried an article that
questions the system's effectiveness to date. How do you
evaluate the New York Times' piece and the Rapid Alert System's
effectiveness to date?
And, Ms. Jankowicz, you have written that Moscow has used
Ukraine as a disinformation laboratory for years. So, if you
can, describe Russia's actions in Ukraine, what it learned, the
results from such actions, and how Russia applies lessons from
Ukraine elsewhere.
I would be most appreciative if you could address those
points. Sum up as best you can. You know we are going to bring
you before us again, because your information is so vital.
And as I thank you again, I would like you to sum up--you
heard the other testimony first from the first panel. I know
you feel this is urgent. I feel it is absolutely urgent. I know
Mr. Rogers agrees with me. Help us as to what the next steps
should be. And perhaps the next steps should be in a classified
setting so that we can really understand exactly what is going
on.
I don't think there is an issue--and I say this all the
time--that is more important and more urgent than addressing
what Russia is doing, especially as a result of their actions
in the last election.
Please proceed.
Ms. Polyakova. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey. And I just want
to acknowledge your leadership and the leadership of
Congressman Rogers on the issue of Ukraine, Russia especially.
You certainly have been an important voice in helping to
understand Russia's hybrid warfare and political warfare
against its neighbors.
And I completely agree with my colleague's written
testimony. The Ukraine is the testing bed for Russian
techniques, and this is where we must look to understand what
is coming to us.
To address your specific questions regarding the European
so-called Rapid Alert System, in the report I mentioned
earlier, we do assess--and that came out before the New York
Times article--we assess that system as potentially useful if
it is fully implemented. At the time, it was not fully
implemented. It remains unimplemented today, which is a
shortcoming of the EU efforts in this space.
However, while I agree with the criticism in the New York
Times article and cite it in my written testimony as well, I
think it serves as an interesting potential model from where we
should learn from in the United States. It is basically an
information-sharing mechanism.
Obviously, the EU is very different than the United States.
It is a country with 28 member states that have not been
sharing information in a productive, concrete process when each
country faces a disinformation attack or information
manipulation. So, hopefully, if, with a little bit more time,
the so-called RAS system will be stood up and will be effective
for information-sharing, I think we can learn from the mistakes
and successes of the EU as it seeks out certain solutions.
In my written testimony, I also recommend that the United
States, looking at some of the European pitfalls and successes,
considers implementing a U.S.-style Rapid Alert System as well
that could only be operational, for example, during election
cycles, which is not the only time disinformation occurs but is
certainly a peak and a huge opportunity for malicious actors. I
think we should look to Europe and to learn from them.
I already mentioned Sweden as a potential country that we
should look at for best practices. Again, Sweden is not the
United States--you know, the scale questions that I don't need
to go into with you. However, there are some interesting things
that they have done prior to their elections this past fall.
One, the Civil Contingencies Agency, which is the Swedish
equivalent of DHS more or less, has established for the last
few years a psychological defense agency. So they are deeply
focused on cognitive security as part of information security
and part of cybersecurity. I think we have something like this
in the classified intelligence space, but without clearance, I
cannot confirm that, to be honest with you.
One thing that----
The Chairwoman. Our next hearing will be classified.
Ms. Polyakova. I will say that the Civil Contingencies
Agency did two things prior to secure their own elections. One,
they sent out, I believe to every household in Sweden, a very
simple information pamphlet: What is disinformation? Why should
it be something that is of concern to you locally? You know,
the equivalent being someone in a small town in Georgia and
Michigan receiving something similar. What do you do if you
think you are reading information that is inaccurate and is
trying to manipulate you?
Second, they sent out similar training materials to
teachers and schools so that students could be better educated
on: How do you discern disinformation? What is it? Why is it an
issue for you?
So these are just some of the efforts that I think we may
want to look at.
And, thirdly, they have developed, again, communication
information-sharing between local, like, city councils and all
the way to the Federal level. And they have done trainings with
civil servants so internally there is awareness within
government, not just externally in the public.
I think where we are today and the reason why I say that we
have lagged behind is, one, there is lack of awareness
internally within our government and a lack of public awareness
as a result of that. Because we haven't seen leadership at the
highest level--at the highest level--here in this country on
this issue that would define the threat for the American people
so they can better understand why they should care. Right now,
I think your average American doesn't understand why they
should care about Russian disinformation, and that is a big
problem.
Lastly, before I wrap up, you asked regarding USAGM and how
we can better use those resources. In my written testimony, I
basically outline a proposal in which there is a full audit
conducted of all of the services with an eye towards
performance indicators and that those services that are not
performing in line with those indicators be significantly
reduced.
I do think our RFE/RL has been very effective in its
``Current Time'' program that we saw the presentation of, but
it is operating on a shoestring budget, as far as I can tell.
It is not competing in terms of production values with RT by
far. Again, I am not advocating that we should match RT's
budget, but I think with a redistribution of resources that
takes funding away from some programs that are not performing
and able to refocus on digital, innovative solutions versus
traditional media--again, this is the 21st century. This is the
digital century. We are still operating as if we are, you know,
in the 20th century and everyone is watching the nightly news
at 6:00 p.m. That is no longer the case.
And, again, just to point out that these efforts during the
Cold War were incredibly effective. Again, not just my personal
experience, but certainly my personal experience and my
family's experience in the 1980s speaks to that. It was part of
the reason why we immigrated to this country, because we
understood what the truth was about our own country that our
authorities were not providing at the time.
In my written testimony, I have lots of numbers that you
can look at to see why we are not competitive with the Russian
disinformation machine at this time.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very, very much.
Ms. Jankowicz.
Ms. Jankowicz. Thank you again for having me, Chairwoman.
I will start with Ukraine. There are a couple interesting
developments in Ukraine that happened during the recent
Presidential election, and I would describe them as the Russian
and other malign actors trying to move underground.
We have put up a lot of obstacles, both through our
advocacy as the United States and social media platforms as
well. And some of this has been a bit of a smokescreen--
right?--so that the social media companies look like they are
adequately addressing the problem. Malign actors have figured
out how to exploit these barriers and get around these
loopholes.
One way that they are doing this--we talked a lot about ad
buys and how the Russians bought ads. They do that in Ukraine,
certainly. They are trying to get around those geographical ad
restrictions by using ad mules. So they will find people who
are willing to rent out their authentic Facebook accounts for
about $100 a month, and those people provide them access to
those accounts. It looks like, you know, an authentic Ukrainian
is actually logging in and buying those ads, and then they are
able to place those political adds.
I would also say that Facebook has been extraordinarily lax
in enforcing those policies. And that is something that needs
to be addressed but, of course, is beyond the oversight of this
committee.
In addition, we are seeing a lot more disinformation in
groups and private messengers. So we have seen that happening
in Brazil and India on WhatsApp, but recently in Ukraine and
Lithuania I tracked a lot of disinformation moving in private
Facebook groups.
This is extremely worrying to me, because right now the
social media companies, Facebook in particular, are, again,
pivoting to privacy, which is a bit of a smokescreen, as I
said, in order to make people feel more secure about their
information online after countless errors on the social media
company's parts. But what that is doing is driving people to
have conversations in these private fora, which researchers
like us and journalists cannot track. And even the social media
companies have a much more difficult time tracking and curating
that information.
And, also, they are kind of insular communities. There is a
lot more trust between these groups because it is people of a
certain political ideology or a certain background. That trust
is built up over time, as we saw in the 2016 election, and that
is exploited to share malign narratives. This is something that
is extremely worrisome to me. Facebook is incentivizing this
behavior, and it is where we should look to the future from
Ukraine.
Ms. Jankowicz. To address the question about RFE/RL and
VOA, I have found these resources to be invaluable not only in
their English language coverage, which is one of the most
important sources for informing experts like myself when we are
not on the ground, but, also, their local language services are
invaluable.
I know during the Georgian protests, which happened a
couple of weeks ago, I turned to RFE/RL, my Georgian friends
were turning to RFE/RL to look for coverage of the protests,
especially in a politicized media environment like in Georgia.
I would say that these entities face the same issues that
U.S. media outlets are facing right now. They are competing in
a very crowded information environment. They need more funding,
just like The New York Times and local media outlets in the
United States need, in order to compete in this environment. It
is not easy, but we need to understand that journalism is a
public good and continue investing in that. I think that is
critical.
You discussed a little bit U.S. and our allies, are we
adequately prioritizing dialogue. I think the more dialogue we
can do with our transatlantic allies, the better.
The United Kingdom is leading right now, I would say, in
terms of efforts to counter disinformation abroad. I think a
great example of how their systems work--and I would add that
they don't have one specific agency that is leading on this;
they just have a really good coordination system in place. Look
at the Salisbury poisonings and the diplomatic response that
they were able to send in reaction to that tragic event.
And then, finally, you asked which countries did the best.
Alina mentioned Estonia before. I love the Estonian example
because it started with a lot of fact-checking and pushing back
against the Russian narrative and ended, or is still ongoing,
with investment in people. If you look at my testimony to the
Senate Judiciary Committee that I did last year, I go into that
example in detail. And it is about education, it is about
outreach--again, what I spoke about in my testimony today.
These generational investments are going to be the ones that
win the battle in the long run.
Ukraine is doing similar things with media literacy. As we
heard about the Learn to Discern program, I think is a great
model that is now being tried out in the United States by IREX.
One thing that I would caution against doing is the
infringements on freedom of speech that we are seeing in
Ukraine. I wrote for The Atlantic about some of those issues,
blocking and banning certain websites and social media. We
don't want to go down that route.
And then, finally, I think I will just add that democratic
systems, the most robust democratic systems, where people trust
in the system, like Sweden, like Estonia, like Finland, are the
ones that we see having the strongest resilience to
disinformation. And so, in that regard, I would encourage the
committee to think a bit outside of the box and think about
more investments in organizations like the National Endowment
for Democracy, programs that DRL, USAID, NDI, IRI are doing.
Because as we build up those systems, we are going to build
more resilient populations.
Thank you so much for having me.
The Chairwoman. Well, on behalf of Mr. Rogers and myself
and the entire committee, I am so grateful to you. I thought
your testimonies were outstanding. And I look forward to
continuing to work with you as we evaluate the really good work
of the agencies we currently fund. And, hopefully, based on
your advice, we can even provide more services to those
agencies that are so desperately needed today throughout
Europe. So thank you very much.
The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs stands adjourned. This concludes today's hearing.
Thank you.
Thursday, July 11, 2019.
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND OVERSIGHT OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND UNITED
STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
ANN CALVARESI BARR, INSPECTOR GENERAL, USAID
STEVE LINICK, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey
The Chairwoman. Good morning. The Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome State Department Inspector General
Mr. Steve Linick and USAID Inspector General Ms. Ann Calvaresi
Barr.
The oversight of programs and operations to ensure
accountability and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars must be a
paramount focus of all government agencies, and I am glad you
are here today to provide your assessment of where improvements
need to be made at the Department of State and USAID.
As chairwoman of both the House Appropriations Committee
and this subcommittee, I was pleased to oversee the passage of
the fiscal year 2020 House State and Foreign Operations
appropriations bill, which would provide more than $56 billion
for our diplomatic and development efforts.
These programs are not just the right thing to do, they
support our national security and economic growth and help
promote democracy abroad.
The mandate of inspectors general is to provide independent
oversight that ensures the integrity of our programs and
prevents the waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Your particular mandate is even more challenging, given the
high volume of overseas partners and the unpredictable
environments in which the State Department and USAID work.
The offices of the inspectors general must have the
necessary resources to ensure United States Government
engagement and investments are efficient and effective,
especially in areas affected by conflict, humanitarian crisis,
political instability, or terrorism.
To this end, our fiscal year 2020 bill would provide $90.8
million to the Department of State's Office of the Inspector
General and $75.5 million to USAID's Office of the Inspector
General to ensure accountability in program implementation and
operations.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr, I want to point out that the House
provided the level your office requested, not the lesser amount
requested by the President.
While I support efforts to strengthen civil societies,
provide sectors and host country health systems, a push for
local procurement can lead to difficult-to-manage risk,
especially in areas of instability or when responding to
humanitarian crises.
I am also concerned about longstanding management
challenges your offices have identified at the State Department
and USAID. We must always strive to do better on behalf of the
American people.
Lastly, I also want to emphasize, especially as we near the
2020 election cycle, that critical attention must be paid to
Hatch Act compliance. I expect your offices to refer any
reported violations of the Hatch Act to the Office of Special
Counsel for enforcement.
Thank you for your commitment to providing independent
oversight of our overseas programs today and beyond. We
encourage transparent coordination with Congress in identifying
challenges at the State Department and USAID. Your insight and
recommendations on solutions are most welcome.
Before we hear your testimony, let me turn to my ranking
member, Mr. Rogers, for any opening remarks he would like to
make.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I join the
distinguished chairwoman in welcoming our witnesses back to the
subcommittee.
As you may recall, the first hearing I held as chairman of
this subcommittee was with these two inspectors general
examining critical areas of oversight for the Department of
State and USAID. I look forward to receiving your update today
on challenges that continue to hamper the efficiency and
effectiveness of the agencies that you oversee, as well as
progress that has been made since we last met.
I would also like to thank the two of you and your
colleagues for your continued service to the country. You are
doing good work and this committee values the objective and
rigorous oversight that you conduct on behalf of the American
taxpayer.
We rely on your expertise to help us kick the tires and
look under the hood of the Department. What we have found are
chronic mismanagement challenges. Some are being addressed
sufficiently, others are not. We need to shine a light on these
problems and ensure that top leadership of the agencies are
acting on your recommendations.
I have been taken aback, frankly, during my time on the
subcommittee to see the same set of top challenges identified
year after year. Simply put, it is not acceptable. So I want to
hear from you both today on what specific things need to be
done to remedy this management shortfall.
Mr. Linick, this year you identified seven key management
and performance challenges at Department of State. They will
sound familiar to anyone following your work and they include
these: protection of people and facilities; oversight of
contracts, grants and foreign assistance; information security
management; financial and property management; operating in
contingency and critical environments; workforce management;
and, promoting accountability through internal coordination and
clear lines of authority.
Now that we finally have an under secretary of management
in place, a fight that we have been fighting it seems like
forever, finally an under secretary of management in place,
hallelujah, we will be watching to see how he plans to address
these challenges I just mentioned that cut across the most
important and fundamental responsibilities of the Department.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr, this year you identified four top
management challenges, including: managing risks inherent in
providing humanitarian and stabilization assistance;
strengthening local capacity and improving program planning and
monitoring; reconciling interagency priorities and functions to
more efficiently and effectively advance U.S. foreign
assistance; and addressing vulnerabilities in financial and
information management.
I raised these issues, most of which are not new, with
Administrator Green during our USAID oversight hearing earlier
this year. He committed to completing the recommendations that
I just mentioned, so I intend to follow up on that and would
appreciate your most recent assessment of their work on this.
We want to see results finally.
There is no shortage of topics to discuss, so in closing,
Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank these two witnesses and their
staffs, as well as your staff, stationed around the world for
leading the fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. We
appreciate your continued and meaningful engagement with this
subcommittee.
I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Calvaresi Barr, Mr. Linick, if you
would be kind enough to summarize your oral statement, we will
be happy to place your full testimonies and recommendations
into the record. After your testimony, I will call on members
based on seniority present when the hearing was called to
order. I will alternate between majority and minority. Each
member is asked to keep their questions to 5 minutes per round.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr, please proceed.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to
testify today.
USAID frequently relies on other entities to implement its
programs, particularly in tough environments. It must
continually balance the imperative to deliver on its mission
against the risks associated with it. This context demands
flexibilities, but creates risks.
To better ensure USAID effectively manages these risks we
shifted our oversight model from a country-specific one to one
that is more strategic and crosscutting. This has put us in a
strong position to make recommendations that get at the root of
USAID's most persistent challenges.
Our impact is encapsulated in four top management
challenges for fiscal year 2019. The first challenge concerns
managing humanitarian assistance threats. Insufficient risk
assessments not only leave USAID assistance vulnerable to
exploitation, but exposes the agency to threats it does not
fully understand. This allowed bad actors to profit from U.S.
good will and in some cases to materially support terrorists.
We have uncovered fraud, corruption and mismanagement in cross-
border relief programs in Syria, stabilization efforts in Iraq,
and public health response efforts in Africa.
The second challenge concerns the sustainability of some of
USAID's largest development investments. We found a lack of
upfront analyses that fully assess countries' capacity, will,
and resources long after U.S. involvement ends. Insufficient
planning and monitoring underlies this all and further
diminishes sustainability.
Reconciling interagency priorities to advance foreign
assistance is the third challenge. Coordination and consensus
are key to keeping interagency programs on track. Competing
priorities impede development activities.
The fourth challenge concerns the integrity of USAID's
financial and information management systems. It all starts
here. Without reliable core systems the agency cannot
successfully execute its mission.
Our work has prompted foundational changes at USAID. They,
for example, set strict requirements on implementer awards,
strengthened standards for overseeing U.N. agencies, shored up
its supply chain for lifesaving commodities, and promptly
responded to identified diversions to terrorist organizations.
It has also doubled down on requirements for reporting sexual
exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries.
While positive actions, the agency needs to rethink its
culture of partnership with implementers. No doubt they are
critical to USAID's mission, but it must first ensure
implementers fully understand the requirements that they are
entrusted with and expected to carry out. Ultimately, USAID
must be the first line of defense, but they must also hold
others they rely on accountable.
This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer
any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Linick.
Mr. Linick. Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Rogers,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify regarding the work of the Office of Inspector General.
We appreciate your interest in our work.
We oversee the operations and programs of the Department of
State and U.S. Agency for Global Media, also known as USAGM,
which include more than 75,000 employees and 270 oversees
missions and domestic entities. In fiscal year 2018 alone we
were responsible for the oversight of more than $70 billion in
Department and USAGM programs and operations. I would like to
highlight some of our recent work.
One of our top priorities is protecting those who work for
the Department around the world. We continue to find critical
vulnerabilities that put our people at risk. We have reported
on facilities maintenance deficiencies at overseas posts,
weaknesses in emergency preparedness, and health and safety
concerns related to residential housing.
We have also reported on the management of specific
construction contracts where poor oversight led to physical
deficiencies, some with safety and security concerns for new
buildings.
We have also focused on the Department's management of
contracts, grants, and foreign assistance. This is a continuing
challenge for the Department that involves substantial
resources. In fiscal year 2018 alone the Department's
obligations were more than $30 billion.
Nearly 40 percent of the investigations we closed in fiscal
year 2018 were related to contract and grant fraud. And we have
issued several recent reports that highlighted problems such as
ineffective performance, monitoring of contractors, deficient
invoice reviews and approval processes, and insufficient
program evaluation.
Our annual FISMA report identified numerous control
weaknesses that significantly affected program effectiveness
and increased the Department's vulnerability to cyber attack
and threat.
We continue to assess the Department's workforce management
challenges. We found that across functional and geographic
regions inexperienced staff, insufficient training, staffing
gaps, and frequent turnover negatively affect Department
programs and operations.
During my tenure at the Office of Inspector General we have
undertaken many initiatives to improve how we use our limited
resources to further our oversight mission. Most recently we
began posting monthly reports on unclassified recommendations
on our public website. We provide this information as well as
monthly reports on classified recommendations to the Department
and to Congress.
Before closing, I would like to note that we recently
observed improvements as a result of our work. The Department
is doing a better job of tracking physical security
deficiencies, it has upgraded management of its contract file
inventory, and it has improved armored vehicle programs in
multiple ways.
I have included financial information in my written
testimony that demonstrates the ways that OIG helps return
money to the American public. We are also proud of our work
relating to the safeguarding of the lives of those at posts
abroad and protecting the Department's information, reputation,
and program integrity.
I want to thank you all again for your interest in and
support of our work, and I want to emphasize that OIG's
accomplishments are really a credit to this talented and
committed staff that I have had the privilege to lead over the
last 5 years. I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I would like to begin with a request from my colleagues
Chairman Engel and Chairman Cummings, from the Foreign Affairs
and Oversight Committees, respectively. They suggested, and, in
fact, they asked me to follow up on their request, they asked
you to conduct an inquiry into reports that career employees at
the State Department have been subjected to improper
retaliation, including for their perceived political views and
ethnic identity.
I understand that your office has been carrying out that
inquiry for well over a year now, and it is critical that facts
about any prohibited personnel practices at the Department be
brought to light so that perpetrators can be held to account
and future retaliation can be deterred.
Mr. Linick, do you believe prohibited personnel practices
were carried out against any of the State Department employees
about whom my colleagues have raised concerns?
Mr. Linick. Thank you for that question.
We actually have ongoing work addressing that very issue.
We have two reports. We are looking at allegations of improper
personnel practices in the Office of the Secretary and we are
looking at improper personnel practices in the Office of
International Relations.
The Office of International Relations--Organizations,
excuse me--that report will be going to the Department in the
next day or two. And the report involving the Office of the
Secretary I anticipate will be going to the Department in
August.
So that very issue that you just raised is part of our
report. I am not prepared to report on the findings, but I have
confidence that those findings will be published shortly after
these reports are finished.
The Chairwoman. I appreciate that. But I wonder if you can
share with us, in the context of the investigation, has the
Department taken any steps to address these allegations? You
say you are doing a report, but have there been any steps
specifically taken to deter further retaliation?
Mr. Linick. I can't comment on any of that until my report
is published and we address those issues in the reports, and I
am reluctant to talk about our findings until we have a final
report.
The Chairwoman. Well, I was also told that you have decided
to delay releasing a piece of the report dealing with
allegations against members of the Secretary's own senior
staff. Is that correct?
Mr. Linick. That is not correct. We started with one report
involving allegations against individuals in international
organizations and also allegations against the Secretary's
office. We decided to split the reports up because we are
basically done with the international organizations report. We
wanted to get that out to the Department and get that published
after the Department has a chance to look at it.
The other report, the allegations involving the Office of
the Secretary, like I said, which I anticipate will be going to
the Department in August, that is more complex. There is a
parallel OSC investigation. And we want to make sure we get it
right. We want it to be accurate and thorough. It is a top
priority for our office. And I am confident that once it is
published you will see that its accurate, thorough, and
complete.
The Chairwoman. Now, one last question, because we have
seen documents indicating that some Department officials use
their personal rather than their government email accounts to
discuss employees' political views and background. Did you seek
these relevant records from both personal and government email
accounts? Is that a valid concern?
Mr. Linick. I can say that where appropriate we did
actually collect private email as well.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Now, one of my concerns for many years has been the
protection of people and facilities. And I know it has always
been a top management challenge to the State Department.
You have identified systemic issues regarding physical
security, specifically a lack of coordination between the
Bureau of Overseas Building Operations and the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security, both of which have responsibility for
physical security.
So I am, as you know, very concerned about these issues.
Have these two bureaus implemented your office's
recommendations to address physical security-related
deficiencies?
Mr. Linick. So the relationship between Office of
Diplomatic Security--Bureau of Diplomatic Security, DS, and
OBO, has improved in terms of coordination.
I would say the most significant recommendation that has
not been implemented which we believe would go far in
addressing security concerns has to do with prioritizing
physical security deficiencies around the world.
So in other words, the Department has a universe of
physical deficiencies and they are prioritized based on risk,
and then they can use their limited resources to figure out how
they are going to aim their resources for purposes of planning
the future. I think it would also give them a way to be more
proactive as opposed to reactive when security deficiencies
come up.
The Chairwoman. Can you just comment or--either. First I
will start with Mr. Linick--on the hiring freeze and did it
damage State and USAID's ability to meet diplomatic challenges
and effectively manage foreign assistance programs around the
world?
Mr. Linick. So we have a report that is in its final stages
on that very issue, on the impact of the hiring freeze. I
believe you asked us to do that work. And we have looked at the
impact of the hiring freeze both in 2017 and its impact
currently. And so that report will be published soon. So I
can't really talk about the findings of that particular report.
However, I can share with you anecdotal evidence from our
inspections in which we have gathered information during our
overseas work about the hiring freeze. And I can say that there
is evidence that it has affected staffing, for example, in
consular operations. It has affected staffing in Bureau of
Diplomatic Security, which obviously affects our security if we
have limited staff. It has affected our IT staff. And it is had
a big impact on our eligible family members and our civil
service. And as I understand it, we have not recovered yet even
with our civil service staffing levels at this point.
The Chairwoman. Now, specifically, has your office
evaluated the continuing lack of senior leadership at State and
its impact on policy formation and program execution? Can you
just share with us briefly your findings on that?
Mr. Linick. Absolutely. We haven't done a sort of a
systematic look at the impact of vacancies at the senior
levels, so we don't have a report or a body of work in one
place on that.
However, as I mentioned before, we do inspections all over
the world. We look at executive direction and leadership. And I
would say the results are mixed. In the spring we did 13
inspections and 5 of which were posts without ambassadors. And
in some instances where we don't have leadership, we have found
that it has affected the morale, it has affected relationships
with the host government. We had one situation where particular
a charge, acting ambassador, could not meet with the foreign
minister because of the temporary status of the individual. And
it has also impacted strategic planning.
And what complicates things is when these vacancies are
filled by folks who are very well intentioned, but who are
wearing dual hats, who are perhaps management officers who are
doing the work of DCMs and things like that. Perhaps they don't
have the experience and so forth. So that has been a problem.
On the other hand, we have found a number of posts where
acting leadership is doing just fine and they are doing a good
job. So in sum I would say it is mixed.
The Chairwoman. Before I turn it over to Mr. Rogers, if you
could just further, on the first case studies where there are
real problems, what do you do about it? Does anyone care at the
White House? Who do you report to? And do they respond or do
they say, ``Okay, it is fine that it is not operating
effectively''?
Mr. Linick. Well, as to the first issue, we actually write
our findings in a report. All of this is public.
The Chairwoman. Who gets it?
Mr. Linick. Congress, the American public, and the
Department, the Secretary of State.
The Chairwoman. Anybody in the White House that you all
respond to? The Secretary of State should be concerned about
this, no?
Mr. Linick. We don't report to the White House. We report
to the Congress and to the Secretary of State. And we----
The Chairwoman. You do report to the Secretary of State?
Mr. Linick. We do, by law.
The Chairwoman. Has there been any feedback?
Mr. Linick. Well, we get feedback on our findings. The
Department comments on them. Sometimes they do take action.
Sometimes they have removed leaders in those spots. And they
are aware of and we get frequent feedback from the Department
on our findings.
The Chairwoman. I am going to turn to Mr. Rogers, but if we
have time, I would like to explore that further. If you are
doing a careful analysis and you are getting feedback from the
field, specifically the kind of incidents you spoke about, and
you don't get any concern or any direct change, seems to me we
have a real problem here.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. It has long been the focus, Mr. Linick, in your
office on the oversight of contracts, grants, and foreign
assistance. As the Department engages in very complex
acquisitions to procure services and supplies, the Department
continues to face challenges in properly overseeing contractor
performance. Oversight personnel must monitor and document
performance, confirm that work is conducted in accordance with
the terms of the contract, hold contractors accountable for
nonperformance, and ensure that costs are effectively
contained.
In fiscal year 2018 Department obligations included $15
billion for contracted services and $15 billion in grants and
fixed charges. Can you tell me that it is being properly
overseen? Is it your assessment that at the root of many of the
deficiencies described in your most recent top management
report are inexperienced, untrained oversight personnel, staff
rotations that promote inefficiency, and complex programs and
contracts that simply require more oversight?
Mr. Linick. That is correct. This has been a persistent
issue with the Department for many years. At the root of it I
think it is a cultural issue. They are not really focused on
program management, they are focused on diplomacy, and there is
far too much program and far too little oversight. And this
results in a lack of sustained focus on experienced staff and
getting contracting personnel properly trained up.
There are structural issues in the Department as well. We
have a mix of people who are doing contract oversight,
including foreign service officers, who are moving from post to
post, so there is lack of consistency in contract oversight.
One of the biggest recommendations in this area that we
have made is the Department needs an electronic inventory
system so that our contracting officer representatives who are
in far-flung places can be overseen by contracting officers at
headquarters in Washington, and that still hasn't happened.
At the root of this, in my estimation, is they really need
to professionalize the contracting personnel at the State
Department, there needs to be a job series for contracting
officers, contracting officer representatives, and the like.
So it is a problem, and I think that improvements are at
the margins.
Mr. Rogers. Would you do a paper for us on that topic that
you just covered? Can you prepare for us a summary of the
problem that we are discussing here and what we can do to fix
it?
Mr. Linick. I would be happy to work with your staff in
coming up with a scope of a paper like that. That would be
fine.
Mr. Rogers. I thank you for that. We look forward to
hearing from you.
Now, the President's budget request for the Department, and
in fact in your office, suggests quite a substantial cut in
your funding levels. What do you say about that?
Mr. Linick. Well, we requested $90.8 million, which is what
our budget was last year, and we received $88.8 million. So we
had a $2 million decrease.
We need resources. We have worldwide coverage. We have huge
travel costs. We have mandatory inspections that we have to do
all over the world. We have whistleblower obligations and
reporting requirements. We have many requests from Congress to
do work and everybody wants their work done quickly.
And we also have our own separate IT network, and we need
money for that. So we asked for money for that.
We are independent from the Department. We became
independent just a few years ago. So we need the resources.
Mr. Rogers. If later this year the administration acts on
their proposal to draw down State Department and AID personnel
in Afghanistan, with parallel reductions in U.S. civilian
assistance, how would that impact your ongoing oversight
mission?
Mr. Linick. Well, we think that there is even more risk
with a drawdown. We have done work on this in the past--more
risk of fraud, waste and abuse. We have done work on this in
the past when there was a drawdown back in 2013 in Iraq and we
found that the drawdown of personnel was not done in accordance
with guidelines and so forth and we found $193 million in
waste.
So I would argue that oversight is even more critical if
there is a drawdown, and we are insisting that we continue to
maintain our current staff both in Afghanistan and Iraq for
that purpose. And to the extent that there is a drawdown, we do
plan on auditing that, given the history of issues that we have
seen in the past.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Just a quick comment before I turn to Mr. Price. We have
been in Afghanistan 17 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Linick. It sounds about right.
The Chairwoman. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure
out that if you suddenly withdraw there would be problems. And
we have recently read of girls schools being blown up.
So I am just wondering, who is listening to you with regard
to drawdown? Is your input taken seriously by the Secretary of
State or are they just going about their business?
Mr. Linick. Well, I can tell you that I have talked about
this issue of drawdown and the perils of a quick drawdown
without a systematic look with both the Deputy Secretary of
State and the Under Secretary for Management. And I have
actually sent letters to the U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan,
John Bass, and I have also sent a letter to the Charge, Joey
Hood, in Iraq warning them of the dangers, at least from a
fraud, waste, abuse perspective, of a drawdown that doesn't
take into consideration cost optimization, foreign policy
priorities, and so forth.
The Chairwoman. Have you gotten any response?
Mr. Linick. They acknowledge--they have acknowledged
receipt of the information and they appear to understand the
implications.
The Chairwoman. Has there been any change in the plans as a
result of your thoughtful presentation?
Mr. Linick. I don't know. I haven't looked at it, so it
would be unfair for me to say yes or no. But I haven't----
The Chairwoman. Why wouldn't you look at? I would think
that you have an incredibly important responsibility. And if
you can document specific problems with the drawdown that is
being proposed, I would think you have responsibility to scream
from the rafters to the Secretary of State and to whomever is
listening.
Mr. Linick. Well, we do plan on looking at the drawdown.
What we don't want to do is get involved----
The Chairwoman. Who is looking it the drawdown?
Mr. Linick. OIG, State OIG will be looking at the draw down
once it is done. In other words, we will be auditing it.
The Chairwoman. Oh, please. So if you are presenting
information delineating the risks of specific drawdowns, you
are going to wait until after it is done and you are going to
assess the damage? I am puzzled by that.
Mr. Linick. Well, we have, first of all, we haven't seen
plans for a drawdown, number one. And we don't want to get
involved in the policy issues. We have warned the Department
that a drawdown needs to be done carefully to avoid fraud,
waste, and abuse. So they understand. We have provided them
with our past work on this. So we have a track record.
So everybody sort of knows what is at stake here. At the
end of the day, we can't get involved in the drawdown and say
you can't do this or you can't do that, because that would be
beyond our role as an Office of Inspector General. But I
believe that we have acted responsibly by being very proactive
in trying to prevent the fraud before it occurs.
The Chairwoman. Before I turn to Mr. Price, I like to
personally request, and I certainly would want to share it with
this committee, your memos regarding concerns about drawdowns.
Mr. Linick. Absolutely.
The Chairwoman. And any response that you have gotten from
the Secretary of State or nonresponse that you have gotten from
the Secretary of State.
Mr. Linick. We would be happy to provide them.
The Chairwoman. For those who have been to Afghanistan and
been very involved, this is problematic, which is an
understatement.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to turn to Ms. Calvaresi Barr with a related
question which has to do with the unusually wide gap that has
opened up in this administration between congressional intent,
as expressed in the appropriation of funds, and what is
actually carried out on the ground.
And I do have some general--I do have some curiosity about
the extent to which that represents a red flag for you and
would call for some analysis when we are talking about funds
being just cut off in the middle of the year; or, for that
matter, reports about funds moving out very slowly and in ways
that really frustrate congressional intent.
But let me turn directly to the cutoffs. These cutoffs--
let's just focus on the West Bank, Gaza cutoff and Triangle
countries of Central America cutoff, let's focus on those.
Ostensibly these cutoffs of funds in the middle of the
fiscal year are linked to foreign assistance reviews, very
broad reviews, not about specific programs, but about whole
countries. And they have been accompanied with rhetoric that
suggests a punitive intent. You know, the Central American
countries aren't doing enough to stop the flow of migrants and
so we cut off the funds designed to help them prevent the flow
of migrants. I am not saying it makes sense, I am just saying
it suggests a punitive intent.
The same with the Palestinian aid. These people supposedly
aren't cooperating satisfactorily in a process that has totally
marginalized them.
So there is a punitive intent that is suggested. There is
this ostensible tie to a review. I want to ask you about that.
There was a review, as I understand, the Trump administration
undertook a review of assistance to South Sudan, but the
funding continued during that review. And I wonder what the
normal practice is, first of all, how narrowly focused these
reviews normally are and if they usually involve a total cutoff
of funds.
And then I want to, if we have time, want to get into the
question of what does this kind of abrupt cutoff do to the way
these programs work or don't work on the ground.
But if it you could answer me about the cutoffs and the
line, the ostensible link to reviews, and what your office has
to say about this to the extent to which you have looked at it
or would intend to.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thank you very much for that question.
And I will start by saying that policy decisions that are made,
as Steve indicated, are something that the IG comes at from an
oversight perspective and we stay clear of commenting on sort
of policy decisions. But what we need to do as an IG, as an
effective, independent IG, is to look at the effect of those
decisions, the effect of those drawdowns.
I want to start with where you ended on your question,
which is----
Mr. Price. Before you do that, I do want you to talk about
that and I appreciate that, and I don't expect you to comment
on my comments about the rhetorical overlay here, but the
process is a legitimate question. And I am asking you about the
process and what the normal process is and the ostensible tying
of a total cutoff across a whole region or across a whole
country to some kind of broad review. I mean, what is the
process here?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. So decisions are oftentimes made.
Sometimes these decisions are made and they take the diplomats
overseas and other mission folks overseas by surprise.
As we saw, Steve and I, along with the DOD IG, travel into
theater quite a bit, and our lead IG construct, and when we met
with diplomats as well as senior career folks, both at State,
DOD, and USAID, you could see that they were struggling to
figure out how to adjust to the cuts that were coming in.
In the case of USAID, I have seen the impact that it has on
the implementer community. USAID relies on implementers
oftentimes to do its work, particularly in those tough
environments. And that type of ``one day we are on, one day we
are off'' creates very chaotic operations in terms of what are
we supposed to do next.
So what you see happen on the ground is you see, whether it
be State, DOD, or USAID, looking at what the directive is, what
the cut is, and coming up with scenarios about how they will
manage to that.
On your questions with regard to West Bank, Gaza, the
Northern Triangle countries, and South Sudan, we have ongoing
work in those areas. In West Bank and Gaza, obviously key
consideration is all the money that goes into conflict
mitigation, risk mitigation, peacekeeping kind of efforts, and
we have looked at over 100 grants there that were in place for
that.
That program will be affected by decisions about funding
cuts. Our job, and we are looking at what is the impact of
those decisions on those programs. In my opening statement I
talk about the importance of and the Administrator talks about
the importance of getting to a point where there is an end for
the need for foreign assistance.
So what that means is there has to be consistency, there
has to be sustainability, there has to be local capacity built
up. If program decisions go on ebb and flow and ebb and flow,
it really impedes the ability to get to that sustainable end
for a need for foreign assistance.
So we are on it. We are looking at the close down of West
Bank Gaza funding, looking at that process there.
For the Northern Triangle countries, we have staff in San
Salvador. We have been very, very concerned with the CARSI
initiative, which is the security initiative, given the flow,
migration, and the real security risks that work there. We are
looking at the impact of those programs on what that means for
that entire region.
We are also very, very concerned about the program money
getting into nefarious hands. Therefore we have many of our
agents out conducting fraud awareness briefings, trying to
identify where the money is going, and making sure, to many of
the points made earlier, that there are strong procurement,
strong award protections in money that flows. At USAID alone
$17.6 billion goes into awards per year. We have got to get
this right.
So the final point that I would make is that oftentimes
while there is a cut in funding or there is proposals for cuts
in fundings, some of these programs have long pipelines. They
have money that is still in them and that the programs will
continue to go on. That is why we keep our eye in that area.
Those funding cuts doesn't mean OIG out, it means OIG in even
more.
So we are on the programs in those regions. We are going to
look at the effect of any type of drawdown, we will look at the
pipeline of funds, and hope to assess have we lost the ground
that our good investment up to this point has provided. And it
goes to my top management challenge about sustainability.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
I think what we have heard is very important, Madam
Chairwoman, about the kind of analysis that needs to be done,
of course of these programs effectiveness in general, but the
effects of draconian cuts of the sort that have been made, just
in the middle of the fiscal year all the money stops. Of course
it doesn't immediately stop on the ground. But our
understanding is that it is pretty well having a detrimental
effect now in both in Central American situation and the West
Bank, Gaza situation.
I think we have discovered on this committee that we don't
have perhaps as many options as we thought we did when this
kind cut comes down in the middle of the fiscal year.
The chairwoman, to her credit, has written our bills for
next year in a much tighter way, in a way that will not permit
the administration to be as fast and loose with this funding as
they have been. But in the near term, not so clear, not so
clear what our options are.
But your assessment is extremely important to us at this
moment as we contemplate this and also go forward.
The Chairwoman. And I know this issue is of great concern
to members on both sides, and so we will continue the
discussion.
Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you both for being here.
And Inspector General Calvaresi Barr, I am going to read
directly from your testimony before I get to my question.
``Our work continues to show that USAID's upfront analyses
of multimillion dollar projects fall short of fully assessing
beneficiary countries' internal controls, environmental
threats, and ability to strengthen local skills and secure
public- or private-sector commitment to sustain U.S. efforts.
In addition, we identified gaps in USAID's ongoing monitoring
and evaluation that limit its ability to apply past lessons to
better ensure sustainability of future development efforts.''
To the chairwoman's comments earlier about Afghanistan, I
have had the privilege of going with my colleague Susan Davis
from California on a bipartisan women's CODEL, now eight times,
around Mother's Day. What is unique about this codel is not
only do we spend time with our troops and encourage them and be
with them and hear about their challenges, but also what is
unique about this codel is that we get to spend a lot of time
with Afghan women and folks from USAID that are administering
programs.
My concern is that the purpose of the initiative which has
been in place since 2014 to promote women in the Afghan
economy, to provide a new generation of Afghan women with
leadership skills to make contributions to their government,
society, economy, and I enthusiastically support the mission of
these programs, but what I am concerned about is the metrics by
which we are assessing the success of these programs.
So it is one thing to say, Madam Chairwoman, that we have
enrolled X number of women in school. It is another thing to
say, okay, well, where are they now? How are they contributing
to the Afghan economy? What are the reasons that they--if we
have a job placement program and these women are able to either
work in security forces and be trained effectively or have a
job, a small business startup, whatever it may be, if they are
removed from the workforce, what are the reasons why?
If an Afghan girl is in a school and she is given the
opportunity for an education, what happens to her next?
And do we have the appropriate metrics in place--and I
don't know that we do--to assess the contributions and the
success of these women or the instances in which they were
unable to continue either in their education efforts or in
their support of the economy?
So if you would address that. I know that is a very
specific question to Afghanistan. I think you could apply it
around the world, although the challenges are different based
on what country we are talking about.
But I have real concerns as a member of this committee as
to how we are assessing outcomes as opposed to just enrollment.
If that is a real simplification, I understand. But if you
could address that for me, I would really appreciate it.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Sure. Thank you very much.
Let me begin by saying that our office has covered the
waterfront of work from both an audit perspective and an
investigations perspective in Afghanistan. If I could start
just by saying a little bit about that.
We have looked at--and it gets to the heart of your
question about metrics--monitoring and evaluation, whether it
was on the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, whether it is
on the New Development Partnership work that they have that you
have to prove that you have done what you have done in order to
receive funding for program sustainability going forward, and
we continue to look at that.
We found significant deficiencies in the ability to
measure, the ability to monitor, and really show the types of
outcomes that you are talking about that should be achieved.
On the investigations side of the house in Afghanistan,
these are challenging environments to work in and the
programming does cut across the gamut, right, of what
populations like this are in need of. I can tell you, our
investigations work in Afghanistan has uncovered corruption and
fraud to such a great scale just in the public utility power
industry. Our work resulted in the removal of the Ministry of
Economy and the CEO of that public utility company.
Our work on AUAF with the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction has pointed to weak systems to be a
good recipient of U.S. taxpayer money which has been invested
for a long time there resulted in an administrative agreement
to make sure AUAF gets its house in order.
With all of that said, we look at those programs, we look
at other programs regarding health, education, women's
empowerment going forward. And I think you are right when you
say, and we read this in the press oftentimes and we find it in
our reports when we do it, when they talk about success there
could be disagreements on the measure, how successful or how
bad, and we sort of see it all over the map.
So it definitely goes to the heart of needing to have for
these programs right up front what is important, what is the
goal of the program, what is it that we are trying to measure.
If these programs are about building capacity and
sustainability, we don't just look at the number of women that
were educated, we go beyond that. We look at how has that
resulted in a different state of living for them, job
opportunities for them, security, a whole range of things, and
we found that those metrics are often missing.
The Administrator has, I want to get this point in, has
recognized the importance of metrics, he is very metrics
driven, and you are seeing now in many of the programs that are
being rolled out on his journey to self-reliance, he makes
sure--he wants to make sure that those metrics are established
correctly in the first place.
Mrs. Roby. And I appreciate that.
And, Madam Chair, if I may, I would appreciate any detailed
information that you can provide specific to programs for
Afghan women and girls. And I want to see the good, the bad,
and the ugly, anything specific that you can drill down there
for me. I would appreciate that.
But, Madam Chairwoman, I would just say, I express your
concerns on an abrupt drawdown. And I think part of what we are
hearing right now is the ability to assess a lot of these
dollars that are being spent on behalf of Afghan women and
girls has to do with the security situation and our ability to
get to certain parts of the country where it is volatile.
We have made tremendous gains, but it is extraordinarily
fragile. And so it is very important that as these dollars are
being implemented, that this committee takes a keen interest on
these metrics and the success, not just of who is being
enrolled and how many are being enrolled, but following those
women and those girls throughout their contribution to the
country.
So thank you very much, and I look forward to continuing to
work with you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. And I look forward to working
with you and following up. Thank you.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Rogers,
for holding this hearing.
I wanted to ask Mr. Linick a question. Just yesterday our
subcommittee held a hearing in which one of the witnesses was
John Lansing, CEO of USAGM, who testified that the purpose of
Voice of America and other USAGM programming is to provide
those who live under corrupt and nondemocratic regimes access
to unbiased and accurate reporting. These programs are critical
to our soft power all around the world, but have a very
important role to play in restricted countries like Russia,
Iran and Cuba.
USAGM has proven to be riddled with corruption and grift. A
New York Times article just on Monday reported that a high
ranking adviser had been found guilty of stealing $37,000. The
same report noted that reporters have accepted bribes from
foreign officials and have faked new stories. This undermines
the whole purpose of USAGM.
I wanted to know if your office will be investigating these
issues. Have you looked into them? And what underlying
management concerns do you think exist in USAGM that might
contribute to such negligence?
Mr. Linick. Thank you for the question.
The individual you mentioned who stole $37,000, that was
our investigation, it was an OIG investigation, and we
presented it to DOJ who ultimately prosecuted that individual,
the chief strategy officer.
We oversee USAGM and through that Federal entities who
receive money, as well the grantees, as well as the language
services. So we are involved in overseeing USAGM in a very
broad sense. We oversee them through inspection--excuse me--
through investigations, through audits.
On USAGM, we have focused on governance and resource
management, as well as misconduct, as I previously indicated.
And with respect to USAGM, since that was the focus of your
question, in terms of resource management we have found a lot
of issues over the years in our management challenges. We have
identified that IT has been ineffective, their information
system, they have deficiencies in all the major domains that we
look at. We found problems with property and accounting and
hiring practices. So they span the gamut of issues.
I will say on the governance front, though, we did a report
in 2014 where we looked at the board. We found that the
structure, the then structure, was dysfunctional. It was a
part-time board. At the time there were chronic vacancies,
there was no CEO managing day-to-day operations, and there were
perceptions of favoritism because folks who were on the board
were also sitting on some of the grantees boards, and then
there was a perception that they steering their favorite grants
to the grantees.
Mr. Linick. Since then we made a number of recommendations.
We recommended that there be a full-time CEO managing day-to-
day operations. There has been a law that since passed for a
presidentially appointed CEO and an advisory board. We did
assess that recently, and we did find that they are on the
right track.
In terms of governance, we found that the board was
cohesive and collaborative, that they have eliminated the
perceptions of favoritism because all of the board members now
sit on all of the grantees, so they weren't cherry-picking.
We found there was increased use of digitization and media,
social media, YouTube, things like that, and the editorial
independence of the grantees and the Federal entities were
being respected.
So that is sort of a big--an overview of our work over the
last 5, 6 years.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I appreciate all that information. I
would just ask that your office stay on top of this. Yesterday,
when we asked him, he didn't, to my memory, mention any of
this. He mentioned reshifting or improvement in personnel
allocations, for example, but didn't really mention IT,
accounting, or even board issues specifically. So I would look
forward to continuing to look into this.
My second question, if I have some extra time, is for
Inspector General Calvaresi Barr.
Over the last 2 years, your office has investigated
failures in the contract administered by USAID and implemented
by Chemonics. This contract, as you know, was intended to
support the Global Health Supply Chain, is worth $9.5 billion,
and was the largest contract ever awarded by USAID.
And, according to an October 2018 advisory published by
your office, this contract experienced major delays in the
delivery of health commodities and was exposed to
vulnerabilities related to commodity tracking, supply chain
data access, reporting, commodity inventory access, labeling,
and other issues.
At the time of the memo's publication, your office was
encouraged by increased engagement between the bureau and
Chemonics. So I wanted to find out what types of safeguards
might be in place to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Do
you believe that the aggressive oversight required over
contracts of this size is possible?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes. Thank you. I thank you for that
question. This is a very, very large contract at $9.5 billion
and being an IDIQ at that.
Let me begin by pointing to some of the risks that we found
in that realm of that contract and the work, which is on the
Global Health Supply Chain in Africa. There we have uncovered a
number of risks with regard to the logistics as we know that is
happening with those commodities in Africa, the storage, the
facilities of those, the recordkeeping of those.
Our work has resulted in, as a result of weaknesses in the
Global Health Supply Chain, has resulted in 41 arrests, 30
indictments, and has prompted the Global Health Bureau to have
a third-party monitor overseeing the programming for health
supply commodities within Africa. Our work spanned eight
countries.
So that raised an eyebrow, right? The investigation's work
points to the effect of something gone wrong. That is the
effect. Now my office is engaged in trying to figure out, why
is that happening? What are the root causes of it?
So you may be pleased to hear that we are looking at--we
are doing two audits going forward. One is we are looking back
at the contract and how it was awarded. So that is the first
audit.
The second audit that we are doing is, because of those
weaknesses that we have uncovered in the supply chain, we are
following up to look at, how have those weaknesses been
addressed? What is being done different from USAID's
perspective in terms of its oversight of the contract and that
work?
But we also have to look to, and it gets to an issue we
discussed earlier about capacity of some of these host
countries. So I don't want to paint the picture that all these
problems that we found necessarily rely--or lie with Chemonics.
But when you are transferring funds and supplies that are very,
very needy and very valuable, particularly in Third World
countries, you need to make sure that the host government has
the capacity to receive them, to do their own inventory
controls, has strong internal controls.
So when we look at this and we dissect this, we are going
to look at the contract and how it was awarded, because we,
too, have concerns about award management at USAID, and we are
going to peel that onion back.
But secondly we are going to look at the weaknesses that we
found through our investigations, which are eight countries,
and again, those numbers are 41 arrests, 30 indictments, and
there is more that go on as a result of that. We are going to
look at how well those weaknesses are being addressed in terms
of local capacity, the implementer's responsibility, as well as
USAID's effectiveness at overseeing those.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. We look forward to your report,
and thank you for addressing the issue.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
willingness to hold this important hearing.
Thank you for joining us.
I am going to make some broad comments that can apply, have
multiple levels of application. I hope my colleagues will
agree.
I think these hearings really ought to start with some type
of schematic, map, diagram of your overall authorities drilled
down into agency and programmatic levels. Now, at USAID and
State, that might fill this wall over here, but it will make
it--take these important discussions, but can tend to be
abstract or so narrow that they are not generalizable to the
bigger principles that we ultimately have to legislate around,
which are policy perspectives, mission ideals.
And in that regard, I want to ask you, Ms. Calvaresi Barr,
regarding two questions. Regarding the reform plans that are
underway at USAID, one particular point is this, that there is
an attempt to implement a new risk management approach that
will look at the most significant impact, what programs have
the most significant impact. In other words, how well foreign
assistance actually works under certain scenarios, what are the
templates. That, to me, is the most important question here.
Secondly, I want to turn to the migration of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation to the new International
Development Finance Corporation and hear your perspective on
how that is going, with particularly one question--and I think,
Madam Chair, at an earlier hearing you tasked me with this, and
I think it is very important: the equity investment question
that is developing at the International Finance Development
Corporation, how we are going to leverage our limited funds
potentially into equity investments with private sector partner
to achieve the very goals of the earlier OPIC mission in a more
substantial way.
Are you familiar with what I am talking about there?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I am.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Good.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Let me begin with sort of enterprise risk management and
the importance of that, and it has a couple of different legs
to that stool. So when you think about risk management, you
have to think about when you are investing in these countries,
and for the most part where USAID space is. We are going to be
investing in countries that we know might not have the
strongest foundation from a financial, internal control,
procurement, or legal perspective.
Mr. Fortenberry. So we tend to measure outcomes by how much
money we have spent and what our intention is.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. I recognize what you are saying, that the
risk factors are compounded given the nature of certain----
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Weaknesses of systems in
other places. It is the very point of the assistance in the
first place. So we have to tolerate in a nontraditional sense--
--
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Absolutely.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. A different type of risk
profile.
But the question is, what really works and is sustainable
over the long term?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. So I think what----
Mr. Fortenberry. And then can be lifted as a template
elsewhere.
I am sorry to keep giving you speeches, but the reality is
we direct country by country different types of things, and so
the job is made all the harder to find a standardization of
template that actually works, but I thought that ought to be
the goal.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
So, again, starting with the point of recognizing the
environment that you are working in, you have to factor that in
when you are talking about, so what are we getting out of this,
right? You have to factor in, these are the problems, and you
have to plan accordingly. What are the risks that mitigate
those? That is what the Administrator is focusing on now.
Where there are successful models, and if I can sort of
segue to your second question on OPIC and the DFC going
forward, I think there is a general recognition, and it is part
of the USAID's look forward, that leveraging private capital
for foreign assistance is something that needs to be done and
needs to be part of the equation. Not just the U.S. coming in,
putting money in, because we oftentimes find, and our work has
found, as soon as we leave, then what happens? You know, long
afterwards those investments go down.
Mr. Fortenberry. If I could interrupt you. I think we
really need to be careful with our language. Foreign capital
investments. That implies--that has certain implications to it
that sound very remote from the poorest of the poor, and yet it
is not if we talk in the right types of language, that using
the mechanisms of lending and capital, even on a micro scale,
actually can be very empowering to people who are in very
vulnerable circumstances and lend itself to long-term
sustainability versus just writing a check year after year.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. So I am just giving a little note of
caution because the language of Western liberal economics in
speaking of these abstract ideas of capital don't necessarily
relate to the mission structure of what we are trying to do
through USAID to help persons in very vulnerable circumstances.
So there is a task here--this is way beyond you, but you
have got me talking now--there is a task here to update
vocabulary as well when we talk in terms of both the
implementation as well as the review of this. So just a little
note of caution.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Okay. No, that is fine. And I was
referring to the DFC and the establishment of the DFC as a way
to sort of make us a player in that global platform, to
leverage that capital for these organizations going forward.
Let me get to that specifically because I know that you are
interested in that.
We have done two audits now with regard to OPIC as it
stands now. We looked at OPIC's goals and successes in
producing energy in that sector in Chile. As a result of that,
we found that there were problems with this, not only in the
policies and the processes, but they weren't reaching the end
goals that they had hoped to through that programming.
Our auditors then said: Why is that? What is getting in the
way? Why aren't they doing this in Chile?
As a result of our deeper dive into it, we found systemic
issues with OPIC's internal controls. And you look at what the
FAR calls for, some of the most basic things were not in place.
We had a number of recommendations, I think 16 to be exact. Two
have been closed so far. So we have a ways to go.
We just released a report actually today where at the
request of this committee looked at OPIC's compliance with
appropriations requirements, and that report essentially found
the same thing that we noted in the Chile look, which is that
the internal controls need to be fixed. And if I might say,
before we go to the DFC model, those are issues that should be
worked on now before the transition occurs.
[The information follows:]
In fact, the audit report made 16 recommendations.
All recommendations were open as of July 11, 2019, but OIG had
received and was evaluating a request from OPIC to close two of
them (recommendations 12 and 13).
As of July 18, the two recommendations (recommendations 12 and 13)
have been closed and 14 of the 16 recommendations remain open.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. So that is helpful. But I think it
needs to lend itself again to the sense of mission of what we
are trying to do here with the Development Finance Corporation
in terms of a new mechanism of leveraging moneys that are out
there that actually will create the outcomes we are achieving
potentially with less cost and better penetration and better
continuity for the long term.
So I am asking you to do something that may be beyond the
mission of your own organization, is to not look at this in
terms of punitive, problematic notations that are found in an
audit, but saying, okay, these are the challenges that we need
to build into the program as it transitions to something else
based upon learned experience.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I think we share the same concern and I
think we are sharing the same language. DFC, we want to see
that succeed. Any system that is in place, it goes to our top
management challenge four, that has fundamentally flawed
systems, such as internal controls, OPIC will be part of the
DFC, that needs to be remedied.
So that success and that hope that is there for the DFC can
be addressed. So these aren't minor issues, these are systemic
issues that, quite frankly, are substantial and need to be
addressed.
Mr. Fortenberry. Madam Chair, there is not a member that
has gone to visit Africa that doesn't come back and say: China
is everywhere. What are we doing? And here is a big part of the
answer.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. And they are here with their own people.
Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Great questions. And thank you for covering
that piece.
Thank you both for being here.
I have spent the majority of my life in public service
addressing issues of public corruption at many levels, from the
local, State, and now at the Federal level. And as you both
know, there are many layers associated with that, and not all
of it includes money exchanges. Some of it comes in different
forms.
I would like to follow up on Chairwoman Lowey's question on
your investigation into political retributions. The State
Department strongly supported the International Commission
Against Impunity in Guatemala, known as CICIG, since it began
operations in 2007. However, between 2017 and 2018, the
Department's policy changed. It is unfortunate. It pushed for
reform, CICIG, and did not object when the Government of
Guatemala took a number of aggressive actions against the
commission and its staff.
Did you look into what role political appointees at the
Bureau of International Organizations, including Mari Stull,
played in changing the Department's policy toward CICIG?
Mr. Linick. No, we haven't looked at that issue. We may
have received an inquiry about CICIG some time ago and I would
have to get back to you, but that particular question we did
not look into.
Mrs. Torres. I hope that you will look into it in the
future. CICIG is in the process of being completely shut down.
It will be at the end of this month. It is not surprising to me
that we have so many people from Guatemala fleeing at many
different levels. Not only have Department employees worked
against improving conditions there that I think have resulted
in the number of more migrants fleeing the area in our southern
border.
So I hope that I can follow up with you, whether it is
here, in a private meeting, in a classified briefing, but I
think it is something that we need to seriously look at.
My other question it relates to the lines, blurring the
lines of political corruption. I understand that Secretary
Pompeo has been traveling quite a bit to the Midwest, including
to Kansas. I also understand that he may be considering a run
for a Senate seat in Kansas. I am concerned that the Secretary
may be using official resources for political purposes, which
would not only constitute a possible Hatch Act violation, but
also would fall within the Inspector General's mandate to
investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. Have you looked into the
Secretary's travel to Kansas?
Mr. Linick. We have not. We will look into any credible
allegations of misconduct, and happy to work with your staff if
you have information about that.
Mrs. Torres. If someone is looking to run for a political
office and specifically taking certain trips to boost their
profile within that State, I think that that is something that
you ought to be concerned, since this is your area that you
oversee.
I am a fan of USAID. I have been in the trenches with them
throughout the Western Hemisphere. I am very concerned about
what is happening with the personnel. They are understaffed.
They are stressed. They have very little resources.
As it relates to the Northern Triangle, cutting off
humanitarian assistance with partners that they have worked
with in the region for several years now, I am very concerned
about what will happen to those programs and how that will
continue to impact our crisis at our southern border.
So I hope that you will continue to pay special attention
to that, and you will come back to our committee with some real
ways that we can address that for the future.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. As I mentioned, we have staff in
Salvador and both on the audit side and the investigation side
of the house. We continue to monitor the programs that are
being funded in that region and particularly concerned about
the security aspects of this. And as long as the programs are
continuing and up and running, there is always a place for the
IG's office. So we are there in full force.
Mrs. Torres. My glass is always half full, and as it
relates to El Salvador, they have a new President who seems to
really be taking the issues of public corruption there
seriously. He seems to want to work with everyone who is able
and willing to help him address those issues, the issues of
security within the region. I hope that we don't let this
opportunity go to waste. I think that if we had been a little
bit more willing to assist Morales might have not gone sideways
in Guatemala as he did.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. I am going to turn to Mr. Rogers, but I
just wanted to follow up with Mrs. Torres' comments, because it
seems to me throughout the course of this hearing you are doing
the reports. The question is, what is the executive branch,
what is the Secretary of State doing? Is there any response?
Does anyone care?
And this is the challenge for all of us. You are doing the
reports. We are getting the information. My colleagues
mentioned West Bank and Gaza. We see dozens of examples where
there aren't people in responsible positions who can make these
changes.
So I am going to turn to Mr. Rogers now, but I do hope that
we can follow up and make sure that this isn't just a hearing
telling us that you are doing your job. But the question is,
who are you reporting to and what are they doing about it?
Mr. Rogers.
Mrs. Torres. Madam Chair, can I interrupt for a minute and
ask for unanimous consent to enter two articles to the record
that specifically relate to the questions that I was asking?
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Of course. So be it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Linick, a recent audit of the State
Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, the office
that is responsible for licensed exports of defense items,
articles, the audit revealed that the Department does not have
a standard training program for embassy officers who conduct
those end use checks on U.S. weapons sold abroad.
Why would the Department charge foreign service officers
with the responsibility of end use monitoring, a program to
prevent the unauthorized acquisition or use of U.S. military
articles and technology, without having required training in
that subject prior to a posting overseas?
Mr. Linick. That is a great question. That particular
report, not only wasn't there sufficient training for this end
use monitoring, but we found that, as a result of staffing
issues at the time, the Department lacked certain internal
controls to assure that applications that were made for arms
contained proper information and accurate information. We
looked at 21 applications; 20 of them were approved without the
required information of them.
We also found, as a result of lack of staffing, that the
Department wasn't providing certifications to Congress as it is
required to for arms exports over a million dollars in about 17
export deals.
Again, this was really a function of a staffing issue at
the time, and I would assess that the reason there wasn't the
training was because of a staffing issue. I am not sure. You
would have to ask the Department.
But clearly there were some problems. I understand now that
they have remediated those concerns and have addressed our
recommendations.
Mr. Rogers. Well, security assistance is a substantial
enterprise, DOD and State providing about $18 billion annually,
of which $8 billion are State Department funds.
DOD, the Department of Defense, has started workforce
reform requirements which was mandated in the 2017 Defense
Authorization Act, and they continue to build an enhanced
school for security cooperation training. State does not have
any such place to my knowledge. Is that correct?
Mr. Linick. I am not sure about that. Clearly, if they
don't, this might be a good model for State, but I would have
to get back to you on that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is important that we protect American
military secrets and equipment, and we need people who have
training to oversee and watch that practice and the embassies
of the countries where these items are to be shipped. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Linick. I agree.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Linick, I want to raise a case that has recently come
to light about a State Department intelligence officer who was
apparently blocked by the White House from submitting written
congressional testimony.
On the way to asking you about that, let me just back off
and say, to the extent you can kind of translate our discussion
today into some specific statistics that would put a finer
point on some of the management challenges, I want to request
that you do that. Maybe you know some of this off the top of
your head.
I liked Mr. Rogers' understatement that we have a
management shortfall here that we have dealt with for years.
Secretary Pompeo took office a little over a year ago. He has
made claims to the effect that a lot of this management
shortfall is being dealt with, that the appointments, senior
appointments are being made, that morale is up, that diplomacy
is again being respected.
I wonder what kind of specific figures do you have. How
many ambassadorships are unfilled, for example.
Mr. Linick. I don't have that----
Mr. Price. How many----
Mr. Linick. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Mr. Price. How many are unconfirmed? How many are not
named? Do you have that figure actually?
Mr. Linick. I don't. I mean, you would have to ask the
Department. I don't know. I don't keep a running tally of that.
Mr. Price. I think that is a legitimate request of the IG's
office, that you could provide that kind of basic baseline
information.
What about the pace of retirements?
Mr. Linick. I don't have that information. Again, the State
Department would have that.
Mr. Price. All right. Well, I am asking you if you could
get that information and furnish it to us.
The morale is harder to get at, but surveys are taken about
morale in one Federal department or another or in all the
departments. Do we have information about any kind of measures
of morale levels?
Mr. Linick. Well, we are about to--we are finalizing a
report on the hiring freeze and it does get at that issue. I am
not in a position to sort of report on that now. But I can tell
you, based on our inspections at posts, I mean in terms of the
hiring freeze, that did have an impact on morale around the
world.
Mr. Price. And there are other possible measures that I am
not thinking of, I am sure. But, Madam Chairman, I think one
way or another we need this basic information about the
progress we are making or not making on these very serious
management challenges. I think we need that for our hearing
record.
So one way or another we ask you to help us get that
information.
Now, let me ask you about an extraordinary case that just
comes to light recently in news stories. Ron Schoonover, who
worked in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Office of
the Geographer and Global Issues, spoke before the House
Intelligence Committee on June 5 about the security risks the
U.S. would face by virtue of climate change. But now,
apparently, the White House has said that he can't submit the
Bureau's written statement that climate impacts could be
possibly catastrophic, quote, possibly catastrophic.
Now, the State Department, apparently, stood by Mr.
Schoonover, but the quashing of his testimony came from three
divisions of the White House: Legislative Affairs, Management
and Budget, and the National Security Council. In the meantime,
the chairman of the Intelligence Committee demanded that the
heads of two Federal intelligence agencies provide documents
about this incident, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research
and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Neither of them have complied.
I am not necessarily asking you to comment on this specific
case, but I do want to ask you if this is the sort of case that
you and your office would attend to. I mean, this isn't just a
policy disagreement, this is a quashing of testimony to a
congressional committee. How does a case of this sort come
before you?
Mr. Linick. So, I mean, our jurisdiction, obviously,
extends to the Department's programs and operations, and when
we assess whether we are going to do work, obviously, we cannot
do programmatic or policy work, we don't have oversight over
the White House.
But what we do is we look to see whether there are any
rules. And I don't know, I haven't studied this at all, and
this has not come before me. Are there criteria? Are there
rules? Are there Foreign Affairs Manual violations? Are there
regulations that have been violated? That is sort of how we do
our assessment.
I can't comment as to these particular facts. You know,
whether we would play a role in this depends on the answer to
those questions.
Mr. Price. Well, I will ask you to take a look at this. I
will ask that [inaudible] Story from the July 10 Washington
Post be put in the record. But in the meantime we would
appreciate your attention to this and advising us as to what
your role----
Mr. Linick. Sure.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
I just want to close on what I think is an issue that has
been brought up by many of my colleagues, and I know we share a
serious concern.
Now, of course, this bill has not been through the Senate.
We hope one day soon we will be able to conference. But we have
appropriated in our bill $56 billion. That is a lot of money.
And I know my colleagues take that responsibility very, very
seriously.
Mr. Linick, your office has identified that the oversight
of foreign assistance funding is a recurring challenge and
noted in both 2015 and 2017 that the State Department's core
financial management systems were not designed to track and
report on foreign assistance funds. While both State and USAID
have improved their financial management systems over the
years, accuracy and transparency around how appropriated
funding is spent is paramount.
And I want to make it very clear, we just can't tolerate
waste, fraud, and abuse. It becomes a cliche because we talk
about it so much. But we all take this very, very seriously. It
is our responsibility.
So maybe you can tell me what improvements has the State
Department made to track and improve the management of foreign
assistance programs since these reports were issued? Is this a
problem, a result, or representative of any systemic management
issues? And can the State Department both track funds at the
project and country levels and manage projects effectively?
So, for me, I have been on this committee for quite a
while, I just don't get it. Both of you can respond. This is
your responsibility. How can you say you can't track the funds?
I know it is difficult in many of these countries where wars
are going on, disease abound. But it seems to me if we can't
keep track, how can I, as the chair, continue to argue for
increased investments in foreign aid?
Take turns.
Mr. Linick. You make a very good point. We have identified
this problem, and they cannot still track by program, project,
sector, in a management friendly way or in a way which would
give them the kind of data to make important decisions about
foreign assistance and how unspent fund are used.
The Chairwoman. Do you accept that?
Mr. Linick. I think it is unacceptable.
The Chairwoman. Good.
Mr. Linick. And we have done two reports already and we are
going to follow up on this. I mean, they have made modest
improvement. We have basically said: Look, you need to, one,
identify the data that needs to be collected, and they have.
But that is only the first step. They need to harness the data.
And this is a long expensive project, so it is not something
that can be done overnight.
And the second thing is it needs sustained leadership to
drive implementation of this. They have designated the F Bureau
as the designated sort of bureau to lead this. The problem is
there has been an acting--back to your original question--an
acting director of F, and there hasn't been a lot of sustained
focus on this particular issue. So while there have been
improvements, there is still a lot of work that needs to be
done.
The Chairwoman. Would you like to comment on it as well?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I would be happy to comment on that.
I want to say, this goes to the heart of our fourth top
management challenge, which is addressing vulnerabilities in
financial management and information security.
You are right in saying that the, in the case of USAID, has
made improvements over time. There is only one material
weakness that is left with regard to fund balance
reconciliation between the books at USAID and that with
Treasury. And it may take too long to go into those
distinctions about that $235 million that hasn't been able to
be reconciled, but we are happy to report that for the amount
that can be reconciled, which is slightly over $100 million,
they have made tremendous progress in getting that
reconciliation figured out, and that amount is down to $60
million now.
The problem and why this happened is because of legacy
systems. A hundred missions around the world, legacy systems,
different data dictionaries, different migration tools. They
have now adopted a controlled system known as Phoenix to track
their financial management, their programming as it goes out.
They have new tools in place which are cash reconciliation
tools.
So we are hopeful that these kinds of balances or inability
to track the funds will be addressed with some of these
changes. But I am here to say we, again, are on that, we do our
annual financial statements work every year and we drill down
on the issues there.
And there still remains that one material weakness, but
from when I started to where we are today, at least we are down
to one material weakness. So we will be diligent about
overseeing that, to your point and to your concern.
The Chairwoman. Well, let me just say on behalf of Mr.
Rogers and myself, we take our responsibility seriously. We
lead this committee because we really care about the work that
this committee does. And we are passionate about making sure
that this money is spent effectively, as it should be, around
the world.
And I would like to follow up with you in a month. I would
like to know how improvements have been made. As far as I am
concerned it is just unacceptable. If I go into a meeting and I
am arguing for $58, $56 billion, that is a lot of money.
And I am not sure how we are going to end up in the Senate.
But, frankly, it doesn't strengthen our case in helping people
who desperately need our help in the world. And, to me, that is
what the United States of America stands for and is all about.
So I hope you can follow up with us. We intend to follow up
with you. And as far as I am concerned, if we can't account for
the dollars that are spent, it makes it difficult for us to
appropriate. And if all these open positions remain open, then
it makes your job even more difficult, because who is doing the
work, who is doing the oversight, here or around the world?
So thank you again for testifying. This concludes today's
hearing. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs stands adjourned.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]