[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                  STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED
                  PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                                 ________

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
                          AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                   BARBARA LEE, California, Chairwoman

  GRACE MENG, New York              HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida             JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  NORMA J. TORRES, California       GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia


  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

     Craig Higgins, Erin Kolodjeski, Dean Koulouris, Jason Wheelock,
      Jean Kwon, Marin Stein, Jonathan Stivers, and Clelia Alvarado
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                   _____

                                  PART 4

                                                                   Page
  Leading by Action: The Fierce Urgency 
for Diversity and Inclusion in the 
Foreign Policy Workforce............................................  1
                                                                 
                                                                      
                                        
  Critical Management Issues_U.S. 
Diplomatic and Development Agencies................................ 113
                                                                 
                                                                    
                                        
  Global Climate Finance........................................... 203
                                                                
                                                                   
                                        
  United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID)
Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request.................................... 281
                                                                
                                                                    
                                        
  Department of State and Related 
Programs Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request .......................... 369
                                                                  
                                                                    
                                        
  Department of the Treasury Fiscal Year 
2022 Budget Request................................................ 481
                                                                 
                                                                    
                                        
  United States Global Covid-19 
Response: Actions Taken and Future Needs .......................... 533
                                                                  
                                                                   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

                       __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
          

                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-449               WASHINGTON : 2022 
          
          


 
                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                     KAY GRANGER, Texas
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina         HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia        MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  BARBARA LEE, California                JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota              KEN CALVERT, California
  TIM RYAN, Ohio                         TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                 CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois                 JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DEREK KILMER, Washington               DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania          ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  GRACE MENG, New York                   MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  PETE AGUILAR, California               DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida                  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois                 JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey      JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan           BEN CLINE, Virginia
  NORMA J. TORRES, California            GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                 MIKE GARCIA, California
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona               ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  ED CASE, Hawaii                        TONY GONZALES, Texas
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

  
   

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)


STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

                              ----------                              

                                          Thursday, March 25, 2021.

 LEADING BY ACTION: THE FIERCE URGENCY FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN 
                      THE FOREIGN POLICY WORKFORCE

                               WITNESSES

HON. GINA ABERCROMBIE-WINSTANLEY, AMBASSADOR (RET.)
HON. NICHOLAS BURNS, AMBASSADOR (RET.)
ABIGAIL GOLDEN-VAZQUEZ, FOUNDING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASPEN 
    INSTITUTE LATINOS AND SOCIETY PROGRAM
HON. HARRY THOMAS, AMBASSADOR (RET.)

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms. Lee. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
    Let me welcome our distinguished panel: Ambassador 
Abercrombie-Winstanley, Ambassador Burns, Ms. Golden-Vazquez, 
and Ambassador Thomas. Thank you for being with us today. We 
appreciate your time and agreeing to testify and answer our 
questions on this very important topic.
    Now, this hearing is fully virtual, and, so, we must 
address a few housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, 
the chair, or staff designated by the chair, may mute 
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition 
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on 
your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
    At 1 minute remaining the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 
seconds remaining, I can't gently tap the gavel, but I will 
remind members that their time is almost expired. When your 
time is expired, the clock will turn red, and I will recognize 
the next member.
    After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow 
the order set forth in the House rules, beginning with the 
chair and ranking member. Then members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority and, finally, members not present at the time when 
the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, per House rules, the Committee has set up an email 
address to which members can send anything that they wish to 
submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. That email 
address has been provided in advance to your staff. So thank 
you very much.
    Now, we will begin. Once again, thank everyone for joining 
us at this hearing, about the urgent need for reform to 
increase diversity in our foreign policy workforce.
    Far too long people of color have had a limited voice and 
limited opportunities to shape our country's foreign policy. 
This chronic and entrenched lack of diversity and inclusion 
causes major challenges for our Nation at home and abroad. Lack 
of diversity among our workforce can lead to whole classes of 
issues, including systemic racism, poverty, inequality, climate 
change being disregarded.
    Without enough diversity in the people we hire and promote 
in our foreign policy workforce, we often face the troubling 
reality of groupthink. When people abroad see the uniformity of 
our diplomatic corps, they question our commitment to 
inclusion. And when Americans of all colors do not see their 
priorities acknowledged, they feel alienated by their own 
government. When they see fewer opportunities to shape foreign 
policy, they are less likely to engage in shaping foreign 
policy and in politics generally.
    Last year, at the request of Congress, the Government 
Accountability Office reviewed diversity and inclusion in the 
foreign affairs workforce. That GAO study found that the State 
Department has abjectly failed to reflect America in its hiring 
and promotions. Between 2002 and 2018, example, the percentage 
of African Americans working at the State Department actually 
declined from 17 percent to 15 percent. Additionally, the 
percentage of African-American women in USAID Civil Service 
workforce dropped from 36 percent in 2002 to just 23 percent in 
2018. Hispanic, Asian American, and indigenous people face the 
same and similar obstacles.
    At the Department of State, the GAO found a significant 
disparity in the rates of promotion for racial and ethnic 
minorities, up to 42 percent less than their White 
counterparts. Similarly, minorities at USAID were up to 41 
percent, less likely to be promoted compared to Whites in civil 
service. And racial and ethnic minorities were significantly 
underrepresented in the senior ranks of Civil Service and 
Foreign Service.
    At State, racial and ethnic minorities make up only 13 
percent of the executive level workforce. Most disturbing, 
these findings echo those of a GAO study on the same topic in 
1989, that is over 30 years ago. Both studies found disparities 
in rates of promotion, underrepresentation of minorities in 
leadership positions, and institutional barriers just not being 
addressed.
    Numerous Secretaries of State and administrations, 
Democratic and Republican alike, promised to make changes to 
increase diversity. Clearly, these promises were not kept. For 
years, we have heard commitments from leadership at State and 
USAID that they focus on recruitment. The evidence shows that 
this mantra is really failed.
    After 30 years of failure, we can't wait for evolutionary 
change. We need to try something different. It will be 
uncomfortable, it will force everyone at State and USAID to 
change the way they do business, but I want everyone involved 
to understand the fierce urgency of this issue. The United 
States Government cannot effectively represent America abroad 
unless it hires, promotes, retains, and values a workforce that 
truly represents America. The time for study, the time for 
debate is over. The time for change is here.
    So I stand ready to work with Secretary Blinken, 
Administrator Power, and other leaders in the executive branch 
and on Capitol Hill to tackle this problem. There are a host of 
good ideas to consider. Representative Castro's Diversity and 
Inclusion at the State Department Act directs the Department to 
establish benchmarks and goals for the assignment of personnel 
and reforms to Foreign Service performance review process to 
include support of diversity and inclusion as a key criteria 
for promotion.
    Representative Bass has introduced the Represent Americans 
Abroad Act to create a pathway to attract highly qualified mid-
career professionals who are also members of minority groups to 
the Foreign Service.
    So I hope this hearing will be the start of us moving 
toward bold action, experimentation, and implementation to 
solve this problem. Especially, I will ask our witnesses to 
share what steps they think Secretary Blinken should take in 
the first 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months to demonstrate 
progress. We can't wait 30 more years for this change. It needs 
to change now.
    So in my role as chair of the subcommittee, I am committed 
to advancing real impactful solutions to address these 
entrenched institutional barriers to diversity. I have been 
fighting, like so many on this subcommittee, for years to 
create more opportunities for people of color in our foreign 
policy workforce. It is past time to enact bold, forward-
leaning policy solutions. This hearing is the first step in 
that direction.
    I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists 
and I want to hear your policy solutions and what, in addition, 
can be done administratively, or through legislative action if 
necessary.
    Unfortunately, our ranking member, Mr. Rogers, was unable 
to attend the hearing today, due to a conflict. He asked our 
colleague and friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, to provide an opening 
statement in his stead. I would like to ask Mr. Diaz-Balart now 
for any comments he may have.

                  Opening Statement of Mr. Diaz-Balart

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. Again, 
thank you, and before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent 
that the statement of the ranking member be submitted for the 
record.
    Ms. Lee. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    I want to thank the chair for holding this hearing and to 
our knowledgeable witnesses for their service, and for taking 
time, as the chairwoman said, for your testimony today.
    I share the desire to improve the diversity of our foreign 
policy agencies. And I was particularly struck, I will tell 
you, by the abysmal low level of Hispanics represented in the 
Foreign Services, civil service, USAID, USAGM, so I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses how we can address this 
issue.
    And, also, how can we improve diversity in areas that 
frankly--have not been directly addressed, such as economic 
background, region of the country, ideology, religion, and 
other key aspects of our country and, frankly, individual 
identities? In recent years, there have been a lot of 
proposals, numerous proposals, to reform and strengthen the 
American diplomacy, many of which relate to new legislative 
authorities that are, frankly, beyond this committee's 
jurisdiction.
    However, I am particularly interested in any 
recommendations that you may have for us today as 
appropriators. Now, additionally, recommendations last fall by 
a task force led by former Under Secretary of State William 
Burns, and also Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield, 
both of whom now have senior positions in the administration, 
suggested that any efforts to reform the State Department 
should start from within. It should focus in the first year of 
a new administration on what can be accomplished under existing 
authorities and without significant new appropriations.
    They continue to say that success in those early endeavors 
to take initiative and change department culture, they wrote, 
would be the best advertisement for sustained congressional 
support, and White House backing for a new emphasis on 
strengthening American diplomacy.
    I am interested to hear from our distinguished witnesses 
today on how these goals will be accomplished, and whether 
these witnesses concur that it can be done from within and 
without significant new appropriations, again, as the task 
force determined.
    Again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for this opportunity. 
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. I 
yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Okay, Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, Ambassador Burns, 
Ms. Golden-Vazquez, and Ambassador Thomas, once again, thank 
you for being here. If you each could be kind enough to 
summarize your oral statement in 4 minutes, I want to make sure 
we leave enough time to get to everyone's questions. Your full 
statement, however, will be included in the record.
    After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on 
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was 
called to order, alternating between majority and minority 
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in order 
of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their 
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
    Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, please proceed. Again, 
thank you for being here.

         Opening Statement of Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley

    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, 
Representative Diaz-Balart, and members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you so much for having me speak today on this urgent 
topic. As an African American, and as a woman who has worked 
her way up through the ranks, I know very well the weight that 
so many of my colleagues carry, the weight of being 
``othered.''
    I had to ignore those who questioned silently my 
suitability, my capability, my viability to be a successful 
representative of the United States of America, questions that 
were based solely on my gender and my race. And I know that my 
success in the Department is all too rare.
    I have seen many of my colleagues start their journey of 
service with commitment and joy, and then struggle without 
support, without mentors, without recourse when something went 
wrong, certain that the system that they worked under would not 
treat them fairly. And this knowledge fuels my passion to speak 
out and work for change in the Department, change that will 
help it become the organization that deserves the devotion and 
the sacrifice and the dedication that so many of us have freely 
given.
    I am thrilled that today's discussion will focus on what 
works. I know from experience that it is important to frame 
discussions of recommendations around three specific anchors: 
Intentionality, recommendations must be connected directly to 
the change that is sought; transparency, everyone must 
understand what is being asked of them and why; and finally, 
accountability. Once action is determined to be necessary, 
leadership, up and down the ranks, must be held accountable for 
taking care of it, doing it, and held accountable if they do 
not.
    The GAO report that you mentioned, Madam Chairwoman, in 
2020 is a disheartening picture of the progress that has not 
been made at State, but it is a picture that needs greater 
detail. The repair and improvement efforts that we all support 
must touch every bureau, every office, every action, and every 
person at State. No more business as usual.
    Secretary Blinken has shown strong commitment, and I know I 
speak for many employees, past, current, and future, who are 
grateful for his leadership, and the strong allyship of 
Congress in this undertaking, allyship that is showcased by the 
introduction of the Diversity and Inclusion Act of the 
Department of State, and I would like to add to that and, of 
course, the Representing America Act, the State Harassment and 
Assault Prevention and Eradication Act. This, too, is going to 
be very important.
    Although the Department can, as you noted, do much of this 
on its own, if passed, these pieces of legislation could assist 
in the efforts to increase inclusion, and eliminate barriers to 
successful careers for minorities and women.
    Coupled with your willingness to drill down to what works, 
we can improve the professional lives of almost every group at 
the Department of State and ensure that the organization is one 
that is fit to lead our foreign policy with renewed vigor.
    I have been privileged to participate in discussions that 
underpinned recommendations in several reports. All are 
valuable, including the American Academy of Diplomacy, the 
Association of Black American Ambassadors, the Belfer Center, 
and the recently released Truman Center report, which I ask to 
be entered into the record.
    [Clerk's note.--The report can be found at the conclusion 
of the hearing.]
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Among the many outstanding 
recommendations that have been offered up from these and other 
sources, I cite five that must and can capture important best 
practices for what must be done to improve inclusion and 
diversity at the Department, and I would be happy to expand on 
them during the question-and-answer period.
    In brief, ensure diversity, support for diversity and 
inclusion is treated as a core competency for promotion; 
reenergize a selective and focused mid-level entry program; 
reenergize and strengthen the mentorship program; ensure that 
employees found to harass or discriminate against minorities 
and women are held professionally accountable; and, finally, 
ensure that the planned Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer 
has full access to data, resources, and staff.
    If the Department is to succeed here, any implemented 
recommendation must support fundamental change. The world 
watches us. We are exceptional, and we will be judged by how 
well we do this. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. We will come back to 
questions.
    Ambassador Burns, can you please proceed with your 
testimony?

                 Opening Statement of Ambassador Burns

    Mr. Burns. Madam Chair, thank you. Representative Diaz-
Balart, thank you as well for this invitation to testify. I 
know you have my written testimony. I am just going to make 
three points, hopefully in 4 minutes, to summarize what is at 
stake for America on this issue.
    First, I think all of you, led by you, Madam Chair, 
Democrats and Republicans alike are right to have this hearing. 
There is a crisis--there is a lack of diversity and inclusion 
in the State Department and USAID. I think many people feel 
there is a cancer that is eating away at the heart of the State 
Department and its future.
    My Foreign Service colleagues, Ambassadors Marc Grossman 
and Marcie Ries and I issued, in November, a report 
recommending major reforms across the board to the future of 
the Foreign Service. During a year of study, we met with over 
200 people in 40 different workshops, and by far, the greatest 
amount of attention from all those people was on this issue of 
diversity and inclusion.
    So, our advice to the administration and the Congress is, 
and to all of us as citizens--we have to focus relentlessly on 
diversity as a first order of strategic priority; that if we 
want to have a revived and rebuilt and high-performing Foreign 
Service, it has to reflect the diversity and inclusivity of our 
society. And right now, the United States is not meeting that 
standard. That is my first point.
    Second, there is much that Congress can do, and hopefully 
on a bipartisan basis. Congress can help in a very simple way: 
to recruit minority college and graduate students, you could 
mandate that every internship in the Department of State, in 
Washington and overseas, be a paid internship. It is a 
fundamental issue of fairness across all income levels, and it 
is actually the smartest way to recruit bright, young people 
into the Foreign Service.
    Congress could create a Reserve Officer Training Corps for 
the State Department modeled on the military ROTC. This would 
help to recruit minority employees who would train to be U.S. 
civilian first responders during international emergencies. We 
have missed that as we think about the crises of the last 
couple of decades. We have not had that capacity at the States 
Department.
    As Congresswoman Bass has advocated, and Ambassador 
Abercrombie-Winstanley just stated, we could create a mid-level 
entry program for the State Department. It would help the 
Department to recruit Americans into the Foreign Service who 
have skills that are in short supply, like cyber, and IT, and 
medical, and public health. And by focusing in part on minority 
recruitment for this mid-level program, we could diversify the 
Department much more quickly, and at a higher level, and not 
wait for generational change. And I do think the leadership of 
both parties in Congress will be critical to produce this kind 
of major change.
    My third and final point, Madam Chair, we also need the 
Biden administration to lead, and I think it is do so. 
President Biden, of course, has the most diverse cabinet in 
American history. The President, Vice President Harris, 
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, are all committed to real 
change on this issue. Secretary Blinken has created the 
position of Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer. It is the 
first time ever that position has been created.
    The State Department should expand the Rangel, Payne, and 
Pickering Fellowship programs. I teach at the Harvard Kennedy 
School, and I teach many of these students. They are an 
impressive group of people. They want to serve. By expanding 
it--and President Trump wanted to expand it, which was a good 
idea--you would have a greater intake of minority candidates.
    But I think, and this goes to what Representative Diaz-
Balart said, the Department has to recruit more aggressively as 
the military does in our high schools and--at the high school 
and college level throughout every one of the 50 States, at 
Historically Black Colleges, across different income levels and 
ethnic groups, and we are not doing that right now.
    Perhaps most importantly, the State Department has to ask 
each officer to be accountable, ask that change come from 
within. And I agree with Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley that 
promotions to any level in the State Department, in part, 
should be a function of what have you done for diversity and 
inclusion, not just having good sentiments, but what have you 
done.
    So in closing, I am honored to be here with Ambassador 
Abercrombie-Winstanley, with Ambassador Thomas, and with Ms. 
Golden-Vazquez. I know they have had to live with barriers in 
their own careers that I have not, and they have all thought 
very deeply about this issue, so I am honored to be with them, 
Madam Chair. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Ambassador Burns. We will turn now to 
Ms. Golden-Vazquez.
    Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Good morning, Chairwoman Lee, 
Representative Diaz-Balart, members of the Subcommittee on 
State, Foreign Affairs, and Related Programs. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the urgency 
of building a modern foreign affairs workforce that reflects 
America.
    My name is Abigail Golden-Vazquez, and I am a Latina 
professional with over 30 years international experience in the 
public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Normally, I wouldn't 
admit that, but I am not normally on a panel with three 
ambassadors.
    I have worked on diversity and inclusion as a professional, 
as a mentor, as a sponsor, and as a participant in the 
International Career Advancement Program, which helps diverse 
career foreign affairs professionals break through the glass 
ceiling. ICAP provided me with an unparalleled network of 
mentors and sponsors that enabled me to secure a career-
boosting senior role at the Aspen Institute.
    Despite decades of effort, we have failed to achieve the 
diversity in the foreign affairs workforce we need and have 
even slid backward in some areas. Study after study show 
inclusive, diverse organizations are more innovative and more 
effective, suggesting that we fail to diversify at our very own 
peril.
    The U.S. will become a majority non-White nation by 2045, 
and Latinos will comprise nearly a third of the population in 
2060. Yet, Hispanic representation is dismal. We can no longer 
afford to limit important leadership and decision-making roles 
to the same narrow profiles. We need only look at the 
humanitarian crisis in Central America spilling out on to our 
borders right now to see why more Latino voices and 
international policymaking and implementation are critical.
    I know this committee seeks solutions instead of a recap of 
the problems, so the rest of my remarks will focus on three 
priority areas: leadership, retention, and like Ambassador Gina 
Abercrombie-Winstanley said, accountability. Anyone interested 
can find more fleshed-out solutions in my written testimony.
    First, leadership matters. Leaders set the tone for an 
organizational culture that is either welcoming or dismissive 
of D&I. Only when D&I is modeled authentically by leaders and 
flows throughout all aspects of organizations can real change 
happen. D&I should be treated as mission critical and led by 
example from the top down.
    Second, we must move beyond recruitment to retention. Too 
often, the pipeline is blamed for the lack of diversity rather 
than taking a good, hard look at the organizational culture or 
lack of opportunities for advancement. Highly competitive 
fellowship programs, such as Rangel, Pickering, and Payne, 
bring qualified diverse candidates to State and USAID, but many 
of these and other diverse, qualified professionals choose to 
leave.
    Indeed, work does need to be done to help young people from 
diverse backgrounds envision themselves in foreign affairs 
careers. The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 
for example, does just that with innovative curricula 
documenting diplomatic history. However, we must also do so 
much more to retain the diverse talent that we already have by 
offering greater appreciation of the skill sets they bring, and 
by providing them with equitable opportunities for advancement.
    And last but not least, measuring for accountability. 
Efforts to secure D&I must be tracked, improved upon, and 
rewarded. By collecting and analyzing disaggregated data on 
diversity over time comparing with other organizations, we can 
gain insight into what is or isn't working and adjust 
accordingly.
    Finally, performance must be measured against clearly set 
goals, including zero tolerance for discriminatory behavior.
    So to conclude, increasing D&I is not just the right thing 
to do, it is essential to ensuring we bring our best ideas and 
talent forward to the global challenges of today and tomorrow. 
Now is the time for courageous leadership and real investment, 
or yet more decades will pass and the best ideas will remain 
just that, ideas.
    So thank you to this committee for your commitment to 
prioritizing and investing in promising solutions to close the 
foreign affairs workforce diversity gap, and I look forward to 
discussing with you further in the Q&A. Thank you very much. It 
is an honor.
    [The information follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Ms. Vazquez. Thank you very much. We 
are going now to Ambassador Thomas. Please proceed.
    Mr. Thomas. Chairwoman Lee, Representative Diaz-Balart, and 
members of the committee, I am honored to appear before the 
House Appropriations Subcommittee as a member of the 
Association of Black American Ambassadors. The ABAA has worked 
closely with the State Department's Affinity Organizations, 
including the Thursday Luncheon Group, Disabilities at State, 
Hispanic Employee Council of Foreign Affairs Agencies, the 
American Foreign Service Association, Black Professionals in 
International Affairs, and the Asian American Foreign Affairs 
Association, to design recommendations regarding diversity and 
inclusion in the State Department and United States Agency for 
International Development.
    My testimony centers on the importance of the Secretary of 
State and the USAID administrator's leadership and sustained 
commitment in achieving the State Department's and USAID's 
diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and objectives, the 
establishment of metrics for measuring each bureau's 
achievements, the importance of rewarding and recognizing those 
leaders who achieve diversity goals, continuing support for the 
Pickering, Rangel, and Payne Fellowship programs, advocate for 
an increase in the number of Diplomats in Residence, and the 
end of the decades-old practice of de facto assignment of 
officers to bureaus based on their race, with a particular call 
for the end of the majority of African-American chiefs of 
missions in the Foreign Service being assigned to Africa and 
the Caribbean.
    Leadership: We believe that the way to reverse the 
institutional failings in these areas is to put the 
responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of 
State, the USAID administrator, and those in the senior ranks 
of the foreign and civil services. We applaud Secretary 
Blinken's decision to appoint a chief diversity officer, and 
recommend that person report directly to the Deputy Secretary. 
We urge the incoming USAID administrator to appoint a chief 
diversity officer.
    We recommend that the State Department and USAID establish 
clearly defined and measurable ways to reward senior personnel 
for their achievement in reaching diversity goals. We recommend 
that the State Department and USAID should continue support of 
the Pickering, Payne, and Rangel programs, and make known the 
rigid selection process that these fellows undergo, support and 
expand pathway student internships, including presidential 
management fellowships.
    We recommend that the State Department increase the number 
of Diplomats in Residence by at least 10 at Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and 
other institutions serving significant numbers of minority 
students; that the State Department increase the number of paid 
internships for members of underrepresented communities.
    In assignments, underrepresented Foreign Service officers 
and specialists can advance America's foreign policy interest 
at all posts, and their assignments should reflect this from 
their entry into the Foreign Service throughout their careers.
    Additionally, we recommend that State Department and USAID 
cease the practice of assigning African-American Foreign 
Service officers and specialists predominantly to the Africa 
Bureau, especially in ambassadorial and other high-level 
positions; that the State Department and USAID end similar de 
facto practices with Latinx and Asian Americans in the Western 
Hemisphere, East Asian, and South and Central Asian Affairs 
Bureaus; that the director general of the Foreign Service 
recruit officers from underrepresented groups to bid on 
leadership and career-enhancing positions.
    In training, we recommend that all senior personnel, 
Foreign Service and Civil Service, including noncareer 
officials, especially those serving as ambassadors, be required 
to take training on hiring and leadership principles, subject 
to executive order and State Department policy.
    In promotions, we recommend that the State Department 
collaborate with the American Foreign Service Association and 
the American Federation of Government Employees to rework the 
dimensions' skill set to give more weight to equal employment 
opportunity principles in the performance evaluation process, 
and ensure that members of underrepresented groups serve on 
every promotion and selection panel.
    In terms of retention, persistent, high-level support for 
targeted mentorship of officers and specialists from 
underrepresented communities, coupled with promotion-related 
incentives, can help officers of color advance and feel that 
their contributions are valid.
    We recommend that the State Department pay more attention 
to retention. Increased payments that reduce or eliminate 
student loans might help retain more diverse candidates. 
Support external training programs, such as the international 
careers advancement program that helps prepare mid-level 
foreign affairs practitioners to advance to more senior levels.
    In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, the ABAA requests that the 
committee maintain oversight of the State Department and 
USAID's leaderships to ensure that our Nation's diversity, 
equity, and inclusion goals are met and sustained through 
quantifiable metrics. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, committee, 
and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ambassador Thomas.
    And thank you all for your testimony. You all really have 
given us a roadmap, and I would like to start with my first 
question for the entire panel. You have heard the evidence. We 
all know we failed on diversity and inclusion. What we are 
doing and have done for decades is just not working, and this 
is an issue of institutional accountability. And, of course, in 
thinking about this, I said, accountability to what, and how do 
you make sure there is accountability, and that the State 
Department and leadership know what they are being held 
accountable for?
    So my question is, what should the Secretary of State do 
next? What specific actionable strategies can be employed right 
now, in the next 3 months to 6 months, to create this culture 
of accountability at the Department to drive institutional and 
structural change from the top down?
    And, then, what recommendations do you have to ensure that 
the Secretary and the new Office of Chief Diversity and 
Inclusion Officer drive accountability for inclusion inside the 
Department, and how can Congress hold them accountable for 
rapid--and I mean rapid--progress?
    So, Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, I would like to 
start with you. You mentioned intentionality, transparency, and 
accountability. What is your take on what we can do in the 
first 3 to 6 months?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Thank you, Madam 
Chairwoman. One of the most important things we have to have is 
the data, and that means really having it sliced and diced, not 
just, you know, general ranks, but where they are, which 
offices have people, where the hurdles are with regard to 
promotion. So getting either a strong data shop set up or 
having it refocused and having the data accessible and known. 
People can't address it if they don't know what the problems 
are, and most people in the Department really don't know what 
the numbers are.
    Most importantly, in my view, the Department needs to 
figure out a way to include, as I mentioned, support for 
diversity and inclusion in the precepts for promotion. I will 
tell you, after 30 years, nobody cares about anything strongly 
if they are not judged on it.
    And all the things that we strive to accomplish as 
diplomats, in addition to, of course, excellent foreign policy, 
but that leadership, the management, the substantive knowledge, 
those things we work not only to accomplish, but to show 
exactly how we have accomplished it. And that is how we get 
promoted, and that is exactly the sort of specificity that 
needs to be in place for diversity and inclusion.
    That is going to take cooperation with the American Foreign 
Service Association (AFSA) and really working out specific 
things that people can strive to do to show that they are 
supporting it. And people being judged on it will, I believe, 
go to changing the culture of the building.
    Ms. Lee. I would like to get to Ambassador Burns, 
Ambassador Thomas, and Ms. Vazquez. We have a minute and a half 
left. I am trying to stay within my 5 minutes. So if you could 
respond, Ambassador Burns, then we will come back around for a 
second round with the other witnesses on this question. 
Ambassador Burns.
    Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think Secretary 
Blinken first can lead and say that this is going to be one of 
his priorities, and he has said that. Second, have the new 
Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer report directly to him. 
He said he will do that. He needs to appoint the person 
obviously.
    Third, Secretary Pompeo, in his last months of office, said 
let's double the Pickering, Rangel, and Payne fellowships. It 
is a very good idea, and the Biden team should do that.
    Fourth, as Ambassador Thomas alluded to, we have a major 
problem with retention, and it gets to the point that he made 
about assignments. Are people being given challenging and fair 
assignments in the first 10 years? We are losing a lot of 
people.
    And, fifth, as Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley said, she 
is right, there has to be accountability. To be promoted, you 
have to now show--you should have to show that you have done 
something for diversity and inclusion, not just said that you 
are in favor of it. I think that accountability is very 
important.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Ms. Vazquez, we have 36 seconds left.
    Ms. Vazquez. Well, I echo what the other two have said, and 
I do think that this issue of leadership is critical, and so, 
it is leading by example in demonstrating, which I believe 
Secretary Blinken has started to do. It is getting the DEIC 
person in place as soon as possible, and it is making sure that 
everyone knows that this is what they are going to be measured 
upon--and then the flip side, that you will not be promoted if 
you are seen to be blocking diversity, equity, and inclusion.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you all so much.
    Congressman, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart, I yield to you.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let me talk a little bit about, you know, I mentioned in my 
opening statement how Hispanics are underrepresented in frankly 
all areas, including Foreign Service, civil service, USAID, and 
others. It is really interesting, you might be interested to 
hear this, Madam Chairman, if not for the Office of Cuba 
Broadcasting, which happens by the way to be in the district 
that I represent, I suspect that USAGM's diversity numbers were 
even worse than last reported. The number is, frankly, hard to 
understand, abysmal 7.1 percent Hispanic, which is obviously 
well below the national population.
    So, what is being done to encourage Hispanics to apply for 
these positions, and what efforts are being done to retain 
Hispanics in these agencies, in particular, OCB and elsewhere 
at USAGM?
    Ms. Lee. Who are you directing your question to?
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Whoever----
    Ms. Vazquez. So I am happy to respond on the issue; 
however, I do not work for the State Department, so I can't 
speak to what they are actually doing. But I can share some 
recommendations on what I believe does need to be done.
    So, first of all, you can't be it if you haven't seen it. 
And, so, there have been ambassadors, there are a handful of 
senior-level officials at USAID and at State that have been--
who can be role models.
    So we haven't seen it, so it is hard for us to be it. So I 
think making sure that these stories get out is critical and 
really important. To lift up those success stories is one.
    Number two, we can reach out to Hispanic-serving 
institutions, Hispanics in sororities and fraternities. Also, 
we have to recognize that the great bulk of Latinos work over 
index in construction, in hospitality, in caregiving. And, so, 
we need to show that there are other pathways and other career 
opportunities, and we can do that in schools. I think you need 
to start young with language, you know, with language 
instruction, opportunities to experience, and then, as others 
have said, paid internships. Paid internships are critical.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas, would you like to respond?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes. I endorse that. I think what I would say, 
Representative Diaz-Balart, is that recruitment is important at 
the high-school level, and at the college level. I agree that 
paid internships are necessary. I think that the Latinx senior 
Foreign Service officers should also be given an opportunity to 
go around to the colleges and universities to recruit, so that 
people see that people like them can achieve.
    But, also, inside the Department, our fellow Latino 
officers have to be encouraged to seek assignments and be given 
assignments outside of Western Hemisphere affairs. It is a 
great bureau, but that is not the only part of the State 
Department. And if you work in only one part instead of two or 
three, your opportunities for senior ranks can be limited.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. I associate myself with all of 
the above, and what Ambassador Thomas just mentioned made me 
smile, because when I joined the Foreign Service, Ambassador 
Romero was one of the people who was in the Middle East Bureau, 
and I was absolutely heartened, because I didn't need to be, 
you know, from that background, or simply a White American to 
serve in the Bureau. So having a Hispanic person above me, 
before me in the Bureau was inspiring, and I think we can do 
that for each other.
    The short answer about what is the Department doing for 
Hispanics, my short answer is not enough, not enough. And, so, 
everything that has been said by my colleagues and more can and 
should be done.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns.
    Mr. Burns. Two quick points, Madam Chairman, to Congressman 
Diaz-Balart. First, when we conducted our report, research 
report, I said we talked to 200 people. One of them was a 
friend of ours who had been an ambassador in the Foreign 
Service, and he goes back 40 years. His view, and he documented 
it with figures and data, is that there has been no appreciable 
progress in the fortunes of Latino and Latina ambassadors and 
senior officers in four decades. So you are right, there is a 
major problem.
    Second, I would agree, recruitment is going to be critical. 
Recruitment outside the Ivy League; recruitment in 50 States; 
recruitment, in public universities, not just private 
universities; and having recruitment objectives that are really 
ambitious. As Ambassador Thomas has said in his testimony, that 
has to happen. I don't think it is happening now.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Vazquez. Can I add to that really quickly that 
community colleges, to Congressman Diaz-Balart's point about 
other kinds of diversity, if we start to look at community 
colleges, and not just always going to the same international 
relations masters programs, I think we could dramatically 
expand the types of people that we attract from diverse 
socioeconomic backgrounds.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now, I will yield to Ms. Meng from New York.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And I just wanted to echo the comments that were just made 
about recruiting at community colleges. As someone who 
represents a community college, and a local city university, I 
would be a huge fan of that and would love to work with you any 
way that we can.
    But I wanted to thank you, Chairwoman, for holding this 
hearing. Diversity and inclusion is one of my top priorities, 
and I am very thankful for your leadership.
    This past week, in the midst of a traumatic week for the 
Asian-American community, our colleague, Andy Kim, spoke out 
about the discrimination he faced when he was at the State 
Department. As a Korean American, he was banned from working on 
anything related to the Korean Peninsula, even though he had 
never applied for positions that covered that region.
    This is not a one-off experience. According to a survey 
conducted by the Asian American Foreign Affairs Association, 70 
percent of 132 respondents believe the State Department's 
assignment restriction process is biased, based on an automatic 
assumption of dual loyalty. This question is true for Asian 
Americans, and for other races and religions. I have heard from 
Jewish Americans that they have struggled to obtain security 
clearances, or work on Israeli-Palestinian issues, even if they 
have zero family in Israel.
    Across our government, people are drawn to specific careers 
because of their heritage, or personal experiences. Someone who 
grew up on food stamps might be drawn to work on hunger policy. 
So, too, might Chinese Americans be qualified to work on issues 
regarding the U.S.-China relationship.
    Diversity should be an asset to our national security, not 
a threat. And, in fact, to treat our well-vetted diplomats and 
national security officials as untrustworthy because of their 
unique understanding of a region creates security threats.
    Two questions: Can you touch on the security risks that 
come with these discriminatory policies; and two, when these 
issues are brought up by those who have experienced 
discrimination, they are often met with the excuse that the 
information is classified. How can we work in a more 
transparent way to examine the assignment policy?
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns, would you like to start and 
respond to that?
    Mr. Burns. I would be happy to. And, Representative Meng, 
thank you so much for your question. I read the interview with 
Congressman Kim, and what he said was very familiar to me, and 
I think to others who have served in the Foreign Service, of a 
situation where if you are Asian American, sometimes it takes 
longer to get a security clearance, and sometimes you are asked 
not to serve in certain embassies in the Asia-Pacific region.
    And my own view on this, I don't have access to all the 
facts, I have been out of the State Department for some time, 
but this needs to be looked into, and there ought to be a 
review of this policy. But I will just say one thing: If we 
admit a young man or young woman into the Foreign Service, 
regardless of who they are or where they are from, they are 
Americans, and we should trust them to represent the United 
States wherever they need to be assigned around the world.
    To exclude someone because they are Chinese American from 
serving in China or Korean American from serving in Korea, we 
don't say that. I am Irish American. I don't think I have been 
excluded from serving in Ireland, at least no one's told me 
that. I think it is something that needs to be looked into.
    And, again, I don't have all the information of why these 
decisions are being made. But, clearly, when you have this type 
of situation it really hurts morale and it limits people's 
careers. And it deprives us in many ways of some of our 
officers who have native-born language skills, which can be--
and cultural awareness, very important in having us do our job 
for the American people.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas.
    Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Representative Meng, for that. It 
has been a traumatic week for my family, who are Asian 
American. My wife and colleagues are holding a ``Stop Asian 
Hate'' conference this weekend as they try to recover and heal.
    My recommendation for this is security clearances should be 
done on a case-by-case basis not on a blanket basis. It breaks 
my heart to see that people are not assigned to an area based 
on race. And the reality is, you are correct about Jewish 
Americans in the Middle East, about Cuban Americans even 
serving back when we had a mission in Cuba.
    So I would urge the new incoming Assistant Secretary for 
Diplomatic Security to take an audit of this, and work with the 
Director General to come up with a comprehensive plan that, as 
Ambassador Burns said, treats all Americans equal.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for 
holding this important hearing. I am actually in Nebraska City 
at the Arbor Day Foundation, which is one of, of course, 
America's conservation organizations. Right outside the window 
here is the home of Jay Sterling Morton, who served as 
Secretary of Agriculture and hosted Teddy Roosevelt's visit to 
the Great Plains here.
    This is a very important cultural spot for us and important 
to all of our work as we go deeper into the value of 
stewardship. And I think, honestly, this is what this whole 
hearing is about, this deeper American value of care for one 
another and ensuring equal access, equal opportunities.
    In that regard as well, my district is about 40 percent 
rural, and all across this district are volunteer fire 
departments. These are men and women who, when there is an 
emergency, although they are working in other jobs and raising 
families, they will respond. And the reason I am saying this 
is, I am very excited about what Ambassador Burns said 
regarding a Reserve Officer Training Corps.
    And, Ambassador Burns, I actually met with Ambassador 
Grossman and Ambassador Ries, who coauthored the report on 
State Department reform with you, and we discussed this very 
concept. It has been something that I have thought of for a 
very long time. And I really appreciate your efforts to try to 
think critically about structural modernization of the 
Department, including this issue, because it has been since the 
1980s since we have done this.
    But this is an important point that I think is very 
essential to this hearing, that if you did have a Reserve 
Officer Training Corps, groups of Americans who might even be 
middle-aged, or mid-career, or even later-career, who have deep 
expertise, whether it is in engineering or agriculture or 
health, that could be called upon in crisis or in special needs 
to be in assistance to the diplomatic and development efforts 
of the State Department and USAID, would go a long way toward 
augmenting the State Department's efforts, diversifying across 
specialties, but, also, getting a new wave of Americans who 
maybe were more reflective of the diversity of Americans 
immediately into service, and not as opposed to, but in 
addition to, the long-term structural changes we are talking 
about now that would recruit younger people.
    So, I am very excited about this. And actually, Senator 
Coons and I have talked, not specifically on this idea, but 
doing the same thing in the world of conservation, where we 
embed conservation specialists in U.S. embassies, but people 
who might be on standby-ready reserve to actually help out in 
that kind of circumstance. So, I would like you to elaborate on 
that because I think this is one of the types of structural 
changes that could very well go toward the heart of answering 
the question.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns.
    Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Congressman Fortenberry, thank you very much. I am really 
sorry I missed that meeting with you that my colleagues had, 
but they told me about it. You know, our thinking is pretty 
much what you have just said, that the State Department is not 
representative of the American people, and we have all 
established that this morning.
    One way to do it would be to promote diversity and 
inclusion, and actually to expand--and Representative Diaz-
Balart was talking about this--other types of diversity, 
regional diversity, rural Americans. It would be to establish, 
on a pilot basis, a Reserve Officer Training Corps for the 
State Department.
    We all know how it works for the military. We could recruit 
people with skills that we don't have in the department. And 
for the three of us here who served as ambassadors, we knew, in 
a lot of the crises we faced, after 9/11, hurricanes, natural 
disasters, the earthquake in Haiti, we just didn't have in the 
State Department the competence to be first responders. We had 
to call on the military and FEMA.
    And, so, the State Department ought to create that 
capacity. We could recruit from all 50 States, from rural areas 
and urban areas, and we could have, as a goal, to enhance the 
minority representation, so that you would immediately have 
greater buy-in and greater participation by all the different 
ethnic groups who have been excluded. We see it as a key 
vehicle for that, Congressman. We would be happy to work with 
you further on it.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Ambassador, for the comments.
    And, Madam Chair, if any of our Democratic colleagues are 
interested in this question, [inaudible] Because I think this 
is the doable mechanism [inaudible] For this template in the 
military is absolutely that could provide immediate assistance 
to the State Department and [inaudible] Diversity and 
inclusion. So thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for 
convening this hearing. Thanks to our witnesses for pretty 
convincing testimony, I must say, about the challenge we face, 
and the urgency of that challenge in terms of diversifying our 
diplomatic corps and our State Department workforce.
    I have been listening carefully and trying to discern the 
kind of assumptions that underlie your testimony about the 
state of diplomatic recruitment overall. And I think I hear 
this correctly, but I want to make sure, because we all know 
that diplomatic recruitment overall is in something of a state 
of crisis, or I think we know that.
    We have certainly had very striking reports in recent years 
of the falloff in young people interested in diplomatic 
careers. We have had very alarming reports about the state of 
morale at the State Department, including people leaving 
careers disillusioned and disappointed.
    So, I wonder, I mean, I am not sure exactly what you are 
saying. Are you saying that we have systems of recruitment and 
retention that are working well and that need to be modified 
and diversified? Or are you really saying that the whole system 
is in trouble, and that we need to build it back, and 
presumably, of course, build it back better, as they say, so 
that we recruit and retain a much more diverse workforce?
    Does the problem look different or does the challenge look 
different, if you place it in the context of an overall falloff 
in interest among young people in diplomacy and diplomatic 
careers? Does the problem look different if you put it in the 
context of an overall falloff of morale in the State Department 
and reduced retention rates?
    I guess the discussion we just had about the possibility of 
a diplomatic ROTC implies that we have an overall problem. So I 
just ask you to reflect on that. It seems to me, from what we 
have heard and observed, especially in recent years, that we 
have a huge challenge of rebuilding back the prestige and the 
attractiveness of diplomatic service, and that this diversity 
issue is an acute issue, but it also takes its place in this 
larger context. I wonder if you could reflect on that?
    Ms. Lee. Let's start. Ambassador Abercrombie Winstanley, 
would you like to comment?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. You really put your finger 
on it, sir, Representative Price.
    It is twofold. There certainly been a heightened augmented 
challenge for recruitment in the last 4 years and challenge for 
retention. I am one of those who felt that there was not a 
place for me, and my talent and my experience, that it was not 
desired by those who were leading the Department, and so I left 
to find another way to serve, to serve America.
    So it has been worse in the last 4 years, based on the 
public rhetoric with which we are all familiar, but as you say, 
it has been a longer term problem. The reports certainly point 
out that this is not a new issue. What I can say is that there 
is a new vigor from young people who are interested in 
returning to the Department of State based on the public 
statements from the administration, the attention that Congress 
is giving this, that people feel this is really being taken 
seriously, that they have the opportunity to join an 
organization that is an honorable one, that is going to allow 
each person who joins it to reach their full potential, that 
there is the opportunity for that.
    And so we are at the beginning of it. The Department can 
fail. But what is being done now has given new hope to, I 
think, across the board. So I think we will have the 
opportunity to see people from a wide range of backgrounds 
eager to join the Department of State again. I was with 
diplomats and residents in Ohio this last year, and I can tell 
you that Ohioans are talking about should I join, can I join. 
And so even over the last 4 years, I have been a strong 
recruiter for the Department; it is a lot easier now.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now, I would like to yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Ambassador Thomas, one of the statements you 
made was that the State Department and USAID should cease the 
practice of assigning African Americans predominantly to the 
African Affairs Bureau, especially in the ambassadorial and 
other high-level positions. Are you saying that they should not 
do that at all, that they should not make that assignment, or 
they must diversify their assignment?
    Mr. Thomas. Representative Frankel, thank you for that 
question. I am saying diversify. In over a hundred years, more 
than two-thirds of the African Americans have been assigned to 
African nations and not to the entire globe as chiefs of 
mission. When Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley and I joined 
the Foreign Service, you had to be pretty much on what they 
call the Black circuit of Africa or the Caribbean. That still 
exists. And what happens is that people do not realize that for 
the State Department's leadership, maybe not in the Americas, 
but the European, the East Asian and Pacific, Near Eastern 
Affairs Bureaus are seen as the more career enhancing, the more 
important bureaus.
    So if you are not given an opportunity to serve in those, 
you leave or you are disparated, and we believe that everybody 
should have the opportunity to serve across bureaus. And we 
have seen that follow with other minorities and women as they 
have joined the Foreign and Civil Service.
    Ms. Frankel. So if I can just follow up on that so I 
understand exactly what you are saying here. I understand the 
message of diversifying across the world. That makes a lot of 
sense. In terms of certain nations, though, let's take those in 
Africa, are you saying, is it better to have an African-
American Ambassador or not? I mean, should that be a factor or 
that should not be a factor at all?
    Mr. Thomas. Well, no. Representative Frankel, it should not 
be. What I am saying is that the, quote, money-making parts of 
the State Department are seen as Europe, Near Eastern Affairs, 
and East Asian and Pacific, and minorities and women are not 
given the opportunities in great numbers to serve there; and, 
therefore, your promotion opportunities become limited.
    You enter the Foreign Service often not knowing the culture 
and history, and you are happy to go anywhere. And so if you 
serve in Africa and you now say, Oh, I would like to go serve 
in Europe or Near Eastern Affairs, they go, You have no 
experience, no language, we are not giving you the opportunity.
    Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you for sharing that.
    Just to change the subject a bit, if somebody knows this or 
wants to answer this, in regards to these reports of sexual 
harassment. Does anyone have a suggestion in terms of changing 
of policies or practices to deal with this issue?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Representative Frankel, if I 
may, the SHAPE Act has some very strong recommendations that 
can be helpful. It is really important, first of all, to get 
support to those who have been victims of this behavior. It is 
very difficult when you are out in the field. You do very much 
feel alone.
    I am hoping that the Department will be putting in place 
some kind of hotline on a 24-hour basis that people can call in 
and get immediate support and guidance about how to deal with 
these challenges. But there are a number of things that can be 
done, you know, making sure that follow-through is rapid and, 
most importantly, that perpetrators are held to account. It is 
one of the greatest challenges that I have heard about 
repeatedly in my career.
    My own experiences, generally I haven't reported anything 
because I didn't think it would make a difference. We need to 
change that perception among everyone in the Department, those 
who might be victims, and definitely among those who might be 
perpetrators, that people care, something will be done about 
it.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you, madam, and I can assure you that 
there will be those of us who will be following up on that. And 
I thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to 
the witnesses for appearing before us today.
    This is really fascinating for me. I mean, I am new to this 
committee, so I am glad to hear that our first committee 
meeting is about diversity and inclusion in the State 
Department and beyond.
    Now, I previously served on Financial Services, where in 
2018, after Democrats took control of the House, Chairwoman 
Waters established a new Subcommittee on Diversity and 
Inclusion, which was headed by Joyce Beatty. And she asked 
every CEO that appeared before us three questions. She asked, 
do you have an OMWI director, what is that person's name, and 
to whom do they report?
    And I was very surprised because she asked every witness 
this, and still some of them didn't get briefed by their staffs 
that these questions were coming and couldn't answer them. So I 
felt really bad for them, but they should have been prepared, 
and that is something that every leader of every big 
organization should know in today's world.
    So I am really, really pleased about Secretary Blinken's 
first move was to appoint a diversity and inclusion officer who 
will report directly to him. I think that is really important, 
especially what I have heard a lot here today.
    And I also want to thank Congresswoman Meng for her 
questions because she did shine a light on some of the 
assignment decisions that are made in the State Department and 
USAID which are very concerning.
    And, Ambassador Thomas, your earlier statement about the 
Black recruits going predominantly to the Africa Affairs Bureau 
is very concerning, because it seems like there is a two-tiered 
system for how people get assigned, which is, obviously, 
inequitable and needs to be remedied.
    So I guess my first question is, how can we work with 
employee affinity groups, like the South Asian employee groups, 
the Black employee groups, and the Latino or Hispanic employee 
groups to help forward their concerns, which are not always 
exactly the same, obviously. They are going to be working for 
their own populations. But how can we work with them to help 
them reach their goals?
    Ms. Lee. Ms. Vazquez, would you like to start?
    Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Sure, sure.
    I find that affinity groups are critical for support and 
for advocating, and I also find increasingly that young people 
are thinking of themselves across affinity groups. And so I 
actually would advocate for working both independently and 
together with affinity groups. But the most important point 
that I wanted to make is very often it feels like the burden is 
on us to try and solve these problems within a system that 
isn't very interested in changing. And so I think we must work 
with affinity groups to hear the concerns but not add 
additional burden on affinity groups to solve the problems. 
That would be the only point I would like to make.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And because my time is limited, I want to 
ask our former ambassadors these questions as well.
    Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, starting with you, how 
can we ensure that any changes that we make are going to be 
long-lasting? Because I would imagine that the State Department 
has experienced kind of some whiplash now between the way that 
the previous administration dealt with this issue and the way 
that Secretary Blinken has made it clear that he intends to 
deal with it.
    So how can we in Congress ensure that any changes that are 
being made are going to be permanent?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Representative Wexton, 
thank you. It is a challenging solution, but it really is going 
to come down to changing the culture of the building, putting 
things in place that are going to outlive any individual, any 
administration.
    One of the things, as I said, if indeed we find out the 
best way of including support for diversity and inclusion and 
promotion competencies, that will outlive because that is what 
people will be judged on. And so that will allow time and 
effort to be built up so that people get used to doing, get 
used to changing the way they think about what is going to get 
them into leadership positions. So I think that is the most 
important thing.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Wexton. And, presumably, getting better diversity at 
the mid and upper levels of the State Department will help with 
that as well.
    And, Ambassador Thomas, do you have any thoughts on that in 
the final moments that we have here?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes. I agree, Representative Wexton, with 
Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley. I also think that not only 
the paid internships but giving the Foreign Service officers 
rewards or payments for their commitment to diversity is 
important. Before we had adherence to EEO goals, and people 
ignored that because there were no rewards or penalty for not 
doing this.
    Ms. Wexton. Got you. Thank you so much.
    And I will yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Chairwoman, I really appreciate 
it.
    So prior to serving in Congress, I was in the military, as 
many people know. I was a judge advocate general in the Navy 
JAG Corps deployed to Iraq, and I can attest to the diversity 
in the military. I think it is one of the things the military 
does right. There are some problems admittedly, and that is for 
another hearing another time.
    But just statistically talking, the DOD had said that the 
enlisted Active Duty servicemembers are actually more diverse 
than the U.S. population as a whole. And, obviously, I think 
that is a good thing. As the State Department addresses 
challenges, as we have been talking about today both at home 
and abroad, including issues like countering China, Russian, 
Iran, I would recommend that we look in the State Department, 
consult with the DOD regarding things like retention, barriers, 
and career development.
    With that said, Ambassador Burns, I wanted to direct this 
question to you. I know that in your recent report, which is 
entitled ``U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 2lst Century,'' you 
did outline many challenges and recommendations for Congress 
and the administration. Some of these were recommendations 
referencing the DOD and the intel community on things like 
training, education, and other reforms.
    Does the hiring of veterans and other mid-career 
professionals help meet the goals of the State Department? And 
does the State Department currently prioritize veteran hiring 
or is this an issue where the Department lacks diversity?
    And with that, I will yield to you.
    Mr. Burns. Congressman, since I have been out of the 
Department, I don't know the figures of State Department 
hirings, say, in the last 5 or 6 years, of veterans. But two of 
our proposals in the Harvard report that we made to reform the 
Foreign Service, I mentioned them today, which can help 
diversity broadly defined, not just by race and gender and 
ethnicity, which is vital, but also in terms of where you are 
from in the United States and what you have done.
    And so if we were to establish a reserve officers' civilian 
training corps, I would imagine that some of the people that 
might apply for that would be veterans who are back in the 
civilian workforce but want to contribute to their country. I 
have met people like that where I teach at the Kennedy School.
    Second, on the mid-level entry program, which is 
controversial in the Foreign Service--some people see it as a 
threat--but I support Congresswoman Bass' bill because it can 
be a vehicle for diversity, particularly for racial and ethnic 
diversity. We can take people in at a much higher level and, 
therefore, you can produce change more quickly.
    The same is true in the military. I mean, some of the 
people who come to us in the State Department with the best 
skills are people who have served, you know, 4, 5, 6 years in 
the military. And I have taught people who want to make this 
transition. So I think you are right to make that connection. 
And if Congress could legislate in some of these areas, I think 
on reserve officer corps, on mid level, and on paid 
internships, I think you would begin to see change.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Ambassador Burns. And don't even 
get me started on paid internships, because the fact that we 
don't pay some of these interns drives me crazy, but, again, 
that is another topic for another day.
    One more quick followup just briefly. I want to talk about 
the personnel system. I know there has been criticism in 
recruitment, in retention regarding inflexible career tracks. I 
have heard issues with self-defeating hiring constraints and 
lack of training in professional developments. With that said, 
can you just use the last minute to provide some 
recommendations for reforms on these issues and how the 
subcommittee can play a role in these fields?
    And I will yield to you for the rest of the time. Thank 
you, Ambassador.
    Mr. Burns. Thank you so much. When we met with two former 
chairs of the Joint Chiefs and a wide variety of generals and 
admirals, they said to us, you have got to redevelop the 
training capacity. You have to have a 15 percent training 
float. Congress legislates that for the military. It does not 
for the State Department. And I think for the three of us who 
have been career-long Foreign Service officers, we just don't 
have the training opportunities that the military has. That is 
the way to produce an effective officer corps.
    And so you will see from our report we have several 
recommendations to completely overhaul the way we train. But if 
Congress could legislate a 15 percent float for the State 
Department, much less costly than for the military, that would 
ensure that the Secretary of State always has those 15 percent 
of his or her employees who can be trained while the rest 
serve. And right now, Secretary Powell didn't have that, 
Secretary Clinton didn't have it, Secretary Rice didn't. It is 
desperately needed.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Ambassador.
    And with that, I yield back to the chair. Thank you, 
Chairwoman.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Okay. We will start our second round of questions, and this 
is a question I have for the entire panel.
    Now, to combat systemic racism, we need to disrupt and 
dismantle the structures that often seem innocuous but that 
often become powerful bulwarks against a change, things like 
lack of diversity of educational background or informal social 
networks that reinforce the status quo.
    So how do we dismantle this old boys' club? For example, 
can you tell me about selection panels for the Foreign Service 
and how do they work? Who sits on these panels and what is 
their review criteria? And is this something the Secretary 
could reform on his own? And what about the Foreign Service 
exam or other requirements for entrance into and promotion 
within the Foreign Service?
    Forgive me for this personal reference, but I have a very 
keen sense of this because I wanted to be a cheerleader at age 
15. And there was a selection panel, and they had their 
criteria. I didn't look like what their criteria met to be a 
cheerleader. So I had to work with the NAACP to disrupt that 
panel and to make sure then the girls could try out in front of 
the student body and could get a vote for who they wanted to be 
the cheerleader. And guess what? I won. I was the first Black 
cheerleader at Santa Ana High School.
    I share that because I know how incestuous these panels can 
be. And so I would like to ask about these panels and any other 
structural impediments to impede progress toward a more diverse 
foreign policy workforce.
    Let me start with Ambassador Burns and then go to 
Ambassador Thomas on this.
    Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You are right that 
recruitment is critical here if you want to break the old 
structures, and as I think we have all said, it has to go 
beyond traditional graduate schools and traditional 
universities, and it has got to get into all 50 States, and it 
has to be nonpartisan. Congressman Diaz-Balart mentioned that. 
It has got to be nonpartisan, because we are nonpartisan in the 
service.
    Second, I think you are right to focus on selection panels. 
The key people who make these decisions at the State 
Department--it is usually chaired by the Deputy Secretary of 
State with the other under secretaries--I have served on this 
in the past--to recommend ambassadors to the White House. The 
chief diversity officer should be on that panel and should have 
a vote on that panel. And the people on the panel must be 
diverse if we are going to be successful in transforming the 
culture.
    So those are two ideas that I would recommend.
    Ms. Lee. Great.
    Ambassador Thomas.
    Mr. Thomas. Thank you. I agree with Ambassador Burns, I 
think we need to go further.
    First of all, paid internships, we formerly had paid 
internships at colleges where we did not have Foreign Service 
officers, like Nebraska Wesleyan and Johnson C. Smith. Why 
don't we go back to those schools and expand on that.
    In selection panels, it is not just on the Deputy 
Secretary's panel, which Ambassador Burns and I served on, but 
it is down in each rank, because you are not going to get to 
the top if you don't have a chance as a mid-level person to go 
to other places.
    Also, the Board of Examiners and the promotion panelists 
for the summer, we don't always get our best. People are not 
encouraged to serve on those panels. So often the Board of 
Examiners have retreads or people who are about to retire, with 
rare exceptions. And the same thing with the promotion panels.
    Finally, when Powell was Secretary for Veterans, he had 
veterans only did not have to take the written exam, veterans 
in Peace Corps only took the oral exam as a way and means of 
entering. Why don't you go back to that.
    And the last thing you could do if you really want 
diversity, challenge the Foreign Service exam. Look into a 
means of having resume-based hiring. Because if you stick only 
to the Foreign Service exam, which the first part is based on 
SATs, you will be having this hearing 30 years from now.
    Ms. Lee. Ms. Vazquez.
    Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Yes, I concur with Ambassador Thomas. 
The Foreign Service exam, like past SATs and LSATs and other 
exams, have been proven to be preferential for certain groups 
of individuals and a disincentive to others and, frankly, ask 
questions that do not necessarily lead to success.
    And I will argue yet again that we need to find a way to 
appreciate, recognize, and reward what diverse perspectives 
bring to the table. It is a whole additional set of talents 
beyond whether you know where Indonesia is. And so I concur on 
that. I think it is critical. And maybe we need to start asking 
some questions that would uplift the talent, if we keep an exam 
like that, that would uplift the talents that diverse thinking 
can bring to the table. And that is why I do agree that 
potentially the oral exam, but even that can be a challenge.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, can you respond 
very quickly just about these panels and the selection process 
and the issue there on diversity?
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. Yes. Having been one of those 
who was a Board of Examiner member, I can tell you that there 
is selectivity as to where examiners put the emphasis. The 
section on inclusion and diversity I paid a great deal of 
attention to because it was important, but all of my colleagues 
did not. And just as Ambassador Thomas said, even though we had 
EEO respect on our performance evaluations, you could ignore 
that, and so examiners could ignore diversity and inclusion as 
we looked at people coming in. I have said we don't screen for 
sexist, we do not screen for racist, and we do not screen for 
unpleasant personalities. And there has to be a way of really 
making it serious for us to do that screening as well.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I yield now to Congressman Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I think this question is really to Ambassador Burns, but, 
obviously, anybody else who wants to also talk about it. I want 
to expand a little bit the discussion, the scope of the 
discussion. I think if we are going to aim to represent all of 
America accurately, we have got to show diversity, right. But 
shouldn't we also focus on other types of diversity, such as 
economic background, as I mentioned before, religion, political 
idealogy, and also even region of the country. I am aware of 
the Development Diplomats in Residence program which focuses on 
underrepresented places, Florida being one of those, but it is 
a small program.
    So what more can be done to ensure that States such as 
Florida--and I don't want to upset anybody--so also other 
places like, you know, the Midwest, Southwest, Southern States 
are better represented? And then also, is data even collected 
on economic background, religion, political idealogy, region? 
Is that data even collected or looked at?
    Mr. Burns. Thank you, Congressman. I would just say, I 
don't know the answer to your last question as to what is 
permissible and what is not permissible as you try to recruit 
somebody. I am not sure you can ask about certain things, for 
instance, one's political views, but others may have a better 
view of that.
    I would just say, we are all coming back to one thing, and 
that is how do we recruit and do we recruit on a wide basis? 
Are we just looking to reproduce in this generation past 
generations? And if we can augment the diplomatic residence 
program to lots of regional universities, to community 
colleges, to public universities throughout the 50 States, we 
will find the people, as the military finds them. But the 
military takes recruitment much more seriously than we do.
    So I think that it is the recruitment and the retention, 
and really retention has become as big a problem as the culture 
inside the State Department. The Pickering, Rangel, and Payne 
Fellows are tremendous talents academically. I know that, as I 
have said before, because I teach them, but many of them are 
not given the opportunities in the first 10 years that maybe 
White officers are being given. That is a true problem as well.
    And, finally, you mentioned idealogical diversity. We have 
to be nonpartisan in the Federal Civil Service and Foreign 
Service. That is our oath of office.
    And I think one of the great glories of the Foreign Service 
is we have largely been nonpartisan for the past half century. 
I worry that in the last administration--I will try to say this 
in a way that is, you know, not too critical, but I have to say 
it. I think the Foreign Service was politicized by several of 
the events that happened in the Trump administration, and we 
have got to go back to being nonpartisan, not thinking of 
ourselves as Republicans and Democrats but as Foreign Service 
officers who serve both parties, no matter who the American 
people elect.
    I think Congressman Price asked a question about this. It 
is another part of the problem that needs to be corrected in 
the State Department today.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas? Excuse me, Mr. Diaz-Balart, you 
can go on and direct your question. I am sorry.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, no, Madam Chairwoman. I would never 
assume to do it better than you, so why don't you go ahead and 
do it.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Thomas.
    Mr. Thomas. Thank you.
    Representative Diaz-Balart, I think if you look at Brigham 
Young University, which has an excellent program in producing 
people for Federal Government, because they encourage 
languages, they encourage travel. The former president of 
Johnson C. Smith gave all of his students passports so they 
could go overseas and study. It was a tremendous financial 
burden, but he was willing to do that. That is important in the 
recruitment.
    I teach at Yale Jackson School where we have Pickering, 
Payne, Rangel Fellows who are outstanding, and they do come 
from economically deprived backgrounds. All of these Pickering, 
Payne, and Rangel Fellows come from economically deprived 
backgrounds. So if we are able to increase and sustain them, 
whether they are from southern Florida or Hillsboro County 
where I live, Representative Balart, we can get more.
    Ms. Lee. Ms. Vazquez.
    Ms. Golden-Vazquez. Yes. I would just like to add, on the 
recruitment, we can expand our lens a lot wider. Are we looking 
at schools like Gallaudet that have diversabilities? Also, are 
we recruiting for LGBTQ?
    But, again, back to the issue of retention. If they don't 
find a welcoming home when they arrive, then, you know, all 
that recruitment work is for naught.
    I believe the time is up, but I wanted to say Payne, 
Pickering, and Rangel students, all professionals, have 
complained that when they get there, they are treated as 
different class citizens and resented because they didn't take 
the Foreign Service exam. So, again, I want to go back to this 
issue of the culture, and that has to be addressed as well.
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley.
    Ms. Abercrombie-Winstanley. And I have to correct the 
record because they do take the Foreign Service exam. But one 
of the challenges, again, is that building culture. As 
Ambassador Burns says, these are outstanding candidates, but 
the word, the understanding, in the building is that they are 
substandard. And the Department has done little to nothing to 
correct that. There are many ways of doing it.
    While I was working at the Board of Examiners, I suggested 
an article be written by HR on the number of fellowship 
programs that people can use to get into the Department of 
State. It is not just Pickering, Rangel. You can be a Boren 
Fellow, you can be a AAAS Fellow, Presidential Management 
Fellow, and none of them have to take the written exam. The 
only ones who have to take the written exam are the Pickerings 
and the Rangels, and yet they are assumed to slip through some 
way that the Department has not addressed.
    So there are so many things that can be done by the 
Department of State to change the culture, and that is what it 
is going to take for sustained change in this case.
    Sorry for going over.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Okay. I now will yield to Ms. Frankel. Congresswoman 
Frankel.
    I think we lost her--
    Okay. Well, let me--Congressman Diaz-Balart, do you have 
another question you would like to pose before we close down?
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. If you would allow me a very brief 
followup. So we talked a lot about recruitment and retainment. 
Do we have sufficient data from exit surveys, you know, that 
show areas of how to improve? I mean, is there actual data on 
this stuff that would be helpful?
    Ms. Lee. Ambassador Burns.
    Mr. Burns. I know from our report that there is some data 
about who we are taking in. But, interestingly, when people 
choose to leave, the Department does not make the effort to ask 
them why are you leaving and to catalog that and to learn some 
lessons about who you are losing. And that is one reform that 
Secretary Blinken could make today and tomorrow.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Appreciate 
it.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Let me see if Congresswoman Frankel would 
like to ask a second question. If not, let me first take a 
moment to thank our staffs for helping put together this 
hearing and for guiding us through it and thank our witnesses 
because you have contributed so much to our thinking in terms 
of how we move forward on all of these issues around diversity 
and inclusion. And I just have to thank you for presenting 
solutions, because we can't wait anymore.
    And I think that Secretary Blinken will be an excellent 
partner in how we move forward, because I am reminded of his 
comments. He said that he wants the workforce to reflect the 
diversity of our country, and we have a lot of work to do. We 
can't wait another 30 years. We are going to look at what we 
can insist on in the next 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, a year, 
and keep going forward, because this is a shame and disgrace, 
and we have to be the example in the world as it relates to not 
only what democracy means, but also what diversity, inclusion, 
and equity mean, especially in our Foreign Service and State 
Department and USAID and all of our initiatives overseas. So 
thank you again.
    If members would like to submit questions for the record, 
please submit them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days. 
And I just want to thank someone, who is not with us today, but 
I think all of you know Ambassador Ruth Davis, who has had such 
a stellar career in the Foreign Service. I have questions for 
her that I will be submitting for the record.
    And in terms of just the responses from those that should 
respond to these questions, we will get the responses. 
Sometimes we don't, but we will because this is such an 
important moment for this subcommittee to do the work of the 
last 30 years, to unravel and dismantle those structures that 
have been in place and have been exclusionary and 
discriminatory and to build back not only better but bolder.
    So thank you all again very much. The subcommittee on the 
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs is adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                                         Wednesday, April 14, 2021.

  CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES--U.S. DIPLOMATIC AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

                               WITNESSES

DIANA R. SHAW, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
THOMAS J. ULLOM, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. AGENCY FOR 
    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
ANTHONY ``TONY'' ZAKEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. INTERNATIONAL 
    DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION (DFC)

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms. Lee. Good morning. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs will come to order.
    I would like to start by welcoming our distinguished 
guests, Acting IG Shaw, Acting IG Ullom and IG Zakel. Let me 
just welcome you all today. We appreciate your time and your 
service. Thank you.
    Now, we are virtual, of course. We have to address a few 
housekeeping matters right now. For today's meeting, the chair 
and staff designated by the chair may mute participants 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members 
are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice 
that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would 
like staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, 
staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You'll notice a clock on your screen--I hope everyone sees 
that--that will show you how much time is remaining. A 1-minute 
remaining notation means the clock will turn to yellow. That is 
when you have 1 minute left. At 30 seconds remaining, I will 
gently tap the gavel to remind members that their time has 
almost expired, and because we are virtual, I will just mention 
how much time you have left. When your time has expired, the 
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow 
the order set forth in the House rules, beginning with the 
chair and ranking member. Then members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority and, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So, once again, thank you all for joining us for this 
hearing on the oversight of critical management issues at the 
Department of State, United States Agency for Global Media, 
U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. 
International Development Finance Corporation.
    I am pleased to welcome State Department Acting Inspector 
General, Ms. Diana Shaw; USAID Acting Inspector General, Mr. 
Thomas Ullom; and a special welcome and congratulations to the 
new DFC Inspector General, Mr. Anthony Zakel.
    The Offices of the Inspector General play a fundamental 
role in providing independent oversight and equipping agency 
heads and Congress in their work to ensure the accountability 
and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars. This is especially true 
in fragile or conflict settings where the monitoring and 
evaluation of these programs are even more challenging. The 
independence and the nonpartisan nature of the Offices of the 
Inspectors General are absolutely critical to both their 
departments and the agencies of jurisdiction but also to 
congressional oversight. Unfortunately, the prior 
administration and former Secretary of State did not respect 
that independence and intervened when they did not like the 
direction of a particular report or investigation. This has 
truly weakened accountability to the public.
    So, as chairwoman of this subcommittee, it is my intention 
to support your offices and the indispensable roles that all of 
you play in your oversight responsibilities. I also hope the 
Biden administration moves quickly to nominate qualified 
individuals to fill these important positions.
    The Office of the Inspector General issues annual reports 
identifying critical management issues where improvements need 
to be made and assess whether United States Government 
investments in national security, economic growth, global 
health security, human rights, and governance continue to be 
efficient, effective, and in line with our foreign policy 
interests. Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the 
latest findings in these reports and other pressing matters.
    As chairwoman of this subcommittee, I want to continue 
strengthening the integrity of these programs and the agencies 
that implement them while promoting equity, diversity, and 
inclusion so that people of color, women, and other minorities 
have opportunities in the foreign policy sphere.
    Secretary Blinken has publicly committed to increasing the 
diversity of the Department's workforce as a priority. He has 
already taken some initial steps to do just that. In fact, on 
Monday, he announced the appointment of Ambassador Gina 
Abercrombie-Winstanley as the Chief Diversity and Inclusion 
Officer for the Department of State. Ambassador Abercrombie-
Winstanley has been a tireless leader and advocate for 
inclusion in U.S. foreign policy workforce, and as chair of 
this subcommittee, I will be looking for ways to support her 
efforts.
    I encourage all of our IGs here today to hold the agencies 
accountable to achieve this very worthy goal so that our 
foreign affairs workforce reflects the diversity of America. 
And I understand the management challenges. They are always a 
work in progress, and I am committed to working with all of 
your offices, as well as Secretary Blinken, and the future 
USAID Administrator, the future CEOs of USAGM and DFC to 
address these complex issues while making progress on our 
shared diplomatic and development goals around the world.
    So thanks to all for being here, and I look forward to your 
testimonies.
    Let me now turn to my friend, our ranking member, Mr. 
Rogers, for his opening remarks.

                    Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 
thank you for holding this oversight hearing with the 
inspectors general.
    As you and I have talked about this some time back, it 
gives the subcommittee a chance to talk to people who spend 
their waking hours, if you will, going over the details of each 
of these departments that we are hearing about today. I believe 
there is great value in hearing from these independent and 
objective representatives on challenges facing the agencies 
that we fund.
    This is especially important at the beginning of a new 
Congress and even more critical at the start of a new 
administration because it shines a light on the most important 
matters and issues that need to be addressed.
    Although the faces before us today are new, the chronic 
management challenges are not. Weaknesses in financial 
management, contract and grant oversight, risk mitigation, just 
to name a few, are problems that remain unsolved year after 
year. I hope the senior political leadership in all three 
agencies will take note of our discussion here today because 
they will set the tone for how seriously the workforce takes 
the findings and recommendations of the inspectors general.
    Most of these issues are not the flashy, headline grabbing 
topics of foreign policy, but they are key to successful 
operations and programs within our diplomatic and development 
agencies. However, when an IG report does make the news, it has 
the potential to cause irreparable harm in the court of public 
opinion. These days, public opinion on foreign aid is a mixed 
bag.
    With so many families facing economic hardship, it is 
understandable that there is great skepticism about sending aid 
overseas. We owe it to these individuals and every taxpayer to 
have strong oversight of the funds this subcommittee 
appropriates each year. We must hold the agencies accountable 
for accomplishing what they say they will and in an efficient 
and transparent manner. This is even more urgent given the 
administration's request to increase funding for State and 
foreign operations by 12 percent in fiscal year 2022.
    Before I conclude, Madam Chair, I would like to thank these 
witnesses for their time this morning but, most importantly, 
for their hard work when they are not here and the hard work of 
their staff serving around the globe, leading the fight against 
waste, fraud, and abuse. We appreciate and value the objectives 
of these people and their rigorous oversight on behalf of the 
American taxpayer. It is one of the most important 
contributions to this subcommittee.
    Again, I thank our distinguished chair for calling this 
hearing and bringing these important witnesses before all of 
us.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. I thank our ranking member Rogers for his opening 
statement and also just indicate that we will ask our witnesses 
to summarize their statements in less than 5 minutes. I want to 
be sure that we leave enough time to get our questions in, but 
I want to assure you that your full statements will be inserted 
into the record.
    After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on 
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was 
called to order, alternating between majority and minority 
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in the 
order of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their 
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
    We will start now with Ms. Shaw. Please proceed. And thank 
you again for being here with us.

                     Opening Statement of Ms. Shaw

    Ms. Shaw. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify today regarding the work of the Office of Inspector 
General for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for 
Global Media, also known as USAGM.
    As you noted, Chairwoman Lee, Offices of Inspector General, 
like State OIG, play a vital role in promoting public faith in 
government by advancing transparency and accountability through 
their important oversight work. Because of our unique role and 
access rights, we are able to reach the often overlooked 
corners of government programs and operations and, where we 
discover issues, shine a disinfecting light. But OIGs do more 
than simply identify and report on such issues. Our root cause 
analyses and carefully designed practical recommendations arm 
the departments we oversee with the information and ideas 
needed to drive positive, lasting change. At a time when trust 
in government is at a historic low, the need for OIGs has never 
been greater. And it is for this reason that I am especially 
honored to join you and my OIG colleagues today to talk about 
the important work State OIG has undertaken in the last year, 
which informs our assessment of the critical management 
challenges facing the Department and USAGM.
    Despite grappling with the global pandemic that has 
grounded our teams and caused us to rethink the way we conduct 
oversight, our dedicated staff of inspectors, auditors, 
investigators, and evaluators, with the assistance of our 
wonderful mission support team, have continued to produce high-
quality, high-impact reports on Department and USAGM 
operations.
    I am proud to say that in fiscal year 2020 alone, our work 
identified approximately $193 million in questioned costs and 
funds that could be put to better use, while our investigative 
activity led to an additional $3.7 million in monetary results 
and 20 suspensions and debarments. This represents more than a 
2-to-1 return on investment based on OIG's current funding 
level.
    Our analysis of the issues identified in this body of work 
indicates that the Department continues to face several 
critical management challenges, none of which will come as a 
surprise to this subcommittee. These challenges are addressed 
in detail in my written testimony, and I won't attempt to 
discuss them all, but I will highlight three main categories 
here--what I will call the three S's: security, stewardship, 
and staffing.
    Security: Safeguarding the Department's people, facilities, 
property, and information continues to be a significant 
challenge for the Department. While the Department's efforts to 
promote security are commendable, our work continues to reveal 
significant deficiencies, including construction design flaws, 
residencies that don't meet department safety standards, and 
lack of emergency preparedness. Likewise, our oversight of the 
Department's IT security program continues to reveal numerous 
control weaknesses, putting the Department's IT systems at an 
increased risk of cyber attacks.
    Stewardship: Stewardship refers to the Department's ability 
to efficiently and effectively manage its significant 
resources, including financial and property management and 
contract, grant, and foreign assistance management and 
oversight. OIG's work demonstrates that the Department could 
enhance its stewardship of taxpayer resources by improving its 
ability to identify and address weaknesses in its own internal 
controls.
    And, finally, staffing: Our work reveals that many of the 
other critical challenges facing the Department are caused or 
compounded by staffing gaps, frequent turnover in key 
positions, and inexperienced and/or undertrained staff. 
Moreover, instances of poor leadership, lack of coordination 
between and within Department bureaus and offices and 
conflicting lines of authority, have at times, undermined the 
Department's effectiveness and have impacted employee morale.
    Given the importance of the three S's--security, 
stewardship, and staffing--to the Department's success, OIG 
continues to devote its precious limited resources to 
performing oversight in these critical areas. However, our 
ability to support this foundational work and keep pace with 
new and emerging issues will require commensurate funding. 
OIG's budget has largely remained flat over the past 3 years, 
but with increases in our mandated work and rising IT costs, 
our ability to take on important discretionary work, including 
work in response to congressional requests, has been stretched 
to the limit.
    In closing, I am incredibly proud of the work done by State 
OIG and the value we provide to the Department, Congress, and 
the American taxpayer, and I am grateful to Congress for the 
investments it has made and continues to make in us. I will 
work to ensure that that investment is efficiently and 
effectively employed as long as I am fortunate enough to serve 
with the talented and committed staff at State OIG, whether as 
the acting IG or deputy IG.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
      
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Shaw.
    Now I would like to ask Mr. Ullom to proceed with your 
testimony.

                     Opening Statement of Mr. Ullom

    Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, ranking member, and 
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss the management challenges facing U.S. foreign 
assistance and USAID in particular.
    I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of USAID 
Office of Inspector General and its staff, who I have to say 
are among the most hardworking and talented and oversight 
professionals I have ever known. USAID, along with the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the African Development 
Foundation, and the Inter-American Foundation, which my office 
also oversees, manages nearly $30 billion in support of U.S. 
foreign assistance. OIG safeguards and strengthens these 
agencies' programs through timely, relevant, and impactful 
oversight, and we promote effectiveness, efficiency, and 
accountability and identify instances of fraud, waste, and 
abuse. Each year, we report on USAID's top management 
challenges, which can limit the success of U.S. foreign 
assistance, foreign policy, and national security.
    In the wake of nearly 130 million confirmed cases and 
almost 3 million deaths, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated 
these challenges. It has created economic disruptions, strained 
democratic institutions, and deepened humanitarian crises. 
While our oversight has helped position USAID to better respond 
to COVID-19, the pandemic's sheer scope, scale, and impact have 
stretched agency programs and operations.
    Today I am going to speak about USAID's four top management 
challenges, recognizing the effects of COVID-19 across our 
humanitarian and development assistance programs. Under our 
first management challenge, providing humanitarian assistance 
in crisis and conflict settings demands effective controls and 
to manage inherent risks, along with real-time visibility into 
those risks. After all, USAID can't mitigate risks that it 
doesn't know about.
    The billions of dollars that flow into these environments 
are vulnerable to fraud and theft, diversions of aid to the 
illicit market or armed groups, hurt beneficiaries, and can 
fuel further conflict. In response, USAID needs to continue to 
develop effective approaches for mitigating fraud risks, third-
party monitoring, responding to exploitation and abuse, and 
ensuring and implementer accountability.
    Under our second management challenge, the long-term 
success of U.S. development assistance depends on program 
results outliving the programs themselves. Yet, implementation 
of policies that call for planning and monitoring and rigorous 
risk assessments too often fall short, risking the 
sustainability of those development efforts. Reliance on local 
entities with underdeveloped financial systems, internal 
controls, and competencies can exacerbate this challenge.
    A third management challenge deals with interagency 
coordination. Foreign assistance involves many U.S. agencies, 
international donors, local actors, including host country 
governments. Effective coordination and shared understandings 
of roles and responsibilities and priorities is absolutely 
critical in this context. USAID has had to adjust the policy 
developments outside of its control and interagency constraints 
on budget and staffing have affected its ability to obligate 
funds and manage and oversee programs in the field. Programs 
run through public international organizations or other 
multilateral channels require oversight. USAID has adopted 
measures to improve Public international organizations (PIO) 
oversight, but further diligence is still required.
    A fourth and final management challenge concerns agency 
core management functions. Effective financial, Information 
Technology, award, and human capital management systems ensure 
accountability and effective use of taxpayer resources. USAID 
must ensure these systems are working well amid today's swiftly 
changing and challenging conditions. Across these areas, we 
provide relentless oversight consistently delivering a 
financial return for every dollar while driving action at the 
root of problems affecting USAID's programs and operations. We 
will continue to maximize our impact by taking a strategic 
approach and leveraging key partnerships within the oversight 
community.
    In closing, I want to thank you for your support and the 
opportunity to speak today. We are grateful for that support of 
our oversight work. And I look forward to taking any questions 
you may have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

    
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Ullom.
    Let me now ask, Mr. Zakel, for your testimony. Thank you 
for being here.

                     Opening Statement of Mr. Zakel

    Mr. Zakel. Thank you.
    Madam Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of 
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to 
discuss perspectives on our oversight of the U.S. International 
Development Finance Corporation, also known as DFC. DFC is 
America's development bank created by the BUILD Act of 2018. 
DFC's private sector tools provide a critical bridge between 
Federal resources and dynamic private-sector-driven development 
while promoting U.S. national security interests.
    DFC has outlined investments of over $25 billion in 
infrastructure, agriculture, and health and aims to mobilize a 
total of $75 billion to reach more than 30 million people by 
the end of 2025.
    Through the passage of the BUILD Act, Congress also 
recognized the importance of strong oversight and created the 
DFC Office of Inspector General, or OIG, and I was appointed as 
its first inspector general in August 2020. Since that time, I 
set the course for oversight through careful coordination with 
Congress, DFC, USAID OIG, and others in the Federal 
accountability community, and I look forward to building DFC 
OIG with the expertise, tools, resources, and support needed to 
accomplish our mission.
    My testimony today will focus on the mission and priorities 
of the newly created DFC OIG, the audit and investigative work 
we have completed and are planning for the future, and the top 
management challenges facing DFC.
    First, our main priority is to implement and follow the 
Inspectors General Act of 1978, also called the IG Act. Our 
mission is to conduct audits and investigations to improve the 
performance and integrity of DFC's operations and programs in 
providing foreign assistance to developing countries, either 
through direct loans and guarantees, equity investments, 
political risk insurance, feasibility studies, or technical 
assistance.
    Drawing inspiration from my experience at the Department of 
Transportation OIG, DFC OIG's core values are integrity, 
accountability, and respect, and these values will be 
demonstrated by our example and through our work and actions. 
Our goal is to ensure that we conduct our work in a thorough 
and professional manner in accordance with the rigorous 
standards of objectivity, independence, accuracy, and 
transparency upon which Congress and the American public have 
come to rely.
    Second, since I became inspector general, we have been 
working on setting up the infrastructure to conduct oversight 
of DFC and build an OIG that is responsive to the expectations 
of this committee, Congress, DFC and its Board of Directors. 
This includes applying to the Office of Personnel Management 
for out-of-cycle allocations for three senior leaders in our 
office, working with the Federal accountability community to 
have senior leaders detailed to DFC OIG in the interim, and 
creating solicitations to obtain contractor support for 
performing audit work.
    In addition, we developed the DFC OIG website with links to 
all of our products, DFC's open audit recommendations, 
whistleblower rights and protections, and, most importantly, 
links to our OIG hotline. We have completed several products, 
including our first semiannual report to Congress, a 
cooperation memo with DFC, top management challenges, and our 
OIG strategic plan. We also currently have six administrative 
and criminal investigations underway. This summer, we will 
start several audits, including those requested by this 
committee, and will audit DFC's progress in implementing the 
provisions of the BUILD Act.
    Third, from recent audits and investigations conducted by 
USAID OIG, we identified four top management challenges for DFC 
which are critical in promoting the efficiency and 
effectiveness of DFC's operations and programs. Managing risks, 
increasing partnerships to efficiently and effectively advance 
U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, improving 
performance management of project data as DFC's commitments 
grow, and DFC's organizational transition. DFC OIG's future 
audits and investigations will be aligned to address these 
challenges.
    It is an honor to serve as DFC's first inspector general. I 
have been impressed by the commitment and professionalism of 
DFC and have a deep respect for its mission to support highly 
impactful projects in developing countries while advancing our 
Nation's foreign policy. I look forward to working with all of 
the members of the board, DFC, Congress, and this subcommittee 
while carrying out our independent and objective oversight work 
as legislated in the BUILD and IG Acts.
    Last, I would like to publicly thank Acting Inspector 
General Ullom and USAID OIG for its help and assistance while 
we work to make DFC OIG fully operational.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the start of 
DFC OIG. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy 
to answer any questions members of the subcommittee may have.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Thank you all for your testimony, and I will start off now 
with my first question directed to Ms. Shaw.
    Now, a little over a year ago, your office released an 
audit of the performance of the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR, which is, of course, our 
largest foreign assistance program in the United States and has 
remained a bipartisan effort.
    The audit raised concerns about the country planning 
process, or this is called the Country Operational Plan or COP.
    Like many things, this process was complicated this year by 
the pandemic, but can you review the criticisms that you heard 
during the audit and the steps that the Office of the Global 
AIDS Coordinator has taken to improve their COP 2021 process? 
And how can we be sure that the voices of civil society and 
host country stakeholders are included in any streamlined 
process?
    You know, the audit also raised concerns about the impact 
of PEPFAR's leadership, saying, and I am quoting now from it; 
it says, ``Department leadership and management principles were 
not effectively applied.'' Has this improved since the change 
in leadership? And what questions should we be posing to the 
new administration in terms of their pick for the next Global 
AIDS Ambassador to ensure the continued improvement?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you so much for that question and for the 
close attention you paid to our audit work. We appreciate that 
very much.
    I will start just by highlighting a couple of good news 
points regarding PEPFAR. Our work has found that the new PEPFAR 
oversight and accountability response team's work has been 
driving positive change. They have implemented some monitoring 
and evaluation activities that we find are promoting 
accountability in the program and the effective use of program 
resources through things like quarterly data calls to look at 
progress on particular points. We also completed work looking 
across four missions in East Africa that have a sizeable 
portion of the PEPFAR program and generally found that they 
were effective in coordinating among their interagency partners 
to reach consensus on Country Operating Plans.
    But as you noted, there are some issues that we identified 
recently with respect to the Country Operating Plan development 
process, and they fall into three buckets.
    First, the issue was with setting performance targets for 
each mission. The feedback that we heard on the ground was 
that, although the process has embedded within it the 
opportunity for various stakeholders to provide input on those 
performance targets, over time the sense that folks had who 
participated in that process was that there was not a true 
openness to that input. So, while the input was solicited, it 
wasn't taken into account when performance targets were set, 
and ultimately the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator was 
dictating targets that the missions deemed unreasonable given 
their input.
    Another issue had to do with the tool that is used to 
develop the COP, which people found very, very difficult to 
work with, large spreadsheets with glitches and things like 
that. And, again, sort of in the same vein, folks that we heard 
from said they were providing input, they were making 
suggestions for improvements, but they didn't see that input 
being taken into account.
    And, lastly, with respect to the timeframe in which these 
COP plans are developed, it is a very ambitious schedule. It is 
supposed to span approximately 3 months, but it is very labor 
intensive and time consuming. And what we heard on the ground 
was that because it is so ambitious, often times it would 
stretch well beyond the 3-month period.
    And to your point about leadership and management 
principles, when we looked at sort of root cause for some of 
these issues, what we saw was a lack of collaboration, a lack 
of creating space for open and safe discussion, and the ability 
to share countervailing points of view that don't align with 
the Department's leadership and management principles.
    So we made some very helpful recommendations, and I am glad 
to say we have seen some progress. So one of the 
recommendations that we made was that the Office of Global AIDS 
Coordinator create an action plan to ensure that various 
stakeholders are able to provide meaningful input. And so, as 
part of the fiscal year 2020 guidance that went out, we saw 
that the program teams are allowed to propose targets for those 
performance indicators, which is a big improvement.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much.
    And we will have a second go-around hopefully, and I have 
some followup questions. So thank you again.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. I will yield now to our ranking member, Mr. 
Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Washington Post has a motto that they print on the 
front page of the paper that says, ``Democracy dies in 
darkness.'' And that explains why this subcommittee exists, as 
a matter of fact, and it certainly says the same thing about 
the Inspectors General of the departments, shining the light in 
the dark corners of these agencies, at the same time 
illuminating the good works that is going on perhaps in a 
certain agency. So, thus, we have the flashlight in our hands 
on the subcommittee, but also on these inspectors general.
    One week ago, Secretary Blinken announced the U.S. would 
restore assistance to the Palestinians. This includes bilateral 
aid for the West Bank and Gaza through USAID and funding for 
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, as they 
call them. The announcement comes shortly after the release of 
a GAO report with some specific recommendations for increased 
oversight of USAID programs in the West Bank and Gaza.
    Earlier this year, there were also troubling findings with 
UNRWA, education materials that glorified Palestinian militants 
and encouraged violence. This was acknowledged directly by the 
head of the U.N. agency but it is no less troubling.
    Acting Inspector General Shaw, what mechanisms does the 
State Department have to verify information it receives from 
UNRWA? And do you have any recommendations on how the 
Department can tackle longstanding challenges with 
accountability and transparency with respect to UNRWA?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for that question.
    I think what we have seen, as a theme across our work, is 
the need to balance the desire to provide the assistance with 
similar commitment to ensuring adequate oversight. Partly that 
has to do with ensuring that we are establishing well defined 
and measurable performance indicators for some of that 
assistance, making sure that that assistance aligns with 
strategic policy objectives, and then, of course, ensuring that 
we are doing the sorts of monitoring and oversight activities 
necessary to make sure that what we are doing in these spaces 
is what we intend and having the intended effect.
    So that is an issue that State OIG continues to look very 
closely, and, you know, we have obviously made many 
recommendations, and it is part of our management challenge to 
ensure greater oversight and monitoring of the assistance that 
runs through the State Department. But we are also able to 
drill down a little bit into some of these areas, and so we 
have work ongoing and planned work to ensure that the 
Department is exercising good internal controls, evaluation, 
and monitoring activities, and part of that is really 
prioritizing that as a responsibility and then ensuring that 
those responsible for oversight within the Department are held 
accountable for underperformance.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we look forward to hearing from you from 
time to time about this issue. So keep us posted, if you will, 
please.
    Ms. Shaw. I will.
    Mr. Rogers. Inspector General Ullom, your office has had 
deep engagement with the USAID West Bank and Gaza program, much 
of which is directed in the annual SFOPS bill. I am sure you 
are familiar with the recent GAO report. Do you have additional 
recommendations on oversight issues now that funding is set to 
resume? How can we make sure the funding is provided in a 
manner that fully complies with the restrictions in the State, 
Foreign Operations bill, the Taylor Force Act, and other 
relevant provisions of law?
    Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Ranking Member Rogers.
    You know, fortunately, we have staff in Tel Aviv. I think 
it is important that we focus strongly on vetting of 
implementers in this area as the funding increases. 
Antiterrorism vetting is important in making sure that it gets 
down to subaward recipients. But I just, you know, want to 
affirm the fact that USAID, U.S. foreign dollars can't fall 
into the hands of terrorist organizations, and I am glad that 
we have staff on the ground with relationships that go directly 
to our top management challenge three, talking about these 
interagency priorities and interagency coordination to have 
appropriate relationships, to avoid redundancies in these areas 
as we try to monitor and mitigate risk in these areas.
    So I appreciate the opportunity to answer that.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
    Madam Chair, I think my time has expired.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to each of 
our witnesses today for the testimony and for the good work 
that you do.
    Mr. Price. I want to address my first question to Ms. Shaw. 
In May of 2020, as you well know, President Trump removed the 
inspector general of the State Department, Steve Linick, from 
office. That was not an uncontroversial move, and it was widely 
reported at the time that he was conducting several important 
investigations.
    I wonder what happened to those inquiries--that is my basic 
question--when Linick was let go? Were all or some of the 
reviews he was working on completed by his successor or by 
yourself? Are any of these investigations still outstanding? 
And, if so, are you able to share which ones?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question.
    I can tell you that of the projects or reviews that were 
ongoing at the time of former IG Linick's departure from our 
agency, none of those jobs was stopped or delayed. We continued 
to work diligently on each of those projects regardless of who 
was sitting in the acting IG seat.
    We released one of the projects last summer. That was the 
report that we finished on the Saudi arms deal, the emergency 
declaration that was made to sell ammunition to Saudi Arabia.
    One of the other projects that was ongoing at that time had 
to do with representational travel by Secretary Pompeo's wife. 
That report was published in December.
    And we are in the very final stages and nearly ready to 
publish the final piece in that group, which had to do with 
questions about use of government resources by Secretary 
Pompeo. That, as I said, is nearly final in reporting and will 
be published soon.
    Mr. Price. So that third piece, the one on the Secretary's 
use of those funds, what is the likely timeframe on that?
    Ms. Shaw. We are actually teed up to publish it this week.
    Mr. Price. That is very soon. All right. Well, thank you. 
So that work did continue.
    Ms. Shaw. It did.
    Mr. Price. And you, yourself, oversaw the work on the arms 
sale. Is that true?
    Ms. Shaw. I did.
    Mr. Price. And those findings are publicly available?
    Ms. Shaw. One portion of that report is publicly available. 
There is a classified annex that was not published, as you 
might expect, but it was made available to Congress in a 
redacted form through appropriate means.
    Mr. Price. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Ullom, let me turn to you and ask you again about the 
question of the frozen aid, the abruptly frozen aid. There was 
a series of reviews ordered by the Trump administration of 
foreign assistance to a number of countries, and then funding 
was frozen as those reviews went forward. This applied to the 
West Bank and Gaza, it applied to the Northern Triangle 
countries of Central America, and it applied to Syria. Then, of 
course, there was the effect of the pandemic on those aid 
programs as well.
    I wonder what lessons we have learned by virtue of these 
freezes and now the attempt to unfreeze some of these programs. 
What were the impacts of the abrupt cutoff of funds on program 
effectiveness, on erosion of capacity, on financial waste, on 
the morale of the people executing the programs? I am asking 
you to generalize here. I am also asking what lessons we can 
learn and what conclusions you might want to put forward in 
terms of your work as to how these abrupt cutoffs of funds 
affected operations on the ground and what it takes to recover 
from that?
    Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Congressman Price, for that question.
    Adaptability is key in the work that USAID does in 
performing in their foreign assistance mission. It's often that 
they have to be able to pivot the agile to different 
administration's priorities in that particular area. I think 
they have shown a propensity to be able to do that. There is 
always more to be done in that area. And, again, I go back to 
the ideas of appropriate monitoring, appropriate risk 
mitigation planning in those areas is essential. But 
adaptability and pivoting their programming has to be at their 
forefront, and that goes to their interagency relationships to 
make sure that folks aren't being redundant in those areas but 
are still trying to accomplish the same mission, and USAID in 
their development work, you know, in coordination with State's 
diplomacy work and the Department of Defense work.
    So thank you for that question.
    Mr. Price. Madam Chairwoman, I know my time has expired, 
but let me just say I have some personal knowledge of one of 
those programs. It involves educational work with autistic 
children with a school in Bethlehem, and I know the effect of 
the cutoff on that program, and I know how difficult the 
restarting of that has been. I asked you that question because 
[inaudible] That has been implicated many times over.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Price.
    I would like to yield now to Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    I actually have a couple of questions for Ms. Shaw. One of 
them is, in the inspector general's statement of the Department 
of State's major management and performance challenges for 
fiscal year 2020, there was a brief mention made of conflicting 
lines of authority between the Western Hemisphere Affairs and 
the Special Representative to Venezuela. Obviously, not all of 
the relevant positions have been filled now in the new 
administration, but are you confident that these issues or that 
this issue has been resolved? And, if not, what can the current 
administration, again within the Department of State, do to 
maintain a cohesive policy on Venezuela?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question.
    I would have to get back to you to find out whether our 
recommendations on that issue have been closed, which would 
indicate that the Department has been fully compliant in 
implementing the recommendation, but I think that, even if it 
hasn't been closed, we continue through a very rigorous 
compliance follow-up process to drive accountability by 
ensuring that our recommendations are taken into account. And 
then, of course, we always have the opportunity to go back in 
at some period later and do a compliance follow-up review, 
which is additional oversight to essentially measure the 
effectiveness of those recommendations. And so it is something 
that we will continue to look at and monitor and ensure that 
even when our recommendations are implemented, that they are 
having the intended effect. So we will certainly continue to 
keep an eye on that issue certainly.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that.
    Let me stick to this hemisphere, if I may, Ms. Shaw. 
Referring to in the testimony, obviously, you couldn't hit 
everything, but I notice that I didn't see in your testimony 
anything regarding the attacks, the sonic attacks against 
basically two dozen U.S. personnel in Havana and their 
families. Some of those have led to brain injuries. But those 
attacks also took place in some other places, I believe, in 
China.
    Any comment on what could be done to ensure the safety of 
U.S. personnel stationed in Havana, which is where most of 
those attacks took place, or in other places as well? How do we 
guard against that? Any comments? Any ideas?
    Ms. Shaw. Sure. Well, it is an issue that I know the 
Department is looking at, and so our work would probably trail 
behind that slightly to evaluate what steps the Department 
took, whether they followed a reasonable process to ensure the 
safety of staff. But security and safety is one of the primary 
issues that we look at, for obvious reasons. Its importance 
can't be understated. And so we will continue to focus on those 
issues and, in particular, if we see an opportunity down the 
road once the Department has made some progress on this front, 
if there is work to be done on the oversight front, we will 
certainly follow up.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that. And I know the 
subcommittee, the chairwoman, we are all super concerned about 
that and making sure our personnel are safe wherever it may be.
    Madam Chairwoman, the ranking member actually already asked 
the other question that I had, and so in a very unique moment, 
I will actually yield back with a little bit of time left over.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. The chair will yield now to Representative 
Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you to our guests today for being here 
and for your work.
    I think we know that women make up the majority of poor 
people in this world, and I hope we all agree that when women 
have access to healthcare, to education, when they are safe, 
and have access to financial resources, not only is the 
community safer and more prosperous, but the world is much more 
peaceful and more prosperous. And the pandemic has certainly 
caused a lot more hurt to families everyplace in our country 
and around the world.
    This question is for Mr. Ullom. There was a very concerning 
report that came out in regard to the bipartisan Women's 
Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act. That is WEEA. It 
came out of our Foreign Affairs Committee. It was embraced by 
the Trump administration. That was a rarity that we could 
actually be working together finally on something. But the 
report indicated that it had incomplete and inconsistent data 
about what was going on.
    So my basic question is, what was the flaw that you 
observed in the collection of the data, and what was the reason 
for that flaw, or is it in the actual program itself?
    Mr. Ullom. Congresswoman Frankel, thank you for asking 
that.
    So I think you hit something that is critically important 
to any of these programs that any of our agencies operate in, 
and that is data quality, data integrity and making sure that 
we are getting data in a timely and effective method. We have a 
planned audit that is going to focus on women, peace, and 
security. But I think that goes directly to top management 
challenge number two, when we talk about local capacity and 
making sure that we have appropriate sustainability efforts in 
place to plan and to measure and progress and evaluate these 
programs, right. If you fail to plan, you'll plan to fail.
    So planning in these areas is incredibly, incredibly 
important, and I am glad you brought up the concept or the idea 
of data quality and data integrity. I think that is incredibly 
important in everything we do. There is so much data available 
to us and to get that and to use it objectively and let the 
data speak to you; and letting the data provide you with the 
information that the data is going to reveal is going to help 
make any of these programs successful.
    And like I said, I am looking forward to this planned audit 
that we have on women, peace, and security, but I appreciate 
you asking that question, and I hope those ideas of planning 
and mitigating risk is going to be something that we can 
continue to improve on across the agency.
    Ms. Frankel. In regard to the implementation of the WEEE 
Act, though, the report said that the data was incomplete, and 
it was inconsistent. Is that due to--was it due to the pandemic 
or what? I mean, what was the cause of that?
    Mr. Ullom. Congresswoman, that was not our work so I can't 
comment specifically on those particular findings, but that 
wasn't our product.
    Ms. Frankel. That wasn't your product?
    Mr. Ullom. Correct.
    Ms. Frankel. I am so sorry. Is there someone else there 
who--because it was from GAO, so it would not have involved any 
of you?
    Mr. Ullom. So GAO does work across the U.S. Government in a 
variety of different agencies. So we deconflict with GAO. It is 
a force multiplier. It is a big government. There are a lot of 
programs to evaluate. So, we deconflict with them, but nobody 
here today works or operates from GAO so I can't speak 
particularly on that audit.
    Ms. Frankel. Okay. Well, I will yield back. And, Madam 
Chair, I will have some other questions on the second round.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now let me yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, I appreciate 
it.
    So the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a lab run by the 
Chinese Communist Party, and it is also a possible origin of 
the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the State Department, in 
the fall of 2019, several WIV researchers actually fell ill 
with COVID-19 like symptoms. And since 2017, we know that WIV 
has engaged in classified research with the Chinese military, 
the PLA.
    Additionally, this lab in Wuhan was the subject of two 
Department of State tables raising significant safety concerns. 
The Biden administration, scientists, the media, and now even 
the World Health Organization have called for a thorough 
investigation of this facility as a potential origin of the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
    It is also troubling that U.S. taxpayers were funding this 
laboratory through Federal grants made to EcoHealth Alliance, 
which is a New York based nonprofit. In one instance in 
particular, EcoHealth provided upwards of $600,000 to WIV 
through a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease 
grant.
    Unfortunately, this is not the only example of U.S. 
taxpayer funding going to WIV. In 2013, for example, EcoHealth 
Alliance was awarded $2.5 million in grants through USAID to 
study disease emergence.
    According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee minority 
report and published research, the EcoHealth Alliance used a 
portion of USAID grant funding to pay for WIV researchers to 
conduct gain-of-function research on bat-borne coronaviruses in 
China. It is worth noting that during this same time, the Obama 
administration had a moratorium on gain-of-function research.
    So, Inspector Ullom, to date, Congress still--we still do 
not know the amount of USAID funding that was funneled to the 
Wuhan Institute of Virology, if the funding was approved for 
gain-of-function research, and if USAID knew the funding was 
going to a lab controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. So, 
with that, Mr. Ullom, yes or no, is there an active 
investigation as to whether how much and to the extent of how 
much money USAID was being sent to the WIV?
    Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    So, we don't typically comment on investigations so----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Inspector, I am not asking you to 
comment. I am just asking if there is an investigation. It is 
very common for individuals like IGs, et cetera, to say if 
there is an investigation. So just, yes or no, is there an 
investigation or not?
    Mr. Ullom. Sure. You know, really, I can't confirm or deny 
that. What I can tell you, though, Congressman, is when we have 
an actionable, credible allegation of fraud and wrongdoing, I 
assure you that our office will look into it. Again, I always 
go back to the issues of actionable and credible, and, you 
know, we have a staff----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I mean, I just gave you that research, 
and this is research and documents that were done by the Obama 
administration. You know, this is not something coming from a 
far right news source. This was the Obama administration and 
the World Health Organization, which, clearly, is not exactly 
United States friendly.
    But I will just take what you said as a no, that we don't 
have an investigation. What would your office need to actually 
conduct an investigation or at least an audit to see how much 
money the U.S. taxpayers were spending for the WIV to do this 
biological gain-of-function research?
    Mr. Ullom. So, Congressman, one, I would be happy to talk 
outside the public forum on any of the investigative 
activities. But to your specific question regarding an 
investigation, I spent 25 years in Federal law enforcement and 
rose up in the ranks of leadership, and what I always talked to 
the agents about is making sure that we have actionable, 
credible allegations of fraud that we are able to track, have 
witnesses, have documents that we can look into to ascertain if 
a criminal violation occurred, if potentially there is a civil 
remedy in place, or, if we can't deal with something from a 
criminal or civil remedy, to be able to refer something back to 
USAID----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Inspector? Inspector, are we at least 
putting policies in place to prevent U.S. tax dollars going to 
overseas laboratories that are controlled by adversaries, such 
as the People's Liberation Army or other adversaries 
nationally? Do we have any guardrails in place?
    Mr. Ullom. So, regarding policy, I can't speak specifically 
on policy, but from an oversight perspective, what I can tell 
you is the work that we do out of our office is solely designed 
to provide value and impact and to help USAID be a more 
effective administrator of foreign assistance funds.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I am just going to yield back, 
Chairwoman. I am out of time. Thank you for the allotted time. 
I appreciate it.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. We will have a second round.
    I will yield now to Mrs. Torres from California.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our 
panelists this morning.
    The police and militaries in the Northern Triangle continue 
to act outside of their mandates, supporting authoritarian 
leaders and too frequently commit violence and human rights 
abuses. The State Department inspection of Embassy Guatemala 
City found that helicopters provided to the Guatemalan 
Government for drug interdiction have been grounded since 2016 
due to the government's port maintenance, and questionable 
procurement practices prevented them from meeting INL's air 
worthiness standards. The Guatemalan inspection also found that 
the INL section had not been engaging in proper end-use 
monitoring of defense articles provided to the Guatemalan 
Government. And a few months after that audit was published, 
the Guatemalan Government misused antinarcotic military jeeps 
provided by the U.S. Department of Defense.
    We have seen police and military attack migrant 
populations. IG investigations consistently reveal insufficient 
oversight of security assistance and partnering with 
questionable actors. This is why I have zeroed out foreign 
military financing for Guatemala and Honduras for the last 2 
years and El Salvador last year. However, despite these 
incidents, the U.S. Government continues to provide funding to 
the police and military in the region through other funding 
mechanisms. The J8 jeeps, for example, were used to intimidate 
CICIG and our people in working at the U.S. Embassy at the 
time.
    So, Inspectors General Ullom, Shaw, I have two questions 
for you. First, are there any funding streams or specific 
security sector programs related to the Northern Triangle 
region that your investigators have revealed to be particularly 
prone to abuse? And, second, what recommendations can you make 
to ensure that our security assistance is not used against us 
or the people that it is meant to protect?
    Mr. Ullom. So what I would like to talk about is something 
specifically related to our top management challenge of, one, 
of humanitarian assistance and stabilization and then probably 
be able to, you know, pivot over to some work we have done in 
El Salvador.
    But, in this area, especially when you have significant 
funding flowing in, making sure that risks and vulnerabilities 
are assessed prior to the funding is going to help drive 
positive systemic change. You know, especially in areas----
    Mrs. Torres. I am sorry. This doesn't relate to any of my 
questions. And if you need to follow up with me, I would rather 
you follow up and give me something that I know to be 
inconsistent.
    Mr. Ullom. Sure. Well, I can speak on a crime prevention 
audit that we did do in El Salvador that did illuminate some 
interagency issues down there, which I do think goes to your 
question----
    Mrs. Torres. I am specifically asking about funding streams 
or specific security sector programs related to that region 
that your investigators have revealed to be particularly prone 
to abuse, and you can follow up with me. That is fine. I want 
to get to the problem here.
    Mr. Ullom. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. We will be happy 
to follow up with you.
    Mrs. Torres. Okay. I will ask a different question 
regarding assistance to the Northern Triangle. I am extremely 
concerned with any U.S. foreign assistance going to corrupt 
leaders in the Northern Triangle. It is our duty, as you 
stated, as elected officials trying to effectively address the 
root drivers of migration, as well as appropriators, who act as 
stewards of taxpayers' dollars, to ensure our money is going 
the right people to do the right things. Congress has 
appropriated more than $3.6 billion for the initiative since 
2016, making it the largest U.S. assistance initiative in the 
Western Hemisphere in recent years.
    So for the full panel: What was your degree of oversight 
over this and other previous Central America strategies? And 
have you investigated whether U.S. assistance has had its 
intended impact and reached the right beneficiaries, given such 
endemic corruption in the region?
    Ms. Shaw. So I can start, if that is all right with the 
rest of the panelists.
    So, unfortunately, I can't cite to specific work that has 
been completed. We are continuing to work on issues in this 
area. And so I would just highlight some planned work that we 
have that I think will go to some of the issues you have 
raised, Congresswoman. As you are very well aware, since 2010, 
INL has awarded the National Center for State Courts 
approximately $225 million in Federal assistance for projects 
in the Western Hemisphere, and we have seen red flags, and so 
we are in the process of scoping work that would look at these 
awards. The awards go specifically to projects promoting police 
training, counternarcotics, rule of law. And so it is going to 
be incredibly important that this assistant is used correctly, 
that they have set very clear policy objectives and performance 
indicators, and that there is good end-use monitoring. So we 
will do audit work in this space and we hope to be able to 
provide some really informative information on this and would 
be happy to brief you and you staff when that work is complete.
    Mrs. Torres. My time expired.
    I will yield back----
    Ms. Lee. Okay. We will have a second round.
    Now let me yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing. Unfortunately, it collides with my 
hearing as ranking member of Agriculture. So I haven't had the 
benefit of the discussion, even though I have had it on, on the 
side.
    I want to ask two questions, one about the Development 
Finance Corporation for Anthony Zakel. How does the DFC budget 
scoring impact DFC's ability to do its work? In other words, 
how are you going to score equity investments? Chair Lee and I 
have talked about this extensively because this is one of the 
possible impediments to fully leveraging this powerful, 
powerful diplomatic diplomacy tool or diplomatic government 
tool.
    Mr. Zakel. Thank you for the question, Representative.
    We realize the challenge, you know, the major difficulty to 
date with equity investments is how they are scored for budget 
purposes, and they are treated the same way as grant assistance 
on a dollar-for-dollar basis. So----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Let me interrupt you. Let me interrupt you 
for a second.
    Mr. Zakel. Sure.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Doesn't that undermine the very intent of 
the law?
    Mr. Zakel. Absolutely. But, again, this is not an OIG 
issue. This is really a policy issue for the new administration 
to try and address and rectify.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I understand. But you are here.
    Mr. Zakel. I am here, and, you know, what I can do is take 
that question for the record and see what the new 
administration is, if you will, proceeding in trying to address 
that issue so that----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Why don't we just leave it at that? 
Because obviously I know you wouldn't be able to provide the 
answer, but you are the proxy at this moment for this deeper 
problem, and it will become your problem as you intend in the 
future, once this is resolved, to measure the outcomes, of 
equity investments. So, if you could do that, I would 
appreciate it.
    In the interest of time, unless you have something 
profoundly impactful to the heart of question, I am going to 
move on to the next one.
    Mr. Zakel. Okay. No problem.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    Madam Chairwoman, let me also follow up on what Norma 
Torres was asking. $3.6 billion to the Northern Triangle, and I 
have been supportive of this but you--many of us recall the 
meeting we had about 2 years ago where this money went on hold. 
We weren't properly informed. Republicans and Democrats were 
both upset. But the heart of the matter that came out of that 
meeting of not being properly informed about the hold was, what 
are the metrics that we are using here to determine whether or 
not we are being successful? And the idea here is to get 
underneath the problems of corruption and crime and create 
economic space to decrease and mitigate migration pressures and 
to give people a chance where they are. So there is a whole 
host of beneficial outcomes here. What are the metrics that are 
being considered in the evaluation of these programs?
    Now I should add as well that, after that meeting, that 
hard meeting a couple of years ago, we submitted metrics to the 
State Department that they would had begun to implement. But I 
am not sure where those are.
    Ms. Shaw. If that was a question for me, I will take that 
as a get-back and try to get you the most up-to-date 
information on the status.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Ms. Shaw, I didn't have the benefit of the 
full hearing. So, if you can do that, that would be very 
helpful. But it has to be very specific. Again, more money with 
a good intention is not necessarily the right outcome. This has 
to be standards of accountability, metrics that determine, are 
we making progress toward the outcomes we achieve? The outcomes 
that we want to achieve are good. They are reasonable. They 
meet multiple policy objectives, but I am not sure the process 
is in place. I think that is what you are telling me. There 
isn't a process here for those metrics.
    Ms. Shaw. Well, I think our work has borne out that there 
has been some progress, but it is inconsistent, and so where we 
continue to see issues is in ensuring at the outset that there 
are well-defined and measurable indicators that are part of the 
assistance and then, of course, the accountability and 
oversight once that money flows out the door. So that continues 
to be an issue. It is a work in progress, and we continue to do 
work in this area to try to provide some helpful 
recommendations.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So you are intimately involved in defining 
those parameters?
    Ms. Shaw. No. OIG does not play a role in defining. What we 
do is look at those definitions, both the process in terms of 
ensuring that they have well-defined criteria.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Sure.
    Ms. Shaw. But then that becomes the criteria in which we 
measure the program.
    Mr. Fortenberry. So a reverse engineering is what you are 
saying. We are working back toward metrics, because you can't 
measure the outcome. So you make the recommendation. That gets 
implemented by the bureaucracy. So we can expedite that process 
and get in front of this because this has been going on a 
while, and it is not clear that this is working properly.
    My time has expired. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Ranking Member.
    Ms. Shaw, I have sensed that many of my colleagues have 
asked questions around this particular issue, but the Office of 
Inspector General has stated that the State Department has 
failed to consistently and adequately ensure that its foreign 
assistance programs achieve the particular goals----
    Audio interruption.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you again.
    Ms. Shaw, the Office of Inspector General has stated that 
the State Department has failed to consistently and adequately 
ensure that its foreign assistance programs achieve intended 
goals and objectives. This is consistent with my experience 
when I tried to get from the GAO an evaluation and idea 
regarding the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. They 
concluded that they couldn't compare across agencies and 
regions. They didn't have the ability to compare the data that 
this particular program, the Caribbean Basin Security 
Initiative, had across agencies.
    And so this seems to be a general problem that some of my 
colleagues have addressed in different ways, our ability to 
compare or to assess how successful a program that has been 
funded is. So what do you recommend that we do? I mean, this--
we are going to continue to give out money without being able 
to evaluate how successful these programs are? Because we don't 
have the ability to measure the metrics.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question, and I think you have 
touched on sort of the crux of the issue for some of this.
    In order to be able to measure the success and to have good 
metrics, you need good data, and foreign assistance tracking 
has been an issue with the Department and one that it is very 
focused on, in part, because our oversight work is focused on 
it, and so we have seen some improvement in the past year or 
so. The Department has invested through the Foreign Assistance 
Data Review Working Group, somewhere in the tune of $7 million 
to make improvements to their enterprise IT systems to better 
facilitate good data tracking on foreign assistance so that you 
can have a universe of data that would allow to you slice and 
dice the information and do some comparative work.
    We find that there is still work to be done, as you might 
expect. And part of this is ensuring that, as they describe a 
process to better marshal this information, that the folks who 
will be feeding in that data understand what the expectations 
are, are doing it consistently so that there is good data 
reliability that will then facilitate some of this data 
analytics work that you are referencing. So I think we are 
seeing some progress but there is certainly more work to be 
done and the foreign assistance tracking efforts are something 
we are closely monitoring.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Ms. Shaw.
    Mr. Ullom, I am concerned about the process in which 
projects are selected, particularly with China's incursion 
across the world and in this hemisphere. And so our ability to 
compete with China is saddled because, first of all, we really 
don't invest to the level they do. But they may do it in a 
predatory way and, secondly, because, you know, I am not really 
sure how we select projects and that those projects are 
consistent with our best interests in regions across the world, 
particularly in this hemisphere.
    As of December 2020, GAO issued a report indicating that an 
estimated $23 billion, or 11 percent, of the appropriated funds 
that USAID received from 2009 to 2019 remained not expended as 
of March of 2020. So not only am I concerned on how we select 
the projects to be competitive but also money is laying around 
that we have not spent while China is just galloping and Russia 
galloping right across the region.
    What do we do to address this, Mr. Ullom? I mean, how do we 
select very appropriate projects that are important to 
communities across the region? And how do we spend the money 
that is just laying around, while China continues to invest 
huge amounts of money in major capital projects across the 
region and winning the diplomatic war?
    Mr. Ullom. Congressman, thank you for asking that.
    Your question, it clearly shows the complicated global 
environment that USAID operates in. I know we have a planned 
Clear Choice audit. We have got, you know, when you are dealing 
with China and Russia, countering malign Kremlin influence. We 
have looked at USAID's award management systems where we found 
that there was approximately $178 million that could have been 
used for other projects, to your question.
    Mr. Espaillat. That is really peanuts compared to what 
China and Russia is spending. It is no money at all. But, I 
mean, even that, we have got an issue spending. We got money 
laying around. I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, but if 
you can conclude.
    Mr. Ullom. Sure.
    Ms. Lee. Would you like to conclude, Mr. Ullom?
    Mr. Ullom. Congressman, we would be happy to get with your 
staff and discuss that in a bit more detail outside this forum. 
Be happy to do that with you.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Now Congresswoman Wexton. Congresswoman Wexton?
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
    And thank you to the panelists for appearing before us 
today.
    Ms. Shaw, now in your testimony you say that workforce 
management issues are pervasive in the State Department, and 
the contributing factors include things like staffing gaps, 
frequent turnover, poor leadership, and inexperienced or 
undertrained staff. Is that correct?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes. That is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. I represent a lot of State Department 
staff, and one of the things that was very concerning to me is 
the lack of morale, you know, the diminution of morale and 
attrition at the State Department over the past term. And so I 
want to make sure we don't make the same mistakes again. Can 
you talk a little bit more about some of the contributing 
factors? I know you cited those factors, but can you dig into 
that a little bit more and expand about what the specific 
impacts were and what caused them?
    Ms. Shaw. Sure. So where we see some residual effects, we 
did do work on the impact of the hiring freeze, and that did 
have a huge effect, particularly on the family members who are 
hired by the Department to complete some pretty critical 
responsibilities but also in the Civil Service group. And where 
we see impact is, you know, a lot of these folks played 
important roles, particularly in the area, for instance, of 
contract and grant oversight. So where we don't have 
individuals in place to do that important work, then you start 
to see the corresponding impact, and we talked a lot about 
those issues already today.
    We certainly saw some pockets of leadership issues as well, 
and I am happy to say that we have a report coming out very 
soon on leadership principles within the Department that is a 
retrospective look at our leadership analysis across more than 
50 inspections and the hope there is to tease out some common 
areas of error on the part of leadership but also some best 
practices, with the hope of arming new leaders as they come 
into the Department with the information they would need to be 
successful. Those are some of the issues that we have seen.
    Ms. Wexton. So you are saying that the hiring freeze 
impacted the ability of State to oversee the programs we 
already had, as well as deploy resources for the programs that 
we wanted to get out there?
    Ms. Shaw. It certainly had an impact, yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
    Now can you talk a little bit about what attrition and the 
loss of expertise at the State Department does to impact its 
mission and what you are seeing on the ground there?
    Ms. Shaw. So, again, in the area of contractor and grant 
oversight and foreign assistance oversight, that lack of 
expertise ends up resulting in contracting officer 
representatives who don't have the technical skills needed to 
really oversee contractor performance and properly evaluate 
whether contracts are being executed along the terms and 
conditions of the agreements. And so that lack of technical 
expertise is a real issue that gets to the broader issue of 
ensuring that that the money that is spent on this assistance 
is actually having the intended effect.
    Ms. Wexton. And I think that Secretary Blinken mentioned in 
his confirmation hearings that there are 1,000 fewer employees 
at the State Department than there were 4 years ago. Does that 
sound right to you?
    Ms. Shaw. That sounds about right. I think the number I had 
seen was around 850, but I don't know how recent that number 
was generated.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. Those are all my 
questions, Madam Chair.
    I yield back at this time.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Yielding back.
    Let me ask now and yield to Ms. Meng for her questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all our 
guests for being here today.
    My questions are for Ms. Shaw. I have been following the 
gross mismanagement at USAGM since 2019. My concerns predate 
actually the rampant politicization of the former CEO, Michael 
Pack and include corruption that had been exposed in a number 
of regional programs. The purpose of the programs they oversee 
is to combat political propaganda in other countries and to be 
a source of true and trustworthy news for people around the 
world who don't have access to unbiased journalism. This is a 
program in which integrity is needed more than ever to protect 
the reputation of Voice of America from being considered yet 
another propaganda machine.
    The incoming acting CEO, Kelu Chao, will have to address 
ongoing suits on editorial interference, nonrenewal of J-1 
visas for journalists, misuse of $2 million in taxpayer money 
to pay a private law firm to investigate employees. This is not 
just a gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds but a slap in the 
face to the mission of USAGM and the hard and often dangerous 
work of its reporters.
    I know that you have investigated some of these reports 
over the past year. Can you please summarize for us what your 
reports have shown and, more importantly, what policies the 
agency's new leadership can implement to rehabilitate the 
reputation of the agency?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
    Some of the more recent issues are the subject of ongoing 
work and that we expect will be published, but, as you noted, 
we have done oversight work in this area, particularly since 
about the 2019 timeframe when some of these integrity issues 
came to light.
    I would point the committee to our recent inspection on 
compliance with journalistic standards which was a major issue. 
Former CEO Lansing, when some of these issues came to light, 
had started the process of implementing some editorial 
oversight reform. And our inspectors went in to look at what 
those reforms were, whether they had been implemented, and what 
the effect was. What we found was positive to some extent.
    Of course, there is always more to be done, but some of the 
positive improvements, they were successful in translating the 
broadcasting standards and principles that you find in the 
International Broadcasting Act into journalistic standards and 
ethical behaviors that could be communicated, trained, 
monitored, and enforced. And all of the broadcasting entities 
had disciplinary processes in place for violations of the 
journalistic standards.
    We also saw an increase in editorial oversight, such as 
consistent editorial daily reviews with at least two levels of 
review. We saw annual program reviews being conducted, for the 
most part, across the five, but Cuba Broadcasting was a notable 
exception also of course, content reviews.
    We also saw that they have brought in, or in the process of 
bringing in, a standards editor for each of their broadcasting 
entities, someone with some subject-matter expertise.
    And then we saw for the most part, with the exception of 
Cuba Broadcasting, really good tone at the top in terms of 
compliance with journalistic standards.
    So a couple of notable exceptions: Cuba Broadcasting seems 
to be lagging a little bit behind. They, for instance, have not 
updated their journalistic standards since I think it was 1991, 
and it is not well publicized either to external audiences or 
to its own employees, and employees were very unfamiliar with 
the editorial oversight reforms that other entities had put in 
place and the timeline. So there is definitely room for 
improvement there, but we are seeing some good progress.
    Ms. Meng. I don't have much time left, but I just wanted to 
ask about the new position, Chief Diversity and Inclusion 
Officer, at the Department of State and how might that position 
effectively contribute to the State Department's work, and I do 
want to acknowledge our Chairwoman Lee's efforts and leadership 
on this issue. Our first hearing this year was focused on 
diversity of our Foreign Service members. And also progress 
that the State Department has made in developing joint guidance 
to coordinate efforts amongst relevant bureaus and offices 
regarding investigation and disciplinary review of sexual 
harassment cases.
    Ms. Shaw. Madam Chairwoman, shall I respond?
    Ms. Lee. Quickly. Because we are going to have a second 
round, and I'm going to ask each member if they have a second 
question, to limit our question and responses to 3 minutes. So 
quickly, Ms. Shaw.
    Ms. Shaw. Sure. I would just say I think it is a positive 
improvement that they designated a single person to give the 
kind of sustained attention to the issue that is needed. 
Certainly, too soon to tell what the impact will be, but it is 
something we will be looking closely at as that person settles 
into the role.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Second round limit to 3 minutes.
    Ms. Shaw, I will follow up with regard to the Office of 
Cuba Broadcasting, which has been investigated recently for 
violating editorial standards by airing an unfounded and 
blatantly anti-Semitic video segment. It is my understanding 
the conclusion was that the video, radio, and web content of 
Radio Television Marti fell far short of journalistic 
standards, noting that the well-established norms of 
objectivity in journalism are routinely discarded, something 
that I have had long concerns about with respect to the Office 
of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB).
    So would you describe in more detail within this 3-minute 
segment OIG's concerns and whether you have received 
documentation that the reforms that your office recommended 
have been actually implemented?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the followup question.
    As you noted, the issues we saw were with nonadherence to 
journalistic standards, such as issues with appropriate 
sourcing, with attribution. We have seen some improvement in 
terms of the editorial reforms that have been put in place. We 
did make some follow-on recommendations. We are waiting for a 
compliance response from USAGM, and I believe it is overdue so 
we are following up with them to determine where they are in 
that process, but it seems to be moving along well.
    What I will say is that, USAGM has experienced quite a bit 
of upheaval on the last few months. And so one of the things 
that OIG is interested in looking at is how these editorial 
reforms are carrying forward, despite the changes in 
leadership. We have a planned inspection that I believe was 
actually in response to a congressional request to look at 
USAGM's compliance with 22 CFR 531, which codifies a lot of the 
journalistic standard principles. We will be doing that work 
and look forward to reporting on those findings.
    Ms. Lee. Thanks very much.
    And we look forward to that report also. So be sure we and 
the committee get a copy of it.
    Ms. Shaw. I will.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. 
Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let me follow up with Mr. Fortenberry's questions about the 
DFC, the Development Finance Corporation. It was created in 
2018 and directed to combine elements of USAID with the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, into a single 
organization, quite significant for any number of reasons.
    Let me ask Mr. Zakel some questions about the DFC. It has 
been intended to help counter China's worldwide effort to--what 
they call a Belt and Road Initiative, China's growing influence 
in developing countries especially, and authorized by the BUILD 
Act of 2018 for 7 years through 2025. But there is a built-in 
contradiction and it is--in DFC's efforts. There is a tension 
there. Like its predecessor, OPIC, there is the expectation 
that the DFC will create some positive returns for us 
economically, returns on investments, interest earnings and the 
like. And yet the DFC is at the same time charged with 
prioritizing support for less developed countries, poor 
countries, if you will, which conflicts in a number of ways 
with that other effort.
    What do you think? Is that tension that is built into the 
new DFC, is that valid? And what do we do about it?
    Mr. Zakel. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member 
Rogers.
    My answer would be I think that is natural tension. As you 
mentioned, the BUILD Act, you know, was very bipartisan 
because, number one, there is a need to, if you will, mitigate 
Chinese and, to a lesser extent, Russian influence in the 
developing world. And as you mentioned, you know, the BUILD Act 
doesn't require it. But for decades OPIC had a record of 
generating earnings for the U.S. Treasury. But the BUILD Act 
specifically states that in general DFC shall prioritize the 
provision of support to less-developed countries with low-to-
middle-income economies. And that is why the word 
``development'' is in our title, and so it is no longer about 
generating returns but rather investing in development, and 
that is why the expectations for DFC have changed accordingly 
from OPIC.
    And so that is why we emphasize in our top management 
challenges that DFC is challenged to manage risks while 
balancing revenues against operating costs. And so there is 
going to be higher risk because we are going to developing 
countries and, if you will, investing in those low to lower to 
middle-income economies, but we will be auditing DFC in the 
near future on its progress in implementing the provisions of 
the BUILD Act. And while DFC noted in its 2020 annual report 
that 66 percent of its projects went to low- and middle-income 
countries, we will assess that as part of our audit as well as 
to trends pointing to increasing assistance to developing 
countries as mandated by the BUILD Act.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, there are several legislative proposals 
to double DFC's exposure cap from $60 billion to $120 billion. 
And on top of that is the worldwide pandemic that we are 
dealing with, I think, affecting every country's economy. There 
is substantial funding in this bill and likely to increase even 
for economies that were weak before the pandemic hit. So do you 
have personnel that you anticipate you will need to look after 
this greatly expanded role and amount of money?
    Mr. Zakel. Well, thank you for the question.
    And I will answer this very quickly with a sly joke, which 
is right now I am the only employee for the Office of Inspector 
General at DFC, and I pointed out in my opening statement that 
I really appreciate the assistance from USAID OIG, but we 
currently are bringing folks on board, and we will have nine 
FTEs by the end of this fiscal year. But, yes, if the role, if 
you will, and scope of the work is going to double, as some 
reports indicate, then, yes, our oversight role will have to 
grow as well.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we wish you good luck.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Zakel. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Yes, thank you. With 3 minutes remaining, I want 
to return to Mr. Ullom and give him a chance to elaborate 
somewhat more fully on the challenge of dealing with these 
stop-and-start situations with respect to aid. We on this 
subcommittee learned the hard way in the last Congress how hard 
it was and how limited our tools were to deal with a 
summarily--and we thought unconstitutional--cutoff of aid to 
the West Bank and Gaza and also to the Triangle countries in 
Central America. This was duly appropriated aid that was 
summarily cut off. And we had many, many reports, as I said, of 
the dislocations that the aid cuts caused and how challenging 
it was going to be to get these programs up and running again. 
There are some legal challenges, as the ranking member made 
clear earlier, but I understand those are being addressed.
    But I wonder, Mr. Ullom, what you would say about the 
agency's ability to get assistance moving again. It is very, 
very important that this happen in these next weeks, months, 
you know. These programs have been on hold now for a couple of 
years.
    Mr. Ullom. Thank you, Congressman Price.
    We have a couple of pieces of work, and I think that might 
be able to illuminate this issue a bit more, but just like, 
when we are talking about Afghanistan, so USAID had to 
implement cuts. You know, this goes back and forth when we talk 
about mitigating risks in these programs. And when you are 
starting and stopping programs or changing the priorities in 
programs--and Afghanistan is a good example of that--USAID had 
to cut staff at the direction of State Department. But, you 
know, then there's questions of sustainability.
    So, when you are changing these priorities, it does affect 
USAID's ability to operate in these environments. In Iraq, we 
had work in a past quarterly reporting where we talked about 
bringing down USAID staff levels, but then funding began to 
increase in that area. So that has a counterproductive response 
and could cause issues in making sure that that programming is 
doing what it's intended to be doing.
    So we hope through our work, we can illuminate some of 
those issues to better prepare USAID to be responsive and to be 
able to preposition or preplan, to be able to respond to 
exactly what you are talking about: is changing in 
administration priorities, and I think USAID has shown a 
propensity to make some progress in that area, but I do think 
that that is still a challenging area.
    Mr. Price. Well, it certainly is right this minute in West 
Bank and Gaza. So we will look forward to learning from you 
going forward as to how to mitigate these impacts. Thank you 
very much.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
    Let me follow up on the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) 
conversation that took place a little while ago. So the purpose 
of OCB--and I know everybody's aware of it--was to--is to break 
through the information blockade by the Cuban regime to its 
people. You know, we all remember that the Cuban regime is a 
murderous, totalitarian, terrorist regime. That is the purpose 
of it.
    And so it is interesting because one of the issues that 
existed with the USAGM leadership was complaining that the 
journalistic standards that they were trying to impose required 
reporters to ask the regime for a response to stories and for 
confirmation of facts, which is highly absurd, ridiculous. I 
don't think anybody would disagree that asking the regime for 
certain facts of report has nothing to do with journalistic 
standards.
    Has that changed or is that--I mean, I know it changed in 
the last administration. But is there still this request as 
part of journalistic standards to require journalists to get 
confirmation from the regime, or has that changed?
    Ms. Shaw. So my understanding is that it is not as 
prescriptive as that. From what I understand----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. It was. It was before, and that was one of 
the issues that the journalists would always complain about 
that USAGM, under the previous leadership, was demanding those 
sort of things, and, by the way, they had to do it, and you saw 
that in their reporting that they would actually link to the 
regime's stories, which is patently absurd and, frankly, highly 
irresponsible.
    So I just want to make sure that we clarify because it 
sounds good--and not that they don't have issues, by the way--
but it sound good to say, well, we are insisting on 
journalistic standards, but let's be very clear: During the 
Obama administration and even after--for a while after that, 
that is what they were insisting on. They were insisting on 
that journalists actually go to the regime for the other side 
of the story and also for confirmation of facts. So I just want 
to make sure, that you know, that everybody is aware of that.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you.
    I was familiar that that was part of former CEO Lansing's 
approach to editorial oversight. Where I see it being less 
prescriptive now in terms of how this has been translated and 
codified within the standards at USAGM and, by extension, the 
broadcasting entities is that there is a focus on variety of 
sources. There is a focus on obtaining a balance of 
information, but it is not as prescriptive as going directly to 
the regime and asking for input. And so I think it provides 
sufficient latitude for the reporters to use good judgment and 
then, of course, there is a much stronger oversight process in 
place to ensure that that information is being vetted and that 
it is balanced within reason. But I do recall seeing that one 
of the things that is not required is providing the 
countervailing point of view when it is not supported by good 
facts. And so I think that is the effort to strike at the 
balance that you are talking about.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. I appreciate that.
    Madam Chairwoman, I know my time has expired. I just want 
to make sure of that because a lot of things were said that we 
understand what we are talking about. You are not talking about 
balance when you are asking the regime. Again, the whole reason 
for OCB is because of the regime. Balance is not asking a 
terrorist state for their version of the story, and so I just 
want to make sure we are all clear about that.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You have been very kind and 
patient. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Let me yield now to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Okay. Hello.
    Well, I will try to ask a question and hope somebody can 
answer it this time.
    And I think this is for Ms. Shaw. I was concerned to see 
that the Office of Inspector General's fiscal year 2020 report 
found the State Department poorly coordinates investigative and 
in disciplinary processes when cases of sexual harassment are 
reported. Can you give me some insight into that and whether or 
not there has been any improvement?
    Ms. Shaw. Sure. I would be happy to. So that was a very 
important evaluation, looking across the Department. And what 
we found is that the Department had two different entities that 
had some responsibility in this arena, and the coordination 
between those entities was deficient in some respects. We were 
able to make some good recommendations to better define roles 
and responsibilities, first and foremost, to help facilitate 
better communication and coordination. That was followed by 
stronger processes to ensure that these reports are moving 
through the process, being routed to the right entities to look 
at them, and being followed through.
    One of the other important recommendations we made, which 
the Department has concurred with and implemented, is when 
reports of sexual harassment and misconduct are received, they 
have special investigators who have been trained to deal with 
witnesses and victims of sexual harassment and misconduct to 
better facilitate the process for doing that fact development 
in a way that understands the unique circumstances of someone 
in that position. So I think our recommendations have landed 
well with the Department, and we continue to monitor them as 
part of our compliance follow-up.
    Ms. Frankel. Was there a lot of harassment found? And was 
this, going on overseas with workers or here domestically?
    Ms. Shaw. I would have to get back with you with the 
precise statistics that came out of our survey. I can tell you 
that it was not an insubstantial number of people who indicated 
that they had either been the subject of or witnessed sexual 
harassment.
    What was also concerning that came out of that survey data 
is that it is, as you might expect, highly underreported. We 
had far greater people expressing having been either, a witness 
to or a victim of, sexual harassment but not having reported it 
for some fairly concerning reasons. Such reasons include that 
they didn't believe it would be taken seriously or they felt it 
would jeopardize their career. So definitely some very serious 
issues there.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, the Biden Administration recently renewed 
assistance to the West Bank and Gaza but failed to secure 
concessions from the Palestinian Authority and also failed to 
get concessions and reforms from the U.N. Relief and Works 
Agency. This decision ultimately undermines the security of 
both the United States and our ally, Israel. The Palestinian 
Authority spends millions of dollars annually to fund 
terrorists, leaving it up to the international community to 
fund humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people. 
Taxpayer-funded foreign assistance for Palestinian people must 
be conditioned on changes by the Palestinian Authority, 
including ending the financial support of this disgusting 
program known as ``pay to slay.''
    Inspector General Ullom, the GAO recently found significant 
gaps in terrorism vetting and specifically gaps in vetting 
procedures for USAID, subcontractors working in the West Bank 
and Gaza. Yes or no, has your office investigated whether USAID 
programs in the West Bank and Gaza are compliant with 
congressionally mandated restrictions on aid to the 
Palestinians?
    Mr. Ullom. Congressman, thank you for asking that.
    I am not familiar with the details in that GAO report that 
you just described, but I do want to comment on the vetting, 
the antiterrorist vetting to make sure that does get down to 
the sub-award level to try to minimize, to make sure that 
terrorist organizations aren't benefiting from U.S. dollars, 
U.S. foreign aid. So our office does work closely with DOJ. And 
if those allegations of fraud come in, like I commented before, 
we do have staff in Tel Aviv. But using our tools of criminal, 
civil, and administrative remedy, suspension or disbarment is a 
powerful tool when money goes to the wrong entity, an entity 
that is not entitled to go to or intended to go to. Suspension 
and disbarment is a key tool that USAID has.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. So, IG, given the resumption of USAID to 
programs to the Palestinians, will your office actually conduct 
oversight to ensure these funds are spent in full accordance 
with the law, or do you need--or, as you said, you are waiting 
on an actionable to do that? Because I would think with the 
Palestinian track record on funding terrorism, your office 
would already be on top of this.
    Mr. Ullom. Sure. So that's the criminal side. We do conduct 
non-Federal audits, and every dollar that goes into the West 
Bank and Gaza is reviewed. So that falls into some of the 
mandatory work that our office does. And so, yes, we will 
continue to review funding that goes into that area.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Thank you, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now I will yield to Mrs. Torres from California.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The BUILD Act included my amendment, which requires the DFC 
to develop policies and procedures for assessing whether 
foreign entities have in place sufficient enhanced due 
diligence policies and practices to prevent money laundering 
and corruption.
    Inspector General Zakel, I heard your answer to this issue 
that you are one employee currently. So I just want to 
encourage you to look into these policies and ensure that they 
are in place as you begin to build your staff. Thank you. And 
unless you have anything to add to my previous questions, I 
would otherwise yield back.
    Mr. Zakel. I would just answer or respond that we are aware 
from previous USAID OIG audits as well as GAO audits that there 
have been key weaknesses in OPIC's internal controls and a lack 
of attention to process, as well as in 2017, individuals were 
able to defraud OPIC of more than $1 million by making 
fraudulent representations, including false financial 
documents, inflating the value of assets. So we are aware, if 
you will, of the past history. And we intend to take that into 
account when we conduct our audits and investigations going 
forward.
    Mrs. Torres. Yeah. I am very concerned about the Northern 
Triangle. And in the case of Honduras, you know, we have the 
now-deceased sister of current President Hernandez, you know, 
saying that it is very easy to create NGOs to use to launder 
USAID, you know, back to these corrupt actors. So eyes wide 
open going into this. We want to make sure that we are holding 
all of these entities accountable for how they use hardworking 
taxpayers' dollars. Thank you.
    And I look forward to hearing back from all of you on my 
previous questions, and we will send them in a written form to 
you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let me follow up on Mrs. Torres' excellent observation.
    And, Madam Chair, it is my understanding that you are 
contemplating a hearing on the Northern Triangle issue shortly 
and if that is the case, if I could make a suggestion. Perhaps 
we could write a letter to State Department teeing up these 
questions before that hearing. In other words, what are the 
metrics for success here? I think we have all been trying to 
get to the bottom of this, and, obviously, it is a little bit 
unfair to put the inspectors general in the middle of that 
question since they are responding to the metrics that we have 
laid down, but since they aren't laid down with clarity, I 
think this would be a key component that, if we gave them 
enough heads up, there could be a more substantive address of 
that. So I would ask you to consider that. From my perspective, 
it would be a good idea.
    Secondly, I have a letter here, if I could ask for 
submission for the record. It is regarding the DFC. I wrote it 
to our National Security Advisor, Mr. Jake Sullivan, and the 
point of continuing to bring up the Development Finance 
Corporation, whether you want to look at this through the lens 
of a rethinking of our development diplomacy, humanitarian 
relief, attacking the structure for poverty, using the best 
aspects of the market system, or whether you want to align that 
with stabilization and national security policy, the objective 
is all of the above. So I have written this to Jake Sullivan.
    If I could include that in the record, Madam Chair, I would 
appreciate it.
    Ms. Lee. Please do.
    [The information follows:] 
  
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
  
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    And then, finally, I want to talk about Middle East 
Partnership for Peace, MEPPA. Our former Chair Lowey and I had 
worked on this issue. She was gracious enough and clearly with 
intentionality got this into law last year as part of our 
Appropriations bill. So it is underway. I would like to hear 
the inspector general's comment on how they may be starting a 
review process of the beginnings of the implementation of 
MEPPA.
    Mr. Zakel. I would have to take that question for the 
record, Representative, since we are not involved with policy, 
and we, frankly, haven't started conducting any audits yet of 
internal control. So we will, if you will, add that to the list 
but we will look forward to addressing that question of yours.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, it is important because, obviously, 
it is in formation. It is in its seminal stages. So, again, I 
think what we are struggling with here, if you can indulge me 
for a moment, Mr. Zakel, because as policymakers, we get 
limited efforts to engage various administration personnel, and 
you often times become a proxy for a lot of other issues. 
However, when there aren't standards for evaluation properly 
built in, then you are hamstrung with the ability to provide us 
answers like we are asking for in the Northern Triangle. Does 
this work or not? What is the measure for success? We have got 
a lot of complexities, a lot of variables. I suspect the same 
may be true for MEPPA, and so that going in early so that you 
can use your judgment and skills to actually help shape the 
parameters of the evaluation is what I was talking with about 
earlier regarding reverse engineering on the Northern Triangle 
dynamic.
    Mr. Zakel. We have done proactive audits in the past, and 
that is essentially what you are requesting, and we can discuss 
that with your office. I see we are beyond time, but if that is 
something you are interested in essentially doing and making--
--
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. An audit doesn't have to be a 
pejorative term. It actually helps us understand what we are 
achieving. So thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Let me clarify. I believe we are having a briefing on the 
Northern Triangle. But I think your request of providing the 
questions in advance make a lot of sense, whether it is a 
briefing or hearing. So thank you very much.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Lee. Let me thank all of our witnesses and members for 
your time and testimony today. Also, if members have questions 
that they would like to submit for the record, please submit 
them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days.
    And, again, thank you to our witnesses. You see your jobs 
are so important to not only the agency but also to the public 
and to ensure the proper expenditure of taxpayer dollars. You 
see the interest of our members. We really appreciate your 
being with us today and look forward to working with you. Thank 
you again.
    The hearing is concluded if no one has anything else they 
would like to say. Thank you again.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Lee. This concludes the hearing on the State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    

                                           Wednesday, May 19, 2021.

                         GLOBAL CLIMATE FINANCE

                               WITNESSES

LEO MARTINEZ-DIAZ, SENIOR ADVISOR ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DEPARTMENT OF 
    STATE
MATHEW HAARSAGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
    DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AND POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
JEFFREY HAENI, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND 
    INFRASTRUCTURE, BUREAU FOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOCRACY, AND INNOVATION, 
    U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
JAKE LEVINE, CHIEF CLIMATE OFFICER, U.S. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
    FINANCE CORPORATION (DFC)

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms.  Lee. Good morning.
    The subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs will come to order.
    I would like to start by welcoming our distinguished panel: 
Leo Martinez-Diaz, from the Department of State; Mathew 
Haarsager, from the Department of Treasury; Jeffrey Haeni, from 
the U.S. Agency for International Development; and Jake Levine, 
from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. We 
appreciate your time and your services. Thank you all for being 
here.
    Now, this hearing is fully virtual. We must address a few 
housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair or 
staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the purpose 
of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members are 
responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice 
that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would 
like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by 
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies during the question-and-answer period. If there 
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until 
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time. You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute time remaining, the clock 
will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may gently tap 
the gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired, 
and I might just raise my finger and say 1 minute left. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow 
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules beginning 
with the chair and ranking member; then members present at the 
time the hearing is called to order will be recognized in order 
of seniority; and, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So, once again, thank you, everyone, for joining us for 
this important hearing on ``Global Climate Finance'' and 
combating climate change. Again, I want to welcome our esteemed 
witnesses: Leo Martinez-Diaz, from the Department of State; 
Mathew Haarsager, from Department of Treasury; Jeffrey Haeni, 
from the U.S. Agency for International Development; and Jake 
Levine, from the U.S. International Development Finance 
Corporation.
    Climate change is often framed as a threat in the distant 
future, but the science is very clear: If climate change is not 
tackled now and in the most urgent manner possible, we will 
have done irreversible harm to our environment and to future 
generations. Just as the pandemic has revealed issues of racial 
injustice and inequity within public health, climate change 
also negatively impacts vulnerable and marginalized communities 
disproportionately. And those who are already experiencing 
tough conditions only see things worsening with droughts and 
floods destroying food security in already fragile, 
impoverished areas.
    Economic livelihoods are gradually eroding with changing 
landscapes and increased conflict and instability due to 
shifting resources and simmering social tensions that expose 
women, children, and other vulnerable people to exploitation 
and violence. Climate change is a direct threat to every 
investment made by our bill, the State Foreign Operations bill, 
which supports natural resources, food security, global health, 
human rights and governance, and peace building.
    And I am so glad that the Biden-Harris administration has 
realized this urgency and is putting addressing climate change 
at the center of the United States diplomatic and financial 
priorities. The International Climate Finance plan released 
last month announced the intention to double by 2024 the United 
States' annual public climate financing to developing countries 
relative to what we were providing in 2016.
    While much of our development and humanitarian achievements 
are threatened by climate change, the programs within the State 
Foreign Operations' jurisdiction are central to driving 
progress against those threats. Any climate change strategy has 
to work globally with countries and communities, as well as the 
international bodies that challenge governments to do more and 
raise their ambitions. We need to understand the various tools 
within the global climate architecture and how these different 
pieces combine for a comprehensive and effective approach; 
therefore, our witnesses today are the right people to share 
their agency's respective roles in the climate agenda 
bilaterally and multilaterally, and to inform our committee how 
we can support these efforts.
    Through the Department of State and USAID, the United 
States provides bilateral climate assistance and partners with 
international organizations on adaptation and mitigation 
programs. These programs assist communities adjusting to 
changing weather patterns, as well as to protect the landscapes 
that help reduce pollution and allow wildlife to thrive. The 
Department of the Treasury will be critical in coordinating 
multilateral efforts on climate action at the World Bank and 
other financial institutions.
    The DFC will mobilize private sector financing into 
climate-focused investments in countries with the least ability 
to cope. These efforts will help re-establish U.S. leadership 
on climate change, as well as revitalize our partnership in the 
global community. I am specifically interested in how we ensure 
women and youth are part of our climate efforts. Women are 
frequently excluded from this conversation, despite being the 
most active in their local communities and dealing with the 
impacts on their personal household.
    And so I want to make sure that we include women in our 
climate change discussion because it is so critical to create a 
bottom-up effort that starts from within families and 
communities. Further, it is our children and youth who face the 
inevitable consequences if we fail to act. It is crucial that 
we educate our young people to understand the complexities of 
this issue and equip them with the knowledge and skills to 
carry this responsibility.
    So thank you all for being here and for your agency's 
leadership on these issues. And I would like to turn now to my 
friend, our Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, for his opening 
remarks.
    Mr.  Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Today's hearing allows us to discuss whether President 
Biden's promise to put climate change at the center of American 
diplomacy, whether that is consistent with his promise to carry 
out a foreign policy for the middle class. I am deeply 
concerned that, far from supporting the middle class, advancing 
a Green New Deal, both at home and abroad, will destroy more 
jobs in Kentucky and throughout the United States.
    Just a few short years ago, the Obama administration 
undertook a full-out assault on domestic energy and production 
in Kentucky and throughout the country. Nowhere was the impact 
more harshly felt than in the heart of Appalachia, my eastern 
Kentucky district. President Obama went on an aggressive and 
unabashed regulatory rampage, systematically hammering nails 
into the coffin of our domestic coal industry.
    In my district alone, we lost 13,000 mining jobs in what 
seemed like the blink of an eye--13,000 just in my district. 
For every one of these jobs, three more downstream were wiped 
out as well. It was devastating and still is. While many in 
coal country struggled to find work and put food on the table, 
President Obama pledged $3 billion to implement policies in 
other countries that would only exacerbate their economic 
challenges at home.
    It may seem like a long time ago, Madam Chair, but we must 
not forget what the true costs are for these kinds of radical 
environmental policies.
    Now, President Biden has promised to make good on the 
commitments made by his former boss and far more. The 
President's aggressive climate policy goals, including his 
return to the unattainable mandate of the Paris Agreement, make 
the far-left Obama era policies look weak. The United States' 
economy will suffer while China and other top polluters and 
competitors can do whatever they like under this deeply flawed 
agreement.
    American workers stand to lose the most, and it could not 
come at a worst time as families have struggled to hang on from 
the unprecedented economic hardships caused by the pandemic. 
Internationally, the President has said he will put climate 
change at the centerpiece of U.S. foreign and development 
policy. This is demonstrated in the fiscal year 2022 budget 
request that features $2.5 billion for these purposes, 
including $1.25 billion for the Green Climate fund. At a time 
when countless crises around the globe present immediate 
threats to our own security and that of our allies, this 
funding proposal is misguided and irresponsible at best.
    It would also serve us well to remember this comes at a 
time when foreign aid is under great scrutiny from the American 
public. Proposing such a significant sum of taxpayer funding 
for international climate change programs while families and 
communities struggle to make ends meet adds insult to injury.
    Madam Chair, I know we all want to work together to advance 
American national security. In this budget season, setting 
strategic priorities for the resources made available will be 
key to achieving that goal. I urge the administration to 
reexamine the priorities they have put forward and focus on the 
immediate and growing challenges that are testing the United 
States foreign policy every day. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I yield back.
    Ms.  Lee. Okay.
    And now we will go to our witnesses: Senior Adviser Leo 
Martinez-Diaz, Deputy Assistant Secretary Mathew Haarsager, 
Acting Director Jeffrey Haeni, and Chief Climate Officer Jake 
Levine.
    Let me ask you each to please summarize your oral 
statements in less than 5 minutes. I want to make sure we have 
enough time to get to our questions. Your full statement will 
be included in the record. After your testimony, I will be 
calling on members based on seniority of the members that were 
present when the hearing was called to order, alternating 
between majority and minority members. I will then recognize 
any remaining members in order of their appearance. Each member 
is asked to keep their questions to within 5 minutes per round, 
and given the number of witnesses, it would be helpful if you 
can indicate to whom you are directing your questions.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz, please proceed.

                 Opening Statement of Mr. Martinez-Diaz

    Mr.  Martinez-Diaz. Thank you very much.
    And good morning, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, 
and members of the subcommittee.
    The climate crisis represents an existential threat to the 
security and prosperity of communities in the United States and 
around the world, at the same time responding to the climate 
crisis offers one of the greatest opportunities in history for 
innovation, sustainable economic growth, and the creation of 
high-paying jobs. This is why the Biden administration has made 
tackling this crisis a top priority. Enabling bold action to 
reduce emissions and build resilience against the impacts of 
climate change will require mobilizing and aligning finance on 
a large scale.
    Let me say what I mean by climate finance in this context. 
Here what we are talking about is the provision or mobilization 
of financial resources to help developing countries reduce or 
avoid greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to the 
impacts of climate change.
    Now, the case for the United States to provide and mobilize 
international climate finance is compelling. First, avoiding 
the worst impacts of climate change does not just depend on the 
efforts of the United States. We can only be successful if 
other countries join our efforts. Climate finance can help 
unlock deep reductions in other country's emissions by 
supporting the deployment of existing clean energy 
technologies, protecting biodiversity, forest and wetlands, and 
for fostering new technologies to accelerate the transition to 
a net-zero emissions global economy.
    Second, meeting U.S. international climate finance pledges 
is crucial for preserving trust in U.S. leadership.
    Third, international climate finance is also an investment 
in our own national and economic security. Climate finance 
supports the most climate-vulnerable people in the world to 
prepare for, adapt to, and recover from the impacts of climate 
change. This can reduce the risk of resource competition, of 
conflict, of displacement of people, all of which can undermine 
national, regional, international, and economic security.
    Fourth, climate finance helps protect and advance 
longstanding international development goals, including 
reducing poverty, conserving nature, improving human health, 
safeguarding food security, and promoting sustainable economic 
growth.
    The United States has invested hundreds of billions of 
dollars over decades to advance these goals around the world as 
Chairwoman Lee observed earlier. Because climate change will 
put at risk all of these dimensions of human well-being, 
financing resilience to climate impacts will be essential to 
protect past investments in human development.
    And in the context of the global pandemic, climate finance 
can contribute to helping countries restore growth and build 
back better through low-carbon, climate-resilient recovery.
    Finally, the United States recognizes that in achieving the 
goals of the Paris Agreement, we must work together toward 
economic revitalization and making investments that prioritize 
workers across industries and communities and develop the 
industries of the future. There is a crucial link between clean 
energy deployment and investments in climate resilience on one 
hand and expanding well-paying jobs in the United States on the 
other.
    Exports of low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies 
and related services can be a catalyst for economic and job 
growth here at home. By advancing global efforts to address 
climate change, climate finance will open up opportunities for 
the U.S. private sector to pioneer financial and technological 
and natural pathways for decarbonization.
    In view of all this, President Biden has made several 
announcements at the latest climate summit just last month. The 
U.S. intends to double the climate finance it provides relative 
to the Obama-Biden peak years of 2013 to 2016 by fiscal year 
2024. As part of that pledge, the U.S. intends to triple the 
adaptation finance it provides relative to the same baseline. 
This will mean significant funding for vulnerable countries, 
including least developed countries and small island developing 
states.
    For the Green Climate fund, the President's fiscal year 
2022 budget requests $1.25 billion. And finally in addition to 
how much we are providing in climate finance, the summit also 
addressed how we provide it. As part of the summit, we made 
public the first-ever U.S. Climate Finance Plan and this plan 
will focus on the quantity and the quality of international 
climate finance.
    We look forward to working with the members of the 
subcommittee to achieve this vision and fund these vital 
programs. America's future prosperity, security, and 
international influence will depend in large part on our 
ability to confront this crisis. The subcommittee has a long 
history of working in a bipartisan fashion to confront global 
challenges, and this challenge is one of the most important. 
Smart efficient deployment of U.S. climate finance will help us 
deliver substantial benefits for U.S. taxpayers.
    Thank you for holding this timely, important hearing. We 
look forward to listening to your views and to answering any 
questions you may have.
    Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms.  Lee. Thank you, Mr. Martinez-Diaz.
    Mr. Haarsager, please proceed.

                   Opening Statement of Mr. Haarsager

    Mr.  Haarsager. Thank you very much.
    And good morning Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and 
members of the committee.
    The United States and the world face a profound climate 
crisis. To keep a limit of one and a half degree Celsius of 
warming within reach, the Biden-Harris administration has 
committed to robust and ambitious climate action that creates 
good jobs, fosters opportunity in markets for American goods 
and services, and builds a cleaner and more prosperous future.
    I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. 
International Climate Finance Plan and the Treasury 
Department's role in using climate finance to support 
developing countries' efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas 
emissions and build resilience to the negative impacts of a 
warming planet. In response to the executive order on tackling 
the climate crisis at home and abroad, Treasury and interagency 
partners developed the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan.
    As the world's largest economy, the United States can and 
must play a key role in the global effort to mobilize climate 
finance, especially to protect the world's poorest and most 
vulnerable communities and expedite their transitions to a 
cleaner, more sustainable, and prosperous future. For such 
countries, smart and ambitious climate action is necessary to 
protect livelihoods and enable sustainable economic growth.
    This plan provides the U.S. Government with a strategic 
vision and covers five areas: first, scaling up climate finance 
and enhancing its impact; second, mobilizing private sector 
finance; third, taking steps to end international official 
financing for carbon-intensive fossil-fuel-based energy; 
fourth, making capital flows consistent with low-emissions 
climate-resilient pathways; and, fifth, defining, measuring, 
and reporting on international climate finance.
    Treasury is focusing the full range of its tools and 
expertise to increase the U.S. Government's international 
climate finance ambition. Our leadership role in the 
Multilateral Development Banks, or MDBs, and climate funds 
enables us to operate effectively, to deliver action across the 
five pillars of the plan. We are also working with partners to 
facilitate increased flows of private climate-aligned finance, 
which is a key importance to the plan and vital for large-scale 
transformative climate action. And let me discuss briefly in 
more detail the key avenues through which Treasury is currently 
working.
    In 2019, the MDBs, in which the U.S. is a member, committed 
$36.6 billion in climate finance and mobilized an additional 
$43.7 billion, including $22.5 billion from private sources. 
Treasury staff are engaging with partners to urge that the MDBs 
implement ambitious climate finance targets and policies and to 
support additional private sector financing for quality 
infrastructure development that incorporates economic, social, 
and government standards.
    For example, the MDBs are assisting countries in improving 
their nationally determined contributions towards combating 
climate change, financing energy installations and 
transmission, and providing risk insurance products to the 
private sector to support investments in developing markets. 
Regarding the multilateral climate funds, I am acting as the 
U.S. representative on the boards of the Green Climate Fund, 
the Climate Investment Funds, and the Global Environment 
Facility, which channel resources to the MDBs and other 
entities to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse 
gas emissions, build resilience to climate change, and overcome 
environmental challenges.
    And each of these funds has its own comparative advantage. 
The Green Climate Fund is linked to the Paris Agreement and 
works to foster climate-resilient development and zero-emission 
investment across a variety of sectors, including transport, 
water, energy, and land use.
    The GCF also provides grants or equity loans and technical 
assistance to mobilize public and private finance at scale. The 
Climate Investment Funds, or CIFs, help to scale 
transformational climate finance programs working through the 
MDBs. The Clean Technology Fund, which is one of the CIFs, is 
launching a new program to help high-emitting developing 
countries transition away from coal-based economies and energy 
production, a goal of strategic value to U.S. global climate 
efforts. And the Global Environment Facility supports actions 
in developing and transitional countries to address global 
environmental challenges in five areas: biodiversity, chemicals 
and waste, climate change, land degradation, and international 
waters.
    And Treasury made other contributions to the Climate 
Finance Plan related to our role in OECD export credit 
negotiations, the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation 
Act, our work to encourage the IMF to include climate risk into 
its work, and our bilateral technical assistance program. And, 
also, in response to the significant and growing demand from 
the private sector for climate-aligned investments, Treasury is 
also supporting efforts to improve the information available to 
financial institutions and investors as they make decisions 
about where and how to invest.
    This includes co-chairing the G20 Sustainable Finance 
Working Group, which is developing a climate-focused 
sustainable finance roadmap and working to identify ways to 
further advance sustainability disclosure and reporting.
    Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     
                     Opening Statement of Mr. Haeni

    Mr.  Haeni. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify about the important role the U.S. Agency 
for International Development plays in mobilizing climate 
finance and addressing the climate crisis. The United States is 
leading by example. President Biden recently announced a bold 
commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. However, 
approximately 85 percent of global emissions come from outside 
of our borders, and about two-thirds of global emissions come 
from the developing countries.
    To avert climate catastrophe, we must work closely with 
partner countries to support their efforts to dramatically 
reduce emissions. This will require large-scale investments to 
transform economies and reshape energy, food, and 
transportation systems. But even our most ambitious emissions 
reduction efforts will not change the stark reality that the 
impacts of climate change are already happening. The climate 
crisis is sowing instability and threatening to undo the 
progress we have made, and the taxpayer dollars we have 
invested in global development, prosperity, and security.
    In the developing world, about 2.5 billion people, more 
than one-third of the world's population, depend on climate-
sensitive activities, like agriculture and fisheries for their 
livelihoods. From flooding to droughts and famine, the most 
vulnerable groups are being hit the hardest. What will these 
people do, and where will they go, if climate change dries up 
their livelihoods and opportunities?
    Globally we can only achieve our climate objectives if we 
mobilize funding from all sources. Public and private, global 
and local, and guide those investments to the most effective 
solutions and to the most vulnerable communities. But climate 
change is not just an existential threat; it is a major 
strategic opportunity for the U.S.
    A global green economy offers a massive investment 
opportunity for U.S. businesses, new markets for American 
science and technology, and new jobs in cutting-edge sectors. 
In the countries where USAID works, there are significant 
barriers to investment in achieving the promise of a green 
recovery: weak governance, lack of regulations, low government 
capacity to access international climate finance opportunity, 
and meet investment requirements.
    USAID works on the ground with partner countries, local 
communities, and the local and international private sector to 
overcome these barriers, mobilize investment, and drive 
transformative change.
    Let me give you a few examples of how USAID works to 
mobilize climate finance. USAID supported the government of 
Colombia's first-ever renewable energy auction that attracted 
$2 billion in expected private investment for new large-scale 
renewable energy plants, including $255 million of U.S. 
investment. Since 2017, USAID has mobilized over $13 billion 
for renewable energy projects through auction support.
    In Vietnam, USAID's payment for forest environmental 
services program has helped generate approximately $720 million 
in domestic revenue to support the protection of roughly 6 
million hectares of national forests. That is approximately 42 
percent of Vietnam's total forest cover.
    In climate-vulnerable Pacific island countries, USAID's 
technical assistance helped build institutional capacity to 
secure $10.4 million in climate change related grants from the 
Green Climate Fund, and is supporting another $200 million in 
the pipeline.
    USAID's resilience and disaster risk reduction programs 
provide an enormous return on investment by reducing the cost 
of climate shocks and stresses on communities. USAID's climate 
change investments in the developing world have direct impact 
here at home. We face a huge challenge, but we have never 
backed down from leading the world on solutions to tough 
challenges. We can succeed if we work now to address the risks. 
If we ignore them, we are willingly increasing our own risk and 
missing huge opportunities.
    As we look to build back our economy and recapture our 
position from China as a leader in global manufacturing and 
clean energy, USAID is helping to open the world's most rapidly 
expanding markets for those goods and services. As we work to 
better address core drivers of migration, USAID is working 
across the globe to mitigate key climate induced stresses 
driving people from their communities.
    And as we continue to recover from a record-breaking year 
of extreme weather events here in the U.S. and severe droughts 
in some parts of the country, we note that climate change knows 
no borders. Failure to act globally means dire impacts locally. 
USAID is using all of the tools at our disposal in partnership 
with the interagency to accelerate the scale and impact of our 
climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts to meet the 
urgency of this great challenge.
    Thank you to the subcommittee and Congress for your support 
of USAID's programs, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Haeni.
    Now, our final witness will be Mr. Levine.

                    Opening statement of Mr. Levine

    Mr.  Levine. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 
Rogers, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity 
to testify today and discuss with you the role of the U.S. 
International Development Finance Corporation, the DFC, in 
carrying out the Biden administration's climate finance agenda.
    Climate change is not only an urgent crisis, but it also 
represents a once-in-a-generation chance to build anew and to 
build better. The United States' vision for climate action is 
driven by the extraordinary opportunity it represents for 
global economic revitalization and equity for job creation, 
healthier communities, and racial justice. There is currently a 
significant financing gap for climate solutions in the 
developing world. DFC has the power to help close this gap by 
deploying its financial tools to catalyze private sector 
investment in a clean energy transition that will create more 
just outcomes and position American companies and values at the 
forefront of the greatest economic opportunity of our time.
    DFC steps in to help fill the need for financing that would 
otherwise go unmet by private investors alone. DFC's tools 
include direct loans and project finance, insurance, equity 
investments, investments in emerging market private equity 
funds, and technical assistance funding. DFC has built a 
portfolio that lays a foundation for our ambitious climate 
finance goals with more than $5 billion of investments already 
deployed in renewable energy and a growing portfolio of food 
security and agriculture projects.
    One illustrative example is the 100 megawatt Kipeto wind 
power project in Kenya's Rift Valley, which is scheduled to be 
fully operational this July. It is the second largest wind 
power project in Kenya with the capacity to supply power to 
approximately 250,000 households.
    We are positioned to do much more, and we have made several 
new commitments. DFC will expand its support for climate-linked 
projects so they account for at least 33 percent of new 
investments beginning in fiscal year 2023, and DFC's portfolio 
will be net-zero for climate emissions by the year 2040. We 
will update our roadmap for impact to prioritize climate-
focused investments, including projects in the power sector, e-
mobility in electric vehicles, mass transit, trade, industrial 
processes, and other sectors.
    In line with administration policy, we will also triple our 
investments in critical adaptation and resilience projects that 
help communities cope with the burden of drought, flooding, 
food scarcity, and other ongoing climate impacts. As DFC's 
first-ever chief climate officer, I look forward to the 
opportunity to lead DFC's efforts to deliver on our climate 
commitments and integrate a climate-focus throughout all of 
DFC's lines of operations.
    I will work with our climate experts to ensure that DFC is 
reporting on our progress transparently and through credible 
methodologies. I will also coordinate with interagency 
colleagues to ensure that DFC's investment tools support a 
whole-of-government effort to meet the magnitude of the climate 
crisis. DFC specializes in supporting commercially viable 
projects in low and lower middle income countries that meet our 
investment criteria. The efforts of our sister agencies are key 
to helping DFC succeed: to identify potential projects, to 
foster an environment that supports clean energy investment, 
and to advance research into state of the art and breakthrough 
innovation that holds the promise of cheap and scalable zero-
emissions technology.
    Though the opportunities and potential for climate finance 
are great, we recognize that there remain instances in 
developing economies where zero-emissions power technology 
cannot alone meet the energy needs of the very poor and the 
very disconnected. For that reason, we recognize the need to 
support the most highly strategic and developmentally impactful 
projects within the confines of our net-zero commitment and 
only where clean energy alternatives are not feasible. We 
believe in the power of climate finance to lift people out of 
poverty, to provide pathways into good jobs, and to create 
healthy communities. Our focus on climate at its core is about 
providing those that aspire to join the growing global middle 
class with the dignity that they deserve. The dignity that 
comes with clean air, reliable sources of food and water, and 
access to electricity.
    I look forward to sharing more with the committee about 
DFC's efforts to advance this agenda, and I look forward to 
addressing your questions.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
      
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Levine.
    I will start out by asking a couple questions. I think the 
first question will be directed to Mr. Haeni. Both here in the 
United States and in countries overseas, it is the most 
vulnerable and marginalized communities that experience the 
worst effects of environmental degradation and have the least 
capacity to cope with environmental shocks, such as floods or 
droughts.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, women need to be at 
the center of these climate strategies to make them effective. 
How is the Office of Global Women's Issues at the State 
Department going to be involved? I have a bill that would 
create a point person, such as a senior coordinator for women 
and global climate change, and mandate a strategy to ensure 
that these voices don't slip through the cracks. And so I would 
like to find out if something like this is being considered.
    I will ask my second question also, and then you can 
respond.
    This is to Mr. Haarsager. One of the most anticipated 
portions, of course, of the President's budget is the $1.2 
billion for the Green Climate Fund. So I would just like for 
you to briefly catch us up on what has happened with this fund 
over the past 4 years.
    And to Mr. Levine, of course, the existential threat of 
climate change to small islands is well-known. While the 
Pacific Island countries are often the focus, countries in the 
Caribbean also are facing very severe impacts, but these 
nations are often overlooked. So how will these finance 
initiatives include small island states and especially in the 
Caribbean?
    So, Mr. Haeni, would you like to start and respond?
    Mr. Haeni. Yes. Thank you so much for that question. 
Administrator Power highlighted those very points at the recent 
G7 meeting, she said: What is true around the world is true at 
home. The burden of climate change is falling 
disproportionately on the backs of the least privileged, low-
income communities, Black, Brown, indigenous communities, 
women, and children. And USAID is strongly committed working 
across all bureau to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable 
communities, and we look forward to working with Congress to 
meet the goals of tripling adaptation financing by 2025.
    I think what is important to note is that women aren't just 
victims. They are an essential part of the solution to the 
climate crisis, and that is why USAID has launched a number of 
targeted programs empowering women to be leaders and driving 
climate action. These include programs like our Engendering 
Utilities Program, which is supporting women in 21 countries to 
break in to a traditionally male dominated energy sector. And, 
by the way, not only does it support the women; it has helped 
to improve performance of these utilities. Our partnership with 
NASA and the SERVIR program works to empower women in 
geospatial and Earth sciences and to get actionable climate 
data to women and girls. And as you noted, we need gender plans 
in climate action plans. And through our work in the DR, Peru, 
and Zambia, we have helped to do exactly that: to develop 
climate change gender action plans as part of the national 
adaptation plans.
    So we completely agree that we need a very focused effort. 
As we develop our climate change strategy, we will be looking 
across the agency to determine how we continue to expand these 
efforts.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Haarsager.
    Mr. Haarsager. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. So, for the Green 
Climate Fund, it has, over the past 4 years, really been 
focused on improving its capacity to deliver quality projects, 
and I think this effort has been focused in two ways: First of 
all, they have been--and we, as part of the governance of the 
institution, have been focused on ensuring that it has a 
complete policy framework, that it has a set of policies on 
things like accountability and transparency that are world-
class and are the things that the U.S. demands from 
multilateral institutions it participates in. And the second is 
improving its mechanisms to efficiently deliver projects. In 
terms of how it has done on that, I think since it started 
doing projects in 2015, they have really been able to ramp up 
delivery. To date, the GCF has approved a total of 173 projects 
worth over $30 billion with a bit over $8 billion of its own 
resources attracting about $22 billion from other sources. And 
these projects have been spread throughout the globe.
    Connecting to your question to my colleague from USAID, the 
GCF in its projects is really focused on delivering assistance 
and financing to the most vulnerable. So it has done 104 
projects for small island developing States and least 
developing countries, the countries who are certainly most at 
risk from climate change. Then just to note in terms of the 
finances of the GCF, when we contributed $1 billion in the 
Obama administration, that went to the, sort of, first 
financial period of the GCF. Since then, donors have negotiated 
a first replenishment of that. The United States did not 
participate at that time, but other donors decided to 
contribute $10 billion in that first replenishment. So, I 
think, in addition to success on the ground, other donors are 
certainly seeing it as a worthwhile vehicle to contribute to.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Mr. Levine, we will come back to you. 
Hopefully, we will have a second round.
    I would like to yield now to our Ranking Member, Mr. 
Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, 
the Paris Agreement has no means of enforcement. So, while 
President Biden is imposing burdensome regulations on U.S. 
businesses that hurt workers, China can carry on growing their 
economy, expanding their global influence, all while being the 
world's worst polluter.
    I read the other day that the U.S. and China have agreed to 
cooperate on climate change with ``seriousness and urgency''. 
As occurred during the Obama administration, I am very 
concerned that Beijing believes it can use cooperation on 
climate change to gain U.S. concessions in other areas. How can 
you assure this committee that any such cooperation on climate 
or even discussion of cooperation will not lead to the United 
States becoming more accommodating of China and their 
destructive policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Tibet?
    And given our strategic competition with China, can you 
really believe that you can trust the Chinese Communist Party 
on these matters?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Thank you very much, Congressman. As 
Secretary Kerry recently testified in Congress and the 
President has made clear, the administration realizes that we 
can't solve the climate challenge without China. At the same 
time, we have obviously strong conflicts with China on a whole 
variety of issues, including those that you just mentioned. 
However, the administration's policy is to figure out where we 
can work with them in a targeted and constructive manner while 
at the same time keeping the pressure and managing our 
conflicts on those other areas.
    Secretary Kerry has been clear: There is no linkage; that 
is to say, we will not be using trade concessions or 
concessions in any other issue areas in order to advance our 
interests on the climate question. We are dealing with the 
Chinese very much on the climate question alone in a separate 
track, and that is what Secretary Kerry has been engaged in.
    This, of course, is going to be very important in order to 
continue to have this complex relationship with China, but what 
is clear is we cannot solve the climate challenge if we stop 
talking to the Chinese. Now, we certainly do not take 
everything they say at their word. There is significant caution 
and trust-but-verify approach with everything that we are 
dealing with China on.
    At the same time, we are working with other countries that 
do have significant influence with China as well. We are 
talking to many of our European partners--to Japan, to India, 
to Australia--in order to ensure that there is pressure from a 
broad, multilateral setting on China. And we are also talking 
to developing countries, many of whom China cares deeply about. 
They want to be influential. They want to have global supply 
chains and global commerce, but many of the countries to whom 
they sell and with whom they want to have diplomatic relations 
realize that China is the major emitter now, the major 
polluter, and there is increasing pressure on China to start 
behaving responsibly as the largest economy, second largest 
economy and the largest emitter.
    And so we are working with a whole variety of countries to 
ensure that that pressure begins to really bite and to ensure 
that China begins to move in the right direction. There are 
some early indications that they are willing to do that. They 
have now said they will be carbon-neutral by 2060. That is in 
the announcement. We don't think it is enough, and we will 
continue to put pressure to improve their commitments. We are 
very focused, but we are dealing with this separate track.
    Mr. Rogers. Madam Chair, I will wait for a second round.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Now I will yield to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. 
Frankel. Good morning.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to all our guest panelists today. Good to be 
with you. And for those of us who do believe that climate 
change is an existential threat, especially to our future 
generations, as an appreciation for these efforts, of course, 
my concern is not that you are asking for too much money, but 
is it going to be enough to get the job done? And so I am happy 
to hear that we leverage our dollars as much as possible.
    My question, and whoever wants to take this, is it seems 
like such an overwhelming challenge, what do you think is the 
best bang for our buck? What kind of efforts? That would be my 
first question.
    Does anyone want to--Mr. Haeni, do you want to take that?
    Mr.  Haeni. Sure. Well, as you noted, I think, as we look 
at public sector funds, our best bang for our buck is 
mobilizing private resources. And we have a good template that 
we have seen from the clean energy sector a decade ago. All 
clean energy, new energy projects were supported, essentially, 
at a pilot scale. Now we have seen commercial scale deployment 
across the world as with renewable energy as the least cost 
option. The resources that have been mobilized far, far exceed 
anything we can provide on the public sector side. I think we 
need to look across the spectrum at our natural climate 
solutions investments and adaptation investments, and look how 
we can similarly attract private investment into these spaces.
    Ms. Frankel. Is there an overall strategic plan that you 
are following, or is it just what looks good? How are you 
making the decisions as to who to fund, and really what kind of 
projects do you think are the best bang for the buck?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. If I could add a couple thoughts on this 
one. So, Congresswoman, I think it depends on whether it is 
adaptation or mitigation. On adaptation we find that some of 
the best investments are those that help communities understand 
the climate risk they are facing and to manage it. Oftentimes 
it is not simply about building the proverbial seawall or 
improving other agricultural practices. It is rather how do we 
make sure that those communities understand the risk, are able 
to manage it through improved information, improved data, and 
are able to then make decisions, including with their own 
money, about how to become more resilient.
    On the mitigation space, I think a lot depends on whether, 
you know, which country we are talking about, what is the local 
condition, but a lot in some places, it is all about deploying 
the existing technologies, right? In some places, we already 
have the solutions: It is wind. It is solar. It is better 
grids. And it is just about how do we make sure that those are 
deployed.
    In other places, where that may not be possible or it is 
already in place, it is how do we help unlock new technologies 
that can help reduce emissions.
    Ms.  Frankel. Anyone want to add to that?
    Mr.  Levine. I would be happy to add to that, Congresswoman 
Frankel. Thank you for the question.
    The DFC, as you know, really specializes in partnering with 
the private sector and with crowding in additional sources of 
finance that are much greater in magnitude and in scope than 
what we can provide as a matter of public financing alone. And 
so, you know, we are hard at work.
    You asked about what the coordinating strategy is. There is 
an interagency process now under way to develop an 
international climate finance strategy and implementing plan, 
which is being led by the White House and is something to which 
we are all actively contributing. And it is a plan that is 
really punctuated by some of the key learnings that we have had 
in our early experience at DFC in terms of using innovative 
tools, debt financing, concessional financing, first loss 
capital to think about how we can really make what would 
otherwise seem to be riskier transactions attractive to the 
private sector so that we are derisking using tools like 
insurance, strategic debt deployment, and working in 
partnership with private sector investors, institutional 
investors, pension funds to create, sort of, blended finance 
platforms that really work to mobilize massive amounts of 
capital to direct at these real challenges.
    Ms.  Frankel. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms.  Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now, I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr.  Fortenberry. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    I am going to ask my question, give a little bit of 
comment, and then come back to the question because it is 
broad, but I think it is important. The central question here 
is, how does what we currently fund work together in 
collaboration for environmental security outcomes, well-being, 
and stability around the world? How do we collaborate with 
specific metrics so that we can understand those outcomes? That 
is the central question.
    So if I pull back and look at this, we have the State 
Department that does diplomacy. USAID does development. 
Treasury has responsibility for a variety of multilateral funds 
addressing the issues of environmental security, including the 
Global Environment Facility, which is not a well understood 
entity, but very impactful around the world, which we funded 
significantly for many years and appropriately so. It has got a 
bad name; I wish we could rebrand it so it could be better 
understood, but, nonetheless, that is a place where we have 
planted a flag, and I think that is important. And now you have 
the new emerging entity of the Development Finance Corporation 
to try to fill some gaps to make some initial capitalization 
available so that the private sector can actually function 
through mitigated risk of use of public dollars.
    How does what we are doing work together collaboratively on 
the metrics of environmental security outcomes? What I am 
hearing is a lot of parallel tracks that may be oriented toward 
the same goals but have quite a bit of overlap. You just 
mentioned the interagency process. That might be a place to 
start, but that is my question.
    How do we collaborate, and what are the metrics?
    Mr. Haarsager. If I may, Congressman, jump in from the 
Treasury perspective. First of all, I do think we have, as my 
colleague from DFC mentioned, a very robust interagency process 
to collaborate between us, to figure out how to make our 
institutions work in complementary ways towards the same goals. 
And there is the Climate Finance Plan, which we are here to 
discuss, was an effort to put all that down on paper, and now 
we are moving towards implementing that, bringing together all 
the tools that we have.
    The multilateral tools that the Treasury has oversight 
over, I think, are an important component of this. The tools 
that we have, the Multilateral Development Banks, the Green 
Climate Fund, the Global Environmental Facility, which you 
mentioned, as well as the Climate Investment Funds, each have 
their own value adds and things they do a little bit 
differently. And so we think across the multilateral space, we 
have different tools that can do different things, and our goal 
is very much focused on ensuring that what they are doing is 
complementary and not duplicative and towards results that we 
can measure and demonstrate that we are getting value for U.S. 
taxpayer money.
    Also, then, just to say, we view the multilateral efforts 
that we oversee at Treasury as very complementary to our 
bilateral work as well that USAID oversees, as well as the 
financing that is done at DFC. These are all tools in the same 
tool kit to achieve the same end, sir.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. And if I could also jump in on the 
metrics, Congressman, very important question. What is 
happening in many institutions, including the multilateral 
banks, the Green Climate Fund, and USAID, is that we have 
gotten a lot better at computing so-called co-benefits. That is 
to say, there is a project that has a strong climate resilience 
focus, for example. There is enough of them to measure, well, 
to what extent is that project also contributing to food 
security.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Can I interrupt you for a second because 
my time is about to run out?
    This is the core of the question because this is a holistic 
question. And if I could divert quickly to Mr. Levine, the DFC 
representative because he mentioned agriculture. The 
regenerative capacity and the possibilities of stabilization 
for community, as well as new technologies emerging not only to 
feed people but to be an active player in environmental 
conservation as it lends itself as well to carbon capture and 
the other things that we are looking to do, is absolutely 
critical here. He mentioned a portfolio, a growing portfolio, 
of agriculture projects.
    I may have to come back to this, and I am sorry to 
interrupt you, but if you could list those--what you are 
intending to do and where you are looking at that would be 
helpful.
    Mr. Levine. Absolutely. And in light of the time, happy to 
follow up with you and your team on this, but just as a brief 
matter, one of the areas where we have had a real bang for our 
buck, to use Congresswoman Frankel's term, on agriculture 
projects is investing in small and medium enterprises, 
particularly in Latin America, Central America. This is a key 
strategic----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this is also critical to the issue 
of attacking structural poverty. My time is up. So let's come 
back to that question. But sorry to interrupt you all, a lot to 
talk about here.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now, I would like to yield to Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thanks to our panelists.
    Chairwoman Lee, thank you for this report that you have 
requested from the Congressional Research Office. I have had an 
opportunity to review it. I am really concerned about 
relationship-building with these countries, specifically where 
we are seeing a large number of refugees coming from. The Trump 
administration ceased providing financial assistance to 
developing countries for activities defined as related to 
climate change. The fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint released 
on March 16, 2017, indicated that the administration would 
pursue a policy that eliminates the Global Climate Change 
Initiative and fulfills the President's pledge to cease 
payments to the United Nation's climate change programs by 
eliminating all funding. So we have had 4 years of destroying 
this policy. Now we have to build it up.
    We have talked about the different profiles. We have talked 
about quasi-private sector assistance involvement in dealing 
with these issues. What we haven't talked about is the new 
Biden administration's commitment to dealing with this issue as 
it relates to refugees, not just cleaning up the air, but as it 
relates to refugees. Can you point to me how USAID will be 
dealing with the $310 million that was recently announced for 
humanitarian relief to address food insecurity and other 
programs? How do the people that are most impacted by these 
natural disasters feed themselves in that relief program?
    So, when we are working to rebuild bridges, infrastructure, 
housing that has been destroyed by volcano eruptions and 
hurricanes and all of that. The locals, unpaid workers, often 
find themselves working side by side with paid crews, 
construction crews. So we should not be surprised that then 
they have no option other than to flee and to come to our 
southern border. So how are you going to make sure that, number 
one, when we are looking to allocate aid that we look to create 
job opportunities for the people most impacted by them? And 
what are some of those challenges?
    And don't tell me that it is lack of training because we 
can create job training programs to ensure that they are 
meeting, you know, the needs of those jobs.
    Come on. Don't all jump in at the same time. Let's start 
with USAID.
    Mr. Haeni. Thank you very much for that question.
    Maybe we can walk through a couple of concrete examples of 
what we are doing and how it is realizing impact on the ground. 
In Guatemala and Honduras, USAID works with smallholder farmers 
directly in areas of high migration to----
    Mrs.  Torres. Okay. But part of the problem is that we are 
incentivizing the types of crops that are not culturally 
appropriate to the dietary needs of the people. So the people 
themselves can't even afford to eat the food that they are 
growing. Palm oil seems to be a big problem. We are not 
addressing the issues of damming up rivers and lakes, that the 
water that is needed to get into these little towns in order 
for these small farmers to grow the food that they need to eat.
    Mr. Haeni. Well, thank you.
    And, you know, USAID has focused specifically on those 
issues. We are working to reduce post-harvest loss. So it is 
trying to absolutely increase incomes with locally appropriate 
crops. We are looking at crops that are more drought tolerant. 
So I believe our programs are very effectively targeting these 
very issues which you are addressing. We are working with 
coffee farmers----
    Mrs. Torres. I know they are some really great programs, 
and, you know, I am your biggest cheerleader here in Congress, 
but I also have to call a spade a spade. And some of these NGOs 
that we work with, you know, they have a mindset of the types 
of crops that they want to promote in certain regions. And, 
oftentimes, you know, that is just not culturally appropriate 
to the nutrition needs of the people there.
    So we have to think in those terms, and my time has ran 
out, but I hope that we can come back at some point.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Chairwoman Lee. I really 
appreciate it.
    I have a few questions, but I would be remiss if I didn't 
talk about what Ranking Member Rogers elicited from testimony. 
So let me just revisit that.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz, from my understanding when you were 
talking to the ranking member, you said that foreign assistance 
programs like the Green Climate Fund by itself will not reduce 
greenhouse emissions and will do nothing to reduce climate 
change unless bigger polluters like China will also reduce 
their emissions. Is that correct?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. What I meant to say, Congressman, is 
that we need China as part of the solution because they are 
almost 30 percent of global emissions, but we also need all the 
other countries that are smaller shares but collectively 
represent the bulk of the emissions. So we need everybody to do 
their part.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Right. But if China doesn't do anything, 
then what we do is pretty much for naught. Even if we continue 
to reduce our CO2 emissions, which we were doing before the 
pandemic, if China continues to pollute at a three times rate 
where we are polluting, all of these efforts are for naught.
    I am not advocating that we do nothing. I just want to make 
sure that we have got our facts straight, that without China's 
cooperation, we are going nowhere in this climate change 
battle. Correct?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. What I would say is that China's 
willingness and ability to move also depends on what others do. 
So, as more and more--so China wants to be a world power? 
Right. They want to be influential around the world. They want 
to have friends in many places, including their own region. 
However, many of those countries are the ones getting it 
directly from the impact of climate change, and they are 
increasingly starting to realize that China is not doing enough 
and that China is part of the problem, not the solution. And 
so, as we work with other countries to get them to be 
responsible to reduce their emissions, the pressure is building 
on China to do more. So these things are connected. It is not 
just a one-stop-shop out there.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. So I will take it that, yes, 
we can't do anything globally unless China comes on board.
    And then, to your own admission, you said that there are 
actually no enforcement mechanisms of the Paris climate accord 
regarding China. Right? There are zero enforcement mechanisms 
in that deal?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Well, we negotiated an agreement that, 
partly because of our insistence as the United States, relies 
heavily on voluntary commitments by all countries including the 
U.S. Right?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Right.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. And that we do have to report. That is 
an obligation under the agreement. We all have to say what we 
are doing and how we are doing it, but a lot of the enforcement 
really depends on our ability to work together with others and 
to put pressure on others, for example, and through other means 
so that we can all achieve those targets.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Right. So we have no enforcement 
mechanisms. We just have basically well wishes and empty 
promises by the Chinese Communist Party.
    So, for example, the Chinese Communist Party is not even 
saying that they will reduce their emissions until, what, 2060?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. No. They said that they will reach 
neutrality, that is to say, net-zero emissions, by 2060. They 
can't get there unless they start doing stuff today because it 
is a long curve that you need to bend, and so they would need 
to start now. And that is why every time they make those kinds 
of commitments, we immediately jump and say: Okay, well, show 
us how you are going to do it? What are the midterm targets 
that you are trying to put in place? Show us the plan. 
Otherwise, we can't take this seriously.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. So then am I missing something? Have 
they started to reduce their emissions? Because you sound very 
optimistic. I mean, how much have they reduced in the last 5 
years?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. All I am saying is that in order to get 
to their own commitment of 2060 net zero, they need to start 
now. So we are asking them, please, show us what is your plan, 
and we keep asking questions about how do they do it. At the 
same time, we are pushing them hard not to just stop at 2060 
net zero, we would like them to do it a lot earlier. In the 
U.S., we have announced a target of net-zero by 2050. So we 
would like China to be at least at that level.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. But you are aware they are greatly 
increasing their CO2 emissions. Right? I mean, you realize that 
what you are saying is a fantasy, that not only are they not 
reducing their CO2 emissions, that while they are giving you 
these pie-in-the-sky dreams, they are actually increasing their 
CO2 emissions? You know that, right?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Well, the key is they continue to grow 
in terms of emissions, but they are beginning to put in place a 
set of policies that will help bend the curve over time. For 
example, they have announced a major cap-and-trade system that 
is going to be placed in China. Right?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Right.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. So it is a big oil tanker. You can't 
turn that around overnight, but we----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. So just to get this straight, Beijing is 
promising to reduce their emissions. At the same time, they are 
increasing their emissions, but they are telling the Biden 
administration that they are going to make their best efforts 
to reduce and go to zero by 2060, and the Biden administration 
is buying that nonsense. It seems to me that Beijing is playing 
Biden like an absolute fiddle here, and the fact that you are 
telling me with a straight face that you believe this, I don't 
know if it is laughable, I don't know if it goes to your 
competence; but any rational person listening to this is not 
believing what you are saying.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. Look, Congressman, we don't take what 
China tells us at face value on any issue. We always have a 
very clear process for verifying. We push them in every 
negotiation, at every table to show us the plan, to have 
accountability. We are putting in place systems that are 
increasingly better at telling us who is emitting what, so it 
is not just about taking people at their word.
    So, no, we are not trusting anybody in this game. We want 
an accountable system with transparency. But what I am saying 
is that China is beginning to change its perspectives, and we 
have to accept they are willing to do that but then ask for the 
transparency and the accountability while we put pressure on 
them through other means, through other alliances, and through 
other parties.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes, thanks, Chairwoman. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
    Now I will yield to Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to our witnesses for 
being here.
    My first question I want to echo Chairwoman Lee's concerns 
that, while climate change impacts every country, just like any 
other national security or humanitarian threat, it 
disproportionately impacts those who are already most 
vulnerable. This is particularly true of women and girls in 
communities reeling from natural disasters, climate change, 
just like other emergency humanitarian situations exacerbates 
and aggravates gender-based violence.
    In the aftermath of a natural disaster, there are gaps in 
services and humanitarian protection frameworks which can make 
it difficult to adequately prevent gender-based violence and 
mitigate its impact. For example, in the aftermath of the Gizo 
tsunami in the Solomon Islands in 2007, increased rates of 
gender-based violence, including rape, were reported.
    Three members of this subcommittee, myself, Ms. Frankel, 
and Mr. Diaz-Balart, have introduced the Safe from the Start 
Act which would codify programs that ensure quality services 
for survivors from the very onset of these emergencies.
    I wanted to ask how our State and USAID climate change 
policies consider the unique needs, protection needs for women 
and girls in the aftermath of natural disasters and to what 
extent are your offices working with other bureaus or agencies 
to address the aftermath of natural disasters, including 
gender-based violence?
    Mr.  Haeni. Well, thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman.
    And certainly we have seen disasters amplify existing 
inequalities and vulnerabilities for marginalized groups that, 
due to extreme poverty, live in climate vulnerable regions and 
dependence on natural resources for livelihoods. USAID, as we 
embark on our new climate strategy, which we are committed to 
complete in 6 months' time, has convened leadership across the 
agency, making sure that we bring in the perspectives of the 
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and that we are not only 
looking at our development programming but our humanitarian 
assistance programming as we look to address the climate 
crisis.
    And certainly with that type of leadership, we believe that 
our strategy will put us in a much stronger place to address 
these types of challenges moving forward.
    Ms.  Meng. Thank you. I would love to continue working with 
all of you on that.
    My second question--I know I am pressed for time--it is 
about climate-related water scarcity. Just wanting to know what 
steps are your offices taking to address climate-related water 
scarcity in international development efforts and, 
specifically, how are the Bureau for Development, Democracy, 
and Innovation and DFC working with the private sector to 
support innovative technology that can more easily produce 
potable water out of contaminated water sources?
    Mr.  Levine. Allow me to jump in, Congresswoman Meng. Thank 
you for this question.
    And first let me just say that while in the case of sort of 
post-disaster relief, DFC typically comes in later. We do 
recognize that those are the moments where gender-based 
violence is of greatest concern, and we are also working with 
the tools that we have available to us to learn how we can be a 
meaningful contributor to relief in those scenarios. So, for 
example, we are in the early stages of establishing a technical 
assistance facility to help our clients and partners address 
broader gender-based issues, including gender-based violence.
    As it comes to the issue of water scarcity, we are working 
actively with the private sector, in particular with small and 
medium enterprises, that provide services around adaptation and 
resilience measures broadly but also with the specific focus on 
water scarcity and drought resilience. This is an area where we 
have committed to generally tripling our investments, and we 
really look forward to working with you and your team to refine 
our approach.
    Ms.  Meng. Great. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms.  Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you so much for your patience.
    Mr.  Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My question goes to Mr. Martinez-Diaz or Haarsager. In 
March, myself and 40 other of my colleagues wrote to the 
administration urging for a $4 billion fiscal year 2022 
commitment to the Green Climate Fund, the world's premier 
mitigation and adaptation climate financing institution. This 
will pay off our $2 billion debt from 2014 and begin a new 
round of payments which our global allies began in 2019.
    President Biden's fiscal year 2022 summary budget request 
includes a $1.2 billion ask for the Green Climate Fund. While a 
significant step forward, I believe it fails to meet the 
challenge of this day.
    In 2019, our global partners doubled their initial pledges, 
meaning if we fall in line with them, we will need to pledge an 
additional $6 billion by 2023. The $1.2 billion layout by the 
administration doesn't even cover our existing debt, let alone 
set us on a path to be in line with our global partners.
    So the question is, does the administration plan to make a 
new pledge to the Green Climate Fund of $6 billion? And what is 
the administration's plan to make up the rest of our 
outstanding debt?
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz or Mr. Haarsager.
    Mr.  Martinez-Diaz. Let me kick it off. Congressman, thank 
you for the question.
    So the GCF, as you mentioned, is a really important part of 
the climate finance architecture. It is not the only part, but 
it certainly is a very important one. And so what we wanted to 
do was to provide a very important down payment on the $2 
billion that is outstanding from the Obama administration, at 
the same time to make sure that we had enough left over for 
significant increases in other parts of the system. So, 
overall, the administration is asking for $2.5 billion for 
different parts of the climate finance landscape here. And 
then, of course, there is President Biden's commitment to 
double overall by 2024 and to triple the adaptation component.
    If we are able to get from Congress what the administration 
has requested on climate finance, we will be very well on the 
way to doubling by 2024. And so we look forward to working with 
you closely to make sure we can get that.
    On GCF----
    Mr.  Espaillat. We are not on path with our global 
partners. They seem to be doing better than us, and so----
    Mr.  Martinez-Diaz. Certainly so much. I think Germany and 
the U.K. have been very good. Given the size of their economy, 
they have been more ambitious, there is no question. And we 
need to get there, and we would like to get there. Recall that 
during the Trump years, the climate finance collapsed by 50 
percent. So we are digging out from a significant hole, and we 
want to make sure we can ramp up quickly. We are just concerned 
about our ability to do that from one year to the next because 
if we are able to do that, then our credibility could be in 
question. So we want to make sure that we have a strong, 
ambitious but achievable, level of finance, and so we are 
hoping that the $1.25 billion would put us on that step, and we 
will be able to pay off our full debt by 2023 if we are able to 
secure these funds, and then we will be in a very great place 
to make a significant pledge in the future, as you alluded to.
    Mr.  Espaillat. My last question, because I know I am 
running out of time, Madam Chair. When do you think the U.S. 
will reach a point of where 50 percent of the climate finance 
it provides will be for adaptation? When do you think we will 
be there, any of you?
    Mr.  Martinez-Diaz. If I can start that, I think the 
crucial question is, how do we improve the balance right now 
between mitigation and adaptation. I think overall we are not 
spending enough on everything as you pointed out. We probably 
aren't spending nearly enough on adaptation in particular. The 
needs are urgent. The communities are suffering now. That is 
why the President committed to tripling adaptation finance by 
2024, even as we double, right. So you can already see that we 
are doubling overall, but we are tripling adaptation, meaning 
we are starting to shift the balance already.
    I can't give you a precise date by which we would hit that 
50 percent mark or whether even it makes sense to have such a 
mathematical approach to it. What is clear to the 
administration is that we need to do much more on adaptation, 
and we are beginning to do that through that tripling pledge.
    Mr.  Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms.  Lee. Thank you very much.
    Members and witnesses, we are going to go to our second 
round, but we are going to ask everyone to keep your time to 3 
minutes. There are many subcommittee hearings taking place now, 
so we will do another round with 3 minutes a piece.
    I would like to continue with Mr. Levine with regard to the 
Caribbean and finance initiatives. You know, while these 
islands face real challenges, they also have tremendous 
opportunities. And how can we help these island economies use 
their biodiversity and renewable energy resources to their 
advantage? And how is our system supporting these island 
countries in their efforts to overcome these challenges? And 
what kind of a focus do we have in the Caribbean in terms of 
our overall engagement on climate?
    Mr.  Levine. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    Just a few thoughts there. As a starting matter, 30 percent 
of DFC's portfolio is presently at work in Latin America and 
the Caribbean. We are intent on increasing the portion that is 
going to the Caribbean specifically, and that is in large part 
because, as you know, the Caribbean is particularly vulnerable 
to the impacts of climate change, both in terms of sea level 
rise, hurricane, and storm intensity. So we feel it is ripe for 
further investment, especially on this question of climate 
adaptation and resilience projects.
    One of the ways that we are working to source more 
opportunities is by engaging with stakeholders on the ground. 
Just in the last couple of months, we held a stakeholder 
townhall in Port-au-Prince, and we have also recently invested 
in a number of loan portfolio guarantee funds that focus on 
deploying funds to small and medium enterprises, really shoring 
up financial markets for clean energy and adaptation and 
resilience because we know that that is a key piece of growing 
the overall work that we are doing.
    Ms.  Lee. Would anyone else like to comment on that? 
Because I know all of you have some part of this as it relates 
to the island nations of the Caribbean.
    Mr.  Haeni. Yes. I would like to comment on behalf of USAID 
that we have got a robust portfolio on the climate space. On 
the clean energy side, we are about to launch a $25 million 
Caribbean Energy Initiative. That is going to support countries 
like Barbados that have set ambitious 2030 targets to 
transition from heavy fuel, oil, and diesel to renewable 
energy. And it is going to focus very intently on improving the 
resilience of energy systems in the face of ever-increasing 
storms.
    And then we are also working in Jamaica and other islands 
to support climate adaptation and mobilize climate finance.
    Ms.  Lee. Thank you very much.
    I would like to follow up with all of you specifically 
about the Caribbean islands and your jurisdiction and the 
specifics in terms of what we are doing in terms of financing 
the climate projects.
    I will yield now to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.
    Mr.  Rogers. Mr. Levine, the Development Finance 
Corporation was created in large part to push back against 
China's predatory lending policies under the Belt and Road 
Initiative. It was envisioned as a key tool in the great power 
competition with the possibility of unlocking tremendous 
economic development abroad by giving developing countries an 
alternative to the debt trap diplomacy of the Chinese Communist 
Party.
    It seems this administration has chosen to use the unique 
authorities provided to you by Congress prominently in their 
climate agenda.
    My opening remarks probably tipped you off on how I view 
these issues, but as a supporter of the DFC, I am particularly 
concerned about the possibility of your agency getting off 
task. How can the DFC continue with its objectives of 
countering Chinese influence with the most appropriate type of 
investments when so much of your program has been 
predetermined, the focus on climate change, through arbitrary 
targets?
    Mr. Levine. Thank you, Ranking Member, for that question.
    And I would say that I think that we are in large agreement 
on this issue. As you know, the U.S. and China take different 
approaches in terms of development, and China has spent 
hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure projects 
around the world, using coercive techniques to drive spending 
and debt traps, particularly in strategic regions that we would 
like to be in as well. But we take a different approach. We 
partner with the private sector. We do not employ exploitative 
labor practices, and we catalyze additional investment using 
the free market to crowd in private finance.
    And I would offer that clean energy provides a unique 
opportunity to accomplish this mission. This is where the 
private sector is moving. There have been record investments in 
clean energy from renewable energy sources to zero emission 
vehicles to clean industrial processes, such as the production 
of hydrogen and low-carbon materials like cement. And if we are 
going to compete and win in the 2lst century economy, we need 
to continue investing in those resources.
    But I would just emphasize that the U.S. and China really 
have a different approach on this. Our hope is that our partner 
countries around the world, other democracies, allies will find 
a noncoercive free market approach to be the more palatable and 
attractive option than the one that China offers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    Now I will yield to Representative Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Jeff, if we can go back to the point I was trying to get 
you to make, and that is related to creating job opportunities 
for the people that are most impacted, you know, by these 
natural disasters. I mean, I have seen really good programs in 
South America, in Trujillo specifically, USAID program, a 
little town of mostly women who you tasked to build their own 
homes, gave them the materials, all of the lumber and supplies 
that they needed, and they were able to do that working side by 
side with other people.
    So how can we duplicate programs like that, where the 
locals are seeing a future for themselves integrated in these 
jobs that are being created?
    Mr. Haeni. Well, it is an absolutely essential component of 
success in our climate agenda, and I can provide another 
example. In Colombia, where USAID supported the government to 
establish their own domestic carbon markets, what we have seen 
since that was established is $20 million of revenue flowing to 
indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities so that they are, in 
fact, as you note, realizing the upside of protecting forests 
rather than destroying it. So I think these are exactly the 
type of models that we need to explore globally to make sure 
that the benefits are occurring to those most vulnerable.
    Mrs. Torres. Yes. And, in Chile, the former President 
committed to me $20 million for infrastructure improvements to 
roads that lead to indigenous populations. I don't know if that 
project was ever completed. You know, we have not been able to 
travel to the region. So I have seen some really good projects 
and partnerships with other countries, but I don't see that 
coming out of the Northern Triangle, and I hope that, you know, 
we have very limited time, but that we can follow up to ensure 
that the language that I am working on for our appropriations 
bill that requires local hires, that requires job training 
programs, as we help to rebuild in these areas, that that 
continues to be at the very top of our agenda.
    Mr. Haeni. Well, thank you so much for your leadership on 
these issues, and USAID looks forward to working with you.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I will yield now to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Madam Chair. This is a 
great, important discussion.
    I want to build on some of the comments that Ranking Member 
Rogers has made. Listen, China is on the march. They have a 
hybrid capitalistic/communistic system that directly subsidizes 
industry. They have lax labor standards, lax environmental 
standards. And so, for instance, in Beijing, it takes 5 years 
off your life if you live there because the air is so polluted.
    A group of business people recently said to us--these are 
American businesses looking to invest in Central America--they 
found that labor and environmental costs add 60 percent to 
their bottom line. This is in Central America versus going to 
China. China pushes these externality costs onto the world, 
onto us, and then we are expected to clean it up.
    So, while we are doing the righteous, noble thing here, an 
appropriate thing, nonetheless, this issue of holding China 
accountable, why don't we hold China accountable to 
international environmental standards in all trade agreements 
and other agreements?
    And I will give you a very specific example of the 
unfairness of this all. As I mentioned earlier, I am a big 
proponent of the Global Environment Facility. I think they do 
tremendous work across a spectrum of environmental issues. We 
fund them significantly, and properly so. China has a seat at 
their governing table. China basically contributes nothing to 
it but lives off, again, our effort.
    The key consideration, one of the key considerations here 
is, of course, a number of the good things you are doing, 
particularly in terms of development finance and special 
projects of grant-making that advance environmental security 
but also this issue of holding China accountable.
    I would like the panel, Madam Chair, to respond to that, 
please.
    Mr. Martinez-Diaz. If I may start, I think, Congressman, 
the issue of China doing its fair share is really important. On 
the finance piece, we pushed, at least since the Obama years, 
for China to also play a role as a provider of climate finance, 
not just as a user of it. Over time, I think the pressure is 
beginning to work. Back in 2015, China committed $3.1 billion 
to a South-South Fund for Climate Cooperation. However, we are 
not entirely convinced that that money really was disbursed. So 
we keep pushing on that.
    We intend to make sure that China is a contributor as part 
of the past agreement conversations in terms of money, and I 
think it is increasingly clear for them that they can't simply 
be the largest emitter and not provide any money.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, obviously, I am asking my question 
and trying to be in solidarity with you and the responsible 
community of nations to continue to basically hold China 
accountable here.
    But let me pivot very quickly back to Mr. Levine. List the 
agricultural projects you are working on.
    Mr. Levine. Thank you, Congressman.
    I had begun to mention a series of projects. For example, 
we just launched One Acre Fund for smallholder farmers, a 
majority of whom, by the way, are women. One Acre has built----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Glad you took up our initiative on that. 
We have been working on that.
    I am out of time. Look forward to continuing that dialogue 
with you, though.
    Mr. Levine. Yes.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Levine. I would very much welcome the chance to 
continue the conversation. Thank you.
    Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much for being with us today. I 
want to thank you all for your time and your testimony. This 
was a very enlightening and important hearing. We all have a 
great responsibility ahead of us to not just act quickly but to 
act wisely in order that U.S. diplomacy and financing 
effectively address the climate crisis.
    Finally, if members have questions that they would like to 
submit for the record, please submit them to the subcommittee 
within the next 7 days.
    And I am sure, to all of our witnesses, that our members 
will definitely follow up with you with additional questions 
and hopefully additional interaction with you.
    And so this concludes today's hearing. And I want to, once 
again, thank you very much. The State and Foreign Operations 
and Related Programs hearing stands adjourned.
    Thank you all again.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     

                                            Thursday, May 27, 2021.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) FISCAL YEAR 
                          2022 BUDGET REQUEST

                                WITNESS

SAMANTHA POWER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
    DEVELOPMENT (USAID)

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms. Lee. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and 
related programs will come to order. Good morning, everyone. I 
would like to start by welcoming our distinguished guest for 
her first time before this subcommittee in her new role, USAID, 
Administrator Samantha Power.
    Now, as this hearing is virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair or 
staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    Let me remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute 
clock still applies during the question and answer period. If 
there is a technology issue, we will move to the next member 
until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of 
your time. You will notice a clock on your screen that will 
show how much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the 
clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may 
gently tap the gavel or raise my hand to remind members that 
their time has almost expired. When your time has expired, the 
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow 
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules, 
beginning with the chair and ranking member. Then members 
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be 
recognized in order of seniority, and, finally, members not 
present of the time of the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So, now, I will proceed to welcome Administrator Samantha 
Power back to the subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, 
and Related Programs. You are certainly no stranger to members 
of our subcommittee from your years serving as United Nations 
Ambassador, to your various other roles championing human 
rights, atrocity prevention, democracy promotion, and 
multilateralism. It is really wonderful to have you with us 
today, Administrator Power. This is, of course, our first 
opportunity to welcome you as administrator of the U.S. Agency 
for International Development, a role to which you bring a 
depth of knowledge and exceptional qualifications. We are 
grateful to have you at the helm of America's foremost 
international development agency, and for being with us today.
    Tomorrow, the administration will release the detailed 
fiscal year 2022 budget request for programs and activities 
under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. USAID's portion of 
the request is expected to increase at least 10 percent above 
the current level. I want to start with this fundamental 
question: Will the administration's budget request place 
development on an equal footing with diplomacy and defense?
    One of the many painful lessons of COVID-19 is that we 
could no longer afford to underprioritize USAID's mission of 
saving lives, reducing poverty, strengthening democratic 
governance, and helping people emerge from humanitarian crisis. 
These objectives are just as important to our security as our 
alliances around the world and our military operations.
    Of course, poverty and poor governance are not problems the 
United States can fix with a magic wand. USAID does its best 
work when we work alongside local people and communities to 
help them develop themselves, their countries, and their own 
communities. To be enduring, our development efforts must 
support these local actors and make sure their priorities are 
reflected in our programs. Your predecessors, such as Raj Shah, 
Gayle Smith, and Mark Green, have prioritized this, and I am 
interested to hear your plans to work directly with more local 
partners, as well as how our appropriations legislation can 
help these efforts.
    The core strength of USAID is and always has been its 
devoted and passionate public servants from the top down, yet, 
I remain very concerned about longstanding institutional 
barriers to diversity that exist in many of our foreign policy 
agencies.
    Administrator Power, I know you are working on diversity, 
equity, and inclusion strategies for USAID, so I would like to 
know how we can partner with you in ensuring that the agency 
draws strength from the diversity of America.
    The administration's request is expected to propose 
necessary investments to respond to and recover from the 
coronavirus pandemic as well as ensure that we are much better 
prepared for future global health threats. For both moral and 
scientific reasons, America must act with great urgency to help 
other countries contain the virus.
    The scope of the problem, as you know, is enormous. COVID 
threatens to erase decades of anti-poverty gains. This means we 
must make investments at the scale of the challenges in front 
of us. But beyond recovery, we need to catch up to ensure that 
we are able to help our partners achieve the sustainable 
development goals on schedule by 2030. I look forward to 
hearing your detailed strategy for achieving the SDGs.
    Democracies backsliding is a real challenge. Even before 
the pandemic, there was enormous concern, and yet, we have seen 
authoritarian tendencies grow even stronger over the last year. 
Freedom House reports that nearly 75 percent of the world's 
population lives in a country that faced deterioration last 
year in democratic freedoms. I would appreciate hearing your 
views how the United States can advance democracy abroad, even 
as we acknowledge and commit to fixing our democratic 
weaknesses at home. Does USAID have the resources it needs to 
work in new and creative arenas, not just on political parties 
and elections, but on also cultural norms and institutional 
changes needed to truly advance democratic values.
    Lastly, I am hopeful that your leadership will bring a 
renewed commitment to prioritizing women at the center of 
development. This should include making up for lost time in the 
area of family planning, which has not received an increase in 
funding in over a decade. We can't make long-term gains toward 
any of our development goals while leaving out the reproductive 
healthcare needs of women, especially after a global pandemic 
which we know disproportionately affected it. When women, 
especially those living in underserved remote areas, have 
access to family planning information, contraceptives, and 
services, they have healthier pregnancies and babies. They 
contribute productively to their families and communities, and 
their children are much more likely to go to school.
    Women and their health should be integrated into all of our 
developmental efforts, and be central to all of our other 
goals.
    So, Administrator Power, I wanted to thank you, once again, 
for being here today, and for your tireless work to promote 
human rights and dignity around the world. I look forward to 
your testimony, but let me first turn to my colleague, Ranking 
Member Mr. Rogers, for his opening statement.

                    Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, 
Ambassador, to USAID. Ambassador, you have taken up your 
position in very turbulent times, I don't need to remind you, 
when global humanitarian, health, and development needs are 
great, I am pleased we have someone at the helm with your level 
of commitment to these issues and experience in world affairs. 
I look forward to working with you in the months ahead.
    Turning to the President's budget request for fiscal year 
2022, until the full budget request is released tomorrow, we 
have a limited view of what is being proposed at this point, 
but I understand it will make history as the biggest request to 
date for USAID's funding. This will be within the request for a 
10 percent increase over last year's enacted level for both the 
State Department and USAID. That increase goes up further when 
you add in the other agencies and related programs funded by 
this subcommittee.
    I opposed the draconian cuts proposed by the previous 
administration for State foreign operations, but I am also 
concerned about the magnitude of the increase being proposed in 
this year's request. Once we have the details, I intend to give 
it fair consideration, but budgets of this size will be 
difficult to justify given our country's unprecedented deficits 
and now its debt.
    What also should give us pause when considering this 
request is the significant sums of funding available to USAID 
that remain unobligated and unexpended. According to the most 
recent data from the Office of Management and Budget, as of the 
end of the second quarter of this fiscal year, more than $20 
billion remains unobligated from the Development Assistance and 
Economic Support Fund accounts, and an additional $13.2 billion 
remains unexpended. Together, that is more than $33 billion 
still sitting on the books, and that is only two accounts. It 
will take years to make a dent in those figures.
    This is not a new phenomenon for USAID, but the size of the 
problem has grown significantly. This massive pipeline of 
funding should be carefully considered by this subcommittee and 
USAID, particularly at a time when there are urgent needs 
abroad, and when fiscal restraints should be taken into 
consideration.
    Oversight of funding is another concern that I have with 
the administration seeking double-digit increases on top of 
such significant balances yet unspent. Your agency's ability to 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by having eyes on your programs 
has been curtailed because of growing insecurity around the 
world, and continued COVID restrictions. It is unclear how 
either or those constraints will change in the coming year as 
you are seeking more funds.
    I hope you will address some of these concerns here today 
as well as some of our shared priorities, such as countering 
Chinese and Russian malign influence, and supporting key 
partners like Colombia. There are more topics that I will 
address in my questions.
    So, in closing, I want to acknowledge that these are not 
easy times to be engaged in international development, to say 
at least. I salute the dedicated members of USAID's Foreign 
Service, Civil Service, and Foreign Service Nationals for their 
hard work and commitment to their mission. I thank the chair, 
and I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    Now, I would like to yield to our full committee chair, 
Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, for any comments she may have.
    The Chair. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee and 
Ranking Member Rogers, for holding this hearing. I, too, would 
like to welcome Ambassador Samantha Power today, thank her for 
testifying, and thank her for decades of work supporting our 
world's most vulnerable people. We are so fortunate to have 
such an experienced principal diplomat and leader at the helm 
of the U.S. Agency for International Development. And this is 
at a time when American foreign assistance is more important 
than ever.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored just how imperative 
it is to care for our neighbors abroad. It has brought into 
stark relief the principle that when one of us suffers, we all 
suffer. When one of us gets sick, we all get sick. But when 
development efforts are well-funded, the rest of the world is 
healthier and safer for all of us.
    As you know, the world needs strong American leadership, 
especially through development and humanitarian assistance. And 
that is why I am glad that President Biden's discretionary 
request for fiscal year 2022 recommits to those values. To 
support the global fight against COVID-19, the pandemic, the 
Biden-Harris administration has requested $10 billion for 
global health programs and reengagement with international 
organizations like the World Health Organization. This includes 
$1 billion, an $800 million increase from 2021, for global 
health security. This will not only help our nation and the 
world recover from this pandemic today, it will also ensure 
that we are well-prepared to tackle any healthcare threats in 
the future.
    In addition to the proposals embodied in the discretionary 
request, I want to thank you, Ambassador, and President Biden, 
for helping to deliver COVID-19 vaccines to at-risk populations 
around the world. It is so good to see that America is taking a 
rightful role in leading the continuing fight against this 
pandemic. And I call attention to my colleagues of the article 
in The Washington Post just about 2 weeks ago ``Samantha Power 
wants to restore U.S. prestige by getting American-made 
vaccines into arms around the world.'' We thank you for that 
effort.
    Along with increased funding to fight COVID-19 worldwide, 
USAID needs more resources to advocate for human rights and 
democratic values to combat corruption and democratic 
backsliding and to protect against authoritarianism. I am 
confident that USAID will similarly recommit itself to 
advancing development, specifically for women and mothers and 
girls around the world, as the Chair pointed out, including in 
family planning and in education, leadership, and economic 
opportunities.
    None of this will matter in the long run, however, if we do 
not address the existential threat of global climate change. 
And to that end, I am pleased that USAID is requesting $691 
million, an increase of $200 million, to help developing 
countries adapt to climate change, expand clean energy 
production, and reduce emissions.
    Ambassador Power, I know that you are a tireless advocate 
for the world's most vulnerable people, and I hope you know 
that this committee will be your partner as you lead USAID. The 
Chair will be sure of that. I look forward to our discussion on 
the administration's budget request, and USAID's goals for the 
coming year, and I thank you for testifying this morning, and 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Now, Administrator Power, if you could summarize your oral 
statement in less than 5 minutes, I want to make sure that we 
have enough time to get to our questions. Your full statement, 
of course, will be included in the record. And after your 
testimony, I will be calling on members based on seniority of 
the members that were present when the hearing was called to 
order, alternating between the majority and minority members. I 
will then recognize any remaining members in order of their 
appearance at this committee meeting this morning. Each member 
is asked to keep their questions to within 5 minutes per round.
    Administrator Power, please proceed. Thank you again for 
being here.

                    Opening Statemwent of Ms. Power

    Ms. Power. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member 
Rogers, Chairwoman DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee. 
Let me start by expressing deep gratitude for the continued 
bipartisan support for the work we do at USAID. This support 
for development and humanitarian assistance has saved and 
improved millions of lives, and it is critically important for 
advancing U.S. interests around the world.
    You have long recognized that diplomacy, defense, and 
development are vital components of our foreign policy, and 
President Biden does as well, which is reflected in the 
discretionary budget request, and in his decision to elevate 
the USAID Administrator to become a standing member of the 
National Security Council.
    Our investments in development and humanitarian assistance 
have grown even more necessary in light of today's challenges, 
and here, let me respond--I know I will have other occasions--
but to Ranking Member Rogers' concerns about the increase in 
the budget and offer a context for the request. A persistent 
pandemic that, as we know, has left nearly 3.5 million dead, 
swelled the ranks of the extreme poor for the first time since 
the late 1990s; authoritarian regimes like China and Russia, 
acting more aggressively each year, exploiting not only COVID, 
but vulnerabilities in our democracies; a rapidly changing 
climate sending fiercer storms our way and inflicting droughts, 
deep freezes, and wildfires upon communities; mass displacement 
at its highest since World War II.
    And just when you think it can't get worse, every day it 
seems a new horrific crisis is emerging, such as that in 
Ethiopia's Tigray region, where Ethiopians are facing the worst 
food insecurity the country has seen since the 1983-84 famine 
killed over 1 million people. And, of course, as was mentioned 
against this backdrop, China increasingly using its financial 
power as leverage to advance its interests.
    These are obviously not positive developments, but as an 
American, I am very glad that USAID--the world's premier 
development agency--is uniquely positioned to confront the 
world's toughest problems, and to catalyze our partners to do 
the same. The steps we take to combat COVID, climate change, 
conflict, and other ills make us safer, while demonstrating 
compassion for and cooperation with people all around the 
world.
    As has been indicated, when we fight COVID, we reduce the 
risks of variants that could lead to outbreaks at home. When 
incomes rise in the developing world, these countries become 
more self-reliant and less dependent on donor support.
    USAID delivers aid to those affected by natural disasters. 
We demonstrate the best of American values and build the type 
of good will that inspires cooperation from our allies. Our 
investments help support civil society under extreme stress. 
They address the drivers of violent extremism and the root 
causes of conflict and migration.
    They meet the needs of the most vulnerable and marginalized 
populations with resilience to extreme weather patterns--itself 
a good investment--meaning we need to spend less humanitarian 
assistance on the back end, combat infectious diseases, of 
course, and now, especially, contribute to a global economic 
recovery.
    We know that the enormous level of need far outstrips any 
one country's ability to meet it, nor do we believe that the 
United States has to bear all of the responsibility for the 
world's ills. This request will allow the U.S. to lead on the 
global stage and to leverage our activities to get our allies 
and private sector partners to do more.
    We also need to make ourselves more capable and nimble as 
an agency, and we are seeking to adapt our systems, processes, 
and procedures to that end, including by seeking to expand our 
engagement with the private sector. We also need to build 
USAID's institutional capacity given its role as an national 
security agency.
    We are focused on our workforce. During the pandemic, many 
of our staff at home and abroad have been working 24/7 to 
provide life-saving aid around the world, even while their 
loved ones are battling COVID-19 at home. Moving forward, we 
are not seeking to return to the previous status quo, but, 
rather, wish to harness the capabilities of our staff and 
support them in the ways that they need.
    Underpinning these efforts, Madam Chairwoman, will be a 
strong focus on creating a more diverse, equitable, and 
inclusive USAID. With your support, we will move aggressively 
to tackle the world's toughest challenges. I look forward to 
our continued partnership in ensuring that American taxpayer 
dollars are spent effectively.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Administrator Power. Let me 
ask you a couple of questions on the supply and distribution of 
vaccines abroad. You know, by increasing the supply of 
vaccines, it is only useful if we have the means to deploy 
these doses once they reach vulnerable countries. But the loss 
of India's production capacity in the short run has created 
quite a crisis.
    Of course, I have spoken with Gayle Smith and Secretary 
Blinken in terms of when we will see a plan for distributing 
the 80 million donated doses. And we want to know where this 
plan is, and what are the plans, especially with regard to 
small countries in our hemisphere and in Africa. We have heard 
reports that close to 20 million people on the continent of 
Africa received one dose and may or may not receive the second 
dose.
    So what is USAID doing? And what is your role in making 
sure that the vaccines are distributed to vulnerable 
communities? And how is USAID coordinating this on the ground 
in partner countries?
    Ms. Power. Great. Thank you so much for the question, and 
above all, thank you for your personal leadership, but also the 
committee's leadership in securing the $4 billion donation, the 
capacity to donate to COVAX. That has been extremely 
significant in the sense that prior to that, COVAX lacked 
really the kind of capital that it needed to be able to get in 
the queue with the big pharmaceutical companies who are making 
these doses. And so you saw, I think, probably last week, 
Congresswoman, a 500 million dose deal, for example, that COVAX 
did with Moderna. The challenge, of course, is that that will 
not roll out until next year, it looks like.
    And you alluded to why it is so urgent that we get more 
doses in the hands of COVAX. There is the obvious global 
urgency, but the fact that Serum Institute of India that has 
had to pull back already 140 million doses that COVAX had 
expected, and several hundred million doses more that were in 
the queue to come later in the year and into next year.
    So COVAX needs supply. That is the gaining issue. That is 
why President Biden made the announcement that you alluded to 
of donating 80 million doses.
    Now, you asked about the plan. It is a great and fair 
question. I just was on the phone with Gayle Smith before this 
hearing talking about just that, what we are doing as the 
country selection procedure takes hold, and finalizes in the 
interagency, and, believe me, that is an area of great focus. 
We, USAID, are very focused on ensuring that countries are 
ready to receive vaccines. And, so, of the ARP money, I think 
there is $75 million that has been invested in strengthening 
health systems to make sure that with UNICEF, PAHO, especially 
PAHO in our hemisphere, that countries, you know, when those 
vaccines come off the planes, that the recipients have been 
identified, especially those who need second shots because of 
India pulling back its supply. Because just to underscore that 
point that you made, the issue is that COVAX delivered a whole 
set of first shots, anticipating then that the Serum Institute 
would continue supplying, and so now, you have again this 
population that has one but not two which is suboptimal, to say 
the least.
    Ms. Lee. And I have a minute remaining. Let me just ask you 
about the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strategy with USAID. 
I am very pleased to see that you are developing a strategy 
because this has been quite an uphill battle over the years, as 
it relates to inclusion and diversity.
    So how is this going to roll out? And how will USAID be 
held accountable to achieve these very worthy goals laid out in 
your strategy?
    Ms. Power. Thank you. Well, let me just say, I embrace the 
premise that a strategy is as good as the results on the 
ground, as they say. And, you know, just digging into this 
issue, and I know this is something that you are very 
knowledgeable about. But I have seen the GAO study, and just 
reading it here, that racial and ethnic minorities, as of 2018, 
were 31 to 41 percent less likely to be promoted in the civil 
service, so we have data that really causes, I think, 
significant concern.
    Partly, it is a recruitment issue. I think raising the 
profile of the recruitment that we are doing at historical 
black colleges and universities and other minority-serving 
institutions. It is sitting down with the Hispanic Caucus and 
the Congressional Black Caucus. I talked to Chairman Meeks 
about this also a day or two ago. Just how do we get the word 
out that we want to recruit starting early in high schools, 
colleges, and graduate schools. If you wait until graduate 
school, you are likely not going to be able to really broaden 
the pool, so we have to start earlier. We have internship 
programs, including the Payne Internship and others that you 
are familiar with, but we need to do more.
    And I know my time is out, but retainment has been a 
challenge, and that is about culture and promotion and other 
methods like that, so I count on you to hold me accountable. I 
will hold myself accountable. We are digging into the metrics 
now and trying to set reasonable goals, calibrated, of course, 
a barrier analysis is where I want to start to understand what 
is standing in the way of creating the agency that we need.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Administrator Power. And 
maybe we will have a briefing or drill down with some members 
of the committee whose focus has been this issue for several 
years.
    Now let me yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers.

                    Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ambassador Power, we all know that Russian President Putin 
and his aggressive foreign policy and authoritarian approach to 
governance seeks to weaken NATO, undermine our European 
partners, and challenge the American and western Democratic 
system. What role do you see USAID playing in seeking to 
support democracy and market-based economies that are under 
assault by Moscow?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Congressman. As you might recall, 
when I was U.N. Ambassador, my time in New York coincided with 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, its interference in our election, 
its carpet-bombing of Aleppo, along with the Syrian Armed 
Forces, so I am very familiar with Russian aggression and very 
disturbed by it.
    I would offer a few thoughts, first, to say just how 
compounded the challenge posed by Russia has been by the extent 
to which China has stepped up its activities in terms of 
spreading misinformation, providing technological surveillance 
capacity to governments, really helping fuel democratic 
backsliding right alongside with Russia. So now I think it is 
important--they are different, but there are some overlapping 
tactics that we have to stand up to.
    And you asked about USAID specifically, so let me offer 
just a few thoughts there. First, I think one of the things 
that--I have only been in the job a few weeks, but that I am 
digging into--is our democracy programming and our governance 
programming. Given that we are in the 15th year of freedom in 
decline around the world, it seems to me we have to ask 
ourselves the question of, to your opening statement as well: 
Are our programs optimal for this moment and for those threats? 
You know, some of these programs might have been conceived of 
in a different era before Putin or President Xi began, you 
know, being as assertive and aggressive when it comes to 
undermining democracy abroad.
    I think, for example, fighting misinformation and 
disinformation, which is one of the things that these actors do 
both by flooding the zone with their own propaganda, and by 
backing illiberal actors within countries who are, for example, 
denigrating civil society, cracking down on independent media 
and so forth. So I would put misinformation--I think that is 
important.
    Second, anticorruption is going to be a huge area of 
emphasis for me and for President Biden. And I have already 
appointed an Anticorruption Coordinator, who is a terrific, 
seasoned U.S. Government hand to think about how we look at 
corruption. We have always thought about corruption in terms of 
not wanting our foreign aid to go to waste, and that is 
incredibly important, but what kind of programs can we support 
because the Achilles heel of Russian-backed elements and 
illiberal elements around the world, I think, is the extent to 
which they are squirreling away their citizens' resources, 
whether natural resources or other funds.
    And the last thing I would say, sir, just real quick, is 
that there are bright spots in the world, like that in Sudan. 
And so I just thank this body and you and others who have 
supported our effort to secure resources to be able to support 
Sudan at this time of fragile transition.
    Mr. Rogers. Let me turn to Belarus and the Russia allies, 
the hijacking of a Ryan airplane, and the detention of a 
dissident blogger, a frontal assault on democracy. German Prime 
Minister Angela Merkel has said questions remain about the role 
of Russia and the forced landing of the plane by Belarus. What 
information about a Russian role, if any, can you provide to 
us?
    Ms. Power. I don't have anything additional to share at 
this point, but I am happy to dig into it when I get back to 
the office and to reach out to you later today. But I have been 
preparing for these hearings, and have not been read into what 
we might know in other channels.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, what can we do? For example, should we 
increase support for journalists both inside and outside 
Belarus and target the Russian speaking-audience? Go ahead.
    Ms. Power. Sorry, sir. That is what I have been digging 
into since this outrageous action is what are the ramifications 
for our programming. I mean, right now, our emphasis is on 
diplomatic pressure to try to bring about the release of Raman 
and his colleagues, but this is a structural problem. I mean, 
extraterritorial apprehensions are becoming--and harms caused 
extraterritorial, so not just arrests, but the kinds of 
poisonings and other things that we have seen, I mean, these 
norms are being charged recklessly by the Russian Federation, 
and by the Chinese Government as well. So I think that is a 
broader conversation.
    In terms of our assistance, yes, we are digging into to see 
how much more we can do for independent media, including those 
actors who are now, unfortunately, in exile, but still trying 
to reach the brave Belarusian people who have stood up and are 
not giving up on democracy in their country.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now let me yield to Ms. Meng, please.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking 
Member, and thank you, Administrator Powers, for being here 
today. We are so thrilled to see you in this role and look 
forward to working with you on a host of issues.
    I just wanted to backtrack for a quick second about the 
issue raised by Chairwoman Barbara Lee on the diversity of the 
workforce and would encourage that you also add CAPAC, the 
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, in your 
conversations as well.
    I wanted to take a minute to address an issue close to my 
heart, water, sanitation, and hygiene. While countries around 
the world await vaccine distributions, we can't take our eye 
off the ball to ensure that there is adequate non-emergency, 
humanitarian WASH programming, including sustainable hand 
washing stations in marketplaces, schools, travel hubs, and on 
key travel routes.
    I am also committed to ensuring that menstrual hygiene 
products are included as a part of PPE donations made by the 
U.S. Government to other countries. In many countries, 
including India, female doctors and nurses report bleeding 
through their PPE because they couldn't waste it when changing 
their menstrual products and report increases in UTIs due to 
lack of access to bathrooms.
    Can you give us an update on the drafting of the next 
global water strategy and how issues like climate change, water 
scarcity, gender, and COVID can be integrated in the strategy? 
And how can we be helpful in ensuring that the strategy 
reflects the current needs on the ground?
    Ms. Power. Thank you. If I could, would like to get back to 
you on the WASH strategy, as I don't have details just off the 
top of my head like I would like to. Give me a little time in 
the job, and I will be able to summon those.
    I have focused on the menstrual health and hygiene issue 
just in the last few weeks, because I just agree with you so 
wholeheartedly that this is so integral to the dignity and 
empowerment of women and girls, and just such, such an 
important issue, and it just hasn't gotten the attention that 
it has needed over time in the humanitarian or development 
sectors.
    We have just--in honor of Menstrual Hygiene Day, which, as 
it happens, is tomorrow--USAID will be launching a new standard 
definition of menstrual health and hygiene which will set clear 
expectations for multisectoral investments in product access, 
improvement of sanitation, and water accurate information, not 
just for women and girls, and efforts to confront menstruation-
related taboos and stigmas which we know persist around the 
world.
    So if I could get back to you on the WASH strategy and the 
timing of that and the content of that, I would be grateful.
    Ms. Meng. Sure. Thank you so much. And my other question is 
I want to know what steps USAID is taking to ensure that its 
programs take into account risks of gender-based violence at 
the onset of emergencies, including COVID. Three members of the 
subcommittee, myself, Ms. Frankel, and Mr. Diaz-Balart, have 
introduced the Safe from the Start Act which would codify 
programs that ensure quality services for survivors from the 
very onset of emergencies, including pandemics.
    Ms. Power. Again, especially from my time at USUN when I 
pushed for much greater emphasis in peacekeeping missions and 
female peacekeepers and police to be included, this is an issue 
very near and dear to my heart. I think what we are looking at 
is not only separate, dedicated gender-based violence 
programming of the kind that USAID has supported for a long 
time, but what does it mean to integrate gender-based violence 
accountability into, for example, our wash and sanitation 
programming, you know, into our economic growth programming, 
into, as you mentioned, humanitarian emergency response. I 
think USAID has come a long way.
    One thing I have to mention, I know we are short on time, 
but just is the sexual exploitation and abuse challenge, where 
it is not just a question of, you know, are emergency 
responders looking out for this on the ground, but now we have 
to deal with the recognition that emergency responders and 
those most counted on to support people in their hour of 
greatest need are themselves, in many credible cases, accused 
of committing wrongdoing and sexual exploitation abuse 
themselves.
    And, so, USAID is working really hard now to write into its 
contracts requirements as it relates to sexual exploitation and 
abuse to make sure that zero tolerance is not just a slogan, 
but something that is lived at every stage of our contracting 
process.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, 
Ambassador. You talked about the importance of accountability, 
to hold you accountable, and to hold yourself accountable. I 
have got some serious concerns. You have a record, both in 
words and action, that is--I want to be respectful--but that is 
concerning.
    I am concerned of your description of the Israeli 
occupation. I am concerned of your reference to the need of, 
quote, ``alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous 
political and financial import,'' end of quote. That is 
referring to pro-Israel groups in the United States. You also 
have further said that the U.S. should provide, quote, ``less 
automatic deference to special interests,'' again, referring to 
those same groups. Those are comments that have been 
characterized by some as being anti-Semitic.
    And equally as concerning is your failure to oppose an 
anti-Israel resolution in the U.N. in 2016. That, by the way, 
is an unprecedented, shameful betrayal of Israel, without 
precedent, in the history of the relationship between the 
United States and Israel.
    So, having that as your history in, again, both words and 
actions, do you still stand by those statements? And do you 
still stand by your action in front of the U.N. of abandoning 
Israel, or do you now admit that those were mistakes? And would 
you care to explain, if they were, your new attitude?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Congressman. I hope we can talk at 
some point about human rights work and humanitarian work that 
we can do together as we did, I think, on a couple of occasions 
when I was U.N. Ambassador.
    With regard to my actions at the U.N., I would just like to 
share because it sounds like you are familiar only with a 
portion of what we were able to do.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No. Madam Ambassador, I am familiar----
    Ms. Power. If I--if I may, sir. If I may just--excuse me.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I know, but I want you to answer. Excuse 
me. I don't want you to--if you might, Ambassador, I don't want 
you to go into other wonderful things that you may have done. I 
specifically am referring to some specific statements that you 
have made about pro-Israel groups in the United States, and 
specifically, this unprecedented betrayal of Israel in front of 
the U.N. We can talk at length about all the wonderful things 
that you have done in history, but I am talking about those 
specific issues, if you would, please. Were those mistakes, or 
do you stand by those decisions?
    Ms. Power. I secured the recognition of Yom Kippur as a 
U.N. holiday. I convened the first-ever General Assembly 
session----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. You don't want to answer the specific that 
I am asking you. That is okay.
    Ms. Power. We will come to--we will come to your question, 
sir----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right.
    Ms. Power [continuing]. If I may--if I get some time to 
speak as well. I convened the first-ever General Assembly 
session condemning anti-Semitism in the history of the United 
Nations in the same chamber that the Zionism racism resolution 
was passed. I secured Israel's membership in caucus groups from 
which it had been excluded for its entire time within the 
United Nations.
    With regard to the resolution that you ask about, it was a 
resolution calling on all sides not to do things that would 
make a two-state solution less likely, including the building 
of settlements, but also incitement and violence of the kind 
perpetrated by extremists and terrorist groups.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And so, you stand with that decision to, 
in essence, unprecedented decision, something that no previous 
administration, either Democrat or Republican, had ever done, 
you stand by your decision to abandon Israel at the U.N.?
    Ms. Power. What I am focused on now is supporting something 
that seems ever more elusive, especially in light of the 
conflict and horrors and trauma that people have gone through 
on both sides in the last days. So that includes ensuring that 
USAID is in a position to deliver humanitarian assistance, to 
honor the legacy also of Congresswoman Lowey in the Middle East 
Partnership For Peace initiatives, to generate reconciliation, 
or to support reconciliation programs, both between the 
Israelis and Palestinians, and between Israeli Jews and Israeli 
Arabs as those tensions have also been exacerbated in the 
recent days.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that, Ambassador. I have 
tried to give you time, but again, I was fearful, which is why 
I had to interrupt you, but that you would not answer the 
question, and you have yet refused to answer the question 
whether you stand by that decision and by the statements that 
you have made.
    Ms. Power. President Obama makes the decision. You work for 
the President. But the resolution is one that includes the 
tenets that administrations in both parties have stood behind 
for a long time, namely, support for a two-state solution. 
Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, again, I yield back, Madam 
Chairwoman, but again, I will try to see if I can get those 
answers, those questions answered, one of these days. 
Appreciate that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Let me yield now to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Ambassador. 
We are very happy to have you in this position and look forward 
to working with you in many, many ways.
    The budget for our bill, our State Department, Foreign 
Operations bill, which includes, of course, various aspects of 
foreign aid, is a reminder of just how many aspects there are--
from global health to the focus on education, especially girls' 
education, to economic empowerment, to climate resilience,--so 
much in the way of complementary, and sometimes competing 
channels for assistance.
    I want to return to the answer you were giving to Mr. 
Rogers about the place of governance, democratic development, 
the place of that aid stream alongside these others. Of course, 
in many ways, governance is basic, basic to everything else. 
And, yet, we know sometimes governance is harder to influence, 
harder to shape, and, certainly, it is harder to measure the 
results. I am co-chair of the House Democracy Partnership, a 
bipartisan commission that works with developing democracies 
all over the world, a couple of dozen countries. It ranges from 
key strategic partners like Kenya, Indonesia, Peru, to the 
struggling smaller countries that this country has a particular 
relationship with, Liberia, Timor-Leste, Kosovo. Perhaps you 
are familiar with our work, because the work of USAID is really 
supportive of our work. We actually couldn't do it without the 
partnership we have with the National Democratic Institute, the 
International Republican Institute, and with USAID's support.
    So we find ourselves often in these countries, valuing the 
work of USAID, and sometimes providing some feedback about the 
kind of emphasis that is needed on legislative strengthening, 
in particular, in working with these parliaments, and sometimes 
urging that one aspect or another of aid shouldn't be 
prematurely terminated. So we really do engage with your 
agency.
    And I just want to ask you about your view of this 
governance support. You know, democracy promotion in some 
quarters got a bad name. I mean, there are some methods and 
approaches that are, of course, more effective than others. HDP 
takes the collaborative approach, one that does not presume to 
impose our system or our solutions, but certainly, we do think 
our 225-year history is relevant, and our partner countries 
find that as well.
    So I wanted to ask you to reflect on governance support, 
and, perhaps, legislative strengthening within governance 
support as a mission of the agency.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Congressman. I have learned about the 
House Democracy Partnership, and I think what I like about it 
is that, frankly, what we are seeing more and more of are 
illiberal networks, again, funded often by sort of extreme 
forces--you know, anti-Semitic forces that are anti-LGBTQ or 
anti-minority. You see the networks actually getting 
strengthened across countries, taking advantage of echo 
chambers and social media and other avenues. But there is even 
financing, you know, again, that is going across borders, and, 
sort of, this more virtuous cooperation, right, where we are 
comparing notes, for example, on some of the issues I mentioned 
earlier, like how to fight misinformation, how to stand up for 
the rule of law, and doing so in a spirit of humility, given 
that we know, you know, that we face many challenges here at 
home. I think it is incredibly important, and, you know, I 
would love to talk more about it. I also think networks of 
judges and people who constitute independent judiciaries, you 
know, defenders, public defenders, or defense attorneys and 
prosecutors as well.
    We see a growing kind of majoritarianism where, you know, 
even in democracies, the checks on majoritarianism are kind of 
melting away, whether legislatively, or in terms of enforcement 
of constitutional provisions.
    So, I think what you are doing is really important. And I 
think this question, you know, of not only elections, but what 
are the institutions that have to be strengthened that protect 
minority rights, and protect the rule of law and protect 
civilian control over the military are the tenets of liberal 
democracy, and of respect for human rights. I think that is 
where we want to dig in more to see, you know, whether our 
programming needs to be adjusted in light of the assaults on 
some of these institutions being undertaken in different 
quarters.
    Mr. Price. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Let me yield now to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate you 
holding this hearing.
    Ambassador Power, would you prefer to be called Ambassador, 
Madam Ambassador, or Administrator Power?
    Ms. Power. Normally Samantha. But Administrator, I suppose, 
for the purpose of this hearing, but I go back and forth. I 
debate with my kids, you know, when I am trying to get them to 
show me respect.
    Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Administrator it is.
    Let me preface my questions with a comment. I believe that 
a key priority, a central role, if you will, is that of 
regenerative agriculture and conservation as it leads to 
community well-being, sustainability, as well as stability. 
That is an architectural framework for me, but I want to 
address three issues in the time that we have in this round.
    First is MEPPA, the Middle East Partnership Peace Act, 
which you referenced earlier; second, a small program that has 
big implications, Farmer to Farmer; and finally, China and 
vaccines. This is a delicate issue right now, obviously given 
the trauma in the Middle East, and the sensitivities and the 
difficulties. However, for many years, I carried this bill, the 
Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, was so pleased that 
Chair--our former Chair Lowey, wanted to shepherd that into 
law, and took the leadership of that last year.
    So the question becomes any roadmap for peace has to have a 
foundation, and that foundation has to be built on trust. And 
this is the heart of MEPPA, if you will; traditional people-to-
people exchange programs, but also, a new instrument used in 
the Development Finance Corporation, a little bit of subsidy of 
public monies to create the conditions for equity investments 
by persons of both sides, to create the long-term continuity of 
economic well-being that is harder to unwind whenever you have 
politically explosive situations.
    So the question is, how are you working with the State 
Department and the Development Finance Corporation to implement 
MEPPA as a central policy for diplomacy, particularly in this 
delicate moment? I think this is timely. I recognize the 
sensitivity of it. If you can address that in 1 minute, I will 
probably interrupt you to try to get my other questions in, but 
there you go.
    Ms. Power. Why don't I just be very brief on that which is 
just, again, to applaud the program, the spirit behind it. You 
know, as there is more and more separation among communities, 
these programs, several of which I visited while on a trip I 
took to Israel as U.N. Ambassador. Indispensable.
    You asked specifically about our plans to move out on it. 
One of the first things I need to do is constitute an advisory 
council, according to the legislation, and then we need to move 
out to ramp up our programming, especially, again, in light of 
recent events.
    So on the specifics, I can get back to you, but again, 
there is a structural component that I think needs to be built 
out in the very, very near term. So any ideas you have and 
others have for how to constitute that council, I would be very 
open to, or, again, on specific programs.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. We look forward to trying to give 
constructive input in the spirit of what we intended in the 
law. And I think you are right; a quick implementation of this 
is absolutely necessary to begin to rebuild some trust, but 
with programs that have viable, viability and long-term 
continuity that built that foundation.
    So let me move to Farmer to Farmer right quick. And, again, 
back to this idea of how do we leverage technical expertise and 
goodwill in America from our citizenry, who are not going to be 
able to join USAID, who are not going to become members of the 
Foreign Service, or who aren't going to be able to spend 
significant times overseas as a volunteer and other sort.
    We are working on a concept right now, the conservation 
corps, but the earlier implementation of Farmer to Farmer is 
exactly that idea. Here is the problem: It is a USDA program 
given to USAID, which is then shipped out to NGOs, fragmented, 
not a holistic strategic approach, from my perspective. Can you 
consolidate that effort and make it one of the premier programs 
for regenerative agriculture and conservation around the world?
    Ms. Power. I love this program, and I didn't know of this 
program as a private citizen before I got into my job. But the 
fact that we have 20,000 farmers who volunteered, and I think 
it is 136 million people in more than 115 countries have 
benefited from this. It didn't even shut down, hasn't shut down 
under COVID. They started doing this virtually which I think 
creates all kinds of possibilities.
    Mr. Fortenberry. The Foreign Service Act, it could be 
embedded in embassies with much more structure, shepherded by 
your agency. There is a lot more to talk about here, and I need 
to get to vaccines in China, vaccine diplomacy. I will have to 
do it in the next round. Thank you, Administrator.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    Okay. Now, I will yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Administrator, congratulations. It is so great 
to have you in this position.
    I want to talk to you about women and girls. I know you 
obviously have an interest. The past year, really, the last few 
years have been tough with the global gag order, with the 
pandemic. And so my first question is plans for women and young 
people to receive accurate information about and access to a 
full range of contraceptive methods and increasing the U.S. 
funding for international family planning and reproductive 
health, and your knowledge, if any, of some of the setbacks 
over the last few years, because I know a lot of clinics shut 
down. That is question one.
    The other one related, really, has to do with expanding 
women's economic empowerment and education. I read a study that 
the gender gap between men and women has been set back by a 
generation internationally. Just interested in knowing what you 
are doing to scale funding for women's rights organizations? 
And do you have the staffing and training needed to ensure that 
gender policy is integrated across all programs? That is a lot 
of questions. Okay. Do the best you can.
    Ms. Power. Thank you. That is all I can ever do.
    In terms of ramping up programs and partnerships that were 
scaled back or cut, I think we are in the position of doing 
that now. I can follow up with you in terms of details of what 
that delta is. But, you know, at the same time, we are 
continuing to follow the law and the regulations that remain in 
place, but, you know, the restrictions on funding definitely 
caused us to scale back programs.
    And I think it is important to state the context, the fact 
that there are 218 million women globally who have the need for 
modern contraception, and are not able to access it. I mean, 
this is incredibly important in thinking about economic 
development, in thinking about security, you know. We can see 
where voluntary family planning is in place, and people can 
access these resources that knock on positive development 
effects across just so many vectors.
    Then the other context for your question which, you know, 
of course, but is just the uptick in gender-based violence, the 
fact that not only are there 1.6 billion kids around the world 
out of school because of the pandemic, but there are estimates 
that 400 million girls will not go back to school, but for 
intervention and programs that will support their return.
    So, just as we have seen disparate impact on women even in 
our own country as it relates to the pandemic, I think we are 
seeing that around the world.
    And, again, I come back to Ranking Member Rogers' very 
important questions about the scale of the budget request in 
our budget-constrained environment. The only way I can think 
about it is it is as if a meteorite has hit the planet, and so 
much of the progress that had been made on so many vectors, and 
again, Chairwoman Lee mentioned the sustainable development 
goals, so many of those just inching upward in terms of 
education, in terms of women's empowerment, in terms of women's 
representation in power, in terms of sanitation, in terms of 
food security, and just so many of those set back. And so to 
try to mitigate the damage and get back on track, given the 
amount of taxpayer money we have already invested in these 
programs, I think this is just an inflection point that is 
really important and, you know, this is exhibit A of why 
surging these programs is essential right now.
    Ms. Frankel. From what you can tell, do you have the 
staffing and the training needed to ensure that the gender 
policy is integrated through all the programs?
    Ms. Power. Well, we are reviewing the gender policy that we 
inherited and will want to consult with you and others about 
that, you know. This is not a desire to replace it wholesale, 
but the last gender policy didn't include LGBTQ people, as I 
understand it. And the process to comprise it or to constitute 
it was not as transparent and inclusive as I think we are 
looking to do.
    So on the policy, there is getting that right and getting 
it mainstream. I think on staffing, we have some exciting 
people coming on board, but again, there is so much expertise 
within the USAID career workforce that my sense is that we are 
in a good place. But if you have other insight, you know, 
please bring it to me, as I am just digging into each of these 
questions.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you. And I want you to know there were 
two very good bipartisan efforts, the Women's Entrepreneurship 
and Economic Empowerment Act, and the Women, Peace, and 
Security Act, so there really has been some bipartisan efforts 
to advance women and girls. I look forward to discussing that 
more.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I will yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really 
appreciate it. And, Administrator Power, thanks for being here 
today.
    Administrator, would you agree that through published 
research that has recently come out that scientists at the 
Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted risky experiments with 
the novel coronaviruses from bats? Would you agree with that 
statement?
    Ms. Power. This is beyond my area of expertise. So I think 
on things related to the virology institute--I, like President 
Biden--am eager to see, what our investigation turns up.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Sure. Well, I can tell you that in a 
2015 study, it was actually entitled ``SARS-like Cluster of 
Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human 
Emergence.'' That was funded, in part, by USAID grant money 
that utilized what is called gain of function research. 
Additionally, I am not sure if you have been paying to the 
news, but just in recent weeks, especially this week, USAID and 
NIH denied authorizing this type of dangerous research.
    With that information I just provided you, do you support 
investigation into organizations, including EcoHealth Alliance, 
to determine if they conducted unauthorized gain of function 
research?
    Ms. Power. I think I need to say a word about the 
programming that you are referring to. I mean, as part of the 
PREDICT surveillance effort to try to anticipate viruses of the 
nature that has caused such devastation in the United States 
and around the world, over a period of 10 years, USAID, you 
know, did support programming in the institute but not of the 
kind that you are referring to and----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Administrator, with all due respect, the 
question is very simple. Do you or do you not support 
investigation into this money going into the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology to study gain of function research? It is a simple yes 
or no.
    Ms. Power. If I could just finish the point that I was 
making is that----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. No, because you are running all over the 
place. It is a simple yes or no. If you are not going to answer 
that, answer me this: USAID currently--is USAID currently 
funding or not funding gain of function research elsewhere?
    Ms. Power. I will have to look into that and get back to 
you.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. All right. In 2019, President 
Trump ended USAID activities in China, including the Predict 
funding that you mentioned. Did you support this? Do you 
support that?
    Ms. Power. Did I----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Do you support ending gain of function 
research in China?
    Ms. Power. I have been in the job for a few weeks. I want 
to dig into that question. I mean, I think, you know, given 
the----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. So do you support, then, USAID money 
going to China? This is a very basic, elementary question.
    Ms. Power. Excuse me.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. This is a very elementary question. You 
either support USAID money going to China or you don't. It is 
very simple. Do you or do you not?
    Ms. Power. Right now, I think that we are looking at what 
the right posture is with regard to China all around the world. 
And as part of that, as part of that review, I think we will be 
looking very hard at the question of whether there is any 
scenario in which USAID would be doing anything in China.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. Would you support USAID 
funding going to CCP labs like it has in the past?
    Ms. Power. I have been in my job for a few weeks. I need to 
dig into all of this. You mean--let me----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I mean, with all--I could read you where 
the money is going. I mean, we know that money was going----
    Ms. Power. You know more than----
    Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. To the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology. We know the EcoHealth Alliance sent at least $600,000 
in NIAID grants. I mean, this is very basic information. It is 
public. It has been public for a year now. I find it astounding 
that you are finding out about it now.
    Ms. Power. No. I am not finding out about it now. I am well 
aware of the PREDICT programming and so forth, but I know that 
you are very focused on this single issue. It turns out USAID 
has programs in a whole host of areas in a whole host of 
countries.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. Well, in the last 20 seconds, 
let me ask you this. Yes or no? Do you support a probe of 
Federal funding going to the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Yes 
or no?
    Ms. Power. I am not going to answer these questions without 
doing further----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. It is absolutely amazing. You are the 
Administrator. We know we have been sending money to the Wuhan 
Institute of Virology. We have been doing it for years, since 
2015. I just read you the study. And you can't answer a basic 
question, yes or no, if we should be sending more money to a 
Chinese communist lab. That is my understanding.
    Ms. Power. No, no. That is not the question that you posed.
    Ms. Frankel. Madam Chair, I object to this bullying of this 
witness. Madam Chair, this member is bullying this witness. I 
object.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I am asking legit questions. The 
Administrator has failed to answer.
    Ms. Lee. Excuse me. I am going to yield now to 
Representative Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Administrator 
Powers. Thank you so much for your patience and for joining us 
today.
    I want to also join my colleagues in thanking you for 
suspending aid to the government of El Salvador last week. We 
cannot continue to give taxpayers' hard-earned dollars in 
foreign assistance to governments that misuse it to advance 
their own corrupt interests counter to our own policy goals.
    We need to be clear-eyed about our partners in the region, 
and unfortunately, this is not unique to El Salvador. I don't 
need to go into detail about concerns with narcotrafficking, 
co-conspirator number four in Honduras.
    In Guatemala, despite strong calls from the international 
community and civil society, Guatemala proceeded with a totally 
nontransparent process to stack the Constitutional Court with 
judges who have clear conflicts of interest and links to 
corruption. In one of the court's first moves, it overturned an 
earlier ruling, and allowed a controversial law targeting civil 
society to move forward. And just last week, a Guatemalan court 
dropped a graft charge against former President Perez Molina. 
And two anticorruption prosecutors have been arrested in the 
middle of major prison riots that are currently happening in 
Guatemala. It is more evident than ever that we cannot trust 
these governments to administer aid to fight corruption and 
bolster the rule of law.
    So, Administrator Power, given these events, are you also 
evaluating assistance to the governments of Guatemala and 
Honduras in a similar manner to your assessment of our aid in 
El Salvador? And what assistance does USAID currently give to 
the Attorney General and the judicial sector, including the 
constitutional court, the high-risk court, and penal courts?
    Ms. Power. Thank you. I am still recovering.
    Mrs. Torres. I know. I am so sorry about that. We really 
need to focus on the really important issues here.
    Ms. Power. It is okay, but I feel I need to just for the 
record say that USAID did not fund the research to which he was 
referring, but I think what is really important context to 
offer is that the reason that the prior administration and the 
Obama administration thought it a good idea to be active in 
this lab was precisely because of concerns about biosecurity, 
wet markets, and the risk of animal-to-human transmission of 
virus.
    So the notion that this was a program abetting, you know, 
what the Chinese Government was doing as distinct from actually 
looking out for our interests and conducting surveillance is 
absurd.
    Mrs. Torres. And the people on this committee that, you 
know, are not involved in the politics of the last 4 years 
understand that. And, you know, we only have this pandemic that 
we are in, the reason why we are working remotely, to 
understand the importance of the U.S. being a part of that 
program. So thank you for clarifying that.
    Ms. Power. Well, I think, again, had I been able to just--
and thank you for letting me finish a sentence--to be able to 
explain why it would be that there would be any connection 
between USAID and this lab that, of course, definitely needs to 
be subject to a transparent and much more independent 
investigation than has occurred so far.
    With regard to your question--so I, first of all, thank you 
for mentioning the decision to reroute funding away from the 
Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court, and the Civilian 
National Police. These were the entities that, you know, had 
been politicized by the President, we thought, and I think you 
agree, inconsistent with the rule of law and the constitutional 
requirements. I think we are now in the process just of 
building up our programming in these three countries, because 
it was, as you know, suspended or terminated, in many cases, 
under the last administration.
    So in the interest of trying to get at the root causes of 
migration, one of which is a lack of rule of law and corruption 
and, of course, great physical and personal insecurity that 
citizens in these countries feel alongside the economic 
conditions and push factors that cause people to flee. We are 
just digging into, again, what those rule of law programs 
should look like. So I can get back to you on specifics about 
now what the residuals are given the rerouting to civil society 
of the money that we announced last week.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I am out of time, and I hope we can 
have an opportunity----
    Ms. Lee. I will add another 50 seconds given that 
Administrator Power clarified her last response.
    Mrs. Torres. I will come back in a second round. Thank you 
so much, Chairwoman Barbara Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Now we will go to Representative Wexton. 
Representative Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Administrative Power, for joining us today.
    I would like to speak to you for a moment about Gaza. Now, 
I am happy to see us taking a more active role in the region, 
and I am grateful that the cease-fire is holding. But, as you 
know, now that the shelling has stopped, now comes the hard 
part which is preventing a full-on humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 
Food, fuel, water, and medicine are all in short supply. What 
little critical infrastructure there was, was damaged in the 
bombings, and tens of thousands of Palestinians were displaced 
in just the last couple of weeks, most of them children. And as 
you know, it is the hopelessness and lack of opportunity that 
helps fuel the cycle of violence. So Secretary Blinken's 
announcement this week of $360 million in assistance to the 
Palestinian people for emergency shelter, food, and healthcare, 
as well as $75 million in development and economic assistance, 
is welcome news.
    But what are some steps that we are taking to ensure that 
this money actually benefits the people of Gaza, and does not 
go to help fuel terrorism in the region?
    Ms. Power. Thank you so much. Just to underscore the 
premise of your question, which is how important this 
assistance is. Right now, we are working with the Catholic 
Relief Services, a world food program to provide, I think, more 
than $15 million in immediate medical supplies. We are 
supporting the East Jerusalem Hospital Network and trying to 
use sort of cash and food vouchers that go directly to 
citizens, pivoting programs, also to water and sanitation 
because there are real concerns about disease outbreaks. And 
then, of course, there are displaced persons given the 
destruction that occurred whose needs also we are looking out 
for.
    You asked about vetting. It is incredibly important. We 
know we have to be faithful to the taxpayer above all, and that 
we need to prevent these resources from falling into the wrong 
hands. Everything in that region is vetted in accordance with 
the Taylor Force Act, and, of course, that is, you know, in 
order to prevent anything being diverted to Hamas.
    In the case of the Taylor Force Act, it also cannot benefit 
the Palestinian Authority. And there is the most vigilant and 
stringent scrutiny of our prime awardees but also, those 
subgrantees or grantees under the prime awards. And, so, again, 
I think people can have confidence that this is going to the 
intended beneficiaries. There certainly are systems in place.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Now, Secretary Blinken pledged to 
address the underlying conditions. What does that mean, and how 
is it different from ways that we traditionally supported the 
Palestinian people? What does that mean by addressing the 
underlying conditions?
    Ms. Power. I mean, I think it means the development 
programs, and not just the emergency humanitarian responses, 
but also programs along the lines of what we discussed in the 
prior exchange on the Middle East Partnership for Peace 
initiative, because I think those programs that enhance, expand 
context across communities, a context that are fewer these days 
than they might have been 10 years ago. For example, as more 
separation is happening, I think those programs are incredibly 
important, you know. So as to----
    Ms. Wexton. Related to that, it is clear that children 
suffered the most during this entire cycle of violence. The 
U.N. Children's Fund reported that one in three children in 
Gaza required mental health support, even before the latest 
round of violence, and now it has been exacerbated since this 
most recent violence in Gaza.
    How is USAID supporting the need for mental health services 
for children in the region?
    Ms. Power. On the specific programming, I would have to get 
back to you, but it is incredibly important and always what our 
emergency responses look to do in the first round of disbursal 
of funds. But again----
    Ms. Wexton. Can you give us an update on USAID's West Bank 
and Gaza mission, where we are at in terms of staffing levels 
and restarting programs that were halted under the previous 
administration? Can you give us some kind of update on where we 
are?
    Ms. Power. I can. Our new mission director arrived in 
country last week, well-timed, given the emergency needs. On 
the holds, I believe Senators Graham and Risch lifted their 
holds on a significant subset of what had been held up in the 
development context. Again, we were able to move humanitarian 
money from the beginning of the recent Gaza conflict. So, I 
believe there is still some programming being held, but the 
sanitation programming, the support for East Jerusalem Hospital 
Network, all of that funding is now being spent.
    Ms. Wexton. Good. And I hope that mission is able to do the 
right kind of vetting to ensure that this money doesn't fall 
into the wrong hands. So thank you very much. I see my time has 
expired. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Let me yield now to Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, 
Administrator Power for meeting with us today.
    I know that in the skinny budget, you have requested $58 
million, which is a 10 percent--$5.4 billion or a 10 percent 
increase from last year. However, the hurricane season is 
projected to be a very serious one for Latin America and the 
Caribbean. In fact, FEMA has substantially increased their 
budget in preparation for this. And I know that you engage 
countries with proposed hurricane or proposed natural disaster 
work that needs to happen in many countries across the world. I 
just find that the increase is not high enough, considering the 
level of demand that may be out there in the world, not just in 
Latin America and the Caribbean. I think that there are hot 
spots all over the planet that need to be addressed, and this 
is just a drop in the bucket.
    I know that there is this misconception out there that we 
are giving away the store, you know, with regards to foreign 
aid when, in fact, that is not the case. It is probably less 
than 1 percent of our entire budget. And I think for us to be 
competitive, right, for us to be competitive with China and 
other countries that are clearly making a move in our backyard, 
in our hemisphere, we have got to really come up with 
substantial help for these countries. So that is one question. 
Do you think there could be a substantial increase in that?
    And second is regarding vaccine distribution. I know that 
vaccine diplomacy is important, and frankly, they are eating 
our lunch out there. And we are very late, and even with the 
U.N.'s program, we are extremely late, and you know, we need to 
be there because those countries are being ravaged now. People 
are dying from COVID. [inaudible] Are absent. I think we need 
to be there on that. We wrote a letter to the White House 
asking for the Central American countries and the Caribbean 
countries where you get a big influx back and forth to the 
northeast coast and the rest of the U.S. to get the excess 
vaccines first. So I wanted to know where you were on those two 
questions, the funding fees and where the vaccine distribution 
is?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir. The number of humanitarian 
emergencies that we are confronting every year is increasing. I 
mean, we now have more conflicts happening in the world than at 
any point since the end of the Cold War. I mentioned in my 
opening statement more displaced persons since Hitler, since 
World War II.
    And you mentioned just the natural disasters, the climate 
emergencies that are compounding that. There is an uptick 
almost on, you know, on a graph. You can just see the straight 
line going up the vector, and going very much in the wrong 
direction. It is also the case that, you know, the U.S. has 
been more generous every year, and we seek to leverage our 
dollars to try to get other donor Nations to do more, and that 
is what I would intend to do if this discretionary request is 
granted.
    I mentioned also trying to build out the infrastructure at 
USAID to get our private sector where there is a lot of 
generosity, and then, also, a lot of, you know, enlightened 
self-interest as well, recognizing that we need to strengthen 
countries internationally that, over time, helps build markets 
for U.S. goods.
    So, you know, again, the need outpaces what any one country 
can do. But you are right, that it is very, very difficult 
right now. I must say our humanitarians at USAID, I don't envy 
their jobs because every day, they are deciding, you know, 
about how to allocate a fixed amount of resources between an 
imminent famine in Yemen, you know, the recent hurricanes, 
let's say, in Central America, an imminent potential famine in 
Ethiopia in the Tigray region, you know, and this is all 
against the backdrop of us also experiencing more severe 
weather events domestically, so this is very challenging.
    With regard to vaccines, I would only say because we have 
had an exchange on this already that I know the goal, and 
President Biden indicated this, is for there to be more surplus 
supply made available in the months ahead. So, right now, we 
are focused on this 80 million, which is what he has announced 
publicly, but we are, of course, looking at domestic needs. As 
we make more progress domestically, we are now over the 50 
percent of adults being fully vaccinated. We have this 
ambitious----
    Mr. Espaillat. Will Latin America and the Caribbean be the 
first location where you will send them?
    Ms. Power. I think the country allocation procedure is 
underway at the moment. There is, of course, a great interest 
in looking out for our friends in Latin America, but, again, 
the specifics have not yet been decided upon.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you. We are going to go now to our 
second round which will be limited to 3 minutes per member, and 
let me just remind our members to please treat our witness with 
respect.
    Let me ask you, Administrator Power, a question with regard 
to Cuba. Now, on this committee, this subcommittee, there are 
differences of opinion as it relates to Cuba. But I have long 
supported the reestablishment of our relationship with Cuba and 
remain deeply committed to restoring U.S.-Cuba diplomatic ties. 
The policies of the previous administration punished both Cuban 
and American citizens alike and played right into the hands of 
China and their strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean.
    Now, I understand that the Biden administration is 
currently reviewing its policy options toward Cuba, though not 
nearly as quickly as I had expected or wanted. I wanted to find 
out if USAID is contributing toward this policy review, and can 
we expect a decision fairly soon, or if not, when?
    And also, since 1996, Congress has appropriated over $350 
million in funding for democracy efforts in Cuba, including $20 
million in each SFOPS bill since 2014. And, so, I am wondering 
if this is something that you will be reviewing as it relates 
to this funding, and how has it helped Cuban civil society or 
empowered human rights activists. And do you see us building 
any better ties with the Cuban people by supporting the NGOs 
working in other sectors, such as health and education?
    Ms. Power. No. Simply to say that I don't have any insight 
at this moment about the review or the timing of the review.
    In terms of our programming, which is more within my ambit, 
USAID has been responsible, I think, for around $6 million of 
the $20 million that you reference. So far, that programming, 
as I understand it, has gone to a diverse range of actors, 
independent activists, meeting basic needs for political 
prisoners. You still have NGOs in Cuba defending those who have 
been arrested and so actually continuing to try to work to 
fight persecution. So I will look into that programming.
    I think the question of, you know, how to do work in social 
service sectors, given the government and the government's 
repression of citizens, I think that makes that challenging. 
But again, I would want to dig into the specifics of our $6 
million----
    Ms. Lee. And let me just make a statement. I think given 
the opportunities we are continuing to miss, now we see China 
and Russia with regard to vaccine distribution in Cuba, and it 
would just seem to me, once again, we are missing an 
opportunity to engage with a country right next to our own 
country, and allowing other countries, such as China and 
Russia, to weigh in early, unfortunately, in this pandemic.
    Now I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. 
Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Ambassador, from Capitol Hill, it appears as though 
China will be one of the primary imperatives of the Biden's 
administration foreign policy. Your predecessor, Mark Green, 
was determined to make USAID not just an aid, but a policy 
player in the U.S. strategy to counter malign Chinese influence 
in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
    How do you view the role of USAID within the interagency on 
our broad strategy? Is the agency part of our national security 
infrastructure, or is your mission more narrowly focused on 
merely delivering assistance to countries in need with 
reference to the China challenge?
    Ms. Power. You know, I think that, first of all, USAID is 
very focused on democracy programming, on support for civil 
societies. We have talked about anticorruption efforts, 
strengthening elections. We talked about the House Democracy 
Partnership and strengthening legislatures and the rule of law. 
So, there is a dimension given that China and its program stand 
in opposition to that where, by definition, there is tension. 
We want to see more democracies in the world and more human 
rights in the world, and they want to see the world looking 
more like China. So that is one dimension.
    But I think much beyond that, you know, the United States 
has, and I think USAID programming really shows this, a set of 
comparative advantages over the Chinese model for development. 
And I think I see this very similar to my predecessor, Mark 
Green, where, you know, we support a free and open digital 
infrastructure. We support governments being held accountable 
to their people. We want countries to move towards self-
reliance. That was a big flagship, as you know, a signature 
approach by Mark Green, which I very much agree with. China 
takes the other approach, right, you know, in loaning money and 
in charging exorbitant debt, that leaves countries, you know, 
much more under pressure from China, and you see this at the 
United Nations, where China in a transactional way, says: Okay, 
we have given you this loan. Now we need you to vote with us to 
dial back this human rights norm. So we just operate in a 
totally different way.
    And I think the hunger also for U.S. private sector 
investment is something that the Development Finance 
Corporation and we, in trying to strengthen regulatory 
environments to make--create more hospitable climates for 
foreign direct investment, I think that is another example of 
how USAID kind of contributes to a battle between two models 
around the world.
    Mr. Rogers. We are in global competition with China. You 
are in charge of the weaponry.
    Ms. Power. I agree with that. I hope that was clear in my 
answer, that that is the approach. I mean, but we also are 
meeting humanitarian needs, and there is an intrinsic good in 
that as well. But you are absolutely right. So many tools in 
the USAID toolkit are the tools that are incredibly important 
to strengthening democracy around the world, and standing up to 
China's efforts to roll that back.
    Mr. Rogers. Amen.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. I yield now to Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First, I just want 
to thank and associate myself with Mr. Fortenberry's comments 
about MEPPA. Thank you for that.
    I have a question about the promise of young leaders around 
the world, whether here in the U.S. or abroad. Young people 
have long been at the forefront of building peace in their 
communities by creating youth-led movements, organizations, and 
networks to mitigate the negative effects of conflict and to 
prevent recurring cycles of violence. And yet, COVID-19's 
secondary effects disproportionately disadvantage youth. The 
pandemic has kept nearly 1.6 billion students out of school, 
and one in six young people have stopped working since the 
onset of the pandemic.
    The U.S. must invest in young people who carry 
unprecedented power to prevent climate change, promote 
democracy, good government, social justice, and spread American 
values. And, in countries in conflict, it will be the young 
people who bear the burden of sustaining peace over 
generations, leading their societies from reconciliation to 
prosperity.
    With the largest youth population ever, what is USAID's 
strategy to ensure young people are at the center of the U.S. 
Government's pandemic recovery strategies? How is USAID 
measuring the amount of funding from the international affairs 
budget account that is currently impacting young people? And, 
lastly, what is the status of USAID's review of its decade-old 
youth development policy, and what should the priorities of the 
updated policy be?
    Ms. Power. I will have to get back to you on the Youth 
Development Policy and that review. I was tracking the Gender 
Policy review, but actually, I just have not been briefed on 
that. Apologies.
    With regard to, I think, the broader approach, I mean, take 
the continent of Africa. 69 percent of the population is under 
30. It is the youngest population in the world. There is 
tremendous dynamism in that, but, you know, given particularly 
the challenge posed by the pandemic and the wallop to local 
economies, that is a lot of people looking for work, and, 
likely, in the very near term, not being able to find it, and 
that is inherently destabilizing.
    So I think you are going to see the mainstreaming of 
attention to youth, specifically in our economic growth 
planning, in our attention to the need to grow small 
businesses, in our partnership with the DFC, just again 
thinking of who is most affected by these large unemployment 
rates.
    You asked about it in the context of the pandemic. There, I 
would need to think a little bit more about that. Right now, 
you know, in developing countries, you don't even have health 
workers who have received their two shots, right. It is under 2 
percent, I think in Africa, that has been vaccinated. So, in 
terms of age groups, you would tend to go to the older and more 
vulnerable communities first after the health workers, as we 
have done in this country. So I would want to think about that, 
and maybe hear more from you about what you have in mind. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much.
    And Ms. Ambassador, you know, we might have differences, 
but I think one area where most or all Americans agree is that 
the scourge of human trafficking is something that the United 
States has to be a leader in fighting, you know, any form of 
human trafficking, and I am sure you agree with that.
    Are you aware that the State Department says that the Cuban 
medical missions have the hallmark of human trafficking, and 
they have done, again, reports talking about, again, how that 
program is, in essence, human trafficking of medical 
professionals? Are you aware of that history of human 
trafficking with the Cuban medical professionals program?
    Ms. Power. I am familiar with those reports. I have not 
read the State Department reports, but I have seen some press 
coverage.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Again, it is not new, as you well know. I 
am concerned, because in a speech that you gave, when, again, 
reversing the longstanding tradition of the United States 
supporting, the Cuban people as opposed to the regime, you 
talked about how the Cubans' medical mission programs was awe 
inspiring, and the fact that they had, sent medical 
professionals to fight Ebola. But, again, if we agree that 
human trafficking is unacceptable in any form, and if there 
have been reports, including recent reports by even the United 
States State Department, that that program is, in essence, 
human trafficking, and by the way, I would more than gladly put 
you in touch with folks who have suffered from human traffic--
have been trafficked by that regime program.
    It is concerning that you would, again, say that is awe-
inpiring, that something that is clearly human trafficking can, 
in any way, be awe inspiring. Do you want to clarify that, or 
were you not aware when you made that statement of the fact 
that that regime-sponsored program is, in essence, human 
trafficking and that they, the regime, receives the funding? 
They take the passports away from those that are trafficked. 
They go after their families. Were you not aware of that when 
you made that statement and that speech in front of the U.N. 
about how awe inspiring that was?
    Ms. Power. So I traveled to West Africa at the height of 
the Ebola epidemic, and was very struck by the work of Cuban 
doctors, risking their lives on the front line to care for 
patients who were literally, you know, dying prior to the 
arrival of medical doctors from the United States, from Cuba 
and from other countries, were dying at the doorstep of 
clinics. And so that is what I was referring to.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Were you not aware that--yeah, but were 
you aware not that that was----
    Ms. Power. I was not aware. I had not read those reports at 
that time, no.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. Well, again, I just hope that--again 
that is----
    Ms. Power. I just--[inaudible] Which is Cuban doctors 
risking their lives to stand with the people of Liberia----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure. Human trafficked people are victims, 
and they do wonderful things. But to say that it is awe 
inspiring, a program that, again, the U.S. State Department 
states is, in essence, human trafficking, you would understand 
why it is a worrisome thing when you say that.
    Again, if you weren't aware of it, it is interesting that, 
again, as being Ambassador to the U.N., you were not aware of 
it, but I am hoping that you will look at that and that you 
will reconsider your statement of calling human trafficking or 
anything related to human trafficking awe inspiring because 
some of the victims are doing good things. I am out of time, so 
I will yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Yield? Okay. Thank you.
    I would like to yield now to Mr. Price.
    Ms. Power. Could we just correct the record and note----
    Ms. Lee. Sure.
    Ms. Power. I was just accused of calling human trafficking 
``awe-inspiring''. So let me just say that that is never 
anything that I have done. I have dedicated my entire career to 
fighting human trafficking.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I will show you that speech and refresh 
your memory.
    Ms. Power. I did not refer to human trafficking as ``awe-
aspiring''. Please----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ambassador, you referred to a program that 
the U.S. State Department has referred to human trafficking as 
awe inspiring. You can try to sugarcoat that how you would 
like.
    Ms. Lee. I yield now to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. With limited time, I 
want to just briefly refer to a couple of other discussions, 
and then possibly pose a third question.
    With respect to the work of the House Democracy Partnership 
with these parliaments in developing countries, I want to 
stress, Madam Administrator, that it is precisely the work of 
USAID and its contractors that lets us take this work with 
parliaments beyond conventional exchanges, and actually gives 
it substance, actually improves parliamentary performance and 
effectiveness, so it just couldn't be more important.
    With respect to Gaza and the West Bank and the deeply 
destructive policies of the last administration, halting duly 
appropriated assistance funds to the West Bank and Gaza, 
closing the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem, closing the PLO office 
in Washington, all of that needs to be reversed. I am 
encouraged by your assurance that the aid that the previous 
administration stopped is now starting up again, and I 
encourage you to do that with respect to projects that had been 
approved and were receiving approval, and we intend to consult 
with you about some of the specifics of what it will take to 
get that aid restored.
    Finally, let me turn to Afghanistan with limited time. I 
know this is a big question, but it is an important question, 
and this is an area where HDP has engaged with the Afghan 
parliament and with Afghan women in politics. There is just so 
much at stake in the faltering and struggling Afghan democracy 
surviving this period.
    I am wondering what kind of assistance programs, of the 
many that we have engaged in, you think we will be able to 
continue? What will be most important to continue? And what are 
your concerns about the ability to administer and carry out 
this aid?
    Ms. Power. This is such an important question. I thank you 
for asking it. It is an area of huge focus at the White House, 
of course, at the State Department, the Defense Department, and 
at USAID. I mean, fundamentally, as we draw down, the security 
environment is--you know, there is risk of deterioration. And 
the strength of the Afghan National Security Forces is going to 
be incredibly important, you know, to them holding the line. 
And our programs, though, we have gone through them, and are 
looking at how we can continue to support them, even with a 
smaller embassy and smaller USAID presence, civilian presence, 
how oversight and vetting can continue to be done, given how 
important that is to us and to you and to the taxpayer.
    I think the one thing I will say, sir, is that many of our 
partners were in Afghanistan before U.S. troops arrived in 
2001, and they have every intention of doing everything in 
their power to stay and support the Afghan people. So whether 
that is on, you know, seeking to keep girls in school, or the 
credible health gains. Maternal mortality has been cut by more 
than half, child mortality by 75 percent by virtue of these 
programs. And, so, it just couldn't be more important to try to 
sustain them and to stand by the Afghan people as they continue 
to suffer, you know, horrific pressure from the Taliban and 
attacks that we read about every day.
    Mr. Price. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Administrator Power, I am going to have to move fast. Two 
questions on vaccine diplomacy as well as plan Haiti. First, 
though, I want to return to the point that was made earlier 
about the Chinese model for development. It is basically this: 
predatory lending, resource extraction, and support for 
authoritarian methodologies in governance. And while we spend 
about $25 billion a year around the world in humanitarian 
efforts to address the whole need, the holistic person, the 
holistic needs of communities, China also makes a play while 
contributing virtually nothing in this regard for multilateral 
institutions, power, control, or institutions which we 
underwrite. It is not clear to me how much they contribute, but 
they certainly look toward control of those institutions.
    In regards to vaccine diplomacy, we see this manifesting 
itself again, China on the march, seemingly ahead of us. Other 
countries around the world knowing that perhaps we have the 
best vaccines available, but China getting out in front of us. 
Is the WHO inordinately influenced by the Chinese? That is one 
question. And then secondly, what is our vaccine diplomacy 
trajectory?
    Then let me turn to the third question right quick or the 
second question, Plan Haiti. We spent so much money trying to 
help attack structural poverty at our doorstep here, and it is 
a bipartisan effort. But the idea here is to go deeper in terms 
of place-based strategies, fix the broken border situation, 
which is an underlying constraint in terms of normalcy and 
economic function, and then, also, create a few places where 
regenerative agriculture and conservation can become a 
realistic model based upon constructs that we consider to be 
not only supportable, but fair. That is going to be Plan Haiti. 
I would like your comments on that.
    Ms. Power. I want to dig in on Plan Haiti, but just to say 
how important the governance element is. It is a sine qua non, 
and how important it is that the country get back to regular 
order and legislative and presidential elections
    Mr. Fortenberry. Can I interject there?
    Ms. Power. Yes.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I completely understand that, but without 
a specific set of examples that we know that this is a model 
that is scalable for development across not only Haiti, but 
across other regions, I am afraid that we focus on these larger 
structural issues that may take the long term, obviously, to 
solve that are critical to the underlying premise of any sort 
of economic well-being. That is my comment. Go ahead.
    Ms. Power. I hear you. Maybe we should have a longer 
conversation about this, because just with the investments we 
make, if we have government leaders who are pilfering money 
from the programs that we are putting in place, you know, those 
programs aren't going to be accountable to you or to us or to 
the----
    Mr. Fortenberry. That is by U.S. standards. That is what I 
am saying. That is place making. Go ahead, please.
    Ms. Power. Okay. Maybe I should pivot. Maybe I should dig 
further into Plan Haiti with you offline, but I do think USAID 
has done important work. And as you say, in Haiti, the problems 
are so chronic and longstanding, it is hard to show those 
returns, but the penal codes look different because of USAID's 
engagement.
    The COVID effects have been less severe. They were 
horrible, but less severe, again, because of the global 
health--because of the health program we put in place. On the 
WHO, just briefly, I think that the United States being back at 
the table is incredibly important to offset Chinese influence. 
I will say as a former U.S. Ambassador, you know, when you 
represent a country, you are seeking to ensure that 
international institutions go your way, and you seek to 
influence those institutions. We want the United Nations to be 
promoting human rights around the world, women, peace, and 
security, et cetera, you know, non-sloppy lab practices, for 
example, when it comes to viruses.
    So, every country is in these U.N. bodies, you know, trying 
to acquire more leverage and more clout. I think stepping back 
from international institutions gives China a free pass, and I 
do think that they use that influence, as in the early days of 
the pandemic, perhaps to delay, for example, the declaration of 
a global pandemic or an international emergency.
    Beyond that, though, I think, you know, again, our best way 
on all fronts in which we and China are presenting these very 
different models, and I agree with your characterization of the 
Chinese model is for us to be in the game, and for us to 
leading on the vaccine diplomacy, which I hope is the path that 
we are now on. And I think watch this space, because I think 80 
million is what we have to get out the door in the very near 
term. But this is what countries most want from us right now, 
not only in our hemisphere, but all over the world.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Take the continent, like Africa, which I 
think pretty much belongs to our model of development but has 
the Chinese model imposed upon them. We will leave it there. I 
look forward to more dialogue with you on these topics. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I will yield now to Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Administrator, thank you for your thoughts on 
this, taking the time to learn your job. I don't know if I will 
agree with everything you say or do, but I do know you have an 
astonishingly spectacular background that you bring to this 
job. You have heart, you have intellect. [inaudible]
    Ms. Lee. Let me yield now to Representative Torres, and we 
will come back to you, Ms. Frankel.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman, and 
Administrator Powers. I want to refocus to the Northern 
Triangle. Without the political will from the governments in 
the region, as you know, we need to prioritize working with 
capable, credible, civil society partners, and those committed 
to reform accountability. Yet, I hear daily attacks against 
those who are carrying out this very important work. Internet 
trolls prompted by the governments and propaganda net centers 
in the region hurl conspiracy theories, share ugly racist and 
sexist slurs, and even share the location of the homes and 
workspaces of journalists, activists, and attorneys, 
threatening their safety and the safety of their families.
    We cheer the groundbreaking work of CICIG in Guatemala, yet 
many of the Guatemalan staff are unable to find work, having 
been outcast, blacklisted by the political and economic elites. 
Too often, we see those who are making real progress have to 
leave the country.
    So, Administrator Power, how does USAID help protect and 
support civil society activists and independent investigators 
in repressive environments? How does USAID ensure their safety 
while also enabling these workers to continue this work within 
the country?
    Ms. Power. In my--I think it was my second day on the job, 
I met virtually with activists from El Salvador and Honduras 
and heard firsthand, really, the level of concern and fear that 
many of them are living with, feeling as if, as you say, the 
pulpit is being used to disparage their work to claim, as we 
have seen in other countries, including close to home, you 
know, a kind of us versus them, you know, mindset when, in 
fact, you know the work that these groups are doing, and these 
are vetted groups that we have worked with over many, many 
years is some of the most patriotic work you could imagine. So, 
you know, this is a very worrying set of developments.
    And you mentioned CICIG, you know. Now there is not even 
CICIG there, both not to employ the individuals that you 
mentioned who are now having trouble finding work, but also to 
continue to carry out the prosecutions that, you know, chipped 
away at the culture of impunity that abets corruption and 
violence. So, I think what we can do is we raise our voices. We 
have a lot of leverage, you know, as a country with such 
important, you know, people to people and financial connections 
to these countries. That is what Vice President Harris has done 
already multiple times. I know it is what she will do on her 
trip. It is what I have done in my role.
    And I think people know on the ground that our embassies 
and our ambassadors and our mission directors and our staff are 
people who are going to, you know, stand up for them, you know, 
if they are suffering harassment or intimidation or worse, and 
that is what we can offer. But above all, it is really just a 
tribute to the bravery of these individuals. They put 
themselves out there every single day because of how much they 
care about their countries.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now I would like to yield to Representative Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you again, Administrator Power, for joining us 
today. And before I forget, I definitely want to thank you for 
your advocacy for the Uyghurs and Turkic Muslim minorities and 
Xinjiang and your strong stance against forced labor and in 
support of human rights in that region.
    You know, I represent a region in northern Virginia that 
has one of the biggest populations of Uyghur Muslims in the 
United States, and they are all very, very concerned about 
their family members in China. And many of them haven't been 
able to communicate with them at all. So your words mean a lot 
to them, and I wanted to say thank you.
    I also represent a lot of Indian Americans who are deeply 
concerned, as I am, about the resurgent wave of COVID-19 in 
India, and they have many, many family members and friends who 
are directly impacted. But I am happy to see the U.S. standing 
with the Government of India and Indian people during these 
difficult times. Can you please give us a brief update on our 
assistance to India during COVID and what we are doing now?
    Ms. Power. Thank you so much. And this is where the funding 
that you all generously supplied through the American Rescue 
Plan has been so helpful to be able to do bilateral emergency 
response in the first instance to India. I think we have done 
seven planeloads of supplies which range from masks and PPE to 
oxygen concentrators and the like. You know, we hope also to be 
moving out on vaccines. Even though India is a big manufacturer 
of vaccines, it is still a very small share of the population 
that has been vaccinated.
    One thing that I would flag that I think is a template for 
what we could do in the future is that we are developing a 
really important partnership with the U.S.-India Business 
Council, which is comprised, I think, of 25 CEOs of some of the 
most--the largest American companies. And, as you know, the 
private sector has moved incredibly, robustly, and swiftly, 
with its own deliveries of supplies. And, now, we are seeking 
to sync up, so that we are coordinating our responses so as not 
to duplicate and to be able to ensure that we are meeting the 
needs as the Indian Government and civil society defines them. 
We have also moved now with planes to Nepal and trying to get 
supplies to other countries in South Asia, because the spike 
that we have seen in India has now spread across the region.
    So, again, what we are looking to do is be able to respond 
in an emergency way, while also deepening our investments in 
global health securities so as to ensure that these health 
systems are better able to respond in the future. One need that 
exists right now in the world is oxygen, and oxygen 
concentrators. And, so, working with the private sector, we are 
looking to see is there a way to source manufacturing of that 
to deal with that global supply shortage, because there are 
certain things that the private sector is going to be able to 
do much more quickly than governments.
    Ms. Wexton. Great. Thank you so much. And I am glad to hear 
that your public/private partnership is working, and it is 
going to be a model for the future.
    Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    For our final question, I am yielding to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. First of all, Administrator, thank you for 
your candor and your----[inaudible]
    Ms. Lee. Ms. Frankel, you are frozen.
    Ms. Power. Maybe if she turns her video off, it is probably 
easier to get the mic.
    Ms. Lee. Ms. Frankel, can you turn your video off and just 
do audio? You are frozen. [inaudible]
    Well, first of all, Administrator Power, let me thank you 
so much. You have been very generous with your time and with 
your testimony. Also, I want to recognize, once again, your 
history of service to our country, to the world, and really 
wanting to work on behalf of the most vulnerable everywhere 
throughout the world. You can see there is much interest from 
all of our committee members in terms of the important work 
that you do for the millions of people who rely on us and 
yourself leading this effort throughout world.
    So you have a huge task before you, but we want to partner 
with you in whatever way we can. I just want to thank you 
again, and look forward to our continuing conversation, and I 
know members will reach out to you individually.
    Finally, let me just mention to members. If you have 
questions you would like to submit for the record, please 
submit them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days. And so 
thank you all again. I want to thank our staff for helping us 
through this virtual hearing, and we look forward to our 
continuing work. So this concludes today's hearing. Thank you. 
The hearing is adjourned.
    Ms. Power. Thank you.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     

                                              Monday, June 7, 2021.

   DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET 
                                REQUEST

                                WITNESS

HON. ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms. Lee. Good morning, everyone, again. The Subcommittee on 
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to 
order.
    I would like to start by welcoming our distinguished guest 
for his first time before our subcommittee, Secretary of State 
Antony Blinken.
    Now, as the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair or 
staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    And let me remind all members and witnesses that the 5-
minute clock still applies during Q&A. If there is a technology 
issue, we will move to the next member until the issue is 
resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time. You 
will notice a clock on your screen that will show how much time 
is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn 
yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may gently tap the gavel or 
I will raise my hand to remind members that their time is 
almost expired. When your time has expired, the clock will turn 
red and I will begin to recognize the next member.
    And now after the panel presents their testimony, we will 
follow the order of recognition set forth in the House rules, 
beginning with the chair and ranking member, then members 
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be 
recognized in order of seniority, and finally members not 
present at the time the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules requires me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So, once again, let me just welcome our Secretary of State, 
Antony Blinken.
    Secretary Blinken, we are truly fortunate to have your 
determined, effective, and respective leadership at the helm of 
the State Department, especially during this time of tremendous 
upheaval and discord. Thank you for your service to our country 
and for being here today.
    One of my priorities as chair is finding new ways to better 
engage the American public in global affairs, especially 
communities and people who have historically been felt at least 
disconnected and marginalized from foreign policy. This begins 
with making sure that Congress is able to play its full role in 
foreign policy decisionmaking.
    In our first conversation after your confirmation as 
Secretary of State, you expressed your desire to make the State 
Department more open and accountable to Congress. It is still 
early in your tenure, but I have really been very pleased to 
see clear evidence of your efforts, and look forward to working 
with you more on this effort, which is critical to ensuring 
that we have a foreign policy that reflects the values and 
priorities of all Americans.
    The tools of diplomacy and foreign assistance have been 
undervalued and underresourced for far too long. Today's 
hearing will provide members of our subcommittee a timely 
opportunity to hear directly from you how diplomacy and foreign 
assistance can effectively be utilized to respond to the 
growing challenges around the world.
    First and foremost, of course, is bringing the COVID-19 
pandemic to a close, which includes the rapid distribution and 
administration of vaccines, and helping the developing world 
recover from the pandemic's devastating impact across all 
sectors. I am especially eager to hear the latest on the 
administration's efforts to make vaccines available in low- and 
middle-income countries.
    Of course, one of my priorities as chair is eliminating 
longstanding barriers to diversity that exist in our foreign 
affairs workforce and that perpetrate a system where minorities 
and women are chronically underrepresented. I know you share 
this goal.
    Your recent appointment of Ambassador Winstanley as chief 
diversity and inclusion officer is a very positive step. 
Nevertheless, previous secretaries of state did not effectively 
tackle the deep-rooted institutional and structural barriers to 
diversity at the State Department. And so I am anxious to hear 
how you will hold yourself and the rest of the building 
accountable to finally breaking through and putting in place 
longstanding and effective solutions.
    I am also eager to discuss the administration's approach to 
traditionally underprioritized regions of the world, including 
Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Additionally, I am also 
concerned about the lack of action on Cuba policy, which, in my 
view, has not had the level of priorities that I had expected.
    We need to turn the page from the previous administration's 
outdated and counterproductive policies and return to 
engagement and dialogue to resolve our differences and to press 
the chain. What I see so far is just the opposite. And so I am 
especially anxious to know the rationale for not reversing the 
last-minute listing of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism by 
the Trump administration.
    And, Mr. Secretary, the recent outbreak of conflict between 
Israelis and the Palestinians was and is deeply concerning. And 
I wanted to thank you for your work in achieving the cease-
fire.
    The last 4 years have been extremely difficult ones for the 
Palestinian people. The previous administration's cruel and 
irresponsible policy resulted in closed diplomatic missions, 
the suspension of humanitarian and development aid, and 
unprecedented levels of mistrust and resentment toward American 
involvement in the Middle East amongst the Palestinian people. 
Let alone, further setting back--and I really believe that the 
setting back of our cause for a two-state solution really did 
occur in the last few years. And so I appreciate the 
President's commitment to restarting our assistance to the 
Palestinians, to advancing prosperity, security, and freedom 
for both Israelis and Palestinians in tangible ways.
    The fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 enacted State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPs) bill included 
for humanitarian assistance and development programs in the 
West Bank and Gaza, which was passed without controversy or 
partisan debate. I am pleased that your fiscal year 2020 
request proposes $218 million for such assistance, although I 
believe that we can and we should do more.
    Also, I am pleased the administration is renewing 
diplomatic focus and resources to the Northern Triangle 
countries. The halt in our assistance during the previous 
administration not only set us back from addressing the root 
causes of migration, it caused critical time and credibility 
needed to make progress on human rights, economic opportunity, 
combatting corruption, and upholding the rule of law. 
Nevertheless, before committing to a 4-year and $4 billion 
plan, which includes $860 million request this year, Congress 
needs to really understand how we will measure progress and 
ensure long-lasting impact, particularly on combatting 
corruption and impunity in the region.
    The Biden administration budget also includes the 
commitment to restoring America's standing in the world through 
robust engagement with the United Nations and funding for the 
World Health Organization, UNFPA, and the U.N. High 
Commissioner for Human Rights, among other international 
organizations.
    I fully support efforts to reinvigorate our multilateral 
partnerships so that we are better positioned to tackle today's 
global challenges from COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and 
the many secondary impacts of both.
    Before I conclude, let me just say I am also very 
disappointed that over the last 4 years, the United States has 
not paid its full United Nations peacekeeping assessments, and 
that we have accrued over $1 billion in arrears. And so as 
chairwoman, I am fully committed to partnering with the Biden-
Harris administration on meeting our annual assessed payments, 
paying down our United Nations' arrears, and putting in place a 
realistic solution that prevents this type of staggering 
dereliction of responsibility by the United States again.
    Mr. Secretary, it is clear we have much to discuss today, 
but I want to thank you again for your tireless work on behalf 
of the American people, your leadership and dedication to the 
most pressing foreign policy issues of our time. I hope this is 
the first of many discussions between you and the subcommittee, 
and I look forward to your testimony.
    And, now, I would like to yield and turn the time over to 
our ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his opening statement.

                    Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome to the subcommittee, albeit at a 
distance. We want to thank you for being able to be with us to 
answer questions about your budget request for fiscal year 
2022.
    Each year when the Secretary of State comes up to testify 
before this subcommittee, I reflect upon the seemingly endless 
global challenges, and I am struck by the number of complex 
problems the Secretary of State must address on any given day 
or even hour. This year, in particular, stands out given the 
number of crises around the world testing our country's foreign 
policy. And I would say, Mr. Secretary, you have your work cut 
out for you. But we are here to try to help any way that we 
can, and we thank you for being willing to answer our 
questions.
    The request for fiscal year 2022 is $61.96 billion. That is 
an increase of more than 11 percent, almost 12, from the fiscal 
year 2021 enacted level.
    While I oppose the sweeping cuts to the State Department 
put forward by the previous administration, I am also concerned 
about the magnitude of the increases being proposed in this 
request. I intend to give it fair consideration, but budgets of 
this size will be difficult to justify given our country's 
unprecedented deficits and debt.
    In addition, increases in the President's budget for this 
bill and other nondefense programs appear to come at the 
expense of our military. I hope the committee will carefully 
consider the potential consequences from these kinds of 
tradeoffs as allocations are decided.
    Mr. Secretary, although I believe this budget request has 
some seriously misguided priorities, which I will address in a 
moment, there are a number of things I applaud in your 
proposal.
    I appreciate that the request fully funds the enacted level 
for Israel's foreign military financing at $3.3 billion. And I 
was pleased to learn the administration supports additional 
funding to replenish the Iron Dome and other depleted systems. 
They were essential to preventing massive casualties in Israel 
from Hamas' aggressive rocket attacks last month.
    I am also pleased to see funding maintained without 
conditions for Egypt, another key partner in the Middle East. I 
may return to Egypt in my questions, but I was glad to hear 
they were given credit for their role in helping to end the 
recent conflict, and of your productive meeting with President 
Al-Sisi.
    Turning to embassy security, the funding is maintained at 
current levels, which is a notable improvement from the two 
previous administrations. You can count on my support in 
remaining ever vigilant in the defense of U.S. personnel and 
facilities overseas.
    I also support the increased funding you are seeking to 
counter Chinese malign influence. Unfortunately, the 
environmental policies and projects in the President's budget 
will significantly disadvantage the United States against 
China. Under the deeply flawed Paris Agreement, our economy 
will suffer while China can do whatever it likes.
    I am also disappointed to see, Mr. Secretary, cuts proposed 
in the budget for Jordan and Colombia, two key strategic 
partners that need our support now more than ever. I also have 
serious concerns with the approach taken in this request for 
the United Nations and other international organizations that 
appear to have abandoned any efforts at reform and burden-
sharing, while doubling down on the funding.
    The unprecedented actions against Israel at the U.N. Human 
Rights Council and the ascension of Syria and Belarus to the 
World Health Organization's Executive Board are just two recent 
examples of how deeply flawed and dangerous some of these 
international bodies can be.
    There are other concerns that I will try to address in my 
questions, but before I close, Mr. Secretary, I want you to 
know that I take my role in providing oversight of your 
department very seriously, and have for the last 36 years. I 
value the work of the inspector general. And I hope you will 
too, especially in addressing chronic management challenges at 
your agency that persist year after year.
    To that end, I was very pleased to learn that the position 
of deputy secretary for Management and Resources was finally 
filled. Hallelujah. It has been a long crusade. But I am glad 
to see, Mr. Secretary, that you have seen the wisdom in that 
position. The Department has needed someone at the highest 
levels to focus on the daily business of managing both 
operations and assistance, freeing up the Secretary to do the 
policy chores that demand most of his time. I spoke with Deputy 
Secretary McKeon shortly after he came on the job, and I look 
forward to staying in touch with him as we go along.
    Mr. Secretary, let me conclude by thanking the men and 
women of your department, foreign and civil, as well as the 
locally employed staff advancing American leadership abroad. I 
salute their dedication and want them to know their sacrifices 
are appreciated on both sides of the aisle.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being open with us. You 
pledged early on that you would communicate well with the 
subcommittee, and this is a really good start. So thank you for 
being here.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
    Let me just say, I don't see the chair of our 
Appropriations Committee with us, Chairwoman DeLauro, or 
Ranking Member Ms. Granger. If they attend, we will definitely 
stop and yield to them for any questions or statements that 
they may have.
    So, first, Secretary Blinken, I know that, as I said 
earlier, you shared our goal of addressing long-stand failures 
to diversify the State Department workforce. So, ultimately, it 
is an issue of institutional accountability, and so I am just 
curious as to how you are going to hold yourself and the entire 
department accountable for making real progress on this issue 
and what specific reforms are employed now and in the next 3 to 
6 months. Because I know, and some members on this committee 
know, how long we have been trying to get the State Department 
to address racial equity, gender equity, inclusion. And so I 
know there is some systems that may need to be reformed.
    But, also, we have to put some accountability measures and 
some initiatives in place to make sure that the strategy for 
targeting underrepresented minorities and women in the foreign 
service and everything State Department does, that we move 
forward. So can you just kind of share some of your specific 
ideas on this?

                 Opening Statement of Secretary Blinken

    Secretary Blinken. Well, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member 
Rogers, first of all, let me just say what a pleasure it is to 
be with both of you and all the members of this subcommittee. 
And, Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to submit my opening 
statement for the record, if that is what you would prefer.
    Ms. Lee. Please go on and give us your opening statement at 
least for 5 minutes.
    Secretary Blinken. Okay.
    Ms. Lee. You can include your answer, if you want to, in 
your opening statement.
    Secretary Blinken. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate 
it. And, again, it is really a pleasure to be with both of you 
and all the members of this subcommittee. And I really 
appreciate this opportunity to talk about the administration's 
proposed budget and how it will help achieve our national 
security priorities and deliver results for the American 
people, which is our common objective.
    I do think this is a critical moment for the United States 
and our global leadership. As you both alluded to, we face 
major tests, including stopping COVID-19, rising to the 
challenge of the climate crisis, supporting a global economic 
recovery that delivers for American workers and families. We 
have to revitalize our alliances and partnerships, outcompete 
China, and defend the international rules-based order against 
those who seek to undermine it, renew democratic values at home 
and abroad, and push back against malign activity by our 
adversaries.
    In a more competitive world, other countries are making 
historic investments in their foreign policy toolkit. We need 
to do the same thing. That is why in this budget we requested 
$58.5 billion for the State Department and USAID for fiscal 
year 2022.
    And, Ranking Member Rogers, I just want to point out, I am 
already saving you some money right there. I think it is $58.5 
billion. So I have been responsive to your concern. And let me 
just give you some specifics about how we plan to spend these 
funds if you support them.
    First, the budget will strengthen global health. The United 
States has been a leader in this field for decades, in Africa, 
around the world. We are asking for $10 billion for global 
health programs, including nearly $1 billion for global health 
security, to help us prevent, prepare for, and respond to 
future global health crises, so we can stop outbreaks before 
they turn into pandemics that put our safety and prosperity in 
danger.
    This budget will accelerate the global response to the 
climate crisis by providing $2.5 billion for international 
climate programs, including $1.25 billion to the Green Climate 
Fund, to help developing countries implement climate adaptation 
and emissions mitigation programs, which is directly in our 
interest.
    The budget would double-down on the fight for democracy, 
which, as we all know, is under threat in too many places. The 
budget request includes $2.8 billion in foreign assistance to 
advance human rights, fight corruption, stem the tide of 
democratic backsliding, and strengthen and defend democracies, 
for example, through technical training for elections and 
support for independent media of civil society. It also 
requests $300 million for the National Endowment for Democracy.
    The budget will support a comprehensive strategy to address 
the root causes of irregular migration from Central America. It 
will invest $861 million in the region as a first step toward a 
4-year commitment of $4 billion to help prevent violence, 
reduce poverty, curtail endemic corruption, and expand job and 
educational opportunity.
    It will reestablish American humanitarian leadership, with 
a requested $10 billion in assistance to support refugees, 
victims of conflict, other displaced people, and to rebuild the 
Refugee Admissions Program.
    It will support our partners in the Middle East by fully 
funding our commitments to key countries, including Israel and 
Jordan, and by restoring humanitarian assistance to the 
Palestinian people.
    It includes a budget request of $3.6 billion to pay our 
assessed contributions in full to international organizations, 
initiatives, and peacekeeping efforts, including to restore our 
annual contribution to the World Health Organization.
    As China and others work hard to bend international 
organizations to their world view, we need to ensure that these 
organizations remain grounded in the values, principles, and 
rules of the world--role, excuse me, that have made our shared 
progress possible for so many decades.
    Finally, to deliver in all of these areas, the budget will 
reinvest in our most vital asset: our people. It will provide 
new resources to recruit, train, and retain a first-rate 
diverse global workforce, with nearly 500 additional foreign 
and civil service positions, the largest increase in state 
staffing in a decade. And it will modernize our technology and 
cybersecurity, protect our embassies and consulates, and 
include a direct appropriation of $320 million for consular 
services worldwide so we can continue to provide these vital 
services to Americans and those who seek to travel, study, or 
do business with the United States.
    Our national security depends not only on the strength of 
our Armed Forces, but also our ability to conduct effective 
diplomacy and development. That is how we solve global 
challenges, forge cooperation, advance our interest in values, 
protect our people, and prevent crises overseas from turning 
into emergencies here at home. And that is why diplomacy and 
development are smart investments for American taxpayers.
    A top priority for me as Secretary is to restore the 
traditional role of Congress as a partner in our foreign 
policymaking. That is the spirit that I bring to today's 
conversation, and I am very grateful for this opportunity and 
the chance to answer any questions. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    And let me just mention a couple of things. First, I want 
to reiterate, I will be calling on members based on seniority 
of the members that were present when the hearing was called to 
order, alternating between majority and minority members. And 
then I will recognize any remaining members in the order of 
their appearance. And each member is asked to keep their 
question to 5 minutes per round.
    So, Secretary Blinken, you heard my first question 
prematurely. I would love to hear your response.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Making sure that we have a 
workforce that looks like the country it represents is a top 
priority for me. And I have said both publicly as well as 
privately that I will consider a measure of the success or not 
of however long I am in the job whether we succeed in putting 
in place a much stronger foundation to have that workforce that 
looks like this country.
    You noted that we appointed the first chief diversity and 
inclusion officer. That is an important gauge of the 
seriousness of purpose that I am bringing to this, but let me 
just speak previously to the challenge writ large, including 
the mandate of that office.
    We have to tackle this, and we will tackle this, in a 
comprehensive way, starting with work that needs to be done 
before anyone gets anywhere near the doors of C Street; that 
is, with recruitment. And that has to start a lot earlier than 
it presently does. In part, by opening minds, especially in 
traditionally underserved communities represented in the 
Department to the possibility of having a career serving the 
country and serving our foreign policy.
    And so we are going to be engaging even more, and I hope 
more effectively even, with high schools, colleges, 
universities, especially those that serve diverse populations. 
And that is going to start with me, but it is going to be an 
expectation that I have of the team across the board.
    Second, once people get into the C Street doors, that is 
not enough. Because the problem, as you know very well that we 
have had, is that we do bring people in, and then they leave. 
We have a serious retention problem. And that starts with a 
need to have genuine inclusion. This can't be a check-the-box 
numbers game. It actually goes fundamentally to the culture of 
the Department and the way we understand and act on the 
different challenges that our colleagues coming from different 
backgrounds and different communities may face and that, 
honestly, many of us may not fully understand or appreciate.
    And that is going to be part of the work of the Office of 
the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer to help us better 
understand that. We are also going to incorporate that into the 
Foreign Service Institute's training.
    Third, I think you are going to see that in the 
appointments we make, the senior positions, again, a better 
reflection of the diversity of our country. Because it is 
vitally important that when people start out at the Department, 
they can imagine having a career that leads to the most senior 
jobs. And if they are not seeing colleagues who come from the 
same backgrounds or communities that they do, then that vision 
is not going to be there and they may not stick it out.
    Finally, we need to have accountability. And one of the 
things that I have asked the chief diversity and inclusion 
officer to do in that office, because it is an office that 
reports directly to me as Secretary. We are going to have 
actual numbers, analysis, understanding. We are going to try to 
disaggregate data in ways that we have not done effectively in 
the past so that we can understand and we can show whether, in 
fact, we are making progress in having a genuinely diverse 
department.
    Last thing I will say on this, our greatest strength--it is 
a cliche, but it is true. Our greatest strength as a country is 
in our diversity. And that is all the more true when it comes 
to our foreign policy, because we are dealing with an 
incredibly diverse world. And as you know, the ranking member 
said, the sheer multiplicity and complexity of the challenges 
we face has probably never been greater. It would be to 
penalize ourselves not to have, as full part and partner in our 
foreign policy, a true reflection of the diversity of our 
country. We are going to be much more effective in engaging in 
the world when we have that.
    So I am determined that we show real sustainable progress, 
and I think we are putting in place the tools to do it. The 
chief diversity and inclusion officer is developing a 5-year 
plan for this that we will share with you, and I think that 
will be ready in the weeks ahead.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that, 
because in trying to develop a closer collaboration, I really 
do want to look at the plan and work with you on it. But also, 
just know that I want to see something 3 months, 6 months, 
because this is such a longstanding issue. A 5-year plan is 
great, but we have to have benchmarks throughout this 5 years. 
We can't wait that long to have a State Department that 
reflects the country and the aspirations of people who really 
would want to enhance our presence in the world. So thank you 
again.
    I would like now to yield to Mr. Rogers, our ranking 
member.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, the Department's request for the U.N. and 
other international organizations includes an increase of $630 
million over the current level. That includes costs associated 
with your plan to rejoin several international organizations, 
to pay arrears, and to pay peacekeeping dues above the 
statutory rate of 25 percent, a cap that has not been changed 
by the Congress since it was negotiated during your time at the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
    A little over a week ago, the U.N. system demonstrated why 
there is so much skepticism and concern about continued 
investments in the absence of significant reform from top to 
bottom. On May 27, the U.N. Human Rights Council took the 
unprecedented step to open an investigation against Israel for 
alleged war crimes. You are asking for resources that will 
help--will end up funding that effort, and the American 
taxpayer has a right to be outraged.
    One day later, on May 28, Syria and Belarus were elected to 
the World Health Organization's executive board. Now, a 
murderous regime and a desperate dictator are part of the 
governance structure of the World Health Organization, as if 
the list of problems of that organization was not long enough. 
U.S. officials could have called for a vote and voiced 
objections, but, instead, they did nothing, until the deal was 
done.
    Mr. Secretary, your administration has acknowledged the 
deep flaws of many of these organizations, but you have 
proposed the United States to rejoin, with payment, in an 
effort to make change and see better results. How can we 
believe that you will be able to make or even attempt to make 
any changes at these organizations when we just witnessed a 
failure to act on such an important matter?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Ranking Member. I very much 
appreciate the question. Let me just say one thing at the 
outset. I do think that repaying our arrears and also trying to 
be current is very important in these organizations because it 
goes directly to our ability to have influence. When we are not 
paying up, we are listened to less. And it also goes to their 
operations and their ability to do the job in ways that advance 
our own interests. But we can come back to that.
    I think with regard to the Human Rights Council, with 
regard to the World Health Organization, it is our judgment 
that we stand a much better chance of advancing the important 
reforms that both need, on that I can strongly concur with you, 
if we are at the table as opposed to outside the room. And when 
we are not at the table, someone else is. And you alluded to a 
couple of countries in one case who might be. We can think of 
others who also would be. And our ability to actually advance 
meaningful reform, to shape the way these organizations work is 
gone.
    And so with regard to the Human Rights Council, we are 
going to be a candidate for membership for 2022 to 2024. Last 
time we were actually in the room at the table, we were much 
more effective, for example, in dealing with the bias against 
Israel and one-sided actions that the Human Rights Council 
takes to single out Israel unfairly. We cut by about 30 percent 
the number of such initiatives when we were there. When we are 
not there, these things, unfortunately, tend to proliferate.
    And I think with regard to the World Health Organization, 
we stand a much better chance in actually advancing the vital 
reforms--I strongly agree with you--that are needed if we are 
there and making good on our commitments, and then insisting 
that it make good on its responsibilities.
    Mr. Rogers. I have got only a few seconds left. Is it 
possible to ask for another minute?
    Ms. Lee. Yes. Go right ahead.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see that the President's 
budget request maintained the current level of funding for 
Egypt, because they are a critical partner in the Middle East. 
That U.S.-Egypt relationship is complicated, but very 
important. I was in Cairo meeting with President Al-Sisi when 
the two church bombings happened on Palm Sunday in 2017. 
Sometimes I think we lose sight of the very real terrorist 
threats they face there and continue to face.
    You met with President Al-Sisi recently, following the 
cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. To the degree that you 
can, tell us about the role Egypt played in helping to end the 
recent conflict, and tell us of your view of the U.S.-Egyptian 
relationship.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Egypt played an absolutely 
vital role in getting the cease-fire. I don't think it would 
have happened without their engagement. It is as simple as 
that. Something that we have both appreciated and applauded 
publicly. And to your point, it also plays a very important 
role in Middle East stability, in countering terrorism. We have 
important defense cooperation that focuses on border 
challenges, maritime security, counterterrorism. And, of 
course, ISIS in the region, the affiliate there, is wedged 
between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai and poses a very 
significant challenge. Egyptian forces are losing several 
people a week in this effort to deal with it. So Egypt is a 
vital partner in many ways.
    We do have real concerns about human rights. I had a very 
lengthy conversation with President el-Sisi about that and a 
very direct and honest exchange. And, you know, I would say--
and we have met with human rights defenders, civil society, and 
others. I think we have seen some progress in some areas, 
particularly religious freedom, as well as women's empowerment, 
dealing with gender-based violence, trafficking persons. We 
appreciate that.
    On the other hand, when it comes to freedom of expression, 
when it comes to civil society, there are very significant 
problems that we need to address directly with our Egyptian 
partners, and we are. So we hope and expect to see progress 
there, even as we sustain this partnership that really is vital 
for our common security.
    Mr. Rogers. I thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
    I now will yield to Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here today to 
testify. And congratulations. We are thrilled that you are here 
in this role and look forward to working with you on a host of 
issues to work to ensure that the money that our committee 
appropriates is put to the best possible use and is equitably 
distributed through programs that lift up those who are the 
most vulnerable in the world.
    For my district in Queens, New York, one of the most 
diverse districts in our country, foreign policy is not just an 
esoteric issue of solving faraway problems, but many of my 
constituents have strong family and business ties to their 
countries of origin and many of their families directly benefit 
from our foreign assistance.
    My first question is about divided families. As you may 
know, there are thousands of Korean Americans who were 
separated from their families in North Korea by war. These 
Americans have lived without knowing whether their spouses, 
children, or grandchildren are still alive. While there have 
been over 20 opportunities for divided families to have 
reunions between Seoul and DPRK, none of these reunions have 
actually included Korean Americans. Seoul, as well as other 
international organizations, has committed to helping 
facilitate the inclusion of Korean Americans in these reunions. 
Obviously, time is running out as these family members age into 
their 80s and 90s.
    Can you update us on how humanitarian issues such as this 
one will be included in any talks at any level with our allies 
in Seoul or with the DPRK?
    And in order for this issue to really get the attention it 
deserves, we need a special envoy on North Korean human rights. 
The former President did not appoint anyone to this position, 
which I really think was a mistake. Can we expect a nominee for 
this role expeditiously?
    Secretary Blinken. In answer to your second question, yes, 
you can, and we are moving forward on that. As you know, the 
usual challenges with vetting and everything make some of these 
things a little slower than we would like them to be or should 
be. But short answer is yes.
    And with regard to family reunification, I am deeply 
sensitive to that issue and appreciate everything you have 
said. Because at the end of the day, so much of what we do and 
we sometimes forget comes down to real human beings, to real 
people. And this is just heart-wrenching knowing that people 
have been, not only separated, but don't even know the fate of 
their loved ones.
    So what I can pledge to you is that we will absolutely work 
on this, including with our South Korean partners, to make sure 
that the interest of Korean Americans who have been separated 
from families are reflected in the efforts that we make and 
that are made. As you know, it is very challenging, and we 
don't know what kind of engagement we are going to get from the 
DPRK. But thank you for putting a light on this issue.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary.
    And I don't have much time, but I just wanted to briefly 
address the international affairs budget which broadly supports 
funding for gender equality and equity. The $200 million Gender 
Equity and Equality Action Fund is the only amount specified.
    Given this wide swath of issues, do you think that the $200 
million is sufficient? And how would the proposed GEEA Funds 
complement or differ from other accounts that seek to advance 
global gender equity?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. We are trying to work on this 
through a variety of programs and approaches that hopefully 
will complement each other. We have, as you know, significant 
work that we will be doing that is also reflected in the budget 
on combatting gender-based violence, which has gotten worse 
under COVID for reasons that I think you know. We are also 
trying to make sure we have an emphasis on women, peace, and 
security, working to support the participation, the leadership, 
the empowerment in decisionmaking of women and peace and 
security issues.
    And then to your point, we have this proposed Gender Equity 
and Equality Action Fund that we are seeking support for in the 
budget to promote economic empowerment, to also help deal with 
gender-based violence, to support some of the underserved 
populations, and also some of the areas where there is a 
disproportionate impact on women and girls, notably the 
pandemic, climate change, conflict.
    I think that if this budget is approved, we are resourced 
appropriately. With technology, for example, we found that 
there are some things that we can actually do more efficiently 
than before. Having said that, if there are specific areas or 
ideas that you think we should be pursuing, I very much welcome 
having an opportunity to talk about that and making sure that 
we are resourced appropriately.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I will yield now to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you, sir. Let me bring us to 
Venezuela. I don't have to tell you that the Maduro regime 
continues to violate human rights. There are obviously no free 
and fair elections. Political prisoners are still held in 
captivity. There is a lack of democratic institutions, 
independent media, free and fair expression, and obviously 
ties, continuous ties with anti-American terrorist groups and 
regimes.
    Am I to believe, and I hope I am, because I have read in 
different instances that those factors and maybe others mean 
that you will continue to support sanctions against the Maduro 
regime in Venezuela?
    Secretary Blinken. The short answer to your question is 
yes. Not only, Congressman, will we continue to support 
sanctions, but we want to try to work as effectively as 
possible with others to bring them along in increasing the 
pressure on Maduro and on the regime.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, that is good to hear, Mr. Secretary. 
And U.S. leadership matters, right? And so, let me now go to a 
different country. The OAS Secretary has called an army of 
occupation of Cuba and Venezuela. Those same conditions that I 
just mentioned in Venezuela that merit the sanctions exist in 
Cuba. Are you aware of any those conditions that don't exist in 
Cuba? And so, therefore, why would we not be supporting 
sanctioning the Castro regime? But on top of having those same 
conditions, they also have spread their influence in other 
parts of the hemisphere, including, obviously, Venezuela and 
Nicaragua. So I am assuming that the answer would be the same, 
correct?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, when it comes to Cuba, this 
is a policy that we are reviewing very carefully. And as part 
of that review, we are seeking the views, including yours and 
other Members of Congress, other stakeholders, people with 
different perspectives on the issue, whether it is in Congress, 
activists, journalists, faith-based leaders, academics, 
experts, inside and outside of Cuba, because we are really 
focused on trying to make sure that we think through and work 
through the best way to advance the goals that we all share, 
which is for a free and democratic Cuba.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, but you would agree that 
the same conditions that I just mentioned about Venezuela apply 
to Cuba, if anything more so, right.
    Secretary Blinken. I think there are differences in 
specifics between the two, but the overall concerns that we 
have both with regard to the absence of democracy in Venezuela 
and the absence of democracy in Cuba, yes.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good. And, Mr. Secretary, I don't see how 
one could say that the conditions that exist in Venezuela, 
again, and they also exist in Cuba, if anything worse, and they 
had been there longer, then why you can then say that one 
merits sanctions and the other one doesn't, particularly when 
Cuba has thousands and thousands of, again, what the OAS 
Secretary calls the army of occupation of Venezuela. So just, 
you know, something to consider.
    I want to thank you, by the way, while we are speaking of 
Cuba, for providing the $20 million for democracy assistance to 
Cuba, something that I think is desperately needed at this 
time. You talked about, in your opening statement, about your 
budget support to democracy programs, and you also talked about 
free and independent press.
    I am concerned, however, about, and very disappointed, that 
less than $13 million was requested for the Office of Cuba 
Broadcasting. That is nearly $7 million less than what was 
provided in fiscal year 2021. That was done by Congress in a 
bipartisan way.
    And, again, you know, the reason I am behind massive 
increases in other areas and yet specifically targeting OCB--
and, again, I am always concerned about why is the regime in 
Cuba somehow treated differently than other places around the 
world, including in this hemisphere. So again, I am very 
concerned about that rather substantial cut from what Congress 
had done in the last few years.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And, look, I will certainly 
take a look at that. We are, you know, across the board are 
trying to make sure that we are as effective as we can be, 
particularly in these programs. We have other tools and 
resources that can hopefully help achieve some of the same 
results. For example, the Global Engagement Center, where we 
are asking for some additional resources, that has been very 
effective, for example, in rooting out some of the 
misinformation and disinformation, to include things coming 
from Cuba and from other anti-democratic sources. But we 
welcome hearing from you, from your office of the ways you 
think we can do this more effectively. We welcome hearing it.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I look forward to working with you. 
Actually, again, the $20 million to Democracy Assistance 
Program, that is priority of yours, right?
    Great. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Madam 
Chairwoman.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now, I will yield to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We welcome you to our subcommittee, 
and we appreciate your good work thus far. I want to express 
support for many items in a very strong budget, including 
assistance for democratic governance around the world. I have a 
special role in this, I suppose, by virtue of chairing the 
House Democracy Partnership, our bipartisan commission that 
engages with parliaments and emerging democracies to learn from 
one another, to build their democratic institutional 
capacities.
    And I am sure you are aware that democratic governance 
assistance from our government, from your department, leads 
directly into our attempts to engage these parliaments and to 
improve their capacity. It means that this isn't just 
parliamentary exchanges. It means that on the ground, we are 
able to work to constantly improve performance and enhance 
professional capabilities. So we welcome the increased funding 
for democratic governance and for legislative strengthening in 
particular.
    This leads me to a couple of questions with countries that 
we have engaged with. And for very different reasons, 
engagement in these countries has become much more difficult 
recently. I am speaking of Burma and Afghanistan. Let me first 
ask you about Burma.
    The military coup there has been devastating. And among 
other things, it has effectively removed the country from 
international parliamentary engagement. I support the sanctions 
the Biden administration has already imposed on Burmese 
military officials and businesses.
    I wonder, apart from these ad hoc sanctions, what more can 
we do to affect Burmese military officials and the military 
affiliated businesses? How effective have these sanctions been? 
What would your judgment be? And are you working with our 
international partners to restrict the Tatmadaw's access to 
military equipment, financial support, and whatever might be 
done in the way of increasingly effective measures?
    What kind of engagement do you have with the National Unity 
Government? Do you have any plan to work with them further?
    And then, how does the U.S. plan to conduct assistance 
programs--there are some in your budget--in ways that do not 
benefit the military junta, do not contradict what local civil 
society groups have been urging, and as a matter of fact, does 
something to address the flaw in the previous government and in 
this government, the flaw they share with regard to the 
treatment of the Rohingya?
    Secretary Blinken. Very much share your deep concern. We 
need to see an end to the violence. We need to see prisoners 
released. We need to see Burma return to the democratic path 
that it was on.
    To your point, we have sanctioned coup leaders. We 
sanctioned major military affiliated companies supporting the 
military. We have been engaged in a comprehensive review of our 
assistance to make sure that we can focus assistance that gets 
directly to people who need it and does not get to the regime. 
We have stringent export controls in place. And we want to make 
sure that we are trying to build some support for civil 
society, humanitarian, and ethnic communities, and all of this 
in coordination with allies and partners, including ASEAN.
    One aspect of this is--and this is something I have been 
very engaged in--is trying to get countries that have 
investments or other economic relationships with enterprises in 
Burma that directly support the military and that it depends on 
as an economic lifeline, that those countries reconsider those 
investments and those relationships. And we are doing some work 
there.
    We are also very much supporting the work that ASEAN is 
doing. The regime agreed to a 5-point program that starts with 
getting an envoy from ASEAN to Burma to talk to everyone, 
including, of course, the National Unity Government and others. 
We are pressing to see that that happens. We are engaged with 
the government, with other members of the National Unity 
Government, with other members of the now opposition.
    Having said all of that, you know, this is a really deeply 
challenging problem that is going to require a lot of work and 
a lot of international coordination.
    Finally, to your point about the Rohingya, I couldn't agree 
more, this has been a deficit not just of this regime, 
although, they were among the worst perpetrators in the past of 
violence against Rohingya and other ethnic groups. But it was 
also a deficit even of the democratic administration. And we 
are very focused on that as well, and among other things, 
making sure that countries that have refugees among that 
community make good on their nonrefoulement commitments not to 
forcibly send them back to Burma where they will encounter 
very, very difficult circumstances.
    So we are working on this across the board, but it is a 
hard problem.
    Mr. Price. Yes. Certainly, yes, but we do commend your 
involvement. And there is a need to stay the course here and 
figure out ways to tighten the screws, if we possibly can. I 
think that sentiment is widely shared.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now, I will yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you so much 
for joining us today.
    Madam Chair, thank you, Ranking Member, thank you for 
holding this important hearing.
    Mr. Secretary, let me start out by just commending you for 
two things you said earlier. First of all, you consider 
Congress a partner in foreign policy. I really appreciate that. 
I think this whole committee very much does. We are brimming 
with good ideas and want to help constructively meet 
challenges.
    Secondly, you talk about foreign policy as ultimately about 
people and places, and I couldn't agree more. Ultimately about 
human dignity and creating conditions for flourishing human 
life and stability. So thank you for those comments.
    I want to try to address, if I can, the Middle East 
Partnership for Peace Act, China, and the WHO, as well as the 
Northern Triangle.
    Regarding the Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, any 
roadmap for peace needs a foundation. Chair Lowey last year 
picked up the legislation, got it into law. I am so grateful 
for her leadership.
    As a part of this law, we are trying to do two things: 
Enhance rent making through traditional people-to-people 
programs, as well as build out new forms of economic well-
being, utilize and developing finance cooperation with equity 
partners for the benefit of both Palestinian and Israelis. Our 
State Department has a lead coordinating role in this regard.
    Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with this law? How are you 
going to advance State Department's implementation? And thank 
you for funding it, by the way.
    Secretary Blinken. In short, Congressman, yes, very 
familiar with it, very much supportive of it, and we intend to 
do what we can to move out on it, because I couldn't agree more 
with the basic objectives and the basic premise.
    And, particularly, we need to use some of these new tools 
like the DFC, which I think was a very good development, and 
look at ways of doing this more effectively.
    So I would really welcome working with you and your office 
on this. It is something we very much support.
    Ms. Lee. We will go now to the chair--and thank you very 
much, Madam Chair, for joining us--Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, 
chair of our Appropriations Committee.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am very, very 
excited about today's testimony.
    And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. And, 
again, first time to be able to say congratulations. We are 
very excited about you and the role that you are in.
    I just have a couple questions.
    In the funding request for fiscal year 2022, the 
administration has talked about $10 billion for global health 
programs, $800 million increase to global health security 
programs, and that is over the 2021 amount.
    In January 2021, the administration announced it would 
reengage with the WHO. And, in the fiscal year 2022 request, 
there is the repayment of arrears to WHO and other 
international organizations.
    The $10 billion for global health programs, including an 
additional $1 billion would expand the Global Health Security 
Agenda capacity-building programs--so could you just tell us a 
little bit about how the funds will be used and which programs 
would be supported by these additional funds?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. Thank you very much.
    First, let me just say that this is really an effort to 
build on the very significant resources that Congress has 
provided over the past year in response to COVID-19. I think 
your leadership in trying to help address both near-term and 
long-term global health security challenges has been vitally 
important and is very much in line with the Global Health 
Security Agenda that we have.
    I think we need to be looking at this in two ways. One is 
COVID-19 itself, of course, and making sure that we are 
effectively prepared to hopefully prevent and, if not prevent, 
at least see and mitigate and deal with more effectively the 
next pandemic. So a significant portion of these resources are 
dedicated to doing that and building much greater capacity 
around the world in this ability to both prevent, detect, and 
mitigate.
    Parenthetically, a Senator by the name of Joe Biden, way 
back in 2003, 2004, had legislation called the Global Pathogen 
Protection Act, because he identified way back then that 
various countries did not have in place the tools to be able to 
detect the outbreak of a pathogen turning into a pandemic. 
Unfortunately, that legislation never made it through. I am 
very pleased that Congress today is really focused on this, and 
that can help give us the tools. So there is that piece.
    The broader Global Health Security Agenda is vitally 
important, too, because one of the things that has happened 
during this pandemic is that other aspects of global health 
security have been significantly compromised because of the 
inability, for example, to effectively deliver global health 
services for a variety of other challenges, whether it is 
malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and so on down the list. And 
so we want to make sure that we are able to address this 
deficit, as well, and, as we say, build back better with our 
global health security programs.
    The Chair. Well, my hope is that, in light of what you 
said, the last portion of it, I understand Ebola, Zika, and now 
coronavirus, but the other piece of this is, as we are looking 
to restructure our public health infrastructure domestically, I 
think we have to participate in a public health infrastructure 
worldwide as well. We do it with Africa where--similar to the 
CDC, et cetera. Because we are not safe unless the rest world 
is safe from these illnesses and diseases and so forth. So I 
want to work with you on that effort.
    I am going to try to get another quick question in.
    We have a number of crises around the world that threaten 
democratic institutions, the rule of law. And the budget you 
have proposed emphasizes the need to defend democracy, freedom, 
rule of law--extremely important. And I know you are poised to 
play a critical role in crafting what the U.S. response is to 
these crises.
    How do you plan to carry out that mission in a way that 
achieves our objectives while reengaging with our allies in a 
way that we did not during the previous administration?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, I think, from our perspective, the 
first order of business has been to reengage with allies and 
partners, both on a bilateral basis but also in different 
institutions, because the challenge is twofold.
    I think if we look at pretty much any of the big-ticket 
items that are actually going to have an impact on the lives of 
our people, whether it is this pandemic, whether it is climate 
change, whether it is the disruptive impacts of various new 
technologies that so shape our lives, I think the one thing we 
know is that we can't effectively deal with these challenges 
doing it alone. Even the United States, with all of our power 
and resources and know-how, we benefit from being able to work 
in cooperation and coordination with other countries to deal 
with these challenges.
    At the same time, we also know--and this is the other 
reason why our lean-in on diplomacy and engagement is so 
important--we know that, if we are not engaged, for example, in 
these very imperfect but nonetheless important international 
institutions, then one of two things: either someone else will 
be in our place, and probably not in ways that advance our 
interests and values, or, maybe just as bad, no one is, and 
then you tend to have chaos and a vacuum filled by bad things 
before it is filled by good things.
    So I think there is a premium on our engagement, on our 
diplomacy, on just showing up. And I think we are in a better 
place to advance the needed reforms if we are actually, as I 
said, in the room and at the table than not even in the 
building.
    So that is the sort of premise that we bring to this. And 
we have, thankfully--and if we are resourced properly, I think 
even more so--an incredible resource here at the State 
Department to make sure that the U.S. is present, is engaged, 
is playing the lead role in shaping the norms, shaping the 
rules, shaping the standards that govern so much of our lives. 
That is what we need to be doing, and we are grateful for the 
support we can get for the budget to do it.
    The Chair. Okay. Thank you.
    And thank you for indulging me going over time, Madam 
Chair. I appreciate it.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Now I will yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I appreciate 
it.
    And thank you to Secretary Blinken for being here today. I 
appreciate that as well.
    Secretary, in late March, President Biden supported calls 
for the 2021 MLB All-Star Game to be moved out of Atlanta, 
Georgia. And then, literally just hours later--I mean, you 
can't make this up--within 72 hours of requesting that the All-
Star Game be moved out of Georgia, he then came out opposing a 
boycott of the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing.
    Secretary Blinken, why do you think the administration is 
silent when it comes to China hosting the Olympic Games but is 
so outspoken when it comes to moving the All-Star Game out of 
Georgia?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, first, let me say, one of the 
great benefits of my job is that I don't do politics. I will 
just focus on policy.
    I have to tell you, I am not aware of the President taking 
that position, but what I can say is this: With regard to the 
Olympics, we are consulting very closely with allies and 
partners to look at the common concerns that we have and, 
ideally, to establish a common approach. That is what we are 
focused on right now.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, I mean, you have said that China 
has a host of atrocious human rights violations. And I think 
that Joe Biden thought that, by pulling out of the MLB game, 
somehow it would send an overture that we support voting 
rights. There are no voting rights in China. It is a communist 
state; they can't vote.
    So even Speaker Pelosi has come out saying that she 
supports at least a diplomatic boycott of the Games. Would you 
support a boycott of the Olympic Games in China?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, what we are doing now is 
consulting with other concerned countries and trying to make 
sure we understand their thoughts and perspectives on this and 
then, as I said, developing a common approach, which will be 
much more effective than doing something on our own.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Well, you would agree that in the past 
when adversarial nations, such as 1930s Germany, such as when 
the Soviet Union, hosted the Games that they then used that 
opportunity to then actually invade neighboring countries. Do 
you fear that might happen with China, that after these Games 
are hosted they would try to invade, let's say, Taiwan? Is that 
a concern?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, we have real concerns about the 
increased aggression that the government in Beijing has shown 
toward Taiwan. Whether there is any relationship or not to 
China hosting the Olympic Games I couldn't say. We are focused 
on that irrespective of the Olympics.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay.
    Well, your administration has pressured corporate sponsors 
of the Games to drop their sponsorship--I am sorry. Biden has 
pressured corporate sponsors of the 2020 Olympic Games to drop 
their sponsorship due to human rights concerns. So the 
administration actually has taken steps on that.
    Special Envoy John Kerry has taken the same tack against 
banks that discriminated against U.S. companies in the fossil 
fuel industry.
    So this tactic has been used not only on the fossil fuel 
industry but also on the 2022 Olympic Games. Do you think that 
those further tools like that should be used to further put 
pressure on China?
    Secretary Blinken. As I said, I want to make sure, from 
where I sit and given my responsibilities, that we are 
consulting with other concerned countries, that we understand 
their perspectives on this, and that we come up with a common 
approach. And that is what we are focused on.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Secretary Blinken. I 
appreciate it.
    And, Chairwoman Lee, with that, I would yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I will now yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to have you 
here, and thank you for being here.
    Let me start just with a statement, and then I have a 
couple questions. I want to just say thank you for the $3.3 
billion that maintains United States support to Israel. It is 
without conditions, and I believe it should be without 
conditions, so thank you for that. And I know there will be 
another $500,000 in a different budget.
    But I have some questions--hopefully I can get to both of 
them--in regards to family planning and education. And I have 
to say, though I love most of your budget, I am a little 
disappointed with this aspect, and I will tell you why.
    In terms of reproductive rights, I know--and you probably 
know this--that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating 
impact on women around the world, especially when it comes to 
reproductive rights and health. And the United Nations recently 
estimated that, 1 year into the pandemic, 12 million women have 
experienced disruptions in their family planning services.
    And what made it worse was, under the previous 
administration, budget proposals consistently cut global health 
funding. And President Trump went even further by reinstating 
and expanding the very harmful global gag rule in a way that 
crippled global health assistance to women and girls because it 
forced clinics around the world to choose between receiving 
U.S. funding or providing critical care and family planning 
services like access to contraception, HIV prevention, and 
maternal healthcare. And we know these are critical health 
services.
    I am pleased that President Biden has rescinded the global 
gag rule. And, although we don't know the full impact of the 
pandemic yet, we do know that the United States' leadership in 
this arena is important.
    I know you had a small increase in bilateral family 
planning, but I think and respectfully suggest we need a much, 
much robust increase.
    So my question to you is, given so much of the unmet need 
and what is going on around the world, how do you expect that 
we will even make a dent in this unless we put more funding 
into international family planning?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And I very much appreciate 
the question, appreciate the concern. And I share a lot of that 
concern. As you have rightly said, we have seen so much 
devastating impacts of COVID-19, but, in particular, women and 
girls have been harmed significantly in this in ways that 
others have not.
    I think part of the answer is that we are taking steps to 
resume funding to the U.N. Population Fund. And that is a very 
important vehicle for advancing these services to people in 
need and to women and to girls. So this is obviously a new 
development and one that I hope will make a significant 
difference. There is $32.5 million dedicated to that 
proposition in the budget.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
    Let me get just quickly to another subject, which also is 
related to the pandemic. Recent United Nations reporting 
estimates that over 11 million girls may not go back to school 
after COVID. And that is really sad. But your request, your 
administration budget, reduces education funding.
    So maybe you could explain that. And, more importantly, 
what is the proposed administration efforts to get girls back 
into school and stay in school?
    Secretary Blinken. There, too, I agree with you, I think 
this is vital. And the efforts that we are making to make sure 
that there is greater and meaningful access to education are 
really vital.
    I think that, insofar as the budget goes, I think we have 
found that there are ways, including with technology, to do 
some of these things even more efficiently and, I hope, 
effectively that can also be cost-savers. And so we are looking 
at making sure we can do this in an effective way, in an 
efficient way.
    Having said that, if you think or see particular problems 
that we are not effectively addressing or meeting, I would 
welcome knowing those, and we can see if there is more that we 
can do on that count.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Will do. Thank you so much.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now I will yield to Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us here today and 
for your service to our country.
    I want to preface my questions and my comments by 
mentioning that I represent one of the largest Uyghur diaspora 
communities in the United States, so their plight is very, very 
important to me and my constituents.
    I want to talk a little bit what is happening in Xinjiang 
and the treatment of Uyghurs and other Turkic ethnic 
minorities, because, despite all the recent attention to this 
issue, the internment camps are still expanding, products made 
with Uyghur forced labor continue to flood our markets, and 
stories of rape and forced sterilization in the camps are 
growing worse.
    And I agree that we should step up the pressure not only on 
the Chinese Government but also on global corporations and 
institutions that are turning a blind eye toward these gross 
human rights violations and even genocide.
    Now, I know that the administration hasn't yet made a 
decision regarding what to do about the 2022 Beijing Olympic 
Games, and I agree with you that it should not be about 
politics. But I just don't see how we can go on with business 
as usual while the host country is committing genocide. At the 
very least, we should be pressuring the IOC to move the Games 
and not take a full boycott off the table.
    So there is no question right now, but I just want you to 
know that this is something that affects people on both sides 
of the aisle and that the world is really watching us, and they 
are going to be assessing what we do, moving forward.
    Now, sticking with the Uyghurs, I am a co-lead on a 
bipartisan bill led by Representative Ted Deutch that would 
give Uyghurs Priority 2 refugee status, which, as you know, 
would give them direct access to the U.S. refugee system and 
kind of fast-track them.
    Now, we have seen media reports that China is pressuring 
Turkey and probably other countries to crack down on Uyghur 
dissidents through economic pressure and even threatening to 
withhold vaccine from those countries. And Turkey's parliament 
is even considering an extradition agreement with China that 
would make it easier to extradite Uyghurs.
    Is this something that the State Department is keeping an 
eye on? And what are you doing to help the Uyghurs in this 
situation and work with our third-party allies to ensure that 
they are not really susceptible to this pressure?
    Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. And thank you for 
flagging that, putting a spotlight on it. And I have actually 
raised this with my Turkish counterpart.
    We have also been very focused on making sure that Uyghurs 
who have made it to other countries, that those countries 
respect the non-refoulement obligations that they have 
internationally and do not send people back to dire 
circumstances.
    I think, across the board, as you know, we have worked to 
build a course of condemnation for what the PRC is doing in 
Xinjiang to Uyghurs and other minorities. There have been joint 
actions and sanctions, in coordination with the U.K., with 
Canada, with the European Union, that China certainly took 
notice of, given its reaction.
    We are focused, as well, on trying to make sure, to the 
best of our ability, that products made with forced labor in 
Xinjiang camp don't come here, and we are working to open the 
eyes of other countries to that as well.
    At the same time, we want to make sure that none of our 
companies are, inadvertently or otherwise, engaged in exporting 
technologies or products that can be used in any way to 
perpetuate the repression of Uyghurs or anyone else.
    And all of this is in the works. We continue to look for 
ways to bring to bear meaningful pressure on China to change 
its practices, to stop the repression of Uyghurs and other 
ethnic minorities.
    Ms. Wexton. And it seems it is accelerating, unfortunately, 
so we have to step it up even more. So thank you.
    Now, I understand that the State Department has a number of 
useful resources to counter disinformation and misinformation, 
and I know a number of those are included in your budget. 
Specifically in China, what are we doing to counter the massive 
state-sponsored propaganda machine?
    Secretary Blinken. Yeah, this is a really important piece 
of things.
    We have, as you know, the Global Engagement Center, which 
is, I think, an increasingly effective vehicle in finding and 
sharing and then acting on misinformation and disinformation, 
whether it is from China, whether it is from Russia, whether it 
is from many places. It has become the premier platform for 
sharing information about misinformation and disinformation 
with several dozen countries, including some of our closest 
allies and partners.
    And the budget request reflects the fact that we believe 
for the State Department this is an important and increasingly 
effective vehicle to deal with that challenge.
    Ms. Wexton. I am a big fan of the GEC. And I also think 
that Radio Free Asia is one of the best bangs for the buck in 
terms of countering disinformation----
    Secretary Blinken. Yep.
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. And getting the Uyghur story out 
there, so I appreciate your continuing support of it.
    And, with that, I will yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    I don't believe Mr. Fortenberry is back yet.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I am back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. You have two minutes left, Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, what I did hear is that you 
are committed to implementing MEPPA--thank you--the Middle East 
Partnership for Peace Act. I think it is a critical new 
architecture for, again, establishing trust and economic well-
being with continuity, using the best of the private market 
system with a little bit of subsidy. So thank you very much for 
that.
    Let's talk about China and the WHO. There is increasing 
concern and a possibility that this may have very well come 
from a Wuhan lab. It looks like, obviously, if that was the 
case, that there was a massive cover-up by China and the WHO.
    I would like to hear your perspective on this and how the 
administration is monitoring the developments in this regard, 
researching this possibility, and how China will be held 
accountable, should the findings point in that direction.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. A couple of things on this.
    First, back in March, President Biden instructed the 
administration to, on a whole-of-government basis, look into 
what we could determine about the origins of COVID-19. And we 
had a report come back to us that basically narrowed it down to 
two most likely hypotheses--that is, a natural occurrence from 
animal to human and coming out of a lab. But it was unable to 
conclude with any degree of confidence which, if either, of 
those was the most likely.
    And that inspired the President, just recently, to ask the 
intelligence community to--again, whole of government, bringing 
in expertise from the labs, from the National Institutes of 
Science, HHS, et cetera--90 days, to do everything we can to 
see if we can determine with any greater degree of certitude 
where COVID-19 originated.
    So that is one piece.
    The second piece is WHO. And I think you are exactly right 
that, both with regard to WHO and with regard to the PRC 
Government, from day one we have seen a tremendous deficit in 
meeting the responsibilities that they should have been 
meeting, particularly with regard to the government in Beijing. 
Transparency, information-sharing, access for experts, 
international experts--none of that happened early on and when 
it really could have made a difference.
    And now, even with the report, the Phase 1 report done by 
the WHO, we have deep, deep reservations about the methodology 
used and, again, the lack of appropriate access and 
information-sharing. And that is why this Phase 2 report needs 
to go forward to see if it can actually get to the bottom of 
what happened.
    If we can't get to the bottom of what happened, it is going 
to make it so much more difficult to put in place the measures 
that are needed to hopefully prevent and certainly to better 
deal with the next pandemic. And that is also profoundly, one 
would think, in China's interest.
    So I think what you are seeing around the world is a 
growing focus, on the need for countries, starting with China, 
to step up to their responsibilities. That is what we are 
looking for, and that is what the international community is 
insisting on. So that is how we are moving forward, both here 
in the United States and with the WHO. We need and we are 
determined to get to the bottom of this.
    Mr. Fortenberry. And then accountability metrics after 
that, should the ugly side of this manifest itself?
    Secretary Blinken. We need to have accountability.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. I yield now to Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And it is good to see you again, Secretary Blinken. Welcome 
to our subcommittee.
    I want to align myself with the comments made by my 
colleague, Ms. Frankel, on aid to Israel.
    I will focus my questions on Central America. Thank you for 
visiting the region. I hope to hear more about your recent trip 
to Costa Rica and the meetings related to the Northern Triangle 
region.
    I appreciate you appointing experienced and committed 
officials like Special Envoy Zuniga to tackle the issues in the 
Northern Triangle region. However, I must stress to you that we 
need strong, experienced, and permanent leadership to represent 
our values and challenge undemocratic behavior along with 
partners in a multilateral forum.
    Secretary Blinken, what is the timeline for naming 
ambassadors to El Salvador and Honduras?
    Ambassador Popp in Guatemala has shown impressive 
leadership despite the challenging partnership. How do you 
ensure that our ambassadors working in the region are not 
pressured and intimidated from the governments and elites, as 
we have seen in the past?
    And, given El Salvador's recent actions that seem to have 
gone against the Democratic Charter, will you prioritize 
appointing a permanent representative to the OAS?
    Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. I think you are exactly 
right. We are determined to have the strongest people in place, 
both in those countries and at the OAS.
    With regard to El Salvador, as we are trying to work on 
getting an ambassador, we asked--and, thankfully, she said 
yes--we got Jean Manes back to El Salvador, who is an 
extremely----
    Mrs. Torres. I cannot celebrate temporary appointments, 
sir. I must, you know, demand that we do better. Hopefully, it 
will be her, because I understand that she is a true, tried 
leader that would do well, but not on a temporary basis. That 
is just not acceptable.
    Secretary Blinken. No, I agree with you, and we are working 
as fast as we can to get people in place. As you know, the 
process, including all of the vetting, the confirmation process 
is probably not as fast and efficient as all of us would like. 
But we are working through it with great determination.
    Mrs. Torres. I hope that my colleagues here, my Republican 
colleagues, will work with us in a bipartisan way to ensure 
that the Senate does everything in their power to prioritize 
appointments, ambassador appointments, and confirmations to 
this region, as I know that they are so concerned about the 
issues that we have seen at our southern border as a result of 
public corruption--ingrained public corruption in the region.
    I was glad to see USAID suspend aid to the Government of El 
Salvador and, instead, reprogram it to civil society. We cannot 
give taxpayers' foreign assistance to governments that misuse 
it to advance their own interests and act counter to our policy 
priorities and goals.
    These problems, unfortunately, are not limited to El 
Salvador, as you very well know. Guatemala's Constitutional 
Court used nontransparent processes to stack the court with 
judges who have clear conflicts of interest. The new court 
sidelined the only judge willing to fight for the rule of law, 
Gloria Porras, as you know.
    They have also wasted no time proving its priorities and 
reaffirming our fears. It first overturned a ruling to allow a 
controversial law targeting civil society to move forward. And, 
in the days before the Vice President's visit, the court moved 
to dismantle FECI, one of the few remaining effective 
independent investigative bodies in the government.
    So how do we work with such a country that is doing 
everything possible, you know, in their hands in order to work 
against progress in the region?
    Secretary Blinken. I engaged my counterpart in Guatemala on 
exactly those questions and concerns just a few days ago, and I 
know the Vice President will be taking them up, as well, during 
her visit.
    Look, our strong preference is to be able to work with 
governments, but if the governments are unable or unwilling to 
do what is necessary to be an appropriate partner for the 
United States and for our taxpayer dollars, then we will 
continue to work with, as we have in the past, with the private 
sector, with NGOs and with civil society, with international 
organizations and other implementing partners, and with 
communities.
    And there are many ways of effectively delivering 
assistance and support that don't require working with a 
government that, for one reason or another, is not going to 
effectively use that support to do what we are trying to 
achieve, which is to actually help people make meaningful 
improvements in their lives.
    You know, when I was just meeting with the Central American 
Foreign Ministers in Costa Rica a few days ago, one of them 
said very eloquently, when it comes to dealing with the drivers 
of irregular migration, that we know what they are, and we know 
what needs to be done to address them, although it is not like 
flipping a light switch. It takes real time, real investment, 
sustained. But it is doable. That minister talked about that 
there should be, in effect, a right to remain. People should 
not be living in conditions where the only rational choice they 
have, from their perspective, is to leave everything that they 
know behind--families, loved ones, language, culture, 
community--to make an incredibly hazardous journey here. And, 
of course, our border is not open, so they are going to get 
turned back.
    We need to find ways to help countries actually give 
meaning to the right to remain. And that is, better governance, 
fighting corruption, dealing with security, and, especially, 
opportunity. If people can put food on the table, if they can 
provide for their loved ones, they will make a go of it and try 
to build their own communities.
    That is what I think we can partner for and with. The 
private sector has a critical role to play in this. The Vice 
President had a call to action recently to try to get even 
further engagement from the private sector. But, again, I want 
to emphasize--and you know this better than I do--it is not 
like flipping a light switch. It takes a lot of time, a lot of 
effort, a lot of focus.
    Mrs. Torres. Madam Chair, I yield back. I apologize for 
taking longer.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I will yield now to Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary, thank you so much.
    I know that corruption and violence and all those negative 
aspects of rogue governments don't contribute in any good ways 
to the population that they are supposed to service and 
represent and will contribute to migration patterns. But, also, 
the fact of the matter is that, as a nation, we have turned our 
heads away from Latin America and the Caribbean for far too 
long.
    I think that we have abdicated our leadership in that 
region for far too long. We wander all over the globe, and 
right back in our backyards we are allowing other countries, in 
many cases our competitors and our adversaries, to fill up that 
gap of leadership in meaningful, sustainable ways--for example, 
with important projects for the development of those regions.
    And, of course, with the COVID-19 pandemic, Latin America 
has witnessed 30 percent of the deaths--and the Caribbean--
while they only make up 8 percent of the global population. 
And, you know, we have given money, and I know that there has 
been lots of money allocated. And, finally, the White House 
said that they will distribute the vaccine, long after China 
has been snooping around and providing help in the region.
    So my question is, Secretary: I know that the Department 
reported $153 million to Latin America and the Caribbean--
although, as I said earlier, they make up 30 percent of the 
deaths--and for fiscal year 2022 you requested close to a 
billion dollars. Is there any way that we are going to see an 
increase in funding going to those regions that are adversely 
affected by COVID-19 so we can compensate for some of the time 
lost?
    Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate the question, and 
I agree with you that we need to be, and we are, focused on our 
own hemisphere, on our own region. This is something that 
starts with the President, who, as you know, was very much 
engaged as Vice President, particularly in Guatemala, Honduras, 
El Salvador, also in Colombia, and a number of other countries.
    I think with the COVID piece of this, let me just say a 
quick word about that. We needed to make sure that Americans 
are vaccinated. And we have made, as you know, major, major, 
major strides in getting that done. We now have 80 million 
vaccines in excess that we are pushing out very deliberately 
over the next weeks, between now and early July, and a 
significant destination for those vaccines is, in fact, our own 
hemisphere, Latin America.
    And, once those 80 million vaccines are distributed, we 
will have, by a factor of five, shared more vaccines than any 
country on Earth, including China. China has sold vaccines in 
other places----
    Mr. Espaillat. Oh, I understand.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. But, in terms of actually 
sharing them, by a factor of five.
    And we are not stopping there. We will continue, as we have 
excess vaccines beyond July, making them available. We are 
doing it on the basis of equity, of science, of need, working 
with COVAX on a lot of this, which has an equitable 
distribution model, but also making sure we have in reserve the 
ability to target vaccines to the places most in need, where 
variants are popping up, where second shots may be needed, et 
cetera.
    And, as I said, our neighbors are among the most important 
beneficiaries of that. I think that is going to have a real 
impact. Certainly, I have heard in almost every conversation I 
have had, including in the region, this request for help. Help 
is now there.
    Mr. Espaillat. Good. I am glad. As we know, Mr. Secretary, 
this pandemic has cycles, right? And some of those countries 
may be in their second cycle of the pandemic. And they have 
already lost hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, 
right? So they need that help as quickly as possible.
    My second question was regarding the appointment of our 
diplomats. And I share my concerns with my colleague, Norma 
Torres, that I think that we should expedite the appointments 
of those representatives of our nation in that region, in 
particular, which is right next-door. The Caribbean is our 
third border, and we see what is happening on the border, on 
the southern border. And we need to address that, we need to 
have folks on the ground that will be able to address this as 
quickly as possible.
    Finally--well, my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Secretary, for giving time to us.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thanks very much.
    Okay. In the interest of time--and, Secretary Blinken, you 
have been very generous with your time--I would like to go to 3 
minutes per member now, as we go to our second round of 
questions.
    I will start with this question.
    Mr. Secretary, ahead of your visit to the Middle East, I 
wrote to you to urge that the Biden administration reset U.S. 
relations with the Palestinians, which have suffered enormously 
over the last 4 years with policies that marginalize and really 
starve the Palestinian people of assistance and fail to address 
the underlying conditions that made it harder for Palestinians 
to see a dignified future.
    So, now that you have returned from the region, could you 
update us very quickly on what role the U.S. is playing in the 
international reconstruction efforts for Gaza; the realistic 
timeframe for donor funds; also, the timeframe for reopening 
the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem?
    And, finally, as Israel forms of a new government, what, if 
any, assurances do you have that the new leadership will work 
to deescalate tensions, such as avoiding and displacing 
unlawful evictions of Palestinians from their homes or further 
settlement and expansion? We all know that this is essential to 
the security of Israel also and still believe in a two-state 
solution and a path forward for a two-state solution.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 
share your perspective and appreciated your communication and 
letter. Just a couple of things on this.
    One of the main purposes of the trip, besides making very 
clear our commitment to Israel's security and ability to defend 
itself, was to truly restart our engagement with the 
Palestinian people and with the Palestinian Authority.
    We had already, before this crisis, as you know, started 
the process of restoring humanitarian, economic, and security 
assistance consistent with the law. And, on the trip, I was 
able both to add to the assistance already provided to account 
for what had happened in Gaza as well as on the West Bank and 
to start the process of reopening our consulate, which is a 
vital platform for us to be able to engage Palestinians from 
all walks of life as well as the Palestinian Authority.
    So all of that is in progress. There is a process that we 
have to go through, in terms of the consulate. I am happy to 
share with your office exactly what that is and what the rough 
timeframe we expect would be.
    Second, the urgency of two things: Gaza humanitarian 
assistance, water, electricity, sanitation, sewage, all of 
which are in very dire straits as a result of this conflict. So 
we are really very much focused both in terms of the resources 
that we are providing, the resources we are getting others to 
provide, and the work that we are doing to make sure that can 
go forward as smoothly as possible. That is an intense focus 
for us right now.
    After that, we then need to focus on actual reconstruction 
and rebuilding, to do it in a way that elevates the Palestinian 
Authority and puts it in some pride of place in delivering that 
assistance, does not go to Hamas, and is done in coordination 
with Israel, Egypt, the United Nations, of course, front and 
center. So we are working to put in place the plan, the 
mechanism to do that and to meet those different requirements.
    Finally, this cycle risks repeating itself if we are not 
able to meaningfully address some of the flash points that 
could come up going forward, and you cited several of them. 
Whether it is the potential evictions of Palestinians who have 
been living in their homes for decades, for generations, 
whether it is some of the settlement activity, whether it is 
the way things were dealt with in the al-Aqsa Mosque, whether 
it is violence committed by some of the settler community, 
those flash points need to be addressed.
    Similarly, incitement to violence coming from Palestinians, 
payments made to the families of those who have committed acts 
of terrorism, that all needs to be addressed as well.
    So our diplomats, our engagement is very focused on trying 
to make sure that neither side engages in actions that could 
light another spark and turn it into a flame.
    Then, I hope that, as we are reengaged, we can start to 
build back some greater degree of trust, confidence, start to 
meaningfully improve people's lives, and then maybe see 
conditions emerge that makes the pursuit of two states more 
possible. Right now, the conditions are very challenging for 
that.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being very candid 
and for your leadership. And, also, I know many of us would 
like to continue to work with you on the path forward from this 
subcommittee. Thank you.
    Now I yield to Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Can we switch to Afghanistan? You have promised the full 
weight of American support in the peace talks, if they move 
forward. But how can the U.S. help advance a political 
settlement without boots on the ground? What sources of 
leverage can be employed?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. It is an important question, 
and I think there are significant sources of leverage, absent 
boots on the ground, that can be and are being used.
    There are a number of things that the Taliban says it 
wants, to include international recognition; to include, if it 
is participating, you know, in governance, international 
support. And more in the near term, it is looking for things 
like prisoner releases; it is looking for the lifting of 
sanctions against its leaders, including at the United Nations. 
And all of those things we would have a significant voice in.
    Simply put, if the Taliban in any fashion tries to roll 
back the gains of the last 20 years, then it will be a pariah. 
And I don't think that that is in its interest.
    Beyond that, there is another dynamic that is important. A 
whole series of countries neighboring Afghanistan and a little 
bit beyond Afghanistan, which basically for the last 20 years 
have been free-riders on our engagement there, now have to make 
very hard decisions about how to sustain their interests and 
how to use their influence as we remove our forces. None of 
them have an interest in a civil war in Afghanistan and the 
instability that would result, including possibly pushing 
extremism and drugs outside of the country and toward them. And 
so we are very much engaged with virtually all of these 
countries and are looking to see how they use their influence.
    The final thing I would say, sir, is that, even as we are 
withdrawing our forces, we are not withdrawing from 
Afghanistan. We are determined to sustain a strong embassy 
presence, programs to support Afghanistan, its people, and its 
government, economic development, humanitarian, the security 
forces. All of that will remain. We are working with other 
partners to make sure that they remain as well and that we stay 
deeply engaged supporting the government, supporting the 
people.
    So I think all of those things are important levers that we 
can use and build upon.
    Mr. Rogers. Quickly, Madam Chairman.
    Since 2013, China has been the principal source of fentanyl 
flooding the U.S. market through Mexico. In 2019, Beijing 
finally cracked down on the supply of fentanyl from China to 
the U.S., with China finally enacting new laws prohibiting the 
production, sales, and export of those fentanyl-class drugs.
    To what extent is China actually enforcing that law?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. We are looking at this very 
closely and very carefully, because your point is exactly 
right. We have seen progress in actually putting in place laws 
and requirements; what we are now focused on is making sure 
that it is implemented. And I am happy to come back to you with 
our best assessment of that.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Ms. Lee. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
    I have been informed that the Secretary has a hard stop at 
4:35 East Coast time. So, for those who don't get a question 
in, we will be sure to have your questions for the record and 
get a response.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your last 
two answers, both regarding Afghanistan and also regarding the 
Israeli-Palestinian situation and the steps that you have 
underway to reverse some of the damage from the last 
administration, where diplomatic engagement on the Palestinian 
side was essentially stopped and assistance was stopped as 
well. You plan to start this assistance up again, both 
restoring some of what was withdrawn earlier, as I take it, and 
also responding to the needs from the latest conflict.
    And I welcome your indication of diplomatic vigilance with 
respect to provocations on either side and, certainly, 
violence, incitement from the Palestinian side, but also 
settlement expansion and evictions and demolitions from the 
Israeli side--all of this profoundly unhelpful for the 
prospects for peace.
    Any elaboration you want to give on that I would welcome.
    Your answer to Mr. Rogers with regard to Afghanistan also 
is a hopeful response. I hope you are right. I hope you are 
right that the diplomatic presence can continue and will be 
effective and will offer substantial incentives for the 
maintenance of the gains that the Afghan people have made and 
that we have made in engaging with their institutions of 
governance and other institutions of civil society.
    Let me very specifically ask you as you talk about our 
presence continuing--how will the shape of our relationship 
change, do you think? I mean, surely that will be different, 
without the military there.
    And, in particular, is there some kind of realistic process 
for continuing engagement in governance? You have a good budget 
for governance. Is Afghanistan going to be on the agenda?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And, in short, yes. As I 
said, we are determined and working very hard on sustaining a 
very strong embassy presence and all the programs and 
engagement that goes along with that, including engagement with 
the Afghan Government in Kabul and including the various 
programs to support Afghanistan economically, humanitarian, 
development, and the security forces, as well as enlisting 
others to make sure that they are doing the same and sustaining 
their own support.
    As long as we have the platform with the embassy and the 
women and men who are incredibly dedicated to this task, then I 
think the overwhelming bulk of our programming and support can 
go forward and go forward in a way that also provides the 
appropriate oversight that is necessary.
    So what we are working very hard on right now is putting in 
place all of the pieces necessary to do that.
    Mr. Price. We want to work with you on that. It is 
extremely important.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Price.
    Now I will yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Chairwoman, thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience. Two questions. 
I will try to do them quickly.
    You know the challenges that Colombia is facing. They have 
been an amazing ally. They have made great progress against 
narcoterrorism, but now they are struggling with, you know, the 
humanitarian crisis across the border, et cetera. We all know 
about the demonstrations that took place.
    Do you and your administration support the democratically 
elected Duque administration? Can they still count on your 
support?
    And let me just, if you would allow me, Mr. Secretary, to 
pose the second question, since we don't have a lot of time.
    In Haiti, the President has announced I guess they are 
going to a referendum, a constitutional referendum, in June. 
Obviously, many Haitians are concerned that that may not be a 
free and fair election.
    So what are your thoughts about the upcoming elections and 
what potentially the State Department can do to promote 
democracy, the rule of law in Haiti, while still ensuring that, 
obviously, that crucial humanitarian aid continues to be used 
effectively?
    So, again, two questions, and I apologize, but we don't 
have a lot of time.
    Secretary Blinken. Sure. No, I appreciate it.
    Quickly on Haiti, we oppose moving forward with the 
constitutional referendum. We don't think that can be done in 
the timeframe suggested in a way that would make sense and be 
truly representative. We are looking to see whether what is 
necessary can be put in place to actually go forward with 
elections later in the year, but not the constitutional 
referendum.
    It would be important to get back to more representative 
democracy in Haiti and not rule by decree, which is what we 
have seen recently. So that is why there is importance to 
elections, but they need to be able to go forward in a free and 
fair way.
    As I think you know, there is an OAS delegation there 
almost right now that is looking at all of this. And we can 
report back on how that is going.
    With Colombia, I couldn't agree with you more. Colombia is 
a vital strategic partner for the United States. President 
Biden has been deeply engaged with and deeply committed to 
Colombia for many, many years, starting with Plan Colombia way 
back, then our strong support for the peace process and the 
agreement reached with the FARC in 2016, and now. I just had my 
friend, the Foreign Minister, and Vice President visiting at 
the State Department just a few days ago. And we remain deeply 
engaged with Colombia.
    The government's important efforts to bring together the 
various stakeholders in a real dialogue to address the concerns 
and grievances that have been expressed in these protests is 
very welcome and, I think, very important. So is his commitment 
to look into and provide accountability for any excessive use 
of force against people who were protesting peacefully and have 
the right to do so.
    But we have, as you know, a comprehensive partnership with 
Colombia, working on so many different levels, that remains 
vitally important to us.
    The last thing I would mention is the incredible generosity 
of Colombians when it comes to bringing in and supporting their 
brothers and sisters from Venezuela, including offering 
temporary protective status to them. As you know very well, the 
number of refugees is very significant, and yet we have seen 
tremendous generosity from Colombians. Part of our budget goes 
to humanitarian assistance to make sure we can help Colombia 
support the burden that it has taken on.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I will yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
    Well, I guess this is my day to unburden my anxiety. First 
of all, I just want to say that I am very, very, very worried 
about women in Afghanistan, and I hope you are going to do 
everything diplomatically possible at your end to help them, 
those who have gained their rights, to maintain them and to 
keep them safe and secure.
    But I have another worry, and that is the rise of anti-
Semitism, not only in our country but around the world. It 
seems like every time there is violence in Israel, which, in my 
opinion, clearly was caused by Hamas, but we see this rise in 
anti-Semitism.
    And I am interested to know, what, if any, steps will the 
State Department be taking to combat and denounce it?
    Secretary Blinken. I very much share your concern. And we 
have seen, as you know very well, a significant rise in anti-
Semitism over the last several years and yet another spike, 
deeply disturbing spike, now. As just one example, on social 
media recently, including in the wake of events in Israel, 
17,000 tweets, ``Hitler was right''; attacks that we have seen 
here in our own country against synagogues, places of worship, 
that are deeply, deeply disturbing. I don't do the domestic 
piece, but when it comes to internationally, we are seeing this 
in different parts of the world.
    We are very focused on this. As a department, we will be 
naming an envoy to full-time work on combating anti-Semitism 
around the world. That person should be forthcoming very, very 
soon. And in virtually, you know, all of our engagements around 
the world, when it is necessary and appropriate, this is 
something that we are raising, we are putting a spotlight on, 
we are bringing up.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I am going to yield, maybe let somebody else 
get a question in. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Ms. Lee. Thanks very much, Ms. Frankel.
    Now I will yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, you made your position known earlier on 
this, but, in good conscience, I must make mine known as well. 
And this is a sharp division on this committee, but we might as 
well put this out in the open, regarding renewed funding for 
international organizations involved in the provision of 
abortion as well as the U.N. Population Fund.
    I believe this is inconsistent with sound diplomacy. It is 
a projection of our own ideological divisions on the poor 
throughout the world, and it disrespects the cultural norms of 
other peoples.
    Look, you have made your position known, but, again, good 
fences make good neighbors. I don't, obviously, think we are 
going to work through this today, but I would like you to be 
aware that there are a great deal of sensibilities in this 
regard.
    In this matter, though, again, getting back to the earlier 
question as to how we can work successfully together on 
projects that we believe to be of mutual benefit for the entire 
world, I believe that regenerative agriculture are real keys to 
development diplomacy.
    And, in this regard, we have a lot of new ideas brewing, 
one of which is building a successful program like Farmer to 
Farmer, where we are taking American expertise around specific 
technical areas and using people who may not ever be a part of 
the Foreign Service or have the time to enter into the Peace 
Corps but can provide specialties, in forestry, in 
conservation, in diplomacy. [inaudible] Is this idea a 
diplomatic corps for enhanced surge capacity when you need it.
    Can you work with us? We have got lots of things, some of 
which are taking legislative form, and we would love to have 
the opportunity
    Secretary Blinken. The short answer is, we would welcome 
working with you on that. And I agree with you, I think there 
is a lot we can do, and I would really welcome getting your 
ideas on how we can do that more effectively.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Great.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I yield now to Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Secretary Blinken. I think I am the last 
person standing between you and being done after a very long 
day, so I really appreciate it.
    Ms. Lee. I think we have one more member.
    Ms. Wexton. Oh, okay. Very good.
    Well, never mind then. You still have a little ways to go. 
But I will make it brief.
    You know, you recently told the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee that the State Department has 1,000 fewer employees 
than 4 years ago. Is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. It is.
    Ms. Wexton. And have those losses been concentrated in any 
one area, in the Foreign Service or in the Civil Service side?
    Secretary Blinken. Primarily Civil Service.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And I know that that is the result of a 
16-month hiring freeze but also is a result of a lot of 
attrition during the last 4 years. Is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That is.
    Ms. Wexton. So I was very pleased to see your proposed 
budget call for 485 new positions, which aren't really new 
positions, are they? They are just rehiring some of the people 
that--filling some of the vacancies that we have had.
    Secretary Blinken. Yeah. It is a combination. That is 
right.
    Ms. Wexton. And I am glad that you are going to look to 
fill these positions with diversity and inclusion that we 
haven't had historically. But how confident are you that we can 
meet this goal in the fiscal year?
    Secretary Blinken. We are determined to meet it. We need to 
meet it. We need to make sure that we are resourced not just 
financially but in terms of our human resources to address many 
of the things we have had an opportunity to talk about today, 
particularly in areas where we really do need to strengthen our 
capacity.
    Whether it comes to global health; climate; China, where we 
have a very significant program to, you know, increase the 
human resources dedicated to the different manifestations of 
that challenge; emerging technologies; cyber--all of that 
demands not just people but a certain amount of expertise as 
well. So we are trying to find ways to bring that in, as well 
as fill some of these gaps.
    We also have about a 10-percent or 12-percent vacancy rate 
overseas in our embassies and consulates. Some of that is 
seasonal, as people are in between assignments, but we want to 
make sure, particularly in places of great importance, that we 
don't have gaps.
    We have found temporary ways to deal with some of those 
gaps, with temporary deployments of people, bringing back 
retirees, using eligible family members, for example. But we 
also are, for example, with our consular services, because 
under COVID there, alas, has been a huge drop in demand for 
those services, which we need to build back, we do have some 
flexibility there, where incoming officers can be--some can be 
shifted to other assignments where we have gaps.
    So we are trying to use all these flexibilities, but it is 
critical for us to get the support we need to bring in these 
additional roughly 500 people.
    Ms. Wexton. Well, I wish you great success. And I think 
that I speak for the committee when I say that we look forward 
to working with you to help you do that. So thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Ms. Wexton. And, with that, I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, I know your time is up. I would like to see 
if we could just get on the record Mr. Reschenthaler's question 
and Mrs. Torres's question, and then----
    Secretary Blinken. Certainly.
    Ms. Lee. So they will be on the record, and then you could 
respond to them----
    Secretary Blinken. Certainly.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. In writing.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you again.
    Okay. Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to 
yield my 3 minutes to Jeff Fortenberry.
    Ms. Lee. Okay.
    Mr. Fortenberry, could you just ask the question? Because 
we are over time. And then I will----
    Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. Yield to Mrs. Torres. And we will get 
the response.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Yes.
    Mr. Secretary, we have States around the country that have 
excess vaccines that are going bad. We can help donate those 
overseas. I would like you to just find a pathway to help us 
get that done.
    Secretary Blinken. Got that and will follow up on it. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. I yield now to Mrs. Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Secretary Blinken, again.
    I agree with your comments regarding Colombia, and I want 
to thank you for addressing our concerns there. They are a very 
important anti-narco-trafficking partner with us, so I want to 
make sure, you know, that we investigate recent issues 
carefully.
    I want to continue our conversation around the Northern 
Triangle. How does the State Department ensure that U.S. 
funding is not misused, politicized, or used against our 
interests?
    I am particularly concerned about foreign military 
financing in the budget, as we have seen the security forces in 
the Northern Triangle commit human rights abuses, support 
nondemocratic actions, and even intimidate our own embassy.
    And I look forward to you addressing this issue in a 
written form.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mrs. Torres, very much for 
that.
    Thank you, members, for helping us with the time, keeping 
within the timeframe.
    Mr. Secretary, you have been very generous with your time.
    Before I close this, I want to call your attention to a 
question I plan to submit for the record regarding Nagorno 
Karabakh.
    Secretary Blinken. Nagorno-Karabakh.
    Ms. Lee. Okay, with the State Department, and your recent 
decision to extend the waivers to Section 907 of the Freedom 
Support Act. And I would appreciate the State Department's 
prompt response.
    I don't believe our ranking member is still with us, and I 
would just like to just say thank you very much for being with 
us, on behalf of our ranking member and myself, all of our 
members. You have such important work to do. I mean, the world 
is in your hands. And we look forward to working with you and 
your continued leadership. And if there is anything we can do 
to assist you during this process, please let us know.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you so much.
    And my only addendum would be to say, I think the world is 
in our hands, collectively. And very eager to continue working 
very closely with this subcommittee and other colleagues on 
this multiplicity of challenges. We are going to be so much 
more effective if we are doing it together, and I am determined 
to do that.
    I really appreciate both the substance of the conversation 
today as well as the way it went forward. And I heard a number 
of really good ideas that we are going to follow up on, and 
look forward to working with you on those.
    So thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you again.
    The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs is adjourned. Thank you very much.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     

                                           Thursday, June 10, 2021.

       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

                                WITNESS

HON. JANET YELLEN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms. Lee. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and 
Related Programs will come to order.
    Good afternoon. Good morning for some. I would like to 
start by welcoming our distinguished witness, the Honorable 
Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury.
    We appreciate your time and willingness to testify. And, of 
course, I take a lot of pride knowing of your connections, of 
course, to Berkeley and the Bay Area, and as professor emeriti 
at my alma mater, the University of California at Berkeley. So, 
so happy that you are with us today, Secretary Yellen.
    Now, this hearing is fully virtual. We must address a few 
housekeeping matters first.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute 
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute 
your microphone.
    And let me remind all members and witnesses that the 5-
minute clock still applies during the Q&A.
    If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next 
member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the 
balance of your time.
    You will also notice a clock on your screen that will show 
how much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock 
will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I may gently tap 
the gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. 
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow 
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules, 
beginning with the chair and ranking member, then members 
present at the time that the hearing is called to order will 
then be recognized in order of seniority, and, finally, members 
not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Lastly, I may need to step out of the hearing temporarily, 
and apologize in advance for having to miss some of the 
discussion with the Secretary and my colleagues. However, in my 
absence, I have asked Congressman Price to chair the hearing, 
and I appreciate Congressman Price agreeing to do this. And I 
am sure he will lead a constructive discussion, and I will 
return as quickly as possible.
    So thank you again for being here this afternoon. And let 
me just say I appreciate all of our members being here, and 
thank our Secretary for being here as we discuss the Department 
of the Treasury's fiscal year 2022 budget request for 
international programs.
    The Department of the Treasury has a very unique role in 
coordinating and facilitating our multilateral partnerships. As 
we tackle complex challenges, we need to work with our allies 
and partners in a manner that treats our partners as partners 
and demonstrates a willingness to listen.
    Our contributions to multilateral institutions are signs of 
our commitment to support global partnerships in order to 
reduce poverty and to build shared prosperity in developing 
countries. And this shared prosperity is for all peoples--for 
the most vulnerable, for women and children, for those who 
identify as LGBTQ+, for indigenous people, and others who are 
marginalized and discriminated against.
    Our commitments to resolve some of the world's most 
challenging problems cannot be accomplished if we don't uphold 
fundamental values of racial equity and inclusion within the 
very institutions that we participate in. By acknowledging and 
respecting our differences and valuing that diversity, we can 
foster understanding, spur innovation, and promote 
accountability.
    Madam Secretary, I will continue elevating this issue and 
look forward to working with you on this.
    Now, the pandemic has devastated economies, and the World 
Bank estimates that an additional 88 million to 115 million 
people will be pushed into extreme poverty. The scale of need 
is vast, and we must demonstrate our commitment to these people 
and countries. Otherwise, the lack of U.S. leadership opens the 
door for malign influences from Russia and China that undermine 
the systems of governance and entice governments to accept 
deals that plunge countries into debt and further poverty. And 
so I welcome your insights as to how best to coordinate with 
our multilateral partners to mitigate the humanitarian and 
economic impacts stemming from this pandemic.
    The fiscal year 2022 budget includes $2.5 billion to 
address the climate crisis, including a $1.25 billion 
contribution for the Green Climate Fund. This is a step forward 
in reestablishing United States' leadership and commitment to 
combatting an existential crisis that ignites the root drivers 
of hunger, strife, and instability, and that undermine the 
objectives of the very programs we fund to protect people and 
promote prosperity. It demands attention now, and I support the 
administration's urgent call to action.
    This year's budget also addresses the looming problem of 
unmet commitments to international financial institutions, 
totaling over $2 billion. Some of these arrears date back to 
the 1990s, and we should no longer ignore paying down these 
obligations. So I support this administration's recognition 
that this is a key priority. How can we be viewed as a credible 
partner while continuing to shirk our full financial 
responsibility.
    Finally, the Treasury Department's Office of Technical 
Assistance is an example of how a modest appropriation used 
effectively can make outsized impacts. I look forward to 
learning more about how the office works with ministries of 
finance and central banks in developing countries to strengthen 
accountability and transparency by improving the management of 
public finances and safeguarding financial sectors.
    Madam Secretary, the Treasury Department's international 
programs are a very important tool that complement the programs 
and activities of the State Department and USAID. As such, it 
is important that we use our influence and leadership to build 
partnerships and coalitions that collectively seek effective, 
long-lasting solutions.
    We have many issues to discuss today. I look forward to 
your statement and engagement with our subcommittee. But before 
turning to you for your statement, let me yield now to our 
ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his opening remarks.

                    Opening Statement of Mr. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Madam Secretary, welcome to the subcommittee. We look 
forward to hearing your testimony on the budget request.
    I know you have been hard at work advancing U.S. 
international economic policy in preparation for the Group of 7 
leaders' summit that will take place in the United Kingdom in 
the coming days. So we appreciate your very timely appearance 
before the subcommittee.
    Madam Secretary, as you know, one area of continuity 
between the prior administration and the current one is a focus 
on renewed great power competition, particularly with China. As 
the Secretaries of State and Defense have acknowledged, China 
is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, 
and technological power to seriously challenge the rules-based 
international solution.
    If we are to ensure that the global balance of power 
continues to favor democratic governance, Treasury will need to 
play a key role in challenging Beijing's model of authoritarian 
capitalism with a more transparent and market-oriented system.
    I hope we can discuss the elements of a successful 
international economic strategy to counter China in the Indo-
Pacific and beyond, including our ability to offer a meaningful 
alternative to Beijing's predatory trade and development 
financing.
    The Department's budget request for next year is nearly 
$3.3 billion for Treasury's international programs. This amount 
is a staggering 73 percent increase over the prior year. Key 
elements of the request include massive increases in funding to 
address climate change, meeting the annual replenishment 
commitments of the World Bank, and other multilateral 
development banks, as well as the new proposals related to the 
International Monetary Fund.
    The increase over last year is due in large measure to an 
exponential increase in funding for the Green Climate Fund and 
its predecessor, known as the Climate Investment Funds, the 
latter of which was, in fact, supposed to sunset upon the Green 
Climate Fund becoming operational. This seems like the very 
definition of duplicative and wasteful spending, especially 
when the impact of these funds is questionable.
    At a time when American families continue to struggle to 
make ends meet and foreign aid is under great scrutiny, 
proposing such a significant sum of taxpayer funding for 
international climate change programs adds insult to injury.
    Finally, there are your requests related to the 
International Monetary Fund and the issuance of additional 
special drawing rights, an international reserve asset, to all 
IMF member countries. As you know, this is a highly 
controversial proposal that appears to be at odds with other 
administration policies, including efforts to counter the 
malign influence of Russia and China.
    This plan could result in billions in additional reserves 
being sent to the world's most notorious dictatorships and 
state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and 
China.
    Not only does this scheme go against stated goals and 
objectives of the White House, but it could also hinder your 
Department's efforts to penalize and pressure these malign 
state actors through your extensive sanction regimes. Why go to 
all the trouble of putting in place and enforcing these 
sanctions when your proposal through the IMF could 
significantly undercut years of pressure carefully designed to 
advance our national interest?
    Beyond these criticisms, Madam Secretary, I want to point 
out the vagueness of Treasury's IMF-related appropriations 
request. It asks the committee to provide $100 million to 
finance the cost of a grant or a loan or some unspecified 
combination thereof to the IMF's Poverty Reduction and Growth 
Fund or perhaps some other unnamed IMF facility. The details 
are wholly insufficient.
    Your motives may be well intentioned, but acting with speed 
is often the enemy of sound policy, and I urge you to reassess 
your options and pursue alternative means to provide targeted 
and conditional financial assistance to countries suffering 
from COVID-related economic distress.
    Madam Secretary, I look forward to discussing these and 
other issues related to your testimony today. Thank you for 
being with us today. Thank you for your service to your 
country.
    Madam Secretary, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now, I will yield to Madam Secretary Yellen. If you could 
please summarize your oral statement in less than 5 minutes. I 
want to make sure that we leave enough time to get to our 
questions. Your full statement, however, will be included for 
the record.
    After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on 
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was 
called to order, alternating between majority and minority 
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in the 
order of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their 
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
    Madam Secretary, please proceed. Welcome again.

                 Opening Statement of Secretary Yellen

    Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of the 
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to join you today.
    When I took office, one of my greatest concerns was a K-
shaped recovery from the pandemic, a recovery where high-income 
households rebounded quickly or even emerged better off while 
low- and middle-income families suffered for a very long time. 
We can be confident now that is not going to happen, thanks in 
part to your support of the fiscal stimulus in the American 
Rescue Plan.
    The same, though, cannot be said of the global economy. 
Low-income nations haven't had the fiscal space to implement 
sweeping relief as we did with the American Rescue Plan. Even 
their ability to access vaccines is limited. There are still 
roughly two dozen countries, all of them low-income, where more 
than 99 percent of the population is unvaccinated.
    In some ways, the economic divergence we feared here in the 
United States is happening on the world stage. By the end of 
the year, COVID-19 might push as many as 150 million people 
back into living on less than $2 a day.
    America is better off in a wealthier, vaccinated world than 
a poorer, unvaccinated one. That is undeniable. It will be much 
more difficult, for instance, to address global security 
threats, like climate change, if a good portion of the globe 
cannot make the effort necessary to green their economies 
because they are still dealing with the lingering effects of 
the pandemic.
    The United States must lead in addressing this global 
divergence. The Treasury Department is prepared to be part of 
this leadership. We just need the resources.
    By now, I am sure you have seen the administration's budget 
proposal, and I call your attention to four areas.
    The first is funding for international financial 
institutions like the World Bank and the African Development 
Bank. During the pandemic, they have provided more than $200 
billion to help developing countries stay afloat and fight the 
virus, including for vaccines. But they require more support, 
in part because the United States has not always fully 
contributed what it has committed.
    We have over $2.7 billion in unmet commitments to 
international financial institutions, and this will grow unless 
Congress appropriates funding to meet our current-year 
commitments and pay down our remit balance.
    The second involves low-income country debt. The pandemic 
has wreaked havoc on the finances of these nations. And if they 
are going to rebuild, many will need to address their debt 
vulnerabilities. The United States led in creating the G20 Debt 
Service Suspension Initiative, or DSSI, and the Common 
Framework for Debt Treatments for precisely this reason. But 
now we need to fund both. Without new funding, the United 
States could be forced to delay the multilateral debt process 
under the Common Framework and charge much higher interest 
rates on DSSI debt service suspensions.
    Third, our budget includes funding for the IMF's Poverty 
Reduction and Growth Trust, an authorization to lend special 
drawing rights to it or another appropriate fund. This would be 
America's first direct contribution to the Trust, and it will 
also help establish a trust fund that would support the 
recovery of low- and middle-income countries, as well as 
broader economic reforms that will improve the lives of their 
people. We are working with the IMF and other international 
partners on this.
    Fourth, on the other side of the pandemic, we have to help 
low-income nations grapple with the reality of climate change, 
because that is the only way we will reach net-zero emissions 
as a global community. Treasury's request includes roughly a 
billion dollars for this purpose. The money is to make sure 
that developing countries can adapt to the change in climate, 
but it is also to ensure that as these nations continue to grow 
and develop, they do so sustainably. Among other things, the 
funding would go towards expanding clean energy production and 
conserving rainforests, which reduces emissions.
    The speed and strength of the world's recovery depend on 
the leadership of the United States in general, and I believe 
on United States Treasury in particular. I look forward to 
working with you to ensure that we can indeed lead in the years 
to come.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Let me start 
out by asking you a couple questions.
    According to the World Bank, the pandemic will push an 
additional 88 million to 115 million people into extreme 
poverty. Furthermore, the United Nations projects that there 
will be nearly a 40 percent increase for humanitarian 
assistance and protection in 2021. What is the impact of this 
level of poverty and humanitarian need on the economies and 
stabilities of low- and middle-income countries?
    Secondly, in terms of just the administration's strategy 
for combatting the pandemic's global economic impact and 
protecting these countries from sliding further into economic 
and social instability, I am curious as to how your department 
complements the work of the State Department and USAID.
    Secretary Yellen. Well, thank you very much for those 
questions. It is really a dreadful thing to see the impact that 
the pandemic has--has had on low-income countries, and the 
World Bank, the IMF, the Asian Development Bank, all of the 
multilateral development banks are providing funding, first for 
vaccines--their purchase, their deployment, protective 
equipment. They are providing emergency budget support, cash 
transfer programs, credit to the private sector, help for food 
security, technical assistance, trade finance.
    The total amount of support is impressive. I believe it is, 
for all of those things, around $85 billion to the end of 2020, 
since the pandemic began. And they plan to and we will work 
with them to continue to provide support this year.
    The pandemic is having a very adverse effect, obviously, on 
the economic situation in many of the affected countries. As I 
mentioned in my opening statement, we have considerable fiscal 
space to address its impact, and, unfortunately, many low-
income countries do not.
    Many of them are also mired in debt and unable to meet 
their debt service burdens. So it has been high priority for us 
to help them address these debt service burdens that are--have 
become unsustainable, to provide support to them for debt 
restructuring where that is necessary.
    And I think we have encouraged all those countries that 
can. This was a message I sent to the G7 and to the larger G20, 
that we need to use the fiscal space we have to boost recovery, 
which will spill over positively to them. So we are trying to 
help both directly and indirectly.
    Ms. Lee. I ask you just as it relates to corruption, we all 
know that corruption really metastasizes within people and 
institutions, and so I am pleased that the Biden-Harris 
administration has come out in front to tackle corruption head-
on.
    So, Madam Secretary, how is Treasury combatting global 
corruption through its bilateral programs and multilateral 
partnerships, and what does coordination across agencies look 
like?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, combatting corruption is one of the 
key priorities of President Biden, and we are working to 
achieve that in a whole-of-government effort, certainly with 
the State Department, and it is a priority in all of the work 
that we do bilaterally.
    The support that we give, for example, through our Treasury 
programs is directed toward shoring up government institutions, 
combatting corruption, aiding transparency. All of these things 
are really necessary for countries to be able to support their 
citizens and attract private investment.
    And in our role with the multilateral development banks and 
the IMF, we have exactly the same approach. And we monitor 
projects that are approved very carefully to try to make sure 
that they address corruption and certainly do not sanction or 
promote it.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
    Now I will yield to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary, it is little noted, really, but the 
epidemic that is going on inside the pandemic is opioids. The 
flow of fentanyl and other opioids into the country has been 
phenomenal in these last few months. In fact, the only data 
that I can really point to definitively is the CDC's statement 
that there were 90,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months 
ending in September 2020. Seventy percent of those are opioid 
related. So this epidemic is killing Americans at an alarming 
rate, and it is getting worse by the day.
    Under your leadership, what priority does the Department 
place on combatting transnational criminal organizations, 
Chinese drug kingpins, and other foreign fentanyl suppliers who 
are engaging in the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic 
opioids and the laundering of proceeds from such illegal sales?
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you so much. That is a very 
important question and concern.
    Treasury considers fentanyl and synthetic opioids an 
immediate threat to U.S. national security, to our economy, and 
to productivity. This year, Treasury has met and briefed the 
bipartisan U.S. Opioid Commission on our activities, and that 
would particularly include sanctions against synthetic opioids.
    You mentioned the Kingpin Act authority. And under that 
authority, Treasury has designated and will continue to 
designate foreign traffickers of fentanyl and other synthetic 
opioids in their network--their networks with prioritized 
targeting of fentanyl trafficking by putting really significant 
investigative resources on this problem. And we focus our 
efforts against actors in the illicit fentanyl trade because we 
see them as vulnerable to sanctions. It is a place where 
sanctions works.
    This is a matter where Treasury very much values our 
partnership with Congress, and look forward to working with you 
closely on this critical issue.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you for that.
    Drug traffickers and consumers increasingly use what is 
called the dark web to buy and sell their deadly wares, often 
paired with online payment systems and virtual currencies to 
further make anonymous fentanyl purchases and distributions.
    How is Treasury and your interagency partners working to 
counteract these criminal techniques?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, I mean, that is a core part of our 
sanctions regime that we--we focus on all the different mediums 
by which these illegal payments occur. And we are certainly 
aware of the use of the dark web and cryptocurrencies and so 
forth to facilitate these payments. We are focused on that.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I appreciate that, and I wish you well in 
this corner of your responsibilities. It is an indeed 
troubling, dangerous phenomenon that is occurring and taking 
Americans' lives, and you are in a position of great importance 
in this fight, and we thank you for your dedication to it, wish 
you good luck in that effort, and Godspeed.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you very much, Congressman Rogers. 
Much appreciated.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I yield.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price for his questions. 
And, also, I will pass the gavel to Mr. Price while I step away 
for a few minutes. Thank you again.
    Mr. Price [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And welcome, Madam Secretary, to the subcommittee. We 
appreciate your service and certainly your appearance before us 
today.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
    Mr. Price. I want to focus on the international financial 
institutions. The Biden administration has announced its 
determination to not only take the U.S.' seat at the table, so 
to speak, but to actually bring more proactive leadership to 
this space and in these multilateral financial institutions, so 
I would like to ask you for a progress report on that in 
general. How have you shifted the U.S. engagement compared to 
the previous administration and how have the other countries 
responded?
    You have begun to answer the question in your opening 
statement, and so let me just ask you more specifically the 
impact of the focus on climate change.
    There was a Presidential executive order on January 27, 
very early in the administration, on tackling the climate 
crisis, and it had these interesting words with respect to your 
office. You were charged with developing a strategy--and I am 
quoting--``developing a strategy for how the voice and the vote 
of the U.S. can be used in international financial 
institutions, including the World Bank Group and the IMF, to 
promote financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and 
debt relief initiatives that are aligned with and support the 
goals of the Paris Agreement.''
    And, of course, that followed on a U.S. reentry into the 
Paris Agreement.
    What are the implications of this? Does this have an 
impact, for example, on the kind of appointments we are likely 
to see to the key U.S. positions in these institutions? What is 
the range of implications that this has for our participation, 
especially compared to what that participation has looked like 
in the past? I wonder if you have a tentative progress report 
to offer us today.
    Secretary Yellen. Sure. I would be happy to do that. Thanks 
for this question.
    You know, in my view and in the President's view, the 
United States and the world face a very profound climate crisis 
that we are committed to addressing. And part of the plan 
beyond what we are doing domestically is to substantially 
increase overall U.S. climate finance to developing countries 
to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also to take 
the remediation measures that will be needed for them to avoid 
the most catastrophic impacts of the crisis.
    So we are very focused on working through the IMF, through 
the World Bank, and through the various climate funds--the 
Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the 
Climate Investment Funds. All of these funds provide support to 
help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas 
emissions, build resilience to climate change, and, in the case 
of the Global Environment Facility, address other challenges.
    Just to give you an example, we clearly have asked in this 
budget request for an increase in resources to these funds, a 
substantial additional contribution to the Green Climate Fund 
and the Climate Investment Funds, to be able to provide 
meaningful support to developing countries to achieve these 
goals.
    We are working with the World Bank to make sure--and the 
IMF and multilateral development banks, to make sure that their 
objectives, operations, and goals are aligned with the Paris 
Agreement.
    We are working in other international fora, particularly 
with the G7, the G20, to ensure that combatting climate change 
is integrated into their work plans. Treasury agreed to colead 
a working group of the G20 on sustainable development and 
finance. We are doing that jointly with China to promote global 
cooperation around climate change.
    And I would say--you mentioned the change in approach, and 
I would say that most countries express great appreciation for 
the involvement that the United States is showing in engaging 
actively in all of these matters.
    Mr. Price. I would think that one of the implications of 
the shift you are talking about would be the need for very 
carefully considered appointments so that we have the expertise 
that is required in the people on the ground to actually move 
in these areas.
    Secretary Yellen. Treasury has set up a climate hub to 
marshal some resources and make sure that what we are doing is 
well coordinated within Treasury and across the government. And 
we are focused on appointing people with expertise and 
dedication on these matters.
    Mr. Price. Thank you.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for your willingness to serve.
    Yesterday, the Treasury Department announced sanctions on 
individuals associated with the most recent crackdown of the 
political opposition in Nicaragua, and I thank you for that, 
Madam Secretary, and obviously urge you to continue America's 
leadership in maintaining pressure on these anti-American 
dictatorships and regimes in our hemisphere. Thank you for 
that.
    Let me shift to, again, a neighbor next door to Nicaragua, 
close to Nicaragua. The Trump administration imposed very 
strong sanctions against more than a hundred Venezuelan 
individuals as well as the banking sectors; Petro digital 
currency; industries involved in corruption, human rights 
abuses, drug trafficking, and also, again, hurting the 
democracy in Venezuela.
    They also sanctioned, by the way, some Russian entities or 
entities tied with Russia, including a couple of ships--oil 
ships, including, some corporations like AVITAL Finance, which 
is a Venezuelan-Russian entity.
    Do you intend to maintain these sanctions and to continue 
to aggressively identify those subverting democracy in 
Venezuela or are hurting, you know, human rights, and, again, 
impose tough sanctions, continue the enforcement against those 
who already have the sanctions, and potentially even have 
additional sanctions against those that violate human rights in 
Venezuela?
    Secretary Yellen. Absolutely committed to that, Congressman 
Diaz-Balart. There is a humanitarian crisis going on with 
Venezuela, and it is really driven by the Maduro regime's 
corruption and repressive policies and economic mismanagement. 
We have an active and committed program of sanctions there. We 
have worked hard to ensure at the same time that humanitarian 
goods can reach the people of Venezuela who need food, 
medicine, and the like.
    We have very broad sanctions in place and continue to work 
to refine and calibrate our approach.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that. And obviously count on 
me as one--if you think we can be helpful in any way.
    Let me shift to stay in the same hemisphere. The Trump 
administration also imposed tough sanctions, prohibiting 
transactions with the Cuban military, the same Cuban military 
that, according to the OAS Secretary, says that they are--
basically has an army of occupation in Venezuela that we just 
talked about; also sanctioned Cuban operatives involved in 
human rights abuses.
    Do you support these sanctions as well, and will you 
continue to enforce them and provide this subcommittee with 
updates on enforcement actions? And, again, will you be looking 
for others to also sanction like you just said you would do in 
Venezuela and, by the way, you are already starting to do in 
Nicaragua?
    Secretary Yellen. So it is absolutely Treasury's role to 
administer and enforce sanctions, and OFAC is doing that with 
respect to the Cuban assets control regulations that is 
consistent with legislation and the administrative policy.
    I would say more broadly, though, that the administration's 
policy with respect to Cuba is under review. Whatever comes out 
of that, Treasury will play the role that we are assigned to to 
implement policy. And, certainly, we are actively implementing 
sanctions.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I get that. Again, obviously you 
have expressed strong support for the sanctions against the 
human rights violators in Nicaragua, and I appreciate that. You 
have expressed support for the sanctions against human rights 
abusers in Venezuela and Nicaragua.
    Do you support, again, sanctioning human rights abusers or 
sanctions against the military and intelligence services and 
those who deal with human trafficking in Cuba?
    Again, you know, that is pretty consistent, right? I mean, 
if you support the other two, I would assume--but I don't want 
to put words in your mouth, Madam Secretary--that you would 
also strongly support those on Cuba as well. Would you not?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, Congressman, this is a matter that 
our relations with Cuba--that the State Department and others 
are reconsidering. And, of course, I agree with you that 
corruption and repression are things that the United States is 
opposed to, but there is a broad review of Cuba policy, and I 
don't want to try to----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure.
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Get ahead of that.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No [inaudible] Madam Secretary, but do you 
see any less corruption, abuse of human rights, any of the 
issues that we already talked about in Nicaragua? Do you see 
that being any less aggressive by the Cuban regime than the 
other two countries?
    Again, I have never understood--and not on your part. I am 
not--because I understand what your role is, but I have just 
never understood this double standard.
    Secretary Yellen. I must say it is hard for me to--I am not 
sufficiently knowledgeable about the details to offer you that 
comparison.
    Mr. Price. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I look forward to----
    Mr. Price. Ms. Frankel is recognized.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Hello, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being with us.
    I think we all know that the pandemic has had an especially 
disproportionate impact on women, not only here domestically, 
but around the world. In fact, there was a recent World 
Economic Forum report that said the pandemic has increased the 
global gender gap by a generation, which means now that--this 
is sort of ridiculous. Women must wait for gender parity to 
close the gender gap. It jumped from 100 to 136 years. So it 
wasn't really good before, right?
    So the question is: Can you highlight some of the aspects 
of your budget request that will help advance women around the 
world, and especially those in developing countries?
    Secretary Yellen. As you noted, the pandemic has had a 
disproportionately negative effect on women in the United 
States and all around the world, and we are supporting relief 
efforts from the pandemic all around the world, especially in 
the lowest-income countries, very actively through aid of the 
type I have discussed--vaccine distribution, economic aid, debt 
relief. And the favorable impact of that will accrue 
disproportionately to women.
    But, beyond that, we have worked with the multilateral 
development banks and with the IMF in--over a number of years 
now to focus more heavily on women's issues and women's 
empowerment. It is something that Treasury, as a shareholder in 
those institutions, has pushed to do to have a focus on women's 
issues and women's security in the area of health, particularly 
to focus specifically on women's health issues. And I think 
some progress is being--is being made. It certainly is a focus 
of our work with those institutions.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
    I think we are all here--were alarmed by, again, the recent 
violence between Israel and Hamas. And I to make it clear, 
there is no equivalency between the two. Hamas is a terrorist 
organization. And though I definitely support relief--
humanitarian relief to Palestinians as long as the relief is 
not used in a terrorist or negative way.
    I would like to know, what role does the Treasury 
Department play in implementing sanctions or to limit support 
to Hamas, or what role could you play?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, we do play an important role there. 
Hamas has been designated as a target of the U.S. Government 
Counter Terrorism Sanction programs. We prioritize targeting 
Hamas and their supporters, including operational and political 
leadership, operatives, financiers, investors, and key global 
procurement networks.
    We have targeted a large number of Hamas-affiliated 
individuals and entities around the globe, and that includes a 
host of charities around the world that have served as critical 
fundraising mechanisms.
    We also work closely with our jurisdictions that are 
vulnerable to Hamas' illicit financial networks. That includes 
partners in the Gulf we have--we have worked with them to 
improve their anti-money laundering and countering the 
financing of terrorism frameworks. We provide assessments of 
the state of Hamas' finances and work with foreign partners as 
well on sanctions designations.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Price. Thank you.
    Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, thank you so much for appearing with us 
today. We appreciate your time.
    Madam Secretary, the World Health Organization's 
credibility is on the line. When the virus--the pandemic first 
hit, the reports or the theory that this was leaked out of the 
Wuhan lab were roundly dismissed by experts. Now we have some 
credible intelligence that we shouldn't be so fast to dismiss 
that theory.
    But, again, the World Health Organization is entangled in 
this as well. And given that you oversee funding to them, what 
are you doing to engage with the World Health Organization, the 
WHO, to clarify what it knew and when regarding the growing 
evidence that the virus may have leaked from the Wuhan lab?
    Secretary Yellen. Congressman, I think we are not directly 
involved in that investigation where--in overseeing the World 
Health Organization. I mean, we do a lot of work on health 
through our representation in the World Bank and the IMF and 
others, but we are not directly involved with the World Health 
Organization.
    I am certainly aware of the point that you made, and I know 
President Biden has asked for an investigation into what 
happened in that episode, but I think we are not directly 
involved in that.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for 
clarifying that.
    Let me speak to you as well about China on another topic. 
China is, by far, largest creditor to low-income countries 
across the world.
    Now, are you aware how much China gives in direct 
humanitarian assistance and payments to multilateral funds to 
which they belong? The United States, just on humanitarian 
assistance, gives away about $25 billion, and China's 
development strategy, frankly, is this: It is predatory 
lending, it is resource extraction, and it is payment to 
authoritarian regimes.
    So, in that regard, are you working to assure that U.S. 
funds and other multilateral funds are not being used by debtor 
nations to pay off Chinese debt? This would be an indirect 
subsidy to Chinese debt obligations by the United States and 
others.
    Secretary Yellen. Well, I think that is a real concern, and 
it is one that we have, particularly in the context of our debt 
relief programs, that we have arranged the debt suspension 
initiative and the Common Framework, which is a framework for 
reducing--writing off some debt that is unsustainable for very 
low-income countries.
    So, we have spoken with China about their participation. 
They have promised to participate as equal partners in these 
debt frameworks. We would be very concerned to see resources 
that are provided to these countries used to repay Chinese 
debt. That would defeat the purpose of the programs.
    There are entities within China that do lending that have 
not fully participated in these efforts, and that concerns us 
and we have spoken to the Chinese about it. But this is a very 
valid concern, and it is one where, looking through--you know, 
transparency is also an important way of ensuring that funds 
aren't misused.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I appreciate your sensitivity to 
this. It sounds like we need better parameters around it, that 
we are at the sort of the beginning of this question, and then 
putting an--rather, an implementation process to ensure that 
our subsidies to multilateral funds or assistance aren't going 
to pay off Chinese debt. That is egregious.
    Let me turn to the other question, though. Are you aware of 
how much China gives in humanitarian assistance and to the 
multilateral funds that we all belong to?
    Secretary Yellen. They certainly contribute. I don't have 
any figures on that in front of me.
    Mr. Fortenberry. I think that is the point, is we need a 
baseline on this because, again, China has this hybrid 
capitalistic, communistic system that has caused grievous 
concerns around the world [inaudible] Resource exploitation, 
lacks labor standards, lacks environmental standards, and then 
tries to achieve leadership positions in the very funds that go 
to clean up its messes many times. That is the point.
    Maybe we can return to it, Madam Secretary. Thank you.
    Secretary Yellen. It is an important issue. I agree with 
you.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
    Mr. Price. Mrs. Torres
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
    And good afternoon, Secretary Yellen. Thank you for being 
with us today.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
    Mrs. Torres. As you are aware, I am deeply concerned about 
democratic backsliding and blatant disregard for the rule of 
law in the Northern Triangle of Central America. And as an 
appropriator, I feel strongly that we must ensure our U.S. 
taxpayers' dollars help the people and do not go against our 
policy objectives. We cannot directly or indirectly prop up 
wannabe dictators and allow these loans to support their attack 
on democracy.
    Looking to El Salvador, in April of 2020, the IMF approved 
El Salvador's request for emergency financial assistance of 
about 389 million U.S. Dollars under the rapid financing 
instrument to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. That is not a small 
sum of money.
    The emergency assistance came from the commitment from El 
Salvador's government--and I quote--remain committed to 
strengthen competitiveness by improving the business 
environment, reduce public debt, combat corruption, and 
strengthen the financial supervision and regulatory framework 
and the governance and anti-money laundering, counter-financing 
of terrorism frameworks.
    The staff report also notes that the President assigned the 
International Commission Against Impunity in El Salvador, also 
known as CICIES, to inspect the COVID-19 emergency funds and 
nominated a committee in charge and accountable for 
administering the fund.
    Unfortunately, El Salvador's newly installed Attorney 
General canceled CICIES after that body referred 12 cases of 
potential corruption and procurement fraud to the former 
Attorney General, including misuse of funds for COVID relief 
purchases by the Ministry of Health. This was after the 
legislative assembly already passed a law granting immunity for 
COVID-related contracts.
    So, my questions are: Has your team and your colleagues at 
the IMF seen reports from CICIES on how this money was spent 
per the commitment that was made? And, if not, will you be 
requesting these reports and additional information? And given 
recent developments and the government's clear efforts to avoid 
accountability and shield corrupt, are you confident that this 
money was spent as intended?
    Secretary Yellen. So you have asked a question that I need 
to do some research in order to give you a satisfactory answer. 
I mean, I am certainly aware of the money that went to El 
Salvador. It was, as I understand it, mainly intended to help 
with COVID-19 and as budget support to strengthen fiscal 
reforms.
    I am not knowledgeable about all of the details that you 
just gave, and I would be glad to get back to you or have my 
staff meet with you to review the situation.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you very much.
    I do appreciate you following up in--from our last meeting. 
I had a briefing with your folks, ensuring that we are 
utilizing all the tools at our disposal to file sanctions 
against corrupt individuals. That has to be a priority. When 70 
cents of every dollar spent in the region, you know, goes to 
corrupt hands, we must be eyes wide open at ensuring that we 
are protecting this money.
    With that, I hope that we have a second round, Madam Chair. 
I yield back.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee [presiding]. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Price, thank you very much for steering our very 
important committee hearing and for your leadership. Really 
appreciate you filling in for us.
    Mr. Price. Certainly. Glad you are back.
    Ms. Lee. Now I yield to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I appreciate 
it and good to see you back. I appreciate it.
    So, as everybody knows, the Biden administration supports a 
$650 billion allocation to IMF member nations for special 
drawing rights. These are, as you know, Secretary Yellen, known 
as SDRs. This funding is decided as aid to low-income countries 
that--I am sorry. This aid is disguised as aid to low-income 
countries, but the money actually goes to support nations 
carrying out genocide, terrorism, and even war crimes.
    Secretary Yellen, you and I are in agreement on SDRs. You 
were quoted as saying that SDRs are, and I quote, an extremely 
inefficient way to deliver foreign aid since the money goes 
mostly to G20 countries that have no need for this, end quote.
    So, Secretary Yellen, my time is limited. Yes or no, would 
a new allocation of SDRs, could that money be sent to countries 
like China or Russia?
    Secretary Yellen. Those countries will receive allocations, 
but it is very unlikely that either country will use the 
allocation. Russia----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, I am going to reclaim 
my time.
    So, yes, China and Russia will get an allocation. We can 
talk about recycling later.
    But now, yes or no, if sanctions are removed from Iran, 
U.S. taxpayer dollars could be used--could be sent to the 
Iranian regime with SDRs, right?
    Secretary Yellen. I am sorry. Could you say that again?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. If sanctions on Iran are removed, if the 
sanctions are removed, U.S. taxpayer dollars could go to 
support the Iranian regime through SDRs.
    Secretary Yellen. I mean, Iran is a net holder of SDRs but 
to use them, they would need to find a country that is willing 
to supply them with hard currency and----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Sure.
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. And U.S.----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Reclaiming my----
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Countries would not do that.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Reclaiming my time. I am sure the 
Chinese would make an exception to Iran.
    Yes or no, these SDRs will benefit Burmese generals with 
millions of dollars in foreign aid following their military 
coup and slaughter of innocent people. Yes or no?
    Secretary Yellen. No. Burma will not be able to use its 
SDRs. When the government has taken power by force, the IMF 
will not transact with it unless a majority of IMF shareholders 
say they recognize----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, reclaiming my time.
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. The government----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Reclaiming my time.
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. And that hasn't happened.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, from my understanding, 
there are no conditions on SDRs. So, because there are no 
conditions, this money could go to the generals that committed 
a coup, and it could go to other nefarious actors.
    Secretary Yellen. They will not be able to access them 
unless a majority of IMF shareholders say that they recognize 
the Burmese Government, and that has not happened.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. But it----
    Secretary Yellen. They will not be----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. It is----
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Allowed to do it.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. It is possible additionally SDR 
allocation could go out to bail out financially mismanaged 
countries like Lebanon, for example. Yes or no?
    Secretary Yellen. I am not sure of the situation with 
Lebanon, but countries get----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I can tell----
    Secretary Yellen. SDRs allocations----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I can tell you, Secretary Yellen, the 
money will all go to Lebanon.
    Yes or no, American adversaries alone will receive more 
money than low-income countries through the SDR allocation, 
correct?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, the lowest income countries will 
get about $21 billion worth of SDRs and emerging markets and 
developing countries, excluding China, will get about a third 
of the allocation or about----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen, you said--so low-
income countries will actually get less than 10 percent of this 
money. As you just said, they will get $21 billion. Our 
adversaries will get collectively $68 billion. Even if you take 
out China in that calculation, this will greatly--this will 
greatly enhance our adversaries and other G20 actors that, 
frankly, don't need the money.
    Are you aware that you would need congressional approval to 
allocate anything above $650 billion of SDRs?
    Secretary Yellen. I can't remember exactly what the cutoff 
is, but yes.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. And do you think that is maybe why that 
you are trying to do--be under $650 billion, so that you can 
push this money out without congressional approval?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, we try to evaluate what the global 
reserve needs are, and we work with the IMF to do that, and----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. So----
    Secretary Yellen. For----
    Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. You are telling me we are 
borrowing money, we are sending it to our adversaries, we are 
sending it to mismanaged countries that mismanagement--
mismanage their budgets, we are sending it to G20 countries 
that don't need it, all so your administration does not need 
special approval to do a special allocation. Is that correct?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, it is almost a costless thing to do 
to allocate SDRs. In the first instance, there is no cost at 
all. And if we agree to exchange SDRs for hard currency for a 
country that comes to us and we are not obligated to do that--
--
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary Yellen----
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. But if we do it----
    Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. Even the Wall Street 
Journal calls this monetary alchemy. There is a true cost. If 
there weren't a true cost and it was neutral, we would just 
give trillions and trillions of dollars out. The reason there 
is a true cost is, if we are lending this money at, let's say, 
2.3 percent interest, over 30 years and interest rates spike, 
which the yield rates probably will spike, we will lose the 
opportunity----
    Secretary Yellen. We receive interest. We pay interest on 
issuing Treasury debt. We receive interest from countries that 
acquire the SDRs. So it is----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Secretary, you are--you are not counting 
for risk of----
    Secretary Yellen [continuing]. Loss----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. You are not--with respect, you are not 
counting for--you are not counting for risk, which these 
countries could default. You are also not accounting for--
    Secretary Yellen. It is not----
    Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. The yield--steep yield 
curve with inflation. With all due--even The Wall Street 
Journal called----
    Ms. Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. This monetary alchemy.
    Ms. Lee. I need to yield now to Ms. Meng.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    Thank you, Secretary.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Madam Secretary, it is an honor to have you here today and 
thank you so much for your work. I have a few questions and I 
will try to be respectful and allow you time to actually answer 
these complex questions that members on both sides of the aisle 
are asking, knowing that ``yes'' or ``no'' won't suffice.
    So my first question is about Hezbollah financing. While 
programs to combat terrorist financing are funded through FSGG, 
I did want to take a minute to ask about Hezbollah's financing, 
particularly using cryptocurrency. In August 2020, the 
Department of Justice announced the seizure of 300 
cryptocurrency accounts--including 150 that laundered funds to 
and from accounts of Hamas' al-Qassam Brigade.
    Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reported Hamas has 
seen a surge in cryptocurrency donations since early May. The 
report cited a Hamas official who admitted that cryptocurrency 
is becoming a larger proportion of the group's revenue.
    I wanted to ask what steps the Department of the Treasury 
is taking to address the growing threat of terrorist financing 
through cryptocurrencies and other digital assets, and how will 
innovations in technologies in the financial industry, 
particularly cryptocurrencies, impact transnational terrorist 
groups and plots against the U.S. and our allies?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, cryptocurrencies are often used by 
illicit actors who are trying to escape detection in moving 
funds, and so it does pose challenges, but a core part of 
Treasury's mission is to impede and immobilize funds when 
sanctions are in place. We have sanctions targeting Hamas and 
Hezbollah and their supporters, and we have designated a large 
number of Hamas and Hezbollah individuals and so-called shadow 
bankers that have helped Hezbollah move money, particularly 
through the Lebanese financial system. And, while 
cryptocurrency has posed challenges, this is the core work of 
Treasury and its sanction regimes.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I wanted to ask, switching gears, a different question, 
about the climate plan, the directive announcing $20 billion 
from the administration to develop an Amazon climate financing 
plan for an important forest region of our world. As you know, 
tropical and intact forests play a critical role in both 
mitigating carbon emissions and adapting to the ecological 
disruption from climate change and biodiversity loss. What 
progress has the administration made in developing a climate 
finance plan for a tropical and intact forest in the Amazon, 
the Andean Amazon, five forest regions of Central America, and 
elsewhere?
    Secretary Yellen. I probably have to get back with you on 
details on that, Congresswoman. I can tell you that our 
Tropical Forests and Coral Reef Conservation Act is something 
that we have been using to enable countries that are eligible 
to redirect debt payments to support tropical forest and coral 
reef systems. I know we have a number of agreements. We are 
really running out of areas where we can expand where we have 
official bilateral debt.
    But maybe I can get back to you with more details on what 
we are doing in some of the countries that you asked about.
    Ms. Meng. Great. And in addition, you mentioned the 
Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act. Would love to 
hear about some of the timelines on completing negotiations on 
the different swaps in the pipeline.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Okay. Madam Secretary, I believe you have a hard stop at 
3:30 eastern time.
    So I am going to ask members to comply with our 3-minute 
timeframe so that everyone can get in a second round of 
questions at 3 minutes.
    I will start, Madam Secretary, by just asking about the 
budget request to pay down U.S. unmet commitments to various 
international financial institutions, which total over $2 
billion. These arrears damage U.S. credibility and really cede 
influence to countries like China and Russia. So I would like 
to just know what the plan is for catching up with our payments 
and why prioritizing paying down these arrears now with these 
funds could support other programs such as food security, 
global health, and what have you. So we would like to hear your 
take on that. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee.
    We believe that sustained U.S. leadership can only occur if 
other countries know that we meet our commitments, and we 
currently have $2.7 billion worth of unmet commitments. Some of 
that dates back to the 1990s, and really what we have seen over 
many years is that these unmet commitments just undermine our 
credibility and the role that we could play in leadership. So 
we have requested a start. We have requested $489 million to 
reduce the unmet commitments we have.
    We are focusing the paying down of unmet commitments to 
IDA, to the African Development Fund, and to the Asian 
Development Fund, which are the concessional arms of 
multilateral development banks that really go toward helping 
the poorest countries that are in need. And when we make these 
payments of previous commitments, they immediately enhance the 
ability of these banks to fund projects in the poorest 
countries. So they are augmenting the resources that are 
available for those purposes.
    We hope in future years to pay down further unmet 
commitments but we think that this is a reasonable start and 
moves us in the right direction.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I will just ask this question. You don't need to respond, 
so I can yield to Mr. Rogers, but I am curious about the 
Treasury's role in helping to advance the sustainable 
development goals through our multilateral partnerships. And so 
I am going to, offline or in a written response, written 
question, ask you to respond to that question.
    Thank you again.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Ranking Member Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary, the United States has not contributed to 
the Green Climate Fund since 2017 and the fund has not been the 
subject of extensive oversight in Washington since that time. I 
understand that funding for the U.S. contribution is intended 
to come from both Departments of State and Treasury. Which 
agency will oversee the fund, and how is that oversight 
conducted and with what degree of regularity and specificity 
are the results shared with this committee?
    Secretary Yellen. So, in this year's budget request, the 
administration has asked for $625 million on behalf of Treasury 
for the Green Climate Fund and an equal amount on behalf of 
State Department. So the total request for the Green Climate 
Fund is divided between Treasury and State and, you know, we 
work closely with the Green Climate Fund. We have an 
outstanding commitment to the fund. In 2014, the United States 
pledged $3 billion to the fund. We believe strongly in the work 
that they do and that it is the centerpiece really of providing 
impactful and innovative climate finance to the world's poorest 
and most vulnerable countries, and we conduct oversight in 
connection with our contributions to the fund.
    Mr. Rogers. What I am wanting to know is: Who is going to 
oversee that fund we can turn to ask questions? Is it State or 
is it Treasury or----
    Secretary Yellen. We do it jointly with State where we 
jointly represent the United States and the fund, Treasury and 
State.
    Mr. Rogers. What steps have been taken to strengthen 
transparency, accountability, anticorruption, public oversight 
in this climate finance governance?
    Secretary Yellen. Well, there have been issues that have 
risen in connection with the governance of the fund and 
management shortcomings, and, you know, we have worked with 
other board members and management to try to address issues 
that have arisen. The executive director has replaced, over the 
last year, the head of human resources, hired an ombudsperson, 
and we have been active with other members of the board to look 
for those management improvements.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I yield.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary, I am happy for the chance to ask you 
another question. I promise you I will not demand a yes-or-no 
answer. It seems to me that kind of tactic--we have just seen 
the demonstration of how unhelpful that is at a hearing 
involving complex questions. I will share with you what I have 
sometimes said to people who demand such an answer in my town 
meetings. I have said to them, ``If you don't tell me how to 
answer the question, I promise you I won't tell you how to ask 
it.'' Keep that in mind. That occasionally works, not always.
    So, about the health work of these international financial 
institutions, I would like to give you a chance to elaborate on 
that. I wonder what your assessment might be in general of the 
international financial institution's response to the pandemic. 
Have some been more successful than others in their response? 
Have they coordinated it successfully?
    I am particularly interested in vaccine distribution, and 
maybe the World Bank is the appropriate focal point here. Are 
there additional steps the World Bank should be taking to 
financially support COVAX? What additional steps could they 
take in coordination, of course, with USAID, Gavi, and the 
World Health Organization? What are some additional steps that 
might help us make sure that low-income countries are prepared 
to deliver large numbers of vaccine doses later this year?
    Secretary Yellen. So we have worked very closely with the 
World Bank and the multilateral development banks to address 
the impact of the crisis and particularly to make sure that 
funding is available for vaccine purchase. The World Bank is--I 
can't give you the exact figure, but I believe the World Bank, 
the Asian Development Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank 
have collectively provided over $20 billion for the purchase of 
vaccines. They have worked collaboratively with COVAX. Their 
support programs go beyond vaccine purchase to PPE, 
distribution of vaccines, and other medical supplies. So there 
has been a joint effort to provide vaccines, to speed the 
delivery of vaccines.
    And the World Bank is also beginning to provide critical 
financing for vaccine manufacturing as well. In our judgment, 
vaccine manufacturing capacity is a significant bottleneck to 
increasing global vaccine access, and we have been working with 
the World Bank and with our partners in acting to address 
supply chain bottlenecks there. The IFC has supported vaccine 
manufacturing efforts in both Africa and Asia, and, quite 
recently, they invested in South Africa to boost manufacturing 
efforts there. So these organizations have been, I think, very 
active and effective in using their resources to address the 
pandemic.
    Mr. Price. Thank you. And, of course, we all know what kind 
of redoubled effort is going to be required here.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Madam Secretary, while logic and common sense and much 
evidence shows a potential lab leak, Wuhan lab leak, you 
already mentioned obviously that there is an investigation 
underway, and I understand that but as to, you know, where it 
came from. But what is clear is what the Chinese regime did. A 
report in Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, biophysics discovery 
found that the PRC used, quote, deliberate destruction, 
concealment, or contamination data--of data; Chinese scientists 
who wish to share their knowledge have not been able to do so 
or have disappeared. And we know lots and lots and lots of 
reports about that.
    While the investigation is taking place as to whether it 
was a lab leak or not--lab leak or not, what is not debatable, 
I think, at this stage is that the Chinese regime held 
information, covered up. So here is the question. Are you 
looking at sanctioning of those responsible--not for the leak 
because I understand that part is still under investigation--
but for the coverup? It is fully evident that the Chinese 
regime did a very extensive coverup of what actually was taking 
place. So are you looking at sanctioning those who may have 
been responsible for the coverup?
    Secretary Yellen. So I think it will be up to the President 
when he sees the results of the investigations that are taking 
place to craft an appropriate response, and sanctions is always 
an available or typically an available tool that might be on 
that list. To the best of my knowledge, no decisions have been 
made yet.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. And I get that and you answered the 
question that no decision has been made yet, but, again, I just 
would note that there is, I don't think, very much in dispute 
as far as the fact that the disappearance of scientists, 
journalists, a doctor like Yu Zhen Zhou (ph), Ai Fen, Li 
Wenliang, Fang Bin, Li Zehou, Chen Qiushi, and others who have 
died in the coverup. So I just hope that you would be 
aggressive.
    And I guess the investigation, to my understanding, as to 
where it was a lab leak or not, but the coverup, it seems to me 
there is a lot of evidence already. So I would hope would you 
have an opportunity to look at that, and I appreciate you doing 
so.
    With that, I will yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. I would like to yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. I was going to yield and let some of the other 
members ask a question.
    I do have one question for you. Again, thank you for being 
here.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you.
    Ms. Frankel. So, as you think about all this, what do you 
see as really the most important right now that you as Treasury 
Secretary, your agency can bring some economic vibrance back to 
the international community?
    Secretary Yellen. So, on many different dimensions, we are 
determined to reestablish U.S. leadership in international 
organizations and to work constructively, collaboratively with 
our partners to address issues of global scope where we can 
really only make progress if we cooperate. And that includes 
such issues as poverty and the impact of the pandemic, the debt 
problems of low-income countries. Absolutely climate change is 
very high on our list of areas where we are providing 
leadership to collaborate with other countries that, as we do, 
see climate change as an existential threat.
    I think our partners around the world know we are back at 
the table. We value their collaboration with them in addressing 
matters of common concern, and we are coming to the table with 
leadership, with resources, and with effort to address common 
challenges.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I yield back.
    Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary, I think this might be a helpful exercise 
that if we listed every multilateral fund that we are a 
participant in, along with other countries and their 
contribution, along with the benefits that are received by a 
list of countries and then, this more specifically, the 
governance structure; this is the broader point: What are we 
doing internally to watch governance structures in these 
organizations to ensure that they are reflective of our values 
proposition, the very reasons for the missions that we are 
participating in these multilateral funds, and that they aren't 
redirected, so to speak, by other countries that have massive 
economies like China. China is making plays for leadership in 
multilateral institutions all over the world, but these funds 
tend to get overlooked in this regard.
    That is the first question. I think that would be a very 
helpful exercise to actually have this down on paper but also 
go fund by fund and address the government structures. Do you 
have a system internally to do that?
    Secretary Yellen. We serve typically on the boards of these 
institutions and are shareholders of them, and Treasury very 
actively is involved in the governance of all of these funds 
down to the project level. I believe my staff told me that we 
reviewed something like 1,700 projects last year to make sure 
that the design of these projects and the values in it meet our 
own governance standards, that we are concerned with 
anticorruption, that we are concerned about the impact that 
projects may have on indigenous people or particularly on 
women, and that we are very active in making sure that we are 
funding projects that will make a real contribution to reducing 
poverty, addressing human needs.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for the 
answer. I just have a few moments left.
    Let me give you a specific example as well. Global 
Environment Facility, we fund them in the hundreds of millions 
each year. I have been a support of their programs. I think 
they do tremendous work. The point being, though, I get 
concerned that we don't do enough internally to make sure our 
case, our vision, and the possibility of shifting visions for a 
more holistic approach to environmental health and security 
simply get fragmented as we are looking at individual programs 
and projects. So the metrics by which we are determining the 
investment outcome of our money and the governance structures, 
I think I am trying to get a better feel for how robust we are 
doing that.
    Ms. Lee. Madam Secretary--Mr. Fortenberry, could the 
Secretary respond to you in writing? Because we have one more 
member to ask a question.
    Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Yellen. I would like to do that.
    Ms. Lee. Congresswoman Torres.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, again, Secretary Yellen. I want to 
quickly say thank you again to you and your OSAC team for its 
engagement with me and commitment to work with State and others 
to increase the quantity and effectiveness of the Global 
Magnitsky sanctions for the Northern Triangle.
    President Biden recently rightly highlighted corruption as 
a national security priority and the creation of a regional 
anticorruption task force for the Northern Triangle countries 
of Central America should put that into action. I was also 
thrilled to see Treasury's budget justification include a 
little over $185 million, of which not less than $3 million is 
for addressing human rights violations and corruption, 
including activities authorized by the Global Magnitsky Human 
Rights Accountability.
    Secretary Yellen, of that request for additional staffing, 
how many new staff members will be dedicated to Central 
American to meet this mandate of the Biden administration?
    Secretary Yellen. It is a good question. I promise to come 
back with you with details on that Congresswoman.
    Mrs. Torres. Yes. I appreciate you so much and your 
eagerness to work with our office.
    With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Well, Madam Secretary, first of all, thank you so much for 
spending time with us today and for your testimony. I think our 
members have learned a heck of a lot from you as it relates to 
our responsibilities of partnership with the Department of the 
Treasury. It really was a very informative hearing. It is 
really important that we stand by our commitments to our 
multilateral partners and show that the United States does not 
believe in a going-alone policy or approach to addressing some 
of the toughest global challenges.
    Finally, just let me say to members: If you have any 
questions that you would like to submit for the record, please 
submit them to the subcommittee within the next 7 days.
    This concludes today's hearing. The Subcommittee on State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs is adjourned.
    Again, Madam Secretary, we really appreciate the time you 
spent with us. Thank you.
    Secretary Yellen. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. Thank 
you.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       

                                       Wednesday, October 27, 2021.

 UNITED STATES GLOBAL COVID-19 RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN AND FUTURE NEEDS

                               WITNESSES

GAYLE SMITH, COORDINATOR FOR GLOBAL COVID-19 RESPONSE AND HEALTH 
    SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
JEREMY KONYNDYK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE USAID COVID-19 TASK FORCE 
    AND SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR 
    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
LESLEY ZIMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, 
    REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SARAH CHARLES, ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR HUMANITARIAN 
    ASSISTANCE, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

                  Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lee

    Ms. Lee. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and 
Related Programs will come to order.
    Good morning, everyone. Let me just start by welcoming our 
distinguished witnesses back to our subcommittee: Gayle Smith, 
Coordinator for COVID-19 and Global Health Security at the 
Department of State; Jeremy Konyndyk, who is the Executive 
Director of USAID's Task Force on COVID-19; Lesley Ziman, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of State's Bureau 
for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and Sarah Charles, 
Assistant to the Administrator in USAID's Bureau for 
Humanitarian Affairs.
    We appreciate your time and your willingness to testify.
    Now, as this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a 
few housekeeping matters first. For today's meeting, the chair 
or staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the purpose 
of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members are 
responsible for muting and unmuting yourself. If I notice that 
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like 
the staff to unmute you. If you indicate an approval by 
nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5 minute clock 
still applies to the Q&A. If there is a technical issue, we 
will move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and 
you will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a 
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining. 
At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 
seconds remaining, I may gently tap the gavel to remind members 
that their time has almost expired. When your time has expired, 
the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    After the panel presents their testimony, we will follow 
the order of recognition set forth in the House rules beginning 
with the chair and the ranking member or his designee. Then 
members present at that time and when the hearing is called to 
order will be recognized in order of seniority, and following 
that, members not present at the time the hearing is called to 
order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Okay. I would just like to begin by welcoming our guests 
once again and will proceed with my opening statement. First of 
all, we all know that the COVID pandemic has been raging 
globally for more than 18 months. It has taken millions of 
lives and devastated even more livelihoods, setting back the 
hard-earned progress we have made against poverty and disease. 
Eighteen months into this global catastrophe, and the end, 
unfortunately, is still not in sight.
    There is no way to end this pandemic except to combat it 
globally. Americans will continue to be threatened by new 
emerging strains of the virus the longer we allow it to 
circulate. We can't get complacent. The COVID virus itself is 
not slowing down as it adapts to our efforts with new variants. 
Speed is of the essence. Until we control COVID everywhere, 
American lives are at risk.
    That is why hearing from our witnesses today is so critical 
as we review United States leadership in confronting this 
pandemic globally. The United States has been noticeably more 
present and active in the global response in recent months, 
culminating in September's White House Global COVID-19 Summit. 
I am so glad to see us stepping up in this way, but we can and 
should be doing more to rally others and address ongoing 
failings in the international response. We need to understand 
in greater detail the actions taken to date and the future 
needs.
    In March 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan 
Act, which includes $10.8 billion for USAID and the Department 
of State to address the global impacts of the pandemic. 
According to information from these agencies, as of September 
30, 57 percent of these funds have been obligated. These 
resources have enabled critical support for the distribution of 
vaccines in low-resource settings, continued provision of 
supplies and expertise to countries suffering from new waves of 
COVID infections, and given humanitarian support to people made 
more vulnerable by the pandemic's impacts.
    The landscape has changed significantly since Congress 
approved the American Rescue Plan resources. The devastating 
Delta variant has become the dominant strain of COVID. A 
barrage of new data shows the crippling impact COVID has had on 
food security, education, and diseases like tuberculosis.
    Meanwhile, the COVAX mechanism has been strained in its 
efforts to deliver vaccines, and there remains incredible 
inequity in vaccination distribution. It is deeply troubling 
that, while countries like the United States approve booster 
shots and many other wealthy countries make steady progress, 
most countries in Africa have vaccinated less than 10 percent 
of their eligible populations.
    I am hoping the witnesses today can help us understand 
several things. First, how does the United States determine 
priorities for the resources provided for the global response? 
How do we balance the need to respond to still climbing 
infection rates, prevent new infections through vaccination, 
and mitigate the equally harmful economic and social costs of 
the pandemic?
    Second, given the increase in the Biden Harris 
administration's commitments made throughout summer to the 
global response, commitments that I applaud, are there adequate 
resources to continue the fight against this ongoing pandemic?
    And, third, it seems urgent needs are frequently crowding 
out long-term needs rather than tackling both at the same time. 
The IMF has warned that failure to end the pandemic globally 
could cost up to $5.3 trillion in economic losses over 5 years. 
So how are we working across the United States Government to 
ensure we are not going to beat back one health crisis only to 
face a crisis of food security, poverty, and death? Are the 
State Department and USAID looking at the longer term impacts 
of this pandemic and addressing these destabilizing needs?
    Recovering from the pandemic must mean more than just 
recovery from the COVID-19 disease. We need to think through 
how we can help countries build their resilience for the long 
term and preserve our development and health gains. We also 
need to be talking to the American people about how our 
domestic economy and security are inextricably linked with the 
rest of the world and that addressing their interests 
positively impacts our interests.
    And so I look forward to hearing from each of you on these 
topics, but before turning to our witnesses for their 
statements and given that Ranking Member Rogers was not able to 
be with us today, let me yield to Congressman Diaz-Balart for 
any opening remarks that he may have.
    Congressman Balart.

                  Opening Statement of Mr. Diaz-Balart

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
    And, like you, let me first start by thanking the witnesses 
today. I look forward to hearing from them.
    I think you have spoken clearly about some of the concerns 
that we all have. I particularly remain concerned about China's 
active COVID-related so-called assistance programs globally. It 
is no secret that China is using COVID-19 and the vaccine of 
COVID-19 to pressure our allies around the planet and including 
here in our own hemisphere. So China continues to use that, 
however, not to help countries but to coerce other countries to 
confirm to its foreign policy priority.
    So I look forward to hearing a little bit also about, you 
know, how we are doing vis-a-vis China. Are we competitive with 
their efforts, and what are you seeing out there in the world 
as far as China's aggressive activity and activism, using COVID 
as a way for them to get their foreign policy taken care of?
    So, again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for this hearing, 
and I look forward to listening to our witnesses.
    And, with that, I will yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
    Let me ask if our chairwoman, Chair DeLauro, is on. If so, 
would she like to have any comments.
    Hi, Chair DeLauro.

                   Opening Statement of Chair DeLauro

    The Chair. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am delighted 
to be with you today and with the subcommittee. It is an 
important hearing.
    And I want to say thank you to the witnesses who are 
testifying.
    Even as we have turned a corner with COVID-19 in the U.S., 
as you pointed out, it is far from over across the globe. 
Infections are rising in 55 countries. COVID-19 vaccines have 
been widely available in more developed countries for more than 
10 months. However, disparities in vaccine access between 
wealthy and developing countries has meant that, even as some 
of us here are receiving third dose booster shots, many people 
in lower income countries have not yet received a single does, 
by some reports.
    If there is something that we have learned from the 
pandemic, it is that when one of us suffers, all of us suffer. 
And, when one of us gets sick, we all get sick. John Donne 
famously wrote in 1624 during another global pandemic: ``No one 
is an island. Anyone's death diminishes all of us because we 
are all involved in mankind.'' It is not just our moral 
imperative to care for those around us, it is the only way to 
keep ourselves and our own communities safe.
    So I am glad that the United States, under the leadership 
of President Biden, has purchased 1 billion Pfizer doses and 
donated 100 million vaccine doses from the U.S. stockpile to 
allocate through the global COVID-19 vaccine collaboration, 
known as COVAX. And I am proud that 200 million of these COVID-
19 vaccines have already been delivered to more than 100 
countries around the world.
    However, there is still much work to be done to support our 
partners around the world as they fight COVID-19. The United 
States has to play a leadership role in ending the virus' 
uncontrolled speed in the world's less developed countries. We 
need to enhance equitable access to vaccines across the world, 
making tests, therapeutics, personal protective equipment more 
widely available. We need to begin the work now to prevent 
future pandemics by aligning around common global targets, 
tracking progress, and supporting one another in fulfilling our 
commitments.
    I also want to add a note that, given that the United 
States has so heavily invested in the development and 
production of the vaccines, I think it is critical that our 
pharmaceutical companies work to speed up the production of 
vaccines, and are actively engaged and involved in assisting 
countries and allowing countries to, with a TRIPS waiver, 
manufacture these vaccines and we provide the technical 
assistance for them to be able to deliver them. I think that is 
just a moral responsibility that we have.
    So I am grateful to our witnesses for joining us today to 
detail actions we have taken thus far and to tell us more about 
their future needs. I look forward to hearing more from you 
about the strategies that we can use to distribute these 
vaccines as efficiently and as equitably as possible because, 
ultimately, if we fail to bring the virus under control in 
every corner of the world, then we must not ask for whom the 
bell tolls; it will toll for all of us.
    With that, let me thank you to Chairwoman Lee, Ranking 
Member Rogers, and others of the subcommittee, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Now I would like to ask if Ranking Member Granger is with 
us.
    If not, let me now yield to our witnesses, Ms. Smith, Mr. 
Konyndyk, Ms. Ziman, and Ms. Charles. If you could summarize 
your oral statements in less than 5 minutes. I want to make 
sure that we leave enough time to get our questions. Your full 
statement, of course, will be included in the record.
    After your testimony, I will be calling on members based on 
seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was 
called to order, alternating between majority and minority 
members. I will then recognize any remaining members in the 
order of their appearance. Each member is asked to keep their 
questions to within 5 minutes per round.
    Ms. Smith, please proceed.

                     Opening Statement of Ms. Smith

    Ms. Smith. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Lee and 
Congressman Diaz-Balart and also Chairwoman DeLauro. It is a 
pleasure to see all of you and all the distinguished members of 
the committee.
    We are quite pleased to be back with you. I think we have 
got some good things to report, but we agree with many of the 
challenges you have set out in your opening remarks. You do 
have my written testimony. So let me just summarize on three 
fronts where we are and some of the challenges we face and how 
we plan to go after them.
    First is on ramping up the U.S. global response. Since we 
last met and have been supported very strongly--and thank you 
for that--by the American Rescue Plan, we have been able to 
dramatically increase the scale, scope, and impact of our own 
response.
    Chairwoman DeLauro, you mentioned that we crossed the 
threshold of sharing over 200 million vaccines to over 100 
countries. As soon as we announced that, the number was 210 
million, then 215 million. In other words, we are going out on 
almost a daily basis with shipments, and what we are starting 
to see is two things: One is increasing global coverage, and 
the second is the beginnings of more robust vaccine uptake in 
many parts of the world.
    A couple of other things on the vaccine front I do want to 
mention. We announced yesterday that we have been able to 
facilitate a deal between Moderna and the African Union for the 
African Union to buy additional doses from Moderna. It is 50 
million with an additional 60 million as an option. The reason 
that is important, A, we know that vaccine coverage in Africa 
is the lowest in the world; but, B, and importantly, the 
African Union asked us to meet them halfway. They organized 
themselves to purchase half of the continent's vaccine 
requirements, are now rolling out J&J doses that they paid for, 
so we are both sharing doses with them as well as facilitating 
their efforts to procure them.
    Additionally, the Pfizer doses, with the President having 
announced an additional 500 million doses at the summit in 
September, bringing us to a total of 1 billion, are rolling 
out. These are designated for what is called the 92 AMC 
countries and the African Union because there are 8 countries 
in Africa that are not in COVAX, targeted towards low- and low-
middle-income countries, those are rolling out now in tranches 
sufficient to allow us to work with countries to make sure they 
have got the uptake and all the systems in place and then 
accelerate the flow on a monthly basis.
    As you know, the DFC continues--and the acting head of the 
DFC, Dave Marchick, has just returned from an overseas trip--to 
identify additional places where we can make investments as we 
have in India and the Aspen pharmaceutical plant in South 
Africa, which has already increased its dose levels.
    Finally, on the vaccine front, we are really trying to get 
our partners to accelerate the delivery of vaccines. Out of the 
G20 or the G7 summit and since that time, we have had robust 
commitments, particularly from the U.K. and the European Union. 
We are very pleased about that. We are urging them to again 
deliver those doses as quickly as possible and seeking to share 
with them the knowledge that we have gained from basically 
building a machine to share vaccines.
    Against this backdrop, and you will hear more about this 
from our USAID colleagues who are working with CDC and with 
PEPFAR, where we are leveraging back platform, we are very 
focused on delivery throughput, uptake. How to make sure that 
as the supply increases, not sufficiently but significantly, 
that we actually have shots in arms? How do we make sure that 
PPE, therapeutics, these other needs that are required for 
caring for people now who are facing the disease, and how do we 
continue to respond to surges? I think we all know that the 
Delta variant was not anticipated in terms of its strength. 
When all of this began early in the pandemic, we know that that 
has triggered a great deal of need. I will let my colleagues 
speak more to how we have responded to that.
    The second thing that has been, I think, a big development 
since we last met is acting on the need for the United States 
to use its leadership to mobilize the rest of the world. I wish 
I could say that the entire world was lined up exactly where it 
needs to be, arm in arm, totally committed to doing everything 
that needs to be done. That is not the case, and that is why it 
is critically important that President Biden convened heads of 
State in September.
    I will share with you that other than a virtual meeting of 
the G7 leaders shortly after he came into office, this was the 
first convening of heads of State on this pandemic, and it was 
extremely important to do several things. One, we laid down 
some markers, in part by the robust nature of our own response 
and our own announcement to do more there, but also by setting 
ambitious targets. We know what it is going to take to end this 
pandemic. We decided we needed to put those targets out there, 
but also, importantly, measure our progress against it. So we 
have been working with ACT-A, the suite of organizations you 
all know well, The Global Fund, COVAX, WHO, CEPI, and others, 
but also with what is called the Multilateral Task Force--this 
is the heads of the World Bank, IMF, WHO, and WTO--to make sure 
that collectively we can track the world's progress against 
these targets, hold ourselves and others available, and measure 
constantly where we are and where we need to be.
    Another goal of the summit was to create some momentum. We 
could have convened a summit, had it be very successful, and 
then just reverted back. What we have decided to do instead was 
generate the momentum that is needed. So we had the summit. The 
G-20 summit is upon us now. In November, the Secretary of State 
will convene foreign ministers. Again, this is the first 
convening of foreign ministers to mobilize the political and 
other capital we need from them. In December, we anticipate a 
G7 meeting on vaccines hosted by the U.K., and there will be 
another summit after the first of the year.
    These action-forcing events allow us to drive others and 
ourselves towards key targets. So we really think it is vital.
    Also, and importantly, the summit and these other events 
aren't just about governments. We have engaged the private 
sector extensively. We think there is a real possibility of 
additional significant support from there, particularly on 
vaccine delivery, foundations, and NGOs.
    Finally, the third point I would just like to refer to is 
the long-term global health security. I am seeing my clock, and 
I will simply say I will come back to this in Q&A, but we 
believe and are laying down some markers now because we can't 
wait until we have ended this pandemic to lay the ground for 
preparation for the future. Happy to say more about that, but 
let me revert to and return to my colleagues. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
     
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.
    Let me ask now Mr. Konyndyk to please proceed.

                   Opening Statement of Mr. Konyndyk

    Mr. Konyndyk. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Lee, 
Representative Diaz-Balart, and Chair DeLauro, for the 
opportunity to testify today about USAID's role in the global 
COVID-19 response.
    Chairwoman Lee, your opening statement actually hit so many 
of the points I was planning to make, I am not sure I need to 
say anything, but I will make just a few comments.
    You know, no crisis in our lifetimes--and I have managed 
many in my career--has matched this pandemic in terms of scope 
and complexity. It is three overlapping crises: a health 
crisis, a human crisis, and an economic and development 
crisis--each of those historic in their own right, 
unprecedented in scale, and each of them hitting at the exact 
same time.
    Thanks to Congress' generosity, as Gayle also referenced, 
USAID has been able to expand our response to these crises, and 
we have now provided pandemic aid to more than 120 countries, 
totaling more than $9 billion in resources. Our work remains 
guided by the White House's global response and recovery 
framework for COVID-19 with five objectives that are laid out 
in my written testimony and which we have briefed you on 
before. That framework also provided the foundation for the 
commitments that President Biden laid out and the targets that 
he laid out at the summit that Gayle just discussed. We focused 
that in line with our strategy on vaccinating the world, on 
saving lives now, all of the things beyond vaccination, things 
like oxygen and testing and so on that are critical to the 
front line health response, and to building back better against 
future pandemics.
    But, as you said in your opening, Chairwoman, the world has 
been changing since the ARP was passed. And the evolution of 
the pandemic and the risks it has posed has also forced 
adaptation in how we are responding, and I want to just cite a 
few of the specific ways here.
    First, we have seen enormous challenges with vaccine--with 
global vaccine supply and much lower than expected, and lower 
than hoped for, production of vaccines, particularly some of 
the key vaccines that were expected to be the front line 
vaccines for low-income countries, and that slow delivery is 
due to a few things. It is due to very tight supply chains for 
global vaccine inputs. In effect, what the world is trying to 
do is produce an extra 11 or more billion vaccines on top of an 
architecture that is normally built to produce 5 billion doses 
a year. That has also contributed to major production delays at 
some of the large vaccine manufacturers.
    The way that those vaccine manufacturers are allocating 
doses across their different contracts is very opaque, but it 
does seem that low-income countries and COVAX are consistently 
at the end of the queue there. And then there have been export 
restrictions, especially some of the export restrictions put in 
place by India, that have taken a lot of Indian production off 
the table for the rest of the world.
    The administration has responded to this, as you know, by 
ramping up our own sharing of vaccines abroad. And so we have 
up until now shared more than 200 million doses total, on track 
towards 1.2 billion planned, which will be 1 billion doses that 
we are committed to purchasing from Pfizer for global 
distribution as well as plans to share a total of 200 million 
surplus doses from our own domestic supply.
    The second major change has been that country vaccination 
costs are rising, and the complexity is growing. And so we are 
finding a lot of variation in country readiness for 
distribution of vaccines, and the complexity, in particular, of 
the Pfizer vaccine, which is a phenomenally effective vaccine 
but has more complex and onerous handling and cost 
requirements, has added to the ticket price there, as it were.
    And, third, I think as others have discussed, the Delta 
variant has greatly magnified global risks. We are now--we have 
been responding to more and worse hot spots than had been the 
case previously. I think everyone tracked the crisis in India 
in the spring, but we have seen those kinds of conditions on 
other scales in many other countries, and so that has placed an 
additional burden on our budget. And, you know, the net outcome 
of all of this is that, as this race between the vaccines, 
other response, and the variants continues, we are running 
down, we are running through our resources very quickly. Of the 
ARP funds that have been made available to USAID, we expect to 
have not more than around $250 million left as we head into 
next year, and next year will be the most operationally 
intensive phase of the response as we work to roll out vaccines 
globally to hit the 70 percent global coverage target.
    So we look forward to your questions. We are very glad that 
Congress continues to focus on this issue, and we are grateful 
for your support. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Konyndyk.
    Now I would like to ask Ms. Ziman to proceed with your 
testimony. Thank you again.

                     Opening Statement of Ms. Ziman

    Ms. Ziman. Thank you. Chairwoman Lee, Congressman Diaz-
Balart, Chairwoman DeLauro, distinguished members of the 
subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today. I look 
forward to sharing with you how the Department's Bureau for 
Population, Refugees, and Migration has utilized the 
supplemental funding generously provided by the committee and 
the entire Congress, not once but twice, to allow us to 
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic for 
some of the world's most vulnerable people.
    As you noted, the existence of COVID-19 anywhere is a 
threat to global health and security everywhere, and the ARP 
resources have allowed PRM to focus on mitigating COVID-19 
among those most often overlooked.
    Even before the pandemic, the world was facing the highest 
levels of displacement ever seen, an 88 percent increase 
between 2010 and 2020. Those displaced are regularly without 
healthcare and have risked going untested and untreated for 
COVID-19. Further, they faced immediate and profound economic, 
education, social, and mental health impacts.
    PRM's international organization partners rapidly issued 
emergency appeals that moved from immediate COVID-19 prevention 
and case management support to sustaining education, responding 
to alarming spikes in gender-based violence, expanding mental 
health support, and sustaining livelihoods.
    Since the beginning of the pandemic, PRM has provided more 
than $831 million in more than 80 countries. Through the ARP 
funding, our partners are providing essential healthcare, clean 
water, sanitation, shelter, protection, and last-mile COVID-19 
vaccination efforts.
    Humanitarians are responding to a global twindemic of 
COVID-19 and displacements through immense dedication, 
innovation, and partnership. In our response, we have 
recognized the importance of established local community 
partners. As borders closed and movement of people and goods 
ground to a halt, PRM and U.N. support to local organizations 
provided continuity of assistance. The trust local 
organizations built allowed them to quickly implement an 
unprecedented response, even when asking people to take very 
difficult steps to mitigate the spread of the disease. As a 
result, with the ARP funds, we have prioritized increasing 
direct programming to our NGO partners.
    A second lesson was ensuring interventions involved host 
communities and promoted innovative delivery strategies, such 
as an expansion in community-based mental health services where 
trained neighbors provided support to others. With the increase 
in gender-based violence, PRM is also supporting our partners 
to mainstream gender-based violence prevention and support 
services and to help education and livelihoods programming. 
PRM-funded partners innovated GBU case management by creating 
support lifelines, whether by phone or trained community 
members.
    We recognize that vaccinations will be the critical 
pandemic off-ramp for vulnerable populations. In March 2021, 59 
percent of country vaccination plans did not include refugees. 
PRM and our partners have been strongly advocating for the 
equitable inclusion of displaced persons in vaccine planning. 
Thanks in part to these efforts, the U.N. refugee agency is now 
reporting that 121 out of 123 countries have begun providing 
COVID-19 vaccinations for refugees or other peoples of concern. 
We know it is possible to achieve high coverage vaccination in 
refugee communities when supplies are available and 
humanitarians are engaged in a coordinated vaccination program.
    COVID-19 has demonstrated how interconnected we are from 
the spread of the disease to the global economic impacts. This 
has driven home the imperative that the world not forget to 
ensure health and security through humanitarian assistance for 
refugees and other displaced persons. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today, and I am happy to 
answer your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
      
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Ziman.
    Let me now ask our final witness, Ms. Charles, to come 
forward. Thank you again.

                    Opening Statement of Ms. Charles

    Ms. Charles. Chairwoman Lee, Representative Diaz-Balart, 
Chair DeLauro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify about the U.S. Agency 
for International Development's humanitarian response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
    The pandemic is a crisis multiplier, making complex 
emergencies even more complex and compounding the effects of 
conflict and climate change to not only exacerbate the 
humanitarian needs but also change the way in which we deliver 
humanitarian assistance.
    There are record levels of need globally: 235 million 
people are in need of humanitarian assistance and protection 
this year, a 40 percent increase over last year. More than 2 
billion people do not have access to adequate food. Almost a 
decade of progress against malnutrition has been erased.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has also given rise to a second 
nefarious pandemic, the shadow pandemic of gender-based 
violence against women and girls. Loss of income from the 
economic downturn, limited mobility due to public health 
regulations, closures of schools, markets, and support 
services, and widespread stress have led to an increase in 
violence in the home while also creating barriers for women and 
girls to access lifesaving services. And the grim reality is 
that, while the number of people in need is growing, the number 
of people we can reach with the same amount of funding is 
decreasing due to global supply chain disruptions.
    Despite these challenges, thanks to the generosity of the 
United States Congress, humanitarian assistance from the 
American people has helped mitigate the worst of the crisis 
through a robust global response that has helped millions of 
vulnerable people around the world. We have programmed more 
than $2.3 billion in supplemental humanitarian assistance 
across 53 countries, including more than $1.8 billion in 
American Rescue Plan resources to meet these increased needs.
    We have also worked with our partners to make strategic 
adaptations to our programs to ensure continuity of services 
and to protect communities and aid workers from disease 
transmission. For food assistance, this means increasing the 
frequency of distributions to avoid overcrowding and even 
providing door-to-door distributions for elderly and other 
higher risk cases.
    For health, this means delivering critical medical 
supplies, countering misinformation about COVID-19, and 
educating local communities about how to stop the spread.
    For survivors of gender-based violence, it means Zainab and 
her team in northern Nigeria shifted to remote case management 
by telephone in order to continue to providing services to 
survivors despite restrictions on movement. Being a gender-
based violence survivor herself, Zainab knows well the 
difficult circumstances that women are facing due to the shadow 
pandemic. And, through her work, she is dedicated to helping 
other survivors and creating a more equitable world for her 
daughters.
    USAID is also making strategic investments to build the 
capacity of the international humanitarian system to respond to 
public health emergencies in the future and to make vulnerable 
communities more resilient. I am proud of our work to respond 
to the COVID-19 pandemic to maintain ongoing programming and to 
stand up critical new responses to emerging crises in 
Afghanistan, after the earthquake in Haiti and in northern 
Ethiopia, the Northern Triangle and beyond.
    We have almost depleted our supplemental resources 
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are preparing to make a 
series of difficult choices in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 as 
the divide between humanitarian needs and resources continues 
to grow across all sectors. Our work is needed now more than 
ever. Going forward, the international community must continue 
to work together to scale up services, adapt and innovate 
programming, and prepare for future outbreaks in humanitarian 
settings.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Charles.
    Let me go straight into the questions now, and I will be 
very brief with mine because many of my questions I asked in my 
opening statement.
    So I would just like to ask, Ms. Smith, the question about 
the United States using its power of influence to get greater 
action from other donors, including the private sector, 
especially pharmaceutical companies, and international bodies, 
such as the World Bank.
    Ms. Smith. Thank you, Congresswoman. Look. This is 
absolutely critical, and I think we know from all of our work 
over the last decades that, when we step up and lead, other 
countries follow, but also, quite frankly, that we can use our 
leadership and the resources that we have put on the table to 
leverage those from others. So that has been--that is what we 
have been doing on a number of fronts.
    I think with our key partner countries that are also major 
donors, we are working aggressively with them to encourage that 
they increase some of their numbers. We are very fortunate to 
have ARP resources, but we want to see increased resources from 
them, and, as I said earlier, to accelerate the flow of their 
surplus vaccines, we really need that to speed up. We are 
getting some traction on that, including through the summit and 
these other action-forcing events.
    As I referenced, our conversations with the private sector, 
I think they have been of a very different nature than I have 
ever seen, I have been in this work for a long time, where we 
urge them to respond at scale and systemically; in other words, 
are there ways they can come together? Those discussions are 
very, very fruitful, and we are hoping in the not-too-distant 
future, we will have more to say about that, but it has been a 
very serious, indepth discussion there. We have seen American 
foundations step up, but, also importantly--and we have 
discussed this with them--reaching out to other philanthropies 
around the world so that we are leveraging both from the public 
sector and the private sector.
    Our engagement with the vaccine manufacturers is extensive. 
Importantly, at the summit, we called for greater transparency 
in supply, production, and availability of vaccines because one 
of the challenges we face is being able to plan out one 
quarter, two quarters, and know what we are dealing with. Much 
of that engagement is led by the White House task force that 
has led on the U.S. response. And, again, I think we are having 
impact there, but those are all relationships that we are going 
to have to continue to engage on.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Smith. It is a big priority across the board.
    Ms. Lee. I will now yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
    Again, let me thank all of you for what you do and your 
service to our country, and I know that you have difficult 
tasks, difficult tasks.
    In my very short opening remark, I talked a lot about China 
and about my concern about China. And, even though I think 
summits are going to be positive, the summits are not a 
solution, or summits are not a victory, you know. The historic 
Abraham Accords took place without summits. China hasn't had a 
lot of summits, and, yet, they are being very, very aggressive. 
The vaccines were produced in the United States in less than a 
year without summits. They were produced by just, you know, 
hard work and a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure and hard 
work.
    So I am a little concerned that I have heard a lot about 
summits, but--and even though some good numbers were posted--
and I think that is helpful, and that is great--I still haven't 
heard anything about the contrast between what we have been 
able to do----
    Ms. Smith. Sure.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. And what China has been able 
to do. So, if somebody wants to give me an idea as to how we 
are doing vis-a-vis what China has been doing, I think that 
would be very helpful.
    Ms. Smith. Sure. May I? And my colleague, Jeremy, may want 
to add to this.
    Congressman, I agree with you. Summits are a means to an 
end, not the end in themselves, and we clearly saw the summit 
as a means to an end. And these other events we see the same 
way because they are action-forcing events.
    With respect to China, you are absolutely right that China 
has been very aggressive, very assertive, and, quite frankly, a 
bit transactional with respect to vaccines. What we have found 
at a very practical level is that, number one, the demand for 
the vaccines that we can make available--Moderna, Pfizer, J&J--
are extremely high. There is a great level of confidence. So 
that is number one.
    Number two, we have found that, because our posture with 
vaccines is that these do not come with political strings--in 
other words, we are not saying that we will provide you 
vaccines if you will do A, B, or C; we are saying that these 
vaccines are tools to end the pandemic that threatens all of 
us, and we are taking the lead in the world to get everybody 
vaccinated. That resonates with people. I think it resonates 
with citizens. It resonates with governments who are looking 
for vaccines for the same reason.
    I think part of what we have done is we are not going to 
compete on the same terms. We are not going to use this as a 
chess game. We are going to stand on some fundamental 
principles, number one, that these are not political tools. 
This is acting on our values and our collective and national 
self-interest. And, secondly, we are going to count on the 
science and the efficacy. Again, the reputation of these 
vaccines is very, very high, and the demand is great.
    I don't want to discount in any way the importance of the 
issue that you raise. But I think if your question is how are 
we doing, I think the world greatly appreciates both our 
science, innovation, and industry but also the fact that we are 
sharing vaccines with no strings attached.
    Mr. Konyndyk. If I could just add to that briefly. I think 
we are--we and China are taking different approaches. And I 
think part of the contrast and part of the soft power dimension 
here, frankly, is that we and they are doing very different 
things.
    They are trying to sell vaccines, for the most part. They 
are not donating them. They are--and as I think you said, 
Congressman, you know, they are using this often as coercion 
rather than as assistance. I think we are very explicitly, and 
as the President has repeatedly said, doing this as assistance. 
And we are far, far ahead of them on that front. We have now 
given more than 200 million doses abroad already. Their 
donations lag far behind that. We have committed to provide 
another billion beyond what we have already done.
    And I think the feedback we get from countries, frankly, is 
that they prefer the vaccines that we are providing and want 
more of them. And I think that, as we are making more of our 
vaccines available, which countries generally prefer, that also 
limits the--that limits the room, frankly, for China to exert 
coercive tactics because countries have a choice. And, when 
countries have a choice, we are seeing consistently they would 
prefer to choose the vaccines that are coming through COVAX and 
from the U.S.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great.
    Madam Chairwoman, I only have less than half a minute. So I 
will yield back. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I will yield now to the chair of the Appropriations 
Committee, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro.
    The Chair. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and 
Congressman Diaz-Balart.
    I just have a quick comment. I was pleased to hear about 
the discussions with Moderna and increased production. However, 
I think what we need to do that because there simply isn't 
enough vaccines being made by the pharmaceutical companies, but 
I am also very concerned about what I view--and I will be clear 
about this--as exploitation of intellectual property, their 
monopolies on intellectual property by refusing to negotiate 
with other capable manufacturers around the world. That is 
something that I think that we have to address.
    Let me get to a question on why our emphasis is on donation 
versus production. This is about surplus doses. What is the 
administration's estimate of surplus doses by the end of 2021? 
Are we going to donate these? If not, why not? What steps are 
we going to take to donate some or all of these doses, and do 
we have a plan for shipping vaccine doses that are close to 
expiring to countries that are desperate for vaccines?
    Ms. Smith. I am happy to take a start at that and then hand 
it over to my USAID colleague.
    Thank you, Congresswoman, for those questions. And I am not 
sure I would state it as that donation is prioritized over 
production. We are trying to do both. So, for example, the DFC 
investment in Aspen is a little bit of a twofer. It increases 
production over the long term, which is critical, but it also 
increases production in the urgency of now where we are trying 
urgently to contain this virus.
    We very much agree that long-term investment for the kind 
of architecture that we need, where we have got more 
geographical distribution, more availability and access to 
vaccines is absolutely critical, and that is one of the things 
we are looking at. Yes, these surplus doses are donated, and in 
addition to the surplus doses from our stock are the 1 billion 
Pfizer doses, which the United States paid for and is donating 
to COVAX. So we are not--we are not getting into the business 
of offering to sell, for example, surplus doses or those Pfizer 
doses to low and lower middle income countries. Those are 
absolutely donated.
    Second. We have had to build a bit of a machine to be able 
to deliver those. There are a lot of regulatory, legal, 
logistical, and other hurdles that must be gone through on our 
end and on the receiving country's end. I am pleased to report 
that, due to the work of a lot of agencies and our colleagues 
on the domestic task force, we have got that system down. We 
are not aiming to share vaccines that have a short expiration 
date. That is a really high risk to receiving countries that 
they won't be able to deliver them on time, and, frankly, it is 
just the wrong thing to do.
    So, with the Pfizer doses, they have a long--they are just 
coming off the production line; they have got a sufficiently 
long timeline on expiration that delivery should be quite 
possible without any risk of expiration. Thank you.
    Mr. Konyndyk. And what we are seeing from our colleagues on 
the domestic side--and we are coordinating very closely with 
them--is that, very consistently, as they are receiving the 
deliveries from the manufacturers, if those are surplused to 
the point in time domestic requirements or anticipated domestic 
requirements, they are turning around and donating those.
    So, for example, we recently received the completion of the 
deliveries from Johnson & Johnson, and a large chunk of that we 
turned around and have committed now to the African Union, 17 
million doses to the African Union. So the doses that we are 
holding onto are really those that are being and expected to be 
used domestically. We are not otherwise sitting on doses.
    And, on Gayle's point about the doses close to expiring, I 
think I would distinguish between those that are already out in 
the States and those that have been received and are still in 
the possession of the Federal Government. Once those have gone 
out to states, it is very hard to donate those abroad because 
of chain-of-custody issues. So we have looked hard at that. HHS 
has looked hard at that. And we defer to HHS on this, but so 
far, they haven't found a reliably safe way to do that, 
unfortunately.
    The Chair. Just a couple comments with the remaining time 
that I have is that I will go back the intellectual property 
monopolies that these pharmaceutical companies have and their 
refusal to negotiate with other capable manufacturers around 
the world. That is an issue that has to be addressed if we 
really are going to make a difference in fostering a 
humanitarian effort here, and that we have to break the back 
of.
    The final point is what will the administration do to 
deliver a final waiver deal by November 30 at the WTO 
ministerial? The U.S. has supported, but it is down to Germany, 
the U.K., and Switzerland versus the rest of the world on this.
    Ms. Smith. Yeah. I would refer you to USTR on this in terms 
of the very latest. As you know, these negotiations are 
happening in real time, and you and I have discussed this 
before. I can assure you that, on USTR's part, the State 
Department's part and others of us, we have been actively 
working with other countries to see what progress we can 
achieve. But USTR will have the latest on that because it is 
all happening in real time right now.
    The Chair. And the continued effort with the pharmaceutical 
companies.
    Ms. Smith. Yes.
    The Chair. And Moderna would not have been able to provide 
the vaccine unless there had been over about $10 billion of 
U.S. taxpayers dollars to produce that vaccine. Thank you.
    Ms. Smith. No. Thank you.
    The Chair. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Smith. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Now I yield now to Mr. Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I appreciate 
it, and I would like to echo the sentiments of my good friend, 
Mario Diaz-Balart, when he said thank you to the witnesses for 
not only being here but all the hard work you do every day and 
everything you do for everybody.
    I do want to focus, though, on some funding, of course. 
Now, just so you know, in May, when Administrator Samantha 
Power was here and testified, I asked a few questions regarding 
the COVID-19 pandemic and specifically funding that was going 
to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
    The Administrator told me she had only been on the job for 
a few weeks. I get that. I was told that she would get back to 
me; I would get my questions. We are 5 months past that; I 
still have gotten zero answers from any of my questions.
    Now, in that time, we do know that information has come out 
that confirmed what I said in May of 2020, and that is that the 
Wuhan Institute of Virology was likely the epicenter and the 
start of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the EcoHealth Alliance was 
sending money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to do gain-of-
function research.
    Dr. Fauci testified just a few months ago that the NIH has, 
and I quote him, has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-
function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, end 
quote.
    Now, look. We can have a discussion on gain-of-function 
research, where it should be done, if it is appropriate, 
totally separate discussion on that. But I just want to repeat 
to the witnesses the questions that I had asked Administrator 
Power a few months ago. Mr. Konyndyk, is the U.S.--are we--is 
USAID currently funding authorized or unauthorized gain-of-
function research?
    Mr. Konyndyk, I will yield to you, and then I will go to 
Ms. Charles.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Thanks. And I can handle that one. It is not 
under Assistant to the Administrator Charles' remit.
    So, just to be very clear, USAID does not approve through 
its funding dual-use or gain-of-function studies to increase 
infectivity, transmissibility, or lethality of viruses.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. I appreciate that crisp, 
clear response, and I am not trying to be snarky when I say 
that. Truly, I appreciate it.
    Then does the Biden administration support the decision 
from the last administration, then, to end USAID activities in 
China beyond WIV? I mean, just all USAID activities in China.
    Mr. Konyndyk. So we have not--you know, on the broader 
China question, I think it would probably be--I can't really 
speak beyond the health and the COVID space in my current role. 
So I would defer to some of my colleagues in the Asia Bureau 
about whether there are other things that they would advise we 
should be doing in terms of development and cooperation with 
China. I think there are potentially arguments for that.
    I can say that, with respect to our global health security 
investments, we have not made any additional global health 
security investments and funding in China, whether to the WIV 
or elsewhere. And I think that, as a general rule, the 
administration has been very clear that we expect to see 
greater transparency and greater accountability from China. And 
I think there are a number of questions that we want answered 
that, you know, the President has talked about and that others 
in the administration have talked about in terms of greater 
transparency on the track record of that lab.
    So I think, at this point, while I can't say we definitely 
would not, I don't want to rule out every circumstance. We are 
not currently, and I think we will stay on that course for the 
time being.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. What about a prohibition on funding? If 
we just want to narrow it down, what about a prohibition on any 
funding going to any labs that are controlled by the PLA?
    Mr. Konyndyk. Well, as I said, we are not--you are 
referring to labs inside China solely or----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes. I am sorry. Yes. I am just focused 
on China. I mean, what about a prohibition on just any money 
going to labs that are controlled by the People's Liberation 
Army?
    Mr. Konyndyk. Well, you know, again, we are not putting any 
additional funding at this point into cooperation, laboratory 
cooperation in China, whether controlled by the People's 
Liberation Army or not. So, I mean, I think that that would be, 
you know, consistent with what we are doing now just as a 
policy matter, but----
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Oh, yeah. I get--no. I totally get that. 
I was just saying if we move forward and start to refund, how 
about a prohibition?
    Mr. Konyndyk. I see. Okay.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. I am saying prospectively, yeah.
    Mr. Konyndyk. I see. Yeah. You know, we can study that. It 
is kind of a speculative answer, depending on what parameters 
would we put on to something that if we started doing something 
we are not doing currently, so it is--but I think, in general, 
what we do want to be sure of is that any--and some of the new 
work that we are doing in this area outside of China under some 
of our new programs, we have built in new and more robust 
training and accountability requirements--including detailed 
bio safety plans and so on--from anyone receiving direct or 
subgranted U.S. funding. And so, you know, any entity that 
couldn't or wouldn't sign that kind of an agreement wouldn't be 
eligible for our funding.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Konyndyk.
    And, Madam Chair, thank you for your generosity with the 
time. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I yield now to Ms. Meng.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to all 
our witness for being here and for the important lifesaving 
work you have led throughout this pandemic.
    Just to follow up a little bit about funding, I appreciate 
what you just mentioned about some of the transparency 
standards that have been used. You know, I just wanted to know 
where international funding has been going. In general, how are 
those decisions made? As of today, how much U.S. Government 
funding has been allocated for the global COVID-19 response? 
How much of that money is left? When will that money run out? I 
know that our subcommittee, under the leadership of Chairwoman 
Lee, appropriated almost $11 billion earlier this year, but we 
know that this is likely not sufficient to meet the global 
need. But it was a very important place to start.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Gayle, do you want to talk to the picture, 
and I will talk to USAID?
    Ms. Smith. Sure. I mean, the fact of the matter, and, 
again, I just want to underscore the gratitude that we feel for 
having those ARP resources because it has really enabled us to 
ramp this up with both the financial and other support from all 
of you.
    The bulk of that funding, in fact, is either obligated out 
in the field, planned for, or otherwise designated by the terms 
of the ARP itself. So, I mean, that is the way to look at it. 
And our decisions on spending have been guided in the main by 
the categories and the direction contained in the ARP which, 
thankfully, is very coincident with a very, very smart 
response.
    So, for example, if you take the funding that was allocated 
to The Global Fund, half of that has been made available. Thus 
far, we still have the other half, but it is designated for The 
Global Fund, so we count that as basically planned for. So we 
will see that we are going to face a shortfall in funds at some 
time in the not-too-distant future. We are tracking across 
agencies where that is, where we still have leeway, where we 
don't, and again, trying to augment by leveraging others and 
getting other countries to stand up and bringing in the private 
sector and other actors.
    But, again, while not all of it has been spent on the 
ground, the bulk of those resources are sufficiently obligated 
or planned for that we will face a time when we do run out of 
sufficient funds in the not-too-distant future.
    Jeremy, would you like to add to that?
    Mr. Konyndyk. Yeah. So, speaking specifically to some of 
the work that USAID has been doing, so there was about $4.2 
billion from the ARP that has been made available to USAID. 
Some of that was directly earmarked to us in the bill, and some 
of that was appropriated as shared USAID and State money and is 
being shared between our agencies.
    So, of that $4.2 billion, we have now obligated around $3.5 
billion. We have additional pending allocations that will we 
will be sending up notifications to the Hill on shortly, 
related to some of the Summit targets and a few other 
obligatory activities that were called for in the bill that 
will run down most of the rest of that funding.
    And so we anticipate that, as we head into the end of the 
year and early next year, we will be--out of that $4.2 billion 
that we have been working with, we will be down to around $250 
million left to allocate as we head into 2022.
    And that will be the most intensive operational period of 
the pandemic as we try to roll out vaccines across the entirety 
of the world and get low-income countries to 70 percent 
coverage.
    Just to get a sense of kind of the scale of what we are up 
against, some of the funding targets that were referenced in 
the President's summit, we challenged the world to generate up 
to $10 billion for vaccine readiness and deployment, up to $2 
billion to support global oxygen.
    Oxygen support is--after vaccines, oxygen support is the 
next biggest request that we get from other countries, 
including--and this was obviously famously a huge challenge in 
India. We think it is a fixable challenge with resources. There 
is a path to get the oxygen crisis dealt with, but it will take 
resources.
    We also challenged the world and ourselves to come up with 
$3 billion for other therapeutic treatments for COVID-19, as 
well as costs related to diagnostics and other priorities.
    So there is a lot of work yet to do in the coming year, and 
I think we have burned through the ARP resources rather rapidly 
because, as we talked about at the very beginning, the Delta 
variant and some of the other changes that have driven in the 
pandemic over the past year.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Now I will yield to Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I also want to 
add my voice to the chorus of folks on this committee thanking 
all the folks who are here today for all the work they have 
been doing during the pandemic to help stop the spread and keep 
people safe.
    I do want to build on some of the questions from Mr. Diaz-
Balart and Mr. Reschenthaler about China but also about Russia 
and what they have been doing in terms of spreading their 
vaccine around.
    Have you seen them be aggressive about distributing the 
Sputnik vaccine, and what kind of response have you received 
from--what have you seen from countries about taking it from 
them?
    Ms. Smith. I will make just a couple comments and again 
turn to my colleague to add additional comments. Actually, we 
have seen relatively little uptake of the Russian vaccine. It 
has not been approved by WHO, and to most countries, that 
matters because that emergency authorization does give an 
indication of safety and efficacy. Excuse me.
    And we have actually seen some countries that had ordered 
it or planned to use it have now ceased using it out of some 
concerns of reports on some of the side effects.
    So there is a great contrast between China and Russia in 
terms of the push for availability of that vaccine, as well as 
near as we can tell, production of the Sputnik virus is not as 
high as production of some other vaccines. So that is kind of 
where it stands on the Russian vaccine.
    Jeremy, would you like to add anything?
    Mr. Konyndyk. Yeah. I mean, the Sputnik vaccine has a very 
active Twitter account. It doesn't have nearly as active a 
global distribution.
    And again I think Gayle is absolutely right. You know, they 
have dramatically overpromised what they can do. They are not 
meeting their deliveries, and it is not an emergency-use listed 
vaccine by the WHO.
    So we are not seeing much of an appetite for Sputnik from 
other countries, and yeah, I think that, you know, the Chinese 
vaccine, Sinovac and Sinopharm, are just much, much larger 
factors in the global production landscape. Sputnik isn't 
really registering in that sense.
    Ms. Wexton. Well, I want to thank you for providing the 
perfect segue to my next question, which is that it is my 
understanding that there are some groups that may be driving 
disinformation about what the efficacy and safety of Western 
vaccine.
    What information do you have about groups that are doing 
this, and what can we do to combat it? I understand----
    Mr. Konyndyk. Well----
    Ms. Wexton. But it does have a great impact on, you know, 
social media and everything of what people believe.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Absolutely. I think some of that we should 
probably get into not in an open setting, but we would be happy 
to provide a classified briefing on some of that.
    But, in general, there is no shortage of vaccine 
disinformation. Some of that is coming from state actors, 
certain Twitter accounts and so on. Some of that, of course, is 
just coming from the enormous antivaccine voices that we have 
seen in many countries, including our own.
    We are, through our programs that are promoting vaccine 
uptake around the world, we are working to directly counter 
that, and we are working with country partners but also 
importantly with civil society and private sector partners to 
counter that.
    One of the things we have been discussing with some of our 
private sector partners that Gayle referenced earlier is how 
they can use their outreach networks, their communication 
networks, some of their advertising to promote vaccine 
confidence.
    And so that is an intentional focus of some of our 
programming, and I think it is going to be very important as we 
head into the next year. We are already seeing in some 
countries, including Haiti and parts of southern Africa, that 
even at fairly low levels of vaccine supply availability, there 
is so much hesitancy that they are not able to find enough 
demand for what they are supplying. So I think that is going to 
be a significant challenge in the year ahead.
    Ms. Wexton. Yes. And that is of great concern to me, 
because the social media groups, you know, the WhatsApps and 
the Facebooks and everything, their minimal protections are 
even less in other languages--in languages other than English. 
So that is a great concern for me.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Absolutely.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much.
    Now, Ms. Ziman, how can we support--how can we reach 
vulnerable populations in insecure environments? You know, so 
groups like the Uyghurs in China or the women in Afghanistan, 
how can we ensure that they actually have access to vaccine?
    Ms. Ziman. Thank you. I will start answering and then let 
others jump in. But we--most of our partners have been able to 
stay and deliver due to our ability to provide them with safety 
equipment and protection.
    And many of our partners, particularly the International 
Committee of the Red Cross, is regularly operating in areas of 
conflict that are hard to reach, and they have been providing, 
through our contributions, both COVID mitigation and COVID-
response assistance, and are working with us to provide last-
mile vaccinations in efforts that other than government 
countries cannot reach.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you.
    I see that my time has expired, so I will yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Wexton.
    Now I will yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel, are you able to get on?
    There may be some technical problems. If so, we will come 
back to Ms. Frankel.
    Is Mr. Price on?
    If not, I will yield to Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    For Jeremy Konyndyk, the question is basically, in 2020, 
when most Caribbean countries were forced to close down their 
borders to curb the spread of COVID-19, resulting in a halt to 
their economy.
    And many of the economies there are driven by tourism, 
obviously. This led to a contraction of their economy estimated 
at 8.6 percent of the entire region.
    And, as you know, the Caribbean is the United States' sixth 
largest trading partner and really our third border.
    Now, China and others have--did very well with Latin 
America and the Caribbean regarding vaccine distribution. But 
now we have slowly turned the page, and there is an opportunity 
to help rebuild their economies, right?
    So I wanted to know if you can provide an update first on 
vaccination efforts in the Caribbean, and what could be our 
plans to potentially, you know, help them more so that they can 
get their economies up and running again?
    Mr. Konyndyk. Thanks so much for that question, and yeah, I 
absolutely share your assessment of the importance of 
increasing vaccination in the Caribbean as well as helping to 
foster economic recovery.
    So we--so far, during the pandemic, USAID has allocated 
around $63 million in development relief and assistance to 
COVID-related needs in the region, and that has run the gamut 
from health and COVID assistance, economic growth support, and 
humanitarian assistance.
    Forty million of that has been directly for health 
assistance related to COVID in countries like Haiti, Jamaica, 
the DR, and smaller island states in the region, and that has 
included things like PPE, testing and diagnostic support, 
training for healthcare workers and so on.
    We have also been providing--we have also been providing 
vaccine doses to many countries across the Caribbean, including 
some of the small island States, and we have done that in 
partnership with the regional body CARICOM and with the Pan 
American Health Organization.
    So I think we are doing a great deal in the region, and 
Gayle may want to say more about some of the specific vaccine 
distribution that we have done with CARICOM.
    As we look ahead, I think, would agree that there is going 
to be a need for more support to spurring the economic recovery 
there, and I think, on that front, you know, as we look at the 
development of resources that are available to the agency over 
the next few years, in the Caribbean, as in the wider world, it 
is going to be a real priority for us to make sure that we are 
working to accelerate the economic recovery as the pandemic 
hopefully begins to recede.
    Ms. Smith. If I may, I would just add one quick point on 
the end of that. We are pleased that our vaccine distribution 
and allocations to CARICOM are on the upswing, and that will 
continue, by the way.
    But the other thing I want to mention here is that one of 
the critical roles in this--and particularly the recovery and 
resilience side--is the Treasury Department and its work with 
the Bank and the Fund, including on special drawing rights, the 
creation of a new facility at the IMF designed to respond, 
Congressman, to exactly the problem you have described, 
countries that have seen dramatic falls in, for example, 
tourism or other revenue, and then have been hit on top of that 
by the direct pandemic itself.
    So, in addition to what we do through USAID, we are also 
more at the macro level, but I think quite significantly, in 
terms of resources, very much supporting Treasury's effort to 
leverage and make those funds available because this is going 
to be a long-term, very, very significant recovery.
    Mr. Espaillat. Real quick now to Ms. Lesley Ziman, what is 
being done at the border to help vaccinate asylum seekers, 
refugees, and immigrants? It seems that we are not doing 
enough, and as a result, they are wide open to get COVID-19 and 
spread it.
    What is the protocol to deal with refugees, asylum seekers, 
and immigrants at the Del Rio border area?
    Ms. Ziman. I would have to refer you to CDC and DHS for 
specifics of vaccinations and COVID mitigation on the U.S. side 
of the border.
    However, in Mexico and throughout Central America, PRM is 
utilizing its resources through the ARP to provide COVID 
mitigation and response measures. So, again, we are responding 
to vulnerable migrants in those areas, much like we are 
throughout the rest of the----
    Mr. Espaillat. But you are not sure what happens on the 
U.S. side of the border? Once an immigrant comes across, what 
happens with regards to vaccination?
    Ms. Ziman. So we are currently operating under title 42 
order through CDC. I would note under that there are pathways 
available for humanitarian needs, in that process, there is a 
COVID mitigation processes, but, again, I would have to refer 
you to CDC on more specifics on in the U.S.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Now I will yield to Mr. Price.
    Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Sorry I had to leave 
the hearing for just a moment. I do want to make note of the 
various testimony that we have heard this morning about 
vaccines alone not being enough--vaccine delivery, the vaccine 
delivery workforce, such an important element in all this.
    The COVID summit set this very ambitious goal of 70 percent 
of the world being vaccinated within a year, and there is no 
way to do that, of course, with vaccine support alone. It is 
going to have to involve a lot of work to get those vaccines 
delivered in the parts of the world we are talking about.
    I want to use my time to raise a question that hasn't been 
directly raised, but it is, I know, of direct interest to our 
AID witnesses and to all of us. And that has to do with 
governance and the relationship between governance in the 
countries of the world that we are talking, which is virtually 
every country, and the interaction between governance and the 
progress of the pandemic.
    On the one hand, I don't know if you have any studies or 
any conclusions thus far about which kinds of governments have 
done the best with the pandemic.
    I know the picture is mixed, but there is some sense that 
the pandemic is better controlled by strong, even authoritarian 
governments. I don't think the evidence bears that out, but I 
wonder what we do know about that.
    But then the other side of the equation, the converse is 
that the pandemic certainly threatens democracy, and there are 
many instances that we know of where pandemic measures have 
been used to tighten controls and to tighten autocracies and to 
shut down pluralistic forces.
    So that is, of course, a work in progress, but I would 
appreciate your reflections on this and what the evidence so 
far shows because we, of course, in this country have a strong 
stake in human rights and in supporting democratic governments 
worldwide.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Thank you very much for that, Congressman 
Price. I would--I think the, you know, the evidence certainly 
does indicate that authoritarian governments are better at 
containing the pandemic. I would, first, stipulate, of course, 
that a lot more research needs to be done as we see how this 
continues to play out.
    But I think one of the things we see emerging--and this is 
something that Tom Bollyky at the Council on Foreign Relations 
has written about and researched--trust in government is a 
really important factor in a country's ability to control the 
response.
    And where you see higher trust in government, you see 
better compliance with public health measures, more confidence 
in the vaccines, and so on.
    And where that trust in government and in institutions is 
low, it is harder to control the pandemic.
    Ultimately--and, you know, this is a lesson, I think, not 
just from COVID but from many outbreaks that many of us have 
fought over the years--is just the centrality of trust, at a 
community level, at a national level.
    Gayle and I worked in the past on the Ebola outbreak in 
West Africa, and we saw there as well trust being so important, 
because ultimately what you need--communities need to own the 
response. They need--and people need--to adapt their own 
behavior to avoid risk and to take the measures they need to 
take.
    And, if they don't trust the sources they are hearing that 
from, they won't necessarily take those measures. And we saw a 
real turnaround in West Africa when communities were hearing 
risk messaging from credible voices that they trusted, and I 
think we have seen now on the global scale with COVID as well.
    Mr. Price. What about the converse effect, the governments 
using COVID as a pretext for what they probably wanted to do 
all along in terms of autocratic measures?
    Mr. Konyndyk. We have seen a lot of that, and it is always 
a little bit of a kind of chicken-and-the-egg challenge to know 
what would have happened.
    You know, the counter factual is not always clear. So, you 
know, would a crackdown not have happened if not for COVID?
    You know, clearly a government that is cracking down wants 
to crack down. They are not just doing it because of the 
pandemic. But I think, you know, there are a number of 
instances where the pandemic, as you say, provided a pretext or 
a cover for a political crackdown that, you know, may have been 
desired in any case.
    It is--you know, it is hard to parse those apart, but, you 
know, we have seen a number of places, Ethiopia being one for 
example, where a political crisis that had much deeper roots 
than COVID was accelerated and exacerbated by COVID.
    And I think it just gets to a larger point that, as long as 
this pandemic continues, we will face major systemic risks, and 
elevated systemic risks, it is hard to predict where and when 
those will blow up, but I think we can predict broadly that 
more will continue.
    Mr. Price. Well, engaging with parliaments, for example, 
and the House Democracy Partnership, and of course the IRI, 
NDI, these NGOs on the ground are engaging.
    You know, this is a question of how the pandemic is 
handled, how those countries are faring but also the 
implications for governments. These questions loom large, and I 
think they will be with us for a long time to come.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Absolutely agree. We are going to be dealing 
with the fallout of this for many years.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Price.
    Let me now yield to Ms. Frankel if her technical issues 
have been resolved. Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Madam Chair, I don't even know where to start 
because I have been--I couldn't get on, then I got thrown off, 
and then I got on. Then I got thrown off, so.
    Ms. Lee. Well, welcome. Glad you make it back.
    Ms. Frankel. I apologize. So I might be asking you 
something that has already been discussed, but I think I really 
just had a very overall general question, which is, you know, 
what is the prognosis?
    I mean, I know for us to get our situation here under 
control, there has to be some way to help the other countries, 
but what is the real prognosis of us being able to do that?
    Ms. Smith. I am happy to make a comment on that, and I 
would like to express my solidarity to the Congresswoman for 
the experience of being thrown off and on web-based meetings. 
We all experience it quite a lot.
    But I think yours is really the vital question. I think, 
you know, we are all fond of saying nobody is safe until 
everybody is safe. But it is actually true. It is a really good 
slogan, but it is really, really true. So the imperatives are 
clear.
    I think our view is that what it will take is meeting the 
targets we have put out at the summit. In other words, we need 
to get to that 70 percent vaccination coverage in every 
country, in every income category. It isn't sufficient just for 
the wealthy countries to achieve that, right? The virus pays no 
attention to what country it is in or what border it crosses.
    I think our prognosis--and that is only one proxy for what 
we need to do because, remember, we also need to be building 
the foundations that we need so that we don't do this again.
    I think our prognosis is positive but not locked. What I 
mean by that is that, in order to get there, it is going to 
require a lot in the way of resources.
    Although I can promise you that it will cost much less to 
end this pandemic than to pay for its duration. So it is money 
well spent.
    It is going to take a great deal of political will, and I 
think one of the steps taken by the President to be followed on 
by the Secretary of State and, again, across U.S. Government 
senior leadership, is that we have got to mobilize that 
political will.
    We have got some. We do not have enough political capital 
globally to really join forces and do that. We have made 
progress certainly since I started, since we last met with you, 
but that is the second variable.
    I think there are a couple of other variables here that 
inform the prognosis that have been referenced. I think the 
questions about hesitancy and about vaccine delivery are real, 
and I am very pleased that our USAID and CDC and other teams 
are working hard on how do we ramp up delivery and make sure 
that vaccines actually become vaccinations.
    But conquering this hesitancy--and we have seen this in the 
United States as well--is going to be another variant. So the 
prognosis is positive, but we have got a tremendous amount of 
work to do to realize the potential and possible goal of ending 
this pandemic in 2022.
    Mr. Konyndyk. Yeah. The kind of core message of the 
President's summit was that this is an achievable goal and to 
lay out the targets that would be necessary to achieve it.
    And I think to Gayle's point, you know, we face a choice. 
We can end this pandemic--or we can control this pandemic in 
the next year--or we can let it run for several more. And I can 
tell you it will be both cheaper and easier to control it in a 
year than to let it run for 3 or 4 more.
    The longer we let this run, the greater the risks. And we 
have seen with the Delta variant--the Delta variant emerged 
overseas at a time that it looked like things were on the 
return to normalcy here in the United States, and it really 
threw things off course.
    So we can't be fully secure at home until we have really 
extinguished this everywhere and gotten this under control 
everywhere, and the best way to do that is going to be by an 
aggressive campaign of global vaccination to just give this 
virus fewer and fewer chances to replicate.
    Every time it replicates, we roll the dice on a new variant 
emerging.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Can you comment on what appears to 
be a gender sort of gap or diversity? It seems like more men 
are getting vaccinated than women. Is that true?
    Mr. Konyndyk. I don't know if I have the statistics on that 
in front of me. We are--you know, the vaccination rates in many 
low-income countries have just been so low overall that it is 
kind of hard to generalize at a population level, but I think 
we can follow up on what we have and provide you with more 
information on on that.
    Ms. Smith. I would add two quick points on that, and I 
think we do need to provide more information. The first is 
that, yes, as in most cases, I think there is a gender 
disparity built into a lot of this given the nature of 
employment.
    Women, many of them, are caring for families and so on. 
There are a lot of governments that I think are trying to 
balance that.
    On the flip side, in most countries, a majority of 
healthcare workers are women, and they tend to be, in most good 
vaccination programs, at the front of the queue. One of the 
first things you want to do is vaccinate your healthcare 
workers. We can get you more data on that.
    I think the last broad point I would make on this is our 
conversations--and this is consistent with the question on 
governance from a Congressman previous--is to work with 
governments to make sure that they have got equitable vaccine 
delivery programs, that they are not discriminating against any 
group, any gender, or anything else. So we are trying to work 
on that, but we can get you more info.
    Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lee. Okay.
    Ms. Frankel. But thank you all for your good work. Thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. We see you, we hear you. And let me just say to 
members, if any member has an additional question, we will do a 
3-minute round at this point.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Usually it is 
me with the technical difficulty so I am glad it is 
Congresswoman Frankel this time and not me.
    By the way, I thought Congressman Wexton asked a very 
important question about how do you deal with some very 
difficult areas?
    Let me refer to an area that is not quite as difficult but 
that USAID frankly has done, I think, a remarkable job, and 
that is dealing with the, you know, just this huge inflow of 
Venezuelans that have fled socialism in Venezuela and now are 
in Colombia.
    And so I know that USAID has done a lot of work there, but 
it would be great if you could give me a bit of an update with 
how the situation is there, with being able to vaccinate that 
vulnerable population of Venezuelans that are in Colombia now.
    I want to make clear that I was talking about Colombia. So 
how are we doing there, and how is the situation with those 
refugees who are Venezuelans who are in Colombia?
    Mr. Konyndyk. Sarah, do you want to handle that one?
    Ms. Charles. Sure. I can start and my colleague, Lesley 
Ziman from the State Department, may want to jump in as well.
    I think you are right to point out that there has been a 
very robust effort, frankly, led by the government of Colombia, 
to ensure that Venezuelans are part of their national action 
plan for vaccination.
    And Colombia has shown just tremendous leadership with U.S. 
support, both from USAID and the State Department, to ensure 
that Venezuelans are both provided broader temporary protective 
status, the access to education and employment, and access to 
vaccines.
    But my colleague Lesley may want to jump in as well from 
the State Department's perspective.
    Ms. Ziman. Yeah. I would just add Colombia is certainly one 
of the better examples of including refugees and vulnerable 
populations in their national plans, and we are seeing some of 
the success to that is, again, not only the vaccine and the 
COVID response and mitigation but also the full response to 
secondary impacts.
    And the humanitarian response has also been coupled with 
support from the development banks to ensure that not only are 
we able to provide jobs and opportunities for the Venezuelan 
refugees but for the broader host communities.
    So we do hold that up as a model while COVID rates continue 
to be high and applaud the work of the Colombian Government.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I thank USAID and others for the work 
that you are doing there, and obviously it helps when you have 
a partner that wants to be helpful and has their act together, 
so.
    As I started before thanking all of you and others who work 
in these efforts, thank you for your efforts there. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Let's see. Ms. Wexton, I believe you are next, but I don't 
see you, and so, therefore, I will yield now 3 minutes to Ms. 
Frankel.
    Oh, here you are. Excuse me. Ms. Wexton, you are back, 3 
minutes.
    Ms. Wexton. Actually, Madam Chairwoman, I have to go, so I 
don't have any further questions. I will yield to the next.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you for your participation today.
    Okay. Now I yield to Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I yield back. I will listen.
    Ms. Lee. Well, first of all, I think, to our witnesses 
today, first of all, you have heard the questions and the very 
bipartisan level of interest in this and I want to thank you 
again for your time and testimony.
    You really did give us a better understanding of the work 
being done around the world to address this pandemic and the 
enormous challenges that remain.
    We didn't have time this morning to talk about the U.S. 
contribution to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, 
to support their COVID-response mechanism, but perhaps at some 
point the State Department can send us, for the record, how 
these funds have been used and how it has complemented our U.S. 
bilateral programming.
    So I appreciate the very hard work of the people at the 
State Department and USAID to address the needs in difficult 
circumstances, and we look forward to our continuing 
partnership.
    You know you have a willing partner in this committee, and 
I hope that you continue to keep us apprised of both your 
progress and your needs because this really is a matter of life 
and death, not only for people abroad but for our own country 
and really, quite frankly, for the planet. So I just want to 
thank you.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you have any closing remarks?
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No further comments. Thank you, Madam 
Chairwoman. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. So, if members have questions they 
would like to submit for the record, please submit them to the 
subcommittee within 7 days.
    So this concludes today's hearing. The Subcommittee on 
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands 
adjourned, and thank you, and thank you to the staff.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]