    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 14, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-115

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    28-645PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              NORMA J. TORRES, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
        Wisconsin                        ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 TED LIEU, California
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere

                        PAUL COOK, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   NORMA J. TORRES, California
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Thomas Melito, Director, International Affairs and Trade,
      Government Accountability Office...............................     8
    Mr. Alfonso Aguilar, president and CEO, International Human
      Rights Group...................................................    27
    Mr. Peter Quilter (former secretary for administration and
      finance, Organization of American States)......................    33

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Paul Cook, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western
      Hemisphere: Prepared statement.................................     5
    Mr. Thomas Melito: Prepared statement............................    10
    Mr. Alfonso Aguilar: Prepared statement..........................    29
    Mr. Peter Quilter: Prepared statement............................    35

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    54
    Hearing minutes..................................................    55
    Written responses from the witnesses to questions submitted for
      the record by the Honorable Paul Cook..........................    56

      ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018

                           House of Representatives,

                    Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
    room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Cook
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Cook. A quorum being present, the subcommittee will
    come to order. I'd like to now recognize myself for an opening
    statement.
        The Organization of American States, or OAS, is the oldest
    multilateral regional organization in the world. As Secretary
    Tillerson recalled in his recent remarks earlier this month,
    the precursor to today's OAS began with the first international
    conference of American states in 1889, hosted by the United
    States. By the way, I was not part of their conference.
        We and 20 American states are signatories to the OAS, which
    was chartered in 1948. The Inter-American Democratic Charter
    adopted in Lima on September 11, 2001, on the very day that the
    U.S. was brutally attacked was a unified response by our
    neighbors that tyranny will not win.
        Article I of the Inter-American Democratic Charter affirms
    that the people of the Americas have a right to democracy and
    the governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.
        This is the underlying reason for the existence of the OAS
    and it is a vision that we share with our Latin American and
    Caribbean partners.
        Yet, today the OAS is composed of 35 nations in the
    Americas. The member states of an organization devoted to
    promoting democracy welcomed the Communist Cuban regime back
    into its membership in 2009 and has so far prevented the
    suspension of the Venezuelan dictatorship that has wreaked
    havoc on its people and sent hundreds of thousands of refugees
    to neighboring countries, all for some preferential financing
    and subsidized oil.
        OAS Secretary General Almagro has shown leadership in
    fighting for the Venezuelan people to reclaim their country, as
    has Peruvian President Kuczynski, in yesterday's decision to
    rescind the invitation to Venezuela to attend April's Summit of
    the Americas, a bold action in defense of democracy and human
    rights.
        Today, we need to consider the role of the OAS and other
    Inter-American organizations such as the Pan-American Health
    Organization, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on
    Agriculture and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and
    History toward advancing U.S. interests in the region.
        U.S.-assessed contributions to these organizations is
    nearly 60 percent of their budgets and the American people have
    an interest in knowing why we contribute money if U.S.
    investments have achieved results and if there are areas for
    reform.
        Following years of advocacy from the Foreign Affairs
    Committee for the OAS to appoint a secretary to the
    Multidimensional Security and a new inspector general, I
    commend Secretary General Almagro for filling these key
    positions.
        Conversely, the Government Accounting Office recently found
    that the U.S. faces challenges in tracking results for aid to
    Inter-American organizations and the U.S. may have difficulty
    complying with the 2013 Organization of American States
    Revitalization and Reform Act, which prioritized quarter
    reforms in the OAS so that no member state pays more than 50
    percent of the OAS' assessed fees.
        The next OAS General Assembly meeting occurs in June. I
    believe this is the time to address this issue if the OAS is
    ever going to move forward to address this financial deficit.
        The U.S. should no longer shoulder the uneven financial
    responsibilities when half of the OAS member states had quotas
    below $100,000 and quotas for 26 member states equaled less
    than 1 percent.
        Today, the OAS has an $80 million budget with four
    objectives: Promoting democracy, human rights, development, and
    regional security.
        OAS electoral missions played critical roles in
    safeguarding the electoral process in the hemisphere and this
    year 10 countries have requested OAS observation missions.
        This is no small thing when the region will be holding six
    Presidential elections and regional confidence in democracy is
    at an all-time low. The OAS political missions like the OAS
    Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras assist
    countries with important anti-corruption efforts.
        The OAS Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism and
    Cybersecurity Program prioritizes cybersecurity and terrorism
    finance prevention efforts.
        Yet, for all these efforts, some say that OAS is
    overstretched and underfunded, lacking clarity about its
    missions. Others laud the efforts by the OAS Inter-American
    Commission on Human Rights and Inter-American Court on Human
    Rights but question whether these entities respect the members,
    states, sovereignty, and domestic rule of law.
        In addition, the Inter-American Organization I mentioned
    earlier all receive U.S. funding and these entities support
    work that is significant to many member states.
        However, some have raised concerns about these efforts
    along with OAS efforts related to scholarships that lead to
    overreaching mandates and siphon away resources from other
    critical priorities.
        There may be ways to modernize these priorities to achieve
    greater cost savings through other entities or the Inter-
    American Development Bank.
        I want to take a moment to note that the U.S. is a 30
    percent shareholder of the bank and the bank's initial
    selection to host the IDB--International Development Bank's--
    60th anniversary meeting is unacceptable for the U.S. and
    others that want to see greater private sector investment and
    transparent government in the Americas.
        In conclusion, the Trump administration has named this year
    the Year of the Americas, and I believe the U.S. has a vital
    role to play in leading efforts to modernize the OAS, which
    definitely needs a new IT system, for instance, and ensuring
    that U.S. support for the OAS and Inter-American organizations
    support U.S. interests.
        To do so, United States' mission in the OAS needs an
    Ambassador and a cohesive strategy. I urge my Senate colleagues
    to move quickly to confirm President Trump's nominee, Carlos
    Trujillo.
        With that, I turn to the ranking member for his opening
    remarks, sir.
        Mr. Sires. Good afternoon. Thank you to our chairman for
    holding this timely hearing and thank you to our witnesses for
    being here today.
        The Organization for American States has been a tool to
    bring democratic members of the Western Hemisphere together
    since 1948.
        This Inter-American system has served as a forum where the
    U.S. can work with its neighbors to strengthen the hemisphere
    while advancing our strategic interest.
        Its four objectives are democracy promotion, human rights
    protection, economic and social development, and regional
    security operation. The OAS has been able to convene actors to
    perform important duties such as election observation, hearings
    on human rights violations, and the promotion and protection of
    free press.
        Unfortunately, though, the OAS has stalled when it has come
    to taking concrete actions to hold bad actors in the regional
    accountable.
        It is clear that there are management issues, an antiquated
    payment system, structure inefficiency, and budgetary problems
    that have plagued the organization and weakened the
    institution.
        The OAS ends up needing ad hoc contributions and volunteer
    contributions to fund its programs rather than rely on its
    annual budget.
        Additionally, a coordinated and steadfast campaign led by
    Venezuela's regime to cripple the organization and grind its
    productivity to a screeching halt has only made matters worse.
        Adding insult to injury, the Trump administration has shown
    little regards for a multilateral institution and continues to
    either alienate or retreat from every relationship that U.S.
    has spent centuries investing in, the humanitarian, political,
    and economic crisis in Venezuela getting worse with each day
    that passes. Daniel Ortega and his cronies are consolidating
    power and Evo Morales, in Bolivia, has already announced that
    he will find a way to make his fourth term in office a reality.
        It is more important than ever that the regional body
    dedicated to promoting democracy and standing for human rights
    should be operating at full steam.
        Under Chairman Cook's leadership, our subcommittee has
    already examined several elections taking place in 2018 and
    protected the integrity of these elections. Promoting democracy
    and protecting human rights need to remain a top priority.
        I am eager to hear from our panel on how we can improve
    engagement with the OAS and better enable them to be the leader
    in the region.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you, Congressman.
        Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, I am
    going to explain the lighting system in front of you. Actually,
    this is a statement from me that the staff puts in there so I
    won't screw this up.
        You each have 5 minutes to present your oral argument. When
    you begin, the light will turn green. When you have a minute
    left, the light will turn yellow, and when your time has
    expired the light will turn red.
        I ask that you conclude your testimony once the red lights
    comes on or you might here a little tap, tap, tap, and it's
    Edgar Allen Poe and ``The Raven.'' It's just me.
        After our witnesses testify, members will have 5 minutes to
    ask questions. I urge my colleagues to stick to the 5-minute
    rule to ensure that all members get the opportunity to ask
    questions.
        Our first witness to testify will be Mr. Thomas Melito, the
    Director of International Affairs and Trade at the United
    States Government Accountability Office, the GAO.
        Mr. Melito has been at GAO for more than 29 years. Wow. And
    in his capacity is primarily responsible for GAO's humanitarian
    assistance and multi-lateral portfolio.
        Our second witness to testify is Mr. Alphonso Aguilar, the
    president of the International Human Rights Group, which seeks
    to defend and protect political rights, religious freedom, and
    the dignity of the human person through the Inter-American
    system of human rights.
        Previously, Mr. Aguilar was the former Chief of the U.S.
    Office of Citizenship and served in numerous high-level
    government positions in the Bush administration and the
    Government of Puerto Rico. He is also a well-known policy and
    political analyst.
        Our last witness to testify will be Mr. Peter Quilter, a
    former secretary for the administration of finance at the
    Organization of American States. Most recently, he spent 2
    years as a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Ash
    Center for Democratic Governance, where he endured the snows of
    the Northeast, and before the OAS he advised the House Foreign
    Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel on the Americas.
    He also served at the State Department under President Clinton.
        Mr. Melito, you are recognized. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

    STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS MELITO, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
              AND TRADE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Melito. Chairman Cook, Ranking Member Sires, and
    members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to discuss
    our work regarding U.S. assistance to Inter-American
    organizations.
        The United States belongs to several Inter-American
    organizations that, among other things, promote democracy,
    security, health care, agricultural development, and scientific
    exchange in the Western Hemisphere.
        These organizations include the Organization of American
    States, the Pan-American Health Organization, the Inter-
    American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, and the Pan-
    American Institute of Geography and History.
        The United States uses its membership in these
    organizations to promote U.S. interests in the Western
    Hemisphere.
        My testimony today summarizes the findings from our June
    2017 and December 2017 reports on U.S. assistance to Inter-
    American Organizations.
        This testimony addressees three topics: First, U.S.-
    assessed contributions to the four organizations; second, the
    extent to which the organization's strategic goals align with
    those of U.S. agencies; and third, the extent to which U.S.
    agencies included and documented key monitoring provisions as
    part of their assistance agreements.
        Regarding the first topic, State provides the United
    States' assessed contributions to these four organizations'
    regular budgets.
        For calendar year 2016, the United States' assessed
    contributions to these four organizations totaled over $130
    million and represented more than 50 percent of each
    organization's budget.
        In October 2013, the U.S. enacted the Organization of
    American States Revitalization and Reform Act. The reform act
    directed the Secretary of State to submit a multi-year strategy
    that establishes that no member state pays more than 50 percent
    of the OAS' assessed fees.
        Any change to OAS-assessed fees will also be reflected in
    U.S. contributions to the other three organizations. We found
    that the U.S. share of assessed contributions to the four
    organizations may be reduced in the future.
        In 2014, State submitted to Congress a strategy for
    reducing U.S.-assessed contributions below 50 percent. In 2017,
    State officials informed us that they worked with other OAS
    member states including Canada and Mexico to explore quota
    reform options.
        Soon after publication of our June 2017 report, OAS member
    states voted to draft a proposal to modify the quota structure
    to potentially reduce the maximum assessed contribution to
    below 50 percent.
        According to State officials, the modification to the quota
    structure, if approved, will be gradual and will not be
    implemented until 2019 at the earliest.
        Regarding our second topic, we found that the strategic
    goals of the four Inter-American organizations are
    predominantly aligned with the high-level strategic goals for
    the Western Hemisphere documented by State, USAID, HHS, and
    USDA.
        According to officials, the agencies all consider U.S.
    strategic goals when deciding which projects to fund at the
    four organizations.
        U.S. agencies on an ongoing basis evaluate each Inter-
    American organization to ensure that U.S. and organization
    goals are aligned.
        For example, according to USAID officials, assistance
    policies and procedures ensure that all USAID-funded activities
    are linked to applicable U.S. agency strategies.
        Regarding the third topic, State, HHS, USAID, and USDA fund
    activities at three of the organizations in the form of
    assistance agreements such as grants and cooperative
    agreements.
        In our December 2017 report, we reviewed 12 such agreements
    across the four U.S. agencies and found that State and USDA did
    not include all key monitoring provisions in their agreements
    as called for by applicable guidance.
        State has taken corrective actions since the grants were
    awarded. We also found that all four agencies did not have full
    documentation of the activities required by the 12 assistance
    agreements we reviewed.
        State and HHS both initiated corrective actions prior to
    our review. Monitoring the implementation of U.S. assistance
    agreements and fully documenting the results of such monitoring
    are key management controls to help ensure that U.S. agreement
    recipients use Federal funds appropriately and effectively.
        In our December 2017 report, we recommended that USDA
    ensure inclusion of all monitoring provisions as part of their
    agreements, and two, USAID and U.S. State ensure full
    documentation of monitoring activities.
        The agencies concurred with these recommendations and
    indicated they will take actions to address them.
        Chairman Cook, Ranking Members Sires, and members of the
    subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I'd be
    pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Melito follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ----------

        Mr. Cook. Thank you very much. I must say, you were right
    on the second. I wish I could do that.
        Mr. Aguilar, you are now recognized.

         STATEMENT OF MR. ALFONSO AGUILAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
                    INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP

        Mr. Aguilar. Chairman Cook, Ranking Member Sires, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    be part of this afternoon's hearing.
        From the outset, I would like to state my strong belief
    that a strong OAS is needed to promote democracy and human
    rights in the region.
        Yet, we must recognize that the relevance of the OAS has
    been seriously diminished. For the last 20 years, as left-
    leaning autocratic regimes have taken hold in countries like
    Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, manipulating elections,
    overturning the existing constitutional order, and violating
    fundamental, political, and human rights, the OAS hasn't been
    able to take any meaningful action to address these situations.
        It is important, therefore, that we ask what has led to
    this situation and what the U.S. can do to turn things around
    at the OAS.
        First, we must understand that the basic structure of the
    OAS as established in its charter, and its consensus approach
    to decision making inherently limits and slows down the ability
    for the organization to act swiftly or at all.
        It's very easy for a significant minority of countries to
    prevent the organization from taking action on important
    matters. A good example of this is the case of Venezuela. A
    small coalition of nations ideologically aligned with
    Venezuela, which includes countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, and
    Nicaragua, with the support of the small but numerous island
    states of the Caribbean, has prevented the deteriorating
    situation in the country from being properly addressed by the
    organization.
        The OAS hasn't been able to pass a resolution to denounce
    the abuses of the Maduro regime. This obstructionism, however,
    has generally prevailed due to the leadership vacuum at the OAS
    left by the U.S.
        The U.S. today seems to have lost interest in the OAS and
    is not exerting adequate and proper leadership in the
    organization.
        The OAS needs strong leadership from the largest and oldest
    democracy in the hemisphere. It's not about being heavy handed
    or trying to impose our way.
        It is about regularly and consistently playing a leadership
    role to try to forge the necessary consensus to make the
    organization work.
        Furthermore, the continuous new mandates and initiatives
    the organization takes up as well as the overly broad strategic
    goal of promoting development in the region may also distract
    the organization from properly addressing the regional
    challenges to democracy and human rights.
        The OAS manages projects and technical assistance programs
    in a wide array of issues. Many experts argue that these
    initiatives are well beyond the organization's expertise, and
    human and financial resources and could be better managed by a
    multilateral agency like the Inter-American Development Bank.
        Turning now to the Inter-American Commission on Human
    Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I should
    say that something quite different is happening with these
    bodies.
        These forums are affiliated to the OAS but they're
    autonomous and act independently of member states. Both the
    Commission and Court have actually acted swiftly to condemn
    attacks to democracy and human rights in the region.
        The Commission has issued important reports and
    precautionary measures on human rights violates in Bolivia,
    Ecuador, and Venezuela, and the Court has issued strong
    sentences against rulings from Venezuela and courts controlled
    by the regime which violate the fundamental rights of its
    citizens.
        The problem, however, with these bodies is that they are
    compromising their credibility by often weighing in a myriad of
    issues that go beyond their mandate under treaty law and that
    are of the internal jurisdiction of member states.
        The Commission recently questioned the U.S. Government's
    decision to end temporary protected status for nationals from
    certain countries, calling on this Congress to provide them
    with legal status.
        In 2011, the Commission requested the Government of Brazil
    to halt work on a hydroelectric plant until it addressed
    concerns from indigenous communities.
        The Brazilian Government responded by suspending relations
    with the Commission as well as its funding to it, calling the
    request precipitous and unwarranted.
        The Court, for its part, has been issuing rulings and
    opinions not based on the text of the American Convention of
    Human Rights.
        Just last month, without any basis of the actual text of
    the convention, the Court issued an advisory opinion
    instructing member states to recognize same-sex marriage and
    gender identity.
        Disinformation in the internal affairs of member states
    have understandably caused great concern in the countries of
    the region and are perceived as an attempt against their
    sovereignty and constitutional order.
        The recent Court's advisory opinion on same-sex marriage
    became the principal issue in the general elections in Costa
    Rica, propelling to victory in the first round of the
    Presidential election the candidate of a small party who
    promised to withdraw Costa Rica from the Court.
        In the case of the Court, since we are not under its
    jurisdiction, the U.S. could demand that none of our funds are
    used to finance the Court until it goes back to working within
    the legal mandate and framework under which it was created.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this
    important issue and will be happy to answer the questions that
    you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Cook. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Quilter, you are now recognized.

         STATEMENT OF MR. PETER QUILTER (FORMER SECRETARY FOR
      ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES)

        Mr. Quilter. Chairman Cook, Ranking Member Sires, members
    of the distinguished subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to return to testify today, this time on the OAS,
    its place in the foreign policy options of the United States,
    and its place in the region.
        I am not going to tell you that the organization is the
    premier forum for dialogue. I am not going to tell you it's the
    oldest regional organization around. I am not going to tell you
    that it's the only multilateral game in town, mostly because
    the two of you just told us that and you know it.
        What I will say is that we need it now more than ever, and
    by we, I mean the United States. Let me describe the
    neighborhood as I see it right now.
        Venezuela is swirling down an economic and political drain.
    Brazil and Peru are grappling with the result, and with epic
    levels of corruption in their political classes.
        Hondurans appear stuck with the results of an election most
    observers agree was stolen. The Caribbean area is struggling
    with the increasingly dire consequences of climate change and
    the Northern Triangle countries of Central America are being
    strangled by violence, drugs, and economic distress with the
    attendant destabilizing consequences on migration flows.
        Now, let me describe the U.S. relationship to this region
    right now. Secretary Tillerson just returned from his second
    trip to the neighborhood, intended basically to manage feelings
    of deep unease.
        Why? President Trump. Here are the highlights. He's pulled
    the U.S. out of the TPP. Obviously, several Latin American
    countries are part of it.
        He's threatened to exit from NAFTA, calling it the worst
    trade deal in history, with untold consequences for the
    economies of both Mexico and Canada, to say nothing of the U.S.
    itself.
        He has weaponized the immigration issue which, of course,
    has special resonance for Latin Americans and specifically
    targeted 200,000 immigrants here by ending TPS.
        This month, he appeared to threaten to cut off counter
    narcotics aid to our strongest allies in the counter narcotics
    effort.
        His budget released Monday appears to bear this out. And
    then there's the wall. The Gallup Organization has placed the
    approval of the United States and its President in this region
    in 2017 at 16 percent--one six.
        As someone else said, there's six elections in 2018 coming
    in this region, all of which are very important. The U.S. faces
    an unprecedented challenge and it faces it now.
        It needs a strong and functional multilateral forum to meet
    that challenge. Multilateralism in this context is the OAS. In
    my written testimony, I have a longer series of recommendations
    for action but I am going to highlight a few.
        The financial plight of the organization--I will say this
    because secretary generals don't like to say it. The OAS is
    operating today in the context of a full blown financial
    crisis.
        It is down 23 percent in its budget in real terms in the
    past 10 years. There is nothing left to cut. I was the guy who
    was trying to cut things for a couple of years.
        There is nothing left to cut. So they cut the staff. It's
    very easy to see that over time that will destroy the
    organization.
        Second, the OAS is a creature of foreign ministries, not
    Presidents. Effectively, that's creating a political ceiling
    for the organization. We need to get it out from under the
    foreign ministries.
        I think the way to do that is to tie it more directly with
    the summit process so that they formally answer to the
    Presidents and you should know that Venezuela is the implacable
    foe of that idea, and there's a reason why.
        Number three, the buildings--it's a pet peeve of mine--we
    know that the buildings like the beautiful one on 17th Street
    are, in fact, falling apart.
        They look beautiful, but they're falling apart. The OAS is
    carrying $30 million in deferred maintenance and they've been
    carrying it for years.
        The longer you don't maintain, the more expensive it gets.
    I believe the U.S. has a special responsibility because we are
    the host country.
        Number four, the secretary general should have one single
    term. Secretary General Almagro has said he will be a one-term
    secretary general. I give him a lot of credit for that. It has
    bolstered him politically. I believe the OAS should
    institutionalize that. No reelection.
        Summarizing, yes, concerted action is needed. Resources are
    needed in order to stand this organization back up. It is also
    likely that we will need some sort of action-forcing event.
        I think it's distinctly possible that the action-forcing
    event will be the fall of the Maduro government in Venezuela.
    That's going to happen.
        When it happens, Venezuela will need all the help it can
    get. The OAS will be the go-to organization. It needs to be
    strong and it needs to be ready.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Quilter follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Cook. Thank you very much. I will yield myself 5
    minutes for questions.
        You know, a lot of great points were raised there and just
    to let you gentlemen know, I am also on the NATO Parliament and
    it's--I felt like, wait a minute, I am at a NATO meeting right
    now.
        We are all going to try to agree on 29 countries where we
    are going, plus the other ones. It's very, very difficult when
    you have these multilateral groups in getting a consensus, and
    part of the reason we are doing this is, I think, we are
    looking for direction or maybe the words form the experts.
        I don't know if we can ever get there simply because of the
    complexity and the number of countries that are involved and
    the issues.
        I do agree that if we get down there in the weeds too much
    and we start lecturing or sermonizing certain countries about
    what is in their country there, I think we run the risk of
    countries just saying, we don't need this stuff anymore.
        They want to be part of this. They want to work together.
    And I am looking for solutions and, obviously, on how we can
    simply this where maybe we can at least have a new action plan
    to simplify this.
        Obviously, we don't even have our agencies there working
    together, let alone the countries, and it's going to impact on
    the budget and where we go so that our missions, what we want
    to accomplish are several--it's too important an organization
    to screw up.
        And so we are having this hearing today. We'll probably
    have more on this. How we, and whether we, can solve this
    problem in the future--I think were just one of many.
        But if this thing blows up, it's like NATO blowing up the
    U.N. I can go on and on and on. Yes, there's always going to be
    faults to this but I think if we don't meet and we don't get
    together--but I think we got to keep our topics very general,
    try and get a buy-in, a consensus as much as possible so we can
    attack some of these things, and with that consensus maybe we
    can get better funding for it.
        Any comments on my diatribe? Left you speechless.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Aguilar. Back to my statement, I agree with you. But
    that requires a high-level commitment from the administration
    and from future administrations to be actively involved in the
    OAS.
        I remember everyone saying there's many experts that say
    that for the past 15 to 20 years the U.S. hasn't been really
    been present, actively engaged.
        I think if we are involved in the process of high-level
    diplomacy at the OAS and the region, we may be able to forge
    the coalitions to be able to pass resolutions, for example, a
    resolution denouncing Venezuela.
        I think we've had an issue with the Caribbean countries. I
    think if we engage the Caribbean countries in a conversation to
    see how they can support us at the OAS, we may be able to
    create a consensus. I think that's happening. I think we are
    present there but I don't think we are having a leadership
    role.
        Mr. Cook. Well, I agree with you. I made this comment when
    I first took over this committee that we've kind of ignored the
    region for a variety of reasons, and it shows.
        Just like we are flip-flopping, whether it was Europe or
    whether it was the Far East or China. But I think because of
    all the issues that we've talked about, the number of
    countries, it's just too important to the United States to
    ignore and how we do that I think is going to be very, very
    difficult.
        A lot of us have been on different committees and
    everything else and it's easy to say one thing and then when
    you get together, hammering out a consensus.
        But I want to turn it over to Mr. Sires. You are now
    recognized.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Chairman.
        You know, over the years I've been very critical of the
    OAS, critical because, in reality, you know, they never spoke
    up about human rights abuses anywhere.
        I thought they were controlled by just a few countries, you
    know, which I think managed the OAS for their benefits, and we
    are seeing it today with Venezuela where Venezuela is, you
    know, blocking anything that the OAS wants to do.
        They get together with a couple of countries and, to me,
    it's like an organization that--where is its usefulness?
        In fact, can anybody tell me what is the most effective
    part of the OAS besides the guy living over here in Washington,
    DC, in a nice house?
        Mr. Quilter. I certainly agree that the United States has
    been punching below its weight in the organization for a very
    long time. It might be enough to say that we haven't had an
    Ambassador there since 2014.
        So I agree with Mr. Aguilar that we--that the U.S. needs to
    take a good hard look at why it's not punching at its weight.
        I would also agree with you that Venezuela is punching
    above its weight. They've put a lot of resources into their
    presence in the OAS.
        I mean, the guy who was Ambassador for the very longest
    time was the senior diplomat in the United States in any
    organization, including to the White House or to the U.N.
        They put him at the OAS. So they knew the game they were
    playing and the U.S. was apparently playing a different game. I
    think that's right.
        Mr. Melito. I do want to point out that in April 2017
    Venezuela indicated it's pulling out of the OAS--that it will
    take up to 2 years for that to be finalized. So it could change
    things.
        Mr. Aguilar. Two quick points. First of all, I think, in
    terms of our Government, there's an over-reliance on the
    secretary general.
        And I commend Secretary Almagro for speaking up. It is
    consistent with his additional duties on the Inter-American
    Democratic Charter. But that's not enough if there is no
    collective action from the organization.
        My second point is, in terms of bodies that are effective,
    I would argue that the Commission and the Court are effective
    when it comes to singling out violations of political rights,
    of freedom of the press in those left-leaning countries.
        Those countries have actually complained and have blasted
    the Commission and the Court. My concern is that those bodies
    that can be very effective are compromising their credibility
    when they're getting involved in issues for which they don't
    have a mandate.
        And this is a very important point. You know, I mentioned
    the recent case about same-sex marriage that was based on an
    opinion requested by the Government of Costa Rica.
        Look, I am not taking positions on this issue. What I am
    saying is that the principle of noninterference is a very
    important principle for the United States and for the countries
    of the region.
        If the Court starts issuing decisions on this type of
    issues that are of the internal competence of the countries, I
    think there's going to be a push back against the Commission
    and the Court at a time when we really need them to monitor the
    violations to fundamental human rights and to political rights.
        Mr. Sires. Well, look, I certainly commend Secretary
    Almagro. He's spoken up about the issues in Venezuela. You
    know, I've spoken to him. He's been very out there, much more
    than previous secretaries of the OAS.
        And I couldn't agree with you more that they should only
    serve one term, because I think what happens if they can
    serve--you know, they like to cozy up to these countries so
    they get reappointed, and I think that's a big problem with
    this organization.
        You have to have people there that want--you know, are able
    to speak, knowing that they don't have to run for anything
    else--you know, that they're there to do a job.
        And, quite frankly, I don't know if those changes would be
    made at the organization in the near future. It's just--I don't
    know if this organization is just, like, floating in the
    Caribbean and not getting anywhere. And there's a lot going on,
    you know, in all these countries.
        I mean, at one point, I thought that this organization
    should be disbanded. That's how, you know, upset I was with the
    organization. But I do think that they have a role, especially
    when it comes to human rights.
        You know, all those years with the human rights abuses in
    Cuba, they never spoke up. You know, and Cuba wasn't even a
    member at the time. They pulled out and they were controlling
    the organization, I think, through the surrogate countries.
        So, you know, sometimes when this country says, you know,
    maybe we shouldn't fund these people if they don't change their
    ways, there's some merit to that.
        I thank you.
        Mr. Cook. Mr. Yoho from Florida is recognized.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    gentlemen being here.
        Being from Florida, we are, obviously, very connected to
    that part of the world and very concerned about it.
        What I want to know is how do you make it better. I see OAS
    and then I see the other agencies with it and the other--was it
    three of them--IICA, PAHO, and PAIGH.
        Is there a dilution of the mission statement to where you
    have too many people trying to accomplish the same thing and
    they're not focused on one? They're all trying to reinvent the
    wheel. And with us paying 59.7 percent of the budget, the
    American taxpayers, I don't feel, are getting their benefit.
        You know, one of the main mission statements was to promote
    democracy and since 1980 and I see that failing. A lot of it is
    tenuous.
        How can we make that better if we are going to continue in
    this? And I take the same stance and kind of the attitude as
    Mr. Sires that I think it's a very ineffective agency and I
    think--I would like to hear what your thoughts are.
        And then I want to come back to you, Mr. Quilter, because
    you said some very interesting things I need to rebut.
        Mr. Quilter. Okay. I think the ideas about how to make this
    better are out there. They've been out there for a while.
        The Inter-American dialogue came out with a big report on
    precisely this issue today. I don't think that was an accident.
    I think it was timed for this hearing.
        I have a bunch of things in there that overlap a lot with
    the dialogue. The ideas are there. The issue is does anyone
    feel an urgent need to try to implement these things, and
    that's the question mark.
        I really think the U.S. has a huge role to play and they
    haven't done it. And by the way, that precedes the Trump
    administration--the U.S.' lethargy on this issue.
        Mr. Yoho. I'm glad to hear that, because you brought that
    up. What I see is a U.N. type organization in the Western
    Hemisphere that is as inept as the United Nations.
        We are putting all this money in there to promote these
    things, yet we see what's going on in Venezuela and you say
    Venezuela is punching above their weight and we see what's
    going on in Venezuela.
        You have got people dying there. Children are dying because
    the parents don't have food in the 21st century in the Western
    Hemisphere. Yet, I don't see people speaking out against that
    from the OAS and raising hell about that.
        And I thought you were a little bit disingenuous saying
    it's Trump's fault when you said there hasn't been a secretary
    general there since 2014. There's plenty of blame to go around,
    but to blame an administration, we can blame plenty of them,
    and we have dropped the attention in the Western Hemisphere
    probably for the last 20, 25 years. We've been distracted and,
    you know, I hear the human rights things, the LGBT, and, you
    know, same-sex marriage.
        Those are important issues. But when I have babies dying in
    hospitals from malnutrition in Venezuela in the 21st century,
    those are important issues. But I think these are bigger issues
    that we need to deal with, and to hang everything on these
    social issues versus the lives of people dying, I think we need
    to refocus the organization's attention.
        What are we trying to accomplish? Are we accomplishing
    democracy? You know, democracy has been bastardized around the
    world because there are so many facades of democracy.
        People have elections but they are fake elections. So it's
    not really a democratic process that we have cherished and have
    experienced for 200-plus years in this country.
        And so to move forward, if we are going to spend 59.45
    percent of the budget of the American taxpayer's money, I want
    a return for that and I know they want a return.
        Again, I came up here--I've only been here for going on my
    sixth year--to get rid of foreign aid, and I realize we can't
    do that.
        So let's reform it to where we get the bang out the buck
    that the American taxpayers expect, and that we develop these
    allies that are going to side with us, not side with a
    communist regime, not side with China, not side with Russia or
    Cuba, and if we are here we need to do a better job and I need
    to know what we need to do.
        Mr. Aguilar or Mr. Melito, go ahead. I have got about a
    minute left.
        Mr. Melito. One positive thing I will say is there has been
    a commitment to improve their oversight. So in 2015 the OAS
    replaced its IG, which the U.S. had a very short role in and
    they endorsed it.
        They do have a commitment to both internal oversight and
    external oversight. So these are recent things which I think
    would, hopefully, be built on as the years go forward.
        Mr. Aguilar. I just want to clarify in terms of the LGBT
    agenda. Look, I understand if, for the Commission or the Court,
    to ensure that there's no discrimination.
        Mr. Yoho. Right, and I agree with that.
        Mr. Aguilar. At least, that's part of the American
    convention. But my point is that the Court and the Commission
    are going beyond their treaty law mandate to go into issues for
    which they have no mandate.
        Take, for example, the issue of same-sex marriage, which is
    very controversial. It has been controversial in this country.
    That's an issue for the Argentinians, for the Costa Ricans, to
    decide through their constitutional system.
        When the Court gets involved in an issue like that, it
    loses credibility at a time when it should be really focussing
    on issues that have to do with democracy and human rights as
    clearly defined in the American Convention.
        Mr. Yoho. Right.
        Mr. Aguilar. So that is my concern and that's how the
    Commission and Court I think at this point are losing
    credibility.
        Mr. Yoho. When I see a house on fire and I need to get my
    family out, I don't need to stop and water the plants before I
    leave and that's--I think we need to refocus.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Meeks from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to first welcome Mr. Quilter back. You know, he
    did a great job here on the committee and then, of course, over
    at OAS and thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
        I am listening to my colleagues, who I respect and admire.
    I come out a little bit on the other end. I don't think that we
    get rid of an organization. I am a firm believer in
    multilateral organizations--the U.N. being an example, the OAS
    being that.
        Are they perfect? I don't know anything that is perfect. I
    don't know any government, including mine, that is perfect. So
    there's room for us to improve, there's no question--to make
    sure that we are spending appropriately and that there is no
    waste.
        But sometimes you can do when you are cutting and you cut
    off your nose to spite your face because the very things that
    you want to accomplish when you cut a budget so strictly then
    there's nothing left and you can't accomplish anything.
        And I, for one, believe, as I look over history, though we
    have problems and there's no question about that in places like
    Venezuela.
        Democracy in Central and South America a few years ago
    wasn't--you know, you would name many more countries than the
    countries that we are naming now. There was not any, you know,
    democratic elections.
        So, to me, what I see on the Western Hemisphere but
    particularly in Central and South America is thriving
    democracies with the exception of a few, and we should not
    terminate and/or eliminate something because you have a few
    that are not doing what we want them to do.
        In fact, we should then figure out, you know, and
    understand that, you know, yes, I want to make sure that the
    United States is getting its bang for the money.
        But that does not mean that the United States can come,
    whether it's the U.N. or the OAS, and just dictate this is what
    in our best interests without consideration of what some of the
    other nations in these multilateral organizations consider is
    in their best interests, and then the dialogue and the
    conversation that goes on after that.
        And so I don't think that we are wasting our money when we
    are investing in the OAS. In fact, with so many elections
    coming up, I would like to know what the role that you see of
    the OAS in the coming and the pending elections that are coming
    up to try to make sure that they, and the countries that have
    had--even though, you know, I know Brazil and Peru they've had
    problems recently with reference to corruption.
        But the elections themselves, you know, so you have got to
    make sure--and they've got elections coming up what role with
    the OAS play to try to make sure that there's true democracy
    taking place.
        Mr. Quilter.
        Mr. Quilter. Thank you. Good to see you again, Mr. Meeks.
        I think the Human Rights Commission and Court are the
    jewels of the crown of the OAS. I think that is correct.
        But another thing the OAS does well, and it does some
    things not well--and we can talk about those--is election
    monitoring, and election monitoring doesn't only mean, you
    know, seeing if an election is--election monitoring is a
    complicated thing and the OAS has a lot of history doing it and
    they do it quite well.
        They will be or should be front and center on all of these
    elections. Let me say something about Venezuela, because I've
    heard a lot about judging the OAS because the Venezuela
    situation has not been solved by the OAS.
        Let me make a comment about that. The OAS, like any
    multilateral organization, is a roiling cauldron of country
    interests, momentary circumstances, et cetera.
        For a country like the U.S., the trick is to utilize or to
    try to get as much done within each of these--each of these--
    with each of these tools at it can.
        I actually think the OAS has done a decent amount of things
    on Venezuela. No, it hasn't solved Venezuela but it has done a
    decent amount of things.
        Just yesterday, the Inter-American Commission came out with
    a report on Venezuela saying all the things you think it should
    say. As we know, the secretary general has been quite vocal
    about Venezuela.
        There is--I am going to correct you--there is a pretty
    decent one single resolution on Venezuela condemning Venezuela
    quite well in mid-2017.
        Perhaps that's as far as we could go as the U.S. on that
    issue. So you put a momentary stop on that and you look at
    other issues and try and keep advancing the call. I think that
    is the way to utilize these organizations.
        Mr. Meeks. Anybody else?
        So let me just ask this question then. Do you believe or
    are there other countries in the hemisphere that you think are
    utilizing their influence at the OAS better than the United
    States?
        Mr. Aguilar. Well, yes. I think we've, as I've said in my
    statement, I think we are leaving a vacuum. So a country--will
    Venezuela now decide to withdraw from the OAS?
        But they have been very effective with their partners
    Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia to ensure that very little
    happens. And it's a consensus-based system.
        So only a few states can band together and ensure that
    nothing happens--that they don't have the consensus to be able
    to actually pass anything that would actually have any real
    impact.
        Mr. Meeks. I am out of time. But my next question would
    have been then what should we be doing, in your estimation, as
    the U.S. to have a better bang.
        But I will leave that.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you very much.
        Maybe your colleague to the right might yield time but I am
    not going to get involved in that. My good friend from New York
    is recognized.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman Cook, Ranking Member
    Sires.
        Much has been said about the vacuum of leadership that has
    been left open by the United States for decades and decades,
    and we may think that the main beneficiary of such vacuum are
    countries like Venezuela.
        But I submit to you that I believe it's China. I think
    China will come in and fill that vacuum and build roads and
    bridges and dams and tunnels and major infrastructure projects
    that are necessary and critical to the economies of these
    countries, much like Venezuela did with Petrocaribe in the
    Caribbean when oil was very expensive and can cripple the
    economy of those small countries.
        So, in essence, what you see is an allegiance of those
    countries based on pure economic interests, very much the way
    we do with some countries in the Middle East where we support a
    dictator, a ruthless leader, because they may benefit our crude
    political interests or economic interests there. Those
    countries chose to align themselves, at least temporarily if
    not permanently, with troubling governments like the one in
    Venezuela.
        So we must regain the ability to invest in the region so
    that we could, again, fill that vacuum and we do not yield that
    vacuum to a country that is already very much present there,
    and investing heavily and bringing with it all the negative
    issues such as currency manipulation, an assault of
    intellectual property rights, and the rest to our hemisphere.
        And so I think that we are really--Almagro has been very
    active. In fact, he has been demonizing Venezuela and Ecuador.
    He is persona non grata in those countries. He has been a
    strong supporter of bringing democracy and stability to
    Venezuela.
        But, unfortunately, he could not get the votes. We could
    not get the votes because we have abandoned the region in a
    dramatic way in the last 40 if not 60 years.
        So my question is to Mr. Aguilar. He has really emphasized
    the issue of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage. Let me remind
    you that same-sex marriage is already legal in Colombia,
    Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and although not entirely in
    Mexico, in Mexico City, as well as my madre patria, Spain.
        So I just want to ask you, if you don't think that
    violating--the high number of homicides or violent vicious
    crimes against gay people in those countries or the patterns of
    discrimination, preventing gay people from getting jobs or any
    other sort of discrimination that is rampant and
    institutionalized in those countries maybe because even of
    their religious background, if that doesn't constitute a reason
    for the court to have a strong decision on whether or not that
    is a troubling situation in those countries.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you for the question. I think it's a
    very valid question, and I think I was trying to make that
    point that those are the type of issues that the Commission and
    the Court should get involved in.
        When there is discrimination and harassment against people
    because of their sexual orientation, clearly, that's a
    violation of the American convention.
        Now, that is different from the issue of same-sex marriage.
    You mentioned several countries--Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay--
    where it is legal, and that's fine.
        They've gone through their political process, through their
    constitutional system like the United States has and have
    legalized same-sex marriage. But it's up to them. It's not for
    the court to make that determination for them, and this is the
    problem.
        When we've had a court, just a few weeks ago, come up with
    a decision imposing on 20 countries under the jurisdiction,
    some of them--most of them who haven't legalized same-sex
    marriage telling them, now you have to, that's for those
    countries to decide.
        Mr. Espaillat. Well, I think it's very much connected. I
    think it is very much connected that if people of the same sex
    holding hands down a street are viciously beaten because
    they're married, or killed, and there is a vicious pattern of
    that, I think that that constitutes a very big violation of
    their rights.
        And so, Mr. Quilter, maybe you would like to add to that?
        Mr. Quilter. Yes, I would. I have a very, very different
    take on this specific issue and that is I am a lawyer--it is a
    normal thing for a court to either be pushing on the arc of a
    particular issue within a society or maybe sometimes lagging.
        I don't see this as a problem for the Inter-American Court
    at all. I think that what is being said here is that it may
    have been impolitic or may have been out step. But we all know
    that the arc of this issue bends toward more protections for
    the LGBT community, not less. That is where it's all going.
        The fact that the court is a little bit ahead of a
    particular country really--that's not a reason for them not to
    be playing in that sandbox.
        Mr. Espaillat. Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by
    saying that I very much feel that this current budget, as
    presented by President Trump, further aggravates the
    reliability and functionability of the OAS and that we must
    move in a different direction.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you.
        I recognize Mrs. Torres from California.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, thank you, Chairman Cook and
    Ranking Member Sires, for holding this very important hearing.
        This is very--definitely a timely hearing, and I agree that
    the OAS is very important to U.S. interest in Latin America.
        Sadly, over the course of the past year, we have lost a lot
    of influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. There
    have been a lot of missteps by this administration.
        Just to name a few, President Trump offended Mexico and
    many countries in the region not just during the campaign but
    after the campaign.
        He rattled our allies and played into Maduro's hand when he
    threatened military intervention in Venezuela. What do you
    think that statements like that could have an impact on our
    ability to advance our interests in the region and the OAS in
    particular?
        Meanwhile, his Secretary of State didn't even bother to
    show up at the OAS General Assembly in Cancun and missed an
    important opportunity to build consensus on the issue of
    Venezuela.
        So what kind of message do you think that sent? In
    Honduras, we have lost a lot of credibility on the issue of
    democracy when the State Department failed to call out an
    election for what it was, and if I recall correctly, it was the
    OAS only that stood up and said there are certainly a lot of
    discrepancies and we need to ensure that if we truly believe in
    democracy that we follow our own advice.
        It is unfortunate that it seems to me, from what I've heard
    today, it is democracy of convenience. I mean, we've talked a
    lot about many other issues and hungry kids absolutely are a
    priority to me. But women being imprisoned simply because they
    have had a miscarriage is also important to me.
        So, of course, it doesn't help that we still, after more
    than a year, don't have an Assistant Secretary for the Western
    Hemisphere or an Ambassador at the OAS. And now that we have a
    nominee for Ambassador to Barbados, who is a peddler for
    conspiracy theories, if President Trump went to the Summit of
    the Americas, what kind of reception do you think that he will
    receive?
        These failures do not help advance U.S. interests in the
    Western Hemisphere or the OAS. I would like to hear your
    comments on those three questions.
        Mr. Quilter.
        Mr. Quilter. Thank you. There's a lot there but I will--
    summits. Summits are tricky even when everybody loves you.
        In Cartagena, President Obama got an earful on both U.S.'
    Cuba policy and our drug policy. It was, for him, a bit of a
    disaster, even when he was riding high.
        What's going to happen with President Trump? I don't know.
    Fasten your seatbelts, I think, is the way to think about that.
        Tillerson in Cancun--that was malpractice. We were just a
    few votes away and we know that for--to send in the most
    important guy you got is the way you close the deal and that
    didn't happen.
        And then later they said, well, the OAS is useless because
    it was two votes short, which is a little disingenuous.
        Finally, Secretary Tillerson went on his recent voyage and
    one of the things he was doing--he was doing good stuff on
    Venezuela, I think, by the way. I have to give him that.
        But the other thing he was doing is warning that China
    was--the presence of China economically was spilling over into
    a political presence and that was a problem. That too is
    disingenuous.
        What he's in fact saying is that there's a leadership
    vacuum in Latin America and China is filling it. Well, whose
    fault is that?
        Mr. Aguilar. Just briefly.
        I would say I would agree with you that Mr. Trump's
    comments often make it very difficult to work with our partners
    in the region.
        Having said that, it is disingenuous to think that these
    problems that we are facing now are just because of Mr. Trump.
    I think for a long time we haven't been paying attention to----
        Mrs. Torres. I didn't say that the problems that we are
    facing in Latin America are solely the fault of the current
    President.
        I did say that the lack of leadership currently in this
    administration has actually made things worse in the region.
        Mr. Aguilar. I agree.
        Mrs. Torres. Don't misquote me.
        Mr. Aguilar. Well, it wasn't my intention.
        But there was certainly, I would argue, a lack of
    leadership under the Obama administration at the OAS.
        Mrs. Torres. The Obama administration is not currently in a
    position to make a change so----
        Mr. Aguilar. No, but I think----
        Mrs. Torres [continuing]. In moving forward, Mr. Aguilar, I
    would like for you to speak on current issues----
        Mr. Aguilar. I think it's----
        Mrs. Torres [continuing]. And current time frame, today.
        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate your point but I think it's good
    when we look at Latin America to look at the historical
    perspective just to ensure that we are objective and we can
    make some sound comments.
        Mrs. Torres. Historical perspective doesn't help unless
    you're talking about--when you're referring to Latinos that
    look like me as drug dealers and drug pushers and prostitutes.
        Mr. Aguilar. I've never agreed with----
        Mrs. Torres. My time is up and I yield back.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith is recognized, from New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Chairman, first of all, I am sorry I was late. I
    was chairing my own hearing on China that ran over, especially
    with the witnesses.
        But I just want to thank our witnesses. I am sorry I missed
    it all, but I will go back and look at the record.
        I have worked on human rights. I've been in Congress for 38
    years and, frankly, we have had under many administrations a
    lack of focus on human rights.
        I was in Bolivia working, joined by Lidia Velasquez,
    against Evo Morales and, frankly, the last administration did
    nothing to help this American named Jacob Ostreicher who was
    being held in Palmasola Prison.
        I went to Palmasola Prison twice, went to the court
    hearings, and our Embassy would not help him. I even asked it--
    requested it. If Jacob Ostreicher, an American from New York--
    and I am not from New York, I am from Jersey, like my good
    friend, Albio Sires, and Albio was very helpful on that as
    well--would you at least provide him asylum, an American within
    our own Embassy and they told me no.
        I couldn't believe it. I held four congressional hearings
    on it. So there was a lack of focus on Bolivia. There was a
    lack of focus on Venezuela, and when it came to Cuba, you know,
    how many hearings did we have on Cuba, Albio? One after the
    other after the other.
        There was no sense of wanting to extradite a cop killer who
    continues to run free. We made that--we said there ought to be
    conditionality before things--you know, the rapprochement with
    Cuba occurs say, these are the nonnegotiables that we have to
    have, and none of that happened.
        And, you know, what got me into Cuba years ago was Armando
    Valladares' book, ``Against All Hope,'' which exposed the
    facade of what's going on in Cuba and it continues to this day.
        Political prisoners who are tortured. I have tried for 25
    years to get into Cuba. I tried recently going down to the
    Embassy and I said, ``I would like to go to Cuba. I would like
    to be with different dissidents,'' and you know what I was
    told? ``We tell you who you can't see.'' And I said, ``Do
    American Members of Congress agree to that'' and they told me
    yes. That's the Ambassador.
        Piero Tozzi and I went down there with the hope of going
    and okay, if there is a changed attitude in Cuba, well, let's
    test it, and I can't get a visa to go to Cuba.
        There's four places where I couldn't get a visa. One I just
    got changed. Russia is one. The other is Cuba, and the other
    two have switched. I've been able to go to China and to Belarus
    where I worked on human rights issues as well.
        So, again, I want to thank the chairman for having this
    hearing. The OAS could do far more in holding people to
    account, in my humble opinion, and Albio Sires and I have
    worked for so long on Cuban human rights, which have always
    been in the back bench--always been, you know, an afterthought
    on the part--particularly of the last administration.
        So, you know, Cuba was taken off the--and I will end with
    this--the Tier 3 listing for traffickers. They were on there
    because of labor trafficking abuses, which they claim don't
    happen, and because of their feckless response on sex
    trafficking.
        I am the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
    of 2000 and fourth--three--one or two reauthorizations and
    another--but all focused on human trafficking.
        There is nothing in the behavior of the Cuban dictatorship
    that warranted an upgrade except a belief by the last
    administration that, you know, if we just act nice and take
    them off.
        Human rights have to be--whatever authoritarian, left or
    right, who cares? If they commit human rights abuses and
    they're being tortured or, in this case, being trafficked, it
    doesn't matter what style of dictatorship you're dealing with,
    and they gave them an artificial upgrade, which I denounced.
        Did a press conference on it--nobody covered it, and I find
    that to be appalling. Unfortunately, they're still on the
    upgraded list. This administration did not change that.
        I have appealed to the administration to do so in the TIP
    report when it comes out on or about mid-June because the
    situation there is awful. Then what they've done to our Embassy
    personnel is off the scales in terms of diplomatic breaches.
        So, again, I want to thank all of you for your testimony
    and, Chairman, I thank you. I am sorry I didn't get into the
    full flow of the hearing but I was doing my own, and I
    apologize.
        Mr. Cook. Well, I want to thank you very much.
        You know, I was going to ask a couple of final questions
    but I just want to make a comment.
        Obviously, I think we need another follow-up here, not--
    because some of the issues here are--you know, we kind of
    skirted around them but I think we've got to break it down and
    some of these different aspects of it.
        Yes, I think the Organization of American States has got
    some problems, and now we are going to fix it? We are not going
    to fix it today, for a variety of reasons, and contrary to some
    of the other testimony, I am one of those ones that think you
    have to bring the states together.
        You're not always going to agree. It's tough. It's tough
    doing this stuff and, you know, I probably said it in here. You
    know, Bismarck said making good policy is like watching them
    make sausage.
        It's not very much fun but it's something you have to do
    when you have a lot of different countries and you have a lot
    of different people, and I think a lot of it is everybody--
    there's enough blame to go around and I am optimistic that we
    are finally looking south.
        We are looking at our neighbors. I think they've been
    ignored far too long, and, you know, the money issue I think
    reflects the fact that a lot of people don't understand how
    critical the area is or how critical some of the issues that we
    address.
        And each and every person here has probably got an axe to
    grind or they get excited about it, and that passion I think
    warrants another hearing on how we can do it.
        I don't know whether you gentlemen would agree with that
    bottom line that I am taking away that we kind of scratched the
    surface here and maybe we can build on that.
        We've got to, and maybe our agenda would be more inclusive
    on maybe suggestions or questions on how we can repair this
    including many of the issues that were raised today.
        So my guidance to everybody based upon what we learned
    today is maybe we can go forth and find out certain things and
    how we can propose and maybe fix it in our own committee.
        So with that, this meeting is now adjourned.
        Thank you very much for your patience.
        [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                 Material Submitted for the Record

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]