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

                        ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS IN THE
                               WESTERN HEMISPHERE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 11, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-153

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

                          or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    30-707PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          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

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Kenneth H. Merten, Acting Principal Deputy
      Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S.
      Department of State............................................     4
    Ms. Sarah-Ann Lynch, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator,
      Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for
      International Development......................................    12

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Kenneth H. Merten: Prepared statement..............     7
    Ms. Sarah-Ann Lynch: Prepared statement..........................    14

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    60
    Hearing minutes..................................................    61
    The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of New York:
      Washington Post article dated July 6, 2018.....................    63
      Letter to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
        National Institutes of Health dated December 4, 2017.........    65
      Washington Post Letters to the Editor Opinion..................    66
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........    67
    The Honorable Norma J. Torres, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California: Prepared statement....................    68
    Written responses from the Honorable Kenneth H. Merten to
      questions submitted for the record by:
      The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on
        Foreign Affairs..............................................    70
      The Honorable Eliot L. Engel...................................    71
      The Honorable Paul Cook, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of California..........................................    82
      The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of California......................................    87
      The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
        Congress from the State of Wisconsin.........................    89
      The Honorable Joaquin Castro, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Texas...........................................    90
      The Honorable Norma J. Torres..................................    95

               ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Royce. We will call this hearing to order. Today
    we look at U.S. policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.
    Our relationships in the Western Hemisphere are forged by deep
    cultural and economic ties. We export a lot of goods to the
    Caribbean, and that supports many U.S. jobs. Across Latin
    America, our trade ties are just as strong. But today, as the
    region faces urgent challenges and transitions, the United
    States must be more engaged than ever.
        As always, the safety of Americans serving abroad is a top
    priority for this committee. The still unexplained attacks on
    Embassy personnel in Havana, and now in China, are very
    disturbing. Twenty-six Americans have been medically evacuated
    from Havana with serious symptoms, including sharp ear pain,
    headaches, vertigo and other conditions consistent with brain
    injury or concussion. Canadians have been impacted, as well. We
    need to know what happened, who is responsible, and how to
    respond.
        The administration is actively addressing the Western
    Hemisphere's major crisis starting with Venezuela. The United
    States has repeatedly condemned the illegitimate election of
    President Maduro as well as the human rights abuses and
    economic meltdown unfolding there.
        The administration has rightly deployed targeted sanctions
    hitting Venezuelan officials responsible for this catastrophe,
    not the suffering Venezuelan people, is the way to go. The
    Vice-President has traveled to the region three times to urge
    regional leaders to do more for the Venezuelan people.
        In Nicaragua, the administration has rightly designated
    three top officials for human rights abuses and for corruption.
    But we should do more to support the Nicaraguan people. The
    repressive Ortega regime has killed more than 200 advocates for
    free and fair elections since this April. One of the civilians
    murdered on a village street was a former neighbor of an Orange
    County friend of mine. Subcommittee Chairman Paul Cook will
    convene a hearing to further examine this matter tomorrow.
        Across the hemisphere, transnational criminal organizations
    continue to pose a major threat. These violent gangs are
    fueling the drug and migration crisis that the United States
    struggles with today. As we fight the deadly impacts of opioids
    in our communities, we must continue working closely with our
    regional neighbors to increase counternarcotics cooperation.
    The recent increase in cocaine production in Colombia is
    unacceptable, and I am hopeful that the election of President
    Ivan Duque is a sign that the country will redouble efforts to
    confront gangs and the cartels.
        This committee continues to support U.S. efforts to work
    with the countries of Central America's Northern Triangle, El
    Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, to help shore up
    institutions, combat crime, and combat corruption, and create
    conditions that will keep people from migrating north. I agree
    with the administration that combating corruption in the region
    must be a key part of the strategy to create opportunity and
    stability. The committee will continue to support assistance to
    the region.
        Finally, the recent election in Mexico raises questions
    about the future of the U.S.-Mexico security relationship under
    the Merida Initiative. I hope that President-Elect Andres
    Manuel Lopez Obrador's campaign promise to root out corruption
    is a sign that our two countries can continue to cooperate on
    matters of security. One of those is the Merida Initiative, and
    we will hear more from you on this.
        The U.S. and Mexico share a 2,000-mile border, and must
    continue to work together to enhance both security and trade
    that benefits both our countries. NAFTA should be updated for
    the 21st century, not scrapped. And with that, let me go to our
    ranking member, Mr. Engel of New York, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    calling today's hearing. This region is particularly important
    to me as a former Western Hemisphere Subcommittee chair.
    Ambassador Merten, Deputy Assistant Administrator Lynch,
    welcome, and thank you both for your service. You are both
    doing great work. But again, I must say the White House's
    failure to fill key positions in a timely manner means we can't
    adhere from those setting the course for foreign policy. That
    is too bad, because in my view, the administration has put us
    on a very dangerous course when it comes to the Western
    Hemisphere.
        The way the President talks about this region says it all.
    Falsely insisting Mexico will pay for a border wall we don't
    need, the ugly language calling Mexicans drug dealers and
    rapists, the dehumanizing language about immigrants and
    characterization of Haiti and El Salvador using the word I
    won't repeat.
        Democrats and Republicans have worked for two decades
    together to improve the U.S.-Mexico relationship long
    characterized by mistrust. Bilateral cooperation on
    counternarcotics was once unimaginable. Amazingly, it became
    the norm with the Mexican Government extraditing the world's
    most dangerous drug kingpin, Chapo Guzman, to the United States
    in the last hours of the Obama administration.
        On July 1, Mexicans elected a new President, Andres Manuel
    Lopez Obrador. I worry that if President Trump continues along
    the same lines, President-Elect Lopez Obrador may pull the plug
    on security cooperation. Where would that leave us the next
    time we are seeking an extradition, or if terrorists sought to
    cross the U.S.-Mexican border? Too much is at stake in our
    bilateral relationship, and we simply don't know if the
    President will continue to do this, take to Twitter, and do
    damage.
        And looking south, Mexico is just a start. For months, the
    families have been torn apart, and Central American children
    essentially have been held ransom to a radical anti-immigrant
    agenda. The President created this policy. He then said only
    Congress could fix it, which wasn't true, made clear by the
    fact that he then signed an executive order trying to end the
    policy, but the damage was done. Children to this day still
    remain apart from their parents. That has to change. The
    Organization of American States unanimously adopted a
    resolution on June 29 criticizing the inhumane family
    separation policy.
        It is hard to remember a time in recent memory when the OAS
    permanent council has so forcefully condemned the United
    States, and that is just the start. The administration is
    making it harder for victims of abuse to come to the United
    States, saying domestic violence shouldn't be grounds for
    asylum, that women and children who have endured rape and other
    forms of violence should look elsewhere for sanctuary.
        The United States also just opposed a U.N. resolution
    promoting breastfeeding. I mean, it is unbelievable, and I fear
    the worst is yet to come. Temporary protected status will soon
    end for 262,000 Salvadorans, 86,000 Hondurans, and 58,000
    Haitians. As Mark Schneider of CSIS pointed out in The
    Washington Post this week, this move may result in 273,000
    American-born children being separated from their parents. This
    is a deeply troubling pattern in dealing with the treatment of
    women, of families of immigrants.
        Is this what we are becoming as a country? I hope not. I
    won't accept it, and I will fight tooth and nail against these
    policies that betray our values and make it harder to advance
    our interests abroad. After all, we are facing very real and
    urgent crises in the region.
        President Maduro has turned Venezuela into a full-fledged
    dictatorship, and rejected humanitarian aid. State Department
    sanctions against human rights violators were a step forward.
    But instead of working with regional partners, we have, again,
    bellicose rhetoric and threatening to invade Venezuela. The
    result, Maduro is empowered and alienated key allies at the
    same time.
        In Nicaragua, the Global Magnitsky Act has allowed us to
    crack down on thugs tied to President Ortega who are killing
    innocent people in the streets. Yet, the administration zeroed
    out democracy assistance to Nicaragua in its 2019 budget. And
    in Guatemala, absurd and unconfounded attacks on the U.N.
    International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, what we
    call CICIG, threaten the institution's ability to fight
    corruption and support the rule of law.
        Most recently, I was disturbed by the Guatemalan
    Government's decision to put CICIG personnel at risk removing a
    large portion of their security detail. President Morales
    should immediately reverse its decision. And I must say, since
    I have been critical of the White House, this time I was
    pleased that the White House came out in strong support of
    CICIG just this week.
        I congratulate Ivan Duque on his recent election victory in
    Colombia. Outgoing U.S. assistance is essential for
    implementing the peace process and supporting smart drug
    policies that go after kingpins while not harming small farmers
    or the environment. And in Argentina, I was glad to join Mr.
    McCaul in founding the Argentina Caucus to focus on a
    relationship that has improved a great deal since President
    Macri took office.
        Finally, the Caribbean. In 2016, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen
    and I authored the U.S. Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act,
    which President Obama signed into law in his last few days in
    office. Last June, the State Department released a strategy
    mandated by our law. It is an ambitious and impressive
    strategy, but unfortunately, 1 year later, it still has not
    been implemented. With hurricane season under way, the parts of
    the strategy related to disaster preparedness and resilience
    are especially urgent. I implore our witnesses to put some meat
    on the bones of what are on paper is an excellent strategy, and
    I would be remiss not to mention that Haiti is very much on my
    mind this week. Haiti has suffered far more than any country
    should, and I stand with the Haitian people at this difficult
    moment.
        So I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses, and I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel. So this morning, we
    are pleased to be joined by Ken Merten, Acting Principal Deputy
    Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs,
    and Sarah-Ann Lynch, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator of
    USAID for Latin American and the Caribbean. We welcome them to
    the committee. Ambassador Merten has been serving as the
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western
    Hemisphere Affairs since August 2015. He is a two-time
    Ambassador, having served as the U.S. Ambassador to Croatia,
    and also, as the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti.
        Ms. Sarah-Ann Lynch currently serves as Senior Deputy
    Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean at
    USAID, and prior to that, she was the mission director in Iraq.
    So we appreciate them both being with us here today, and
    without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statements are
    going to be made part of the record and members are going to
    have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or questions or
    extraneous material for the record.
        So if you could, Ambassador, I would ask you to just
    summarize your statement in 5 minutes, each of you, and then we
    will go to questions. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KENNETH H. MERTEN, ACTING PRINCIPAL
       DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE
                   AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ambassador Merten. Thanks very much, Chairman Royce,
    Ranking Member Engel, members of the committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to allow us to come here and talk a little bit
    about the administration's approach to our Hemisphere, the
    Western Hemisphere.
        We know that a democratic, prosperous, and secure Western
    Hemisphere enhances our national security and benefits our
    economy. Our policies are built upon that premise. The United
    States shares common values and has strong economic bonds with
    all the countries in this region. These long historical
    connections bind us to the nations of the Western Hemisphere
    more closely than in any other region.
        Our economic engagement with the Americas cannot be
    overstated. The United States is the top trading partner for
    more than half the countries in the region. We trade more than
    twice as much with the hemisphere as we do, for example, with
    China. We also share fundamental values. In the last decades,
    Latin America has largely transformed itself into a region of
    vibrant, peaceful democracies.
        The United States recently reaffirmed its commitment to
    these shared values and to our partnership with the region at
    the eighth Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru in May. At that
    summit, leaders acknowledge the need to continue working
    together to address corruption, to strengthen institutions, and
    to improve transparency.
        We rely on strong hemispheric partnerships to fight
    transnational criminal organizations, and we work hand in hand
    with our partners to disrupt illicit networks and trafficking
    roots.
        Because our mutual security and prosperity are so
    connected, we work together to counter the illicit activity and
    the poverty that drive illegal immigration to the United
    States. As such, the U.S., together with our partners, is
    renewing its commitment to address the root causes of Central
    American migration.
        While most of the region enjoys democratic rule, Venezuela,
    Cuba, and Nicaragua continue to undermine the region's shared
    vision for effective democratic governance enshrined in the
    Inter-American Democratic Charter.
        The United States remains committed to standing with the
    people of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela in their struggle to
    achieve the liberty that they deserve.
        In Cuba, the regime continues its repressive hold on power
    despite the recent transition to President Diaz-Canel.
    President Trump's June 2017 Cuba policy emphasizes advancing
    human rights and democracy, and aims to ensure that the
    benefits of U.S. engagement flow to the Cuban people.
        In Nicaragua, we condemn the violence and excessive force
    used against demonstrators resulting in 215 deaths and hundreds
    more wounded since protests began now in mid April. We urge
    Nicaragua's government to strengthen democratic processes and
    institutions, and to respect human rights and fundamental
    freedoms and support the proposal for free and fair elections
    that would occur soon.
        In Venezuela, the Maduro regime has completely undermined
    democracy. We join the nations of the world in standing with
    the Venezuelan people as they seek to return to a stable,
    prosperous democracy they deserve. We are also addressing the
    humanitarian component of the Venezuelan crisis by supporting
    Venezuelans who are deprived, suffering, and increasingly
    forced to flee their homes.
        Overall, the United States is providing nearly $31 million
    in humanitarian assistance to Venezuelans in the region. We
    will continue to work with our partners to help restore
    democracy to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, and we will
    continue to build a democratic, prosperous, and secure Western
    Hemisphere that further enhances our own national security and
    benefits our economy.
        So I look forward to your questions today. Thanks very much
    for the opportunity to speak with you.
        [The prepared statement of Ambassador Merten follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ambassador. Ms. Lynch.

       STATEMENT OF MS. SARAH-ANN LYNCH, SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT
    ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN, U.S.
                  AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. Lynch. Thank you. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel,
    and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to
    testify today. I had the distinct pleasure of traveling with
    some of you recently while Administrator Green and I were in
    Peru at the Summit of the Americas in April, and thank you so
    much for your continued interest in our work in the region.
        USAID's engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean
    advances U.S. national security and economic prosperity,
    demonstrates American generosity, and promotes a path to
    recipients' self-reliance and resilience. This is a region with
    considerable opportunities, but also critical challenges. USAID
    works to increase the security and prosperity of the hemisphere
    by addressing issues of poverty, insecurity and governance. For
    example, our work in Mexico and Central America responds to
    challenges that inhibit business development, empower
    criminals, and lead to out-migration. Recent high levels of
    illegal migration from Central America come largely as a result
    of poverty, instability, and weak governance, including high
    levels of corruption and impunity.
        Therefore, USAID's programs focus on engaging young people
    before they turn to crime and violence, improving democratic
    governance, and addressing the economic conditions that drive
    people to make the perilous journey north.
        In Mexico, we partnered with the government to strengthen
    national institutions, spread the rule of law, and promote the
    protection of human rights. And together with Mexico, we are
    working closely with the Northern Triangle governments to
    address those challenges to security and prosperity that we
    collectively face.
        Two of our primary areas of focus in South America are
    Colombia and Peru. These countries are making enormous economic
    and social strides, but remain plagued by coca cultivation,
    which enriches transnational criminal organizations that
    threaten regional security. In Colombia, USAID is working in
    some of the most dangerous and hard to reach areas, which were
    cut off from state presence for decades during the conflict.
    Our efforts to reduce the power and influence of illegal-armed
    groups build a culture of legality, expand state presence in
    former conflict areas, and enable licit rural economic growth
    are seeing promising results.
        Similarly in Peru, USAID assistance helps to reduce the
    flow of illicit drugs by providing farmers with alternatives to
    coca cultivation, and the results--the achievements are
    impressive.
        As the third border to the United States, the Caribbean
    remains vital to American security and prosperity. I would like
    to thank Ranking Member Engel and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their
    continued interest and engagement on Caribbean topics, and
    especially for authoring H.R. 4939, which helps lead the U.S.
    strategy for engagement in the Caribbean.
        Under the Caribbean Basin and Security Initiative, CBSI, we
    are working to improve citizen security and provide employment
    and education opportunities to youth at risk of joining gangs
    and other transnational criminal organizations.
        We are also working with countries across the Caribbean to
    increase resilience so that they are better able to withstand
    shocks, such as tropical storms and hurricanes. Maybe we need
    to focus for our work in the Caribbean where we are addressing
    poverty, promoting good governance, improving health, and
    advancing transparent and accountable government institutions.
    However, as this weekend's violence has demonstrated, Haiti's
    progress and stability continues to be fragile.
        And unfortunately, Haiti is not the only place in the
    region where we have seen violence and instability recently. We
    are very concerned for the people of Nicaragua who are
    suffering a brutal crackdown at the hands of the Ortega
    government. USAID has given rapid assistance to the brave civil
    society groups, human rights organizations, independent media,
    and others involved in peaceful protest. And we remain flexible
    to respond to needs as they emerge. USAID also helps to
    maintain an operating space for those in Cuba who seek to
    preserve their basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and
    democratic voice. But one of our most pressing priorities in
    the region right now is the outflow of Venezuelans who are
    fleeing their country in record numbers in search of food,
    medicine and healthcare.
        To help these families who have fled to neighboring
    countries, USAID has partnered with these countries to provide
    humanitarian and development assistance to meet the most urgent
    needs. And while humanitarian assistance will help with
    immediate needs, it will not and cannot address the root causes
    of Venezuela's instability. Only lasting political and economic
    reforms will provide sustainable solutions.
        To help the Venezuelan people maintain their voice, USAID
    supports human rights, civil society, independent media,
    electoral oversight, and the elected national assembly.
        In this discussion, I cannot overlook the rise in competing
    foreign engagement in the region. We recognize that some
    countries have different development models than ours, but we
    believe we offer the clear choice. For example, where other
    countries assistance models may further dependence, our
    development assistant promotes a country's own journey
    consistent with U.S. supported universal values and interests
    bolstering our partners' self-reliance and prosperity.
        To accomplish our goals, we coordinate and leverage the
    work of the U.S. interagency, other donors, the private sector,
    faith-based communities, and nongovernmental organizations. In
    all of our work, we are committed to oversight and ensure that
    our programs are smart and impactful. We use a range of tools,
    such as monitoring surveys, evaluations, and assessments to
    understand the effects of our programs and help us capture
    changes at the community or other subnational levels. We know
    very well our responsibility to the American taxpayer, and we
    take our obligation very seriously.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, I want to thank you and
    the committee for the opportunity to give an overview of our
    work, and I welcome your questions. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lynch follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. If I could begin with this question, we
    have got 26 U.S. diplomats and their family members who have
    suffered symptoms similar to brain injury or concussion
    following sonic attacks in Cuba. We have another three
    officials now in China who have suffered similar symptoms. In
    response to the attacks, the State Department ordered the
    departure of nonessential personnel and their families in
    Havana. Sixty percent of the U.S. mission diplomats in Cuba
    have been withdrawn. Other than the Canadian mission in Havana
    where the Canadians report 10 of their diplomats were targeted,
    have any other Embassies been affected, to your knowledge?
        Ambassador Merten. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. This
    is something which is very worrisome to us, but we are not
    aware of any other Embassies at this point.
        Chairman Royce. What is the health condition of the U.S.
    diplomats and the family members affected by these unexplained
    attacks at this point?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, I think you covered it very well
    in your opening remarks. The health effects differ from person
    to person. Some are more serious on some individuals. On some
    individuals, they are less serious. But the bottom line is the
    impact of these attacks on folks is serious, which is why they
    were withdrawn, and we have gone down to a skeleton crew at the
    Embassy there.
        Chairman Royce. And the last question I would ask you on
    this is how close is the administration to understanding and
    identifying the source and cause of these attacks?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, we have taken this, as I
    mentioned, very seriously, both in the Cuba context and in the
    China context, which is, frankly, still very much evolving.
    Bottom line answer is, we don't know who is responsible, and we
    don't know what is responsible for this. We have various
    investigations ongoing. The FBI is involved. The CDC is
    involved in looking at this. We have employees who are being
    looked at by outside medical care. But we are still unsure
    exactly what it is these people have been afflicted with.
        Chairman Royce. Let me go to a question about the crisis in
    Venezuela, which is worsening. While President Maduro further
    cemented his power with sham elections this past May, we have
    seen the situation on the streets there and especially the
    widespread food and medicine shortages that continue to
    displace Venezuelans that create a regional crisis, refugee
    crisis, as well as a humanitarian crisis, obviously. And
    meanwhile, despite sitting on the world's largest oil reserves.
    Venezuelan oil production has fallen by half in the last few
    years. Venezuela, in the meantime, has been sending several
    hundred thousand barrels of oil every day to China as repayment
    on the tens of billions of dollars it has borrowed, and more
    recently, China's development bank announced a new quarter
    billion dollar investment to shore up Venezuela's struggling
    oil production.
        Is the administration concerned about China's economic
    stranglehold on Venezuela? And is China using Venezuela's as a
    foothold to gain influence in the rest of the region?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        It is not clear that China is necessarily using Venezuela
    as a foothold. Our information indicates that the Venezuelan
    economy still continues to crater, if you will excuse my using
    that term. Oil production continues to go down. The national
    oil company, PDVSA, has been plagued by mismanagement, by
    political hacks replacing people who knew what they were doing,
    and the company continues to deteriorate, and thus, robbing the
    Venezuelan people and the Venezuelan Government of what should
    be a very valuable source of income for them.
        We are, obviously, watching very carefully what China does
    throughout the hemisphere. You know, and we monitor that very
    carefully. We are concerned about the role they play. We
    believe we are a much better partner for all our friends in the
    hemisphere. We share values. We share goals. And it is not
    clear to us that the Chinese government or entities operating
    overseas share the same goals as our friends in the hemisphere.
        Chairman Royce. Well, let me ask a question of Ms. Lynch in
    terms of the greatest health concerns that are caused by the
    crisis in Venezuela and by the refugee crisis, and what is
    being done, for example, to ensure vaccinations and other
    medicines are made available, because there is widespread
    shortage throughout Venezuela right now on the vaccinations.
        Ms. Lynch. Right. Thank you for the question. Yes, we are
    also deeply disturbed by all the images and the news reports
    coming out of Venezuela. As such, we have been able to
    identify, as the Ambassador said, several millions of dollars
    of assistance that is going to the almost 2 million Venezuelans
    that have fled that country in search of very basic needs like
    food, medicine, and healthcare. And Colombia, obviously, is
    taking the brunt of the movement of people. I myself was up on
    the border not too long ago in Cucuta and witnessed firsthand
    the Venezuelans crossing the Simon Bolivar Bridge, and it is
    very disturbing. The bulk of our assistance to the Colombians
    is in those areas, food, medicine, and healthcare, but also to
    help them manage the crossing of the great number of people.
        We are also assisting Brazil in the region. And in
    addition, we were able to get an assessment team, USAID
    assessment team, into Venezuela in order to get the contacts on
    the ground and do a full assessment, and this was a team that
    spent nearly 2 weeks there, did not just stay in Caracas, but
    they went throughout the country and they visited schools, they
    visited clinics, they talked to NGOs, they talked to the
    private sector, church they talked to as well as organizations,
    civil society organizations that could provide humanitarian
    assistance at scale.
        One issue that we found is that they lack capacity. So what
    USAID is doing to respond right now is training these
    organizations to be able to provide humanitarian assistance at
    scale. So to deal with the logistics involved in that kind of
    effort and to identify the truly at-risk people. So with that,
    we will be able to address the concerns that you mentioned.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing can quite make
    people understand the horrors that are occurring in our own
    country as a consequence of the President's family separation
    policy than hearing the individual stories of Central American
    children.
        So I would like to briefly talk about Jose, Olivia, and
    their sons, Mateo and Andre, who came to the U.S. from El
    Salvador seeking refuge from gang violence and extortion. A
    close friend was killed by the same gang threatening Jose and
    Olivia when he was unable to pay them. So fearing for their
    lives and the lives of their children, Jose and Olivia joined a
    caravan of asylum seekers and traveled for a month through
    Mexico to reach the border.
        Upon arrival, they presented their papers and the
    children's birth certificates, proving their familial
    relationship to avoid agents' suspicion that Jose was a
    smuggler paired with children that were not his. Regardless,
    U.S. authorities separated the family and sent Mateo, only 1
    year old at the time, to a facility 1,500 miles away.
        Olivia and Andre awaited news of Mateo's status from a
    migrant shelter in Mexico. When Olivia called the facility
    where Mateo was being held, she was told he is doing fine with
    no further information on his well-being, and certainly, they
    wouldn't allow her to speak with her son. She was reunited with
    Mateo finally after 85 days. According to her testimony, she
    said that after reuniting with her toddler, ``He continued to
    cry when we got home and he would hold to know my leg and would
    not let me go. When I took off his clothes he was full of dirt
    and lice. It seemed like they had not bathed him in the 85 days
    he was away from us.'' And that is a quote. Obviously, this is
    child abuse. It is unconscionable and should not have happened.
        So I recently introduced the Central America Family
    Protection and Reunification Act with Representatives Torres
    and Espaillat, who are both members of this committee. And this
    would require the State Department, through our Embassies in El
    Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to play a much more active
    role in supporting Central American governments and parents on
    family reunification.
        Ambassador Merten, let me ask you: Can you please tell us
    what our Embassies in these countries are doing to support
    family reunification, if anything?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question, Representative
    Engel. What we are doing in Central America, we have a Central
    America strategy which seeks to get at the root causes of
    migration, to hopefully give people less of a reason to want to
    leave their country in the first place. And our efforts have
    been really focused on implementing that strategy, particularly
    in the Northern Triangle.
        We are looking at using tools to eliminate corruption that
    allow a climate of impunity for those who seek to abuse people.
    We are supporting law enforcement activities through our
    partners in the region. We are working to help them improve
    their judicial systems so that criminals can be put away in a
    clear and transparent way according to local laws.
        We are working to help these countries grow their
    economies, and we believe that addressing these issues will
    really obviate the need for these kind of--that drive people to
    want to leave their countries and force them into situations
    like you just described.
        Mr. Engel. But are Embassies specifically--are Embassies
    helping to reunite families? Are Embassies playing any role in
    that in the reunification?
        Ambassador Merten. At the risk of misleading you, I would
    rather take that question back and get back with an answer to
    you. I don't want to give you an answer which is incorrect.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, because that is what our bill, our
    legislation does. It involves the Embassies, which makes sense
    to me, because anything we can do to help expedite this would
    be good.
        Ms. Lynch, our legislation also requires the State
    Department strategy to address pervasive gender-based violence
    in the Northern Triangle. Can you please describe the impact of
    gender-based violence, and specifically, domestic violence on
    women in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras?
        Ms. Lynch. Thank you for the question. Yes, all of our
    activities in the Northern Triangle are based at focusing on
    the root causes of illegal migration. And certainly, we work on
    the security front, as well as governance and prosperity. So
    this would fall into that security front and governance as
    well, whereby we just find the gender-based violence. The rates
    that you see in the Northern Triangle are just horrific. So
    what we do is we incorporate women as well as other
    marginalized communities that suffer as well at higher rates
    than others--violence. We incorporate them into all of our
    programming, and that means on the governance front, making
    sure there is legislation that addresses these issues; on the
    citizens front, making sure that there is citizen awareness and
    that there is the capacity of certain civil society
    organizations to address those issues. And in addition,
    prosperity, economic opportunity, is really what gives these
    women power and control over their lives, so specifically with
    all of our programming that involves increased jobs and
    economic growth, we involve women and marginalized communities
    to the fullest extent.
        Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. Let me just say that given the
    pervasiveness of domestic violence in the Northern Triangle and
    the low rates of prosecution for these horrific crimes, it is
    really horrifying that Attorney General Sessions says he will
    no longer allow these crimes to be grounds for asylum. I think
    that is just a very bad thing.
        And finally, let me piggyback on--the chairman has talked a
    lot about Cuba and our Embassy officials being targeted. One of
    the things that I have called for is to have the CDC--to
    involve the CDC, and why has the administration, referring to
    the health--well, let me just say this, why has the CDC not yet
    been deployed to Cuba? It certainly seems to me that we should,
    if we are really going to get to the bottom of it, and I just
    don't understand why that hasn't happened. Does anyone have any
    insight into that for me?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks very much, yes. One of the things
    that we have done in the past month or so is Secretary Pompeo
    has asked that Deputy Secretary Sullivan chair a task force to
    look at these incidents, both in China and the attacks in Cuba,
    and this task force is chaired by the Deputy Secretary; he
    participates in it; I participate in it representing the Bureau
    of Western Hemisphere Affairs.
        We also have, once a week, a meeting of the task force with
    the interagency community, and in that community, CDC is
    present, and they are an active member of that community, of
    the interagency community that participates in this task force.
    I don't know if they have plans to travel yet, but I think
    their involvement in this is relatively recent, but I think
    there is a possibility that they could become more involved. I
    am not--it wouldn't be appropriate for me to really explain
    what their plans are to do, but they are participating now in
    this interagency task force.
        So as I said, we remain very concerned about this, and I
    think we are looking for any tools we can find to really get to
    the bottom of what is causing this.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Yes, and Mr. Engel and I are going to be
    meeting with Deputy Secretary Sullivan this afternoon at 4
    o'clock, so we will raise that issue, Ambassador, with him as
    well at that time.
        We will go now to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Chairman Royce. Thank
    you, Ranking Member Engel, for, once again, holding a hearing
    on a very timely and important topic. Since widespread protests
    began on April 18 in Nicaragua, we have seen over 300 people
    killed under the direction of Daniel Ortega and his henchmen,
    and Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro continues to rule with impunity
    ignoring the pleas of the Venezuelan people for new leadership.
    In my native homeland of Cuba, Raul Castro continues to call
    the shots as head of the Communist Party, all the while hiding
    behind the veil of the so-called transition of power. Under
    Diaz-Canel, nada has changed for the people of Cuba. Activists
    are still being held for days at a time. Las Damas de Blanco
    are still being beaten and arrested, and the regime continues
    to rule with an iron fist.
        More worrisome, Mr. Chairman, is that cooperation between
    these rogue regimes has actually increased. Just last week,
    there were reports indicating that Maduro has sent a shipment
    of weapons to Ortega to help him further suppress and silence
    the Nicaraguan people. Instead of using the country's resources
    to alleviate the Venezuelan people suffering, suffering he
    caused for his failed policies, he sends weapons to his cronies
    making him complicit in the deaths of so many in Nicaragua.
        But this U.S. administration has shown a willingness to
    lead and hold those abusers accountable in stark contrast to
    the previous administration, and I thank our witnesses here for
    explaining all that has happened. We have seen a reversal of
    the disastrous Cuba policy. We have seen a more active use of
    sanctions, particularly the global Magnitsky sanctions in
    Nicaragua and targeted sanctions against the Maduro regime in
    Venezuela.
        On two occasions, I have read letters urging sanctions on
    several Nicaraguan regime officials for their roles in the
    human rights abuses being perpetrated against the people of
    Nicaragua. The administration has included most of these
    individuals on the global Magnitsky list, but I intend on
    sending another letter shortly with more names. And the
    administration has begun to provide assistance to Venezuelans
    who have fled to neighboring countries and has signaled that it
    will make freedom and democracy in the region a priority, but
    more must be done. And you had explained, Ms. Lynch, about what
    the administration, and specifically, USAID, has been doing to
    support the Venezuelan refugees who are in Colombia and Brazil.
        I wanted to ask you about Ecuador, what help is being given
    to the Venezuelans there that Vice-President Pence was just
    there. So what more can be done? And secondly, I worry about
    China's growing presence and influence in the entire region
    using its resources to bully nations to further isolate our
    strong ally, Taiwan, and what is the administration's strategy
    then to counter Chinese aggression to help Taiwan strengthen
    its relationship with its partners in the region. Thanks again,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Lynch. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, some small scale
    assistance was requested from Ecuador from the U.S.
    interagency, and that is being provided. And we stand ready to
    assist other nations if they are interested in additional
    assistance. We know this is a horrific regional problem that
    may impact other nations in the region, other strong partners
    of ours.
        Regarding our perspective on the development side on China,
    for example, what from AID's vantage point, we believe that our
    work in building strong institutions in the region, as well as
    promoting strong economic investments, particularly from the
    U.S., are good antidotes to the influence of nations that have
    a different development model than we do.
        You know, some of these other donors, as I mentioned in my
    opening are more--their development model is one more of
    dependence rather than one of partnership. Ours is of
    partnership where we look to work with partners who are self-
    reliant eventually.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Ms. Lynch. And we look forward to working with you in that
    area.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Lynch. Mr. Ambassador?
        Ambassador Merten. Just to talk briefly about the influence
    of China in the hemisphere again, yes, it is something, as I
    mentioned earlier, that we are concerned about and watching
    very carefully. We regularly talk to our partners in the
    region, I have done so myself, to explain what it really means
    to sign up with--to some of the blandishments of the PRC in
    terms of loans and other things. These are things that we have
    seen in the recent past that don't necessarily help these
    countries out in the long term. They may be quick political
    fixes, but I think we are trying to explain, in very clear
    terms, that it makes more sense for long-term development of
    all our partners in the region to focus on rules-based and
    normal economic development.
        Our assistance programs in the region seek to support rule
    of law and governance, and to make these countries better
    places to live, better places to do business, and thus,
    ultimately reduce migration. But it is an issue that we
    continue to work very diligently on and are paying close
    attention to.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ileana. We go to Brad Sherman of
    California.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, we have a knowledgeable witness
    here, but he is the, as I understand it, Acting Principal
    Deputy Assistant Secretary. We used to have under secretaries
    and assistant secretaries come here. They may not have been
    more knowledgeable, but they were higher ranking in the State
    Department. The administration took over a year to appoint an
    Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere, and a
    Republican Senate still hasn't acted to confirm. The
    administration is hollowing out the State Department, and I
    think we as a practice should be compelling the testimony of
    those at the National Security Adviser's Office and Council if
    you are going to hollow out the State Department that if we are
    going to oversee foreign policy, we have to have those
    witnesses.
        I had a chance to visit the kids who are separated by the
    United States at the border. I want to commend the State
    Department for its 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report, which
    identified and condemned foreign governments for separating
    children from their families, and relate the story of one
    particular family. Jose and his son, Brian, arrived in
    California from Honduras, my State, in May. Brian's mother had
    been raped and brutally murdered. She was 7 months pregnant at
    the time. Jose and Brian thought that they might face a similar
    outcome.
        Jose was jailed for 20 days and asked to sign papers he
    couldn't understand because they were in English and deported
    back to Honduras. This after Brian, the son, had been separated
    from his father. There are news reports that say that this
    whole process at least began--it seems now they are walking it
    back--as an effort to deter immigration from Central America.
    Has there been any effort at the State Department to try to
    tell people in Central America, ``Don't come to the United
    States, we will treat you harshly, separate families, deport
    you,'' et cetera? Ambassador?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question. What we do tell
    people is to not make a journey that is dangerous or illegal.
    We always encouraged legal orderly migration of people, legal
    and orderly travel of people, so that is what we have been
    focusing on.
        Mr. Sherman. Okay. I want to move on to one other issue,
    Ecuador. Julian Assange is in their Embassy in London. He is
    wanted by law enforcement authorities in both Britain and
    Sweden. One thing we know about Julian Assange is that he did
    collude with Russia to use cyber files stolen from the
    Democratic National Committee to affect the U.S. election. And
    in 1972, when files were stolen from the Democratic National
    Committee, Members of Congress from both parties condemned that
    action. We haven't put any pressure on Ecuador to turn out Mr.
    Assange, and I understood that to be because we had such
    respect for Ecuador's sovereignty. And then I find out in The
    New York Times that we threatened Ecuador with punishing trade
    measures and a withdrawal of critical military aid if they
    wouldn't withdraw their support for a World Health Organization
    resolution encouraging breastfeeding.
        Ambassador, can you, on the record, indicate that you know
    that these reports in The New York Times were false, and that
    we did not threaten Ecuador on this issue?
        Ambassador Merten. My understanding from our Ambassador and
    from my colleagues in the State Department Bureau of Western
    Hemisphere Affairs that work on this issue, on a regular basis,
    is that we did not threaten anybody, that the U.S. supports
    breastfeeding.
        Mr. Sherman. But we don't support efforts at breastfeeding
    beyond what the companies that make billions of dollars on the
    formula industry by discouraging breastfeeding want us to do.
    We support only mild resolutions, and we force the World Health
    Organization to back down and adopt a milder resolution. But
    you are certain now that Ecuador can introduce the stronger
    resolution, and there will be no diminution of trade or aid.
    Can Ecuador count on you for that?
        Ambassador Merten. I can tell you what has happened thus
    far in my understanding----
        Mr. Sherman. What is our policy? Is it our policy to
    threaten Ecuador on this issue or to allow them to go forward?
        Ambassador Merten. My understanding is that there has been
    no threatening, and I do not believe that we----
        Mr. Sherman. So they are free to go forward, you can
    guarantee it?
        Ambassador Merten. I am not here to guarantee that going
    forward.
        Mr. Sherman. So maybe they will be threatened, maybe they
    won't, they either have to----
        Ambassador Merten. They are not going to be threatened,
    sir, but I will say that this is----
        Mr. Sherman. They are not going to be threatened?
        Ambassador Merten. This is a policy that we don't actually
    own----
        Mr. Sherman. So The New York Times reports are false?
        Ambassador Merten. As I understand from our Ambassador and
    from the folks that work on this in our bureau, that nobody was
    threatened. We have not threatened to pull trade sanctions or
    anything else on Ecuador. That is my understanding, sir.
        Mr. Sherman. Well, a lot of infants are going to get worse
    nutrition as a result of the successful efforts by the United
    States at the World Health Organization to water down this
    resolution, and I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony to
    our two witnesses. On April 27, I chaired a hearing on serious
    and credible allegations of collusion between CICIG and the
    Russian Government in the persecution, mistreatment, and
    incarceration of a Russian family, the Bitkovs, who fled Russia
    after Putin's cronies threatened their lives, took away their
    business, and, of course, the young daughter was raped,
    Anastasia, who obviously is still dealing with the aftermath of
    that.
        Our prime witness was Bill Browder, the main man, whose
    tenacity, courage, and credibility led to at least an
    accountability of what happened to Sergei Magnitsky. It is
    because of Bill Browder that we have the Magnitsky Act. It is
    because of Bill Browder that we have the Global Magnitsky Act,
    so when he speaks, everybody should listen and should listen
    very carefully, and I share his concerns about the Bitkovs.
        Let me just say to my colleagues: In 2013, the Bitkovs fled
    and finally got to Guatemala under an assumed name. They used
    documents that were not true, but again, for having documents
    that weren't true--and they are true refugees. The Palermo
    Protocol says you don't prosecute when somebody is fleeing
    tyranny and has a well-founded fear of persecution. Igor got 19
    years in prison. Irina got 14 years. And Anastasia, 14. Igor
    spent 3 years in pretrial detention, jail, in a very, very
    unseemly pattern that CICIG is a part of.
        Now my question to our distinguished colleagues today is,
    one, have you investigated, and has there ever been, is there
    now any collusion whatsoever between VTB, Gazprombank,
    Sberbank, or any other person associated with the Russian
    Government and CICIG, including Ivan Velasquez on any matter
    relating to the prosecution and incarceration of the Bitkovs?
        Second, can you tell us what kind of information do you
    have? Is there any accountability? I have asked the Secretary
    General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, why aren't you
    looking into this? He says they have no authority to do so. He
    told me that just a few weeks ago when I met with him.
        I am asking today, and I will do it by way of letter, that
    the Inspector General investigate the potential of collusion.
    My hope is that in an answer to my question, you will say that
    you have thoroughly investigated this, and you either found it
    or you didn't, or to some degree, there is some collusion.
    Those are my opening questions, and I do have some further
    ones, but if you can answer that.
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question. This is an
    issue that we follow closely. Our Embassy and the Department
    have looked into these allegations of collusion. Thus far, have
    found no evidence that that has occurred.
        Mr. Smith. Could you give us details of what that
    investigation included? I mean, was it done just asking Mr.
    Velasquez and a few others, ``Hey, is there collusion?'' Or did
    you really dig into documents and look into this? I call your
    attention to this, and we will give you a copy, an excellent
    piece that was put together by Mr. Bill Browder--this just
    reeks of collusion, so I would like to know exactly what that
    investigation entailed.
        Ambassador Merten. Sure. I look forward to receiving that
    document, and I think if you allow us to get back to you with
    exactly what has been done, I think that would be a more
    effective way of answering your question.
        Mr. Smith. Is there any mechanism for holding CICIG to
    account? I mean, there is a hold on their $6 million now that
    has finally gotten their attention. Two days before I had my
    hearing, the constitutional court found in their favor. Again,
    we are talking about 19 years, 14 years, 14 years. People don't
    get that many years for murder in Guatemala, and CICIG then
    appealed that ruling and now there is going to be another
    prosecution of, at least Igor, which is absurd.
        I mean, if I was doing that with my family, and I would say
    the same to you: Wouldn't you use every means possible to get
    out of a country that is going after you, hurting your
    daughter, putting you into prison and maybe even killing you?
    We have learned that from Sergei Magnitsky, I thought, and many
    others. We called our hearing the Long Arm of the Russians. Let
    me ask you again, is there any kind of connection between CICIG
    and the Russians?
        Ambassador Merten. Again, thus far in our investigations we
    have found no collusion between them.
        Mr. Smith. And no contact, no cooperation?
        Ambassador Merten. The information I have been given we
    have not received that--we have not seen that. So that is----
        Mr. Smith. Maybe the IG will be able to ferret out that
    information. Let me ask you about the Guatemalans who are held
    in pretrial. There is a dual national from Jersey City, Anthony
    Segura, 3 years in pretrial detention. I know, and I have been
    in Congress 38 years, Mr. Chairman, and I have been to places
    like Bolivia where they use prosecution as way of getting
    political retribution, and certainly, Evo Morales does it
    better than anybody else on earth. What is your view about
    these pretrial detentions that go on for years with CICIG's
    full complicity in that?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, pretrial detention is a problem in
    a number of countries throughout the hemisphere. It is
    something that we work at in our rule of law programs to get
    countries to establish mechanisms to reduce or eliminate
    pretrial detention. I think our work in that area is certainly
    ongoing. So obviously, it is not a situation we like. We are
    working in a number of countries to help address that.
        Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, finally, because my time is
    running out, Mary Anastasia O'Grady from The Wall Street
    Journal in her piece, and I invite members to read it,
    ``Guatemala, Russia and the Bitkovs, The family remains in
    jeopardy thanks to a U.S.-funded rogue U.N. agency.'' She
    points out immediately after the high court decision, CICIG
    apologists launched a full scale press on Capitol Hill to cover
    up the U.N. agencies' many transgressions. How do you respond
    to that?
        Ambassador Merten. I am not aware of any such cover-up. If
    you would like to ask, we can get you more details on what we
    know on that. I am not aware of that, sir.
        Mr. Smith. So there is no cover-up?
        Ambassador Merten. I am not aware of a cover-up, sir.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We share the concerns of Mr.
    Smith. This committee will continue to work with the Senate,
    the State Department, the U.S., U.N. on reforms that will
    preserve the essential functions of CICIG while responding to
    legitimate criticisms of overreach. All right. We go now to
    Albio Sires of New Jersey.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for hosting
    this full committee hearing on the Western Hemisphere, and I
    want to thank our panel that is here today. Thank you very
    much.
        I have this issue over the last few years that I have been
    on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee that we just don't focus
    enough on the Western Hemisphere and the Caribbean. I think
    that while we sleep, there are people out there plotting, and
    basically I am talking about China, I am talking about Russia,
    I am talking even about Iran, who is now started with a couple
    schools now they have over 100 schools throughout the area. And
    the signs are there. I mean, even in Venezuela, you have 30,000
    Cubans basically running the show there, and Cuba, they started
    with the national assembly, which basically destroy all sorts
    of democracy or anything that was there. And then you have, in
    Venezuela, you have the constituent assembly, which is
    basically the same thing destroying any signs of democracy. And
    then you go to Nicaragua, you have the Russians selling them
    $80 million worth of tanks, and they are asking the people of
    Nicaragua to contribute more to the Social Security. I mean,
    the signs are there. And I don't know what we do is basically
    insult some of these people in Central America, which makes
    your job a lot harder when you want to talk about democracy and
    talk about investment. I mean, where do we go from here? We got
    a new President in Mexico. I don't know how we deal with the
    new President of Mexico after all the insults that we have laid
    on the Mexican people. And before we know it, all these people
    are going to be in our backyard, all these countries that are
    plotting as we sleep.
        So, I am not all that bullish on this area. I see more and
    more democracies going down in the future. You have Venezuela,
    and you have Nicaragua. You have to a certain degree Ecuador,
    some of these other areas.
        So where do you see democracy in the area? Can you tell me
    about that?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question.
        I think we see the hemisphere largely united behind, as I
    said in my opening remarks, the Inter-American Democratic
    Charter. We have been working the OAS. I think we have seen a
    pretty significant amount of support in the OAS to voice their
    opposition to undemocratic steps that are taken in countries
    like you have mentioned.
        I think that we continue to do work to promote civil
    society, to engage with civil society, and to enable opposition
    parties to have a voice. We have supported those people in
    Nicaragua who are calling for early elections. We have
    acknowledged that. So I think we are still working very
    diligently on this.
        But these are countries that, as several members have
    already noted, are not necessarily going to be--they are not
    squeamish about using repression as a way to stay in power.
        Mr. Sires. I look at Nicaragua. We have a bill, Ileana Ros-
    Lehtinen and I, the NICA bill. Basically, it doesn't allow them
    to take loans from international finance institutions.
        Why should we allow them to have loans from financial
    institutions when they go and spend $80 billion on Russian
    tanks to oppress their people? And yet some people here don't
    like to support something like that.
        I think we have to bring some sort of pressure on these
    governments to realize you just can't run over people and just
    expect us, the United States, to not do anything, especially
    when it is our Western Hemisphere and our Caribbean. We really
    have to focus more on those areas.
        Ambassador Merten. Well, as you know, we have applied
    individual sanctions on members of the regime in Venezuela. We
    have applied the Global Magnitsky Act to three people in
    Nicaragua. We have, as I understand it, revoked 21 visas from
    government officials or officials who were responsible for
    these types of things. I think, you know, there is a
    possibility we could look at more of those kinds of tools as
    well.
        Mr. Sires. Okay.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just note from the some of the comments we have had
    so far that this condemnation of our President for the policies
    that we now have in terms of people who are coming to our
    country illegally and separation of families, let us just note
    that that policy was in place and put in place during the Obama
    administration. And I consider that singling out our President
    today is very political, because I didn't hear any of the
    complaints coming from that side of the aisle during the Obama
    administration when the policies were exactly the same.
        With that said, I have somewhat of a disagreement over the
    idea of using the word ``migration.'' Maybe you could tell me,
    what is the population of Latin America?
        Ambassador Merten. I don't know off the top of my head,
    sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you know what the population of Latin
    America is?
        Ms. Lynch. We can get that for the record.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, I think these are fundamentals
    that people need to know when they are talking about migration.
    We are not talking about 10 million people. We are not talking
    about 50 million people. We are talking about hundreds of
    millions of people, are we not?
        And when you have societies like we see in Latin America--
    and elsewhere in the world, I might add, but now we are focused
    on Latin America--where you have millions and millions of
    people living in countries that are somewhat chaotic and very
    clearly repressive--and let me identify myself with the remarks
    of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and her concerns about Nicaragua and
    Venezuela, but those same types of repression can be found in
    other countries, Latin America as well.
        We do not have a policy--or do you believe that we should
    have a policy in labeling those people migrants, thus giving
    them some other definition rather than illegal entries or
    illegal immigrants into our country? You think that that should
    be open to hundreds of millions of people when they end up
    suffering under their own government?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, sir, our policy with Central
    America is to address the root causes that drive people out
    of----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I understand that. That is not my
    question. Because I understand--that is a good point. I voted
    for NAFTA for that reason, because I felt making sure Mexico
    had a very good economy would take the pressure off of people
    coming here illegally.
        Okay, let me ask you this: How many people are permitted to
    legally immigrate from those countries into the United States
    every year?
        Ambassador Merten. Sir, I don't have those figures. That is
    a DHS, Department of Homeland Security, function.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So already we have, however--you can
    correct me if I am wrong. I am assuming we are talking about
    millions of people over a 10-year period coming from that area
    legally into our country. Over a 10-year period, we permit more
    legal immigration into our country than all the rest of the
    countries of the world combined.
        But what I am worried about, after hearing your testimony
    today and the use of the word ``migration,'' is that that in
    some way gives credence that the United States has to accept
    millions of more people into our country over and above the
    million that we allow in already legally, which, as I say, is
    more than the rest of the world combined.
        Now, is there a limit that you think that we should have on
    people who are--you call it migration. Is there a limit on
    migration into our country?
        Ambassador Merten. My understanding--again, this is not an
    area of expertise for me; this is really a Department of
    Homeland Security issue--is that there are rules established
    for this that the administration has established. There are
    rules for people, for example, who can apply for asylum----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, let me just say I disagree
    with you totally. I think members of our State Department
    should be concerned about massive flows of people coming into
    our country illegally.
        And I think the use of the word ``migrant'' in some way
    adds some kind of problem with us for not accepting migrants,
    as compared to people who have come here illegally, when we
    have a very robust legal immigration system. Our legal
    immigration, as I say, it is the best in the whole world. No
    one comes close to us on letting--and now we are supposed to
    feel guilty about not permitting a more massive flow? Which
    basically would change the nature of our society, as it has.
        And let me just note, Daniel Ortega and these folks and the
    Nicaragua--when they were removed from power, there was a
    relatively free system established in those countries. And when
    they left, came back into power, Mr. Ortega, all of a sudden
    people began being murdered. And that is something--I am very
    proud that the Reagan administration did take the moves to make
    sure that Mr. Ortega and his communist dictatorship was removed
    and replaced by a democracy.
        With that said, thank you very much for your service.
        And I do not believe that the President--again, the
    criticism that the President is hollowing out the State
    Department is ridiculous. The fact is that if he was hollowing
    it out we would be complaining that he is putting his own
    people in. Well, when you have people with the expertise, like
    yourselves, who are still in position that the President hasn't
    replaced yet, that is not something people with an open mind
    should complain about.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you.
        We will go to Karen Bass of California.
        Ms. Bass. Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking
    Member, for holding this hearing.
        I wanted to talk about the situation in Central America and
    specifically would like to focus on El Salvador.
        I was listening to your responses, Mr. Ambassador, about
    what we are doing to address the root causes, and it seemed as
    though your focus was a little bit on law enforcement. And we
    have spent a lot of time trying to address violence and crime-
    related issues with a strictly law enforcement strategy in the
    United States, and it hasn't fared very well, so I wanted to
    know what you have done beyond law enforcement.
        And I focus on El Salvador because there is a lot of
    discussion about MS-13, Mara Salvatrucha, which is a gang that
    started in my city, Los Angeles, and we exported this problem
    to El Salvador. And so I want to know what responsibility we
    are taking for our contribution to the problem in El Salvador.
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question. And I think an
    element of this here should be fielded by my colleague from
    USAID.
        Our Central America strategy, yes, it has a component of
    law enforcement to it, but it is also designed to address the
    root causes of why people are leaving these countries and--or
    why they seek to leave.
        And this involves working with governments to improve the
    business climate, the investment climate, to create economic
    opportunity. My colleagues at USAID and at our economic
    sections in our Embassies are working to help these countries
    attract investment, attract and grow their economies so that
    people have less reason to have to leave.
        Ms. Bass. Right, which is a catch-22, because it is hard to
    do that with the gang violence.
        So I want to know, since we exported the problem to El
    Salvador, I was wondering if we also exported some of our best
    practices. We actually do have best practices, in the United
    States, of how to address gang violence. There are a lot of
    examples of gang violence being reduced in a number of
    communities. Unfortunately, we have not really taken a
    sustained investment in communities, which is why we still have
    the problem.
        So my question is: Are we exporting also some of our best
    practices in how to reduce gang violence?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, one of my colleagues from the
    Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement would be
    better equipped to answer that. We can take that back and get
    you an answer as to what specifically we are doing regarding
    gang violence in El Salvador, but----
        Ms. Bass. Okay. That is great. I would appreciate that.
        Let me move on to another subject, because, like all of my
    colleagues--and I am sure all of us in Congress are deeply
    concerned about these children. And I am concerned that many of
    these children will never be reunited with their parents again.
    And so there is a number of examples of parents who are
    deported and then not being able to find their children since
    we did this in such a haphazard way.
        And my colleague over there, Mr. Rohrabacher, when the
    Obama administration had the problem of unaccompanied minors,
    which is different than taking children away at the border,
    there was a big outcry about that and what was happening with
    those children.
        But my question is, I have heard of numerous examples of,
    when the parents are deported, number one, if they are
    fortunate enough to find their children, then what we are
    saying is now you have to pay $1,500 to transport your child
    and a guardian to get your children back.
        And so I want to know if, in the budget of USAID, the State
    Department, somewhere--it seems as though if we take the
    children away, then our government should be responsible for
    reuniting those families. So I am introducing legislation that
    makes our government responsible.
        I am also very concerned that the children that are put in
    is time-limited. And so, if you languish in foster care for
    more than 18 months, parental rights can be terminated, which
    is why I am worried that some of these children may never find
    their parents again.
        And so I want to know if, within the budget of USAID, you
    are considering setting money aside to help facilitate the
    reuniting of these children that we took away.
        Ms. Lynch. Great. Thank you.
        All of our funding is dedicated to working in the countries
    of the Northern Triangle on this issue----
        Ms. Bass. Right. So the question is, are we setting aside
    money so that we don't charge the parents? We took the children
    away, and now we are charging them to get their own children
    back.
        You also mentioned, Mr. Ambassador, an information campaign
    to let people know not to come over here because we take their
    children. And I am wondering if that is a massive PR campaign
    on radio, on TV, social media, or are we just doing it one by
    one?
        Ambassador Merten. I think what I said or certainly what I
    meant to say was that our public diplomacy in all countries is
    to encourage people to travel to the United States, whether
    that is as a tourist, as a student, or as a legal migrant, to
    come and travel, to use legal methods to do so. We----
        Ms. Bass. Are we telling them that we are going to take
    their children?
        Ambassador Merten. I don't believe we are telling them
    that.
        Ms. Bass. Yeah.
        Ambassador Merten. We are telling them that they need to
    avail themselves of legal routes of travel and legal routes--
    should they qualify as immigrants, that they should pursue
    legal ways to do that.
        Ms. Bass. This is going to go down in our history as a real
    moment of shame.
        Thank you. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, as I begin, I want to thank the statements of
    Congressman Albio Sires. His thoughtful observations are a
    fulfilment of the bipartisan promotion of democracy in the
    Western Hemisphere, which really reflects the bipartisanship--
    usually, not always, as we just saw--of this committee. So
    thank you very much for your service.
        Sadly, American diplomats, in 2016, were subject to
    unexplained sonic attacks in Cuba. The Cuban dictatorship
    continues to deny knowledge or involvement in the attacks, but
    it is in a totalitarian regime with heavy static surveillance.
        What is the status of the investigation? Have we been able
    to determine the cause and source of the attacks? When can
    Congress expect a thorough report on the cause of these
    attacks?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question. As I mentioned
    earlier, this is something we find very troublesome at the
    State Department.
        The Deputy Secretary chairs a task force which is made up
    of various elements of the State Department but also has an
    interagency component as well. We have ongoing FBI
    investigations. FBI has traveled on a number of occasions to
    Cuba to investigate the sites where this has happened. Our
    Diplomatic Security agents in the State Department are
    investigating. We have other elements who are participating now
    in this task force, like CDC and others, who are really
    examining all the data that we have thus far been able to bring
    together.
        But, as of today, we still do not know what the cause of
    this is nor who is responsible.
        Mr. Wilson. And I would tell you, with the technology we
    have today, Ambassador, this should be determined. And so I
    hope you will make every effort to proceed.
        The next question: I am grateful to have been co-chair of
    the Partners of the Americas program with the nation of
    Colombia from South Carolina. And we have hosted students from
    Colombia to live with us. Two of my sons were in an exchange
    program to a high school in Colombia. What an extraordinary
    country it is.
        I know that we are assisting Colombia in achieving lasting
    peace while also combating criminality and narcotics
    trafficking. The election of Ivan Duque gives the U.S. a
    reliable partner in combating cocaine production and a modified
    approach to the peace process.
        What do you see USAID or the State Department doing to
    promote peace and security for the people of Colombia?
        Ms. Lynch. Yeah. USAID's program is focused very much on
    peace. And, in fact, we work predominantly in helping the
    Colombians and supporting their efforts to extend State
    presence in some of the areas that have not seen a government
    in sometimes decades. So we are actually working in over 50 of
    the hardest-hit communities in Colombia to help the Colombians
    provide the local institutions that can provide basic services
    to people as well as improve the environment to improve the
    rural economy.
        Specifically, when we work jointly with State Department
    INL, they on eradication and us on alternative development, it
    works extremely well, where the coca crop is eradicated, and
    then we come in with opportunities and an enabling environment,
    again, to have solid economic opportunities, jobs for people in
    the licit economy.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, again, thank you. And what an
    extraordinary nation of 40 million people in Colombia.
        And then, sadly, another country that was dynamic, was
    democratic is Venezuela. And we now see the consequence of what
    Margaret Thatcher said, and that is that socialism will work
    until you run out of spending other people's money. And so now
    they have converted one of the wealthiest countries, one of the
    most dynamic in South America into a destitute, poverty-
    stricken, authoritarian regime.
        And so I am really grateful for the sanctions by the
    President. What more can be done to try to help the people of
    Venezuela?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, as we talked earlier, we are, with
    colleagues at USAID and the State Department Bureau of
    Population, Refugees, and Migration, providing humanitarian
    assistance to those people who have been driven out of
    Venezuela. We have regular outreach at the Embassy with the
    opposition parties, encouraging them to get unified and form a
    unified opposition to the Maduro government. You know, we have
    applied targeted sanctions to government officials and to
    Venezuela.
        And we are working with our partners in the region. We have
    pretty much, I would say, unprecedented support of other
    countries in the region who really share our concern at what
    they see is a rich and democratic country descending into
    abject poverty and to effective dictatorship.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you again. And working on behalf of
    the people of Venezuela, mutual benefit to the hemisphere.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Bill Keating of Massachusetts.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The President has made it very clear and the administration
    has made it clear, the threat of MS-13 and the gang violence
    that is present in countries like El Salvador. This has been
    echoed in Homeland Security, of which I am also a member, where
    the administration officials have clearly said how dangerous
    and violent it is there and what danger it represents.
        So I am going to just address--a couple of the
    administration's responses to this simply don't make sense.
        For instance, when it comes to the parents and their
    children fleeing this terrific violence in El Salvador, the
    President's response was to separate the children from their
    parents, traumatizing them, deporting them back to the crisis
    that they fled from.
        One of these people, Jessica, had two sons taken from her
    when she crossed in Texas in March. They were separated for 3
    whole months. Jessica fled the brutal violence of El Salvador.
    She and her sons received death threats from MS-13, and she
    herself was beaten in front of her children by gang members.
    Yet that is one response, is to separate the children.
        The other one that just does not have any semblance of
    consistency is to move forward on ending the TPS program for
    those countries like El Salvador that have--those countries
    have hundreds of thousands of people here legally. And they are
    being sent back because it is safer now?
        There is a definite contradiction with sending these
    people--many of them have been here for years legally to escape
    that violence--sending them back because now it is safer, yet
    at the same time the administration is saying what an enormous
    threat it now is becoming.
        How can you reconcile such contradictions? These things
    simply don't make sense. They contradict each other, by their
    own definition.
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question.
        As I mentioned earlier, what our goal at the State
    Department is, in our view, is that we need to help these
    countries address the root causes of these problems. In that
    analysis, the root causes are corruption, impunity, lack of
    economic opportunity for people, lack of effective judicial
    systems, lack of effective law enforcement.
        Our Central America strategy, for which Congress was
    generous enough to give us $2.6 billion from 2015 to 2018, is
    working in all these areas in those countries----
        Mr. Keating. Okay. I apologize for interrupting, but where
    you are going is to the root causes. That is great. But there
    are present dangers. Well, we could deal with the root causes
    of MS-13, but the President and the administration, they are
    not talking about the root causes of MS-13; they are talking
    about the present danger. The same kind of timeline should be
    used when you are looking at the present danger of these
    people.
        So I know what you are saying in terms of root causes, but
    you are avoiding the contradiction that is quite clear, that
    one, these two instances of the response to this kind of
    violence contradict the fact that the violence is there that
    they are escaping from. You can't have it both ways. So I want
    you to address not just the root cause but the present danger
    in that contradiction.
        Ambassador Merten. Again, we work with the tools that we
    have, both in USAID and the State Department, and these are the
    tools that we have to address these issues. If you are talking
    about other issues such as TPS, that is a decision that is
    taken by the Department of Homeland Security. They have made
    that determination.
        Mr. Keating. Well, I just think there should be better
    coordination. And I sort of echo, actually, the gentleman from
    California who said those are issues for Homeland Security,
    sure; they are also issues for Foreign Affairs, and they are
    also issues for State.
        Just quickly, I would like to echo the concerns in terms of
    the violence in Nicaragua as well. People like Father Jose
    Alberto Idiaquez has had his life threatened. He has been
    targeted because of his work through the Jesuits and through
    education. And I want to make sure people that have been
    targeted, that that be known to everyone.
        With that, I would like to yield 40 seconds to my colleague
    from California, Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Ted Poe of Texas.
        Mr. Keating. No, no----
        Mrs. Torres. He yielded me 40 seconds that he had.
        Chairman Royce. Oh, yeah, that is right. Somebody was going
    to give you extra time. Norma Torres of California.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to be on the
    floor at 12 noon to present on a rule.
        I want to thank the Department of State and specifically
    the White House in continuing to support CICIG in Guatemala
    specifically.
        While I agree that we should demand fair treatment for all
    refugees in Guatemala and here in the U.S., too, I hope that we
    don't lose sight of the significant progress that CICIG has
    made, not just carrying out investigations but also helping to
    bring about important reforms and strengthening Guatemala's
    institutions. That progress is real, and turning back that
    progress, in my view, is a big mistake.
        Ambassador Merten, I had nine questions--they were ``yes''
    or ``no'' questions--for you regarding how the State
    Department--which I have accused in the past of head in the
    sand with the certification process in Honduras and now in
    Guatemala. Because of the lack of time that I have, I will
    submit them for the record, as well as a longer statement on
    CICIG.
        I do hope that you will respond to me. The certification of
    Guatemala after the ongoing problems with the Congress trying
    to impugn themselves for their criminal behavior in stealing
    the purse of the people, to me, is something that we should be
    more careful about in how we go about. At the end of the day,
    us here in Congress have to be accountable, and we have to have
    a transparent process on how taxpayers' dollars are being
    spent.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Mrs. Torres. Yes.
        Chairman Royce. Because I would like to add a quick
    observation here as well. Because, as our witness stated
    today--and I think Ambassador Nikki Haley reinforced this
    during her trip to Guatemala in February--CICIG is providing
    critical assistance to advance justice, accountability, and
    stability in the region. That is not an easy task. It is bound
    to be controversial. But CICIG is successfully chipping away at
    the culture of corruption.
        That said, there was an issue that was raised here by Mr.
    Smith. And, as we know, the consequence of that has been
    adjudicated through the courts there in Guatemala, and that
    family is freed.
        This committee will continue to work, as I said, with the
    Senate, with the State Department, with the USUN on reforms
    that will preserve the essential functions of CICIG while
    responding to legitimate criticisms of overreach.
        And, with that, I think, without objection, the
    gentlelady's questions are going to be submitted to our
    witnesses, and we will go to Ted Poe of Texas. Thank you.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here.
        As the chairman mentioned, I am from Texas. We have a very
    strong and longtime history with Mexico, back even to the days
    of the 1500s when Mexico and Texas were part of Spain, or at
    least Spain claimed the territory. I am a great believer in
    trading with Mexico. Ten thousand 18-wheelers a day cross back
    and forth on our southern border. Thousands of people from both
    countries cross the border.
        And I think that the United States, as a Nation, needs to
    refocus our attention to our next-door neighbors. I mean, we
    are all over the world. There are 190-something countries, and
    we are in most of them. I am not saying that is a bad idea. I
    am saying that we need to focus on our next-door neighbors--
    Mexico, Canada--and then, of course, all of Latin America.
        I see, as many Members of Congress have pointed out, that
    things are not good in the hemisphere from Mexico south:
    Corruption, incompetence, violence, and humanitarian problems
    with the nations. And, as Mr. Sires pointed out, I think things
    are getting worse. I don't think they are getting better. I
    think they are getting worse.
        So, I mean, that is my position. As some other Members
    pointed out, I am a believer in NAFTA. But let's talk about
    some of the issues specifically with Mexico. There are a lot of
    foreign workers in the United States from Mexico.
        Going back to 2003, when Vicente Fox was President, he made
    this comment that was recorded in the San Diego Tribune:
    ``Twenty million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross
    product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated
    by Mexicans in Mexico. Remittances are our biggest source of
    foreign income--bigger than oil, tourism, or foreign
    investment.'' That was in 2003.
        Most recently, the Pew Research organization has listed how
    much remittances from the United States go to other countries--
    in other words, foreign nationals working in the U.S. sending
    money back home. No surprise, Mexico is the number-one country
    that receives remittances from their workers in the United
    States back to their country, $28.1 billion, according to the
    Pew Research organization.
        Surprising to me--another issue--China is number two as far
    as remittances go.
        So we are talking about $28.1 billion for Mexico. Total
    amount, $138 billion a year of remittances go back to foreign
    countries by their workers working in the United States. And my
    understanding is, today, remittances are the number-one source
    of revenue to Mexico except maybe for the sale of autos. So
    tourism and sale of oil is still behind remittances.
        So we are sending a lot of money, economic development
    money, from the United States to Mexico and a lot of other
    countries. It is no surprise that the Mexican Government has
    long supported more people coming to the United States by any
    means so that remittances can go back to their nation.
        So my question is--and this has been brought out by the
    administration as well. If we just think this through, if we
    can use the phrase ``subsidize'' these countries all over the
    world, shouldn't the United States charge a fee, 1 percent, for
    these transactions to occur--specifically, foreign workers in
    the U.S. sending money back to Mexico and any other country
    where those remittances go each year. So that part of that
    income generated in the United States stays in the United
    States, that the taxpayers don't have to pick up the difference
    of that $138 billion, with a small fee--1 percent, 2? It makes,
    to me, no difference.
        My question is, what is your opinion of that, Ambassador?
        And then I will ask Ms. Lynch what your opinion is.
        Ambassador Merten. Well, I think that is an interesting
    thought. I don't think it is--I think that could be potentially
    a subject for legislation should you decide to go that route.
        I will say, there are other countries in the hemisphere
    that do tax remittances as they come in. Haiti is an example of
    that in the case that I know of. Beyond that, I don't think I
    would choose to comment.
        Mr. Poe. Okay.
        Ms. Lynch, have you got an opinion? I am about out of
    time--I am out of time.
        Ms. Lynch. I also think it is very interesting. I think we
    would have to do further analysis. I know sometimes remittances
    are something that we look at as a way that we reduce foreign
    assistance. But we would be happy to look into this and analyze
    it.
        Mr. Poe. All right. I think Congress ought to consider that
    strongly so we can keep some of that money in the United
    States. One hundred thirty eight billion dollars, that is a lot
    of money even for us, you know.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you.
        We go to Greg Meeks of New York.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There was this--I found out about a Mr. Nazario Jacinto-
    Carrillo and his daughter, Filemona. His daughter was 5 years
    old. They fled to California from their village in the western
    highlands of Guatemala. Nazario was fleeing a local gang that
    had threatened to kill him.
        Nazario and his daughter encountered a Border Patrol agent
    and were promptly arrested at a Border Patrol station in Campo,
    California, and Nazario was told that he would be sent to jail.
        Filemona, his 5-year-old daughter, was taken by Border
    Patrol agents. Nazario said, ``My daughter was screaming and
    crying, and so was I.'' Filemona was put in custody of the
    Office of Refugee Settlement, and she was transferred to my
    State, New York.
        Nazario subsequently abandoned his asylum claim and was
    flown back to Guatemala. And in the 5 weeks he spent in U.S.
    custody, he was never once able to speak to his daughter.
        Now, I visited a facility in New York, and one of the
    things that was noted to me, that each and every one of the
    children that they had there also had their birth certificate,
    which tells me that they were not just trying to sneak in, they
    were truly trying to seek an asylum so they could have a
    hearing because they were running from danger. They wanted to
    stop to see a Border Patrol so that they could go through a
    hearing. They had some evidence of who their kids were. But
    they were treated like criminals.
        In fact, one of the children that was examined by the
    doctor, we were told, thought they had a toothache, but, upon
    further examination, what was in the child's mouth was pellets
    from a bullet. That is what they were fleeing from.
        So sometimes I do feel inappropriate asking you questions,
    because I really do acknowledge you and the service you have
    given our Nation in the State Department and the diplomacy. And
    watching you--and I know you have to answer some of these
    difficult questions.
        The problem is I think that the President of the United
    States doesn't understand diplomacy and the value of the State
    Department. In fact, I was looking at him today when he was--
    and international organizations--when he was over talking to
    NATO, making all kinds of horrendous statements and separating
    us from our allies there. I couldn't help but see the pain on
    Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison when she had to admit this was
    right up Putin's alley, what was going on, and looking at
    General Kelly as he was looking away and drinking water and
    drinking water and drinking water as the President was making
    his statement.
        I say all that because my question to you is going to be
    about the United States and our affiliation with the OAS and
    the terms of the international American Declaration of the
    Rights and Duties of Man, which obligates the states of the
    Americas to protect the right to life, liberty, and security
    for every human being and to give protection to families and to
    grant all children the right to special protection, and, we
    know, where a member of the OAS has filed a complaint to the
    OAS's Inter-American Commission of Human Rights concerning this
    administration's zero-tolerance immigration policy.
        So my question to you--and I know sometimes the President
    doesn't believe in multilateral and international
    organizations--does the Trump administration plan to respond to
    the OAS member's complaint to the OAS? Do you know?
        Ambassador Merten. Sir, I am unfamiliar with that specific
    issue. I am happy to take that back to my colleagues and get
    back to you with an answer on that.
        Mr. Meeks. Okay. Thank you. And that is probably something
    that might be--again, as I said, it is difficult for me to
    question you because I know of your work. And some of it may be
    more appropriate for some other members of the administration.
        I think we touched on this--and, again, to Ms. Lynch, who
    is the Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, I agree with you
    and the work that Administrator Green is doing and what the
    USAID does all over the region, and you are addressing the root
    cause of the problem.
        But these deportation--whether it is DACA or TPS, sending a
    lot of these folks, DACA kids who have never been there before,
    sending them back, does that help our relationship and the work
    that you are doing in trying to deal with the root causes of
    the immigration problem that we have at the border now?
        Ms. Lynch. Thank you for the question.
        We work very much within those countries, so within the
    Northern Triangle, in partnership with the interagency and also
    the host countries. So our role is really to support the host
    country and their efforts in receiving some of these folks.
        And so we have worked in the reception centers and through
    the International Organization of Migration, IOM, and working
    with them to refurbish those centers and also make sure basic
    services are available to folks, with the ultimate goal that
    they would return to their host and home communities and there
    would be institutions there that would be stood up to also
    provide basic services and economic opportunities.
        Mr. Meeks. I thank you for your service.
        Chairman Royce. Ted Yoho of Florida.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I appreciate both of you being here.
        This is a timely hearing on the Western Hemisphere. I think
    we have pivoted away from not just the last administration but
    the last 15, 20 years, and it is time that we really put an
    emphasis on there, whether it is energy security for our
    Caribbean nations like Puerto Rico, our territory, or the U.S.
    Virgin Islands or other Caribbean nations. Instead of them
    getting their energy from Venezuela, we are implementing energy
    from North America and allowing us to break the ties from
    Venezuela. And I think this is something that is imperative
    that we do.
        But I hear over and over again--and, Ambassador Merten, you
    were talking about better governance. We have to do more. Ms.
    Lynch, you were talking about we have to do more and help these
    economies in that.
        The numbers I have pulled up, Central America, from Mexico
    down to Panama, there is roughly 171 million people. Over the
    course of the last 10 years, we have given $5.746 billion in
    foreign aid to El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras,
    Mexico, and Panama--$5.746 billion.
        People are leaving the Northern Triangle because of poor
    governance. We are putting money into our aid programs--USAID,
    MCC, OPIC, other organizations--to get good governance, to get
    economic development in those countries, yet we are not getting
    the return on that.
        I would like to hear from both of you, what would you do--
    we have to do something different. We can't do the same thing
    over and over again. And if I throw in the war on drugs, we
    have spent over $2 trillion since the 1970s on the war on
    drugs. And I think we are all convinced we are not winning the
    war on drugs, especially when you have Mexico with 72,000-plus
    acres of poppy fields, which goes right into heroin, which
    comes right into my country. And then you look at Colombia has
    more coca planted today than we did with the drug cartels.
        And so I want to know from you, what do we need to do as a
    Nation, more specifically this committee, to direct foreign
    policy so we get good governance, we get a better economy, and
    we get allies that are on board with us that seriously want to
    fix this problem?
        Ambassador Merten?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks for the question.
        And we certainly share your concern about all of the above,
    I think particularly the concern about the drug issue, which I
    will briefly talk to.
        We have developed a good level of cooperation with Mexico,
    and one of the things that Secretary Tillerson started was
    discussions with Mexico on how we can work together to stop
    these transnational criminal organizations----
        Mr. Yoho. Let me ask you that, because we were down there
    with the chairman a couple years ago, and we want them to get
    better on their drug cartel and the drug production, but I
    didn't see the want and the desire there as much as we did. How
    do we get the desire with them? Do we pull money back? Do we
    threaten that? Do we threaten to block trade?
        Because we are not getting the results. And I hear what you
    are saying. Yeah, we want them to do this.
        Ambassador Merten. Yep. We have a new government coming in
    Mexico in 5 months, a new President who has just been elected
    who will take over. Secretary Pompeo will be traveling there in
    the coming days, along with Secretary Mnuchin and Secretary
    Nielsen. We are going to start up those discussions again with
    this new government----
        Mr. Yoho. What is going to be different about those
    discussions?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, I think we have a new government
    to work with. We have to see where we can have leverage with
    them and what their interests are.
        Mr. Yoho. I feel like we have the cookie that they want.
    You know, they want to trade, they want the access to our
    markets. I think we need to play hardball different than we
    have.
        Ms. Lynch, what are your recommendations?
        Ms. Lynch. Right. I do think we have considerable successes
    in the region, specifically I will talk about in Central
    America, where we see on the governance side, for example, we
    see the governments of these countries putting their own
    resources against some of the objectives and goals that we
    mentioned at the outset----
        Mr. Yoho. Define ``success.''
        Ms. Lynch. Success is when a government--I would say it is
    three things: When a government puts its own resources to these
    issues, when the private sector invests, and when civil society
    acts as a watchdog and can hold their government accountable.
        Mr. Yoho. Which countries are you talking about?
        Ms. Lynch. I think we are seeing some of these successes in
    all of the Northern Triangle countries, whereby with our U.S.
    Central America strategy, they proposed a similar strategy, the
    Alliance for Prosperity, which aligns very well with ours.
        Mr. Yoho. Are we seeing a decrease in crime, a decrease in
    migration to our country?
        Ms. Lynch. Honduras is a good example, again, where we work
    very closely with the interagency and with the Government of
    Honduras. In one area, the Riviera area of San Pedro Sula is a
    good example where INL works on the law enforcement side, we
    work on citizen security side, and, together, yes, we have seen
    in past years the homicides reduced by over 60 percent there.
    So that is----
        Mr. Yoho. I am out of time. I wish we had more time to talk
    to you. I appreciate both you being here. I hate to be so
    abrupt, but limited time. I would like to talk to you further.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Lois Frankel of Florida.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First, I want to thank both our witnesses for being here,
    and thank you so much for your service. And, please, my
    comments are not really directed at you, and I have a lot of
    respect for what USAID does and the development that the State
    Department takes part in.
        So, first, I want to start with, I guess, sometimes I think
    I am just living totally in a bad episode of ``Saturday Night
    Live.'' I happen to represent beautiful Palm Beach, where Mar-
    a-Lago sits. And very interesting: Donald Trump asked
    permission to hire 78 foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago for the
    season. Doesn't he think there were American workers who could
    take those jobs? Oh, well. I thought that was very interesting.
        Anyway, on to another point which I think is actually much
    more important, which is the fact that we are witnessing what I
    call a Trump-induced crisis at our Mexican border. We have
    heard many people comment on this, but I am going to say it
    again, because until these families are united I am not going
    to shut up about this.
        Mothers and fathers who are seeking refuge from extreme
    danger and persecution, they finally think they come for
    refuge, and what do they do? They get to our border and this
    government steals their children right out of their arms.
        And you know what is happening now? Our government is so
    incompetent and so uncaring that they can't even match up most
    of these children. This is going to be a dark stain on this
    country, with what is going on here.
        I went to the border a couple weeks ago with some other
    Members. And look, I am the granddaughter of an immigrant.
    Probably everybody here is either the granddaughter or the
    grandson of an immigrant, right? And what I saw was
    heartbreaking.
        And I am just going to talk about meeting with the mothers,
    listening to their excruciating crying because their children
    were taken from them, they hadn't seen them, didn't know where
    they were. And one woman told me that she was told she was
    going to go to court for 48 hours, and then it is a month later
    and she didn't even know where her child was.
        The other day, I had a little roundtable at the Guatemala
    center where I live. And they do wonderful work there. And I
    heard from a young woman who told me that her cousin came over,
    fleeing from gangs and violence in Guatemala, got to the border
    with her 10-year-old son. The 10-year-old son is now in
    Homestead, in Florida, and guess where the mother is? She was
    deported back to Guatemala.
        Now, I just got a little--you know, it is a good thing you
    get these little alerts from your phone. This is what is
    happening now. Listen to this one. One mother had waited 4
    months to wrap her arms around her little boy. Another had
    waited 3 months to see her little girl again. And when it
    finally happened Tuesday in Phoenix, the mothers were met with
    cries of rejection from their children. The children didn't
    even recognize the mothers. They were screaming for the
    caseworkers.
        And what I heard yesterday at this roundtable from child
    professionals, psychologists, was the trauma that these
    children--toxic trauma that these children are experiencing.
    Well, we can see that right now. Could you imagine? They don't
    even know who their parents are.
        So here is what I want to say. I mean, a lot of the
    questions I was going to ask have been asked and answered. I
    want to thank you for that. But I think there is no question--
    and I want to say this--building a wall is not going to solve
    the problem. Separating children inhumanely from their parents
    is not going to solve this problem. We have got to get into
    these countries and do the work.
        And I just saw that there is a proposal now to cut $180
    million in funding for Central America. To me, that is just
    dumb, all right? That is really dumb.
        I don't have to ask you what you think about it. You are
    good people. I am not going to force you to answer that.
        But, Mr. Chair, I just want to conclude by saying that we
    have to step up our efforts to try to get to the root causes.
    And we need immigration reform that the Congress is responsible
    for, and we should do that as soon as we can.
        And thank you for patiently being here with us today.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel.
        We go now to Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is an important hearing. And I am sure there are other
    hearings where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can
    discuss their desire to abolish ICE, but this is very important
    issues on the Western Hemisphere.
        With a lot of the issues we are seeing on the border, I
    think it drives home the importance of motivating people to fix
    their own countries and live in a better situation. If you look
    at our friends in Colombia, for instance, they went through
    decades of very difficult times and, with a little help from
    the United States and a lot of desire from their internal
    community, have really been able to not only just overcome
    their problems but also be a refuge for people in tough areas
    like Venezuela.
        That is a good example of how we should be handling this
    issue so that the issue on the southern border does not
    continue to haunt us, and, frankly, we don't have to abolish
    ICE in the process as some of my friends want.
        Since September 11th, our security focus has been primarily
    geared toward the Middle East, where we have spent the past 17
    years combating Islamic extremism. And, during these years,
    many of our neighboring countries have faced political and
    economic instability and domestic insecurity. As a result of
    this instability and insecurity, thousands of people have
    migrated north and have arrived at our doorstep.
        And, as I have mentioned before, I have worked with ICE, as
    a member of the Air National Guard, as well as Customs and
    Border Protection officers on our southwest border, and I know
    firsthand how those insecurities not only affect our Nation's
    security but also how they endanger the lives of those
    traveling north in search of freedom. And that is why it is
    imperative we regain focus on our own hemisphere.
        And I believe if we can establish a more stable and secure
    Western Hemisphere we can usher in an era of prosperity that
    has never been seen before. And I would like to briefly touch
    on a few of those countries.
        We have talked a lot about Venezuela. It has been the
    problem child of our region for the past two decades. In May,
    we watched as the corrupt Maduro regime swept the country's
    Presidential election, which had been called fraudulent by the
    U.S. and our global partners.
        Last Congress, I introduced legislation that passed in the
    NDAA and would enhance the State Department's capabilities
    through the Global Engagement Center to identify and respond to
    propaganda and disinformation.
        So, Mr. Merten, given Venezuela's prosecution of political
    opponents and restriction of freedom of expression, can the GEC
    be used to amplify peaceful protests while highlighting the
    mass human rights abuses occurring in Venezuela? And what other
    tools do you have to handle that?
        Ambassador Merten. Thanks so much for the question.
        We have not been at all shy about calling out the
    Venezuelans and drawing attention to their abuse of the
    regime's abuse of its own people. And we have done that in
    various fora, not least in the Organization of American States.
    And just at the recent summit here in Washington at the OAS, we
    were able to get an unprecedented resolution in support of
    members of the OAS condemning Venezuela and putting them on a
    path to, perhaps, eventual suspension from that organization.
        Again, we will not be shy. We have used targeted sanctions
    to focus on those people who are responsible for tormenting the
    Venezuelan people and----
        Mr. Kinzinger. Can you answer, though, specifically about
    if you see a role for the Global Engagement Center in this
    area?
        Ambassador Merten. I am not an expert in that particular
    thing, and I will be happy to take that back and get you an
    answer on that.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And when you talk about what has been done
    in OAS, can you talk about the benefits of removing Venezuela
    from the OAS that you see?
        Ambassador Merten. We have discussed that, as I said, in
    the resolution, that was passed by unprecedented support of
    countries representing over 90 percent of the population of the
    hemisphere, that puts us on a path to consider suspending
    Venezuela from the OAS.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And after Argentina's economic collapse in
    2001, we saw anti-American administrations, led by populist
    regimes, drive the country in and out of economic despair.
    However, in 2015, under the new leadership of a pro-West, pro-
    business President, the Argentinian Government settled their
    debts and opened Latin America's third-largest economy for
    business. There is still a lot of work to do, specifically in
    helping the country's poor and combating a growing
    narcotrafficking network, but Argentina is showing a lot of
    promise.
        Supporting governments in Latin America that shun socialist
    and repressive policies and support Western values should be
    one of our top priorities. But what concerns me is that, in the
    past, Argentina has clawed out of an economic collapse only to
    spend more money than they are able to collect through taxes
    and trade, resulting in new depressions.
        So does State or USAID have any programs geared toward
    economic growth or making that government more efficient in how
    they spend their money?
        Ambassador Merten. Well Argentina has a relatively new
    President that we have engaged with, and we are very supportive
    of his market-oriented reforms.
        I think, in our analysis, that, absent reforms generated
    from inside the country, that realizing their own shortcomings
    in previous legislation and mistakes that they have made in the
    past is the way that they are going to find the proper way
    forward. So we are very optimistic about their approach to
    resolving their own problems.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you both for your testimony today.
        Many Americans and many around the world have been shocked
    by the Trump administration's use of family separation,
    separating young kids from their parents, as a deterrent--what
    the administration would consider a deterrent to having people
    attempt to come here, including those who are seeking asylum,
    legally, to the United States.
        And a few weeks ago now, I was one of the Members of
    Congress who went down and visited two of the centers who are
    keeping these kids. One of them is what is called a tender-age
    shelter, and it is called Casa Presidente in Brownsville,
    Texas. And myself and Sheila Jackson-Lee and a few others held
    an 8-month-old named Roger who had been separated from his
    family, and the staff told us they believed that he came with
    his sister because his mother had died. There was a 1-year-old
    girl named Leah who was also in the room with us.
        What role does the State Department play in the
    reunification of these young children?
        Ambassador Merten. Sir, thanks for the question.
        And as I believe I have said in earlier questions similar
    to this, we work in countries with our host governments, we
    work in places like Central America to try and eliminate the
    root causes of this. In terms of----
        Mr. Castro. Well, but I mean specifically when parents--
    some of these parents have been deported now. Is the State
    Department involved, if they are back in the Northern Triangle
    countries, in trying to get their kids back? Is the State
    Department involved at all? Because HHS is not in Guatemala or
    Honduras or El Salvador.
        Ambassador Merten. I will be honest with you, I am not sure
    that our consular officials are involved in that process. I can
    take that back and get you a clearer answer on that, but I am
    unaware of that.
        Mr. Castro. I hope that you will. And I will submit my
    question for the record, because I would like to know if the
    State Department that deals with other nations and, of course,
    our domestic agencies here, whether they can represent to the
    American people that none of these children has died or been
    severely injured while in the custody of the United States
    Government. That is my question.
        I would also like to echo the comments by Ranking Member
    Engel and also my colleague Congresswoman Torres about CICIG
    and the work that it is doing to fight corruption in Guatemala.
    And although I think it is fair to always be critical of any
    organization and take a critical look, I think it is important,
    when we think about helping these countries get back on their
    feet, to make sure that we have an organization that is trying
    to root out corruption and really restore the rule of law.
        Let me ask you this, because Congressman Kinzinger spoke a
    minute ago about making sure that countries fix the things that
    are wrong with themselves. And I agree. I think that the best
    antidote to having many people want to come to the United
    States who are undocumented is to make sure that the
    economies--to work with the nations to the south to make sure
    that the economies there are strong.
        But let me ask you, if you are Mexico and there is the
    United States and an incredible demand for drugs coming from
    the United States, what strategy is going to be successful to
    completely root out the trafficking of drugs to the United
    States, where you have a huge demand for it?
        And because Mexico is not Colombia, which, obviously, is in
    South America, but has basically got a 2,000-mile border with
    the United States, so, in other words, geographically, it is a
    central country for drug trafficking routes, how do they combat
    that?
        Ambassador Merten. This is not exactly an area that I have
    expertise in the terms of domestic demand. My understanding is
    that the administration is putting together policies to look at
    fentanyl and look at ways that we can reduce people's use of
    these drugs.
        In terms of working with other countries, which is where we
    operate, the State Department, we have excellent cooperation
    with Mexico and with other countries in the region, including
    Colombia, to work with them, to reduce the amount of these
    things that they produce, that they prosecute those who are
    responsible. As I mentioned earlier, we have this working group
    with the Mexicans on combating and Central Americans combating
    transnational criminal organizations. This is ongoing work. It
    is important work, and we believe we are hopeful that it will
    ultimately be successful.
        Mr. Castro. And my last comment, and the reason I pose that
    question is because as we try to help them figure this out, I
    think for them, if you are a relatively poor nation where the
    rule of law is not what it should be and there is incredible
    corruption, and you have got people who are not making much
    money, very poor who are basically tempted to go into the drug
    trade, or be part of the drug trade, and there is an incredible
    demand right up north for those drugs, the challenge of rooting
    that out is gigantic. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Garrett, Tom Garrett, Virginia.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    witnesses. I want to ask a series of very brief questions
    because I have a finite amount of time. I want to start with
    your understanding of the nature of the hearing today. The
    hearing that I was briefed on was entitled, ``Advancing U.S.
    Interests in the Western Hemisphere.'' Is that your
    understanding, as well?
        Ambassador Merten. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Garrett. And you all are from the U.S. Department of
    State, correct?
        Ambassador Merten. [No verbal response.]
        Mr. Garrett. And yet it seems about half the room is
    focused primarily almost exclusively on separations at the
    border. Is that correct?
        Ambassador Merten. We have got a lot of questions on that.
        Mr. Garrett. A lot of questions on that. And so, in the
    Department of State, do you all have oversight of HHS?
        Ambassador Merten. We do not.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. Do you have oversight of DHS?
        Ambassador Merten. We do not.
        Mr. Garrett. How about USCIS?
        Ambassador Merten. No.
        Mr. Garrett. How about USCBP?
        Ambassador Merten. We do not.
        Mr. Garrett. How about Customs and Border Patrol--I'm
    sorry, how about ICE?
        Ambassador Merten. We do not.
        Mr. Garrett. So none of those are within your purview and
    yet, you have ``gotten a lot of questions on that subject
    matter.'' It is amazing to me how well some people talk off of
    talking points. In fact, right now, the number of people under
    the age of 5 who we think are separated from their families is
    just over 100, and yet quite candidly, just off of the
    preplanned talking points, we have covered about 14 percent of
    their cases in this committee hearing today. That is amazing.
        But what we have covered zero percent of, and pardon me
    while I go on a little bit of a discourse here, are the roughly
    4,000 Americans killed every year by unlicensed drivers who are
    here illegally. In other words, mathematically speaking, and we
    can't quantify these numbers because while we know about 13
    percent of all highway fatalities nationally are caused by
    people who are here illegally, we don't quantify fatalities
    specifically by immigration status, however, what we do know is
    in the 10 States where you are licensed to drive, regardless of
    your legal status, Maryland, California, et cetera, the number
    of highway deaths caused by people here illegally is closer to
    14.5 percent.
        And so I guess if we looked at the numbers and we compared
    the number of people who are under the age of 5 who we think
    are currently separated from their families, there would be
    about 40 Americans permanently separated from their families
    every single year for every one of them, but nobody has talked
    about that. And you all from the State Department and again, my
    condolences and gratefulness for you being here, but we have
    just determined, and I wish that I had gone earlier in the
    hearing because maybe we could have saved some time, that you
    are not responsible for HHS, DHS, USCIS, USCBP or ICE, which a
    lot of my friends across the aisle seem to want to abolish.
        So I apologize vicariously for the waste of your time, and
    I want to cover another thing real quickly that might be
    further within your purview. My good and distinguished
    colleagues and friends across the aisle to include Mr. Meeks,
    Mr. Keating, Mr. Engel, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Bass, and Ms. Frankel
    all have talked about horrific occurrences of gang violence in
    Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador and Mexico, and it
    really gives me pause because I don't think that everyone in
    these countries are violent gang members, do you all, based on
    your experience? The Northern Triangle has lots of good people,
    right? They are not all gang members, right?
        Ambassador Merten. Of course.
        Mr. Garrett. And yet, we have heard horrible stories, in
    fact, we heard about Jose and Brian, whose mom was raped and
    murdered, and they came to this country because they were
    afraid, and I quote, ``the same thing might happen to them.''
    But all people in those countries, they are not bad people,
    right?
        Ambassador Merten. [No verbal response.]
        Mr. Garrett. There are some gang members in those
    countries, right? And some of the people who are there are good
    people, right? Likewise, what we haven't heard of is that any
    gang members might ever leave those countries and come here.
    Now I understand it is somewhat beyond the scope and purview of
    the responsibilities of the Department of State, but do we have
    reason to believe that some of the people who might come into
    this country illegally could also be gang members? Could that
    be? I mean, mathematically speaking, just give me a wild guess.
        Ambassador Merten. I mean, I don't think--certainly, we at
    the State Department don't know.
        Mr. Garrett. Do you think it is possible? I mean, you have
    risen to the level of Ambassador. I am just asking you to
    posit.
        Ambassador Merten. I mean, in the realm of possibility, a
    lot of things are possible.
        Mr. Garrett. Right. Okay. And we have heard that a wall is
    not the solution, but just like a door being closed and locked
    might prevent someone from coming in a room, but doesn't always
    prevent someone from coming in a room, it might also be part of
    a solution while it is not panacea.
        So I continue that it is remarkable to see this concern for
    these just over 100 people under the age of 5, but not within
    the purview of the Department of State, nor the scope of
    identifying and addressing, let me see, U.S. interests in the
    Western Hemisphere. What is it that you would like to have been
    asked about today very quickly that you haven't been asked
    about because nobody in this room seems to want to talk about
    the subject matter and why you are here, Mr. Merten,
    Ambassador.
        Ambassador Merten. Sir, I think the questions we have got
    today are relevant to----
        Mr. Garrett. What is it that you would have like to have
    been asked about, what question would you like me to ask you?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, I would like you to ask me about
    the situation in Haiti, that I know reasonably well.
        Mr. Garrett. Outstanding. I have got 20 seconds. Please go
    over the situation in Haiti, and I apologize for having been
    distracted there. People are running for election. They have
    got goals here, things they want to do.
        Ambassador Merten. Sure. Very quickly, we are very
    disturbed by the recent unrest in Haiti. We are happy to see
    that the Haitian police and the Haitian Government have been
    able to reclaim control of the streets. We hope that the
    Haitian Government continues to work to pacify the situation,
    the political situation in the country. And in Haiti, we really
    see that the answer to why people are out on the streets upset
    rioting is because there is a lack of economic opportunity. And
    this is something we drive home with them at every possible
    opportunity, they need to attract investors who want to come to
    Haiti, and there are investors who want to come to Haiti, and I
    will leave it there.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you so much, Ambassador. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We appreciate the State Department. Myself
    and another colleague here was on the phone over the weekend
    with the situation room there dealing with some of our
    constituents who were in harm's way in Haiti, and we appreciate
    the State Department's efforts to get that resolved. And we
    also, Ambassador, appreciate very much your expertise in Haiti
    and all the time you spent there.
        We are going to go to Robin Kelly of Illinois.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hope you don't find
    my question a waste of time, but thank you for being here, and
    I would just say there is a lot of things--a lot of ways people
    get killed that we don't talk about here, like gun violence
    prevention. I just had to say that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important as we hold
    these hearings to remember the young families who are escaping
    violence in Latin America and traveling to the land of
    opportunity. A young 14-year old girl from El Salvador
    identified by her initials, VFB, arrived in the United States
    in May with her mother fleeing violence after her stepfather
    was murdered in a church. The two of them fled to save their
    lives.
        At the time of their arrival, our government announced the
    implementation of a zero tolerance policy. As we watched the
    consequences of this policy unfold, we saw thousands of
    children, as we have talked about, being separated from their
    parents, and she being one of them. Believing that she was
    being taken to give a bath, VFB was instead being lured away
    from her mom, not aware that she would not see her mom again.
        After being transferred to a shelter in Connecticut, the
    girl's mother remained detained in Encino, Texas. Finally,
    after 39 days, the young lady could hear the comfort of her
    mother's voice when she was finally allowed a 10-minute phone
    call. And now in July, VFB and her mother are still separated.
    We must get to the root problems that are causing increased
    migration with families giving up everything for the chance of
    a better life, just like you talked about what we need to do in
    Haiti. The United States must do more to push for change on the
    ground in these countries. That is why I was so disappointed by
    the State Department's decision last year surrounding the
    Honduran election.
        In November, the State Department chose to certify
    Honduras' conditional funding, meaning you provided the
    Honduran Government with direct U.S. funding just days after a
    disputed election with the Organization of American State
    Secretary General Luis Almagro eventually concluded was
    characterized by irregularities and deficiencies with very low
    technical quality and lacking integrity. President Hernandez
    said he would move forward with electoral reform, yet he has
    done very little to date. In the past, he has also said he
    would remove the military police on the streets, yet there is
    still no timeline to do so.
        What is the State Department doing to pressure the Honduran
    Government to make electoral reforms and to take the military
    police off the streets? And also, what leverage do you have
    given how quickly you certified the Honduran Government after
    its disputed election? Thank you.
        Ambassador Merten. On the Honduran certification, my
    understanding is that that is a process that takes some time to
    do. I know we do certifications for Haiti and other countries.
    The determination was made in our--in the building in the State
    Department, ultimately by the Secretary of State, that they had
    met the criteria for certification, and that is why we
    recommended that.
        Ms. Kelly. Can you share some of the criteria that they----
        Ambassador Merten. I can't speak to the exact criteria for
    Honduras. That is not an area I work with on a daily or weekly
    basis. Regarding the idea of military servicing as police, it
    is unfortunate, like you see in many countries in the
    hemisphere, where military perform police functions. In
    general, our view is that is not a good thing, that there is a
    role for military and there is role for police, and we believe
    that those two should be separated.
        Ms. Kelly. And do you know if there is a timeline to do
    something about the police on--or the military on the street?
        Ambassador Merten. I don't know that there is a timeline
    no, ma'am, sorry.
        Ms. Kelly. And also, is there a general certification
    criteria, or is this something different for every----
        Ambassador Merten. My understanding is that for every
    country there are--and maybe this is something you can speak
    to--there are different criteria that are established, usually
    by the appropriators.
        Ms. Lynch. Yes, and we can get the specific criteria for
    you, if you would like.
        Ms. Kelly. I would appreciate that.
        Ms. Lynch. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kelly. Believe it or not, I yield back early.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Paul Cook from
    California.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize for
    being late to the committee. I had a markup in Natural
    Resources. I want to thank you for being here today.
        Ms. Lynch, it is good to see you again. Our committee had
    nine members that went to the Summit of the Americas, and you
    spent a lot of time with us, and I am really, really impressed
    with what you are doing in many of the countries, and also saw
    some of your work in Egypt. So thank you for being here.
        My questions, Mr. Ambassador, I did want to address the
    Peruvian agrarian bonds, and this is something that has been
    bouncing around for a while. It affects San Bernardino County.
    This is to resolve the claims of many of my constituents. These
    are land bonds as they are known in the--they have been
    floating around for long years, and directly affected many of
    the pension plans in San Bernardino.
        The role of the government right now is they don't want to
    address it. They think that this happened 50 years ago, and
    that this was under a different regime, and they are not--they
    just don't want to address it. And I keep pushing it on them,
    and I get some pushback. So I am hoping you can kind of help me
    out with that. Are you familiar with it at all?
        Ambassador Merten. I am generally familiar with the case,
    yes, not with the specifics, however.
        Mr. Cook. Okay. The other thing I wanted to talk about,
    when we were down there, we had a weekend trip, as I said it
    was a great codel. It was short-lived. It was only a weekend
    basically, a Friday and came back on a Monday, and we met with
    21 countries. And I got to be honest with you, I came back just
    exhausted, but never learned so much in my life.
        But one of the things on the tail end of it, we met with
    nine of the Caribbean countries. And you hear the same theme
    over and over and over again, that the United States has kind
    of forgotten or ignored the Western Hemisphere, same thing. And
    even more so, in the Caribbean, and even more so with some of
    these smaller countries. And it is no wonder that some of the
    very small ones, and not just Caribbean countries, they are
    susceptible to some of the economic manipulations that the
    Venezuelan Government is making in returns for rebates on oil,
    and this is going to be a continuing problem. And you have to
    do the math in regards to the OAS. Each one of these countries
    has one vote, same as the United States. You add them together,
    and whatever changes you want to do in the OAS that is going to
    affect it, it ain't gonna happen. At least, I am not very good
    at math. I am not very good in a lot of things, but something
    we have got to talk to these countries in the Caribbean.
        One of the big concerns, hurricanes coming. Every year, we
    are going to have a hurricane, we are going to have one, two,
    three, four, five, and here we go again trying to get aid down
    there, whether it is--Puerto Rico isn't a country, it is a
    territory, as you know.
        But here we go again. Now I am from the military. I know
    how successful prepositioning equipment is, and we had talked
    about this prepositioning many of these supplies, have command
    post exercises where we go through the drill when it happens,
    whether it is in our own southern states or in the Caribbean,
    so we don't start from scratch like this because we know it is
    going to happen. So I would hope that we agendasize that, and I
    think my staff has kind of mentioned that to you, that this was
    a big, big issue with our committee, and just don't--we are
    going to keep pushing that at all.
        The other thing I wanted to just to ask you in terms of--I
    know that Secretary Pompeo is interested in Mexico and
    everything else, but do you get that same feeling that, Hey, we
    got to--we have to start paying more and more attention because
    there is a lot of countries down there. We have got China, we
    got Iran. Ambassador, I didn't mean to talk so much, but if you
    can kind of address that absence of attention to the area.
        Ambassador Merten. Yes, thanks for your comment and
    question, sir. I would respectfully disagree that we have been
    neglectful of our neighbors in the hemisphere. We have a whole
    bureau of people that work on a daily basis with this. USAID
    has large bureau that works with them on a daily basis. We have
    had the Vice-President who has traveled to the region several
    times already. We have, regarding the Caribbean, H.R. 4939,
    which has been the guiding light.
        Mr. Cook. I don't mean to cut you off, but the chairman is
    going cut me off anyway. The only thing I want to say is
    perception is reality.
        Ambassador Merten. Understood.
        Mr. Cook. And if you poll those countries down there, their
    perception is they have been ignored, and that is all I am
    going to say there, and I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congressman Cook. We go to Dina
    Titus of Nevada.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to have to
    agree with Mr. Cook. I appreciate your optimism, Mr. Merten.
    You have said it in your opening statement, and now that we
    have these great bonds and that nothing is more important than
    our relationship down there, but actually, history tells a very
    different story. Our relations with Latin America over the
    years, at best, have been benign neglect, and at worst have
    been shoring up either with troops or resources, governments
    that practice state terrorism. Now we are ripping children from
    the arms of their parents, and current policy is so bad and
    relations so abominable that the OAS recently unanimously
    passed a resolution condemning our behavior. So I don't really
    think that is anything to brag about.
        I would go back to something, though, that was discussed
    hours ago, you brought it up, Ms. Lynch, that we have a policy
    that tends toward self-sufficiency, but there are other players
    in the region who have a policy that is more about dependency.
    This worries me because I have seen it all over the world. We
    have seen it in Southeast Asia, we see it in Africa. We see it
    in Eastern Europe. The U.S. pulls back. We create a power
    vacuum. In moves Russia. In moves China. And now, certainly,
    there are examples of that in Latin America. We heard about the
    tanks that Russia is selling in Latin America. We know that
    they are increasingly meddling politically and economically
    through propaganda. I wonder, have you asked the President if
    he is going to bring this up with Mr. Putin when he meets with
    him next week, that this could be causing a problem, the tanks
    and the other activities? They have supplied global navigation
    satellite system in Managua. They have got a joint
    counternarcotics center there. I mean, they are moving in when
    we are not doing much.
        Also, let's be specific about China. Latin America is now
    their second largest destination for Chinese investment, and
    they are the largest trading partner for Argentina Brazil,
    Chile, and Peru, so this is not something minor. They are
    putting $2 billion into the ports in Peru as part of a $10
    billion Chinese investment in energy, mining, and shipping, and
    telecommunications. So even if it is creating dependency when
    they are offering those kind of things, it is kind of hard for
    us to compete with it or counter it with the policy as you
    described, Mr. Merten, of telling them it is not a good idea to
    do this in the long run. Well, they are interested in the short
    run.
        So I would say, in addition to having talked to the
    President about Russia's involvement, how can we possibly
    compete when we have a diminishing budget at USAID, they want
    to cut that back all the time. It is already very small. We
    have got kind of a demoralized, understaffed State Department.
    You have got a President who insults our allies. You have got a
    policy of zero tolerance at the border. How can we compete with
    the competition down there to build those strong relations that
    we need?
        Ambassador Merten. Well, I do think we do have strong
    relations, and we have a history of engagement, we have a
    history of shared values with all the countries in the
    hemisphere, and particularly, our close neighbors Canada,
    Mexico, Caribbean countries. We have diaspora communities here
    in this country who contribute to our national well-being.
        So I think that we have a lot to offer. We also have aside
    from all the good things that our colleagues at USAID are doing
    throughout the hemisphere and our colleagues from the state INL
    are doing, we also have a very vibrant private sector, and I
    think that while our private sector does well exporting and
    trading with Latin America, we also have a lot of investment
    there. And I think that is a good vector of bringing economic
    opportunity, and hopefully, hope to these places.
        Ms. Titus. Well, I agree with that, and I think the USAID
    does a wonderful job. I think they are one of the best
    agencies. We get more from them by giving them less than any
    agency I can think of, but as far as the commercial aspect, we
    are not even being very helpful there because the one party in
    this Congress doesn't even support the Export-Import Bank,
    which would help with some of the investment there. So I just--
    on what front are we really being successful? And I know you
    have to answer that in a positive way, and I appreciate that,
    and I would like to be optimistic, too, but I think we need to
    be realistic, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Mr. Chris Smith of New
    Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
    make clear for the record that after being unjustly jailed for
    3 years, Igor Bitkov and his wife Irina, who spent 3 months
    unjustly jailed, and their daughter Anastasia, another 3 months
    for being unjustly jailed, Igor got out on bail, but they were
    told they are not free. They are under house arrest. I just
    confirmed it again within the last couple of minutes with their
    attorney that they are under house arrest. Significantly, on
    May 23--and I mentioned earlier before in terms of the
    chronology--2 days before my hearing, which was in this room,
    the court ruled and allowed them out of jail. That was the
    constitutional court.
        That wasn't enough for CICIG however. On May 23, CICIG went
    back to the constitutional court--yet another action against
    the Bitkovs.
        Chairman Royce. This would be the third time.
        Mr. Smith. Yes. And so there is a pattern, I think, here.
    On June 21, the constitutional court, in contrast to its
    previous decisions, exonerated the Bitkovs under the Palermo
    Protocol. I remind my colleagues that under Palermo--I mean, we
    are talking about migrants, these are asylum seekers, a family
    that was escaping the impunity of Vladimir Putin and his
    cronies. Article 5 makes clear that migrants shall not become
    liable to criminal prosecution under the protocol for the fact
    of having been the object of conduct set forth in Article 6 of
    the protocol. And then it is clearly pointed out that producing
    a fraudulent travel or identity document procuring or providing
    or possessing such a document. So the Palermo Protocol couldn't
    be clearer, and anyone who doubts that they were escaping a
    tyrannical action against them just look at the record, it
    couldn't be more clear.
        So the constitutional court now has allowed a CICIG action
    because the Bitkovs got false drivers' licenses and credit
    cards. Again, they wanted to change their identity. We have
    witness protection in this country when someone wants to change
    their identity in order to escape the mob or the Mafia, in this
    case the Russian Mafia, and now they are bringing another
    action. And what is it--I want to ask with respect, what is the
    driving force behind CICIG after first being part of an action
    that got 19 years for Igor, 14 years in prison for his wife,
    and 14 years in prison for their daughter? I mean, that is what
    the judge found. That is what the court found. What is the
    driving obsession here? When you say there has been an
    investigation and you found no evidence, how deep was that
    investigation? How much was looked into the Russian connection
    here?
        We know for a fact that thousands of businesswomen and men
    in Russia routinely have their businesses taken away from them.
    I cut my eye teeth on Russian human rights issues in 1982 in my
    first term on a trip to the Soviet Union on behalf of Soviet
    Refusniks--Jews who wanted to emigrate--including people like
    Yuli Koshirovsky, great people, who then had all these false
    charges brought against them and often were sent to psychiatric
    prisons, or places like Perm Camp 35. I actually visited Perm
    Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains just a few years later, and heard
    horror tales of men who had been taken and tortured by the
    Russians, in that case the Soviets, but now we have a
    continuation of that, and again, the Russians went looking for
    the Bitkovs, took them several years, and then they found them,
    and had a willing partner called CICIG to join in the efforts.
    It is all laid out in nauseating detail unfortunately, and yet,
    there are people who suggest that this is an overreach on our
    part trying to raise these issues.
        And I said it before, Bill Browder--he is the subject of
    unrelenting attacks by the Russian Government, unrelenting. I
    was in a bilateral at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly as head
    of the United States delegation these last 5 days in Germany,
    and at that meeting that was chaired by Pyotr Tolstoy from the
    Russian side from the Duma was some of the people who had been
    held to account under the Magnitsky Act in terms of their
    wrongdoing. They were sitting right at the table and took great
    umbrage of the Magnitsky Act. They don't like it. We believe in
    sanctions. We believe in personalizing them as a way of really
    trying to inhibit bad behavior and hold to account. But now we
    have a situation where a family, who is at grave risk in my
    opinion--their physical safety is my overriding concern. I want
    to keep them out of prison because I think they have done no
    wrong. They have done what any of us would do for our families
    if a gangster group came after us, and certainly changing a
    passport to a new name, certainly having a driver's license
    with a different name, and now CICIG is going after them
    because of their driver's license. It begs credulity. It is
    beyond the pale as to why. Can you tell us why?
        Ambassador Merten. Sir, I can't speak to the
    particularities of how CICIG works internally. I will say in
    terms of beyond what I told you about the Bitkovs before, our
    Embassy has engaged with the Guatemalan Government. We have got
    assurances from them that they will not send the Bitkovs back
    to Russia.
        Chairman Royce. If I could interrupt, would the gentleman
    yield?
        Mr. Smith. There is no extradition.
        Chairman Royce. How about the son? Since the Russian banks
    are now asking that the young son, who is maybe under 3 years
    of age, be returned from Guatemala to Russia, do you have
    assurances of that, too?
        Ambassador Merten. I hate to admit this, but you have
    exhausted my expertise in this subject, and rather than mislead
    you, I would rather get back to you.
        Chairman Royce. If the gentleman would yield, Ambassador, I
    would suggest in a situation where you are looking at, in
    sentences of 17 years, 14 years for the wife, 14 years for the
    daughter, who had been, after the bank tried to--after certain
    individuals in the bank tried to take control of the company,
    had been abducted and raped in St. Petersburg for 3 days, for
    her to get 14 years, for the younger son to be in a situation
    where the Russian Government is trying to have him returned to
    Russia, and given the past pattern of behavior, you would have
    to ask yourself when these sentences are longer than sentences
    for drug trafficking, for murder, for even terrorism in
    country, there is something a little unusual about the
    particulars of this case, and that is why, when I said earlier,
    we are going to work with U.S. U.N. on investigations here in
    terms of this set of circumstances, it is, I think, incumbent
    upon all of us to dig a little deeper and get a little bit more
    understanding of this case.
        And I would ask you to do that and then get back in touch
    with Chairman Smith and myself and other members of this
    committee that are interested because at the end of the day,
    our goal is to have CICIG work effectively. They are in an
    environment where they are taking on corruption. But the one
    thing you and I know is that the Russians try to influence the
    outcome in any case where they go after anyone who tries to
    flee their government's control. And if you ask yourself how
    far will they go, apparently poison by radiation is not out of
    bounds. We know of two cases where that was done in the U.K.
        So when you have an arm of the state, a state bank bringing
    a case in Guatemala after bringing a case where they had
    previously--anyway, I have exhausted our time, but I think
    Chairman Smith made the point, and I would just reiterate it.
        At the end of the day, we want CICIG to be effective. For
    that to happen, we need the reforms in place, but again--and I
    see Mr. Cook here. Were you seeking time?
        Mr. Cook. I came back in because we are planning a trip, as
    part of my committee, to Guatemala, and obviously this is a
    huge, huge issue. We are all concerned about it. I know Mrs.
    Torres, it is something that we are concerned and I share the
    chairman's feelings about Russia and their history, and, so,
    this is something that is not going to go away and obviously
    this is going to be our top agenda when we go down there. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Smith. If I can just conclude, Mr. Chairman, and I
    thank you for----
        Chairman Royce. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. Your comments. To the Bitkovs, they
    live with the Sword of Damocles hanging over their head every
    single day. I mean, they have got very poor treatment in
    prison. They had a huge, huge SWAT-like team take them to
    prison in the first place, totally beyond all reason. And what
    that has done--especially to Anastasia, who was abducted, and
    this is the way the Russian oligarchy, the Russian leadership
    works. They go after businessmen and women who are successful
    to fleece them, and if you don't play ball, they set examples
    for certain people. To think that CICIG has anything to do with
    that absolutely undermines their mandate. Who doesn't want to
    get rid of corruption? Every single one of us. But if personnel
    is policy, which I think it is, and there are any corrupt
    people within the organization called CICIG, that needs to be
    weeded out and beyond that, not just weeded out--anyone who is
    complicit in any of this, that is why I have asked very
    specific questions about collusion, they need to be prosecuted.
    And no games. I thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Okay. With that we thank the witnesses for
    being with us today, and we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]