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

        A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC: THE STATE OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
       INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND GLOBAL
                            CORPORATE SOCIAL IMPACT

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 10, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-6

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                               ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    43-773PDF              WASHINGTON : 2022

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    KAREN BASS, California               SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       DARRELL ISSA, California
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California                 LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             KEN BUCK, Colorado
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                MARK GREEN, Tennessee
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 GREG STEUBE, Florida
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    SARA JACOBS, California              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    KATHY MANNING, North Carolina        YOUNG KIM, California
    JIM COSTA, California                MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
    JUAN VARGAS, California              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              RON WRIGHT, Texas
    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                        Sophia Lafarfue, Staff Director

                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
                                     ------

    Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations
                       and Global Corporate Social Impact

                        JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas, Chairman

    SARA JACOBS, California              NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York,
    BRAD SHERMAN, California                 Ranking Member
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DARRELL ISSA, California
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 LEE ZELDIN, New York

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Shah, Rajiv J., President, Rockefeller Foundation, and Former
      Administrator, United States Agency For International
      Development....................................................     8
    Glick, Bonnie, Senior Advisor, Center For Strategic and
      International Studies, Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of
      Government, Institute of Politics, and Former Deputy
      Administrator and Chief Operating Officer, United States Agency
      for International Development..................................    16

                               ARTICLE SUBMITTED

    The Financial Times from the U.N. Economic Commission forAfrica,
      Vera Songwe....................................................    35

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    45
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    47
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    48

        A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC: THE STATE OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

                           Wednesday, March 10, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on International Development,
                 International Organizations and Global
                               Corporate Social Impact,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joaquin Castro
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Castro [presiding]. The Subcommittee on International
    Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate
    Social Impact will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone.
        Two things first. We have members that are coming back from
    a vote on a motion to adjourn. And also, we will try to raise
    the volume a little bit so we can hear the folks off the
    computer a little bit better.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here today for our
    hearing entitled, ``A Year into the Pandemic: The State of
    International Development.''
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any point, and all members will have
    5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions
    for the record, subject to the length limitation in the rules.
    To insert something into the record, please have your staff
    email the document to the previously mentioned address or
    contact our subcommittee staff.
        As a reminder to members, staff, and all others physically
    present in the room, per recent guidance from the Office of the
    Attending Physician, masks must be worn at all times during
    today's hearing, although sometimes we take them off when we
    are speaking, and then, put them back on. Please also sanitize
    your seating area. The chair views these measures as a safety
    issue, and therefore, an important matter of order and decorum
    for this proceeding.
        As a reminder to members joining remotely, please keep your
    video function on at all times, even when you are not
    recognized by the chair. Members are responsible for muting and
    unmuting themselves, and please remember to mute yourself after
    you finish speaking. Consistent with H.Res. 8 and the
    accompanying regulations, staff will only mute members and
    witnesses, as appropriate, when they are not under recognition
    to eliminate background noise.
        I see that we have a quorum, and I will now recognize
    myself for opening remarks.
        Thank you all for joining us today for this subcommittee's
    first hearing. I would like to thank Ranking Member Malliotakis
    and welcome all our subcommittee members, particularly members
    who are new to the Foreign Affairs Committee and to Congress.
    Our work will benefit from your unique perspectives and
    important contributions.
        It has been 1 year since the COVID-19 pandemic changed our
    lives. Since then, we have all seen the world, and our standing
    in it, disrupted in ways we could hardly once imagine. The
    pandemic has created new challenges and exposed old weaknesses
    in America's capabilities abroad.
        Our infrastructure for international development has been
    no exception to that. The United States contributions to global
    development, through USAID, the State Department, and our
    support for international organizations, such as the United
    Nations, as well as through the private sector, civil society,
    and the generosity of individual Americans, have all done
    incalculable good around the world. Now, however, these
    programs and institutions find themselves at a turning point.
    This hearing will serve to assess the damage, to identify
    developmental programs that may be at particular risk, and to
    chart a path toward rebuilding our Nation's development
    capacity.
        As we begin to see the end of the pandemic in sight, we
    expect some of our capacity to bounce back naturally, as our
    people return to work in person, both in Washington and around
    the world. However, we must also identify areas in which the
    damage the pandemic caused threatens to be permanent, and then,
    work to direct resources toward rebuilding more resilient
    development systems that can survive the known and unknown
    crises to come.
        This task is more important than ever. Rebuilding from
    COVID may well be as difficult and challenging as defeating the
    virus itself. Global poverty has risen for the first time in
    decades, and the pandemic's economic impact may last years in
    nations already suffering from high levels of inequality,
    instability, and underdevelopment.
        Our government's efforts to foster development must address
    not just the direct impacts of the pandemic, but its secondary
    and even tertiary effects. Congress has already taken an
    important first step. Today, we will pass the American Rescue
    Plan Act, a bill that will bring much-needed relief to the
    American people. The bill also includes important funding for
    development priorities that I and this committee have been
    calling for.
        That includes, for example, almost $10 billion for health
    programs, disaster relief, economic support, humanitarian
    assistance, multilateral assistance, and The Global Fund, an
    important international organization that has led the fight
    against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and now, COVID-19. This hearing
    will inform our subcommittee's oversight over these programs.
        It will also identify the long-term impacts of a pandemic,
    which I believe our Nation must lead in addressing. Early child
    development is one clear example of an issue that will have
    long-term consequences if we do not address it now. We know
    that the acute food insecurity faced by many children today
    will have a lifelong impact. Schools for nearly 170 million
    children have been closed for a year. Millions of children will
    never return to school, and most of them will be girls.
        The impact of this pandemic so early in the lives of
    millions at home and around the world will affect health,
    education, and economic incomes for their entire lives, unless
    action is taken now. These impacts will be borne by entire
    societies and, indeed, by the world.
        Our commitment to international development has always been
    bipartisan, particularly in Congress, where we successfully
    resisted cuts for the last 4 years. This bipartisanship will be
    essential for us to meet the challenges of this important
    moment.
        If nothing else, COVID-19 has made clear that what happens
    over there affects us over here. Weak health care systems or
    poverty and instability that fuel extremism can all too easily
    reach our shores.
        With these new challenges ahead of us, USAID must be
    willing to innovate and adapt to the very changed world we now
    inhabit. I have every faith that, with the proper resources and
    support, they will be up to the task.
        I solicit the courage of America's international
    development work force that is in the field every single day.
    They are a critically important part of advancing our national
    interests and defending our national security, serving their
    country often in remote locations and under difficult
    circumstances.
        Our challenge now is not only to defeat the pandemic
    everywhere, but also redouble our efforts to battle humanity's
    shared enemies--poverty, hunger, and disease--in partnership
    with peoples from around the world.
        So, there is a lot of ground to cover this morning, and I
    look forward to hearing from each of our distinguished
    witnesses.
        But, before that, I would like to turn it over to our
    Ranking Member Malliotakis for her opening remarks.
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Chairman Castro. It is an honor
    to serve as ranking member of this subcommittee. I look forward
    to working with you and the rest of the committee members to
    conduct important oversight of our development programs and the
    United States' engagement in international organizations.
        Over 2.5 million people around the world have died as a
    result of the COVID-19 pandemic. That includes over 500,000
    Americans. The pandemic has devastated communities and
    families, including many in my district. It has also had a
    crippling effect on food security, education systems, and
    global supply chains.
        The creation of this subcommittee comes at a pivotal time.
    To date, the United States has given $3.6 billion to help
    control the spread and mitigate the impacts of COVID-19, and
    there is another $10 billion on the way through the American
    Rescue Plan.
        Global efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 make us safer
    here at home, especially as variants begin to emerge. We must
    continue to invest in global health security and ensure other
    countries can detect and respond to global health threats
    before outbreaks become a pandemic and reach our shores.
        However, Americans here at home are struggling to pay their
    bills and feed their families. There is justified skepticism
    about our international spending with the immense needs here at
    home. We have an obligation to conduct rigorous oversight of
    U.S. foreign assistance and development programs. Every dollar
    of our aid must be targeted, strategic, and effective.
        Unfortunately, the House Foreign Affairs Committee did not
    have the opportunity to mark up and debate the $10 billion
    foreign affairs title in the American Rescue Plan. During the
    Rules Committee markup, I offered a common-sense amendment to
    transfer funding from The Global Health Fund to ensure vaccines
    are available for all our diplomats and developmental
    professionals. Effective development requires getting out in
    the field and monitoring programs. We simply cannot expect our
    diplomatic service to do their jobs overseas without urgent
    access to vaccines. I would appreciate hearing from our
    witnesses what more we should be doing to ensure the safety of
    our work force overseas.
        I am also particularly concerned about the impact of this
    pandemic on developing economies and international trade. The
    International Monetary Fund declared this crisis the worst
    economic fallout since the Great Depression. It is estimated
    that the pandemic has cost the global economy $11 trillion and
    global trade has declined 9.2 percent.
        Latin America and the Caribbean will experience the worst
    economic contraction in the region's history. These
    contractions not only hurt local communities, but they also
    impact United States businesses looking to invest in emerging
    markets. The world's fastest growing companies are located in
    the global south, and many of them were hard hit by this
    pandemic.
        USAID has done critical work over the last two decades to
    promote economic prosperity, build the capacity of trade
    partners, and create the environment for U.S. private sector
    investment. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to undermine these
    gains, as backsliding and food security, health and economic
    systems, and governance ultimately hurts the investment climate
    and acts to commercial markets. I would appreciate hearing from
    the witnesses on how our development programs can address these
    issues.
        Ultimately, foreign aid alone is not going to solve
    development challenges. Our development programs must be
    designed as partnerships, with the goal of creating stable,
    self-reliance communities that do not need foreign aid. That is
    why I support the important role of the U.S. private sector in
    building infrastructure, creating jobs, and advancing
    sustainable solutions to development challenges, both here and
    abroad.
        Finally, the U.S. is not the only country offering aid. The
    Chinese Communist Party, who actively sought to undermine early
    investigations into the COVID-19 outbreak, is leveraging this
    pandemic to project their power and influence. Through
    shipments of the Sinopharm vaccine, faulty PPE, and by holding
    the purse strings of countries' debt relief, the CCP is looking
    to expand their Belt and Road Initiative, and ultimately, their
    influence in foreign capitals.
        That is why USAID must ensure that this aid and our
    development programs are clearly branded as a gift from the
    American people. The United States is the most generous nation
    in the world, but we have a duty to the American taxpayer to
    ensure that our aid is targeted, strategic, and maximizing the
    positive impacts of every dollar we spend.
        Again, I look forward to listening to the witnesses, and I
    thank them for being here.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ranking Member Malliotakis.
        I will now introduce our distinguished witnesses for today.
    Our witnesses for today's hearing are Dr. Rajiv Shah, the
    president of the Rockefeller Foundation, and the former
    Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International
    Development, and Bonnie Glick, senior advisor at the Center for
    Strategic and International Studies, and fellow at the Harvard
    Kennedy School, who is also the former Deputy Administrator and
    Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Agency for International
    Development.
        I will now recognize each witness for 5 minutes. And
    without objection, your prepared written statements will be
    made part of the record.
        And I will first call on Dr. Shah for his testimony. I
    think perhaps you are on mute, Dr. Shah.

        STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV J. SHAH, PRESIDENT, ROCKEFELLER
    FOUNDATION, AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
                       INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

        Dr. Shah. Sorry, it seems I do that all day long.
        Thank you, Chairman Castro, for having me, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Malliotakis, for your opening statement and for
    having me as well.
        I see so many members of this subcommittee with whom I have
    had the chance to work when I served at USAID as the
    Administrator there for nearly 6 years. And I am thrilled to
    report that, during that period of time, I experienced an
    exceptional level of bipartisan support for the basic idea that
    American leadership around the world, particularly on disease,
    on hunger, and on creating opportunity for the world's most
    vulnerable people, became an area of strong bipartisan
    consensus, and I hope that tradition continues forward.
        American leadership to tackle the crisis that had been
    identified by both the chairman and the ranking member in their
    opening statements will be absolutely critical; in fact, more
    needed now than ever, as we look to the future.
        When I left USAID, I served in the private sector for a
    while, and now, I run the Rockefeller Foundation, which has,
    for more than 100 years worked to build public-private
    partnerships and leverage science, technology, and innovation
    to lift up those who are vulnerable. And I think we have
    learned through those efforts that, in fact, American
    leadership is indispensable on the global stage when it comes
    to tackling the challenges in front of us. And I would like to
    highlight three of those challenges that I believe warrant
    urgent leadership from the United States and from its foreign
    aid and assistance institutions.
        The first, of course, is COVID. And while more than a half
    a million Americans have, tragically, been lost to this crisis,
    we know that millions have died around the world, and we know
    that, frankly, the crisis will continue for a much longer
    period of time in developing and emerging nations than in the
    United States, if current trends around vaccination, access to
    therapeutics, and the ability to be safe hold.
        We know that, when you look around the world, we will
    expect to have large amounts of viral replication and viral
    presence and prevalence, even as the United States, hopefully
    sometime this year, achieves real herd immunity and starts to
    put the pandemic behind us. And that presents two major threats
    to the American people and the American economy.
        First, estimates have ranged that we will lose $3 to $9
    trillion in economic value from disrupted supply chains and the
    presence of the COVID crisis around the world, even when the
    United States economy and society recover.
        But, second, and perhaps much more worrying, is that new
    variants, which are almost certain to become a reality, have no
    ability to observe boundaries and borders. New variants already
    from the U.K. and South Africa present real risks and threats
    in the United States, and we expect that, especially as viral
    replication is so much more prominent, four to eight times more
    likely in the developing and emerging world than in the United
    States, we can expect that those new variants can present a
    real risk to the nature of the U.S. economic recovery and to
    the health of Americans that would like to put COVID-19 behind
    us.
        For that reason, it is absolutely urgent that the world
    come up with a solution to the funding and operational gaps
    that are preventing a full-on effort to tackle COVID-19 in
    emerging economies and developing countries. In particular, the
    ACT Accelerator, which is the representation of global needs
    when it comes to fighting the pandemic, has highlighted a
    funding gap this year alone of $23 billion that still exists in
    order to help the world mount a full recovery.
        The United States has been generous already, assuming the
    $4 billion for COVAX and the $10 billion that were referenced
    earlier go through and become the reality of law in the United
    States. However, the gap still remains. And in order for the
    U.S. to lead the world in tackling that gap, we will likely
    both have to do more and bring together multilateral partners
    through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and
    other institutions where we can use our voice and our
    leadership to really solve this funding gap, and ensure that
    everyone around the world has access to safe and reliable and
    effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, as that will
    be critical to tackling COVID-19 around the world.
        I look forward to sharing some specific thoughts on how to
    do that, but let me just say, from my own experience, I am
    convinced that American leadership on that specific topic will
    be the only way the world tackles the funding gap that exists
    and the only way the world can come together to access the
    supplies, the tools, and the technologies needed to beat COVID-
    19 across the planet.
        Second, we face a continued hunger pandemic. We have seen
    the number of people hungry around the world go up. Acute
    hunger is now estimated to be 270 million. I saw firsthand
    during famines and crises and droughts how hunger, in
    particular, leads to migration, instability, and social
    breakdown in ways that present real threats to the United
    States and to the global community. Hunger creates instability,
    and hunger creates massive amounts of unnecessary suffering.
        America has, from the inception of its foreign aid work,
    been the world's undisputed leader in fighting hunger, and that
    will have to continue. That will mean more resources for the
    World Food Program, but it will also mean renewed support for
    programs like Feed the Future and efforts to have science and
    enterprise-led agricultural development be a major component of
    America's leadership in the era going forward. I hope that we
    can reinvigorate those efforts and reinvest in those
    enterprises and those projects, because, as was mentioned
    previously, they have been proven to work. We know how to
    measure the results of those efforts, and we know that they
    sustainably and reliably help lift up communities.
        Finally, there will be the need for much greater assistance
    in a coordinated global economic recovery. It is true that
    developing countries and emerging economies have been hit hard
    by the pandemic, and it is also true that, while we have done
    20 to 30 percent of GDP in fiscal and monetary responses across
    wealthier nations, emerging markets have done 6 percent and
    developing countries have done less than 2 percent in order to
    support a real economic recovery. That is simply not enough,
    and it is not done in a coordinated manner. And it will not
    allow for a global economic recovery to be full and inclusive.
    So, American leadership on that topic, particularly through
    partners like the World Bank and the International Monetary
    Fund, will be critical to success.
        I will close by just saying I have had the chance to speak
    to Americans in churches across the country, at universities
    like Clemson and Rutgers, and food companies in Minneapolis.
    And I am always struck by the fact that most Americans think we
    do so much more in foreign aid than we do. The perception is we
    do 20 percent of our budget in foreign aid. The reality is we
    do 1 percent. And when we explain what we get as results, I am
    always amazed by how most American families have expressed even
    more support for stronger and more effective American foreign
    assistance to deal with the challenges we face. I think the
    time is now to make that real and to make it meaningful in the
    context of the COVID response.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Shah follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        And I think for our witnesses and the members that are
    online, at least a minute ago the online timer had gone out.
    So, we will try to help you stay on time from here.
        But, also, let me go over now to Ms. Glick, and if you want
    to take a little extra time also, please feel free. We have
    only got two witnesses today, so we should be okay on time.

    STATEMENT OF BONNIE GLICK, SENIOR ADVISOR, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC
      AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FELLOW, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF
         GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTE OF POLITICS, AND FORMER DEPUTY
    ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, UNITED STATES AGENCY
                     FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. Glick. Thank you, Chairman Castro; thank you, Ranking
    Member Malliotakis, and members of the committee.
        I will not speak a million miles an hour then, as I go
    forward.
        Thank you all for the invitation to speak with the
    subcommittee today about some of the challenges facing USAID in
    the current environment that includes the COVID-19 pandemic and
    the global response to it.
        I served as the Deputy USAID Administrator and Chief
    Operating Officer of the agency from January 2019 to November
    2020. The remarks I make today are solely in my personal
    capacity.
        Consistent bipartisan support for U.S. foreign assistance,
    regardless of the party in the White House or the majority
    party in the House or Senate, has been the hallmark of our
    foreign policy and one of the greatest examples of American
    generosity that we can point to overseas. The American people
    and their representatives understand that, even as we have
    domestic needs at home, our lengthy and historic generosity
    overseas is never in doubt.
        That said, our fiscal well is not bottomless. Priorities
    change. Unforeseen crises erupt all the time and call for U.S.
    action. Yet, despite the merits of responding to these
    challenges, the urgency and the need for flexibility to respond
    are constrained as more and more of USAID's programmatic
    activities are scripted and predetermined.
        Regardless of what else is discussed here today, the
    continued failure to address the harmful aspects of
    congressional earmarks would be insincere. And while others may
    focus on where the U.S. should be funding in the near future, I
    want to discuss key issues relating to how the U.S. should fund
    and implement these programs. This includes partnerships with
    new allied donors as well as with the private sector. It also
    includes the increased use of innovation and digital
    technologies to apply 21st century solutions to today's
    problems.
        And while vaccine delivery to developing countries is
    clearly a health-related issue, the mechanism that underlies it
    is not, a secure and reliable supply chain with redundancy
    built into it. USAID has been lucky, since the earliest days of
    the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, in
    2003, to have recognized the need to invest in robust and
    secure supply chain capabilities. From a U.S. national security
    perspective, we must ensure that USAID and other government
    agencies focus on the safety and security of the global
    distribution of goods by moving to onshore, nearshore, and
    allied-shore our manufacturing and production basis.
        Because what happens if we do not make these critical
    onshore, nearshore, and allied-shore moves? The People's
    Republic of China will fill the void. We have seen this time
    and again. Development is a key area of our strategic
    competition with the PRC. The U.S. needs a development agency
    equipped to win that competition, which requires a change in
    mindset at USAID and Congress' help to realize the agency's
    full potential.
        USAID missions spend an enormous amount of time focused on
    how a single project can address multiple earmarks, thereby,
    allowing dollars generously funded by Congress to extend
    further. But this gymnastics exercise diverts attention from
    the big-picture funding opportunities, where USAID can be used
    as an effective and strategic tool to counter a resurgent
    China. USAID will turn 60 this year. I strongly recommend that
    USAID think bigger. Larger-scale projects in fewer countries
    may be the wave of the next 60 years.
        And while USAID focuses on fewer, but larger projects, this
    is a perfect opportunity for burden-sharing with our allies and
    partners. It is important to discuss the expansion of our
    alliances. Given COVID and the trillions of dollars that the
    U.S. has taken on in debt for our own relief, it is important
    to embrace more and new donors.
        We worked closely when I was at USAID, for example, with
    Israel, India, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and others to
    broaden the tent of donor countries. We should continue in
    those efforts, particularly as countries like India move away
    from being aid recipients to being aid donors.
        We should recognize and celebrate other donors'
    contributions. And in the wake of the Abraham Accords, we
    should certainly celebrate that donor countries like the UAE
    and Israel are now able to collaborate jointly on aid programs
    around the world. Fostering this kind of creativity and
    creative thinking, particularly by engaging with the private
    sector, will go a long way to making the Abraham Accords
    permanent and to maintaining a very warm peace.
        Creative thinking through partnership with private industry
    and through the use of digital technology will also stretch
    scarce budget dollars more effectively and assist in job
    creation in parts of the world that were terribly impacted
    economically by COVID-19.
        The non-health imperatives for development are clear. They
    include food insecurity, diminished livelihoods, increased out-
    migration, and uptick in violence against women, and others
    that we haven't even considered yet. USAID should focus its
    resources on where it can have the greatest impact and partner
    with allied countries when it makes more sense for them to be
    the primary donors. If we do not fund jointly with our allies,
    we risk ceding the table to China.
        We have spent the entirety of the modern era as the most
    generous nation in the history of the world. It is a role that
    is uniquely American and should remain American.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to the opportunity
    to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Glick follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Glick, and thank you to both our
    witnesses for your testimony.
        I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each. And
    pursuant to House rules, all time yielded is for the purposes
    of questioning our witnesses. Because of the hybrid format of
    this hearing, I will recognize members by committee seniority,
    alternating between majority and the minority members. If you
    miss your turn, please let our staff know, and we will circle
    back to you. If you seek recognition, you must unmute your
    microphone and address the chair verbally.
        And I will start by recognizing myself.
        This, of course, is the first hearing of this subcommittee,
    and we have a new President and a new Congress. And so, I want
    to start off with a broad question for either of our witnesses,
    or both of our witnesses, if you would like to take a shot at
    it.
        The testimony today makes clear that the United States
    leadership on development must be an important part of our
    global COVID-19 response. In the next few months, the
    administration will submit its budget request for Fiscal Year
    2022, and the Congress will review that request. Given the
    scale of the challenge described in the testimony today, how
    important is it that we see a request for greater funding
    levels for development programs? And are there specific
    programs where you would put more money or move money? What are
    your recommendations?
        Dr. Shah. Bonnie, I am happy to start, but I did not want
    to interrupt if you were intending to.
        I would just say thank you, Chairman, for the question. I
    do think American leadership needs to be elevated to tackle the
    challenges that exist, and the challenges that exist go far
    beyond what American foreign affairs funding is going to be
    capable of solving directly. So, for that purpose, I would say
    three things.
        The first is the budget should be strong and it should be a
    reinvestment in building the types of alliances that Bonnie
    mentioned and making sure that we lead with our own approach,
    which is making bigger investments in tackling COVID-19 around
    the world. It is not just buying the vaccines through COVAX,
    which we have already made a big commitment to, but also
    investing in training community health workers and building out
    health systems, so that you really can reach everyone. We
    learned during the Ebola crisis in 2014 that that was actually
    the critical investment necessary in order to successfully
    protect the population from the virus.
        I would say, second, programs that have a documented track
    record of being public-private partnerships and delivering
    results--Feed the Future, Power or Electrify Africa, other
    enterprise collaborations that I know Bonnie led when she was
    at USAID--are all the types of programs that have real data to
    document their effectiveness, and in my view, should be
    invested in.
        And the final area is around technology and innovation. We
    are seeing it right now with American ingenuity being so
    critical to the fight against COVID-19. But USAID created the
    U.S. Global Development Lab, which has earned strong bipartisan
    support from Congress, in order to reinvigorate America's
    capability to make innovation, science, and technology a driver
    of American foreign assistance. And I hope that that theme can
    be extended and carried forward in a much more significant way,
    because the challenges we face demand it, and because, frankly,
    American companies, American scientists, and American
    universities, including students on those university campuses,
    are eager to participate in this mission.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Dr. Shah.
        I have got about a minute 45 seconds under my time left. I
    am going to try to keep myself on time.
        Ms. Glick, did you want to weigh in?
        Ms. Glick. I will just say very quickly that we have never
    lived in times like this in modern history. And so, yes, the
    focus on COVAX and vaccine distribution is the critical moment
    for the short term. As Raj said, it is accurate that being able
    to depend on digital technology is going to be vital, and
    American ingenuity that comes along with that.
        And so, that involves engaging with the private sector, and
    it involves, too, an eye toward who else is in this space. And
    the answer to that, as I noted, is the People's Republic of
    China. And our ability to act alongside our partners and
    genuinely with the private sector is going to be the way that
    we come up with the best solutions for the world. We have done
    this before and we can do it again, but we have to recognize
    that there is a disinformation campaign coming out of China
    that is discrediting American vaccines--a little bit crazy.
        And we have to ensure that our staff, as Raj said, have the
    skills and technical ability to roll out distributions
    worldwide. Health systems strengthening is something that
    helped save countless lives in Ebola in 2014 and in Ebola today
    in the eastern Congo. And investing in those systems is going
    to be what helps us get through COVID worldwide.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Glick.
        All right. Ranking Member Malliotakis?
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you very much. I very much
    appreciate the testimony. It was enlightening. And I just had a
    few questions.
        My first question is really about, because both of you come
    from USAID, and my first question would be, based on your
    experience there, what kind of safeguards can we put in place
    just to make sure that the money is used most effectively. As I
    said in my remarks, our aid needs to be targeted. It needs to
    be strategic. It needs to be impactful. Do you have any
    recommendations on what we could be doing to ensure that?
        Ms. Glick. I will jump on this one. Ranking Member
    Malliotakis, one of the most important things is the
    partnership that USAID has with Congress and the relationship
    that AID has with the Members to understand what we are doing
    in foreign assistance and how it impacts your districts. And
    so, the congressional oversight that you and your staffs
    demonstrate is always going to be something that helps keep
    USAID on the ball in terms of being able to respond to the
    needs while also being responsible stewards of taxpayer
    dollars.
        Dr. Shah. I would just quickly add that I do think there
    are a handful of programs, perhaps more than a handful, where
    USAID sets the standard on measuring results and documenting
    performance. And I think you can learn from those efforts and
    extend those practices across the full range of American
    foreign assistance efforts.
        One of the benefits of strong bilateral assistance
    programs, like many of the ones that USAID implements--and
    frankly, where the Rockefeller Foundation and others partner
    with USAID and so many others--is you can go out and do surveys
    at the beginning of a project and understand the nature of the
    population you are trying to serve. And then, you can do annual
    assessments, and three or four or 5 years later, do end-of-
    project assessments, and actually quantify the impact you are
    having.
        We do this every day at the Rockefeller Foundation, which
    is how we know the 500,000 people we serve in northern India
    with renewable electricity access have used that access to
    increase their incomes by 60-70 percent and create new jobs and
    launch new businesses and enterprises. And that basic
    discipline is, I think, critical to this entire field, no
    matter which institution is charged with the responsibility of
    carrying it out.
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
        How can we best work with America's private sector? I know
    that so many companies or global entities, that they are
    building infrastructure; they are creating jobs; they are
    advancing sustainable solutions. How can we best utilize them
    as partners? Either one of you want to answer that?
        Ms. Glick. I think one of the most important things that we
    did at USAID when I was there was to highlight the role of the
    private sector in development. And as part of the aid
    transformation, we set up a private sector engagement hub, so
    that there is a one-stop shop for private companies of all
    sizes--large corporates down to small businesses--in the United
    States, so that they can become involved in the delivery of
    foreign assistance around the world. It is job creator for us
    here at home, but it is also recognition that the private
    sector is the strongest force in world history for lifting
    people's lives and for giving people livelihoods that they can
    depend on for themselves and for their families. And so, that
    added focus at USAID has been something that I would recommend
    leveraging into the future.
        Dr. Shah. And I would add I agree entirely with Bonnie, and
    I think there are two additional tools that I would ask
    Congress to support as much as possible. One is, during my
    tenure, we used a tool called the Global Development Alliance
    Structure that allowed USAID to partner with the private
    sector, frankly, in more creative ways than many other parts of
    the U.S. Government. And while that is a small share of USAID
    programming, I hope it can grow into a larger share.
        And the second one is the U.S. Global Development Lab. By
    creating a lab that focused on building technology partnerships
    and bringing kind of modern science to the tasks at hand, we
    were able to build partnerships with firms that we otherwise
    would not have been able to, and frankly, attract a certain
    kind of talent to the institution in a way that is unique. So,
    I would call out both of those tools in addition.
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you. I had one more question, but I
    will go----
        Mr. Castro. Go ahead. Sure.
        Ms. Malliotakis. The chairman is being gracious with our
    time.
        I did have one last question regarding the supply chain, if
    you had any thoughts on COVID's impact on the supply chain,
    both from a manufacturing and a distribution standpoint? You
    may or may not. I just thought I would throw it out there to
    see if you--both of you are very wise and perhaps have your own
    recommendations there in how we can address that issue.
        Dr. Shah. Maybe I will jump in on this. I do think, if you
    look at the estimates of what will cause disruption to the
    global economy post-the United States and other industrial
    nations achieving herd immunity through vaccination, it is the
    sanctity of global supply chains that are causing the estimates
    to be between $3 and $9 trillion of economic loss as a result
    of, basically, disrupted supply chains.
        USAID has lots of partnerships with companies as parts of
    its programs that build and support those types of supply
    chains. So, I think that is yet another reason why the
    institution should be sort of strengthened and invested in in
    this period going forward, which, frankly, will be a longer
    period than I think most people realize. It is not just a
    threat for 6 months or 12 months. It is probably a threat for
    three to 5 years, because that is, most likely, the timeframe
    required to really get ahead of COVID-19 in the emerging world.
        Mr. Castro. All right.
        Ms. Glick. Let me just add to that, real quick, that the
    criticality of securing the supply chain, which is the most
    sophisticated supply chain on earth and capable of delivering
    lifesaving medications to the village level around the world,
    the criticality of investing in that, and also, ensuring that,
    through onshoring, nearshoring, and allied-shoring our products
    and manufacturing from the United States and our allies to
    bring it closer to the village level, is what is going to make
    a monumental difference in being able to distribute vaccines
    and everything else that is needed to rebuild global economies.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        All right. I am going to go now to the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
        And thank you to our witnesses for being here.
        I want to go to a specific problem that we are seeing
    around the world. I think the pandemic has exposed just how
    difficult digital learning can be, both here in the U.S. and
    abroad. But it is not new. USAID and others have had many
    programs over the years to distribute computers and tablets and
    internet connectivity to underserved communities. In my
    estimation, some of these programs, such as One Laptop Per
    Child, sound really great in theory, but when you actually look
    at the data, have had very mixed successes.
        And so, I was wondering, in both of your opinions, if you
    think USAID is adequately applying the lessons learned from
    those past failures in digital learning projects to meet these
    new challenges, what you think those lessons are and what more
    we can do here to ensure, as we are implementing these
    projects, we are doing it in the best way possible.
        Ms. Glick. So, one of the areas of extreme focus when I was
    USAID, because I came from a technology background, was a focus
    on digital technology in the application and rollout of USAID
    programs. In order for the agency to be equipped for the 21st
    century, we launched a digital strategy 11 months ago. It was
    supposed to be in person and, of course, it was virtual, which
    seems appropriate, of course.
        And what we have focused on is an approach at USAID that is
    digital first. Look for ways to apply solutions using digital
    technologies that are available. But the critical technology
    that has to reach the shores of the developing countries in
    order for countries to become self-reliant and competitive in
    global markets is 5G. And in order for 5G to be rolled out in a
    democratic manner, one of the things that we focused on was
    ensuring that secure 5G solutions were available around the
    world. We can get into the software that can enable this as
    well as the infrastructure, but 5G, and secure 5G, is the
    critical element for digital technology in bringing education,
    job opportunities, et cetera, to emerging markets.
        Ms. Jacobs. Former Administrator Shah, do you have anything
    to add, particularly on how we are getting these digital
    learning techniques out to the hardest-to-reach students around
    the world?
        Dr. Shah. Well, I want to thank you for the question.
    During my time there, I found that it is true that some
    programs that get a lot of visibility were not necessarily able
    to deliver quite as much. But there are plenty of efforts
    within U.S. investments in education access that were quietly
    very successful at getting new tools and technologies to very,
    very remote communities, and I had a chance to visit many of
    them, one in rural Nepal, for example. And I was struck by both
    the effectiveness and the measurement they had put in place to
    track third and fourth grade literacy and match scores
    associated with that, and made that a sort of practice we try
    to replicate broadly.
        The other thing I would say is this is not the kind of task
    that I think America should try to handle in just a bilateral
    context. Investing in digitalization and digital
    infrastructure, broadband access, and 5G is a task that America
    can help lead together with the World Bank, and potentially,
    together with the use of certain types of IMF resources that
    seem like they will be made available to lower-income nations,
    because this can all be part of a focused recovery effort to
    restart the economy and create kind of a jobs-rich economic
    recovery in many emerging economies. So, I hope that the
    approach can be bilateral and multilateral.
        Ms. Jacobs. Great. Thank you.
        My next question is kind of addressing that poverty. We
    have seen that this pandemic has erased 10 years of the income
    gains for the first time since the 1990's, and global poverty
    rates are increasing, as you have mentioned in your testimony.
    I was wondering, besides additional funding, which I think we
    all recognize is an issue, what more can USAID programs be
    doing, with our partners or otherwise, to combat poverty, and
    what can we do to support USAID to meet those goals?
        Dr. Shah. Well, maybe I will start with that. I think there
    are two big things I think that we can do besides funding. The
    first is really work with multilateral institutions to
    coordinate the impact of rescue and recovery packages. So, for
    example, if the International Monetary Fund is able to provide
    an allocation of what are called special drawing rights, but,
    basically, new resources to emerging economies, in that
    context, it would be great to see USAID and other bilateral
    institutions sort of partnering with the World Bank and the IMF
    and the development banks to make sure those many billions of
    dollars are deployed effectively and are really focused on the
    response and the recovery.
        I think the second component is making sure that we have a
    longer time horizon on these efforts. There is a big risk that
    the programming we do is sort of 1-year timeframe kind of
    programming. And the reality is the recovery needed to avoid
    the loss of two decades of human development progress is going
    to take five, six, seven, 8 years. And I would love to see more
    long-term thinking applied because this moment calls for it.
    Otherwise, as you point out, we will lose one or two decades of
    progress fighting poverty, fighting disease, and fighting the
    lack of educational access for girls across the world.
        Ms. Glick. And I agree wholeheartedly with that, and
    particularly, working with multilateral institutions. One of
    the things that we saw in the fall meetings at the World Bank
    was a call by World Bank President Malpass for debt relief for
    the poorest countries that have been impacted by COVID. And
    this is an area, too, where these same countries that have been
    so severely impacted on many levels have been impacted because
    they have bought into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, and
    they are heavily, heavily indebted to the People's Republic of
    China. It is a great opportunity for the world to focus on debt
    relief for the most indebted countries and to call on the
    People's Republic of China for debt relief.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        We will go now to Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Glick, under your leadership at USAID, the agency
    developed key strategies and policy documents such as the
    Digital Strategy and Private Sector Engagement Policy. And you
    comment on recommendations for the Biden administration to
    continue or expand your initiatives?
        Ms. Glick. Congressman Issa, thank you so much for the
    question, and it is really an important one for all
    administrations to recognize. I worked hard at USAID to bring
    it into the 21st century. And I am hopeful that the
    noncontroversial, highly lauded efforts that were undertaken to
    engage with the private sector as true partners around using
    digital tools to deliver development, including the recognition
    that 5G is an imperative, not just for developed economies, but
    for emerging markets, too, I hope and I trust that the momentum
    behind these efforts carries forward.
        We socialized private sector engagement in our approach to
    5G, to food distribution, to supply chain management, with
    other donors, as well as across the U.S. Government. We had a
    particular engagement with the Federal Communications
    Commission. In fact, I signed an MOU with former FCC Chair Ajit
    Pai to have our two agencies collaborate on the rollout of 4G
    and 5G systems to developing countries.
        There is broad recognition that in the 21st century no
    country will develop if it does not have appropriate digital
    tools and if children are not educated on the use of these
    tools. So, this is where USAID can partner effectively with the
    private sector, particularly with local private sectors, to
    deliver solutions worldwide.
        For the Biden team, I will just say that the career staff
    at USAID is excited and more than capable to continue their
    focus on private sector engagement and on the digital strategy.
    They feel it is relevant and connected to the goals of self-
    reliance, and they are leading the agency into the 21st
    century, and others are eagerly joining in.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        And hopefully, this is a quick yes-or-no question. One of
    the anomalies in the USAID package continues to be in excess of
    a million dollars a year that it spent on Cypress, a member of
    the European Union and certainly not a developing nation. Would
    it be fair to say that Congress needs to at least address the
    question of whether that pot of money, the USAID pot, should be
    spent on a disagreement, continued tension between the Greeks
    and Turks in Cypress, or whether, if we are going to make that
    investment, it should be made in some other way, particularly
    since it is a contingent expenditure?
        Ms. Glick. Sir, it is a great question, and I would just
    say that this is really where congressional oversight is so
    important, and I urge that.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Last--and this is for both our witnesses--having spent 2
    years associated with the Trade Development Agency, one of your
    sister organizations, and beginning to realize from the time I
    was originally nominated for it that TDA, USAID, the EXIM Bank,
    our entire plethora of agencies is dwarfed by China's
    engagement in Belt and Road. And you mentioned 5G, and their
    obvious desire to dominate 5G and to dominate, if you will, the
    information-gathering behind those systems they install. Could
    you each give us your view of what the vision should be for
    Congress and for this administration to create a system,
    through any or all of those agencies, that would be able to
    compete aggressively and fairly for those system developments
    throughout the world?
        Dr. Shah. Sure. Congressman, it is wonderful to see you
    again.
        And I would just say you are right, the Belt and Road
    Initiative is a trillion dollar public-private, if you can call
    it that, collaboration in China that----
        Mr. Issa. ``Public-public'' we might call it.
        Dr. Shah. You might call it ``public-public,'' exactly. But
    there is a significant amount of commercial capital included in
    that trillion dollars. And it is funding everything from 108
    gigawatts of new coal development to all kinds of projects that
    have less-than-transparent documentation with respect to
    meeting basic Western standards for anti-corruption and
    transparency around public-private investments.
        So, there is a tremendous need for the United States, in my
    view, to continue to invest in elevating the U.S. Development
    Finance Corporation and ensuring that America's foreign
    assistance agencies are working in concert with that
    institution, as well as with the World Bank and the IMF, that
    do focus on putting forward, you know, call it Western
    standards of governance of the economy and of economic
    transactions, and making sure that Bretton Woods system,
    together with the United States, can actually be an effective
    alternative proposition to the 23 or 26 countries that are
    currently actively participating in the Belt and Road
    Initiative.
        And to do that, we have to focus more on making
    concessional finance available at much larger levels. We have
    to focus more on the kinds of industries countries value, like
    energy generation and electricity distribution and access. And
    we have to be much more focused on public-private
    collaborations to that end.
        And the Rockefeller Foundation actually works on exactly
    those issues and would be happy to collaborate. But I do think
    that is what it will take to present a counter that is
    meaningful, given the scale of the Belt and Road Initiative.
        Ms. Glick. And Congressman----
        Mr. Castro. Ms. Glick, do you want to give Congressman Issa
    a quick answer on that also?
        Ms. Glick. Congressman, the quick answer on that, too, is
    the one component that China leaves out, and we do not, is the
    $60 trillion of U.S. industry that are involved in the rollout
    of large-scale infrastructure around the world. So, while U.S.
    Government is dwarfed by the PRC, and as you rightly noted is a
    public-public partnership with companies like Huawei and ZTE,
    the public-private engagement to bring in the private sector of
    the United States bumps our numbers up tenfold, at least, over
    potential Chinese investments. And so, that is where I would
    urge that the Congress focus, that agencies focus, is on true
    partnership with the private sector.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        Representative Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you. I just wanted to start out thanking
    you, Chairman and the Ranking Member, for holding this
    important hearing. It is exciting to be here for the first
    hearing of this new committee. I am looking forward to doing
    great work together.
        The World Poverty Clock estimates that up to 120 million
    people have been thrown into extreme poverty because of COVID,
    extreme poverty meaning that their households live on less than
    $1.90 a day. The people bearing the burden of this life live in
    the south, the global south, especially Sub-Saharan Africa and
    South Asia.
        Last year, I lead a letter with Senator Bernie Sanders and
    more than 300 parliamentarians around the world to the World
    Bank, the IMF, and G20 country leaders. Our letter asked for
    serious consideration of debt cancellation as a way to address
    the rise of global poverty. One of the things we asked was for
    the IMF to issue special drawing rights, which could provide
    hundreds of millions of dollars in immediate relief to the
    world's poorest countries.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record
    this article in The Financial Times from the U.N. Economic
    Commission for Africa, Vera Songwe, making the case for using
    SDRs for Africa.
        Mr. Castro. Without objection, it is entered into the
    record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Omar. Dr. Shah, you have been supportive of special
    drawing rights as a way to alleviate the economic crisis.
    Secretary Yellen has also shown support for this policy. Dr.
    Shah, can you explain how the IMF issuing SDRs will help ensure
    countries in Africa respond to the pandemic?
        Dr. Shah. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your
    leadership on this issues and your commitment.
        In particular, the opportunity for the United States to
    support a G20-led coalition to enable the IMF to allocate
    greater special drawing rights across its member nations would
    create, depending on the scale of that issuance, potentially,
    up to $600 or $700 billion of value that can, then, be
    allocated to nations based on their shares of the IMF.
        And in the past, we saw this coming out of the crisis when
    Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, coming out of the global
    financial crisis, and we saw some smaller actions on this front
    last year. Wealthier nations, then, would have the opportunity
    to take those SDRs, as they are referenced, and donate them or
    unlend them back to the IMF's Poverty Reduction Growth Trust to
    be used for nations that have much greater need in this moment.
    And that, effectively, does not cost the wealthier nations
    anything in the current moment.
        So, it is a way of generating fiscal support for developing
    countries at a scale that is much greater than what I suspect
    America can do by acting bilaterally alone. And it is an
    effort, then, to make sure those additional resources that go
    to those developing nations are, then, used for health and
    economic recovery, so that COVID-19 can be tackled on the
    ground and can be dealt with, and the recovery can be much
    stronger.
        I would say two points for this committee to sort of
    consider, and perhaps encourage. The first is America's
    participation in this effort would send such a powerful signal
    to the rest of the world that we are willing to work through
    multilateral institutions to, in a very efficient way, make
    resources available during a crisis.
        And the second is America, by partnering its bilateral and
    multilateral agencies and efforts, has the opportunity to, in
    particular, ensure that these resources, which could be tens of
    billions of new dollars for the health response specifically,
    are used effectively to fill this ACT Accelerator-identified
    gap of $23 billion that I spoke about in my opening statement.
        So, right now, as we look across the world at the
    Rockefeller Foundation, this is one of the few tools the planet
    has to relatively quickly put resources into play at that
    scale, and we hope that it can move forward.
        Ms. Omar. Wonderful. And I know we are running out of time,
    but I wanted you to quickly maybe tell us what should the
    United States do to make sure vaccines are distributed quickly
    to Africa, Latin America, and the rest of the global staff.
        Dr. Shah. Well, I think two things. The first is the
    immediate injection of the $4 billion to COVAX and the Global
    Alliance for Vaccines will make it possible to achieve the
    procurement goals GAVI has set or COVAX has set. As you know,
    that is still only trying to achieve 20 percent coverage for
    vaccination, and you need to get to 60, 70, 80 percent to
    really get herd immunity.
        So, the two things I think is the U.S. needs to continue to
    make sure some of these multilateral tools like SDRs can be
    linked to further efforts to expand vaccination. And the second
    one is America has been a leader in investing through USAID, in
    particular, and PEPFAR, in particular, at building the health
    systems needed on the ground to make sure these products are
    actually delivered to people in need. And now seems like a
    moment where continued American leadership on that specific
    task can be of tremendous value to the world.
        Ms. Omar. Yes. Thank you, Dr. Shah.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Representative Omar.
        Let's go to Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Today, we are going to pass a $1.9 trillion bill. Less than
    1 percent of that is there to help the world deal with this
    problem. And yet, that less than 1 percent has been subject to
    the most scathing, cheap political attacks. The fact is we have
    a strong interest in getting the world immunized.
        A diplomat would tell you that our standing in the world is
    dependent upon our contribution to world immunization. A
    theologian would tell you that we must help the least of these
    and that we have a moral obligation. An economist would point
    out that our economy cannot fully recover while our trading
    partners are sheltering in place. And a virologist will tell
    you that, with over 7 billion people in the world, until they
    all get immunity or the benefits of herd immunity, the virus
    has a chance to infect; where it infects, it replicates; where
    it replicates, it mutates, and it could easily mutate into a
    form that, then, is a problem for the United States. So, if we
    were interested only in ourselves, we would work toward world
    immunization as quickly as possible.
        Yet, there are two issues here. One is the distribution,
    and I think that will be dealt with by others in this hearing.
    And the other is the shortage of vaccine. And here's where the
    United States has been particularly shortsighted.
        There are research studies that I think will show that, at
    least for people under age 55, only half the dosage is needed.
    Yet, there are those who say we should not fund those studies
    because we will not have the results until May, and by then,
    Americans will be immunized, and who cares about the rest of
    the world. That is stupid.
        Right now, we are wasting over 10 percent of the vaccine
    because the FDA instructs people who are administering the
    vaccine, if there if half a dosage left in the bottle, to throw
    away the bottle, rather than get half the dosage from this
    bottle and half the dosage from the next bottle, which are part
    of the same manufacturing lot.
        So, Dr. Shah, it is great to see you back before our
    committee, now in a new role.
        Are we doing enough to study how we can stretch the
    existing vaccine and how we can manufacture vaccine more
    quickly, not with the finish line being May 31st, because that
    is when Americans are vaccinated, but with a goal of immunizing
    the vast majority of the people in the world?
        Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congressman, for your statement, and
    it is good to see you again.
        I do agree that the need to identify vaccine efficacy
    strategies via research will continue to be a significant
    requirement, certainly well beyond May, and potentially, for
    years to come. And I think you might think of it as covering a
    number of different areas of research and inquiry.
        The first, as you point out, is the efficacy of current
    vaccines against current variants that are present in the viral
    population. And both are going to be changing over time. So, it
    is really not something you can just end the research on. You
    have to continue to do it.
        The second is actually monitoring the variants that emerge
    from developing and emerging economies, and frankly, in the
    United States. Now, in the United States, the CDC has crafted,
    together with the NIH, a very strong plan for raising the level
    of genomic surveillance to track viral variants.
        Mr. Sherman. I would point out they have been very late to
    do that, but now----
        Dr. Shah. Yes, they have been very late to do it, but now
    there is a plan to do it. I think the country that has done it
    best is the United Kingdom, and they have done it in a public-
    private partnership with the Wellcome Trust and others.
        We are working with--and we hope the U.S. can play a very
    big role--replicating what they have done there in emerging
    environments and developing countries around the world where
    very little to no viral genomic surveillance is taking place.
    And I would say that is just as important as the other question
    of vaccine efficacy.
        And then, finally, as part of all of this, there need to be
    ways to constantly test existing vaccines and convalescent
    plasma against the new variants that do emerge, and that is
    another area that will require continued research. So, I think
    the research enterprise here has to be global and has to
    persist, frankly, for many years after most people, hopefully,
    move beyond thinking of COVID-19 as a day-to-day challenge.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        I would just comment that there is nothing that is more
    penny-wise and pound-foolish than us to fail to spend on the
    things you identify that, if we can get people vaccinated
    against the variants that we are aware of, that will reduce the
    replications and mutations that can give us a variant that does
    not yet exist. And it is perhaps the best expenditure of
    American resources to do a lot more than 1 percent of our
    expenditures on stopping this worldwide.
        I also want to take a moment to commend Mr. Castro, our
    chair, on being the first to chair any hearing of this
    subcommittee in history, and I look forward to more greats as
    good as this one.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
        All right. Let's go over to Ms. Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And I want to echo Mr. Sherman's
    commendation. This is a really important and exciting new
    subcommittee. And I actually want to focus on the title or the
    name of the subcommittee with having it ``Global Corporate
    Social Impact.''
        And my question, first question, is for Mr. Shah. I really
    am interested in corporate accountability. Are companies/
    corporations across the globe
        [audio interference] about social impact and
    responsibility?
        Mr. Castro. It looks like Ms. Houlahan's video froze there.
    Let's see if we can get her back here for a few seconds. And if
    not, then we will go--why do not we go to Mr. Kim, and then, we
    will come right back to Ms. Houlahan.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Thank you.
        Mr. Castro. Mr. Kim.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Yes, thank you, Chairman, for
    pulling this together.
        And we will turn it back to my colleague, Chrissy Houlahan,
    after this; hopefully, her bandwidth gets it.
        I was looking through your testimony, and you give some
    really thoughtful remarks about some of the things that we
    should be doing, especially when it comes to China. And one of
    them was about the World Health Organization, and you are
    proposing some different reforms there on that level. I have
    heard that from both people who have been supporters and
    critics of the WHO, that we be looking into reforms.
        What I want to
        [audio interference] coordinating body. In the aftermath of
    the pandemic, can we think about what do we need as a global
    structure to be able to make sure that we are better prepared
    for the next time around? And I think I want to just kind of
    hear a little more from you because some of the language you
    use is really spot-on, but also some of it, like when you say
    kind of a trimmed-back WHO, it concerns me because, in the
    aftermath of a pandemic, wouldn't we want to have more
    abilities to be able to engage globally when it comes to
    health? And I am sure that is something you agree with as well,
    but perhaps it means a different entity or a different
    structure is put into place. So, if you can just kind of
    elaborate on that a little further?
        Ms. Glick. So, there was a little bit of a lag there, and I
    am not sure I heard the entirety of your question, Congressman,
    but I think it was directed to me. And I want to thank you for,
    one, reading the testimony, and two, for the very thoughtful
    question about the World Health Organization.
        When the Trump administration made the decision to leave
    the WHO, there really was a lot of consternation in the
    international donor community, but there was no other time
    during which a U.S. exit from what is a malfunctioning
    international organization could have had a greater impact than
    during the pandemic itself. WHO has been on a slow slog toward
    complete dysfunction. And while this was made manifest to the
    world during the initial COVID-19 outbreak, it was obvious to
    global health practitioners and to people who were suffering
    from the Ebola outbreak in eastern Congo before COVID-19 hit
    the world stage. The WHO was broken.
        So, the focused attention that the Trump administration
    brought to WHO's failings in Wuhan has, hopefully, gone a long
    way to starting the reform of it. And I hope that a U.S.
    reentry into WHO will live up to its original mandate of global
    health coordination, but it needs some significant reforms.
        The Biden administration should continue to press for
    reform. WHO does not have to be all things health-related to
    nations all over the world, but, rather, it should maintain the
    high-level coordinating function that it was established to
    have.
        So, we may have forced some tough medicine onto the WHO,
    but I do think that, as you noted, a trimmed-back WHO may be a
    better coordinating body than the current WHO that is dispersed
    in 150 countries around the world and really micro-focused
    rather than focused on broad global concerns.
        Thank you so much for the question.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Yes, thank you, Ms. Glick.
        I mean, look, I am open to looking at some of these reforms
    and looking for how we can improve the coordination when it
    comes to the WHO and the function there. But, again, while we
    are thinking about that, I would also need to just understand
    more clearly going forward what other structures that we could
    put in place to have some of the oversight. You know, if some
    of the problem was the lack of the WHO to be able to do proper
    inspections and oversights, and aspects like that, I worry
    about trimming back. I worry about that kind of language in
    terms of how we push on that. So, that is what I was just
    trying to get at.
        Perhaps it is not the WHO that needs to play those
    functions, but we need to put sort of a bigger apparatus
    together on how we move forward in the aftermath of this
    pandemic, once we are able to really assess on that. And I hope
    you are right that the Biden team thinks very thoughtfully and
    carefully about how we can structure that.
        So, if you do not mind, I would love to just stay in touch
    with you, Ms. Glick and Dr. Shah, about that in terms of just
    understanding that broader ecosystem in which we pull together
    what kind of public health and global health foundation and
    infrastructure we need going forward.
        And with that, I will turn it back to the chairman.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Kim.
        All right. We are going to circle back to Ms. Houlahan.
    Hopefully, we got the technical issues solved.
        Ms. Houlahan? There is still a lag perhaps?
        Ms. Glick. I think you are muted.
        Ms. Houlahan. Can you hear me? Hello. Can you guys hear me?
    Yes?
        Mr. Castro. Yes, we can hear you.
        Ms. Houlahan. Excellent. Excellent.
        I really want to direct my question, the first one, to Dr.
    Shah. One of the things that excites me most about the new
    committee has to do with its emphasis on global corporate
    social responsibility and interest. And my question is,
    considering kind of the power of the for-profit sector of our
    economy and the global economy, how can we, Dr. Shah, help to
    drive corporate accountability for the social impact that many
    of our companies have the ability to have?
        A lot of our companies, particularly when we speak to the
    pandemic and their opportunities to help on a global scale and
    to help address these issues, talk a really big game, but they
    do not necessarily follow through on it. And so, I was
    wondering if you might be able to comment on the importance of
    global social and environmental responsibility on the part of
    the for-profit sector, if that is something that you might be
    able to comment on for us.
        Dr. Shah. Sure. Thank you for that question, and I am glad
    that that concept is built into the structure of this
    committee.
        It is true that there have been a number of different
    efforts to enable companies to, in a more systematic manner,
    report regularly on their performance on economic, social, and
    governance issues as it relates both to domestic and
    international priorities. And I think we need to continue to
    encourage and establish those types of standards of reporting.
        And Rockefeller does a fair amount of this work, and as a
    social investor, is also actively investing in ESG or companies
    that claim to do better on economic, social, and governance
    issues. The challenge there has always been transparency and
    reporting. So, a company that pays very low wages or contracts
    out much of its work, and avoids most labor protections in
    doing so, can also have a very attractive marketing campaign
    around a few special projects and create the impression that
    they are doing well across all these issues.
        There are some indices out there. In particular, JUST
    Capital is a platform that I think is doing very good work on
    creating indicators and rankings of companies, in that case
    across the Russell 1000, that is a more sophisticated way of
    understanding corporate social responsibility and impact
    related to it. And I think an outstanding path forward for our
    country would be having some of those types of more serious
    reporting requirements built into corporate accounting very
    broadly and required in one form or another.
        Ms. Houlahan. I really appreciate that, and I appreciate
    the connection that we have today and hope to be able to
    followup with you on this particular subject.
        And I know I have a short amount of time. So, if it is OK,
    I would like to send this one over to a different subject which
    I am very passionate about, which is women and girls. This
    pandemic has been really devastating to everyone, but I think
    particularly to women and girls across this country and the
    globe.
        I was wondering, what is the most important thing that we
    can be doing with USAID to address the gender and
        [audio interference] of this pandemic? Where should we be
    focusing our efforts on both issues? Perhaps we will start with
    Ms. Glick.
        Ms. Glick. Sure. And thanks for the great question and for
    that genuine level of concern.
        We know that women and girls are the most vulnerable
    populations. And one of the things that is predicted to be one
    of the secondary or tertiary impacts of COVID-19 is going to be
    the impact that it has on livelihoods, on gender-based
    violence, and on basic education.
        And the real concern is access, access to livelihoods for
    women, out-migration very often of their male partners to other
    countries in search of higher wages, and to girls in terms of
    access to education. One of the areas where USAID can make a
    difference, I believe, again, is in the provision of education
    through digital technology. We are seeing creative ways,
    working with important partners like UNICEF, to bring education
    to internally displaced people, to refugee camps, using
    technology in a way that it has never been used before. So,
    there is keen awareness that the issues as they relate to
    girls, to their continuing education, to gender-based violence,
    as well as to the needs for women to be active and engaged in
    the marketplace, are really felt within USAID, I believe.
        One of the areas, too, where the United States shines, and
    USAID really shines, I will say, is in the delivery of the
    maternal and child health systems around the world. Because of
    the investments that have been made by the United States, more
    and more women and girls have access to health care and family
    planning.
        One of the other areas where we have made investments, and
    this Congress is upping those investments, is with GAVI, the
    global vaccine alliance, and ensuring that children have access
    in some of the poorest countries to vaccinations, which will
    allow us to move from those levels of malnutrition and poor
    health as children into healthier young adults, and then, into
    engaged members of the economy.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I really appreciate it. I know I
    have run out of time, but I did want to put focus on the
    importance of health in women and girls, and I look forward to
    reintroducing my bill on funding the UNFPA again.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan.
        And that concludes the questions from our Members of
    Congress to our witnesses.
        I would like to thank everyone again for joining us for our
    subcommittee's first hearing. And I would particularly like to
    thank our witnesses for their expert testimony. You have given
    this Congress a lot to consider as we seek to rebuild our
    Nation's international development capacity and work force.
        For the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has done much to
    expose and widen the fractures in societies around the world.
    Even as the pandemic causes new challenges for U.S. development
    policy, we find that American leadership in this space is more
    necessary than ever.
        I trust that the work force of USAID and the State
    Department are up to the challenge, and I am committed to
    ensuring that this Congress provides them with the support they
    need.
        Working together with international partners and
    organizations, I am confident we can build a safer, healthier,
    and more prosperous world for all of our people, and in so
    doing, ensure the safety, health, and prosperity of our own
    nation. And we look forward to the work ahead.
        Thank you.
        And with that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]