[Senate Hearing 117-420]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     S. Hrg. 117-420

                      NINTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN
                       HEMISPHERE, TRANSNATIONAL
                       CRIME, CIVILIAN SECURITY,
                        DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS,
                       AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS


                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 26, 2022

                               __________


       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


                  Available via http://www.govinfo.gov

                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-980                     WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

             ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman        
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
                                     BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
                 Damian Murphy, Staff Director        
        Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,        
       TRANSNATIONAL CRIME, CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY,        
            HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES        

                 TIM KAINE, Virginia, Chairman        
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 MARCO RUBIO, Florida
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
                                     TED CRUZ, Texas

                              (ii)        

  
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Kaine, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From Virginia......................     1

Rubio, Hon. Marco, U.S. Senator From Florida.....................     3

O'Reilly, Kevin, Summit of the Americas National Coordinator, 
  U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.......................     7
    Prepared Statement...........................................     8

Chavez, Dr. Rebecca Bill, President and CEO, Inter-American 
  Dialogue, Washington, DC.......................................    16
    Prepared Statement...........................................    18

Farnsworth, Eric, Vice President, Council of the Americas, 
  Washington, DC.................................................    20
    Prepared Statement...........................................    22

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Responses of Mr. Kevin O'Reilly to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  Benjamin L. Cardin.............................................    38

                                 (iii)

  

 
                      NINTH SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022

                           U.S. Senate,    
        Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
            Transnational Crime, Civilian Security,
                       Democracy, Human Rights, and
                             Global Women's Issues;
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in 
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Kaine [presiding], Cardin, and Rubio.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

    Senator Kaine. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, 
Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Global Women's Issues will come to order.
    It is my pleasure to welcome two distinguished panels of 
witnesses for this hearing on the Ninth Summit of the Americas 
in Los Angeles. I want to thank Ranking Member Senator Rubio 
for his dedication to advancing American interests and values 
in the Western Hemisphere throughout his career.
    I am proud of the work we have done on Latin American and 
Caribbean issues during our time together in the Senate and 
believe there is so much more that can and should be done.
    I have long argued that our sustained engagement in Latin 
America is in our national interest. The U.S. and countries 
throughout Latin America share close ties. Our collective 
prosperity and security are closely intertwined.
    Each time I have traveled to the region and when I lived in 
the region I have seen and heard firsthand how countries want 
us more engaged. So I am pleased to be able to hold this 
hearing focused on the biggest event for the region.
    Recent coverage of the Summit of the Americas has been 
somewhat critical, focusing on who has been invited or who is 
attending, but despite those critiques, I believe that the U.S. 
hosting the event is a welcome opportunity because the summit 
is an important time for the Administration to outline a clear 
vision for the hemisphere, one that speaks to the broad and 
collective challenges we face together and for us to champion 
the freedom that citizens across the region are yearning for.
    I am glad that President Trump is scheduled to lead the 
U.S.--President Biden is scheduled to lead the U.S. delegation 
to the Summit, especially after President Trump chose not to 
attend the last one in Lima in 2018.
    This is the first Summit of the Americas hosted by the U.S. 
since the very first summit in 1994 in Miami when my ranking 
member colleague was struggling through elementary school.
    The world, certainly, does not look like it did back then 
when democracy was ascendant, the Soviet Union had collapsed, 
NAFTA had just been signed, and there was broad optimism about 
a free trade agreement for the Americas.
    Fast forward to today, and citizens across the region are 
increasingly dissatisfied with how democracy works, in part, 
because their governments have not delivered and people view 
elections and elected representatives as untrustworthy.
    The negative outlook has only increased the allure of 
China's siren song of easy money, an economic relationship that 
comes with little transparency and little quality. Despite some 
malaise, we see people across the hemisphere continuing to 
fight for their rights to speak freely, for institutions that 
treat them fairly, and for the right to decide how they are 
governed, principles that are embodied in the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter that all OAS members agreed to 21 years ago 
at the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.
    We see journalists in Mexico doggedly fighting for their 
freedom of speech even at the risk of being killed by 
criminals, which, tragically, continues to happen. We saw 
Nicaragua's own representative to the OAS in March forcefully 
denounce his government's brutal repression of its people. We 
have seen Guatemalan prosecutors and judges fighting to uphold 
the rule of law in their country, even if it means they have to 
leave their country to do so.
    We also see partners like Costa Rica, Panama, and the 
Dominican Republic banding together in a democratic alliance to 
defend the values outlined in the charter, and I welcome that 
development and hope we might see more of it.
    There are serious challenges that affect us all and that 
require collective action. Pandemic recovery, economic 
inequality, drug trafficking, corruption, encroachment by our 
adversaries, climate change, irregular migration--all these 
require U.S. engagement and leadership in the region and so I 
will welcome the Administration's ambitious and inclusive 
agenda in response to these many issues and look forward to 
hearing how it is approaching the Summit with these challenges 
in mind.
    We are not going to fix everything at the Summit. It is a 
dialogue, but we need more dialogue and we need more 
partnership. We are all Americans, and the event provides us 
with a unique and important opportunity to advance our 
interests and values.
    I am also interested in hearing how the Administration 
intends to shore up commitment to the Democratic Charter. Last 
week, I joined Senators Menendez, Rubio, and others in 
introducing legislation to uphold the charter because, 
regardless of whatever disagreements we have had as a region, 
we decided collectively back in 2001, I would argue, properly, 
that we should prioritize the values outlined in the charter.
    One last comment before I turn it over to my ranking 
member, Senator Rubio, for his remarks. I last visited the 
region in July of 2021 with six senators--three Democrats and 
three Republicans--and our visit coincided with the delivery of 
vaccines, and I heard such appreciation.
    Many of these nations have said to us again and again, 
whether we are in the region or whether their heads of state 
are visiting with us, that they feel like we do not pay 
attention, that they would rather deal with the United States, 
that the connections between us make the partnership a natural 
one, but that our presence is mostly an absence and other 
nations like China are more active and present.
    So as the vaccine deliveries were occurring, there was such 
an outpouring of support in the nations that we went to--
Ecuador, Guatemala, Colombia, and Mexico--such an outpouring of 
thanks and kind of, like, we are so glad you are back.
    In the tragedy of the pandemic where nearly 30 percent of 
the deaths in the world have been in Latin America, they 
contrast to the United States that was willing to give them the 
best vaccines in the world with a China or Russia that were 
willing to sell them substandard vaccines and then cancel the 
contracts if they said something nice about Taiwan, for 
example.
    I think our vaccine diplomacy last year opened an 
opportunity--potentially, an opportunity for a new chapter--of 
more engagement, more attention, more focus, and I pledge to 
work together with my ranking member on this committee to help 
ensure that that happens.
    Now I would like to offer an opportunity for opening 
comments from somebody who has been a strong leader in the 
U.S.-Latin America relationship during his entire career, 
Senator Rubio.

                STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Chairman Kaine, and thank you for 
your continued interest and your willingness, and I think this 
is actually a very timely hearing and I appreciate all the work 
you did to make it come about.
    I, too, remember that 1994 summit in my hometown of Miami. 
I was a 23-year-old just completing the eighth grade for the 
fifth time and----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. --but all kidding aside, I remember it 
because in 1994 we were in that sort of post-Cold War hubris. 
Everybody--the world was going to--everyone was headed towards 
not just the liberalization of trade and democracies, but 
everyone was going to look more like us.
    There was no Soviet Union and the world had changed, and 
there was tremendous amount of optimism about the direction of 
Latin America, which had been plagued throughout the fifties, 
sixties, seventies by right-wing dictators and left-wing 
strongmen.
    Suddenly you saw all these countries from Nicaragua to 
Paraguay, Bolivia, all these emerging from that era to 
something very different. There was a tremendous amount of 
optimism, but obviously history did not end in 1991 and human 
nature being what it is, that is an ongoing challenge.
    Then we fast forward to today, this Summit of the Americas. 
Actually, I remember the last Summit of the Americans that I 
attended in Peru, and it was my suggestion to the then Trump 
administration that they issue an invitation that the next one 
be in the United States, and my hope was that it would be in 
Washington because if it were in Washington we would have an 
opportunity for our colleagues here in the Senate, and then the 
House would be in session, to interact with those foreign 
leaders that would be in town and it would really highlight the 
importance of that event.
    For whatever reason, they chose another site and that is 
fine. That is not our biggest challenge. Here is the biggest 
challenge. We are really in a pivotal--with all that is going 
on in the world and is very important we are in a very pivotal 
moment when it comes to the region.
    There are an enormous number of rising challenges that need 
to be addressed. That post-Cold War hubris about democracy is 
being directly challenged, including in places that elect 
people who win elections and then do not govern as democrats 
and, in fact, that they use the power they acquire electorally 
to undermine the functioning of institutions.
    That has been the case in a number of places. Nicaragua is 
one. Venezuela is another. So you have the real challenge 
today, not just of a long-term dictatorship that has been in 
Cuba for a very long time, but what, basically, are now 
dictatorships in Venezuela, in Nicaragua, and the fear that 
that could spread to other places--the rise of anti-American 
leaders in a number of places, including places where they were 
elected, whose rhetoric is openly hostile or at least, 
certainly, counter to our national interests.
    Perhaps the biggest challenge in the region is the sense 
that America is just not engaged, that we just do not care and, 
unfortunately, I think that is reflected in a number of places 
including, frankly, with all due respect, here in the United 
States Senate where a handful of us do care a lot about what 
happens in the region, but others are--just do not spend a lot 
of time on it.
    I understand the world is a busy place and there are a lot 
of issues to cover, but in the framework of public policy, 
foreign policy focus, the Western Hemisphere, I think, is 
neglected, given its importance both strategically and 
geographically to what is happening in the United States.
    We have real challenges in migration, migration that is, 
largely, driven by the fact that people feel they can no longer 
live in their countries, and so these countries in the Western 
Hemisphere are not just sources of migration. It is one of the 
things that people do not talk enough about. They are not just 
sources of migration. They are transit points for migration and 
the transit alone is an extraordinary burden on these 
countries.
    Talk to the government leaders in places like Panama. Talk 
to the government leaders in Mexico and they will tell you that 
becoming a transit point for migration from people from over 70 
or 80 countries around the world poses an extraordinary 
challenge on them, in addition to the fact that there are 
countries, for example, in Central America--Honduras, 
Guatemala--where the youngest people in that country--their 
future, their workforce, the ones that should be building the 
future of the country--have decided that their future belongs 
somewhere else and are trying to figure out how to get out, and 
that is driven by not just lack of economic opportunity, but 
violence, murder, extortion by local criminal gangs, and 
corrupt government leaders, oftentimes in the pockets in some 
places of these elements.
    Then you also have Chinese interests in the region. Chinese 
exploit policies of exploitation, its attempts to trap 
developing economies in debt traps that they never can get out 
of, get their hands on natural resources and things of this 
nature, and then Russia, which is always seeking ways to harm 
the national interests of the United States in low-cost, high-
yield propositions like their involvement in Venezuela, like 
their hope of, potentially, establishing a military presence in 
Nicaragua, like the spread of propaganda, over a hundred 
something individual online outlets that the Russians are now 
behind to spread propaganda in the region that needs to be 
countered.
    All that said, there are also real opportunities in the 
Western Hemisphere that, I think, we are missing. I ask myself 
as we watch these supply chain disruptions, because stuff is 
made halfway around the world and now it is shut down because 
of a pandemic or whatever it may be, why are more things not 
being made--if it cannot be made in America why are they not 
being made in places closer to America?
    Why do we not have huge factories in Haiti or in Guatemala 
or in Honduras, places that could provide opportunity for 
employment in those countries and, by the way, are located much 
closer to us in terms of supply chains and disruptions?
    Why are they not there? There is a lot of reasons. Some of 
it has to--a lot of it has to do with the decisions of these 
local governments, but some of it, I think, has to do with the 
fact that we have not had a strategic vision to encourage that, 
what role are we playing there, and I think that is really an 
important opportunity for us to provide some leadership in that 
direction.
    Then add to that the opportunity to provide a counter, and 
many of these countries that come to us and say, look, we do 
not want to do investment deals with the Chinese, but they show 
up with a bunch of money, no strings attached, and you guys 
offer no alternative. There is no alternative and I think that 
has to change, and some of that has begun to change, but I 
think it has to change much faster.
    These are the things that have to be covered, but in the 
end, we can never forget what the Summit was always about. This 
is called the Summit of the Americas, but what it really should 
be called is the Summit of Democracy in the Americas because 
the purpose of the Summit is to bring together democratically-
elected governments to show that democracy can work, that 
democracy can lead to actions that solve the real problems of 
real people.
    It is why I think it is so disturbing that so much pressure 
is being placed on this Administration, which is still unclear 
about exactly what kind of summit this will be.
    I will close with this, and this is an important point. 
This is not about not inviting Cuba because we want to send a 
message or not inviting Nicaragua because we want to send a 
message or not inviting Maduro because we want to appease some 
electorate in the United States.
    It is this. You cannot claim to be summit of democracies if 
at the table are seated elements that are clearly anti-
democratic and, actually, what it does is it gives them 
credibility.
    There is credibility attached to being invited to these 
forums. There is credibility attached to being--the credibility 
that is damaging, by the way, to those who oppose them, to 
people that have risked their lives, risked their fortunes, 
risked their futures, risked everything to stand up to these 
people and are being told, well, those are the leaders of that 
country and we have to deal with them.
    It is demoralizing to those who stand up and oppose them to 
see the people who they oppose, who have been so vicious and 
harmful to their countries, being treated as legitimate 
governments deserving of the same recognition and the same 
standing as democratically-elected leaders in places like Costa 
Rica.
    It is demoralizing, and not only is it demoralizing, it is 
uplifting. These regimes laugh at it, they brag about it, and 
they use it to further demoralize their opposition and to 
further coalesce the internal support for their own leadership 
in their countries among their inner circle.
    These are important things that we have to consider. I 
appreciate you being here today. I am, obviously, not pleased 
by the lackluster rollout, but I am glad that someone is on the 
job and trying to pull this thing together.
    I think it is really important that it be done the right 
way because I would rather have no summit at all than one that 
is counterproductive, and I fear that, potentially, this is 
where we might wind up.
    So thank you for being here. Thank you for your willingness 
to work on this issue, and I look forward to hearing your 
testimony and then asking you some questions.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
    We do have two great panels. On the first panel, we have 
Kevin O'Reilly, who is the Summit of the Americas' national 
coordinator at the Department of State in the Bureau of Western 
Hemisphere Affairs.
    He was previously Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
Brazil and Southern Cone Affairs and Andean Affairs. He is a 
career member of the U.S. Foreign Service. He served abroad at 
U.S. embassies in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Argentina, 
and Indonesia.
    He holds master's degrees from the U.S. Naval War College 
and Johns Hopkins. He received his bachelor in history and his 
law degree from Loyola University in Chicago.
    Thanks for joining us for this important discussion, Mr. 
O'Reilly. You will be offered the opportunity now to provide 
testimony. We ask you to be concise, summarize your statement 
within 5 minutes. Your entire statement will be included in the 
record and then we will proceed to questions.

 STATEMENT OF KEVIN O'REILLY, SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS NATIONAL 
     COORDINATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the 
subcommittee, I am honored to have the opportunity to appear 
before you today.
    On June 8, President Biden will arrive in Los Angeles to 
host the Summit of the Americas, a first for us since the 
inaugural event in 1994.
    This will bring together governments from across our 
hemisphere to create new opportunities for our citizens and 
citizens across the Americas. We see, as well, direct 
engagement between the people and their government leaders as a 
Summit priority and we expect people from every country of the 
hemisphere to join us in Los Angeles, including from lands 
where authoritarians would silence their citizens, to focus on 
building an equitable, sustainable, and resilient future.
    Civil society, youth, and business will participate through 
the Civil Society Forum, the Young Americas Forum, and CEO 
Summit, and for the first time representatives of these groups 
will engage directly with heads of state and government in 
roundtable discussions, their conversations on topics ranging 
from accelerating digital transformation and safe and secure 
communities, address U.S. priorities, and also exemplify the 
exchanges between citizens and elected officials that 
characterize the best in democratic dialogue.
    The Department shares a process known as the Summit 
Implementation Review Group through which governments develop 
leader-level commitments to adopt and launch in Los Angeles.
    We intend to establish a comprehensive action plan on 
strengthening health systems, on working together to prevent, 
prepare for, and respond to health crises and strengthen our 
health infrastructure, including the health sector workforce, 
and in so doing create growth in our economies.
    Our commitments for a green future and clean energy 
transition aim put the region at the forefront of sustainable 
growth while addressing climate challenges.
    To bridge the digital divide and make sure all can benefit 
from the 21st century economy, we intend to create the first 
regional agenda and common principles on preparing citizens and 
societies for the digital transformation reshaping our 
hemisphere and our world.
    Finally, this Summit offers our region's democratic leaders 
an opportunity to affirm their commitment to democracy and to 
the citizens for whom--from whom they derive their authority by 
adopting an action plan on building strong and inclusive 
democracies.
    These commitments reflect both our priorities and topics of 
broad concerns are identified in consultation with governments, 
civil society, youth, and business from across the region, a 
process that we began shortly after we first assumed the chair 
of the Summit process from Peru in July of 2020.
    These commitments, each in their own way, help address the 
root causes of irregular migration exacerbated by the pandemic 
and now by rising global prices on agricultural, food, and 
other commodities, a challenge made much worse by Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine.
    To drive economic recovery, we have to push for reforms and 
expand opportunities for financing from transparent sources 
such as the Inter-American Development Bank and its private 
sector window, IDB Invest.
    This agenda can help focus governments on strengthening 
democratic resilience, fighting corruption, increasing health 
security, supporting and strengthening independent media and 
civil society, promoting more equitable economic growth that 
reaches the people on the peripheries of our societies, and 
combating the climate crisis.
    Each Summit pillar in some way addresses the root causes of 
migration across our hemisphere, a major challenge for the 
U.S., but not only the United States. It affects us all.
    So President Biden and other heads of government and heads 
of state will also discuss how to work together and develop 
collaborative coordinated responses to migration and forced 
displacement, and we hope that this process we will set the 
course for stabilizing migrant populations, expanding legal 
pathways, improving humane migration management to bring our 
historic migration crises under control.
    We are going to work together with members of this 
committee to make the Summit a success, joining partners from 
across the hemisphere to meet shared challenges, and we see 
clear value in building a regional consensus on such priorities 
wherever we can.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Reilly follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Mr. Kevin O'Reilly

    Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the 
subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you today. On June 8, 
President Biden will arrive in Los Angeles to host the Summit of the 
Americas, a first for us since the inaugural summit in 1994.
    This event will bring together governments from across our 
hemisphere to address pressing challenges and create new opportunities 
for our citizens and citizens from across the Americas.
    Voices from across the hemisphere will inform the Summit's work.
    We see direct engagement between the people and their government 
leaders as a Summit priority, and we expect people from every country 
of the hemisphere to join us in Los Angeles--including from lands where 
authoritarians would silence their citizens--to focus on ``Building an 
Equitable, Sustainable, and Resilient Future.''
    Civil society, youth, and business will participate through the 
Civil Society Forum, Young Americas Forum, and CEO Summit. For the 
first time, representatives of these groups will engage directly with 
heads of state and government in roundtable discussions during the 
Summit.
    Their conversations on topics ranging from ``Accelerating Digital 
Transformation'' and ``Safe and Secure Communities'' address U.S. 
priorities and exemplify the exchanges between citizens and elected 
officials that characterize the best in democratic dialogue.
    We look to make substantial progress on urgent challenges facing 
the Americas.
    The Department of State chairs a formal process known as the Summit 
Implementation Review Group, through which governments develop leader-
level commitments to adopt and launch in Los Angeles.
    We intend to establish a comprehensive action plan on strengthening 
the capacity of health systems, and their resilience; on working 
together better to prevent, prepare for, and respond to health crises 
and strengthen our health infrastructure and systems, including the 
health sector workforce; and in doing so create growth in our 
economies.
    Our commitments for a green future and a clean energy transition 
aim to put the region at the forefront of sustainable growth while 
addressing climate challenges.
    To bridge the digital divide and make sure all can benefit from the 
21st century economy, we intend to create the first regional agenda, 
and common principles, on preparing our citizens and societies for the 
digital transformation reshaping our hemisphere and our world.
    Finally, this Summit offers our region's democratic leaders an 
opportunity to affirm their commitment to democracy, and to the 
citizens from whom they derive authority, by adopting an action plan on 
building strong and inclusive democracies.
    These commitments reflect both our priorities and topics of broad 
regional concern identified in consultation with governments, civil 
society, youth, and business from across the region, a process that we 
began shortly after we first assumed the chair of the summit process 
from Peru in July 2020.
    These commitments and action plans, each in their own way, help 
address the root causes of irregular migration, exacerbated by the 
COVID-19 pandemic and now by rising global prices for food and 
agricultural and other commodities, a challenge made worse by Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine.
    To drive the region's economic recovery, we must push for reforms 
and expand opportunities for financing from transparent sources such as 
the Inter-American Development Bank and its private sector window, IDB 
Invest.
    The agenda that I've laid out here can help focus governments on 
these underlying issues by strengthening our democratic resilience, 
fighting corruption, building resilience in our health systems and 
increasing health security, supporting and strengthening independent 
media and civil society, promoting more equitable economic growth that 
reaches the people on the peripheries of our societies, and combating 
the climate crisis.
    As a region, we must address these issues in an equitable and 
inclusive way, or we will only exacerbate our vulnerabilities to health 
emergencies, food insecurity, irregular migration, and other 
challenges.
    Each Summit pillar in some way addresses the root causes of 
migration across our hemisphere, a major challenge for the United 
States, but not only the United States. It affects us all. Colombia, 
Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and their neighbors host more than 5 million 
Venezuelans, victims of political repression and economic collapse. 
Costa Rica hosts 500,000 Nicaraguans who have fled Ortega's 
authoritarian rule. Mexico stands third among nations globally in the 
number of asylum claims received. This unprecedented challenge must 
spur us to work together.
    President Biden and other heads of government and heads of state 
will also discuss responses to migration and forced displacement, 
including efforts to stabilize migrant populations, expand legal 
pathways, and improve humane migration management.
    We will work with the Department of Homeland Security and 
governments in the region to ensure order at our southwest border. DHS 
will continue responding to irregular migration by strictly but fairly 
enforcing our immigration laws, processing individuals in a safe, 
orderly, and humane manner. DHS efforts underway will help streamline 
immigration processing for noncitizens in custody, to minimize time 
spent in shared accommodation and strain on U.S. resources.
    We will continue to support DHS efforts to quickly remove 
individuals who do not establish the legal grounds to remain in the 
United States, while remaining a global leader in providing protection 
for those who flee or fear persecution and torture in their home 
countries. We constantly coordinate with other countries to ease or 
streamline repatriation requirements.
    We will work with members of this committee to make the Summit a 
success, working together with partners from across the hemisphere to 
meet shared challenges. We see clear value in building a regional 
consensus on such priorities wherever we can.

    Senator Kaine. We will now go to 5-minute rounds of 
questions, and I will begin and then go to the ranking member. 
So let us go ahead and start.
    Mr. O'Reilly, the Administration--there has been criticism 
for the approach to the Summit. Foreign leaders have criticized 
the exclusion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. My colleague 
addressed that well in his opening. Others have criticized the 
lack of a plan to improve the region's economy and trade 
linkages or overall lack of prioritizing the region.
    These are criticisms that would not be unexpected. Summits 
are good for bringing leaders together to dialogue, but the 
real test of a summit is if there is after action.
    What would you--what is the Administration hoping might be 
the after action results or strategies coming out of the Summit 
next--in June?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you, Senator.
    We were, indeed, pressed as a result of the pandemic and a 
lot of the preparations have, in fact, been compressed. We were 
only able, judging the evolution of the pandemic and other 
circumstances, to announce earlier this year that Los Angeles 
would be the venue and it has, in fact, made communication 
tighter.
    We have been working on developing a positive agenda from 
long before that and in consultations with other governments, 
and these are some of the outputs that--or the results that we 
hope to encourage, and I mentioned some of them in my opening 
comments.
    First, working together with governments in the region to 
develop an action plan on health. Now, it is not just a 
question of responding to the crisis, but rather because this 
hemisphere created the modern public health systems of this 
world.
    The predecessor of the Pan-American Health Organization 
long predates any other multilateral organization of that type 
anywhere in the world, and we have 8 percent of the planet's 
population and suffered something like 30-plus percent of the 
fatalities in this Western Hemisphere.
    Senator Kaine. I am going to--just going to dialogue with 
you rather than we each----
    Mr. O'Reilly. Please.
    Senator Kaine. --on time, and that was the case. Thirty 
percent of the population--8 percent of the population, 30 
percent of the deaths, but we only sent 8 percent of our 
vaccines to the Americas. We prioritized based on population, 
not based on need.
    In the Americas, because of migration flows, there is 
probably a much greater case to be made that it would be in the 
United States' interest to prioritize more vaccine delivery in 
the Americas because that is where the threat was. As we were 
doing vaccine distribution within the United States we tended 
to prioritize communities that were getting hit hardest by 
COVID.
    We kind of used an approach globally, well, let us just 
spread it equally over every part of the world whether or not 
there is a serious challenge, and I would argue that that 
provision of 8 percent of our vaccines to a population that had 
30 percent of the deaths, it was an under-prioritization of the 
Americas.
    We were slow going in. Russia and China got in first with 
PPE. The good thing is once we started producing vaccines and 
delivering, there was great appreciation for our effort. So I 
think the vaccine diplomacy has opened the door after we kind 
of got out of the block slow.
    I hope we will build on that door opening and I was pleased 
to hear you put health as one of the first pillars because I 
think that could be such an obvious area, given the times we 
live in and the recent success that we have had in at least 
delivering high-quality product in a way that has been 
appreciated.
    Mr. O'Reilly. Sir, we have seen as well that now, as the 
circumstances evolved, we see governments and individuals 
across the region opting for higher quality, more reliable 
resources provided from U.S. innovation and U.S. firms in order 
to meet these requirements, and we have managed to distribute 
free--as you mentioned earlier, free and without strings 
nearly--I think it is 68 million doses and we have, in 
fundamental ways, helped change the trajectory of the pandemic.
    Senator Kaine. Let me just stick with health, and I will go 
a little bit over and then I want to go to Senator Rubio.
    He raised in his opening this sort of nearshoring concept. 
A lot of our supply chains are in China and Asia. We had not 
defined in the past health equipment, medical equipment, as 
kind of a national security supply chain that we needed to keep 
close and so we ended up, really, in a jam when it came to 
things like PPE at the front end of the pandemic.
    These are textile products. They could be perfectly 
manufactured in American textile firms that are already 
operating in Central America. They could expand employment, 
expand opportunities.
    The idea of defining medical equipment and medical supplies 
as a national security imperative and wanting them closer to 
our shore, they should be manufactured in the United States or 
possibly in a country with a trade agreement with the United 
States.
    This could bring tremendous economic opportunity to the 
Americas and it could also be part of this first health pillar 
where we are producing more to prepare for the next challenge 
and the next pandemic right here that will benefit everyone.
    Is that sort of nearshoring focus how we can drive economic 
development to meet the health care goal that you described as 
pillar one--is that the kind of thing that there will be 
discussions about?
    Mr. O'Reilly. We have tried to work very hard with 
colleagues across the region as we head into the Summit to 
make--to have that kind of cooperative discussion about the 
standards, the market requirements, the--what consumers in--of 
high-quality health goods need in terms of production and what 
firms need in terms of the standards for transparency in order 
to create just those kinds of opportunities in health--not only 
in health, but in health, and we have certainly had discussions 
on the sort of technical nuts and bolts of these sorts of 
challenges with governments across the region.
    I know I have--certainly, with the Government of Colombia 
we have had these discussions with others as to how they can 
make themselves attractive to free market--a free market to 
participate in this kind of production because we know that the 
region has the talent and the creativity to do so.
    Senator Kaine. I am going to now turn it over for questions 
to Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Chairman.
    Just a couple points on the offshoring. I think, number 
one, the most important thing they can do is people need to 
know if I open a factory in your country some mayor or police 
chief is not going to show up a month later saying, hey, I have 
a deed here that says this property belongs to me. You need to 
pay me $5,000 a month or $10,000 a month in order to keep the 
business. That is usually bad for business. I think that is the 
beginning of it.
    Then the other is I think we need to prioritize and figure 
out ways to use our own financing mechanisms to create those 
incentives. I think the market incentives are there if there 
were the capital availability through the Inter-American 
Development Bank or some other measures, and I think that that 
is really important, but we have to focus on it.
    I wanted to ask you some very specific questions. Have we 
invited anyone from the Cuban regime to be a part of the 
Summit?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Pardon me. Senator, that will be a decision 
for the White House to make.
    Senator Rubio. So we have not yet invited, as far as--I 
mean, you would know if we invited someone. We have not yet 
invited anyone to the Summit?
    Mr. O'Reilly. That would be a White House call, sir.
    Senator Rubio. No, I know it would be their call. I am 
asking if it has already been made.
    Mr. O'Reilly. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. We recognize Juan Guaido as the 
legitimate interim president of Venezuela. That is a correct--
--
    Mr. O'Reilly. Absolutely.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. Have we invited him or anyone from the 
interim government to the Summit?
    Mr. O'Reilly. We are in constant discussions with them 
about how to participate and engage in the Summit.
    Senator Rubio. Have we invited them to the Summit yet?
    Mr. O'Reilly. We are in regular discussions with them and 
your question----
    Senator Rubio. No, I know you are in regular discussion. I 
think the--I know what you are answering because I get it. I am 
asking have we invited--I mean, have we invited them or not? We 
are in--in those discussions have we invited them yet or we 
just have not made that invitation? That is----
    Mr. O'Reilly. That will be a White House call, sir.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. So the White House has not made that 
call yet, correct?
    Mr. O'Reilly. That will be a White House call, sir.
    Senator Rubio. Have they made that call yet?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. Why is it so hard to answer these 
things? These are pretty straightforward questions. I am not 
trying to trick you. It is just I just want to know. I get it.
    Look, the answer is the White House has to make that call. 
They have not made that call yet. I get it. That is not--I am 
not saying that is your call to make. I am just asking the 
question because that is why we have these hearings.
    Mr. O'Reilly. Of course.
    Senator Rubio. All right. Have we invited representatives 
of civil society in Cuba, for example, people involved in what 
happened last July, mostly artists and things of this nature 
who simply want to be able to have freedom of expression? Has 
anybody like that been invited to the Summit?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Yes, sir. We want to have as broad a 
participation from civil society from every country which--
where authoritarians who are dictators are seeking to snuff out 
public debate.
    Senator Rubio. So we have made those invitations?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Yes, sir.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. Have we invited the Maduro regime or 
any of its representatives to the Summit?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Absolutely not. We do not recognize them as a 
sovereign government.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. Have we invited anyone from the Ortega 
regime to the Summit?
    Mr. O'Reilly. No.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. My question is this. My understanding 
is that President Obrador in Mexico is, I think, probably the 
ringleader of this who are going to boycott the Summit unless 
you invite this trifecta of tyranny in Nicaragua, Venezuela, 
and Cuba.
    Is that influencing the decisions we are making in regards 
to--I mean, is that something we are taking into account in 
regards to who we invite or what we do, moving forward?
    Mr. O'Reilly. We are certainly having discussions with the 
Government of Mexico and with all the governments in the region 
about the structuring and organization of the debate.
    I mean, next week, I will be in Los Angeles to continue 
discussions on the agenda that I just discussed and I know the 
White House and other senior officials are constantly in 
dialogue with the Mexicans and with many other governments.
    The former chairman of this subcommittee, Christopher Dodd, 
is currently traveling in South America as the President's 
Special Advisor for the Summit and has had consultations with--
already with Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and will visit other 
countries as well.
    Senator Rubio. It is just--my view on it is, and I have 
seen the public statements that Obrador has made about, well, 
we are not going to go to the Summit if these guys are not 
invited and so forth.
    My view of it is this. I do not think the United States of 
America should, frankly, be bullied or pressured into who to 
invite to a summit we are hosting. If he does not want to come 
he does not come.
    In my view, one of the great things about it is if we have 
a summit where we do not invite dictators and the people who 
wanted dictators to come decide to boycott it, then we will 
just know who our real friends are in the region and govern 
ourselves accordingly.
    I think it would be a good opportunity to filter out the--
those who are aligned with our views on the direction of the 
region and those who are not.
    I want to ask you about Haiti. We have invited the current 
prime minister of Haiti, correct?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Yes, sir.
    Senator Rubio. Okay. Obviously, you do not want to 
speculate about what happened between now and that Summit and 
so forth, but I have very deep concerns about Haiti, in 
particular.
    The Prime Minister is--he is an interim Prime Minister. 
There is not a lot of clarity there about what happens if, God 
forbid, he is removed from office via a coup or something far 
worse, and we are hoping that does not happen. I imagine the 
topic of Haiti--its future, its direction, how it goes from 
here on out--is something that will be on the Summit agenda.
    Is that something we are proactively raising?
    Mr. O'Reilly. We are very much engaged as part of the broad 
sweep of our diplomacy in the hemisphere on just that agenda, 
sir.
    Senator Rubio. Yes. I think we really should highlight that 
as far as understanding what we can do, first, to help along 
with partners in the region to get some stability in Haiti.
    Without stability in Haiti it has an impact on multiple 
countries. Even Cuba is now intercepting Haitian migrants. We 
are beginning to see that. There are, certainly, a large number 
of Haitian migrants that are now transiting through Central 
America and presenting themselves at the southern border. The 
Bahamas has long had to confront these sorts of challenges.
    So I think it is really important that that be a topic that 
is highlighted and focused upon because I do think there are 
countries in the region that can--that have a vested interest, 
beginning with the Dominican Republic--it, obviously, shares 
Hispaniola with them--but others that have a vested interest in 
contributing towards some level of governmental stability there 
and security so that we can--that can then be built upon to, 
hopefully, provide a better--and I just hope that the topic of 
Haiti is prominently featured on the agenda and it is something 
that we really confront.
    I will turn it back over, and then I do not know if we have 
a second round.
    Senator Kaine. Excellent. I think Senator Cardin will now 
ask questions by WebEx.
    [No response.]
    Senator Kaine. All right. We are going to try to get 
Senator Cardin up. While we are doing that, let me ask another 
question.
    Mr. O'Reilly, one of the natural tendencies we have is to 
focus on the kind of problem areas and so the dictatorship or 
democratic backsliding in the region is very real.
    I mean, Senator Rubio's opening statement kind of talked 
about the difference in the vibe between 1994 in Miami and in 
2022 in Los Angeles, but there are also some bright spots, and 
I think often what you really need to do is when you have 
bright spots amplify them.
    So the Alliance for Democracy and Development, Dominican 
Republic, Panama, Costa Rica, wanting to have a greater center 
of gravity to advocate for democracy, rule of law, human 
rights, I think that is a positive.
    It is early in the new tenure of the president of Chile, 
but I have viewed his willingness to call out abuses by 
governments that you might think, because he kind of came from 
the left, he would be supportive of--his willingness to call 
out abuses in Nicaragua or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 
that is promising.
    What are you thinking about strategies for the Summit that 
we might do to kind of amplify or shine a spotlight on some of 
the positive developments in the region to counter a narrative 
that it is just all a backslide right now?
    Mr. O'Reilly. Absolutely, Senator, and we have also been 
very encouraged by the work of the governments of the Dominican 
Republic, Panama, and Costa Rica, and you can already see that 
this is something that, certainly, in Costa Rica crosses their 
local partisan divide. The change of Administration has not 
changed their commitment to this objective at all.
    This is not something that we brought forward. This is a 
homegrown initiative and one that is exceptionally positive, 
and we see those kinds of positive developments as well in 
places like Ecuador and, yes, I think you are right, after the 
difficult divisions and public debate in Chile that dates from 
before the pandemic, you see a situation where--a knitting 
together of a new political consensus and a great deal of 
ethical clarity about democratic governance, and that is really 
a fundamental for us.
    It is not--people choose their own--in democracies, people 
choose their own course for their own nations, and we have no 
quarrel with that whether those governments are conservative, 
whether they are of the left, whether they just shoot straight 
down the middle.
    It is a question of following rules, of democratic 
participation, of their own constitutions. These are our 
complaints with people like Nicolas Maduro, who trample those 
rules of the road, if you would, of any democratic government.
    So part of our agenda of this action plan for strengthening 
the commitments we made to one another in Quebec City and then 
on that--the one bright spot on that sad day of September 11, 
2001, with the Inter-American Democratic Charter is to make 
sure that we are setting a positive agenda for democratic 
governance because, as Senator Rubio was just saying, you do 
all the right things to build a business and then someone 
sticks their hands out for a kickback.
    That is a question of democratic governance. That is a 
question of accountability. Those are the ways that we can 
build--if we strengthen those institutions, if we strengthen 
the rule of law, if we strengthen accountability, that is where 
we get the opportunity to show people that the faith they place 
in democratic governance, well, that faith is well founded.
    So much of our agenda, whether it is health, whether it is 
digital, whether it is the economic--broad agenda of economic 
recovery that pulls people in from the margins and makes them 
feel that they are invested in their future, well, the 
foundation of all of that is effective democratic governance.
    Senator Kaine. Indeed. Indeed. Is Senator Cardin available 
now?
    [No response.]
    Senator Kaine. Senator Rubio, do you have additional 
questions for Mr. O'Reilly before the second panel?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    Senator Kaine. All right.
    Mr. O'Reilly, thank you. I will see you in Los Angeles. We 
are going to be, hopefully, bringing a number of senators out 
for Thursday evening and Friday, and we hope that the Summit is 
a success.
    Even more than that, we hope that the aftermath of the 
Summit demonstrates a--just a higher level of attention, focus, 
and partnership between Americans North, Central, and South. 
Thank you very much.
    We will now introduce our second panel.
    As you come on up, we will begin. Very, very happy to 
welcome both Dr. Chavez and Mr. Farnsworth to the subcommittee 
today.
    So let me introduce our second panel of witnesses. Dr. 
Rebecca Bill Chavez, who is the president and CEO of the Inter-
American Dialogue. She was formerly a senior fellow in the 
Dialogue's Rule of Law program, previously served as Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs 
from 2013 to 2016.
    In that role, she prioritized women, peace, and security 
initiatives, combating the militarization of law enforcement, 
and also expanded defense institution building programs. Prior 
to that, Dr. Chavez was a tenured professor of political 
science at the Naval Academy. Her research focused on 
democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. She received her 
master's and Ph.D. in political science from Stanford, 
bachelor's degree from Princeton.
    Eric Farnsworth--Eric leads the Washington Office of the 
Council of the Americas. Prior to work with the Council, he 
spent almost a decade in government with the Department of 
State, Office of U.S. Trade Representative, and the Clinton 
White House. He also served in the United States Senate with a 
wonderful former Senator, Sam Nunn.
    I want to thank both of you for joining and I would like to 
ask, first, Dr. Chavez, and then Eric Farnsworth, if you will 
deliver your opening testimony and then we will go to 
questions.

STATEMENT OF DR. REBECCA BILL CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTER-
               AMERICAN DIALOGUE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Chavez. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, members 
of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to 
testify today about the Summit of the Americas.
    As you mentioned, I am president and CEO of the Inter-
American Dialogue, which is a think tank that is dedicated to 
the issues we are talking about today, to fostering democratic 
governance, prosperity, and social equity in Latin America and 
the Caribbean.
    In my testimony today I want to underscore two core points. 
First, we should not view the Summit as a single discrete 
event. Instead, the Biden administration should use this 
gathering to announce a holistic strategy and vision for Latin 
America and the Caribbean.
    This is really important. A lot of commentators, myself 
included, have been asking questions like who will be invited, 
who will attend, but what is most important is that the Summit 
is happening, and we should make sure that it lays down the 
foundation for longer-term sustained engagement in the region.
    It has to be a launching pad. It cannot be a one-and-done 
event. The Summit should be part of a broader effort to 
reengage, reassert the U.S. position as a partner and leader in 
the region, and reassure the region that the United States 
cares deeply about the Americas' collective future and well-
being.
    Second, the Biden administration must release as soon as 
possible a robust Summit agenda that reflects and aligns with 
the concerns of the region as well as with U.S. interests.
    I was pleased to hear some elements of that agenda earlier 
from Mr. O'Reilly. As he notes, there are critical issues on 
which the U.S. can and should work together with the nations of 
the hemisphere, many of which were not of concern at the--
during the first summit in 1994 when democracy and economic 
development were on the rise.
    Today, the region is polarized. COVID-19 has laid bare 
public health and economic challenges. Democracy is in retreat, 
climate change is threatening the safety of people, and global 
rivals are making their financial and political presence 
strongly felt.
    I am going to highlight three such issues. First, on the 
Summit agenda and a critical component of an Americas strategy 
should be the hemisphere-wide migration crisis, which can only 
be addressed in collaboration with partners.
    We have tended to focus on our southern border, and I was 
pleased to hear Mr. O'Reilly today talking about the broader 
nature of this crisis. I want to highlight that migrants from a 
diverse set of countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, 
Nicaragua, and Cuba, in addition to the Northern Triangle 
countries, are fleeing a mix of acute humanitarian crises, 
political repression, violence, and state fragility.
    Over 6 million Venezuelan refugees are overwhelming 
neighboring countries. That is on the scale of the Syria and 
Ukraine refugee crises, and it is happening here in our 
hemisphere. Over 6 million.
    We cannot forget that is happening. Granting TPS to 
Venezuelans was important, but just as the U.S., on a 
bipartisan basis, has generously stepped up to assist Ukrainian 
refugees, so should we work with our hemispheric and global 
partners to help refugees in the Americas.
    Part of the agenda that I hope will be incorporated into a 
broader Americas strategy is COVID-19. We need a region-wide 
plan for the still-evolving pandemic and for public health 
emergencies that the region will undoubtedly face in the 
future.
    As has been alluded to, COVID hit Latin America and the 
Caribbean hard--over 27 percent of the total number of COVID 
deaths in a region with only 8 percent of the world's 
population.
    I fully agree that we need to prioritize vaccine 
distribution to our partners in the Americas. At the Summit, 
the U.S. should begin to work on a more cooperative approach 
not just to manage the COVID pandemic, but to strengthen public 
health systems, more generally.
    Finally, the COVID crisis has brought into focus the need 
for inclusive economic recovery. The pandemic contributed to a 
devastating economic contraction of 7 percent in 2020, leading 
to a 10 percent increase in poverty.
    Given that impact, coupled with the rising inflation, there 
are several commitments that the Biden administration should 
make in Los Angeles, and these also must be included in a 
strategic vision for the region.
    We have to move beyond discussion. We need to expand 
efforts to attract private investment to the region. We need to 
announce climate-friendly infrastructure investment initiatives 
to follow through on the Build Back Better World promises, and 
we need real action when it comes to nearshoring.
    I want to conclude by thanking you for drawing attention to 
the Summit, and also, more broadly, to Latin America and the 
Caribbean, a region that is so important to the interests of 
the United States.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Chavez follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Dr. Rebecca Bill Chavez

    Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
upcoming Ninth Summit of the Americas to be held in Los Angeles.
    My name is Rebecca Bill Chavez. I am President and CEO of the 
Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank dedicated to fostering democratic 
governance, prosperity, and social equity in Latin America and the 
Caribbean. We work to shape policy debate, devise solutions, and 
enhance cooperation within the Western Hemisphere.
    From 2013 until 2016, I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Before that, I was a tenured 
professor at the United States Naval Academy, focusing on democracy and 
security in Latin America and the Caribbean. I have dedicated my 
policy, academic, and government career to working on and understanding 
U.S.-Latin American relations as well as democracy and the rule of law 
in Latin America.
            the summit is an opportunity to deploy a vision
    In my testimony today, I want to underscore two core points.
    First, we should not view the Summit as a single, discrete event. 
Instead, the Biden administration should use the gathering to 
articulate a vision for Latin America and the Caribbean that it will 
carry forward over the coming years.
    Second, the United States must release as soon as possible a robust 
Summit agenda that reflects and aligns with the concerns and priorities 
of the region as well as with U.S. interests.
    As was the case when the first Summit of the Americas was held in 
Miami in 1994, hosting the Summit in the United States and especially 
in Los Angeles has tremendous symbolic value. With a population that is 
almost 50 percent Latino and with deep ties to Mexico and the other 
countries of the hemisphere, Los Angeles is a microcosm of the 
deepening connection between U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy. 
Beyond the strong resonance of its location, the Summit presents the 
Biden administration with the opportunity to announce and begin 
implementing a holistic strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean--a 
pivot to the Americas that is more needed today than ever.
    Despite concerns about Summit participation by other nations, the 
Biden administration can and should take strong steps to make the 
Summit a success by underscoring that the Summit is part of a broader 
U.S. effort to reengage with the Americas, reassert the U.S. position 
as a hemispheric partner and leader, and reassure the region that the 
United States cares deeply about the Americas' collective future and 
well-being. Of course, this will require that the U.S. Government make 
and follow through on concrete commitments.
    In addition to presenting a vision and a renewed commitment to the 
Americas, the United States must present a Summit agenda that reflects 
the concerns and priorities of the region. There are many specific and 
critical issues on which the United States can and should work together 
with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.
    In sharp contrast to the first Summit in Miami when democracy and 
economic development were on the rise, the United States will be 
hosting this year's gathering at a time when the region is polarized, 
COVID-19 has laid bare public health and economic challenges, democracy 
is in its second decade of retreat, climate change is threatening the 
health and safety of people throughout the hemisphere, and global 
rivals are making their financial and political presence strongly felt. 
A U.S. commitment to a Summit that reflects the region's priorities and 
to greater engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean is 
fundamental to competing effectively with authoritarian countries like 
China, which are increasingly influential in the region.
    President Biden's commitment to multilateralism on a global scale 
should constitute the backbone of the Summit itself and of a Latin 
America and Caribbean strategy. After all, the greatest threats to our 
hemisphere are complex and transcend national borders. An Americas 
strategy without strong partnership and alignment or that is seen as 
simply a unilateral U.S. project is destined to fail. The President has 
the opportunity to build common cause with the hemisphere's nations 
through the reinvigoration of regional organizations like the 
Organization of American States, which should play a key role in 
bolstering democracy in the hemisphere.
The Hemispheric Migration Crisis
    First on the Summit agenda should be the hemisphere-wide migration 
crisis. Irregular migration is a tragic humanitarian issue that impacts 
countries across the Americas--a truly hemispheric challenge that is 
best addressed in collaboration with regional partners. As such, the 
Biden administration has the opportunity to demonstrate that it cares 
about more than crossings along the U.S. southern border.
    Migrants from a diverse set of countries, including Venezuela, 
Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras are fleeing a mix of acute humanitarian crises, 
political repression, violence, and state fragility. Over 6 million 
Venezuelan refugees are overwhelming Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and many 
other Latin American and Caribbean countries. This number rivals 
Syria's demographic collapse, and yet the amount of international 
funding for each Venezuelan refugee is only 10 percent of the per 
capita funding for Syrian refugees. The Biden administration took an 
important first step by granting Temporary Protected Status to 
Venezuelans in the United States. Now it's time to do more. Just as the 
U.S. Government on a bipartisan basis has generously stepped up to 
assist Ukrainian refugees, so should the United States work with 
hemispheric and global partners to help refugees in our hemisphere.
    President Biden started to build the scaffolding of a holistic 
approach to migration with its Northern Triangle Strategy, an essential 
step with a focus on the root causes, including crippling poverty, 
widespread violence, government corruption, and climate change. 
Although its long-term focus on rootedness represents a positive shift 
away from the ad-hoc, reactive stance that has characterized U.S. 
policy for decades, it only covers a portion of Central America, 
leaving out Nicaragua where thousands are fleeing the brutal Ortega 
regime, not to mention Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean. The 
localized strategy should be a building block of a broader approach 
that goes well beyond concerns about migration to the United States, 
and President Biden should use the Summit to propose a set of practical 
policy solutions.
COVID and Public Health Emergencies
    The agenda should also include a sustainable, region-wide plan for 
the still-evolving COVID-19 pandemic and for public health emergencies 
that the region will undoubtedly face in the future. COVID-19 hit Latin 
America and the Caribbean hard, killing over 1.7 million people--more 
than 27 percent of the total number of global COVID deaths in a region 
with only 8 percent of the world's population. Many countries came to 
see China and Russia as stronger pandemic partners than the United 
States, given how slow the U.S. was to provide personal protective 
equipment and vaccines.
    At the Summit, the United States should work to organize a more 
cooperative approach to managing the pandemic and strengthening public 
health systems more generally. The countries of Latin America and the 
Caribbean have for too long invested far too little in health 
infrastructure. In addition to increasing vaccine provisions, the Biden 
administration should initiate a robust vaccine technology program to 
ramp up regional manufacturing capacity to achieve global equitable 
vaccine access. More broadly, the United States needs to work with 
other countries to establish robust and reliable systems to coordinate 
better our response to future pandemic threats and, more broadly, 
region-wide public health emergencies.
    The pandemic and the resulting school closures had significant 
negative effects on education opportunities across the hemisphere, 
particularly for students from vulnerable households. The region had 
the longest average school closures of anywhere in the world, and some 
countries are only now reopening for in-person learning, over 2 years 
after school doors were first closed. The Summit is an opportunity for 
the United States to reaffirm the importance of education recovery 
efforts and commit to partnering with countries in Latin America and 
the Caribbean to promote quality education for all, including through 
cooperative programs such as the 100,000 Strong in the Americas 
initiative.
Inclusive Economic Recovery and Growth
    The COVID crisis has also tragically brought into focus the 
economic weaknesses of the region. The Economic Commission for Latin 
America and the Caribbean reports that the spread of COVID contributed 
to a devastating economic contraction of 7 percent in 2020, which led 
to a 10 percent increase in poverty in 2020 and exacerbated income 
inequality. According to the World Bank, students impacted by extended 
school closures could face a 10 percent loss in their lifetime incomes.
    Given the devastating economic impact of the pandemic coupled with 
rising inflation, inclusive economic recovery should be a central piece 
of the Summit agenda, and there are several initiatives and commitments 
the Biden administration could announce in Los Angeles, including the 
expansion of efforts to attract private investment to the region. The 
Administration's Partnership for Central America could serve as the 
model and starting point.
    The U.S. should also announce climate-friendly infrastructure 
investment initiatives to follow through on the launch of Build Back 
World and the promises it made to Latin America and the Caribbean with 
the other G7 countries a year ago. Expectations are high in the region, 
especially since the September Build Back Better World listening tour 
that included stops in Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama. As a start, the 
Administration should harness its various development finance tools, 
including the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, and 
provide specifics on areas that it will invest in, which is becoming 
even more important as China's competing Belt and Road Initiative gains 
traction in the region.
    The Administration should also announce specific initiatives that 
follow up on its talk about nearshoring as a way to boost economic 
performance in the hemisphere. There are many opportunities to re-route 
and reinforce more secure and reliable supply chains through the region 
as an alternative to manufacturing and services hubs in China and other 
parts of the world. Manufacturing and production were both 
significantly impacted by the COVID pandemic, which has prompted 
companies to explore options in Latin America and the Caribbean. It's 
time for the Biden administration to create incentives for companies to 
move their operations to parts of the Americas that are closer and have 
easier access to the United States.
    Finally, as of part of President Biden's effort to tackle the 
climate crisis, the Administration should announce bold new clean 
energy investments and demonstrate its support for the region's 
renewable energy goals. The climate conversation should also include an 
actionable plan to increase climate adaptation assistance to the 
region, particularly to the Caribbean and Central America, which 
experience the most catastrophic impacts of climate change in large 
part due to their geographic exposure to extreme weather events. Aid 
should also target the most vulnerable populations, including women, 
indigenous communities, people of African descent, and youth. Potential 
commitments include greater funding for resilient agricultural 
practices where a single drought can utterly destroy the livelihood of 
subsistence farmers. The Administration should also expand its work 
with the countries that share the Amazon rainforest using a variety of 
tools from technical assistance to funding to expand protected areas 
and indigenous reserves. By providing financial and technical resources 
for the region to meet its climate commitments and build its 
resilience, the United States can take the lead on a shared sustainable 
development agenda.
                               conclusion
    Thank you again for shining alight on the upcoming Summit of the 
Americas. I also want to thank the Subcommittee for its bipartisan and 
much-needed attention to Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that 
is so deeply important to the interests of the United States.

    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Dr. Chavez.
    Mr. Farnsworth.

 STATEMENT OF ERIC FARNSWORTH, VICE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF THE 
                    AMERICAS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Farnsworth. Good morning. Thank you for the 
opportunity, again, to testify before this subcommittee.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members, I really want to 
thank you both and those who may be on WebEx for your continued 
leadership on these issues. It is genuine.
    We need, Mr. Rubio, the types of leaders in the Senate that 
you spoke of in your statement, and both of you dedicating 
today's hearing, but also your own prioritization of the 
Western Hemisphere is noticed and it is meaningful and it is 
important. So thank you for that.
    In uncertainty there is opportunity, and the Summit of the 
Americas presents an important opportunity for the United 
States to meet the region where it is, to present a true 
partnership for regional recovery, to work to ensure that the 
next pandemic wave is less terrible, and to stand firmly and 
resolutely for democracy.
    The world has changed dramatically since the first U.S.-
hosted summit in 1994. I was also there in Miami and I saw, 
personally, the excitement and ambition of the assembled 
leaders, each one democratically elected.
    We were at the ``end of history.'' Russia had been 
chastened. China was not yet a thing, at least in the Americas. 
Nation after nation had moved from dictatorship to democracy, 
from economic distress to stability, from closed economies to 
open, toward a real desire for expanding trade with the United 
States and with each other.
    Only Cuba remained an outlier, then as now, although today 
both Venezuela and Nicaragua have also left the democratic 
path, and Haiti continues to struggle to constitute and sustain 
democratic governance as it also did in 1994, and other 
countries in the region also face democratic challenges.
    Across the region, one constant since Miami is the desire 
to meet the needs and improve the lives of citizens and this is 
where we have a real opportunity in Los Angeles for lasting, 
positive change if we choose to prioritize these issues.
    Latin America and the Caribbean have been hit hard by the 
COVID pandemic, as we have already heard. Beyond the awful 
human costs, budgets have been strained, debt has increased, 
and rising U.S. interest rates are making dollar-denominated 
debt more difficult to service.
    The World Bank projects regional growth this year of just 
over 2 percent, hardly enough to create the jobs the region 
requires to get back on its feet or to address rising social 
demands.
    Ultimately, the region's leaders themselves are responsible 
for job creation and development in their own countries, but we 
can help, and if we want the United States to maintain a 
privileged position in the Americas, I believe we have to help 
because alternatives now exist that did not exist before.
    The Los Angeles Summit would be the perfect opportunity for 
Washington to announce a commitment to regional growth and 
recovery, launching a concerted effort on debt service and 
relief, new lending, incentives for private sector-led 
investment, and trade.
    While a significant trade initiative may not be in the 
cards, there is no reason Washington cannot propose a region-
wide effort to liberalize individual sectors such as 
environmental technology, goods and services, or the digital 
economy or health care consistent with and building on the 
framework, frankly, that the President just announced himself 
in Tokyo for Asia.
    Why cannot we use a similar approach for the Western 
Hemisphere?
    More ambitiously, consistent with the region's own 
interests, I propose we seek to expand the bipartisan USMCA 
into the rest of the hemisphere, including other nations as 
they show the interest and capacity to meet the standards and 
obligations that the agreement requires.
    Second, the pandemic is not yet over, but it is clear that 
sustainable health systems are an investment in the region's 
economies as well as in the well-being of its most vulnerable 
citizens.
    Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your comments in terms of 
vaccines and I have been saying since the pandemic began with 
the hashtag #VaccinateTheAmericas that we have to prioritize 
the Americas for the public health reasons for sure, but also 
there is a strategic component here with China. It is something 
that makes sense for us to be doing.
    We would be better positioned to ensure regional health 
care systems work better and we would be better able to 
prioritize help in terms of the inevitable next pandemic.
    There is also one very important aspect here and that is 
that the pandemic is--it is fundamental to fix the pandemic if 
the region's tourism services sector is going to recover.
    Tourism is a major services export, and with the high U.S. 
dollar right now there should be a huge desire for American 
citizens, particularly U.S. citizens, to travel to the Western 
Hemisphere to take advantage of the strong U.S. dollar.
    They are not doing that, necessarily, because still the 
pandemic is raging in parts of the hemisphere. So it is not 
just a health issue. It is an economic recovery issue and I 
think we have to acknowledge that.
    Finally, we must be committed stewards of regional 
democracy. We can all do better in practice, for sure, 
ourselves included. It is important to uphold the basic 
democratic standard for Summit participation.
    That is why the bipartisan Upholding the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter Act of 2022 is so very much appreciated for 
both you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. In that vein, 
Venezuela's constitutional leader, Juan Guaido, should also be 
invited to the Summit and as of late last night, at least, he 
had not yet been invited.
    These issues are fraught, but it begs the question, at this 
point what is the purpose of regional summits, because simply 
meeting a commitment to meet is not enough. Without an 
ambitious, attractive agenda to rally around, the narrative is 
too easily captured by those whose interests do not coincide 
with our own and, indeed, that has been the case.
    Working toward regional recovery, including trade 
expansion, addressing health care and other social needs, and 
standing for democracy even when it may be unpopular to do so, 
in my view, would be a great place to begin.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you again 
for the opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Farnsworth follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Mr. Eric Farnsworth

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share my views 
with you and the Subcommittee on the upcoming Ninth Summit of the 
Americas, which the United States will host from June 8 through June 10 
in Los Angeles. The Council of the Americas has been involved in the 
Summits of the Americas since the first Summit was conceived and hosted 
by President Bill Clinton in Miami in 1994, and in every Summit of the 
Americas since then. And my own involvement also dates to that first 
Summit, when as a young State Department officer I was one of the 
advisors working to bring the Summit together substantively and 
logistically.
        the vision at the center of the summits of the americas
    The Los Angeles Summit is an opportunity to build on that first 
Summit of the Americas, and on a process that has been in place now for 
almost 30 years. So I think it's important to start by looking back at 
what drove the United States to launch the Summits of the Americas. The 
1994 Summit took place at a singular moment in U.S. and global 
history--one that seems pretty distant right now, but which is 
important to capture. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the 
Berlin Wall had come down only 4 years earlier, and the Soviet Union 
had collapsed--largely peacefully--just a couple of years before. The 
United States was enjoying a unipolar moment as the sole superpower. 
Enjoying it, but also working to define what that unipolar moment would 
mean and how we would use it going forward, after almost half a century 
in which the Cold War dominated our and the world's foreign 
policymaking.
    In that context, the first Summit caught a democratic wave in Latin 
America and the Caribbean and launched the process for a region-wide 
free trade area. Most significantly, it represented a vision for U.S. 
relations with Latin America, and for the Americas as a whole. It 
sought to reshape the way we as Americans--``estadounidenses''--dealt 
with a region where history is remembered, and not always positively; 
to move past the Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century and the 
``backyard'' talk of the early 20th century; to build on the Alliance 
for Progress of the post-World War II era; and to think of ourselves as 
``americanos,'' partners with the region in advancing a shared set of 
values. It is a testament to that vision that it has endured for 28 
years, and that the following Summits of the Americas were held with a 
similar vision for democratic partnership and open-market prosperity. 
The 2001 Summit in Canada spurred completion of the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter, a landmark, and still unique, document approved 
unanimously in Lima on September 11, 2001, just hours after terrorists 
crashed civilian aircraft into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a 
field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Inter-American Democratic 
Charter committed the region's governments to democratic governance, 
building on the commitment made in Quebec City that democracy would be 
a requirement for attendance at future Summits.
                       a fading sense of purpose
    Over the next 20 years, however, the sense of common purpose faded 
as we in the United States turned our attention, necessarily, to the 
``Global War on Terror.'' Regional governments were sympathetic and 
ready to partner in this effort, but did not experience the threat in 
the same way. A growing number of illiberal governments in the region 
questioned U.S. actions as we sought to protect ourselves. Many 
governments also began to question the value of a U.S.-led regional 
trade area. By 2005, the Free Trade Area of the Americas was suspended, 
and by the time of the 2012 Summit, hosted by Colombia, governments 
were divided over what democracy and trade even signified, making it 
difficult to reach agreement on a common agenda.
    In some ways, that is the story of the Summits of the Americas over 
the last two decades: a move from a shared vision for democracy, trade, 
and prosperity to a venue for taking a stand. Still, if each meeting 
became progressively less ambitious, successive U.S. administrations 
understood the value of the Summits. As the only gatherings where Latin 
and Caribbean governments come together with the U.S. and Canadian 
leaders, they provided a unique opportunity to advance regional 
dialogue and aims. President Bush attended two; President Obama 
attended three. And in each case, the Summit meeting served to connect 
the United States better with a region that, despite being so central 
to U.S. security and prosperity, is often overlooked in Washington.
                    the lima summit as turning point
    The Lima Summit in 2018 represented a turning point in both 
substance and regional relations. Substantively, in the wake of the 
Odebrecht scandal that rocked many governments in the region, the 
Peruvian hosts focused the Summit on anti-corruption measures, 
achieving a meaningful, if limited, agreement for the first time in 
over a decade. This despite dealing with their own political 
instability and the resignation of their president just 2 weeks before 
the meeting. In some ways, the agreement heralded a possible return to 
the sort of visionary ideas that drove the early Summits of the 
Americas, even if the scope was narrower. For U.S. relations with the 
region, however, the Lima Summit represented a departure. When 
President Trump canceled his attendance, many in the region viewed it 
as a snub. The offer by Vice President Pence for the United States to 
host the next Summit, while welcome, did little to diminish the sting. 
When President Biden took office last year, the normal planning process 
for a Summit of the Americas was already well behind schedule. Still, 
many in the region hoped that the Ninth Summit of the Americas could 
represent a turning point for the better. And the year-long delay 
necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to offer an opportunity 
for the Biden administration to mount a thoughtful effort around a new 
vision for hemispheric relations.
               the opportunity of the los angeles summit
    Two weeks out from the Summit, the general consensus in the region, 
and among Latin Americanists, is that the vision is clouded. I hope and 
trust they are wrong. Because we are at a moment of great uncertainty 
for the United States and for our Western Hemisphere neighbors. And in 
uncertainty there is opportunity. This Summit of the Americas, hosted 
by the United States for the first time in a generation, presents an 
opportunity for us to meet the region where it is: to present a true 
partnership for regional recovery, to work to ensure that the next 
pandemic wave is less terrible, and to stand firmly and resolutely for 
democracy.
    Across the region, one constant since Miami is the desire to meet 
the needs and improve the lives of our citizens. And this is where we 
have a real opportunity in Los Angeles for lasting, positive change. 
Latin America and the Caribbean has been hit hard by the COVID 
pandemic. Beyond the awful human costs, budgets have been strained, 
debt has increased, and rising U.S. interest rates are making dollar-
denominated debt more difficult to service. The World Bank projects 
regional growth this year of just over 2 percent, hardly enough to 
create the jobs the region requires to get back on its feet or address 
rising social demands.
    Ultimately, the region's leaders themselves are responsible for job 
creation and development in their own countries, but we can help. And 
if we want the United States to maintain a privileged position in the 
Americas, we must help, because alternatives now exist that didn't 
before. Cuba is no longer an outlier. Populism, illiberal democracy, 
authoritarian government, and even brutal dictatorships in Venezuela 
and Nicaragua, as well as Cuba, have appeared, challenging democratic 
institutions that were already weakened by corruption and a lack of 
rule of law. China has successfully asserted itself economically and is 
now the first or second trading partner of most countries in the 
region. And it is clear that China is looking to assert itself 
politically in the Americas, questioning the value of democracy and 
undermining democratic institutions, as part of an increasingly 
aggressive global competition with the United States.
        an opportunity for recovery through trade and investment
    The Los Angeles Summit offers the perfect opportunity for 
Washington to announce a commitment to regional growth and recovery, 
launching a concerted effort on debt service and relief, new lending, 
incentives for private sector-led investment, and trade. While a 
comprehensive trade initiative may not be in the cards, there is no 
reason Washington cannot propose a region-wide effort to liberalize and 
facilitate trade in individual sectors including environmental 
technology, goods, and services, the digital economy, and healthcare. 
More ambitiously, we should be seeking to build on the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, which received bipartisan support to 
advance North American economic integration. We should use the Summit 
to offer our neighbors the opportunity to join us, as they show 
interest and capacity to meet the standards and take on the obligations 
the agreement requires. The region is asking for such an agenda and 
will meet their needs elsewhere if we do not respond effectively.
     an opportunity for recovery through better healthcare systems
    Second, the pandemic is not yet in the regional rear-view mirror, 
and it is already clear that sustainable healthcare systems are an 
investment in the region's economies as well as in the well-being of 
its most vulnerable citizens. The United States has donated millions of 
vaccine doses to the region, and must continue to do so, for our well-
being as well as that of our neighbors. Beyond prioritizing vaccine 
assistance, we should lead in strengthening the region's healthcare 
systems by instituting a high-level, annual public-private health and 
economy forum. This would help make sure healthcare systems in the 
region work, that they are able to cope with the many health issues 
made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic--including mental health, 
noncommunicable diseases, and women's health concerns--and are able to 
deal with the next pandemic that scientists assure is only a matter of 
time.
 an opportunity for recovery through a renewed commitment to democracy
    Finally, we have to be committed stewards of regional democracy. We 
can all do better in practice, the United States included, but it is 
important to uphold the democratic standard for Summit participation, 
and to continue working to strengthen democratic institutions against 
undermining from corruption, populism, and autocratic leaders. That is 
why, Mr. Chairman, concrete bipartisan leadership on the ``Upholding 
the Inter-American Democratic Charter Act of 2022'' is so very much 
appreciated. That is why those who have not been democratically elected 
should not be invited to the Summit of the Americas. And that is why 
Venezuela's constitutional leader, Juan Guaido, should be at the 
Summit.
                     why the summit of the americas
    Trade and investment, healthcare, democratic governance. These 
issues are no easier to develop consensus around than they were 3 years 
or 10 years ago. In fact, they are fraught, for us at home, for our 
hemispheric neighbors, and for us as a region. But they are critical 
for our prosperity and for that of the Americas as a whole.
    So as we prepare for this Summit, these thorny issues before us beg 
a question: at this point, what is the purpose of these regional 
summits? Because simply fulfilling a commitment to meet is not enough. 
What is needed, what we are hoping for, is a renewed vision for the 
region, led by the United States and crafted together with those 
committed to partnering with us, based more on values and less on 
geography. Working toward regional recovery, expanding trade and 
investment, addressing healthcare and other social needs, and standing 
for democracy--even when it may be unpopular to do so--would make for a 
great start down the path toward this renewed vision. It is what I am 
hoping for. It is what the region is hoping for. And I believe, with 
the leadership of the United States, it is well within our ability to 
achieve.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Farnsworth. To both of you, 
we will question in this order. Senator Cardin was trying to 
get in by WebEx in his car and could not, but now he is here in 
person. I am going to let him start. Then we will go to Senator 
Rubio and then we will go to me.
    Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Sometimes I have a little bit of a challenge. I live in 
Baltimore and commute every day so I am in a car a lot and had 
a hard time working my monitor in the car today. I was not 
driving. I just want everybody to know that.
    Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
leadership on this subcommittee. I know both of them have 
really made this one of their top priorities in their service 
in the United States Senate, and this is our hemisphere. This 
is our neighborhood, and their leadership has been 
extraordinary. I want to thank our two witnesses.
    The Summit of America gives us an opportunity, once again, 
to meet with our states in our hemisphere on a common agenda. I 
just want to agree with our leadership on this committee that 
it has to be under the values of our hemisphere, which are 
democratic states that respect human rights.
    I heard the exchange between Senator Rubio and our previous 
witness. I think it is critically important that our values are 
maintained at this Summit and it will be tested in the ability 
to allow those voices to be heard, countries that are 
autocratic and are not living up to the commitments that we 
expect in our hemisphere.
    I want to raise just one additional question, if I might. 
Regional organizations, I understand, will be part of the 
Summit. There will be a discussion as to how they can more 
effectively help in dealing with the issues that many of you 
have talked about.
    We could talk about the Inter-American Development Bank or 
the Pan-American Health Organization, but I want to talk about 
the Organization of American States. It is an important 
organization. Its headquarters is just a short distance from 
here.
    It seems to me it could be a more effective voice on the 
challenges of our hemisphere. So Senator Wicker and I, who 
chair and are ranking on the Helsinki Commission, have been 
extremely active in the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe.
    We think that organization has been more effective in 
dealing with a lot of the issues comparable to what the OAS has 
done and we think one of the reasons that is true is because 
there is a parliamentary dimension to the OSCE. There is no 
real parliamentary dimension at all to OAS.
    So we introduced legislation, which was passed and signed 
into law in January of 2020, to instruct our mission to move 
forward with a parliamentary dimension within the OAS.
    I mention that because at the Summit of Americas I heard 
that our chair is going to be bringing a delegation of 
legislators to that summit. I think that is an important thing 
for us to do.
    I can tell you, having parliamentarians' participation in 
an organization enhances its effectiveness. We are not 
restricted as diplomats. We can call it the way it is. Listen 
to Senator Rubio. Yes, he will tell you exactly the way--we can 
speak the truth. We also can translate our words into actions 
through parliamentary activities.
    So my question to our two witnesses is that looking at the 
regional organizations we have in our hemisphere--I do not want 
to lead the witness--aren't there ways that we can make these 
organizations more effective? We put a lot of resources into 
it. We put a lot of time into it. Yet, I would suggest that 
most members of Congress have little knowledge of what these 
regional organizations are all about.
    Dr. Chavez. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    You are drawing attention to a very important issue, and 
that is the general state of the Inter-American system, which I 
fully agree is facing a great number of challenges.
    What I will say, though, right off the bat is that in my 
desire to push the Administration to develop a holistic 
strategy and vision for the Americas, I think that this should 
be a core part of that strategy--how to reinvigorate and renew 
not just the OAS, but all of the various institutions that 
comprise this system.
    I very much appreciate creative ideas such as incorporating 
a parliamentary dimension to the OAS, and I think that that is 
a great place to start, but it is not just the OAS. I think we 
need to do more when it comes to the Inter-American Development 
Bank.
    The Inter-American Development Bank has not been engaged 
for a number of reasons. I saw firsthand the potential of the 
Inter-American system when I was Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense and attended two Conference of Defense Ministers of the 
Americas with Secretary Hagel and then with Secretary Carter, 
and I saw the potential for real action in this sort of 
organization.
    At the time, it was in response to climate change, the 
increasing extreme weather events, and the need for a 
hemisphere wide mechanism for the militaries of the region to 
come together in support of civilian authorities to respond to 
humanitarian and disaster response needs.
    I fully agree that these are tools that we need to renew, 
we need to reinvigorate, and I urge the Administration to make 
this a core part of an Americas strategy.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Senator Kaine. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Let me--Ms. Chavez, I will start with you 
because we talked a lot about the migration crisis. We agree 
with that. COVID-19--I mean, all those things are important--
economic growth. I really do wonder--I guess I want to ask a 
little bit about your statement about reinvigorating regional 
organizations like the OAS and using that and others to bolster 
democracy in the hemisphere.
    Is not part of bolstering democracy, I believe, sort of 
elevating those countries that are actually following 
democratic norms--which, by the way, democratic norms sometimes 
elect people whose policies we may not like, right.
    I mean, I, certainly, do not agree with some of the policy 
directions that President Obrador has taken in Mexico, but I do 
not argue that he is a dictator or that he somehow has taken 
power in that country through means that are illegitimate.
    I mean, that is a part of the risk here when--I mean, that 
is just part of the things that happen, and I imagine that 
there are people elected in this country that our partners in 
the Western Hemisphere sometimes do not agree with their 
policies as well.
    That is different from having someone who takes power, and 
the real dynamic we have seen now is people that figure out how 
to win elections and then once they capture the government or 
once they are in power, then they begin to undermine all the 
institutions in that society or bend them to their will.
    The favorite is always the infamous--the generic electoral 
commission that suddenly is filled with all of your buddies and 
cronies as the vote counters, but it happens in the court 
system and the like.
    The reinvigorating democracy piece, I think, is both 
practical. We need to be providing people assistance on things 
like countering propaganda and disinformation. I mean, if we 
think disinformation is damaging to American democracy, this 
stuff is happening in a lot of these countries. We see that.
    We see how that influence operations are occurring there to 
sort of steer the currents, and not to mention the proven 
instances where you have these transnational criminal groups 
that are pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns 
in these countries.
    How do we address those parts? What institutions beyond the 
Summit can we use to address those challenges?
    I will start with you, Ms. Chavez, because you have talked 
about this. What other institutions and measures can we use at 
the Summit and post-Summit to address things like 
disinformation, the financing of campaigns by criminal groups 
who have--drug dealers or whatever that have millions of 
dollars that they can invest in some of these campaigns? How 
would we elevate that issue and make it not just a topic of the 
Summit, but after the Summit?
    Dr. Chavez. Thank you for the question. You make an 
excellent point about democracy, in general, that there are an 
increasing number of cases not just in Latin America, but 
across the globe where a leader that is democratically elected 
and then we see that leader in a very deliberate manner 
dismantling democratic institutions, like the autonomy of the 
courts, and we have examples, as you allude to, in our own 
hemisphere where that is happening.
    One of the recommendations, I think, and this would be part 
of reinvigorating the OAS--well, first of all, I have to 
express my gratitude for the Upholding the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter Act, which I think is an important statement 
about the importance of this charter.
    One of the things I think the hemisphere could do a better 
job of is calling out these deliberate assaults on particular 
institutions and not wait until there is this race to the 
bottom, not wait until just a shell of democracy is left.
    One thing is to look at the steps that are taken along the 
way and we are seeing this, for example, in El Salvador.
    Another big issue in our hemisphere, and we see it in 
particular in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela, is violations of 
human rights. In the case of Venezuela, the U.N. role with its 
mission to Venezuela where it actually went in and then 
reported on crimes against humanity is another way. That is not 
a hemispheric organization. It is the United Nations, but I 
think that was also incredibly important.
    As far as disinformation is concerned, I think this is an 
issue for our own democracy as well. I think--as I have said, I 
think that we need a more holistic strategy, and that should be 
part of that strategy.
    It is my understanding that the Administration is devoting 
resources to countering disinformation in the region, whether 
it be in the lead up to the Colombian elections, whether it be 
Russian disinformation in Mexico, because, as you allude to, it 
is a real problem, again, across the Americas, across the 
hemisphere.
    Senator Rubio. Can I go on or just--I am not going to take 
much longer.
    Mr. Farnsworth, I wanted to just touch--so I am thinking 
back to the importance--the symbolic, but also practical 
importance of who do you invite to a summit. Because a lot of 
times people say--they hear me talk about do not invite Cubans. 
Oh, he is just a guy from Miami, a Cuban American. These guys 
are just--they just--they want us to be stuck in the 1960s and 
it is all about blocking Cuba for political purposes.
    There is a practical implication to it and I will tell 
you--let me describe it. So in July of last year, you had, 
basically, apolitical people, right. I am talking about poets 
and artists and songwriters and things of that nature that are, 
okay, we are in Cuba. We want to be able to express ourselves, 
and when they mean express themselves politically, their 
expressions are not necessarily things about how government 
should be structured.
    They have complaints about economic performance and 
opportunity or why are we not allowed to--why do we have to run 
our songs and their lyrics through a government censor.
    So they protest against these sorts of things. The 
government cracks down brutally, putting children--literally, 
pulling children out of their homes and putting them in jail. 
In fact, the regime in Cuba just criminalized criticism of 
government officials. Not protests alone, criticism. Just the 
act of criticizing them can wind them up in jail.
    So all this is happening. So you are one of these people. 
You are standing up against that. I think for the first time in 
modern memory, you have a real amount of unity. You have the 
Latin Grammys talking about this. You have people across the 
board sort of uniting behind this from the perspective of being 
against it.
    Then you read or hear that, potentially, Cuba, that regime, 
just 2 weeks removed from criminalizing criticism, less than a 
year removed from a brutal crackdown at the street level, is 
going to be invited to the Summit.
    I do not know if people fully understand how demoralizing 
that is because the way the regime uses that against its 
opponents and internally--among people internally that might be 
thinking, hey, we are getting isolated. Maybe it is going to be 
time for a change once all the old dudes die off, or sooner. 
They start thinking--the regime says to them, you see, the 
world does not really care. At the end of the day, we have the 
power. They have to work through us. In the end, they are going 
to cut a deal with us and the evidence of it is they invited us 
to a summit.
    I would say the same thing about Maduro, and that is the 
argument Maduro is using around his inner circle. It is not 
that the inner circle in Venezuela thinks Maduro is some great 
historic figure. It is that they are corrupt. They have made 
millions of dollars off that corruption, and right now they are 
better off with him there than without him.
    That may change in the future, but that is the--and the 
argument he makes to them is, I am the guy that can get this 
thing right again. I am the one that America is now beginning 
to talk to and deal with.
    So I think that is the practical implications of that sort 
of thing that and, by the way, it just completely demoralizes 
and discredits those who are standing up and opposing those 
movements.
    That is why I ask about these invitations because I think 
these--I would rather have a summit with 15 countries that are 
a democracy than with 25 countries and five or six of them are 
just blatant anti-democratic regimes, because then it is not a 
summit of democracies. It is a summit of whoever is in power in 
these individual countries.
    I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about both 
the symbolic and practical impact it has when you elevate 
regimes like this to that status.
    Mr. Farnsworth. Thank you, sir. I think your points are 
very well made and very important, and the Summit of the 
Americas from the beginning--from its inception in Miami, it 
has been different.
    It has been intentionally a meeting of democratically-
elected leaders to the point where the hemisphere itself in 
Quebec City in 2001 created the expectation that for all future 
summits only democratically-elected leaders would be included 
and that expectation was actually memorialized in the Inter-
American Democratic Charter that was signed in Lima, Peru, on 
9/11.
    Secretary Powell delayed his return to the United States as 
terrorists were attacking the United States to sign the Inter-
American Democratic Charter because it was that important.
    That is the basis of the decision here. It is not a U.S. 
determination about political this or that. The hemisphere 
itself decided that nondemocratically-elected leaders should 
not have access to this crown jewel of Inter-American 
relations.
    There are other fora. There are other opportunities for 
discussion. Okay. Fine. You can have that discussion in the 
context of other vehicles, but the Summit of the Americas has 
expressly been reserved for democratically-elected leaders. So 
at some level, this really is not even a decision for the 
United States to make because it was a hemispheric decision 
and, by the way, that document was signed by no less than Hugo 
Chavez himself. So there is a lot of support here, or there 
was, at least, at the time.
    I think your point about platforming dictators is 
critically important, particularly now. You have had the 
protests from July in Cuba less than a year ago. You just had 
the passage of a draconian penal code. To then turn around and 
invite a representative of the Cuban regime to a democratic 
summit of other leaders, frankly, rewards that type of 
behavior, and your word ``demoralizes,'' I think, is 
appropriate in this context.
    It has also been interesting to me and concerning, frankly, 
that some countries in the region--some leaders in the region 
have chosen to make this, essentially, a cause celebre issue in 
terms of their own participation.
    It seems to me that coming out of COVID, where economies 
have been crashing, where recovery is not guaranteed, where 
Ukraine's wheat and agriculture products are not guaranteed for 
global markets, where energy prices are spiking, where debt 
loads are increasing, which are now more difficult to service 
because of increasing expense of the dollar as well as rising 
U.S. interest rates, I mean, look, there are lots of things to 
be discussing at a Summit of the Americas.
    Is the most important hemispheric issue whether Nicolas 
Maduro, who is being investigated by the International Court of 
Justice, should be included? To me, that is a nonissue.
    The answer is no, let us talk about economic recovery. The 
answer is no, let us find a way to create jobs in the region so 
that migrants are not tempted to try to come to the United 
States because our economy is growing and regional economies 
are not growing.
    There is a whole discussion here waiting to be had, 
desperate to be had, with democratically-elected leaders from 
the region and, yet, the conversation has been hijacked by 
people who are trying to undermine the interests of the United 
States to promote their own interests, in some cases, in the 
region.
    That, to me, is incredibly disheartening because if you put 
that, again, against what we saw in Miami in 1994, it was a 
totally different scenario. In 1994, it was the United States 
was being pushed, actually, to commit to a free trade of the 
Americas. The United States was being pushed in order to have 
an ambitious agenda.
    It was Venezuela that insisted that energy be a part of the 
Summit of the Americas' agenda in 1994. Again, I was there so I 
am speaking from personal knowledge, but the way that the 
hemisphere has shifted in that discussion over the last 
generation has been something very important to see.
    If I can extend just for another 30 seconds. I know that I 
am talking way too much. I apologize.
    The question about some of the tools that we have to 
address these, I think, is also a critically important issue, 
and from my perspective, the United States has not done a very 
good job either using the tools that we have available to 
address democratic backsliding in the hemisphere nor have we 
updated our toolbox, and let me explain.
    The toolbox has changed. Social media did not exist in 
1994. There was no Telesur in 1994. There was no Russia Today 
propagandizing in Spanish throughout the region in 1994. Yet, 
the United States has not updated our toolbox.
    Why does Nicolas Maduro have access to Twitter with over 4 
million followers? Many of them probably bots, sure, but that 
is a U.S. platform subject to U.S. laws. These are the types of 
things, I think, we have to have hard conversations around 
because the ability to reach citizens and communities outside 
of the countries is, frankly, the ability to propagandize and 
spread an anti-democratic message and many times an anti-
American message. I think we have to take a look at that.
    I think the OAS has traditionally had some troubles, but I 
do want to give a shout out to the Secretary General Luis 
Almagro, who I believe is a real champion for democracy and has 
stood for democracy even when many of his member states have 
not supported him in that effort.
    There are other things to say, but the point is I think you 
are definitely on the right track.
    Senator Rubio. I am going wrap up my portion of this just 
to say I think the point you have made about prioritization is 
really important, given all the challenges the region is facing 
across the board.
    To have some of these folks sort of make this issue the 
primary issue that they are hinging the entire Summit on, I 
think, shows you a lot about the political interest behind some 
of this.
    I also think, by the way, that--I mean, what many--Obrador 
is an example--hide behind is sort of a tradition in Mexican 
politics, particularly to him as well, about noninterference, 
which is an easy thing to hide behind except that you may say 
that your position is noninterference, but these countries are 
practically interfering in the affairs of other states.
    As an example, in Venezuela they have created a migratory 
crisis through their policies that has been a huge burden on 
Colombia and other countries that have had to face that wave of 
migration.
    They have invited Iran into the hemisphere in ways that, I 
think, are potentially destabilizing in the long term. They are 
openly protecting--hosting and protecting narco trafficking 
groups that operate from Venezuelan territory to conduct 
attacks inside of the territory of Colombia. That is 
interference, I think--pretty clear interference.
    Then there is these grotesque violations of democratic 
norms. I do not know how we could possibly ever argue that 
Nicaragua has to be here. In Nicaragua, everybody who ran for 
president against Ortega went to jail. Everybody. Not half the 
people or a couple of the leading candidates.
    If you filed for--to run for president, you wound up in 
jail incommunicado from your family, and that is a pretty 
outrageous anti-democratic move is to say, I won an election 
because all my opponents are in jail because I put them there.
    That is what they have done and that is the guy they are 
insisting that we invite and his crazy wife, and to be a part 
of this who is probably the real power because he is borderline 
incoherent at this point, but she is even, perhaps, worse than 
he is and he is pretty bad.
    So the last question I had is something we have not talked 
a lot about and it is not directly related to the Summit, but I 
would like to get both of your impressions on it and that is 
Colombia.
    I think most of us remember a time, maybe 20, 22, 24 years 
ago, where there was real concern that Colombia was headed to 
failed state status. You had these cartels that, basically, in 
many cases, held the governments their hostage over extradition 
treaties, bombings, and things that were occurring.
    I think one of the great successes of American engagement 
in the region is our engagement with Colombia to the point 
where not only did Colombia become sort of a very stable place 
with these issues, like we have issues and everybody else has 
issues, but became a force multiplier. In essence, what the 
Colombians learned from us they have been able to take to 
Honduras and train their forces, as an example, there on how to 
combat these irregular groups and so forth.
    So I am always concerned about if ever there was a change 
in Colombia--and I know they have a presidential election 
coming up and they will have to make those decisions, and a lot 
of this stuff that we do with them has been institutionalized 
so you hope that that will survive political changes no matter 
what direction they take.
    I was hoping to get the input of both of you of what would 
happen to our interests, not to mention to the stability of the 
region, if Colombia were to be lost to a direction that looks 
more like the instability we have seen, or worse, in places 
like Venezuela? What would that mean for democracy, for 
security, and for our national interests in the region?
    Mr. Farnsworth. Rebecca served in the Pentagon so I wanted 
to offer her the first opportunity, but she says she will 
defer.
    I think it would be--it is foundational. Look, the U.S. 
relationship with Colombia is strategic at this point. It is 
foundational to our ability to advance democratic and security 
interests throughout the hemisphere, not just in Colombia, and 
to have that undermined would be, in my personal view, a real 
setback not just for U.S. interests, but for democracies in the 
region.
    Colombia has also been a huge partner in trying to 
alleviate the humanitarian crisis that is right next door 
engendered by Chavismo, right, in Venezuela. So if you have 
that bulwark in some way changed, the humanitarian crisis 
coming out of Venezuela could by orders of magnitude get even 
worse.
    I do think Colombia is a target. Colombia has been a target 
for a long time and it is definitely a target now in terms of 
interests that are not aligned with the United States or are 
not aligned with democracy in the hemisphere, because if you 
can get a country like Colombia to change path and to pursue an 
anti-democratic path--and let me hasten to say I am not 
suggesting that what is going to come out of the elections will 
be anti-democratic. Who knows what is going to come out of the 
elections? I am simply talking theoretically here.
    This is a critically important country and it is important 
for the Colombian people themselves, first and foremost, but it 
is a strategic partner of the United States and were that 
direction to shift, then I do think you would have a real 
setback for the United States, but also for other countries 
that have, clearly, depended on that force multiplier impact 
that you so clearly discussed.
    The other issue I would raise, clearly, is the fight 
against illegal narcotics, but I think my colleague here would 
be better positioned to discuss that.
    Dr. Chavez. Thank you for the question and also for 
pointing out the importance of our bilateral relationship with 
Colombia.
    As Eric referenced, during my time at the Pentagon, 
Colombia was our closest defense partner in the region, and it 
was a relationship that was incredibly important to Colombia, 
but also to the United States.
    As far as the upcoming election goes, I think it is too 
early to say whether or not Colombia will be lost. It is 
possible that there will be a president who has a different set 
of policy priorities, but we do not know whether or not he is 
going to act in an undemocratic manner.
    This is just also just a reminder when we are thinking 
about the Summit, this is not a summit of friends of America. I 
think we are right to be concerned about assaults on democracy, 
but I do not think that the fact that a country does not agree 
with us is something that we should be weighing in on.
    I would say that one of the core issues with Colombia, 
regardless of who wins this next election--and I say this from 
someone with a DoD background--is that Colombia has undergone 
horrific decades of conflict and the military in Colombia has 
played a tremendous role.
    Without the military, the peace accord would not have been 
possible, but going forward in our relationship with Colombia 
we need to be focusing more on the social recovery of the 
territory, not just the military recovery of the territory, and 
this is about establishing a state presence in the previously 
undergoverned parts of Colombia, and I think that that is 
something we can work on with Colombia no matter who wins.
    The military has gone in, secured territory, but now we 
need the other Colombian institutions to go in and establish a 
presence. Show people--show the Colombians that they are there 
to stay. I think that is the only answer to the long-term 
conflict and instability in Colombia.
    Senator Rubio. Just as a point of clarification, by no 
means do I think that we should be excluding countries from the 
Summit of the Americas because they do not agree with us. Like, 
if you did not vote with us at the U.N., I do not think--on 
whatever issue, Ukraine, that we should somehow exclude you 
from it.
    The argument I have made is if you are not a democracy, if 
you are an open unapologetic dictatorship that puts 
presidential candidates that run against a dictator in jail, I 
do not think they should be invited to the Summit of the 
Americas, but not people that disagree with--I am not arguing 
Mexico should not be invited and they, certainly, disagree with 
us on a bunch of issues.
    In the case of Colombia, I think what is happening now 
there is a case in point for why democracy is so important. So 
Petro is running and he is the leading candidate in some of the 
polling, and I would venture to guess that we probably are not 
going to agree with him on some issues.
    You see his public rhetoric has moderated. I do not know 
how he will govern. Why has his public rhetoric on some of 
these issues moderated? Because he is trying to win an 
election. He is trying to get people to vote for him, and his 
policies will also have to take that into account if he wants 
to be reelected, which is the great thing about democracy and 
that is that you have to--leaders have to measure their 
policies by what the electorate may or may not reward and that 
is why democracies and democracy is so critical because it 
does--as long as there is a democracy, Colombia is going to be 
okay. They may elect someone we do not agree with, that we may 
not like every decision they make, but, ultimately, they will 
have to govern themselves by the constraints of an electorate 
that will punish them and their party.
    If we do not have democracy they can do whatever they want 
and, oftentimes, that is what starts wars and creates crisis 
and that really is the point that I wanted to drive.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Chavez. Can I just say I am in violent agreement with 
you and with Eric about the importance of--on the issue of 
invitations and participation. I fully understand why Maduro, 
Ortega, and Diaz-Canel are not invited. Well, I guess we do not 
know for sure, but I am assuming that they are not invited.
    Also a reminder that participation is a two-way street when 
it comes to attendance. Nicaragua has demonstrated that it does 
not want to be involved in a hemispheric discussion. It showed 
that the day it expelled OAS from its country. So I do agree on 
the issue of democracy.
    Senator Kaine. Let me do this. I want to talk to you, Mr. 
Farnsworth, about part of your testimony was about--well, both 
of you testified about the importance of economic recovery 
post-pandemic and you raised an interesting thought that I had 
had, as well.
    Why are we--why is the Administration being a little 
skittish about trade activities in the region? I am a pretty 
harsh critic of President Trump, but that makes me feel duty 
bound to compliment Trump accomplishments and there were some 
and one of them was USMCA. That got an 89 to 10 vote in the 
Senate.
    NAFTA, after 20 years, of course, we should have learned 
how to make it better and the USMCA negotiation made it better. 
That kind of a vote on a trade deal in the Senate is highly 
unusual.
    Why would we not look at USMCA and then go back and look at 
the other trade agreements in the region and say, could we 
either incorporate those free trade agreements into a broader 
USMCA framework or could we conform those trade agreements to 
the principles that we negotiated in USMCA?
    We have nations like Ecuador that want to join in the 
Colombian free trade agreement. I think that--as we are talking 
about economic development in the region, I think that this is 
a really important piece because one of the challenges we often 
have is some of the neighbors in the region that have the most 
problems, so think of the Northern Triangle, who do we invest 
in there that we feel is a reliable partner for our investment 
dollars?
    Well, if we have American companies and others that are 
already there and that could hire even more people and generate 
even more economic activity if conditions were right, why would 
we not focus on trade as an accelerator of economic potential 
in the region?
    Could you go a little bit more into either expanded USMCA 
or conforming existing trade agreements to USMCA standards? In 
particular, it may be that we want it, but the nations we are 
talking about--I know Ecuador would like it--maybe there is not 
the appetite for it in the region.
    Do you see the appetite in the region for broader trade 
agreements with higher standards?
    Mr. Farnsworth. Love to have the opportunity. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The short answer is yes. I would add Uruguay and, 
certainly, Brazil has made very clear its desire for closer 
trade relations with the United States, as have other 
countries. You mentioned Ecuador.
    It goes back to my earlier comments in terms of the tools 
that we have available. At the end of the day, trade is a tool. 
If it is working well we should do more of it. If it is not 
working well we should figure out a way to make it work better, 
and that was the whole purpose of USMCA, which was a bipartisan 
success, and it seems to me that taking trade off the table, 
which, in my view, successive U.S. Administrations have, 
essentially, done, has been to take away the best incentive we 
have to bring countries into a more--a closer relationship with 
the United States economically, certainly, to build the supply 
chains we are all talking about, but also to create the 
incentives for things like good governance, anti-corruption, 
support for the environment--all the things that we have talked 
about so many times in this chamber.
    The point being that if you take that off the table the 
attraction of somebody like China, who comes with a lot of 
money and no expectations or demands really feels a lot better 
and there really is not a choice to be made because there is 
only one option, right.
    So we have taken ourselves out of the game. At the same 
time, we are trying to deal with historically high now 
migration flows to the United States and, again, part of that 
is just basic economics.
    The U.S. economy is doing well. The regional economies are 
not doing very well. People do not have jobs in their home 
countries. They are going to go where they can get jobs or 
where they think they can get jobs.
    So part of that answer has to be job creation in the home 
countries, particularly the Northern Triangle, particularly the 
countries where migration is coming from the most.
    At the same time, if the private sector does not see the 
incentives or does not see the attractive environment to 
invest, to create jobs, to innovate, to do the things we would 
take for granted in the United States, then they are going to 
overlook the region and that is precisely what has been 
happening, particularly, again, in the Northern Triangle and 
elsewhere.
    So using trade as a tool to help create those conditions 
that the private sector will find attractive to invest in, I 
think, has to be part of the discussion as well as using trade 
as a tool to help incentivize better relations with our 
neighbors, frankly--the countries in our own hemisphere.
    Now, we can do this in a creative way. We do not have to 
say, look, just because you are in a certain geographic time 
zone or zip code you should have access to USMCA.
    No, we should use this as a way to incentivize better 
economic and democratic--I do not want to use--well, practice, 
right, to be able to say to a Costa Rica, a Panama, a Dominican 
Republic, yes, you guys are pretty far along. Let us talk to 
you about accession to USMCA. Let us hold this in as an option 
for other countries in Central America, maybe a Honduras, a 
Guatemala, to say, okay, let us work with you to help you build 
the type of capacity and capability to be ready for USMCA to 
welcome you in. Let us say to a Nicaragua, which is still part 
of CAFTA-DR, to say, look, we are not going to bring a 
nondemocratic country into USMCA.
    So you are creating economic incentives for behavioral 
change and that is something that we have gotten away from. We 
are just not even talking about it. At the Summit of the 
Americas, I believe, in Los Angeles this should be the core 
message that we are creating; we will work with countries 
economically and on democratic governance, but you got to work 
with us.
    Let us make this a real partnership. Let us get back to the 
idea that we are all in this together, our future is linked to 
yours, we need to be working together, and let us get away from 
this mentality of somehow the United States is bad and this 
country is not.
    I mean, we are in this hemisphere. It is not going to 
change. Let us find a way to do that, but I do think we also 
have to recognize that there are some countries that just are 
not going to want to participate--and that is okay--in the 
trade agenda, and what the fatal flaw of previous summits has 
been that this has been agreement by consensus.
    In other words, every country has to agree to do a free 
trade area of the Americas. Well, if a country in the Caribbean 
or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the Mercosur countries do not 
want to do the free trade area of the Americas, well, then it 
blows apart, which it did in 2005 in Mar del Plata.
    The point being that that then prevented the United States 
and our democratic friends and partners to move forward in some 
way. Why should we let the recalcitrant countries determine the 
pace of integration?
    Senator Kaine. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Mr. Farnsworth. Why do we not find the partners in the 
region we can work with and build an agenda there that is so 
attractive that the ones who find themselves lagging will say, 
wait a minute, we need to be part of that because otherwise our 
own futures are in doubt.
    That is where you create the positive incentives for 
countries to say it is better to be linked with North America 
and the United States because of what we get from them together 
than trying to figure out what the Chinese might be giving us, 
and by the way, they want half of our coastline and debt that 
we cannot get out of.
    That is a conversation I think the hemisphere is absolutely 
ready to have. The question is are we ready to have it, and by 
all indications we are not there yet.
    Senator Kaine. I think we, on the committee, those of us 
who really care about this need to push the Administration, I 
think, starting with the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, 
Panama. Recognizing the announcement of this alliance would be 
a wise idea.
    Look, this has been a good hearing. Obviously, Senator 
Rubio and I, Senator Cardin, are really interested in this. We 
did not have good attendance--I will just be blunt--and that 
says something. Often when we have Western Hemisphere hearings, 
we do not.
    When I am on SASC and we have hearings about SOUTHCOM the 
attendance is not so great. The resources that we provide to 
SOUTHCOM through the defense budget are minuscule and it is a--
stands in sharp contrast. If we were having a hearing about 
Ukraine or Taiwan, we would have really good attendance, and I 
think it is a--it is kind of evidence of a proposition.
    In another context, the other day I recalled a line that 
was used by Pope Francis a few years ago as he was challenging 
parishes, but it could have been a challenge to people and, 
certainly, a challenge to political leaders. He was saying that 
we needed the [speaks in a foreign language]--the islands of 
the mercy in the middle of a sea of indifference.
    The thing about that formulation that I found really 
striking when I read it was he did not counterpose mercy to 
evil, cruelty, or hatred. He counterposed it to indifference.
    I just have felt long before I came to the Senate that 
indifference often characterizes the attitude of officialdom--
not every member of officialdom, but it often characterizes the 
attitude of American officialdom to the Americas.
    We will get interested if there is a crisis. So we will 
have a doctrine like the Monroe Doctrine that really was not 
about the Americas. It was about Europe. Or during the Cold 
War, we better get interested in the Americas because the 
Soviet Union is. Or if there is an immigration flood to the 
border, okay, we will get interested for the moment.
    In terms of persistence and a framework that is not just an 
episodic one-off based on the crisis du jour, I am not sure we 
have ever really done that as a nation. Secretaries of State 
fly east and west all the time. They just do not fly north and 
south that much.
    I am grateful for colleagues, Senator Rubio and others, and 
I am grateful for professionals who--you have been doing this 
for a very long time because you see how important it is to our 
country that we do it and that we do it right, and I hope that 
we might have a new day where we will take seriously this 
notion that we are all connected as Americans.
    I think Amerigo Vespucci was the biggest overachiever of 
all time. What did that guy do to get two continents named 
after him? Nevertheless, we are all Americans. We are all 
linked together culturally, in language, in family, in trade, 
in migration. There is so much upside for us.
    If you compare the U.S. leadership that snapped together 
the coalition to battle against an illegal invasion of Ukraine 
and you look at the influence that the U.S. had in helping snap 
that coalition together, and then you look at the influence we 
have or kind of do not really have with our nearest neighbors, 
you just see how much more work we have to do.
    So for being dedicated to the work I thank you. I thank you 
for the hearing today. It is Thursday. I will keep the record 
open until 5 o'clock tomorrow. If additional members have 
questions, I would encourage you, if there are, to answer them 
thoroughly and promptly.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


             Responses of Mr. Kevin O'Reilly to Questions 
                Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin

    Question. In your view, do you think it is important that only 
democracies be represented at the Summit, or is there merit to the 
argument that all nations and leaders in the hemisphere should be 
represented?

    Answer. Upholding the region's commitment to democracy is a key 
component of every Summit of the Americas. At the Third Summit of the 
Americas held at Quebec City from April 20 to 22, 2001, leaders called 
for the creation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and made 
strict respect for democracy a pre-requisite for future Summit 
participation. The United States is proud to join past Summit hosts in 
upholding this commitment. The Civil Society Forum, Young Americas 
Forum and CEO Summit of the Americas will provide a platform for 
participants from all countries in the Western Hemisphere to make their 
voices heard.

    Question. How might the potential absence of several heads of 
government affect the summit proceedings and broader prospects for 
enhanced hemispheric cooperation?

    Answer. All democratic governments in the Western Hemisphere will 
attend the Summit, although some will participate at the ministerial 
level, allowing for substantive dialogue and meaningful commitment to 
address the most pressing issues facing the people of the hemisphere.

    Question. How successful do you think the process for consideration 
of the commitment to a Parliamentary Forum dimension of OAS will be 
during the summit?

    Answer. The United States is committed to advancing the goals and 
objectives of the OAS Legislative Engagement Act. Due to the long and 
detailed negotiations among 31 countries needed to add language to 
agreed Summit documents, we could not include reference to the 
initiative in the Inter-American Action Plan on Democratic Governance, 
but the Secretary plans to highlight the value we place on this process 
in remarks during a June 10, 2022, lunch with members of the Joint 
Summit Working Group. We remain committed to working with you and your 
staff to follow through on implementation of this important initiative.

    Question. To what extent do you think the leaders will agree to 
firm and binding commitments?

    Answer. The United States is committed to working with our regional 
partners through the Summit Implementation Review Group and the 
Organization of American States to hold governments accountable in 
following through with the commitments adopted at the Summit of the 
Americas. When the democracies of the Americas work together to seize 
opportunities and address shared challenges, real progress is possible. 
Collaboration ensures democracy delivers for its citizens.

    Question. What level of importance do you believe OAS and other 
regional organizations hold at the Summit and how should this 
importance be reflected on the official summit agenda?

    Answer. The OAS and 12 other international organizations form the 
Joint Summit Working Group (JSWG) will play a vital role in the Summit 
process. The JSWG provides technical support and capacity building to 
governments as they work to implement their Summit commitments. The OAS 
also houses the Summits of the Americas Secretariat and serves as the 
institutional memory for the Summit. JSWG organizations will 
participate in the ministerial lunch on June 10, 2022, and the OAS 
Secretary General will address the leaders' plenary.

                                  [all]