    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    SPREAD FREEDOM, NOT WOKE VALUES: AN AMER-
                      ICAN  AGENDA  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND HUMAN
                      RIGHTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                     OF THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                  May 8, 2025
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-17
                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov
                                    ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    60-777PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey       Ranking Member
    JOE WILSON,, South Carolina          BRAD SHERMAN, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California
    YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                Florida
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona
      American Samoa                     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE LATIMER, New York
    RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

                  James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE

                   MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida, Chairwoman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas, Ranking
    MARK GREEN, Tennessee                  Member
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  SARA JACOBS, California
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            GREG STANTON, Arizona
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California

                   Jamie Goewey, Subcommittee Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Chairwoman Maria Elvira Salazar.............     1
    Opening Statement of Ranking Member Joaquin Castro...............     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Hon. Robert A. Destro, Former Assistant Secretary
      for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. State Department..     4
      Prepared Statement.............................................     6
    Statement of Dr. Patrick Quirk, Vice President of Strategy,
      Innovation, and Impact, The International Republican Institute
      (Iri)..........................................................    14
      Prepared Statement.............................................    16
    Statement of Hon. Tom Malinowski Former Member of Congress,
      Former Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and
      Labor, U.S. Department of State................................    23
      Prepared Statement.............................................    25

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    50
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    52
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    53

                            Materials for the Record

    Republican Guidance Memorandum, submitted by Robert A. Destro....    54
    Congressional Notification Transmittal Letter, submitted by
      Robert A. Destro...............................................    74

                       SPREAD FREEDOM, NOT WOKE VALUES: AN
                         AMERICAN AGENDA FOR DEMOCRACY AND
                         HUMAN RIGHTS

                             Thursday, May 8, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:06 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maria Elvira
    Salazar [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Ms. Salazar. Good morning to all of you. The Subcommittee
    on the Western Hemisphere will come to order.
        The purpose of this hearing is to discuss democracy and
    human rights in the United States foreign policy for the
    purposes of the State Department reauthorization bill.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR

        As I said, today, we are here to examine the Bureau of
    Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. That has been a core
    mission of the United States since we became the modern world's
    first true democracy in 1776.
        Our country was founded on inalienable rights, the ones
    that are fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, to own
    private property, and freedom of religion, and many others.
    But, unfortunately, this Bureau has shifted its focus
    dangerously away from promoting these rights to promoting
    wokeness in the last few years, and here are some of the
    examples: In Mexico, for instance, $250,000 for an NGO that was
    promoting sex workers; in Costa Rica, $1.5 million for LGBTI
    elders; in Colombia, $47,000 for a transgender opera; in Peru,
    32,000 for a gay sex education comic book for children; and, in
    Ireland, $70,000 for a musical promoting diversity. What does
    that have to do with democracy? The irony is that these are
    progressive countries that protect civil liberties already.
    They did not need any more funds to pursue that purpose.
        As this wokeness crusade plays out in free countries like I
    just mentioned, the real enemies of freedom, like Cuba, Iran,
    North Korea, Venezuela, go sometimes unchallenged. We ignore
    freedom of religion in Nicaragua, and over 150 Catholic priests
    were being arrested and some of them disappeared. While we
    ignore free speech in Cuba for shouting ``libertad'' on the
    streets, anyone lands in jail. While we ignore freedom of the
    press in Venezuela, 12 journalists are imprisoned for exposing
    the truth about Maduro's stolen election and what he signed
    with President Biden called the Barbados accords.
        Unfortunately, the Bureau of Democracy and Human Rights has
    been ignoring its mission, and it should be clear: Defend
    freedom, support the oppressed, and stand up to tyrants. The
    conversation we need to have today is how do we go back to
    basics and defend freedom and democracy in our backyard and
    around the world. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from
    our witnesses.
        Now, I will recognize the ranking member of this
    illustrious subcommittee, Mr. Castro from Texas.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JOAQUIN CASTRO

        Thank you to our witnesses for your coming testimony, and a
    special thank you to our former colleague, Tom Malinowski, for
    coming back to guide us with his expertise and wisdom. And,
    Tom, we still have your old placard here that we will give to
    you at the end of the hearing. Welcome back.
        We, the United States, started the year as the most
    powerful, most prosperous, and influential Nation on earth.
    Today, we find ourselves with a shrinking economy, badly
    damaged relationships around the world, including with allies,
    and dwindling influence for future years.
        Let me start by addressing the framing of today's hearing.
    The phrase ``spread freedom, not woke values'' isn't just a
    slogan. It is really a misrepresentation of what American
    foreign policy has stood for across Republican and Democratic
    administrations alike.
        Let's be clear. Supporting democracy, human rights, and
    civil society is not some recent ideological agenda. It is who
    we are. These values are American values. They are why people
    around the world have looked to our country as a beacon for
    hope. Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last 4 months
    is a full-scale retreat from those values.
        Under the Trump administration, foreign assistance programs
    have been slashed. Support for human rights defenders, civil
    society organizations, labor organizers, and many others have
    been cut, sometimes overnight, and without notice or even
    explanation. Offices that stood against atrocity crimes,
    protected the rights of women, and fought human trafficking
    have been closed or swallowed up in bureaucracies where their
    missions are being sidelined.
        The President budget proposes an 85 percent cut to
    diplomacy and development programs. It eliminates funding for
    the National Endowment for Democracy, a bipartisan institution
    that has supported democratic movements for generations. This
    isn't reform. It is sabotage. And the consequences are stark.
    We will pay the price as Americans for generations to come.
        I want to paint a picture for my colleagues. Imagine you
    live in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, or one of other
    despotic societies. You believe rightly in your people's right
    to a democratic government that is accountable to the people.
    You work with the United States to organize your community,
    document your regime's abuses, or advocate for something as
    basic as free elections. You work with groups like the
    International Republican Institute to travel to the United
    States and meet people from all over the world who want the
    same thing. You do this while putting yourself and your family
    at great personal, often physical risk.
        Then one day, with no notice or explanation, Elon Musk and
    a group of kids walk into the State Department or USAID and--
    without understanding any of this or its significance or its
    history--they illegally end these vital, lifesaving programs,
    and the funding overnight disappears, the program vanishes, and
    your security--your own personal security for you and your
    family--is threatened.
        The American Government you have worked with stops
    answering your calls because the Trump administration has
    prevented them from explaining why the funding has stopped.
    Members of Congress demand answers, and the administration
    refuses to give them and remains silent. You read the news and
    see that your government's officials are celebrating Donald
    Trump's decision. You are all alone now, abandoned, and at the
    mercy of the regime that you had the courage to take on with
    the support of the United States at one time.
        The message from President Trump and the State Department
    is clear: This administration does not value democracy or human
    rights. If you want help, go somewhere else. This is not a
    hypothetical. This has played out in dozens, if not hundreds of
    cases across the world over the past 4 months.
        We know that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and
    Labor, DRL, is more than a symbol. It is the institutional
    backbone of our democracy promotion efforts. Congress
    established it by law to serve as an independent voice within
    our foreign policy, one that doesn't defer to political
    convenience or the sensitivity of authoritarian leaders. It has
    statutory obligations from the Foreign Assistance Act, to the
    Leahy Laws, to the country reports on human rights practices.
    It is meant to speak up for the people of other countries, not
    just their governments or their leaders.
        And, yet, the administration's reorganization plan proposes
    removing DRL's policy voice and redistributes its foreign
    assistance work to regional bureaus with no human rights
    expertise. That is not reform. It is about erasing human rights
    from our foreign policy. It is announcing that we don't care
    what despotic leaders do to their people around the world, and
    we are not going to watch them anymore.
        The administration wanted to make foreign assistance more
    effective. If they wanted to make it more effective, they would
    have strengthened DRL's role, not sidelined it. And so Congress
    must step up. The administration has already effectively ended
    USAID and hundreds of foreign assistance programs established
    by law, all without input from the Congress, and the State
    Department has proposed a sweeping and destructive
    reorganization plan by July. I urge my colleagues, especially
    my Republican colleagues, to assert Congress' rights under
    Article I of the Constitution and demand accountability from
    this administration.
        With that, Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member, the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Castro.
        Now, other members of the committee are reminded that
    opening statements may be submitted for the record.
        We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
    before us today on this important topic, starting with the
    honorable Robert Destro, the former assistant secretary for
    Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the Department of State.
    Welcome, sir. It is wonderful to hear your statements.
        Mr. Destro. Madam Chair.
        Ms. Salazar. We also have Patrick Quirk, vice president of
    strategy, innovation, and impact at the International
    Republican Institute.
        Finally, the honorable Tom Malinowski, former Member of
    Congress--I remember serving with you the first term--and
    former assistant secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and
    Labor at the Department of State.
        Now, this committee recognizes the importance of the issue
    before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us
    today. Your full statements will be made part of the record,
    and I will ask you to keep it to 5 minutes in order to allow
    time for other member questions.
        I recognize Mr. Destro for his opening statement. Welcome
    once again, sir.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. DESTRO

        Mr. Destro. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
    Castro. Thank you for your comments.
        I am going to try and keep it brief, but one of the things
    I think we should see here--and I am really happy that you have
    Tom Malinowski and Patrick Quirk here because this is--what you
    are looking at, I think, is a great working group. What we need
    to do--it is not a question of whether we are committed to
    human rights. We wouldn't be here unless we were.
        You know, what we are concerned about here is we have--now
    we have, I think, a once-in-a-several-generation opportunity to
    look at the organization of State. Secretary Rubio has given
    you the proposed, you know, reorganization. Lots of questions
    about that in my mind, too.
        I particularly have the same concerns as you do, Mr.
    Castro, about, you know, giving it all to the regionals. I am
    not so sure about that.
        You know, but what we need to be looking at is we have an
    opportunity here for Congress and the President to be working
    together to optimize it because the country is not made of
    money. We can't afford to--we should be spending on human
    rights, and I completely agree with that. You know, but
    whatever the disagreements we might have, you know, we need to
    be focusing on the outcomes of our programs. I mean, and that
    is something we just don't do.
        So what I would begin with, basically, is inviting my
    colleagues here and offering our services to the staff, if I
    can, you know, to say let's sit down around a table and start
    talking about some of the hard questions.
        And so one of the hardest questions is that--I think we
    often need to put our areas of disagreement out on the table.
    The first one is even in the title of the hearing. It is not
    freedom versus woke. My friends who would proudly describe
    themselves as woke see themselves as just as committed to
    freedom as I do. In fact, my son coached at a university that
    had its woke rating right on its website.
        You know, so it is a--so I see the issues we have as one of
    process. If our goal is to spread freedom and foster
    inclusiveness, sovereignty, and interdependence--because that
    is really what we are talking about is the interdependence of
    our people and the people of these--who live under repressive
    regimes or who live in pretty good places. We must look at how
    the State Department actually operates.
        Now, spreading freedom is a laudable goal, you know, but
    the hard question is how successful has the State Department
    actually been? What are the outcomes? You might want to start
    with asking the people of Libya, where our regime change
    operations and democracy building has left them with slave
    markets. You know, you can ask the people of Guatemala or
    Venezuela or Cuba. You know, how many years have we been
    working on Cuba, and we don't seem to be making much progress.
    There is a lot of money been spent on that. What is our return
    on investment? I would argue not very much. So whatever we are
    doing, it is not working.
        So I have seen with my own eyes, you know, that the--how
    other organizations--it is not just State. It is not just
    USAID. It is all of it, including the Millennium Challenge
    Corporation.
        You know, I just got a text this morning from a friend in
    Belize. I have been working with the Belizeans now for several
    years in a really--their really innovative, wonderful People's
    Constitution reform process. Our embassy has not been around.
    You would think they would be helpful, but--and during the
    conversation within that commission, one of the huge issues for
    the people of Belize--they have had town meetings all over the
    place--is control of their--control of education. Just this
    week, one of our government-funded NGO's came in and basically
    offered a school money to buy control of their education
    program, exactly at odds with the proposition that we are
    arguing here.
        So what I would suggest to you is that--the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights is everybody has a right to
    participate in their government. The question around this table
    ought to be how do we make that happen. We know where it is not
    happening. We know where it is happening. And I can tell you,
    having been the assistant secretary like Tom Malinowski has--is
    when you direct money flows, that is where the policy actually
    hits the road.
        I am going to leave it at that, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Destro follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Salazar. Wonderful. You have changed my whole script.
    So I am going to ask different questions when I get back to
    you.
        Mr. Destro. Okay.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much for that----
        Mr. Destro. Thank you.
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. opening statement. Thank you, Mr.
    Destro.
        I recognize Dr. Quirk for his opening statement. Welcome,
    sir.

                     STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK QUIRK

        Mr. Quirk. Thank you. Chairwoman Salazar, Ranking Member
    Castro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for inviting me here to testify on the reauthorization of
    the Department of State, including programs through DRL and
    assistance related to democracy.
        I will be summarizing my full written statement and would
    like to begin by applauding the full committee, notably
    Chairman Mast, and this subcommittee for their rigorous
    oversight and review of foreign assistance. Your leadership has
    enhanced accountability and ensured that programs pointed
    externally remain on point and continue to be an effective soft
    diplomacy tool, one that is aligned with diplomatic strategy
    and complements military strength, economic investment, and
    humanitarian aid.
        Democracy programs--I am here to testify--when executed
    cost-effectively strengthen American security and prosperity.
    They foster democratic societies abroad that align with U.S.
    values, reject terrorism, and resist authoritarian influence
    from adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. These
    programs, in a very cost-effective way, reduce conflict,
    mitigate migration pressures, and promote transparent markets
    that drive U.S. trade and investment, all of which benefits
    American families here at home.
        Three decades ago, U.S. democracy assistance, including by
    the National Endowment For Democracy, transformed former Soviet
    Bloc nations. We supported free elections, revitalized
    parliaments, and guided transitions from single-party rule to
    multiparty systems. Most of these countries became strong U.S.
    allies. Poland, Lithuania, and Romania have emerged today as
    partners countering terrorism and authoritarianism. Poland
    alone did 24 billion in trade with the U.S. last year. Now, if
    asked whether supporting Poland in the early 1990's was worth
    U.S. taxpayer investment, my answer would be yes.
        Now, of course, not every country receiving democracy
    support becomes a Poland, just as not every U.S. military
    economic or sanctions effort succeeds. However, keeping
    effective tools in our arsenal is a prudent way to protect
    American interests in today's volatile world.
        In 2025, supporting democracy abroad is increasingly
    complex. Authoritarian regimes fuel drug trafficking, attack
    allies, and launch cyber attacks. Others like Venezuela drive
    migration to U.S. borders, and theocratic regimes like Iran
    destabilize regions, pulling the U.S. and our soldiers into
    costly conflicts. The PRC in particular poses unique
    challenges. Its cyber espionage, intellectual property theft,
    economic coercion, and influence operations all threaten U.S.
    security. But democracy programs directly counter these actions
    by promoting transparent governance and freedoms as well as
    complementing efforts like those from the DFC.
        Now, Chairman Mast has quite ably exposed the failures of
    State Department democracy programs, from funding drag shows in
    Ecuador to atheism promotion in Nepal, but as we chart a path
    forward, I think we need to be intellectually honest and
    recognize that there have been many more programs which have
    not been critically flawed and that do benefit the United
    States. These include, amongst others, ensuring peaceful
    electoral processes in Kenya and the Dominican Republic,
    helping Mongolia--a strategic country situated between China
    and Russia--for the last 20 years to be a successful democracy,
    and supporting East Timor as it worked through independence and
    internal conflict 25 years ago.
        Looking ahead, countering PRC influence is indeed a
    priority and requires a multifaceted strategy. While military
    readiness and capitalization are necessary in large-scale
    tools, democracy programs, I would affirm, are modest, cost-
    effective complements. Just a few examples. In Taiwan, State
    Department funding has helped expose PRC election meddling. In
    Sri Lanka, programs to elevate public scrutiny of Chinese port
    deals. IRI's upcoming work in Ecuador sponsored by the NED will
    help local organizations and media analyze the harmful effects
    of predatory PRC investments like the Coca Codo Sinclair Dam
    like I know you, Madam Chairwoman, are tracking quite closely.
        Now, failing to reauthorize the State Department's
    democracy components--including DRL, the Democracy Fund, and
    ESF--risks ceding ground to adversaries who exploit democratic
    weaknesses and undermine our interests. Sunsetting NED would
    also be detrimental.
        To ensure effectiveness, I would urge reauthorization with
    five considerations amongst others. First, regular audits,
    clear metrics, and public disclosure while balancing safety for
    partners in autocratic states. Second, consider using AI to
    analyze democratic growth data and security tie-ins for better
    outcomes and evaluation. Third, design programs that must
    first--before they are funded--articulate how they enhance U.S.
    security and prosperity. Fourth, refocus funding back to core
    democracy work: Free elections, political party strengthening,
    civilian scrutiny of government, amongst others. Fifth and
    finally, question the point of, quote-unquote, localization.
        Accomplishing things is what we want to do on behalf of the
    American people, not to say we put X percentage of funding into
    the hands of locals like the goal of the last administration.
    Helping countries become democratic enhances U.S. security and
    economic opportunities. I urge you to wisely evaluate the cost
    of eliminating this vital tool when you are reauthorizing the
    State Department and democracy programming. I welcome your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Quirk follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Dr. Quirk, for your statement. I am
    looking forward to asking you a few questions.
        Now, I recognize Mr. Malinowski for his opening statement.
    Thank you. Welcome.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. TOM MALINOWSKI

        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. I well
    remember the work you and I did together on these issues.
        Representative Castro, it is great to be back.
        One of the few things that Democrats and Republicans have
    long agreed on is that America should be a force for freedom
    and for human rights in the world. So, when freedom-loving
    people tore down the Berlin Wall, when a young man in China
    stopped a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square, when young women
    in Iran and Afghanistan said they wanted to be treated like
    human beings, not as property, when people in Venezuela rose up
    to demand free elections, we might have debated how to respond,
    but there was never any question amongst us in this room about
    what side America was supposed to be on.
        For this reason, Congress has, for decades, passed law
    after law to make human rights a priority in American foreign
    policy--aid restrictions, sanctions, broadcasting to closed
    societies, the annual human rights reports, creating the
    National Endowment for Democracy--and it was Congress that
    created the Democracy and Human Rights Bureau at the State
    Department so that there would be an independent voice in that
    Department for strong human rights policies.
        Why was this vital? Because the natural tendency of
    diplomats is to avoid friction on sensitive actions. So having
    a DRL Bureau ensures that, when there is tension between
    defending liberty and some other U.S. national interests, the
    Secretary of State at the very least will hear competing views.
        Now, I understand the committee is interested in how we can
    improve and rationalize this system. Chairwoman, you said we
    need to go back to basics. The problem is the administration is
    eliminating the basics right now. How do we know that? Well, we
    have seen the Department submit a sworn statement in court
    promising to end all grants for democracy and civic society
    around the world--not some but all--and that derisively refer
    to those grants as regime change promotion, language that is
    straight from the Chinese and Russian propaganda playbook.
        The key organizations implementing these programs--like
    Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, NDI,
    IRI--have been blacklisted and publicly disparaged. Today,
    multiple State and AID programs backing activists in countries
    like China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela have been terminated
    despite strong congressional support.
        And, Representative Castro, you are absolutely right. When
    the program is terminated, that is a message to those
    governments that we don't care about those people anymore and
    it is open season on those people.
        This week, you all passed my dear friend Congressman
    Wilson's bill on democracy in Georgia. Every Republican on this
    subcommittee voted for it. So I assume you all don't think that
    is a woke priority. The administration has terminated all
    democracy grants to Georgia.
        And, for those democracy programs that have survived, the
    President's skinny budget would--looks like it would finish
    them off completely, as you mentioned, Representative Castro.
        So, again, no more American support for people challenging
    authoritarian regimes from China, to Iran, to Cuba, to North
    Korea. No more broadcasting to closed societies through Radio
    Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, which would be a huge gift to
    Putin and Xi Jinping.
        Meanwhile, we are seeing virtually no public statements
    from the Secretary of State on human rights issues with, I
    would say, the bizarre and disturbing exception of constant
    advocacy for the rights of a neo-Nazi party in Germany. The
    Department is paring back the annual human rights reports to
    the bare statutory minimum, which is a way of saying they don't
    want to do them at all.
        Now, Madam Chairwoman, one reason I find this so
    bewildering is that, when I was assistant secretary for DRL, no
    Member of Congress was a stronger champion of our work than
    Senator Marco Rubio. Had I proposed any of the things that his
    Department is now doing to retreat from that mission and to
    eviscerate DRL's reporting, aid, and policy functions, he would
    have demanded my resignation and rightly so.
        So, again, I would say the issue of the moment is not how
    to fix DRL. You cannot reorganize the number zero. The question
    is are we still going to be a country that defends human rights
    and freedom even when it is uncomfortable? Are we still a
    shining city on a hill or just a department store, as the
    President recently said?
        So, if you care about this cause, even if you have
    disagreements about how best to advance it, now is the time.
    Don't wait for the authorization bill. Now is the time to
    insist that the State Department stay in the fight. Even if
    some of our top officials don't believe in any of this,
    Congress can preserve the institutions and programs that you
    believe in. I would be delighted to speak to you in more detail
    about how you can do that. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Salazar. Yes. Thanks to you, Mr. Malinowski,
    Congressman.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
        It is fascinating, everything I hear from three of you. We
    all agree, I think, that we want to continue being the shining
    city on the hill, that we are the only game in town because the
    Russians and the Iranians and the Chinese are really not going
    to promote anything close to democracy or freedom.
        So I am going to go start with you, Mr. Destro. And I think
    that your statement was highly enlightening. So, when you say
    that we have got to ask ourselves hard questions, that the
    title of the hearing is not necessarily what we need to be
    looking at--we agree that we want some return on our
    investment, that we want to promote democracy. That is what we
    are here for. And it is a little bit disturbing to hear that we
    have not--we have spent so much and the return has been so
    little.
        So just give me an example of in the last--let's say in the
    last 4 years or in the last 10 years, what have we done wrong?
    What did we do wrong in the last 4 years with Biden? I am sure
    that there were some moneys going to good programs, but, you
    know, perception is reality, and when we hear that there is
    going to $12 million for the Guatemalans--for the native
    Guatemalans to have a sex-change operation, you know, that
    doesn't really sound really good.
        So what did we do wrong in the last 4 years, and what did
    we do wrong in the last 10 years? Put it into perspective for
    us, please.
        Mr. Destro. Well, with respect, I think that is a bit of
    the wrong question. I think the question is what are we doing
    right.
        Ms. Salazar. Okay. So then tell me which one is the right
    question.
        Mr. Destro. It is what are we doing right.
        Ms. Salazar. What are we doing right?
        Mr. Destro. Yes. What are we doing right?
        Ms. Salazar. Okay.
        Mr. Destro. Okay? And, you know, Congressman Malinowski and
    I talked about this when I was in office, and this question
    of--as the DRL assistant secretary, you have 1.5 billion tools
    at your disposal in the ESF and in Human Rights Fund. You also
    have $40 billion worth of really committed professional people
    working with you on those projects. And so the question becomes
    where is the best place to put them.
        Now, all of those places that you just talked about--the
    sex-change operations, everything else--that is not the best
    way to put them. It doesn't really advance our foreign policy.
        Ms. Salazar. Correct. So you agree that we need to change
    that vision----
        Mr. Destro. I do.
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. and leave wokeness and go back to
    democracy?
        Mr. Destro. I think we need to foster freedom, right?
        Ms. Salazar. Right.
        Mr. Destro. And that is why I used Belize as the example.
    Here is a great small country who--they are trying to figure
    out should we keep the king? Should we stay in the Caribbean
    Court of Justice? Should we revise our Constitution, you know,
    and where is our embassy? Nowhere.
        Ms. Salazar. Right. So----
        Mr. Destro. Where is Millennium Challenge? Pushing that
    same agenda you just talked about.
        Ms. Salazar. So this reorganization of the State Department
    that you just mentioned under Marco Rubio now--so, if you were
    his advisor, what are the three things that you would tell him
    in order to have our return on investment to be really high?
    Three.
        Mr. Destro. Well, I think the first thing I would do is
    make sure--and this is one of the things that I tried to do as
    assistant secretary, is to make sure that the assistant
    secretary who has statutory authority to maintain constant
    oversight of that funding, both humanitarian and----
        Ms. Salazar. Oversight?
        Mr. Destro. Yes, oversight. Right.
        Ms. Salazar. No. 2?
        Mr. Destro. We don't. And I know it is fair to say, well,
    what do you mean you don't? You know, I had to spend a million
    dollars to put together a data base to pull it all together.
        Ms. Salazar. So oversight of where the money is going. That
    is No. 2?
        Mr. Destro. Oversight of where the money is going, who is
    spending it, and it doesn't matter whether it is in State or
    HHS because there is human rights and humanitarian funding all
    over the government. And so the first thing would be let's
    figure out where the money is going.
        Ms. Salazar. All right. So you are telling me that we do
    not know as a government where the money is going?
        Mr. Destro. No, we don't.
        Ms. Salazar. We are only spending taxpayers' money, all
    right? So----
        Mr. Destro. Right. But that is your power of the purse. If
    you don't know, then you don't have any effective oversight.
        Ms. Salazar. You mean Congress--I am sorry--or the State
    Department officials?
        Mr. Destro. I am talking about--this is a dual, joint
    executive Congress thing. You have the power of the purse, and
    you have the right to see how the money is being spent, and you
    are not getting it. That is my point.
        Ms. Salazar. And then that would be the most important
    advice you would give to the Secretary of State?
        Mr. Destro. Is make sure that there is at least one person,
    if not more who has continuous oversight and can demand
    oversight of that money. And I can tell you stories. I won't
    bother to burn the record now, but I basically faced absolute
    insubordination when I tried to get that. And assistant
    secretaries really don't have the authority to take personnel
    actions like that. You know, but the fact of the matter is that
    I was told I didn't have any right to see the money.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you. I don't want to overextend my time.
        So I now recognize Ranking Member Castro for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        I know in your testimony just now and I think in your
    written testimony you stated that you are often unaware of what
    programs the Department funded or operated, and that suggests
    unaccountability.
        And, Tom, you served in the same role in the Obama
    administration, I believe, and I wanted to ask you, you know,
    is it accurate that, as assistant secretary, you had to sign
    off on all the funding recommendations?
        Mr. Malinowski. Absolutely, yes. I find this very strange.
    I signed off on every single grant program and reviewed every
    single grant program. If I had questions, they were answered.
    If I had concerns, they were addressed. Congress was briefed on
    every grant program at that point that it wanted to know about.
    It was briefed on grant programs it didn't want to know about.
    That wasn't the issue.
        And DRL--one of the hallmarks of what makes it so good is
    that it actually has an office of people who are dedicated to
    grant management. These are very small grants going to small
    organizations, often in developing countries, and so the
    oversight function of DRL is especially important and one
    reason it needs to be empowered and not dismantled, as the
    Secretary of State is intending to do.
        I understand you all have been briefed that the people
    overseeing these grants are either going to be fired or moved
    into the regional bureaus, which I think former Assistant
    Secretary Destro and I agree would be a bad idea. So there is
    oversight, DRL is key to it, and that is why it needs to be
    strengthened.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        Mr. Malinowski. And, by the way, there will be nothing to
    oversee if everything is cut.
        Mr. Castro. Right.
        Mr. Malinowski. So we are kind of rearranging the deck
    chairs of the Titanic here unless we focus on the fact that
    everything is being eliminated.
        Mr. Castro. I mean, to your point--and that is why I said
    this is not reform. This is sabotage. This is a total
    dismantling of the infrastructure for diplomacy for the United
    States.
        Let me ask you: The administration's skinny budget proposes
    cutting all funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, or
    NED, making claims about a lack of transparency and
    disinformation.
        Dr. Quirk, are you aware of the claims made about the NED?
    Did the administration reach out to the NED or its grantees to
    seek information before making these claims?
        Mr. Quirk. Thank you, Ranking Member Castro, for the
    question. I appreciate it.
        The charges against the NED from OMB in the skinny budget
    were, frankly, news to me. I am not here to defend the NED. I
    do know they responded with a fact sheet, which I have here. I
    am happy to submit it for the record. What I will say is that
    individuals making similar accusations never at least knock on
    our door and say, hey, we have a concern to an X, Y, or Z
    program. Can we discuss it?
        Often, the charters aren't backed up with any evidence.
    There is no followup. The NED are audited. They report to
    Congress and the USG, frankly, quite frequently. So the bit
    about them not being transparent just baffles me.
        Mr. Castro. And the administration's cuts to democracy and
    human rights programs was far-reaching and included significant
    cuts to the International Republican Institute's programs. Can
    you speak to how these cuts were made? And did the
    administration seek information from you all specifically
    before making these decisions, and did you feel like it was a
    thoughtful and deliberative process?
        Mr. Quirk. So what I will say about the foreign aid review
    is we--any administration has the right to do it. We supported
    it from day one. Certainly, there were some programs cut that,
    in my view, were not sufficiently linked to advancing U.S.
    national security. That said, there were many that were cut
    that were, in fact, advancing U.S. interests. Tell me how it is
    not in our interest to be supportive of the people in Cuba,
    Iran, China, elsewhere.
        To your question, Ranking Member, about did the State
    Department reach out for information, the former F director of
    the State Department whose name now escapes me--his office
    never came to us asking for that information.
        Mr. Castro. You know, we spent years talking about the
    threats of China both to the United States, to our allies, but
    also to their own people, nations like Cuba. And I actually
    agree with you on Cuba, although I would say that we have, for
    some time now, pursued a strategy that failed a long time ago,
    and we should have made the change sometime back.
        But let me ask: Does anybody agree that cutting the
    diplomacy budget by 85 percent--85 percent--is actually going
    to make the United States safer and stronger and more secure
    around the world?
        Mr. Destro. Well, Mr. Castro, if I can respond.
        Mr. Castro. Please.
        Mr. Destro. There is nothing like a hanging to clarify the
    mind. I mean, you know, I am sure that is a negotiable figure.
    You know, and that is----
        Mr. Castro. Well, let's say it ends up at 50 percent. Do
    you think it is good at 50 percent?
        Mr. Destro. I can't answer that question, and the reason is
    it is what you are spending the money on. It seems to me when
    we talk about things like countering China----
        Mr. Castro. Well, but China is increasing its funding,
    right? It is not decreasing its funding.
        Mr. Destro. Of course. But the question is how do you
    counter China. And one of the ways you do that is by increasing
    the independence of the countries that you are working with.
    Some of that is going to be trade policy. Some of it is going
    to be human rights funding.
        I have spent a lot of time working with people in West
    Africa about how do we use trade funding to do human rights. I
    mean, these are not incompatible. In fact, our programs here at
    the United States--human rights in the workplace is one of our
    most stellar human rights achievements in the last century.
        Mr. Castro. But they cut all the labor rights programs. I
    mean, I think what you are describing is a situation, also,
    where the countries are not likely--I mean, it could be
    possible--but aren't likely to become stronger and more
    independent on their own. They are more likely to rely on some
    other Nation like China or Russia, which is I think what is
    going to happen.
        Mr. Destro. Well, you know, again, I don't disagree. I
    don't think we disagree about the importance of it. But a good
    friend who is from a South Asian country--one that will remain
    nameless--has come here to study. Her Secret Service came to
    her and said, you know, you are working through the CIA. And
    then she says, well, are you telling me I shouldn't come? To
    which they said, no, no, no, no. We just want you to know where
    the money is coming from.
        That is the perception. If that is the perception, it is
    not a big surprise why a country like India enacts something
    like our Foreign Agents Registration Act. So, I mean, actions
    have consequences. It is the how. Diplomacy is about how. It is
    not about whether.
        Mr. Castro. I have gone over my time; so we will have to
    continue the conversation another time.
        Thank you, Chairwoman.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Now, I recognize the representative, Sara Jacobs, from the
    State of California.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.
        And thank you all for testifying.
        Look, I am glad that we all seem to agree that human rights
    and democracy are an important part of our national security
    and foreign policy. I know there are some on this committee who
    maybe think they aren't, like our Chairman Mast, but I believe
    that it is actually in our national interest to prioritize and
    center human rights and good governance in our foreign policy
    because it is in our long-term interest to do so, right?
        Like, let's take the African continent, the youngest
    population in the world. Seventy percent of the population is
    under 30. These young people are the future. Do we want them to
    remember the U.S. supporting their autocratic regimes or
    supporting populations who need protection and support to fight
    for a better future?
        Obviously, we can have that policy discussion, but what we
    are talking about now is the grave mistake I think this
    administration is taking to sideline human rights, democracy,
    and governance at the State Department.
        And, Madam Chairwoman, I first of all don't believe any of
    the programs that you cited are actually DRL programs, but,
    also--look, you can cherry-pick a random grant or a program
    here or there and frame them as something that is silly. That
    is fine, actually. I am actually fine if you disagree with some
    of the programs that the Biden administration put in place.
    They were aligned with Biden's foreign policy priorities, which
    included supporting human rights, including LGBTQ+ rights.
        It is totally normal for a new administration to come in
    and decide that they have different priorities and to terminate
    those programs that they don't think align with their policy
    priorities, but that is not what this administration has done.
    It has actually canceled nearly all human rights programs,
    including human rights programs that we are working on fighting
    for freedom in China and Venezuela and Nigeria, and it is
    gutting the expertise in the Department around human rights.
        So, first, Dr. Quirk, I want to dig into a little bit more
    the impact of this administration's gutting of democracy
    programs. Approximately how many of your programs were
    terminated by this administration?
        Mr. Quirk. At the start of the administration, we had
    roughly--from State and AID--95 active awards, and all but a
    handful have been terminated
        Ms. Jacobs. And the administration has assured us that this
    review was being done in a systematic way, that they were
    focused on waste, fraud, and abuse, that they are just doing
    due diligence. Did any of those terminations include a
    rationale for why the program was canceled?
        Mr. Quirk. No.
        Ms. Jacobs. Would you consider any of those programs woke?
        Mr. Quirk. I would not. Look, anyone implementing democracy
    and rights programs over the last 10 years could be accused of
    doing woke programming insofar as a work plan or proposal had
    to include those words based on that administration's foreign
    policy. So did IRI documents include those terms? Yes. Did we
    do any woke programming? Decidedly, no.
        Ms. Jacobs. Were there any allegations of waste, fraud, and
    abuse in any of your programs?
        Mr. Quirk. Not that I am aware of.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I think it is clear that this review
    was not thoughtful or thorough and that it was never actually
    about waste, fraud, abuse, or efficiency.
        I also want to get to another thing my colleagues like to
    say. They like to say we shouldn't be doing programs that other
    governments don't want us to do because that hurts our
    diplomacy.
        Dr. Quirk, a concrete example. The U.S. previously provided
    significant support to the Syrian civil society under the Assad
    regime. Would you agree there was bipartisan support for these
    programs?
        Mr. Quirk. I support providing democracy assistance in
    closed societies because long-standing autocratic regimes--
    whether it is Cuba, Iran--are stable until they are not, and
    providing support in these countries is about maintaining the
    small amount of civic space and ensuring that there are leaders
    in place that have the skills to lead when that regime falls.
        Ms. Jacobs. I think that is exactly right. So, clearly, the
    Assad regime did not like what the U.S. was funding, but it was
    in our interest to fund it anyway, and that is true in many,
    many of these countries.
        So, with my last minute, Congressman Malinowski, could you
    talk about why supporting civil society and promoting good
    governance in other countries is so critical to our strategic
    U.S. foreign policy and national security?
        Mr. Malinowski. Well, thank you. In addition to being
    obviously the right thing to do, I think the most important
    argument for it is that this is our comparative advantage over
    adversaries like China. It is what makes America special. We
    are not just a bunch of people defending a piece of soil. We
    stand for something larger in the world that is attractive,
    that people are inspired by all over the world. Why would we
    give that up?
        Mr. Destro compared what is happening--maybe
    inadvertently--to a hanging. Yes, that is true. We tied our own
    noose, we put our neck in it, and we are about to hang
    ourselves, even as China and all of our adversaries are
    increasing funding for their influence operations around the
    world. That would be catastrophic for U.S. national interests.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Jacobs.
        And, now, we recognize Representative Mike Lawler from the
    State of New York for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        As you may know, I currently cochair the Moldova Caucus and
    have since I joined Congress. A place like Moldova really
    exemplifies how some good governance and anticorruption
    assistance can actually go a long way.
        Can you discuss some of the impactful programming that the
    U.S. has supported in Moldova in the last decade? I will ask
    any of you for--to opine.
        Mr. Destro. I think I am going to defer to Dr. Quirk on
    that one because I don't have the details on Moldova.
        Mr. Quirk. What I can say, broadly speaking, the support we
    provide in countries like Moldova is to support the
    infrastructure of democracy--strong political parties, civil
    society, legislatures--so that they can rule their own country
    and govern in a way that makes the country stable.
        Mr. Malinowski. I mean, one more specific example that--as
    you know, there was an extremely important election in Moldova
    last year that Putin tried to undermine in every way that he
    could. That election was observed, as I recall, by NDI and IRI
    observers on the ground, all funded 100 percent by the U.S.
    Government. If there were an election in Moldova today of equal
    importance, we could not deploy a single person because all of
    that money is frozen.
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Quirk, to that end, can you share from your
    perspective how election monitoring is actually helpful, and
    are there ways to make these trips and verifications more
    effective?
        Mr. Quirk. Happy to. IRI, along with our NDI colleagues,
    have provided election observation services for hundreds of
    elections. These efforts provide an independent check from pre-
    election, Election Day, post-election, to ensure that the
    processes are free, fair, transparent, absent of which a ruling
    or opposition party might be inclined to conduct fraud.
        And, moreover, following the election process, the reports
    indicate areas in which the country should improve their
    electoral processes so it is even better the next time around.
        Mr. Lawler. Transnational repression--obviously, when
    governments reach across borders to harass and silence
    dissidents--has become a significant human rights concern in
    recent years. Repressive regimes abuse Interpol Red Notices and
    use overseas law enforcement offices in an effort to control
    citizens living abroad. NGO's report that there have been over
    1,000 cases in the last decade perpetuated by over 44
    countries, with the most common perpetrators being China,
    Russia, Turkiye, and Egypt.
        What transnational activities by authoritarian governments
    are most concerning from a human rights perspective, and how
    could the State Department respond to that?
        Mr. Destro. Mr. Lawler, can I address that?
        Mr. Lawler. Sure.
        Mr. Destro. I mean, I will give you a really good example.
    Overseas Chinese police stations, right? And they exist here.
        Mr. Lawler. We have had them in New York.
        Mr. Destro. That is what I mean. They have them in
    Minneapolis-St. Paul. So, when countries transcend their
    borders--and it is not just countries, I might add.
    Transnational organized criminal groups like Boko Haram, you
    know, the various gangs that control our border--you know,
    those are all very concerning.
        And so the question becomes what is the best diplomatic
    response, you know, and then how do you back that up with some
    serious money? I mean, that is the--nobody is arguing here that
    we shouldn't do this. In fact, having helped run a statewide
    election in my home State of Ohio, I know exactly how elections
    get run. I know the machines. I know the counting. I know all
    of the things.
        By the time you get to election observers--I think election
    observers are great, you know, but many boards of elections in
    this country get nervous when we bring in observers. That is
    our problem. You know, what we need to do is bring in election
    officials and watch how the election actually happens. You
    know, and that is not just observing. It is a long process over
    a couple of years.
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Malinowski?
        Mr. Malinowski. Yes. So it is most disturbing when it
    happens on our soil, obviously. It is the countries you
    mentioned. I would say Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi, and a
    number of other countries. When I was in Congress, this was a
    priority, pushing the State Department to do more about this.
        One success we had was that they started including examples
    of transnational repression in the annual human rights reports
    on every country in the world. Those are important because it
    is the one time in the year when the State Department is forced
    to be honest about everybody, whether it is comfortable or not.
    And I am afraid the news we have gotten is that the
    administration has decided to take out from the annual human
    rights reports that section on transnational repression. So I
    would encourage you to take that up with them before that
    decision is final. Thank you.
        Mr. Lawler. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Lawler.
        Now, we recognize for 5 minutes Representative Jackson from
    Illinois.
        Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Thank you, distinguished panelists.
        We are here today to discuss an American agenda for
    democracy and human rights. I believe we can all agree on the
    importance of freedom, democracy, and human rights as pillars
    of a stable and a just world.
        The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has
    historically championed these universal values. Its mission to
    bolster democratic institutions, confront democratic
    backsliding, promote accountability, uphold labor standards,
    and advance the rights of marginalized communities globally
    reflects the best of who we are and what we aspire to be as a
    Nation, a Nation that cherishes democratic values, embraces
    diversity, and strives to promote peace. These are not woke
    values. It seems like one fool said ``woke'' is a bad word to
    have a sense of consciousness, and a lot of other people
    sitting on the vine have echoed it.
        Many people are saying what is ``woke.'' I would like to
    know from you, Mr. Quirk, is there a definition that has been
    published on what is the definition of ``woke''?
        Mr. Quirk. I am by no means an expert nor do I desire to be
    on wokeism. I am not aware of any particular definition that is
    published.
        Mr. Jackson. Okay. Thank you. You don't know. So it is kind
    of what this administration is doing.
        Mr. Bill Gates, who has done a lot of great things in
    philanthropy, has called Elon Musk just today and his DOGE
    companions ``geographically illiterate.'' They may have some
    level of intelligence, but they can be really foolhardy and
    unintelligent in so many other ways.
        Let us consider the global landscape at this time, from the
    devastating conflicts in the Sudan, to the ongoing war in
    Ukraine against Russian aggression, the heart-wrenching
    violence in Israel and Palestine, the dire human rights that is
    happening off of our shores right here in Haiti. We talk about
    the struggle for democracy in Myanmar, the escalating
    instability in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo
    and Sahel. Nearly every continent is touched by conflicts and
    democratic backsliding when we retreat.
        This will be for you, Hon. Malinowski. At this very moment
    when the world is rife with instability that directly impacts
    Americans' national security interests, is it wise for us to
    diminish these very tools designed to address these challenges?
        Mr. Malinowski. Certainly not. And, you know, one thing
    that I heard a lot from President Trump during the campaign is
    that he wants fewer wars in the world. He doesn't want the
    United States fighting as many wars in the world.
        A budget that cuts the State Department by 83 percent
    leaves us--and I am a proponent of strong military spending. I
    would have voted for any increase in the military budget when I
    was here. But to cut the State Department by 83 percent means
    that, when there is a crisis in the world, the only tool we
    have is a gun. The only tool we have is the one that President
    Trump claims he doesn't want to use, and that makes absolutely
    no sense to me.
        Mr. Jackson. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Destro, there is the comments of woke. This
    administration uses these terms, and then they run and people
    don't seem to ask the second or the third question. This
    administration also talks about America being first. How are we
    being first? What are our interests in this hemisphere? What
    are our goals to become first in what?
        Mr. Destro. Well, thank you, Mr. Jackson. That is a really
    good question. And I would say that--and I have to give credit
    to my wife on this one--that putting America first is exactly
    what the flight attendant tells you when you get on an
    airplane. Put your own face mask on first, and then help the
    people around you. And that is really, I think--and I agree
    with my co-panelists that our obligation is to help all the
    people around us, you know. And why? That is good for us.
        And so when Mr. Castro mentioned earlier labor programs--I
    mean, I started out as a labor lawyer. I had no idea how much
    of my portfolio was dealing with human rights in the labor
    field, supply chains. You know, people mention Democratic
    Republic of Congo. I mean, but how do you solve the problem of
    kids being slaves in cobalt mines? I mean, that is not just a
    human rights problem. We have got to find American companies
    who will go in and run those mines and apply good, you know,
    labor standards. So this question of how much do we spend, it
    is not just a question of how much. It is how do we put it
    together.
        I mean, I will give you an example. My friend and
    colleague, former Assistant Secretary Dave Stilwell, who ran
    the East Asia-Pacific Bureau--he and I were talking about how
    do you help countries that are under pressure from China to
    maintain their independence. And one of the answers was you
    translate the master agreement that the Chinese make you sign,
    but it is in Chinese. You don't even know what you are agreeing
    to. That is not independence. That is not freedom. You know,
    but where does it fit? Where does the funding--what is the pot
    out of which you take that money?
        Those are the practical problems that assistant secretaries
    have to solve every single day. And it is not just me. It is my
    counterparts in Labor, my counterparts in USTR. I mean, all
    this thing has to be put together as a little symphony, and it
    is the Secretary and the President who has to conduct it.
        Mr. Jackson. Thank you so much for your participation. I
    thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And I would encourage all of you to keep on doing the work
    of diversity, equity, and inclusion. And for those who use some
    inflammatory terms and try to make woke and consciousness a bad
    word, push back on that ignorance with all your might.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative----
        Mr. Jackson. Preserve your integrity.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Salazar [continuing]. from the State of Illinois. Thank
    you.
        Now I recognize for 5 minutes the Representative Titus from
    the State of Nevada.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And thank you to Mr. Jackson for bringing up about woke. I
    have got to just first take exception to the name of this
    hearing. We want to not promote woke values. I don't even know
    what that means, and I have never heard a very good definition
    from the other side.
        And if you look at democracy and spreading freedom, which
    is the other half of the title here, we are talking about
    freedom of the press, programs that promote this, protecting
    reporters. You are talking about helping women run for office,
    talking about helping legislatures draft bills on
    anticorruption. Is that woke? Does that qualify for woke?
        That sounds to me like we are spreading freedom and
    democracy. So I don't get where that title comes from. And when
    we are doing away with the programs that promote that, like IRI
    and NDI, we are not spreading democracy.
        Mr. Malinowski, it is nice to see you here, as a former
    colleague, to talk about these issues. You know, every time you
    strike one of these issues, look what we have done in
    Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Hong Kong, Tibet,
    Burma, all kinds of democracy programs.
        And then the latest is now we are going to change Voice of
    America to what is this super-right wing, One America News
    Network. That sounds pretty woke to me or pretty asleep. I
    don't know which it is.
        But, anyway, I know the good work that IRI and NDI do.
        I would ask you, Dr. Quirk, I have seen it through my
    visiting countries with the House Democracy Partnership, on the
    ground helping to build democracies, and that is what the
    Partnership promotes.
        So would you just talk about how the phrase has affected
    some specific work that you have been involved in. What are
    some of the specific programs that you have that do promote
    democracy that the other side is cheering for us eliminating?
        Mr. Quirk. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I am
    not here necessarily to talk about the programs that IRI has
    had canceled. What I will say is that yesterday we had at IRI
    foreign events, three courageous opposition leaders, Maria
    Corina Machado from Venezuela, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya from
    Belarus, and others.
        You don't need to hear it from me, hear it from them. They
    quite forcefully said, we need the U.S. in this game. We don't
    need the U.S. to be leaning back when the likes of China and
    Russia are leaning in.
        Ms. Titus. Well, I think that is absolutely true, because
    they will be only too willing to step into the breach if we are
    not present.
        And when you pull out all the people who are in the field
    working with villages, working with remote areas, working with
    new legislatures, what is left there?
        I mean, this is such a source of soft power for us, as you
    were saying, that just help the person with his face mask on,
    it helps everybody around us, that I just find this astounding
    when I look at the cuts that are being made.
        Mr. Malinowski, would you continue this conversation with
    me about what we are losing and talk about the State
    Department's reorganization and how that is going to impact the
    regional approach to things?
        Mr. Malinowski. Well, we are losing our heart and soul.
    That is the headline. Specifically, you asked about programs.
    It would take me hours but, you know, we are losing grants. We
    were talking about Cuba. There is a wonderful organization
    called Diario de coup De Cuba, which has been exposing
    corruption by the Cuban regime for years. Defunded.
        There is an organization called China Human Rights Monitor
    which--China Dissent Monitor, which is the main--the best
    source of information in the world about local protests against
    the Chinese Communist Party. Even the Chinese people learn
    about protests in their own country through this. 100 percent
    defunded.
        All of the work we have been doing to try to help women and
    girls in Afghanistan who we abandoned, that the State
    Department, USAID, DRL continued to help them, through women's
    shelters, through emergency grants to get them out of the
    country. All of that has been defunded.
        And you mention the other side. I know that Representative
    Salazar, Chairwoman Salazar, you don't want to defund those
    programs. I know that Representative Smith, who has been
    championing this work longer than anybody in this room, does
    not want to defund these programs.
        And so very, very seriously, as a former colleague, I need
    to appeal to you guys to stand up against this. This is a
    President of your party. And if you do that successfully, I
    still expect and understand that there will be conservative
    priorities imposed on these programs, because it is a
    Republican administration, and that is fine. I want them to
    survive, and they are not going to survive unless Republicans
    in the House and the Senate stand up and say they need to
    survive.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Titus.
        Now I recognize for 5 minutes Representative Chris Smith
    from the State of New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Chairwoman.
        And welcome to our distinguished panel. Tom, it is great to
    see you again. And, of course, Bob Destro, who I have known for
    decades as well. And welcome to you, Dr. Quirk.
        Just a couple of questions. I know you were speaking about,
    Secretary Destro, about the DR Congo. I just had like my sixth
    hearing on it earlier on March 25th, just a few weeks ago.
        And we focused again on the issue of cobalt, the fact that
    I have been to North Kivu. I have been to Goma. And we do know
    that, unfortunately, kids are being used to mine in the
    artisanal mines, but also about 25 to 40 thousand kids and
    about 200,000 adults are in forced labor.
        I have appealed repeatedly to the DRC Government to sever
    their ties with the Chinese Communist Party. We know that there
    are moneys flowing that are ubiquitous to help facilitate this
    terrible exploitation. And, you know, wherever you come down on
    EV cars and the need for cobalt, make sure it is coming from a
    supply chain that is clean of this kind of horrific abuse.
        I do have a bill in, H.R. 2310, which we are going to try
    to get passed that would provide a rebuttable presumption,
    because it is all coming from China. It is all coming from
    Xinjiang, where they process it, process it there or in a good
    country where there is real ILO type labor standards. And, as
    you indicated, you know, American mines, you know, are more
    likely to have a much better track record.
        You testified at several of my hearings, and I thank you
    for that. And so I just want to underscore the need to get
    these kinds of bills passed and out of the Senate.
        Last night, 406 to 1, both sides of the aisle voting for
    it, my Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act passed again. It passed
    2 years ago, died in the Senate. And it is very serious.
        I mean, the sanctioning not just of Chinese officials but
    also of anyone who is complicit in it, you know, whether it be
    the brokers working out of New Jersey or New York or anywhere
    else to procure livers and any other thing, go to Shanghai, get
    it. In 2 weeks, you got the liver. It is coming from a Uyghur
    or it is coming from a Falun Gong practitioner, as we know.
        And the numbers are staggering. The high number is 100,000
    murders per year to get these. I had one doctor who did them.
    And you testified at that hearing, Bob. I will never forget it.
    And you said, you know, this is a human rights and also a
    trafficking issue almost without parallel, and we need--this
    bill I think would stop a lot of it--it never stops it all--and
    it applies to the world.
        So we got to make sure the TIP Office remains strong and
    intact. We are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I authored that law. It
    took 3 years to get that passed. There was all kinds of
    opposition to it.
        The Assistant Secretary at the time testified. And they
    didn't want it at the Clinton administration but, thank God, at
    the end of the day he signed it. So alls well that ends well.
        And then we had problems implementing it through various
    administrations, including Republican and Democratic, to be
    faithful to stand with the victims. Don't be indifferent or
    enabling of the oppressor.
        So that TIP Office, we got to make sure that any reorg
    protects the TIP Office robustly, the Ambassador-at-large.
    Ditto for the Religious Freedom Office, which was Frank Wolf's
    1998 law.
        So maybe if you wanted to speak to that because I think,
    you know, if we are not speaking out on human rights issues,
    who will? I mean, we do get some good work from the U.K. and
    some of the other democracies, but we have got to be the
    leader.
        So Mr. Destro and then Tom, if you want to speak.
        Mr. Destro. Well, let me start by saying amen. I mean, what
    you just said is exactly right. And if we want to take the--you
    know, let me give you the example. Come back to the idea of the
    cobalt mines.
        I mean, one of the most fascinating meetings I had as
    Assistant Secretary was a group of people who represented the
    footwear and apparel industry. And basically, you had State
    Department, Justice, Labor, Customs Enforcement, everybody in
    the same room saying, if we find slave labor goods in your
    supply chain, they are not coming in, period.
        And, by the way, if we find out that you know they are
    coming in, you are going to go to jail. That is effective
    foreign policy, I mean. And it is the coordination piece that I
    think often gets missed in all of this.
        I have been called by people in Africa to say, will you
    help us find some American companies that will mine this stuff
    for us in DRC. That is not an easy task. You know, they don't
    even know who to go to. And so part of it is you almost need--
    on human rights, you almost need--I hate to put it this way--a
    human rights concierge.
        I mean, what is happening with organ harvesting, I had no
    idea how bad it was. And, as you know, we actually found the
    first survivor of an actual organ harvesting and the Chinese
    admitted it, you know. And there are organ brokers.
        So there is lots of work and lots of I think potential
    money to spend, but we just have to get our act together and do
    it effectively.
        Mr. Quirk. If I could just add quickly, there are many
    potential positive components of the proposed reorg, and one
    mistake, given how critical the work of the TIP Office is,
    moving it under PRM. It deemphasizes the nature of the work.
        Mr. Destro. And actually, if it is going to go anywhere, it
    should go under organized crime, not under population, not
    under migration.
        Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Smith. You are going
    to be able to have more time to ask other questions. We are
    going to go into a second round of questions, and I just have a
    couple for all of you.
        Let's talk about Venezuela. You mentioned Venezuela. You
    mentioned Mexico. Let's just go Venezuela. Yesterday, five
    members of the Maria Corina Machado team were rescued. They
    were able to escape the country in a special operation.
        So the question is, and it is for three of you, what else
    do you think DRL could do in order to push for democracy in
    Venezuela? We have such a difficult situation. Maria Corina, in
    my understanding, is the new Simon Bolivar of this generation.
    She is in the country. Maduro signed the Biden Accords,
    promising that he was going to leave if he lost the election,
    he was going to stay if he won it. We understand that she has
    produced the tallies that he lost by 70 points.
        What else can we do as a country to help the freedom forces
    and the democracy to go back to Venezuela? Start with right
    there. Yes.
        Mr. Malinowski. So a couple things. First of all, I saw
    that news. It sounds great. I applaud Secretary Rubio for what
    I assume was a lot of work that he did behind the scenes to
    make that happen.
        But, OK, we rescued five people from Venezuela and brought
    them to the United States. And we are threatening to deport
    300,000 people right back to the Maduro regime?
        Ms. Salazar. I understand, but----
        Mr. Malinowski. Right? I mean, I am sorry. I can't help
    raising that difficult issue, but we are----
        Ms. Salazar. We understand what is happening, but if we
    were as a country, we need to--what do you think we should do?
    What are the forces we need to? What are the resources we need?
        Mr. Malinowski. Don't be making deals with dictators to
    take back people who are their opponents. That is core. You
    cannot claim to be for democracy and human rights in a country
    if you are doing that.
        No. 2, don't take away DRL's tools and funding, because--
    and to be fair, not all of the Venezuela democracy programs
    have been frozen or terminated, but everything running through
    the NED, through Freedom House, through that whole family has
    been terminated.
        That is absolutely crazy. And my understanding is because
    they just don't like Freedom House. Like, really? That is your
    reason?
        Ms. Salazar. Programs that have not--so putting aside the
    ones who have been terminated or the ones that are still
    current, what else can we do as a country?
        Mr. Malinowski. We can resume the things that have been
    terminated. It shouldn't be unreasonable for me--I mean, look,
    if I had done this when I was Assistant Secretary, if I had
    come to you, Chairwoman Salazar, and said, I am terminating
    half of our democracy programs in Venezuela, you wouldn't have
    said, well, besides that. You would have been very cross with
    me and rightly so, right? And I am saying you have got to be
    angry about this.
        Ms. Salazar. We are angry about the whole situation with
    Venezuela, and the Biden administration did a gesture in trying
    to bring democracy back and look what Maduro did.
        Mr. Malinowski. And it didn't work. No, I understand. It
    didn't work.
        Ms. Salazar. He laughed. Maduro laughed in our faces, in
    the face of the United States and the government at the time.
    So----
        Mr. Malinowski. It didn't work.
        Ms. Salazar. So the other witnesses, Mr. Quirk.
        Mr. Quirk. Yes.
        Ms. Salazar. Any ideas of what do you think this money--
    where else can we do?
        Mr. Quirk. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. The question is
    really an important one. The NED, the State Department, we have
    an evidence-based set of tools, resources and programming that
    we have used in countless other places, to include Venezuela,
    that are proven to bolster opposition movements. It all comes
    back to resource levels.
        If we have access to the funds to provide that type of
    support. If staff at NED, IRI, NDI that are ready to go.
        Second, from a diplomatic standpoint, I think as a country,
    being clear that we stand on the side of the oppressed and
    those pushing back on authoritarian regression, being
    consistent with those messages.
        Ms. Salazar. Mr. Destro, your idea, if you were to be the
    one guiding the resources, where would you put them when it
    comes to democracy in Venezuela?
        Mr. Destro. One thing you can do, and I think that it is
    uniquely within your power to do that, is to beef up the
    foundations of Evidence-Based Policy Act, you know, which
    basically should be requiring transparent evaluation of all
    these programs so we get this return on investment question.
    And right now it is a data-integration model, but what we need
    to do is move it into a real evaluation model.
        The second thing is, as you look at the reauthorization of
    these offices, you need to make sure that, by statute, you
    break down barriers among the agencies, OK? Because if I had
    called over to HHS, they would have said, who are you, click,
    you know. But if I actually call across the hallway to INL, I
    mean, they would have said, who are you, click.
        I mean, so, you know, that is even though I, as DRL, had
    statutory authority to maintain oversight. So it is the
    process, you know, that I am worried about. I think we can make
    the money work, you know, but it is how we spend it.
        Ms. Salazar. You made it very clear that is the process on
    how we structure these programs. And thank you.
        Now I yield back, and I recognize the ranking member for 5
    minutes. Thank you.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        And I say to Tom's point, it was IRI and NDI that helped
    expose that the last Venezuelan elections were not free and
    fair elections. And so even though it is true Maduro is still
    in place, it was that work that helped expose the elections, I
    think, as fraudulent and exposed him to his people.
        But I wanted to followup on something you said, Mr. Destro.
    You indicated that you disagree with the proposal to move
    foreign assistance programming responsibilities to the regional
    bureaus.
        Can you speak further on this? And what challenges would
    such a change pose and how would it dilute the prioritization
    of human rights?
        Mr. Destro. Well, I think that when you are dealing with--
    let me give you a real concrete example. The Rohingya, right,
    they live right on the boundary of East Asia and South Asia,
    right, the bureaus. Who takes care of them? I mean, they are in
    orbit in both bureaus.
        And so when the focus of the regional bureaus ought to be
    the management of bilateral relationships between our country
    and other countries, but when it comes to human rights
    programs, humanitarian, that is actually much more of a focus.
    And that is one of the reasons I don't want it to go into the
    regionals is because it is going to get lost there.
        And so when you look at a question that Representative
    Smith and I have looked at a lot, which is the issue of all the
    genocide going on in Nigeria, right? If I call over, as
    Assistant Secretary, to the Intelligence Community and I want
    to know who is buying the AK-47s, who is buying the Land Rovers
    that they are using to kill villagers, you know, what I am
    going to get from the State Department is, oh, it is all
    climate change.
        What I want to know is, wait a minute, I need the financial
    intelligence, and somebody is going to hang up on me. I could
    not get that kind of information out of the Intelligence
    Community. And so only you can break that down for us, you
    know.
        So I have some very--like, I really mean it when I say we
    ought to have a little working group and say, look, what are
    the concrete things that you, only you, as Congress, can do,
    and then let the executive branch try to figure out how to do
    it.
        Mr. Castro. [Presiding.] Thank you. I yield back. Rep.
    Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Castro, Ranking Member.
        Just, Tom, I would like to yield to you, because I know you
    wanted to answer the original question, and then I will put out
    another question as well. You might want to incorporate it.
        The idea of the regional bureaus getting even more of a
    voice I think is a very dangerous possibility and a very
    dangerous outcome for human rights. I can't tell you how many
    times on the trafficking issue, no matter who is at the White
    House. We have had individual Ambassadors and the regional
    bureaus weigh in in such a way so that with the TIP Ambassador-
    at-large and with the TIP Office, it is a large number of very,
    very--you know, they are policy experts.
        They have got data calls from each one of the embassies.
    They have gone through it. And very often their narrative,
    which would lead to a Tier 3 designation, doesn't match what
    the tierage was.
        There have been numerous examples where other issues
    intervene at the regional bureau level and Secretary of State
    level that then said, no, we are not going to make you Tier 3
    because of fill in the blank.
        Oman got an inflated grade because they were working on the
    agreement with Iran. We saw it with Malaysia, because the TPP
    would not then apply to them if they were Tier 3. And they were
    Tier 3 absolutely. And others look at that and say, wait a
    minute, they politicize this process.
        So those regional bureaus, they have a role to play, but
    they can't have an outsize role when it comes to human rights,
    because human rights always is on page 6 unless you are the
    Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Labor and Human Rights. Then
    you are walking point every day of the week.
        So I think we need to make sure that that--and then the
    knowledge base is that much higher too, you know, the
    commitment. That is why you wanted that job, Tom. That is why
    you wanted that job, Bob. Because you are committed to these
    human rights issues.
        So our hearing that we had the other day, I asked a number
    of questions. One was an ambassador. And we talked about TIP
    and he said, I fought like hell to make sure my country wasn't
    on it, but then, you know, we were--because it does complicate
    the statecraft that they are involved with, or so they think. I
    think if we put human rights first, everything else will fall
    into line. As you were saying, stand with the oppressed, not
    the oppressor.
        So if you could speak to that, because I think that would
    be a very flawed outcome. We saw with David Goldman, remember,
    Tom, when his son was abducted to Brazil. We got nowhere for 5
    years. You know, I got into it the final year, because he
    wasn't my constituent. And then I went down there and I
    realized that it was on page 5 of the prioritization with
    regards to our work with Lula in Brazil. And, you know, that is
    just not good.
        So maybe you could speak to that. And, Tom, you also wanted
    to, I think.
        Mr. Malinowski. Yes, this is a key point. It is the job of
    our regional Assistant Secretaries and our Ambassadors first
    and foremost to manage the relationship with the foreign
    country. That is not a criticism. That is just No. 1 of their
    job description.
        And often, not always, that means they are going to be
    avoiding the most sensitive issues that automatically create
    friction with that government. That is why Congress created the
    trafficking in persons Ambassador. That is why Congress created
    the Assistant Secretary for DRL, to ensure that when there is a
    dispute, when there is a conflict between competing interests,
    the Secretary of State and the President are going to hear from
    two officials of equivalent rank and stature, both of whom are
    confirmed by Congress and accountable to you as well as to
    them. And then whatever decision is made is the decision that
    is made.
        If you put the staff--if you put the function within the
    regional bureaus, it is never going to get up to the President
    and the Secretary of State if the regional bureau doesn't want
    it to. And that would defeat the purpose of all the laws that--
    you know, you have passed more of these laws probably than any
    Member in this body. And all of them depend on the institution
    implementing the law being strong.
        So the final point, don't wait for the authorization bill.
    You know how hard it is to pass those. I hope you do. But even
    if you do, this is all going to be settled before you can pass
    a bill. This is a three-alarm fire right now, and Secretary
    Rubio needs to hear from all of you before all of this stuff is
    settled.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. Let me just--your point was well-
    taken. I agree with it. I will never forget--and, again, this
    isn't partisan because we have had problems with both sides of
    the aisle on this at the White House.
        But when Boko Haram is on a killing spree, I went over,
    went to Jos, met with Archbishop Kaigama, who was an amazing
    man, met with the Imam, who he said, they are not us. Muslims
    are being killed too, and they are and they continue to be
    killed as well.
        But Johnny Carson, who was the Assistant Secretary, so the
    Regional Bureau for Africa, very good man. But I asked him
    repeatedly to designate Boko Haram as an FTO, foreign terrorist
    organization, and he wouldn't do it or they wouldn't do it, the
    administration.
        They kept saying that, you know, they are just trying to
    embarrass Goodluck Jonathan. I said, embarrass? There is a
    whole another agenda here. And the Chibok girls was just one
    very terrible, you know, manifestation of that, but it was
    happening all the time to boys as well, where they would kill
    them as well as other people.
        On the day when he left and there was a new Assistant
    Secretary, on the day I was marking up a bill, it was Sense of
    the Congress so we couldn't do more than that, but it would
    have said, please designate--find out where they are getting
    their weapons and their money. On that day's date, 3 years
    after we started the effort, which was stymied I believe by the
    regional bureau, the FTO designation happened. And it was late,
    but thankfully it happened, and I applauded them and thanked
    them profusely.
        But, again, what you are saying--and it is true--you know,
    the Nigerian Government did not want it. They thought it was
    like a black mark. And they are saying the same thing about CPC
    now on the religious freedom side. I said, it is called Country
    of Particular Concern. We are concerned for your people, that
    is why we are doing this, Christian and Muslim. And there are
    more Christians dying in Nigeria.
        I had another hearing on that just the other day and met
    with 16 Members of the House of Representatives from Abuja
    earlier this week. And I said, you got to realize there is a
    two-step process. One is the designation. Think of it as a
    mirror to help you too to crack down on this terrible abuse,
    the Fulani and the Boko Haram and ISIS, West Africa and others.
    And I think they got that.
        The part two is the sanctions. There was an effort you
    recall, Tom, a strong effort to help the Abuja Government, the
    Goodluck Jonathan's government. There was a Fusion Center, all
    this good--so then everyone kept telling me, including many in
    the administration, well, the Leahy amendment precludes us from
    helping them.
        So I had a hearing on it. I had the Under Secretary come
    and testify. She was excellent. She goes, half of the Nigerian
    military can be trained in counterinsurgency, at least,
    pursuant to the Leahy Amendment. And then we had specific
    breakouts of units that could be trained tomorrow. And it never
    happened. And they were dying to try to get out there and stop
    this cancer from spreading to a stage four, which it has
    become, the type of cancer.
        So, again, the regional bureau, you know, I understand you
    want to make friends but make friends with human rights as your
    lead. And that is why we have the bureaus like DRL.
        I can tell Bob wants it.
        Mr. Destro. Probably the most common argument I would get
    from a regional bureau, I would also add just for purposes of
    inclusion, the L Bureau, is you can't do that. We can't do
    that. You know, you are going to embarrass the government.
        My reaction is, the job is to convince the government, you
    know. And you have to have every trick of the trade. Sometimes
    it is going to be economic. Sometimes it is going to be
    sanctions. But then there is the old--you know, one of my good
    friends in Nigeria, I showed him a list of grants. He says,
    wow, that is amazing.
        None of it hits the ground, right? This is a big problem. I
    actually talked to people before I went to Abuja who were in
    Borno State. They were running peace-building programs, but it
    was too dangerous for them to go outside.
        And when I made the suggestion, well, maybe we ought to
    shut that one down and move it someplace else, oh, no, no, no,
    you can't do that. You say, well, wait a minute. If it is not
    working, if it is too dangerous to go outside, then maybe you
    ought to reprogram the money.
        So you have got the politics of reprogramming money and all
    this, plus you have the inertia, the literal drag of the
    regional bureaus and the L Bureau, you know, that basically
    say, you can't do that.
        I have had to remind the lawyers, your job as a lawyer is
    to advise me on how to get things done, not to tell me I can't
    do it.
        Mr. Smith. Tom.
        Mr. Malinowski. I think these are conversations for a
    normal time. There will be no money to reprogram. There will be
    no bureau to reorganize. There will be no strategy to rejigger
    if things continue in the direction that they are heading right
    now.
        If you guys can somehow stop this train and save the TIP
    Office and save the religious freedom process and save DRL and
    preserve the institutions that implement these programs and the
    funding that has gone to them, then we can have a conversation
    about how to improve it all.
        And I will probably lose some of those arguments, because I
    am a Democrat and it is a Republican administration. That is
    OK. But right now, what we need all of you to do is to stop a
    train that is going to run over this 50, 60-year tradition of
    American support for human rights and democracy around the
    world. The rest is academic.
        Mr. Smith. Anybody else before we close? Thank you very
    much.
        I would like to, on behalf of the chairwoman, thank our
    very distinguished witnesses for their testimony and the
    members for their questions.
        The members of the subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond in
    writing, if you would.
        Pursuant to the committee rules, all members may have 5
    days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials
    for the record subject to the length limitations.
        Without objection, the committee does stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]