[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS 2026
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
---------
NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED
PROGRAMS
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida, Chair
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida,
Vice Chair Ranking Member
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania GRACE MENG, New York
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana NORMA J. TORRES, California
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Susan Adams, Craig Higgins, Jamie McCormick, Trey Hicks,
Meg Gallagher, John Muscolini, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
_____________
PART 1
Page
Member Day....................................................... 1
Assessing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR)................................................. 83
U.S. Department of State......................................... 141
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-272 WASHINGTON : 2026
_______________________________________________________________________
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
Chairman Emeritus
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BEN CLINE, Virginia
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
TONY GONZALES, Texas
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NICK LaLOTA, New York
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
Ranking Member
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
NORMA J. TORRES, California
ED CASE, Hawaii
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
MIKE LEVIN, California
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
Washington
GLENN IVEY, Maryland
Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
(II)
NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Tuesday, April 1, 2025.
MEMBER DAY
Opening Statement of Chairman Diaz-Balart
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National
Security, Department of State, and Related Programs will come
to order.
Good morning. Let me first welcome everyone to the
subcommittee Member Day. We are thrilled to have you. Before we
begin, I want to take a moment to welcome our new Subcommittee
Ranking Member. She and I have known each other for longer than
we care----
Ms. Frankel. Who me?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes, you are the Ranking Member, Lois.
[Laughter.]
We have known each other for, well, 3 decades, and she is a
trusted friend, and while we certainly don't agree on
everything, I can't think of a better partner and a better
leader to have on this Subcommittee. We also have several new
Members of the Subcommittee who will add tremendously to the
Subcommittee with their expertise and experience, including the
Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee. It is good to see you, sir.
Always a pleasure. I am really, really looking forward to the
year ahead.
I want to thank my colleagues testifying today. Thank you
for taking your time out of your busy schedules to present your
views and priorities for the fiscal year 2026 National
Security, Department of State, and Related Programs
appropriations bill. This is a first of many budget and
oversight hearings that we will have during the fiscal year
2026 cycle. Lois, doesn't feel like we just got rid of the 2025
cycle, like, yesterday, right? It is a critical time, and there
is so much work that needs to be done in the coming months.
I became Chairman of this Subcommittee in 2023 at the
beginning of the last Congress. As I began to dig into the
programs and their spending and what the Biden administration
had done in areas of this Subcommittee, it didn't take me long
to find, frankly, a very troubling pattern. In almost every
program, including those with longstanding bipartisan support,
the Biden administration pushed and even mandated new
controversial and divisive policies. You know, the sad part is
I warned those officials privately and publicly in every single
hearing, in our markups, and in meetings, that they were really
jeopardizing the very existence of those programs. I reminded
them time and time again and I kept telling them that foreign
aid is not a popular issue among the American public,
especially when so many Americans were struggling with their
own budgets under the previous administration of inflation, et
cetera. I don't have to re-litigate that. I warned them that
forcing their climate agenda, promoting censorship, and
mandating DEI in every dollar would not only be an insult to
the American taxpayer, but would also work against our national
interest around the globe, and also, that it would erode
bipartisan support for programs critical--critical--to our
national security. And now we are seeing exactly what happens
in response to extreme partisan agendas that the American
people don't support and clearly expressed that last election.
So the question is, where do we go from here? I know my
colleagues testifying today have recommendations to that end.
My priority for the fiscal year 2026 House bill is to fund
effective, accountable programs that support U.S. national
security. It is that simple. It is what I have been saying from
day one as I mentioned at the beginning. I take very seriously
the member interest in our bill and would like to collaborate
with each of you, each and every one of you on shared
priorities that meet the objectives that I have just laid out.
I am so grateful to all of you for being here, and now I yield
to the distinguished Ranking Member, my good friend, also from
the State of Florida, Lois Frankel, for her remarks.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Frankel
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much. Honored to be here. Of
course, you did test our friendship with your opening remarks--
--
[Laughter.]
Ms. Frankel [continuing]. But because of my great respect
for you, I am not going to debate them, and I will just give my
own, but thank you. Listen, this is a very good, engaged
Committee, and I welcome our colleagues. Despite differences of
opinion, I think everybody here understands the value of
foreign assistance, and I know we are committed to working
together. But from my point of view, and I think many, we are
at a crisis right now with our foreign policy and our
humanitarian efforts.
Number one, foreign assistance is not a handout. It is a
strategy. At less than 1 percent of our Federal budget, it
greatly advances our own security and prosperity, and as I
said, I think many of us in this room agree with that. But
sadly and dangerously and shockingly, this Trump
administration's reckless dismantling of USAID as well as other
agencies under our jurisdiction without consulting Congress is
not only illegal, it jeopardizes decades of progress in global
development and American leadership. Every administration has
the right, the responsibility, to review government programs to
ensure they serve the American people effectively because we
all want to make sure our tax dollars are spent in the most
effective way. However, a responsible government doesn't take a
sledgehammer to vital institutions and programs without truly
assessing their value or the consequences of cutting them. The
wholesale firing of people and cutting of programs and grants
is shocking.
Well, unfortunately, that is what we have witnessed. The
Trump administration has an effort to disband USAID, the Inter-
American Foundation, the African Development Foundation, the
U.S. Institute of Peace, the U.S. Agency of Global Media, and
they are just knocking on people's doors every day. The DOGE
Boys, they are in there. They are probably someplace today. And
shuttering of these agencies is in direct violation of the
requirements in what we used to call the SFOPS bill, which
explicitly requires consultation with Congress before any
effort to reorganize, redesign, or downsize. This dismantling
of USAID compromises our national security. It threatens our
health and weakens our economy, and, you know, all you had to
do is put the TV on this weekend and see what happened in
Myanmar. Who was there in that crisis, that horrible crisis
where at least 2,000 people are suspected to be trapped under
the rubble? A year ago or even 3 months ago, we would expect to
see Americans on the ground immediately, but because of the
cuts to key personnel, the U.S. has taken days to get on the
ground. Who did we see there? We saw China and we saw Russia,
and that is just a view of the future. When we have this void,
that is who is going to move in.
Now, with that said, I do look forward to working with you,
and I hope we can really preserve our role in the world and
maintain our leadership, be humanitarians, help developing
countries where it is in our interest also, and keep our
country secure. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me thank you, the distinguished
Ranking Member, and without objection, the full written
statements of all the Members will be included in the record.
In order to keep our schedule, I would ask that each Member
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
It is an honor and privilege now to recognize Mr. Meeks
from the State of New York. Got that right, which means you are
a future Floridian, but we are not going to have that
discussion now. [Laughter.]
But again, Mr. Meeks is the distinguished Ranking Member of
the Foreign Affairs Committee. For your testimony, you are
recognized, sir.
----------
Tuesday, April 1, 2025.
WITNESS
THE HON. GREGORY W. MEEKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF NEW YORK
Opening Statement of Mr. Meeks
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Diaz-Balart. Thank you,
Ranking Member Frankel. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify at today's member hearing. I appreciate this
opportunity to share my priorities for National Security, the
Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations bill.
If this were any other year, I would focus my testimony on the
specific programs we have worked together to support, but this
is no ordinary year. We are dealing with an administration that
has shown an unprecedented and reckless disregard for the
United States Congress' constitutional power. This includes our
power of the purse and the clear guardrails we established
through appropriations law, as well as other directions of
congressional intent and authorizations of the executive branch
agencies and programs.
Within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, the most damaging
example of the Trump-Musk onslaught against our Federal
Government and Congress' role is the dismantling of USAID. The
President's sudden freeze of foreign assistance caused utter
chaos. Food assistance Congress appropriated sat rotting on
shelves. Clinics we funded sat closed and unable to distribute
their stocks of lifesaving medicines, leading to unnecessary
deaths and babies born with HIV. And now, despite court orders
challenging the legality of their actions, the administration
boasts that 83 percent of foreign assistance programs are
already shuttered, and what remains of USAID is now being
folded into the State Department.
Similarly, President Trump disregarded existing statutes,
and terminated by decree the U.S. Agency for Global Media,
resulting in grant terminations to its subsidiaries, including
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free
Asia. These broadcasters delivered trusted information to
audiences in heavily-censored countries, starved of independent
media and flooded with propaganda from our adversaries. And the
most recent egregious flaunting of the law was DOGE's hostile
takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which Congress created
as a nonpartisan, independent nonprofit organization. USIP has
had broad bipartisan support working successfully under seven
administrations to prevent violent conflict and broker peace
around the world. The Trump administration has done all this
outside of the law without consulting Congress and in stark
contradiction of the appropriations law and other bills we have
passed that are now the law of the land.
And regardless of whether we are Democrats or Republicans,
we must, as members, stand up for our prerogatives as the
legislative body of this democracy and a co-equal branch of
government, because this is ultimately about our ability to
stand up for our constituents, and the programs this
Subcommittee funds are critical to our national security. They
help ensure the United States can successfully achieve our
foreign policy goals, compete with our rivals, and prevent
regional crises from escalating into armed conflict. These
programs allow us to respond to humanitarian emergencies and
the development needs of our partners, preventing diseases from
becoming pandemics that reach our shores. All these objectives
and more are achieved through a well-sourced State Department
and related agencies and programs with the support from
Congress that they need to effectively wield our soft power.
The world is far too small and interconnected for us to
hide behind our borders, pull back our tools, and hope the next
conflict or epidemic won't impact us here at home. This
Subcommittee has recognized the value of these efforts, as
evidenced by the strong bipartisan support for its work over
many, many, many years. And of course, each administration has
the right to review policy, and our job is not to defend the
status quo over modernization, but President Trump and Elon
Musk do not have the right to unilaterally eliminate programs
that Congress has deemed essential.
The legislative branch, after debate and deliberation and
in consideration of the executive's position, creates the body
of the law the executive must indeed execute. That is the right
way to ensure improvements and reforms. It is critically
important that the next national security appropriations bill
maintain and strengthen the investments that safeguard our
national security at no less than fiscal year 2024 level. But
whatever Congress ultimately decides, it is more essential that
we ensure that fiscal year 2026 law is implemented by the
administration because in America, we believe in the rule of
law, not of kings.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Meeks, particularly, by the
way, for your many years of work and leadership as the top
Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It is
imperative that authorizers and appropriators work really
closely together, and I am looking forward to doing so. So if
there are any questions to the gentleman from the State of New
York, we will start, and then we will----
Ms. Frankel. Thank you for being there. Just for our
Committee, can you tell us what, if any, efforts are being made
in the authorizing Foreign Affairs Committee in connection with
the reorganization? Have you all had any discussions at all?
Mr. Meeks. None. We have had one hearing at the time with
no officials from the administration. It was all a private
panel, so we have not had any discussion. We have had one, I
would guess, meeting with Mr. Marocco, and it was something
that was not really recorded or on record. It wasn't an
official hearing or anything of that nature. But recently, I
have had a conversation with Secretary of State Rubio about a
week ago.
Ms. Frankel. You expect your Committee, you are going to
take up a State Department reauthorization?
Mr. Meeks. Yes, that is part of our responsibilities and
jurisdiction, so I am sure that and I am hopeful that we will
have the appropriate individuals to come before the Committee
so that we can ask the appropriate questions. I am longing for
that moment.
Ms. Frankel. Just one other question, what kind of feedback
have you gotten from folks overseas, our allies and so forth?
What has been the reaction?
Mr. Meeks. Number one, ambassadors after ambassadors from
all over the world has come in to see me just saying that we
are leaving them with no other choice but to look for
alternatives to the United States of America. As we have seen
with reference to our NATO allies, for example, and our
European allies, they are now trying to figure out how they can
do things without. We no longer will be the indispensable
nation. We see folks because of the uncertainty that has now
existed in our Foreign Service, as you have correctly stated.
We look at what is taking place in Myanmar now, where we would,
generally, be one of the first there to show who we are and
what our values are. We are not there, and each place that we
leave, we see China or Russia or even North Korea trying to
move in.
And then I can't tell you the number of emails that I have
gotten from individuals who are now stuck in various places,
one just the other day, an individual now in Lebanon, and he is
just there, no money now. Families in Kenya, been 25 years who
have been awarded various merits for the work that he has done
and people left just stranded. So it is hardships across the
board that we have seen time and time again, so that is just
one example of the number of emails or text or phone calls that
I have received from some of our folks of across the seas.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Vice Chairman Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate you
convening this meeting. These are important discussions. There
is a bit of angst and some disagreement with how things are
being handled. Mr. Meeks, thanks for taking time to visit us
this morning. I am just curious, are there any specific
programs you run across that you think that this Committee or
anyone else should look at first because, clearly, there has
been some dismantling. I believe that it is our job to come
back and look at the merits of every one of those programs, not
necessarily brutality, and so I am just curious, have you run
across any specific programs that this Committee should
consider.
Mr. Meeks. Well, one that I know that we should consider
and continue, and the administration has said that they have
been given a pass and moved back, PEPFAR, for example. That is
a program where millions of lives have been saved. And though
they are supposed to not continue to receive funding, when I
talked to them, a number of them talk about the money is still
not flowing. There is a problem that is still happening there.
When we talked to Mr. Marocco about that, he said that he would
check into it, but PEPFAR is one that jumps straight to my mind
that is absolutely essential and very important for us to make
sure that we continue to fund.
Let me just think of another one real quick. What I am
concerned about, and here, let me just put it in broader
strokes. These healthcare contractors that we have going across
the world, I am concerned about another pandemic. I don't want
that. We need to make sure that we are preserving and making
sure that those contractors that are providing healthcare
issues to people around the world, that is tremendously
important. Quite frankly, when I think about the work in some
of the agricultural areas, giving to the World Food Programme,
that is another important program. I think we need to make sure
we continue to fund the World Food Organization. They help
prevent starvation no matter where it is and move forward, and
that has been dangerously cut and not able to move forward. Let
me think of another one off the top of my head. I mean, there
are so many of them.
Voice. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Meeks. Well, yeah, I mean, because that also affects us
domestically. It affects our economy. When you think about
agriculture and the number of the foods that was just lost
through the World Food Program, that puts another $4 billion in
our economy that we are losing out on. So it hurts
internationally, but it also hurts domestically in that regard.
So I would say those types of programs are those that we need
to focus on to make sure that----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. Mrs. Torres, you are recognized.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member
Frankel, for finally giving us an opportunity to bring about
the outrage of what has happened to USAID and what is happening
in the U.S. Government as a result of the last November's
election. I know that it is early in the morning, but are we
really going to continue to pretend business is as usual and
pretend that nothing has happened and that no one has died as a
result or has been hurt as a result of Trump's demise of USAID?
I mean, I know that it is early in the morning--I have not
had my cup of coffee, unfortunately--for all of us in this
room, but it is unconscionable that we haven't had a single,
not one oversight meeting about the firing of thousands of
employees that have helped to create and improve democracy
around the globe, people that have protected the homeland by
ensuring that we have programs and agreements with our closest
partners. Whether it is here, in Latin America, in Europe,
Africa, Asia, you name it, we have had people there that have
put their lives at risk to help America be at the top of the
global economy and a beacon of democracy. And here we are, 4
months to the day that we have taken an oath, that we took an
oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign,
domestic.
So what are we doing here pretending that nothing has
happened, while the Trump administration's decisions are making
our communities less safe now and, in the long run, ending
important programs to stop violence, drugs, and trafficking,
and reduce terrorism and maintain global leadership in the face
of Russian and Chinese aggression, directly keep our
communities in America safe? The Trump administration's actions
make our local communities more dangerous today and in the long
term, and walking away from the fight with Russia and China,
abandoning our allies, and leaving China to fill the gap erodes
our global power, making America weak and our communities less
safe in the long run.
Elon Musk has not been vetted, by the way, yet Republicans
have completely--completely--relinquished their power and mine
in the minority, and not a single question. Not a single
question. And I know that our moral compasses still exist, and
I know, Chairman, that you, Mr. Edwards, Ciscomani, all of the
Members here have been committed to ensuring that we continue
to be a global partner to our friends abroad. But while you are
turning over complete power to the unelected, richest man in
the world, I will not, and my constituents demand answers, and
I believe that it is our job to uphold agreements made and
funding that was allocated, not under Trump, but under the
Biden administration, the last administration that led this
country.
Mr. Meeks, I have been to Sudan and South Sudan. I have
seen firsthand the grim reality of children who have no food.
Could you share with us a bit more about what impact assistance
cuts we will have on Sudan and places like Haiti, like the DR.
Mr. Meeks. Devastating. Many people will die. We see it
increasing every day. USAID played a tremendous role in helping
to get food, nutrition, medicine to these countries. In fact,
Sudan, is the greatest humanitarian concern in the world right
now. All of that now has stopped as a result of it, so the
number of human beings that will just die because the United
States will not be there. Same thing in Haiti. Same thing in
the DR. It is around the world, and so that then leaves it open
because they will have no other choice but to look toward China
or Russia who will then quickly fill the void. We have seen
China invest many more dollars now into those areas to try to
help folks with humanitarian concerns to replace us.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Meeks, and thank you.
Mrs. Torres. I yield.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I will remind Members, I am not going to
hold you strictly to it, but try to stick to the 5 minutes. I
do want to remind people that business as usual is what led us
into a war in Europe. Business as usual is what led Israel to
be attacked by Hamas, by Hezbollah, even directly by Iran, the
first time in history. Business as usual, it led us to the
Afghanistan fiasco, and business as usual is what the American
people voted against. Now with that, let me recognize Mr.
Alford, who, again, I am honored to have you on the
Subcommittee, sir.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your
leadership, and Ranking Member, thank you so much. Good to see
you. Mr. Meeks, I don't think we have had the pleasure of
meeting.
Mr. Meeks. No.
Mr. Alford. Good to see you. I understand you are the
Ranking Member on Foreign Affairs. Is that correct? How long
have you been on that Committee?
Mr. Meeks. I have been on the Committee for 26 years.
Mr. Alford. How did these programs that we have so much
consternation over, which really led up to the decimation of
USAID, whether you agree with it or not, how did those programs
get authorized?
Mr. Meeks. United States Congress.
Mr. Alford. Through Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Meeks. We are the authorization Committee, and you are
the appropriators, yes.
Mr. Alford. Right, but the programs which were deemed
frivolous, the gender ideology programs, the ones that our
chairman has spoken of, how did those end up passing the
authorization committee to be in place to begin with?
Mr. Meeks. Well, members of Congress, those on the
Committee, Democrats and Republicans. We had individuals,
whether it was the Biden administration or the Bush
administration before that, or the Clinton administration, in
my time here, we had dialogue, we had conversation. There was
always room for reviewing and holding accountable, and folks
would come in to testify. We wanted to make sure that the
intent of what we authorized was carried through. And I would
say that the intent is there are always opportunities to review
and to go back and to change certain things to make sure that
the intent of Congress is moving forward, yes, and there is
congressional notifications that are required.
Mr. Alford. Right. Was there any talk while this was going
through the process through these years, especially when the
Democrats had control of the U.S. House and had the gavels in
that Committee, was there any talk that you may be pushing it
too far, that this may come back to bite us in the butt and we
may lose everything if we push it too far?
Mr. Meeks. The talk was and what we did was always try to
make sure that both sides, Democrats and Republicans, would
have their view, would talk through it. There was compromise,
and we would then agree to what we think that would be
beneficial as far as the United States committing to the rest
of the world. Very proud of the fact that USAID had said ``from
the American people to the world'' because the USAID was the
face of our soft power going around the world. And so,
generally, in my 26 years until recently, we worked in a
bipartisan way on that Committee trying to get to where we are.
What is shocking about this is, without coming back to
Congress, without having a dialogue with us, is just the abrupt
cut----
Mr. Alford. Right.
Mr. Meeks [continuing]. By this administration. But we
could have easily come back and talk about and review, as we
have done in years past.
Mr. Alford. Well, I think that is a little too late now. It
seems to be that USAID is dead. It is going to relive again
under the State Department, I think, under a different name. I
personally feel that if we are not investing in national
security projects in other parts of the world, and a lot can
fit into that bucket, we probably shouldn't be spending
taxpayer money on it. The average appropriation, I think, over
the last couple of years has been some $40 billion for USAID,
and a lot of projects fit into that. How would you suggest, in
the short time we have here, that the State Department now take
this, and you will have some oversight in this as a Ranking
Member, how do they redevelop and save the programs that are
important for our national security?
Mr. Meeks. Well, let me just say I don't think the struggle
is over yet because I believe the actions that the President
has committed are illegal, and we are in court, and the courts
will have the final words on whether or not what was done was
justified and whether the President had the power to do that,
because it does not strike the will and the agreement of
Congress as us being a co-equal branch of government where we
had worked things out, and there has been no coming back to us,
no notifications which are required.
Mr. Alford. We don't have much time left. I want to stick
within my 5 minutes. How do you suggest the State Department
move forward? If it is going to have under its umbrella the
former USAID, how do we rebrand that? How do we move forward
with the programs that are for our national security interest?
Mr. Meeks. I think that what we should be able to do is to
go and look, and not with a chainsaw, but to try to look to see
where you can improve efficiency, where you can look at where
there may be some excess. We can do that in a bipartisan way to
make sure that happens, and I think that that is where we
continue. I look forward to reaching out and talking to
Secretary Rubio, for example, as I said I did initially, to see
if we can move forward in that regards. I know he was,
basically, unanimously selected to be the Secretary of State. I
worked with him when he was a Member of the Senate. I know that
deep down he understands what USAID did because we have
traveled to those areas----
Mr. Alford. Right.
Mr. Meeks [continuing]. And witnessed what they have done
and what they mean to United States' soft power.
Mr. Alford. Well, thank you, sir. I really appreciate your
testimony and coming here today. I, too, am a little bit
troubled with how all this went down, but I do know my folks in
the 4th Congressional District of Missouri have had it with us
spending taxpayer dollars on frivolous programs. I know that
there is a lot of good. About 60 percent of it has to do with
humanitarian health programs that I think we need to continue
in some form or fashion, but at least now we are talking about
it. We are going to resolve this issue, and hopefully we can
come together on some answers that are meaningful for the
American people. Thank you, and with that I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Meeks, again, we
look forward to continuing to working with you. Thank you for
your years of work on all of these issues, and, again, thank
you for being here today.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.005
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, sir. I now want to recognize
the gentleman from the State of California, Mr. Costa. Mr.
Costa and I have worked together on a number of different
issues over the years, and, again, Mr. Costa, thank you for
taking of your valuable time to spend this time with us this
morning. And when you are ready, you may start. We will
recognize you for 5 minutes.
----------
Tuesday, April 1, 2025.
WITNESS
THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Opening Statement of Mr. Costa
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, and Members of the Subcommittee for your due diligence
on what Congress is supposed to do, and that is to provide
oversight and ensure that we are a co-equal branch of
government for funding programs that we provide as the holder
of the purse.
Before I begin my testimony, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, I have not seen you since your brother, Lincoln, has
passed on, and you have my deepest support and sympathy. I
served with Lincoln, and the three of us obviously worked
together on a host of different areas, and I know it is a
difficult time for you and your family, and you have my
thoughts and prayers.
We are living in a seminal moment, I believe, in world
history, requiring the United States to remain engaged around
the world, and I think many of you recognize what we have been
discussing so far this morning, and that is the exercise of
smart power by the United States and advancing our national
interests. I think this appropriations bill makes it clear to
the administration that this needs to be a priority. I am very
concerned and alarmed about the withdrawal of not only USAID,
but other areas, because I think this unilateral withdrawal of
support that we have been, I think, very forceful with, creates
a vacuum for our adversaries--China, and Russia, North Korea,
and others. I am very concerned about that vacuum.
As a result, I am a co-sponsor of the Protect U.S. National
Security Act, which prohibits the funds that abolish USAID that
was created by the United States' Congress. I urge this
Subcommittee to follow the example in its Article I
responsibilities. Congress has not authorized the elimination
of USAID. We can recreate it in different forms. That has been
discussed, that is totally appropriate, but I think our active
role on the international stage allows us to build and maintain
strong relationships with our allies together, which we can
project smart power--I call it ``smart power''--to ensure the
prosperity of Americans and our interests around the world,
whether we are talking about Voice of America, its ancillary
programs, PEPFAR, our focus on Ebola, the ag assistance. By the
way, it has cost American farmers $2 billion in direct sales as
a result of supporting USAID, and I can tell you in farm
country, that is not appreciated.
Let me give you some specific examples: Ukraine. Chief
among the U.S. national security priorities is a free and
democratic Ukraine. They have weakened and deterred Russia over
the last 3 years. I was with a group of members of their
parliament last night. They are valiantly fighting and dying
for all of us to protect their democracy from autocrats and
dictators and protecting democracies throughout the world. We
have provided assistance that has weakened and degraded
Russia's military without putting any U.S. troops in harm's
way. The humanitarian economic assistance funding that falls
under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee is, therefore,
critical to the effort, I believe.
Congress should robustly fund and require the
administration to continue assisting Ukraine in the defense
against the dictator and war criminal, Putin. He is a war
criminal. Let's be sure about that. Modern-day Russia is a
syndicate masquerading as a country with a mob boss called
Putin. That is the bottom line. We must continue, therefore,
our assistance to allow Ukraine to de-mine and documentation of
human rights violation. They have kidnapped over 20,000
children, and our assistance for the Eurasia Central Asian
Program and the title to assist Ukraine, I think, and other
democracies is critical. Armenia, a former Soviet republic,
surrounded by hostile neighbors: Armenia is seeking to break
ties with Russia and become a pro-Western government. They have
signed a strategic partnership with the United States. This
Committee should continue to provide funding to advance that
partnership with U.S. and Armenian relationships.
They include economic assistance, Foreign Military
Financing, robust support to support Armenian refugees that
were removed from their ancient homeland of Nagorno-Karabakh,
otherwise referred to as Artsakh, who were forced to flee as a
result of Azerbaijan's unprovoked military takeover. And
therefore, I think it is important, and rightly, that this
previous administration, I hope it continues to renew the
waiver allowing U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan. They do
not deserve that support.
With my time quickly going, I think our support for the
European Union and NATO and our diplomatic alliances are
critical. That transatlantic partnership for 80 years has
resulted in the longest peace-time period in Europe up until
Putin's invasion--yes, his invasion--on February 24, 2022, on
Ukraine. The European Union Foundation, the diplomatic
partnerships, bolster U.S. national security and economic
prosperity. And let me close by saying our diplomatic programs,
our programs under review by this Subcommittee, should be
appropriately funded to advance these partnerships and continue
the U.S. coordination with both organizations. I think we all
remember the joint State of the Union address by the head of
NATO a few years ago when he said it is nice to have friends.
Yes, it is nice to have friends, and we are stronger when we
work with our allies, not alone.
Thank you for allowing me my testimony, and I will be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, and thank you for those kind of
words about my brother, Lincoln. The Ranking Member and I were
talking, and what we will do is we will yield to others who
have questions first. Anybody else have a question? Yes,
please, Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Speaker and Ranking Member.
Ms. Frankel. Not the Speaker yet.
Mrs. Torres. I mean, Speaker. I am sorry. Today you are the
Speaker. Maybe that would a better----
Mr. Costa. I don't think he wants that problem.
Mrs. Torres. Maybe that could be a better accomplishment.
Anyway, our constituents truly have had it with the
relinquishing of power in Congress. My colleague here, Mr.
Costa, we, in California, the largest agriculture State in the
Nation, we are not just the salad bowl. We also have dairy. We
have several specialty crops that we----
Mr. Costa. Three hundred commodities in California.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you for assisting me in that. Yet the
Border Patrol came and raided farms in Northern California or
in Central Valley in Mr. David Valadao's district, I believe it
was, or your district?
Mr. Costa. In a host of our districts in the Valley,
including mine.
Mrs. Torres. Some of those impacted had ag visas. Mixed-
status families were impacted, and as a result, we have had a
large number of farm hands not show up to work, and this is not
limited to California. It is happening all over the country.
When I talk about relinquishing our power, we need to be asking
the questions of how this administration is impacting not just
our foreign affairs, but in the homeland, the price of eggs.
And we can argue about the fact that the price of eggs started
in the Biden administration, absolutely true, but since the
Trump administration, we have not been able to provide the
vaccines that are needed to ensure that our farm workers don't
get infected by the bird flu, and that impact is what has
caused the price of eggs to continue to rise. We have had to
make an appeal for foreign egg assistance to the world, so now
we have eggs from Turkey and South Korea. The price of eggs,
yes, they are going down a little bit because of this foreign
assistance to the U.S., that we are purchasing eggs from
outside of our country, and yet zero transparency/
accountability on trade wars that this administration continues
to peddle.
In the most recent CR, you have surrendered the power to
the unchecked Trump administration of clawing back some of the
trade wars that he has engaged in. So again, what are we doing
here today if not checking the box of transparency and
accountability as to what is happening in the administration
and why is Elon Trump allowed to continue to unravel the
programs that feed America, that help sustain our farmers? I
don't even want to get into crop insurance and the cost of that
rising as a result of no workers and ag products rotting in the
fields.
Mr. Costa. Yeah. If might comment, my friend and colleague,
because your time is eliminating, I think that, frankly, the
tariffs are having a real impact on American agriculture. They
are attacks not only on consumers, but producers and
agricultural producers. Forty-four percent of California's
agriculture is exported, and I remember President Trump
famously exalting the great achievement of USMCA 7 years ago.
By the way, it is up for review next year, and yet we are
imposing these tariffs on our biggest trading partners, Canada
and Mexico.
The mass deportation, I have never seen the fear like I
have seen the fear in the last 3 months. The reality is, and
not just in California, but about a million and a half people
are engaged that are undocumented in California agriculture. A
million and a half. These are some of the hardest-working
people you ever meet in your lives. These are skilled jobs,
whether they are working in dairies, whether they are working
in citrus, you go down the road. And so the impacts of the
potential loss of this workforce, combined with the other
factors of the tariffs, I think, pose a significant problem for
American agriculture. And let me close on that note, but also
to say that I think that this is something that we have got to
work on. There is a possibility for immigration reform here
with the modernization of the farm workers legislation----
Mrs. Torres. Thank you----
Mr. Costa [continuing]. And for Dreamers.
Mrs. Torres. I am going to yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady, and I
would be remiss, by the way, if I didn't also mention, I did
not mention that the person testifying now is also on the
Foreign Affairs Committee, but I particularly want to thank you
for your leadership on issues dealing with Europe. You and I
have dealt with our European friends for many, many years
together. I want to thank you for your leadership, and, again,
thank you for coming by today.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you, and your leadership as well.
And the transatlantic partnership was very valued, and we need
to continue to maintain that partnership. It is vital.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. The Ranking Member has a question.----
Ms. Frankel. Don't go away.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. Let me keep you there for a
few minutes.
Ms. Frankel. Yeah, thanks so much. Two questions. First of
all, just with Armenia and Azerbaijan, there was a treaty,
right? Is that----
Mr. Costa. Yes, there was a treaty that----
Ms. Frankel. Is it being effective?
Mr. Costa. I am sorry?
Ms. Frankel. Is it effective?
Mr. Costa. No, because Azerbaijan has not complied with the
treaty----
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Mr. Costa [continuing]. And Russia, along with France and
ourselves as the guarantors of that treaty. Russia has
obviously gone AWOL. Their focus is Ukraine, and the notion
that they might lose another former satellite of the Soviet
Union, i.e., Armenia is absolutely repugnant to Putin, the war
criminal, so he is obviously not inclined to support Armenia's
pro-Western government.
Ms. Frankel. I am going to bounce to Ukraine. Maybe I will
get back to Armenia, but I am not sure you can or you want to
comment on this, but most of our funding for Ukraine has come
from supplementals.
Mr. Costa. Yes.
Ms. Frankel. Have you given any analysis or thought to what
that means? The likelihood of doing a supplemental would be
what, zero?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. A supplemental?
Ms. Frankel. Huh?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. A supplemental for Ukraine?
Ms. Frankel. Yeah. Well----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah.
Ms. Frankel. It is tough. I mean, our funding is in the
millions, but the supplemental was in the billions.
Mr. Costa. And by the way, it is about equal proportion of
what Europe has provided Ukraine as well, both economic,
humanitarian, and military aid.
Ms. Frankel. What kind of support will Ukraine, going
forward, still need?
Mr. Costa. Well, I think right now, we are at a fork in the
road, so to speak, in terms of what administration is trying to
negotiate in terms of a ceasefire that could lead to a peace
agreement. But I can tell you, under the current terms that
Putin has laid out, it would be unacceptable for any Ukrainian
Government, whether it is Zelenskyy or some other's Ukrainian
Government. They are not going to demilitarize and leave
themselves vulnerable. By the way, Putin has signed three
agreements with Ukraine in 1994 when Ukraine gave up their
nuclear weapons, again in 2004, and I think it was 4, and then
in 2018, after Russia took over Crimea and into the Donbas
region. Putin has not kept any of his agreements over that 30-
year time period, so if I am in Ukraine and I am in the
Ukrainian Government, I need to have the United States and
Europe to be a guarantor of any peace agreement. Without that,
to demilitarize, I would be giving my country up to Russia.
Ms. Frankel. Yeah. I am very concerned about what has
happened to, really, the people in Ukraine. We haven't really
had an opportunity to flush out all these cuts and so forth,
but the people have been traumatized, women especially, have
been victims of sexual assaults. Of course, they have lost
their spouses, many of them. You have had children kidnapped.
Mr. Costa. Twenty thousand children.
Ms. Frankel. How many?
Mr. Costa. Twenty-thousand-plus.
Ms. Frankel. And what worries me, I am not sure, but maybe
someone can help me with that, is I do think that some of U.S.
aid that has been cut off was helping with the humanitarian
assistance.
Mr. Costa. No, there has been a halt in some of that
funding and humanitarian assistance, and also there has been a
threat to withdraw military assistance. And there has been a
pause in some of that assistance that the Ukrainian
parliamentary members were sharing with me last night, and they
are here this week, and I hope you will take the time to meet
with them because they are passionate about their desire. And
what they have done to Russia in the last 3 years is truly in
our interest and in our allies' interest as well.
Ms. Frankel. Has Ukraine been able to maintain some of
their public services, their government? Are they able to pay
for their own public services now?
Mr. Costa. Yes. I mean, they had modest growth in their
economy last year. They are exporting, Odessa the major port on
the Black Sea is open, and Ukraine has been, historically, the
bread basket of the former Soviet Union. It is larger than the
State of Texas. It still has significant--significant--
agricultural production besides rare minerals and besides a
whole lot of other valuable assets, which is why Putin wants to
take the country back. He doesn't view it as an independent
country but a part of Mother Russia, and that is an area I
don't see we will ever get agreement with.
Ms. Frankel. Sorry. Yeah. If Ukraine goes down, in your
opinion, what is next in that region in terms----
Mr. Costa. I think Poland now is going to have 5 percent of
their GDP in defense. You see Romania. You see the Baltic
states. You see Eastern European countries that have benefited
from the fall of the Iron Curtain and free of the Soviet Union,
greatly alarmed about their own security, and they are
attempting to take actions to protect their security, given the
nature of the threat of Russia. And if Ukraine falls, by the
door, I would hope we would honor Article V as NATO partners,
and Poland and Romania and the Baltic states are NATO partners.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you so much.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And Mr. Costa, thank you. We have taken a
lot of your time, but we appreciate your input. We appreciate
your being here, and, again, thank you so much for being here.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3272A.008
Mr. Diaz-Balart. It is a privilege now to recognize Ms.
Kelly from the State of Illinois. Thank you for your patience,
and, more importantly, thank you for taking your time to spend
it with us this morning. We are anxious to hear what you have
to tell us.
----------
Tuesday, April 1, 2025.
WITNESS
THE HON. ROBIN L. KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Opening Statement of Ms. Kelly
Ms. Kelly. Good morning, Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ms.
Frankel, for the opportunity to share one of my priorities for
the fiscal year 2026 national security and Department of State
funding bill. It is a true honor for me to continue the legacy
of Representative Barbara Lee's leadership in advancing the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, otherwise known as
PEPFAR's mission. Since President George W. Bush, with the
great work and support of Barbara Lee and the CBC, launched
PEPFAR in 2003, bipartisan support has been crucial in
reauthorizing PEPFAR and replenishing the global fund to fight
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I am working daily to ensure
communities worldwide can access PEPFAR's lifesaving services.
Since its inception, PEPFAR has saved over 26 million lives
and prevented millions of HIV infections, while the Global Fund
has saved 65 million lives and reduced the combined death rate
from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria by 61 percent. According
to UNAIDS, we are 5 years away from ending the HIV/AIDS
pandemic and transitioning towards country ownership of HIV
programs. PEPFAR has significantly reduced mortality rates,
improved maternal and infant health, enhanced global health
security, and fostered economic growth.
Despite making up less than 0.1 percent of the U.S.'s
spending, global HIV funding is one of the most successful U.S.
foreign policy programs. In just 1 year, PEPFAR provided HIV
testing services to 71 million individuals, and the Global Fund
supported 25 million people on antiretroviral therapy. PEPFAR's
Orphans and Vulnerable Children's Program has prevented 8.3
million children from becoming orphaned and helped 7.8 million
babies be born HIV free. Over the past 5 years alone, it has
protected 10.5 million girls from exploitation, trafficking,
and abuse through screening and preventative services.
Similarly, in the countries where it invests, the Global Fund
provides medications for 84 percent of all HIV-positive
mothers, keeping them alive and protecting babies from
infection.
PEPFAR is among the most impactful programs for children,
and we must retain it in its current form to continue saving
lives and catalyze investments from other donors. We must stay
focused on ending HIV/AIDS pandemic by 2030. However,
challenges have arisen in 2025 following Executive Order 14169,
when the dismantling of USAID and U.S. foreign assistance by
Elon Musk and DOGE disrupted PEPFAR's effort. At that time,
PEPFAR was supporting 20.6 million people, including 566,000
children with HIV. While Secretary Rubio authorized a waiver to
restart some lifesaving HIV services, many remain suspended,
including Orphans and Vulnerable Children Program. Millions of
children dropped from OVC are at risk of hazardous labor, sex
trafficking, or death. For the limited programs that received a
waiver, accessing funding remains difficult, forcing NGOs to
lay off over half of their staff and weakening local economies
and healthcare systems.
To ensure PEPFAR remains active and effective, I urge that
the Global Health Programs account be funded at the fiscal year
2024 enacted level of $60 billion, with PEPFAR receiving $6.5
billion and $2 billion allocated to the Global Fund's first-
year replenishment. I urge this Committee to allocate 10
percent of PEPFAR's bilateral funding for OVC, just as Congress
has done in every PEPFAR reauthorization. HIV/AIDS is a
constant threat to global health, leaving millions vulnerable
to other diseases. We cannot sustain progress in the epidemic
if we leave communities behind. As of March 25, 2025, the clock
ran out, and PEPFAR's authorization expired. I look forward to
working with this Committee to reauthorize PEPFAR and continue
appropriating essential fundings, and thank you for your
ongoing support of PEPFAR and Global Fund work.
I am almost out of time, but just quickly, I traveled to
Latin America with Norma Torres, and we saw the great work of
USAID, and we went to Peru where they saved little kids from
men coming from the United States and Europe. We saw them in
the hotel that came to have sex with 12- and 13-year-olds. And
I just met with Latin American countries, Canada, Mexico, and
they feel like there is certainly a realignment of support. I
yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kelly,
for your testimony, particularly about, you mentioned a lot of
the success of PEPFAR, and I couldn't agree with you more. In
fact, next week, we are having a hearing, a Subcommittee
hearing to review the successes, the challenges, and to talk
specifically about PEPFAR that you just so eloquently just
spoke about. Now, unfortunately, during the previous
administration, we uncovered a violation of the Helms-Burton
Amendment in PEPFAR, which, by the way, is the first instance
since the program was founded in 2003, and I think there was
rather extensive outrage, and I would argue in a bipartisan
outrage, because it was a violation of law. Funds that were
meant to save lives were being used for abortions. Obviously,
that is something that is troubling, but we are going to make
sure that we continue to have strong oversight.
And again, I just want to mention that this is a
Subcommittee that understands that program pretty well, and we
are going to continue to look at it. Thank you so much for your
testimony on that today. Do we have any questions? Yes, Mrs.
Torres. I am sorry.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman. You are absolutely
correct. Violation of the law should be and should continue to
be a bipartisan concern and agreement that we will uphold the
law. The rule of law is what maintains our Constitution, is how
we continue to abide by our oath that we take every 2 years as
we are newly elected or reelected.
Representative Kelly, that trip that we went on was
heartbreaking. Mr. Chairman, we went into a community. Even the
hotel where we stayed at, I have never felt the need to sleep
with my hoodie on and my boots on, fully clothed like I did at
that hotel. As I looked outside my window, there was a very
small community center where they treated children that had
been raped. Many of them were raped by American men, including
infants. It was what unconscionable what we saw there. One
police officer, who we assisted through USAID, she had a
cellphone and that is how she maintained evidence, by the use
of her cellphone. She had no camera, and on that trip, we were
able to get USAID to immediately send her a camera so her
personal cellphone would not have to have those horrific images
of babies and young girls and boys that had been victims of
rape.
In Sierra Leone, I visited a very, very small village on a
trip that I went with CARE, a global organization that we work
with. In this little village we had less than a handful of
women who were taking care of probably a hundred children under
the age of 10, whose parents had perished with AIDS or the war.
And these are children who were being educated, who were being
loved and cared for by these women, who had almost nothing
themselves. But their care and their love was preventing these
young children from joining a terrorist organization that
would, ultimately, see their way or try to see their way to an
American embassy or to our homeland to do us harm.
So these are the high stakes of not having oversight, and
thank you, Chairman, for your last words that we are going to
have another oversight meeting next week. I would welcome all
of that. Look, if there is a demise of an agency that needs to
happen, I am not opposed to having oversight, and I am not
opposed to having those tough conversations. We need to have
them, absolutely, but it has to be in an orderly way that we
are standing up for the rule of law, that we are standing up
for our democracy, and we are protecting our equal power as a
branch of government, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And this why I encourage members to travel
whenever possible to go see not only what we are doing, but
also just to kind of see what is going on in the world. I think
it is an important part of what we do. And so any further
questions? Madam Ranking Member? Yes.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Kelly.
When we talk about PEPFAR and the successes, then I think we
also have to understand what an absence of PEPFAR or a demotion
of the PEPFAR program would mean to the entire healthcare
system because it affects not just people who have AIDS. What
happens when people get sick, right? It puts a huge strain on
the healthcare system. What I would like to ask you to do is
relate it to people who live here because you hear the saying
that we are just one flight away, right, from a pandemic. Could
you relate how compromising health systems overseas, how it
affects people here?
Ms. Kelly. Well, I think we just had an example of that
with COVID, that we were one flight away, and then look what
happened in this country. And the bottom line is, even though
we live in different countries, we are all on one planet, and
what happens in Africa and in Latin America, you name it,
Europe, China, does affect the United States of America because
we travel to those countries, and then people from there
traveled to us. I was in Cape Town, South Africa, and they
talked about how so many lives have been saved because of what
we did, but so many Americans were there also just on vacation,
so we are all on this planet together. We might be in different
countries, but we do affect each other, and that does lead to
global health, global expense, all of that. It is just very,
very important that we do have to be allies and help each
other.
Ms. Frankel. Right, and when we weaken the health systems
or the health of people around the world, it also can
compromise our trading partners, right, whatever, our security?
Ms. Kelly. Well, we just shared the story of when we went
to Peru. Those are men coming from the United States and Europe
sleeping with these kids. These kids could have HIV/AIDS, who
knows, and then coming back to the United States of America. It
is all connected. I mean, USAID, I have 4,500 farms in my
district. My farmers are not happy with USAID or the tariffs,
and we are big in corn and soybean, and they are very concerned
about what is going on. My biggest employer is Ford, very
concerned about what is going on. It is all connected.
Ms. Frankel. So just a comment on the violation of, is it
the Helms Amendment? The Helms Amendment. Just for the record,
PEPFAR is a multimillion-dollar operation. There was one clinic
where apparently there was an abortion done.
Ms. Kelly. No, I am aware. Yeah. That happened once.
Ms. Frankel. It cost about $4,000, they analyzed----
Ms. Kelly. Right.
Ms. Frankel [continuing]. And that money was paid back.
Ms. Kelly. Right.
Ms. Frankel. Just to make you feel better, the money, the
back end. Really, when you think about the millions of people
who have been saved and taken care of----
Ms. Kelly. No comparison.
Ms. Frankel [continuing]. No comparison, but anyway, thank
you so much.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I thank the Ranking Member, and thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We look forward to continuing working with
you. Due to last-minute scheduling changes, Mr. McGovern,
obviously, the distinguished Ranking Member, and Ms. Titus, the
co-Chair of the House Democracy Partnership, unfortunately were
not able to be here this morning to present their testimony. We
understand how schedules are in this place. So without
objection, their full written testimony will be entered in the
record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Unless I have further questions, comments,
the Subcommittee on National Security, State, and Related
Programs stands adjourned. Thank you very much. Thanks.
[Whereupon, at 9:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2025.
ASSESSING THE PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY PLAN FOR AIDS RELIEF (PEPFAR)
WITNESSES
THE HON. MARK DYBUL, M.D., CENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH PRACTICE AND
IMPACT, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
MS. CATHERINE CONNOR, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY,
ELIZABETH GLASER PEDIATRIC AIDS FOUNDATION
Opening Statement of Chairman Diaz-Balart
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National
Security, Department of State, and Related Programs will come
to order. I want to, in particular, thank the Ranking Member,
who had a big ordeal to try to get here this morning, and she
got here despite some difficulties in transportation.
Let me start by welcoming all of you to our hearing today
to assess the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief,
something that we all commonly refer to as PEPFAR, so let me
first introduce our distinguished witnesses.
Ambassador Mark Dybul is a professor in the Department of
Medicine at Georgetown University Medical Center, where he
serves as chief strategy officer of the Center for Global
Health Practice and Impact. He is also Chair of the Board of
Purpose Africa. Thank you for being here. Ambassador Dybul
played a key role, a lead role in the founding of PEPFAR, of
the program during the Bush administration and served as the
executive director of the Global Fund to fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Ms. Catherine Connor is the Vice
President of Public Policy and Advocacy at the Elizabeth Glaser
Pediatric AIDS Foundation and has been with the organization
for over 17 years. I am thrilled and honored to have both of
you here. You both have a wealth of experience on this topic,
and we are grateful for your testimony this morning. Again,
thank you both for being here.
I have long been a supporter of PEPFAR. Since it was
launched in 2003, the program has saved over 26 million lives
and prevented 7.8 million babies from being born with HIV.
Those numbers are, frankly, remarkable. It is an incredible
feat. Over 20 million people are now on lifesaving treatment,
and over 70 million people receive testing services in more
than 50 countries. The PEPFAR program, through the generosity--
the extreme generosity of the American people really saved a
generation of individuals. Much of the success, both in terms
of impact and the decades of trust and continued support from
Congress, is due to the unmatched level of accountability and
transparency that President Bush and you, Ambassador, demanded
from the very start and obtained from the very start. This is
especially important for us, for appropriators. The data-driven
approach that PEPFAR uses to justify budget allocations and the
detailed--the detailed reports that this Committee receives
clearly outline results achieved through the annual funding.
Now, unfortunately, under the previous administration, the
Biden administration, the PEPFAR program was not immune from a
misguided campaign to push controversial ideologies using
taxpayer dollars. You have all heard me say this before. I
warned in every hearing, in every markup, and, frankly, in
every engagement that using funds to promote radical or
partisan agendas will cost support for the program and for all
programs that I and many other Republicans have historically
supported. But even more egregious, under the Biden
administration's watch, the PEPFAR program violated the Helms
Amendment and used taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. The
very first time, for the very first time, as far as we know.
Now, this is interesting. My staff was briefed on the
violation literally hours before the Biden administration was
out of the door, even though, and this is key, even though the
facts had been uncovered months--months prior. I was obviously
outraged, to say the least, to learn of this shocking betrayal.
Funds provided by Congress to save lives were instead used to
end lives. Now, this was despite my efforts as Chairman to push
for more training and oversight with respect to enforcement of
longstanding provisions in law to protect life. The incoming
Trump administration announced a review of all--all--foreign
assistance programs on day one. I want to be crystal clear.
Given the circumstances and the gross mismanagement of the
previous administration, a review is necessary, so I fully
support this administration doing a thorough scrub of PEPFAR
programs as well as every other program. Frankly, it was sorely
needed to ensure that bipartisan support can actually continue.
Now, we understand the challenges that that entails, and we
understand that challenges remain in terms of ensuring programs
that receive lifesaving waivers get continued support and that
owed payments are provided in a timely fashion. So here's a
question: where do we go from here? I trust that the
administration is going to continue to work through these
challenges in coordination with Congress, and I am looking
forward to continuing a fulsome discussion to understand
implementation and the results of this thorough review.
Again, as I said before, I want to thank all of you here. I
think all of us here would agree that PEPFAR was never meant to
go forever, right? I mean, is this something that is there
forever in perpetuity, we are never going to have an ending to
it? You know, these are things that need to be talked about and
we need to make decisions, and financially, we cannot continue
spending at current rates for years to come. We all know that.
Countries need to step up their own financial commitments and
maintain a laser focus on achieving epidemic control. However,
as we demand additional burden sharing and look to wind down,
we also cannot afford to lose progress gained and create a
bigger, more expensive problem for the future.
I believe that a failure to maintain HIV patients on
antiretrovirals means the likelihood of increased drug
resistance and potentially threatens achieving epidemic
control. With new innovations coming online, notably American-
made innovations, I believe that there are new opportunities to
accelerate progress. As this Committee begins the important
work of crafting the fiscal year 2026 appropriation bill, this
hearing will play an important role in shaping the
recommendations ahead for those of us putting these bills
together. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
the successes, the challenges, and opportunities as we think
about the future of the PEPFAR program. It is my assessment
that PEPFAR has, and if implemented correctly, will continue to
make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
I will now turn to my Florida friend and colleague, my dear
friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee,
Ranking Member Frankel. You are recognized.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Frankel
Ms. Frankel. Thanks so much, and thank you to both our
witnesses for being here.
Listen, this may be one hearing where we are going to
almost agree. Almost.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Almost.
Ms. Frankel. Almost.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. For us, that is pretty good. [Laughter.]
Ms. Frankel. But listen, just again, thank you for joining
us today to discuss the future of PEPFAR, one of the most
effective and most bipartisan global health achievements in
American history. I will repeat a little bit only because I
guess we all have to hear ourselves talking. What can I say?
Since its launch under President George Bush--I am going to
give him credit--in 2003, PEPFAR has saved more than 26 million
lives, supported HIV testing for over 71 million people,
prevented 5.5 million babies from being born with HIV, and
provided care to 7 million orphans and vulnerable children. It
has trained over 330,000 healthcare workers and built health
systems that serve more than 50 countries across Africa,
developing countries in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
And I want to say something. I don't know if you remember
this. We served in the State legislature together, but my first
assignment--maybe you weren't there yet--my first assignment, I
was made the Chair of an HIV/AIDS task force, and that was in
the late 80s, early 90s. And I just remember because I spent so
much time, and it still is obviously a horrible disease where
people wasted away. Most got lung infections, and it was a
death sentence. Without any question, it was a death sentence
until, many years later, finally, we do have a way to put it in
remission, and people can actually live normal lives.
But, you know, it is not just about the numbers. This is
about communities that went from despair to survival and then
opportunity. It is a kind of soft power, soft power that makes
the world safer and makes America stronger and more prosperous.
Before PEPFAR, HIV/AIDS was wiping out entire generations
across African countries and developing countries, and it
decimated economies, it shattered families, created instability
that threatened global security, but PEPFAR turned the tide. It
showed the world what America can do when we lead with
compassion, science, and smart investment.
And to my Chair, I agree with you on this. Every
administration has a right and a duty to evaluate government
programs, but what we have seen from the Trump Administration--
and this makes me very sad, especially with this program--is a
reckless, dangerous, sledgehammer approach that puts lives at
risk and throws global partnerships into chaos. That is our
conversation today, and from what we have heard, many PEPFAR
programs have been halted mid-stream. Waivers may be well
intended, but they are not working. We have heard that. Staff
has been left unpaid. We heard that. Medicines are not reaching
those who need it, and health systems that rely on consistent
support are now scrambling in confusion.
And I am going to just briefly touch on this criticism that
PEPFAR in 2024, an audit found that nurses in Mozambique,
subcontracted through local partners, had performed 21
abortions over 3 years. That is what the audits show. And even
though abortion is legal in Mozambique, the U.S. law, we know,
prohibits the use of foreign aid for abortion services. What
was found was that the issue occurred because the nurses had
not been trained on the restrictions under the Helms Amendment.
But once it was identified, CDC immediately halted the funding
and conducted a full review. It was $4,000. They collected
$4,000 in salaries from the Mozambique Government. It was an
isolated incident and promptly addressed through improved
training and accountability, and I just have to emphasize this
represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the PEPFAR $6.5 billion
annual budget. And listen, nobody is perfect. Nobody, all
right? I think they admitted the mistake, they repaid, let's
move forward.
PEPFAR is not just a public health story. It builds
resilient societies, keeps children in schools. It strengthens
local economies. It reduces the risk of extremist recruitment
because people are in a stable situation. It builds trust in
America. Boy, do we need that. And I will say it again, it
makes our country stronger, safer, more prosperous. What we do
through PEPFAR has a direct--a direct--impact on the health and
safety of the American people. The stronger the health systems
are in other countries, the better we are all prepared to
detect, detain, and respond to outbreaks. We are in this
together.
So now we are at a crossroads, and this is where I think we
are going to work very, very hard to find consensus, because if
we allow PEPFAR to be splintered, this cost will not just be
measured in dollars, it will be measured in lives lost, health
systems weakened, trading partners diminished, societies
destabilized, and trust in the United States eroded in the
world. So today, I am going to join you as we move forward with
bipartisan cooperation, which is what got this program started
in the first place, to ensure that this lifesaving, globally
respected program not only survives, but continues to thrive,
and as we move forward, we look for ways to strengthen PEPFAR's
operations, make it more efficient, more sustainable so,
hopefully, we are going to find a way to stop AIDS and also
leave in place some sustainable health systems. So let's work
on this together. That is where we agree, and I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you to the distinguished ranking
member. Now, I will yield to the Ranking Member of the full
Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank both you and Ranking Member Frankel for your leadership
on this Subcommittee, and I am really so very grateful to have
the opportunity to raise awareness for the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. I thank the Chairman
for calling this hearing and for your support of this program.
I want to say thank you to our witnesses here this morning.
Thank you for your testimony, but more importantly, I want to
say thank you for your expertise, for your dedication, for your
commitment to looking at trying to end the scourge of HIV and
of moving over the years to address the issue that has rendered
many people asunder. And we can't put a high enough premium on
the issue of saving lives, so thank you so much. You have built
up this program, Dr. Dybul, Ms. Connor, and, you know, I am
just so grateful to you.
Over 2 decades, it has been said, but it bears repeating,
PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world. Think about
it: 26 million is roughly the population of the Chairman's home
State of Florida. The 26 million people saved by PEPFAR are
mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, teachers, nurses, farmers.
Instead of facing death and despair, they are raising families.
They are building their communities and helping their home
countries grow and to be able to develop. HIV/AIDS is not the
death sentence it was just decades ago, and HIV prevention
efforts are effective. Do not take it from me. The State
Department's website says, ``PEPFAR's lifesaving work is
enabled through the U.S. Government's unwavering commitment to
the program and the American people's compassion and generosity
as PEPFAR ensures every U.S. taxpayer dollar is optimally
focused for impact.''
It was PEPFAR's platform that was utilized to help
countries respond to COVID and which is being used today to
fight tuberculosis and more. Through Democratic and Republican
administrations and Democratic and Republican Congresses,
PEPFAR has held widespread bipartisan support, but PEPFAR is in
dire straits, and working to abolish foreign assistance, Elon
Musk and President Trump froze funding for PEPFAR, halting
testing and treatment for HIV/AIDS patients around the world.
And after funding abruptly stopped, the State Department
determined that portions of the PEPFAR program met the criteria
for ``lifesaving'' and could be restarted, but PEPFAR is not
fully functioning. Funding is not flowing. Medicine is not
being distributed to those who need it. Among many shortsighted
and ill-informed actions, this funding freeze was made under
the guise of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.
I am all for finding and eliminating waste, fraud, and
abuse, something Inspectors General Richardson and Martin at
State and USAID, respectively, were tasked with doing before
they were illegally purged in the dead of night, but millions
of lives are not a waste. In fact, Musk and President Trump
have created even more waste and made government less
efficient. While portions of the PEPFAR program were allowed to
continue, the key implementing partner agencies, USAID and CDC,
are being destroyed, obstructing the path for resources to
reach recipients.
Public health abroad affects public health at home.
Economic stagnation abroad affects our economy here in the
United States, and when people are needlessly getting sick and
dying overseas, it means weaker partners diplomatically,
militarily, and economically for Americans. For 20 years, we
have invested in this program that saves lives, but that also
strengthens our diplomatic relationships. But overnight, this
administration has allowed decades of work to backslide and
undermined our Nation's greatest public health diplomacy
effort. This has not put America first. When we retreat from
the world diplomatically and through our assistance to
vulnerable people, America will be alone. We will be without
allies in a less stable world, without the support of the
international community, and you know who will come out ahead?
China, Russia, Iran. This chaos does not make America stronger,
safer, or more prosperous. This administration is putting
billionaire profits and our adversaries first. Americans and
sick and vulnerable people around the world will be much worse
off for it.
This Subcommittee, the full Appropriations Committee, and
the Congress must commit to reasserting its power of the purse.
Article I of the Constitution plainly states that government
spending must and can be only a consequence of appropriations
in law. We are not writing directives here. We are writing
laws. I am hopeful that we will come together and fully fund
PEPFAR and its implementing partners. We cannot let the fate of
PEPFAR or any other critical program funded through acts of
Congress rest on the whims of Elon Musk and Russ Vought. They
must follow the law. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much. Ambassador, your full
written statement will be placed in the record. Please feel
free to summarize your testimony. Thank you for being here. Now
you are recognized.
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2025.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
WITNESS
THE HON. MARK DYBUL, M.D., CENTER FOR GLOBAL PRACTICE AND IMPACT,
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
Opening Statement of Ambassador Dybul
Ambassador Dybul. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Frankel,
Ranking Member DeLauro, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, first of all, please accept my deep thanks for
your bipartisan support of PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, TB and Malaria. Despite decreases in your envelope over
time, your investments on behalf of the American people have
made the country safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
The details of the results have been provided and are in
the written statement, so I will forego them, but I think it is
worth noting that PEPFAR has been called, and I think rightly
so, the most successful global health program in history and
the best policy decision of any President in 3 generations.
However, as the Chair mentioned, PEPFAR and the Global Fund
cannot and should not be forever, and I would like to focus on
that for the time I have remaining. The capacity that has been
built provides a foundation for fully country-led and -owned
programs and also provides a foundation for detecting and
responding to outbreaks before they become pandemics. It is
also worth noting that domestic sources for HIV--domestic
sources, not external--accounted for 59 percent of all HIV-
related spending in 2023, but much more remains to be done.
There has been substantial work to prepare for transitions,
which is what we should be working towards, transitions from
external funding to local funding and implementation. But now
is the time to execute a comprehensive plan with clear annual
transparent benchmarks, including starting this year,
reductions and redirections on funding. Countries are in
different stages on their journey to self-reliance. In my view,
there are a number of countries who could rapidly have full
transitions rapidly. There are 3 to 4 dozen additional
countries, many with very large PEPFAR and Global Fund
allocations, who could successfully transition within a few
years, including annual resources reductions during that time.
Others will take longer, some much longer, but they can and
should begin now.
PEPFAR and the Global Fund must function as a team because
we have resources in both, and they both function in most
countries, working with heads of state, ministries of finance,
health, economic planning, as well as subnational entities,
such as governors and counties where appropriate, to develop
formal transition compacts with clear timelines. It is
essential that the faith and community-based organizations
fully engage. They are likely to bear the brunt of rapid
reductions because many governments do not have mechanisms to
fund faith and community-based organizations, but those
mechanisms can be built over time.
The strong data systems that have been developed and have
been mentioned have to remain active to help countries maximize
impact, they are used to identify how to have greatest impact,
and for visibility into externally-financed programs to ensure
that vital services don't fall through the cracks. And again,
those are most likely to be faith- and community-based
organizations. Those systems are also indispensable for your
ongoing oversight and the administration's ongoing oversight of
the program.
The private sector must be at the table from the outset.
Too often we pay lip service to private sector engagement.
There are opportunities for American investors and companies to
reap rewards now and for Asian, African, and Latin American
investors and companies to grow their economies to create
markets for our goods and services. And in fact, PEPFAR has
proven that it increases the gross domestic product of
countries in which it operates. There are also, as the Chair
mentioned, new technologies, American-derived technologies, and
American companies that are producing products that could help
us end the AIDS epidemic that would be important to provide not
only in this country, but globally. I can assure you there are
partners from every sector, some of whom are already moving, to
work to develop and execute successful transitions in the
countries in which we operate.
While it is important that every country transition from
external funding for HIV and health services, it is equally
important that they transition to become stronger economic,
diplomatic, and national security partners of the United States
for the long term. When I was U.S. Global AIDS coordinator, I
was fortunate to visit Axum, Ethiopia, believed to be the
birthplace of Christianity in Africa, at dawn, when the mist is
over the town. It looked as it might have centuries ago with
local people and donkey-drawn wagons, spires of churches
peeking through the haze, bells ringing to call all to prayers
and to market. I visited the town clinic. The director of that
clinic also was an elder and leader in the community. I was
cranky that morning and he kept referring to PEPFAR. I asked
him what PEPFAR meant. His answer knocked me over: ``PEPFAR
means the American people care about us.'' PEPFAR means the
American people care about us.
As this Committee knows too well, the United States is
locked in a global struggle to still be seen as a Beacon on the
Hill. While we must lead, we must have allies, including in
Africa, where democracy is threatened. We have lost ground as
the number one trading partner, and the opportunity for the
future is so vast. Clearly, PEPFAR and the Global Fund alone
are not sufficient, but after nearly a quarter century of
supporting Africans at all levels, the wisdom of the words from
Axum ring clearer than ever. People around the world know what
we stand for when we stand with them.
The choice is clear. Do we have a well-planned, structured,
successful transition that helps make America safer, stronger,
and more prosperous, or do we retreat too quickly and
chaotically, squandering some of America's greatest
achievements, risking the lives of millions in the near term, a
resurgence of drug-resistant virus and losing control of the
pandemic over time, and ceding the field to competitors and
adversaries? The choice is ours to make.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Ambassador. Ms. Connor, also,
your written statement will be in the record, and obviously
feel free to summarize your testimony. You have the floor.
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2025.
ELIZABETH GLASER PEDIATRIC AIDS FOUNDATION
WITNESS
CATHERINE CONNOR, J.D., VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY,
ELIZABETH GLASER PEDIATRIC AIDS FOUNDATION
Opening Statement of Ms. Connor
Ms. Connor. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Balart, Ranking Member Frankel, Ranking Member DeLauro, and
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today in support of PEPFAR and the local and
global partners that make this lifesaving program possible. My
name is Catherine Connor. I am the vice president of public
policy and advocacy at the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS
Foundation, or EGPAF. At EGPAF, we are on the front lines of
the fight to end AIDS and HIV.
Our organization focuses on research, advocacy, and helping
governments and communities respond to this ongoing health
crisis. I am deeply honored to be part of this mission-driven
work, and I am incredibly proud of PEPFAR's transformative role
in driving us closer to an AIDS-free generation. Today, I am
asking you not only to protect funding needed to control the
AIDS epidemic, but urging you to be an active champion for
PEPFAR's future. The success of this program and the lives it
continues to touch depends on your leadership.
Our organization began out of a mother's love and
heartbreak. Elizabeth Glaser lost her daughter, Ariel, to AIDS
and was fighting to save her son, Jake. She turned her grief
into action and founded EGPAF to push for treatments and
research to give children with HIV a chance at life. In the
late 1990s, our board committed to taking that mission global.
EGPAF believed that what worked for pregnant women and children
here in the United States could work for women and children
everywhere, and then PEPFAR was created. PEPFAR allowed us to
scale up our work in ways we could not imagine. Over the last
22 years, EGPAF has partnered with PEPFAR on HIV service
delivery in more than 20 countries. We have worked alongside
communities and governments to make sure families get the
services they need, not just to survive, but thrive.
Last year alone, EGPAF helped test over 4.5 million people,
including 750,000 pregnant women. We supported treatment for
1.2 million people. We worked closely with PEPFAR, local
governments, and other partners to keep evolving, to share
innovations, and build the best models of care. Thanks to U.S.
leadership through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, millions of
infections in children have been averted. Since 2000, new HIV
infections in children are down by 75 percent, and AIDS-related
deaths in children have dropped by 43 percent just since 2015,
but progress is fragile, and right now it is at serious risk.
Today, nearly half of all children living with HIV still do not
have access to treatment, and without intervention, peak
mortality occurs between 8 to 12 weeks of life. Only 1 in five
children born with HIV will live to see their 5th birthday
without treatment.
Today, I am deeply concerned. The future of PEPFAR is
uncertain, and that uncertainty is already causing devastating
harm. Two of our programs in Eswatini and Lesotho that had been
granted lifesaving waivers have now been terminated. Together,
those programs were supporting around 200,000 people on HIV
treatment, including thousands of pregnant women and children.
These programs did everything from bringing medicines closer to
the communities, supporting HIV testing counselors, training
and mentoring nurses, providing cervical cancer screenings, and
offering specialized support for pregnant and breastfeeding
women and children. National governments are stepping up where
they can, but frankly, the emerging programmatic gaps are
extensive and threaten to overwhelm health systems unprepared
for such abrupt funding shifts. In many of these communities,
people are scared. They are facing an unknown future, unsure
whether their treatment and care that they depend on today will
still be there for them tomorrow.
What makes this especially heartbreaking is that Lesotho
and Eswatini are success stories, leaders in ending HIV as a
public health threat. Now it feels like the rug has been pulled
out from under them. Across EGPAF-supported programs, we are
seeing troubling trends. Up to 50 percent of our sites are
facing serious service disruptions, from viral load testing to
early infect diagnosis, from CD4 counts to TB screening.
Pediatric ARV stocks are dangerously low, and a significant
amount of programming for orphans and vulnerable children has
been cut, and these aren't just numbers. These are essential
services, and when they break down, it directly affects whether
people, especially children, live or die.
PEPFAR's strength comes from a collaborative structure that
emphasizes results, technical expertise, and strategic
partnerships. This is also at risk. For example, as of last
week, my understanding is that PEPFAR has lost all of its staff
with specialized knowledge in pediatric and maternal HIV. That
is deeply disturbing. This program started because Democrats
and Republicans came together to save lives. Since then, as
noted by the Chair, it saved over 26 million of them, but its
impact goes beyond HIV. The U.S. is safer and stronger, more
prosperous because PEPFAR has helped countries manage
outbreaks, like Ebola and Marburg, and reduced drug resistant
TB. It strengthened public health systems, bolstered emerging
economies, and improved how the U.S. is seen around the world,
so we need that bipartisan leadership again.
I ask you today to be an active participant in PEPFAR's
future through the appropriations process because now is not
the time to step back. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much. Let me start with a
couple questions. I am going to be pretty flexible on the time,
but I would ask everybody, as always, to try to keep an eye on
the clock.
We know the statistics. They are, frankly, very impressive.
I am not going to repeat those. We have heard from you all, and
all of us know that, and this Subcommittee on both sides of the
aisle has supported PEPFAR for many, many years. But as I
mentioned in my opening statement, I think we all need to agree
that we have to look at what are the next steps. Are we going
to fund this forever, in perpetuity? Is there going to be no
ending, and how can we hand these programs back to the
countries and to the private sector and other donors if
necessary?
And while we talk about, and I think rightfully so, the
really impressive accomplishments, historic accomplishments,
let me mention the price tag for that investment. So far, it is
about $110 billion since 2003. That is a heck of a lot of
money. Even for Federal standards, that is a lot of money. And
we all have talked about, and you heard it again this morning,
about, well, how this also helps us with partnerships around
the world and, and it helps countries, you know, be closer to
us. But I think the American taxpayer looks at, for example,
South Africa.
Let me just throw one example out there. This is a country
that obviously, you know, PEPFAR has a strong presence, but
look what the government is doing. They are doing joint naval
exercises with Russia, they are prosecuting Israel at the
International Court of Justice, and a number of other actions
that are working against U.S. national security interests. So I
think it is fair to ask these questions, which is, is it
working, can we do better, and as I mentioned before, for how
long? That is not being heartless or callous. That is standing
up for the American taxpayer and, I would argue, for the
national security interests of the United States as well.
So I will start with you, Mr. Ambassador. You mentioned
this in your opening statement, but what are some
recommendations for next steps? Could you please expand on your
opening remarks in terms of shifting responsibilities back to
some of these governments and the private sector, and what is
the best way potentially to go about that while keeping our
gains, but also securing the national security interests of the
United States and not continue to do this forever? So I will
yield to you.
Ambassador Dybul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I actually
fully agree with all of your comments. And as I mentioned in my
opening statement, and I am really focused on it, it is very
possible to begin a transition process, and South Africa is one
of them. I mean, South Africa actually, probably within a year
or 18 months with planning, could fully transition without
losing any lives, but also bringing our private sector in, and
there are actually some private sector people here who would be
very active there. You ask the best way to do it, and the best
way to do it is to work with tangible, with accountable
benchmarks for transition in countries based on where they are
from a socioeconomic standpoint and report to you on that
transition, with reductions on an annual basis in the amount of
money, eventually getting down to nothing, but at the same time
work closely with the private sector.
And here, as I mentioned, we do not do this well. We have
organizations of the U.S. Government--the Development Finance
Corporation, the USDTA, the Millennium Challenge Corporation--
but they are off to the side. If we bring them all together and
work with our private sector and with the private sector in
countries, and I can tell you in South Africa, for example, I
work with high net worth individuals who invest in the health
sector. They will come in and work with us and are hungry to
work with us.
So we can transition. We can have plans. We can get, within
2 years, the vast majority of countries transitioning in a
clear way, in a sustainable way, without an abrupt, chaotic
decline that will maintain the gains, increase the benefits,
and also maintain the diplomatic and economic opportunity. The
alternative is chaotic, chaos, retreat, and loss of all the
benefits that have been gained. I completely agree with you. It
is a matter of time. It is a matter of time, planning, and
benchmarks, and those plans have to be presented to you with
clear, sustainable approaches to transition.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. The Ranking Member, you are
recognized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. You know, I realize now, I have two
grandchildren and I am starting to think like I am talking to
them. There is a nursery rhyme. I don't think they even know
what I am talking about, but I say it is called Humpty Dumpty.
``Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's men couldn't put Humpty together again.'' And
this is what I am thinking about right now when I am thinking
about foreign assistance. First of all, thank you both. You are
both terrific, and what you have done for humanity is amazing.
I do like the concept that we can work together to support
countries, where they can too have a sustainable health system,
that they go on their way, that we get the private sector more
involved. Very good ideas, I think. What I am worried about, I
just want to know is, but what has happened in these last 30
days or so? There was supposed to be a waiver, as I understand
it, a waiver to allow, PEPFAR continue its work. Nobody likes
to criticize this administration. Could you just tell me
factually what has happened on the ground in terms----
Ms. DeLauro. What is on and what is off.
Ms. Frankel. Are you talking to me?
Ms. DeLauro. I would just say what is on and what is off.
Ms. Frankel. Yeah, what is on and what is off because we
have heard people haven't been paid, that some of the programs
are shut down, that people were fired, and they are not
implementing. Can you just tell us where we are because, as I
said, I am worried that it is going to be so cracked up,
sledgehammered up, that we are not going to be able to go
forward like you are suggesting. Who wants to answer that?
Both? Okay.
Ms. Connor. Happy to do so, Ranking Member, and I can speak
to our experience with it. I do think this has been a
challenging period of time. Most of us who work in the HIV
community, as we have talked about, every administration comes
in with its own priorities and wants to review the program, and
that was expected. I think the way that the review has been
handled has been sort of challenging on the implementation
side. It did start, obviously, with the stop work orders for
all of foreign assistance, and that included PEPFAR at the
time, and then there was this opportunity for the waivers to
take hold, and many of our projects did receive lifesaving
waivers. Again, that did shrink the scope of work.
There were certain activities that were not considered
lifesaving, like OVC and some preventive opportunities, but
mostly treatment and care were considered lifesaving, but those
waivers were not implemented automatically. There was a process
that had to go through. Once the waivers were announced, then
the implementing agencies had to apply those waivers to each
individual project. So as you can imagine with all the PEPFAR
projects, looking at each project, determining which part is
lifesaving, which part is not, revising work plans and revising
budgets, and even then we still had to get permission to
restart those programs. So we have been able to restart work in
many places, but then what happened is that some terminations
occurred. So even programs that did receive lifesaving waivers
were then terminated. We had three countries actually with
terminated care and treatment programs. One was then un-
terminated.
So again, as you can see, it has been very hard to sort of
follow like what should we be doing. Even when we get
permission to work, it has been hard to tell and work with the
mission and with the national government. Are we ready to move
forward? Can we move forward, or is something else going to
occur? So I think from our standpoint, I think one of the major
things that we really want to see happen sooner than later is
to really sit down and look at the capacity that is remaining,
is that once we get through this review period, what projects
are standing, where can we continue work, and also all that
work interconnects. I had a colleague tell me yesterday, she
was like, you know, the problem is by looking at all these
projects individually, you miss the interconnectivity.
So a project like ours where we are working with pregnant
women, we are able to get them tested, we are able to get them
on ARVs, we help them through labor and delivery, but then the
infant test happens, and that test has to be transported to a
central lab to be processed, but the organization that was
doing that transportation is no longer there. And so that link
in the chain, other parts of the chain are working, but once
one link falls apart, it all starts to fall apart. And so I
think until we get a sense of where that capacity is, where is
the country able to fill gaps, where do we need to course
correct after we look at what is happening in the field, I
think we will be able to move forward from there.
Ms. Frankel. All right. Well, that was very diplomatic of
you. Thank you for your good work. My understanding is that
PEPFAR, as it was established, it was not just for emergency.
It was also for prevention because I think, and, Mr. Dybul,
maybe you would know this, there is something like 20 million
people who are on medicine that keeps them alive and well. My
understanding, that has been cut off, that that is the part of
the program that is not under way right now. Did I hear
correctly? Either of you can answer the question.
Ms. Connor. I can answer that. You can join in as well,
Ambassador. Yes, so the work on prevention was not considered
part of lifesaving work.
Ms. Frankel. All right. So in other words, you are going to
get an A for being diplomatic. But in other words, there are 20
million people-plus out there who their medication has stopped.
No? You are saying, no, it hasn't. Go ahead. Mr. Dybul, you can
speak.
Ambassador Dybul. The world is a strange place. I am a
PEPFAR implementer as well in Eswatini, and we are still
delivering antiretroviral therapy, and the supply chain system
that delivers it has been given a green light to begin the
procurement again. But it is unclear where things are going,
and that is the problem, and lack of clarity is a problem for
producers. It is a problem for people in the country, and while
some programs are continuing, some have stopped. The prevention
programs are another story, which we would be happy to talk
about because that is very important. PEPFAR was a prevention
care and treatment, and in the end if we don't prevent new
infections----
Ms. Frankel. Yes.
Ambassador Dybul [continuing]. This epidemic is going to
get out of control again. Then all the gains of the past will
be lost.
Ms. Frankel. And the prevention also has to do with the
transmission--I am going to just finish this up--with mother to
baby, and my understanding, that has been in demise.
Ms. Connor. The lifesaving waivers were supposed to include
those. We have had difficulty getting them up and started
again, and, again, mostly because of how the services are
provided. If an HIV positive woman comes in and can't get
tested, we can't even start the process. So if you take HIV
testing away, if you take HIV counseling away, if you take away
prevention counseling, we can't get to the core ARV services.
So even where ARVs still exist and can be given out, we may not
be able to get to that part of the care continuum because of
all the other blockages that we are seeing.
Ms. Frankel. I think I understand what you are saying.
Prevention. People are just going to get sicker and sicker, and
we are talking about millions and millions of people, unless we
have some kind of intervention. I hope that somehow we can send
a message, you know, to the administration. We are trying to
become more efficient, accountable, and transition to countries
being able to, where they can, take over these operations, but
they have to have something to take over. Letting millions of
people get more sick is just going to make things worse. Thank
you for your patience. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Absolutely. I am not going to cut off the
Ranking Member. Ms. DeLauro, the full Committee Ranking Member,
I don't know what your time constraints are. Are you okay with
back and forth because I can recognize you now, if you would
like.
Ms. DeLauro. Go ahead.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. I know that you have got a lot
of other Subcommittees that you like to attend.
Ms. DeLauro. I will follow.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. To the Vice Chairman of the
Subcommittee, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To both of you, thanks
for being with us this morning. One of the allegations that I
have heard over the PEPFAR program is that taxpayer dollars had
been somehow used to fund abortions, and I can't help but
think, how can this Committee appropriate funds for such a
worthy cause, it appears, and yet those funds be so egregiously
misused? How does that happen, and how does this Committee
ensure that with any other decision that we make, the funds are
actually used for the sole purpose that they are intended?
Ambassador Dybul. Mr. Vice Chairman, you raise a hugely
important question. Let me just say from the outset, and I
think anyone implementing would agree, it is completely
unacceptable when the U.S. law is violated in any way, but, in
particular, on the Helms Amendment, because that is such an
important part and has been a benchmark of foreign development,
and particularly, HIV programs.
There was in Mozambique, as the ranking member mentioned, a
group of nurses that were not trained in Helms Amendment and
were active in abortion care. Their salary was paid for by
PEPFAR, which you could say then funded the abortion, but it
doesn't matter. I mean, I think we are getting into details. It
never should have happened. What has been put in----
Mr. Edwards. Excuse me.
Ambassador Dybul. Yeah.
Mr. Edwards. With all due respect, we need to get into the
details here.
Ambassador Dybul. Yeah.
Mr. Edwards. We need to understand----
Ambassador Dybul. Yeah.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. How the United States sends money
someplace else and then it gets used for a purpose totally
different----
Ambassador Dybul. Yeah.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Than what it was intended. I am
okay to hear the details.
Ambassador Dybul. Yeah. So as I understand the details,
funding went to the government for nurses to provide care,
including HIV care, but they do other things as well. And that
is an important piece of what happens is, what PEPFAR has done
is funded a health system which allows for pandemic response
and many other things. So those nurses were being funded in
order to provide HIV care, but then they also performed
abortions, and that is unacceptable because no one funded by
the U.S. Government should engage in those types of activity.
And as was mentioned by the Ranking Member, they had not
been trained in the Helms Amendment and weren't aware of it.
And these have to be put in place, and this is a problem with
cutting money too quickly is it is difficult to have oversight
then, especially if you don't have the systems to do it, is
training of everyone who receives any money from the U.S.
Government in the Helms Amendment and in the U.S. Government
policies and practices, so that they understand what they are,
that they actually sign and attest to that they are aware of
those policies and practices, and, very importantly, that there
be systematic reviews. And as the Ranking Member mentioned,
this did happen, but it didn't happen until after, that there
be regular reviews and everyone be aware that those reviews are
happening to deter any action against the law.
Mr. Edwards. That is helpful. One of the key screens for
this Committee now is to make sure any funds that we spend
abroad are in the best interest of our national security. Can
you tell me how funds for PEPFAR and preventing AIDS abroad is
in the United States national security interests?
Ambassador Dybul. Perhaps I can speak to that. As a former
ambassador and level of assistant secretary of state, let me
give you an example. When I first went to Namibia, I met with
the president--this was early in the days of PEPFAR--and the
president said to me, you know, we hate the United States
because you were on the wrong side of apartheid, but now we
love the United States because you are the only one here
supporting us in something that is going to destroy our
country. So the soft power the Ranking Member mentioned is
hugely important because the United States, actually, if you go
back, it is hard to do a negative. But what we expected to
happen, what the U.S. intelligence community expected to
happen, was literally Africa falling apart because there were
countries where more than a third of the adult population was
infected.
There was a district in Botswana I visited. Seventy-five
percent of pregnant women were infected with HIV. They were all
going to die. Their kids were all going to die. There were
entire villages run by orphans. The African continent could not
put a peacekeeping force together because their soldiers were
all infected with HIV, and because HIV hit people in their
reproductive age and productive age, it was factory workers and
machine workers. Ford Motor Company in South Africa was among
the first providing antiretroviral therapy because it was going
to destroy their ability to produce cars. So on a diplomatic
front, on a stability front, and on a soft power front, it is
in our interest.
The other way it is in our interest, and this has been
shown, by the 2030s, Africa will have more people than India or
China, and it is a young population. It is also among the
fastest-growing economies in the world, and it is the economy
of the future. Virtually everyone predicts that. The CEO of
Walmart told me that. Africa is our trading partner for the
future. It is where we will make money, where our companies can
make money and invest. There is a company sitting right behind
us that produces new technologies that could end the AIDS
epidemic.
So on a diplomatic dividend front, on a future economic
growth and development front and economic opportunity, and on a
national security front, both on the diplomatic and economic
and stability side, this is in our national interest, which is
why we did it. The first time the U.N. Security Council held a
meeting on an infectious disease was HIV for all the reasons I
mentioned. What was averted, a negative is hard to measure.
This is in our national security.
I can also be very clear because I spend a lot of time in
Africa, we are losing ground rapidly because of recent events
and because of the fact that China and Russia are all over
Africa right now--all over Africa--and we have lost our status
as the number one trading partner in Africa. And there are a
lot of resources and minerals and that future economic
opportunity, and if we cede that field to our adversaries, it
will not be a pretty picture because it is a big part of the
world.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Ranking Member of the full
Committee. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, and thank you, Ambassador
Dybul, for really answering the question about national
security. Thank God for George Bush, who understood the need
and the fact that this was, really, in the best interest of the
United States to be engaged in the PEPFAR program, and after
him, countless others, Democrats and Republicans, have
understood the need and the necessity that if you can't
understand the humanity of all of this, then understand what it
means in terms of our national security and the stability of
these economies in order for us to be able to participate in a
world economy, though that may be under threat as well these
days.
PEPFAR works, yes? Twenty years, you have one incident, not
pushing it under the rug, but you have talked about it. You
explained it. The other issue is here, it is my understanding
that these nurses were not trained on the Helms Amendment, et
cetera, and there was a revision of the plan in order to be
able to do that. But now we have got nothing but chaos, so
whether or not people are being trained or not trained, et
cetera, is up for grabs.
I want to ask my question, but I also want to just say
this. I believe we are looking at a pattern here because the
domestic HIV programs are under attack. I spent a lot of years
on the Appropriations Committee with the domestic HIV program,
with the epidemic, of trying to rid us of that, and we were
very close to doing it, except the money has been snatched
back. So this is part of a pattern, which I, quite frankly,
don't understand how it comes out in terms of the mission of
saving lives, yes, and of dealing with U.S. national security.
As of September 2024, PEPFAR was supporting the
antiretroviral therapy, ART, for more than 20 million people in
55 countries, that including 566 children living with HIV. As a
result, the use of ART led to 89 percent of children being
virally suppressed. As a result of the funding cuts, UNAID has
warned that this will lead to more than 6 million excess deaths
and an additional 2,000 new HIV infections each day, or 730,000
a year, over the next 4 years. ART suppresses the viral load to
a level that makes HIV undetectable, prevents transmission.
What will happen to more than 20 million patients, if they
have to stop using ART, what do you expect to happen to
transmission rates?
Ms. Connor. I will jump in here. Thank you, Ranking Member.
You know, I appreciate your comments, and I think it bears
repeating that I think in some ways, our progress has masked
the root of the problem, which is that HIV is an uncurable,
infectious and fatal disease, and because we have done such a
good job in trying to control it, we forget the devastation
that it can bring. And I think both the subcommittee members as
well as Ambassador Dybul have done a good job talking about
that, and the disruptions we are seeing have the potential to
see some resurgence.
You mentioned all the people that are on treatment. Right
now, the ARV stocks are low. There was a really good market
analysis done by CHAI that really looked at the supply that are
coming in, and right now there may be no ARV stock outs, but
our own organization has looked, and there is not a single
country we work in that has more than 2 to 3 months supplies of
pediatric ARVs right now, and children that experience
treatment disruption die much faster than adults who have
treatment disruption. So I do think we can expect to see
increased mortality, increased infection rates, and a lot of
despair if things aren't corrected.
Ms. DeLauro. And just a couple of other things here. So if
the administration fails to continue investing in a
comprehensive program, do we then figure that we have
squandered the billions we have provided over the last 20
years? Have we thrown that money away, given what you have just
said about what happens for the future? Just an adjunct
question to this, if I might. PEPFAR works with other
agencies--you were looking USAID, CDC--and that, in essence,
helps to make it work. So now if you are focused on maybe not
investing in PEPFAR, and then you are decimating or dismantling
USAID, and you are decimating CDC at the moment, which we are
watching in real time here, how does that all play into what
your mission is, and, again, the squandering of billions of
dollars? As I say, if you can't get people on the humanity of
it, think about the money that we have spent here, you know? I
choose humanity, but also efficiency, and what happens when
these agencies that you rely on crash and burn, and where do
you go from there?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. It is an important question, but try to
get to it concisely.
Ms. DeLauro. That was a question, Mr. Chairman, and I am
sorry for the----
Ms. Connor. And it's an interesting complement to what
Ambassador Dybul was talking about planning and looking at
capacities, and how we transition work. You know, right now we
have talked a lot already in this hearing about the disruptions
we have seen at the country level. We have talked a lot about
where countries can lean in and do more, where private sector
can do more. But we are not just disrupting the technical
capacity that is in the field, we are disrupting the technical
capacity at PEPFAR and the ability for these agencies and
PEPFAR leadership to create a strategy to make a plan.
You know, again, I keep focusing on the area of my
organization. You know, we have heard over and over again from
the Trump administration officials that they want the focus of
PEPFAR to be on eliminating mother-to-child transmission of
HIV, but we are seeing the services in countries being
disrupted, and we are seeing the technical expertise that could
help us create a strategy to do just that be diminished as
well. So this is why I think it is going to be very important
for this Committee in its oversight function, but as well as
conversations with the administration, to look at this
capacity. Where have we diminished our capacity so much that we
really have to rethink, we need lean back in because right now,
it is hard to see a way forward. And I think that, as
Ambassador Dybul mentioned, the confusion about where we are
supposed to go, what are we supposed to do, how are we supposed
to do this work, if we don't have the structure at the top to
help direct our work, we don't have the structure at the
country level to do the work and do it in a way that we can
transition and sustain it over a long period of time.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Moolenaar, who also is the Chairman of
the bipartisan Select Committee on the CCP. So thanks for being
here, sir. You are recognized.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses today. You know, Ambassador Dybul, I want to follow
up with you on some of the comments you have made about, you
know, China's work in Africa. We know about the Chinese Belt
and Road Initiative. They also have the Health Silk Road. You
know, it seems that their purpose is really to expand their
influence and control, and expand the reach of their
surveillance state, and use it for both, you know, economic as
well as military purposes. I wonder if you could talk a little
bit about some of the efforts they are making in Africa,
because I agree with you. I think the question I hear from
ambassadors from African countries is, you know, ``we would
rather do business with the United States, but where is the
United States?'' And I think it is important that we have a
strategy on that, but I wonder if you could comment on that
situation.
Ambassador Dybul. Yes, thank you very much, and thank you
for the work your Committee does because I think it is hugely
important. I was talking with Marian Kristhmus, of course, a
part of that Committee as well, and I hope the Senate does one
as well. So China is all over Africa, and I can tell you they
have gone in and started to meet with governments to say, well,
the U.S. is pulling out here, so what can we do to support you,
and that is a massive risk to us for the long term.
The diplomatic dividend to us of PEPFAR has been enormous
because they see their lives saved, and this is down to the
community level. I go back to that person in Axum: ``PEPFAR
means the American people care about us,'' shocking statement,
down to villages. If we lose that, we lose a great deal, and we
lose a great deal for the future because of the mineral wealth
that is there, which are essential for all the things that we
are doing, as you know better than I do, but we also lose the
military capacity there. The Department of Defense has been a
key part of PEPFAR. We forget about that, but in the beginning,
the Department of Defense was as important as any other agency
because the militaries were so devastated by HIV. We spent a
lot of our time supporting the militaries, and if it comes
back, they are going to be the most impacted as well.
But related to China, they also have grown their
pharmaceutical industry that was actually just for China. They
now are trying to export their pharmaceuticals. They are pretty
good at copying pharmaceuticals, and they are even inventing
their own. They are going ahead on AI, which is a massive area
for the United States, as you know as well. Who is going to win
the AI war? Well, first of all, you have a lot of the materials
in Africa that you need to make those chips for AI, but then
you also have to have places to do AI and have a genetic pool,
which Africa has a massive genetic pool that is untapped. So on
every level, we are at risk of ceding ground to China.
Now, is PEPFAR and the Global Fund enough? No, but there
are other parts of our government that could be, and here is
where the planning for sustainability is so important. The
planning for sustainability should not just be around HIV, TB,
and malaria. That is hugely important because that will protect
a lot of lives. It will protect the future. It won't squander,
as the Ranking Member said, our investments to date. But it has
to involve a broader picture, which includes our private
sector, which includes our military, and we can do that if we
integrate how we operate.
Mr. Moolenaar. And I would just like to also mention, when
I read PEPFAR, President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, I
think of a plan for an emergency being something that needs to
be modified, updated, and as you point out, you know, looking
at how some countries can transition, you mentioned South
Africa. I am sure there are other countries in that mix, but I
don't know how often that plan is updated according to, you
know, new conditions on the ground, new situations, because it
appears like it is an ongoing government program, but that is
very different than a plan that is strategic, updated
regularly, and as you point out, benchmarks and evaluation. But
I wonder, is that something that can be redrafted in a new era?
Ambassador Dybul. Yes, and that is exactly what needs to be
done, no question about it. We have done it in some places. As
I mentioned, 59 percent of all HIV funding now comes from
domestic sources, and that is really increased over time, but
it is nowhere near enough. But we don't have clear plans, and
that is what I think this Committee and the administration can
require, and PEPFAR actually has been working on one, but it
has to be with the Global Fund because we also have sources
there. We do need to shift to a clear plan with compacts with
every country, and there are some that I mentioned. There are
about 3 dozen that could transition the next couple of years,
literally the next couple of years.
So you could see what we need to do in that reduction in
our investment. That hundred billion could go to something very
low, but if you do it in a structured, clear way with those
benchmarks, and you ask for that plan and the administration
demand that plan, and report to you regularly on that plan, it
can be done and we can have a success. So instead of a rapid
retreat that will be a total failure for us on every front and
threaten our national security, we can actually turn it to a
success and have that transition.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thirty seconds more. I have to leave for
another meeting, but one thing that strikes me, is the public
health community has lost trust over the years. And one of the
reasons I think this issue of PEPFAR, this issue of abortion is
so impactful, and I have heard it today, this term, ``abortion
care.'' When someone says that as a healthcare professional, it
immediately diminishes their credibility in the minds of many
Americans, because when they hear something like that, they are
interpreting it in a way that says, you are concerned about
children dying of AIDS, many others are concerned about
children dying from abortion, and there is no difference in
terms of saving an innocent human life. And so I would just
say, as you speak to the PEPFAR community, to be very clear
about the importance of that because all of us should be in the
business of wanting to save human lives. And I think in the
public health community, when terms are used, like ``abortion
care,'' it really diminishes the credibility. So with that,
thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ms. Meng, you are recognized. You were
here when we started, I believe, and if not, take advantage of
it.
Ms. Meng. Okay.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Go ahead. Pretend you were.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Frankel, and DeLauro, and to our witnesses for being here.
In June 1981, five cases of a mysterious illness appeared
in Los Angeles, and that moment marked the beginning of the HIV
epidemic in America. Since then, over 700,000 Americans have
died from this illness, including 8,000 each year. HIV/AIDS
didn't start here, but we knew that protecting Americans and
addressing the AIDS epidemic meant fighting the disease
globally, and that is why PEPFAR is important. Since 2003, we
have saved 26 million lives through PEPFAR and another 65
million through investments in worldwide HIV response programs,
like the Global Fund. We are actively helping to treat--you
have heard the numbers--over 20 million people with lifesaving
medication, including pregnant women. We have prevented 7.8
million babies from being born with HIV, and as a mom, that
last number means so much to me. Because of this program,
millions of children have been able to grow up without worrying
about treatment or passing HIV on to others.
Meanwhile, PEPFAR's annual regular funding since 2009 has
been flat. In fact, the cost of treating someone has dropped
from $1,200 a year in 2003 to just $58 in 2023, and that sounds
pretty efficient to me, Mr. Chairman. PEPFAR is a crown jewel,
but this administration's illegal, unconstitutional, and
chaotic attacks on USAID, our public servants, and the programs
they support are jeopardizing decades of progress.
Ms. Connor, I am very worried about the impacts of the stop
work order on ARVs. This is, as you know, medication that 20
million people receive that helps stop the spread of HIV, and
each day of the foreign aid freeze, over 220,000 people,
including 7,000 of them who are children, were blocked from
receiving these. As you mentioned in your testimony, a study
showed that 1 in 5 HIV-positive children who experience
treatment interruptions die. Interrupting ARV treatment risks
creating drug-resistant HIV strains, correct? Can you talk a
little bit about that?
Ms. Connor. Absolutely, and thank you for raising this
question. You know, when I started working at EGPAF, I had to
go around to Members of Congress and tell them there were 2,000
children that were acquiring HIV every day, and that number is
down to 300, which is still too many by any measure, but that
just kind of speaks to the success. And a lot of that is
because of the ability to put pregnant women on treatment, so I
just want to thank you for raising that issue.
Drug resistance and treatment failure is a really big
problem, especially in the pediatric community. A lot of
children who are exposed to HIV are exposed, again, through
pregnancy, labor and delivery, and breastfeeding. And so if
they do end up being HIV positive, often, they are resistant to
the drugs that their mother may have been taking, and so we
have to be very vigilant on that. And that is why treatment
disruptions in the adult and the pediatric community are so
important to try to avoid, is that we do find that when
people's treatment is disrupted, not only do they get drug
resistance, but the virus tends to spike, right? So not only
have they stopped treatment, they get sick very fast, and that
means that they are able to infect other people, and they won't
even really understand or know that.
So this is an area that we take really seriously, and as we
are looking at sort of where the disruptions are, we are trying
to make sure and work very closely with the ministries that, at
least where we can, that ARVs are being supplied and, again,
hopefully at the levels that people can adhere, but we are
starting to see some rationing of medications as well, just
because of the uncertainty. I want to be clear that uncertainty
here is almost more dangerous than what is happening on the
ground, is that ministries and partners are unable to plan
ahead, unable to look at what is available and sort of
redistribute resources. It is just everyone is a little bit
frozen in place, and that has its own damaging impacts.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much, and I will pivot quickly to,
if I still have time left, to my home State of New York. The
administration's dismantling of USAID obviously will impact so
many of the communities and districts that we all represent.
Between 2022 and 2024, USAID contracts were responsible for
over $12 billion in grants and funding to organizations and
universities here in the U.S. In my home state, we received
over $185 million during that period, money that went to
disease research and treatment and programs to help reduce the
cost of everyday goods, like coffee, and now the administration
has canceled many of them. One of the impacted groups is the
International AIDS Vaccine Alliance, headquartered in New York
City. They were developing a promising vaccine that was already
in clinical trials, and the administration canceled their
contract, resulting in the end of that clinical trial. You
know, an American-led, taxpayer-funded HIV vaccine trial was
actively underway and, if successful, could have helped prevent
almost 32,000 Americans and 1.3 million people around the world
from getting HIV each year.
Ambassador, can you discuss the impact that an HIV vaccine
and other injectables would have had on treatment costs and
PEPFAR sustainability?
Ambassador Dybul. Yeah. Yes, thank you for the question. I
will do it quite quickly. By the way, I used to be on the board
of IAVI, so I want to make that clear, so was involved in some
of that planning. The new technologies that are available,
there are long-acting injectable drugs that actually prevent
infection, so like you would take anti-malaria drugs when you
travel, this is the same. It is called pre-exposure
prophylaxis. You take antiretrovirals to prevent getting
infected in the same way you treat just like you do with
malaria.
So a couple of companies have developed injectable products
that you can have one injection every 3 or 6 months, and the 6-
month one should be available, we hope soon, by American
technology and American companies. One injection every 3 to 6
months could prevent new infections, which is how we get to no
more infections, and then the vaccine would add on to that as
well. There are a couple of countries, the United Kingdom and
the Netherlands, that are very close to achieving that, and the
United States was getting close. The first Trump administration
actually put the end of HIV as a top priority for them
domestically.
And it is possible, and these new technologies will make it
possible. If you can give an injection once every 3 to 6 months
and prevent new infections, there is a pill that does that as
well that is being used, and it was starting to be used in
Africa. So for the long term, one of the key parts of
sustainability transition is get the new infections down, and a
second part of that, and this is an unfortunate part, but it
happens to all of us. If you do an actuarial analysis, there
have been many people on therapy now for 20 years. So there
have been estimates of the fact that they are going to start
dying from natural causes, even if they retain their
antiretroviral therapy. So if you reduce the number of new
infections, you have an increase in death for natural causes,
you get down to a very small number of people that will need
treatment for the future. That is sustainability, but that
requires planning.
Countries are ready for that planning. Africans want a
transition. They are not looking for this to continue forever.
They want a transition, but they want a transition that they
can manage because it shifts responsibility to them, and they
want the private sector very much at the table. They want all
the things we have been talking about. So you have ready
partners to go with, but these technologies are hugely
important to achieve that ultimate goal. And we can actually
have an AIDS-free generation because of those new technologies,
including the vaccine and including the long-acting injectable
products.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Mr. Alford, you are recognized,
sir.
Mr. Alford. Well, thank you, Chairman Diaz-Balart, and
Ranking Member Frankel for holding this. I think this is a very
important Subcommittee hearing that we are having today. Thank
you for being here.
PEPFAR has saved the lives of millions of innocent people
and strengthened global health for decades now. Dr. Dybul, I
would like to thank you for your work in establishing this
program during the Bush administration. Your work has saved
millions of lives, but as we are doing today, we are
confronting the fact that this last administration has somewhat
turned this lifesaving program into something it should not be.
Using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion is abhorrent. I know
the number is 21. It would be abhorrent if we use taxpayer
dollars just for one single abortion. And I know you have
spelled out how this happened with the nurses in Mozambique and
the money that was returned that was that was used for this. I
want to focus on how we prevent that from happening again. So,
Ambassador, first off, the use of taxpayer funds for abortions,
what does that do to the public trust in this program?
Ambassador Dybul. Certainly for a lot of Americans, that
would undermine the trust in the program, and that is something
that needs to be rebuilt, and there is no question about the
need to rebuild that. Any violation of any law of the United
States is something the American people should be concerned
about.
Mr. Alford. If we move forward with funding for PEPFAR,
what guarantees can you make that American taxpayer dollars
will never be spent in this program again for another abortion?
Ambassador Dybul. It is hard for me to guarantee that
because I am no longer in the administration. However, what can
be done, as often happens with other violations of law, are a
couple of the things that I mentioned. One is the training so
that everyone is aware that of what the law is, which,
unfortunately, these nurses were not. Secondly is to require
them to actually sign attestations that they are aware of that,
and third is to do regular reviews, which is the most powerful
thing you can do, but you need people and money for that.
There are few countries, not many, but there are a few
countries that have legalized abortion where PEPFAR works and
you can focus on those places, and you need to go out to the
field, and you need to do program reviews. And you need to do
them regularly, but you also need to do them randomly because
that will make people aware that if they are caught, there is
going to be a penalty and a cost. So those are the tools that
can be and must be used to ensure that this does not happen
again.
Mr. Alford. Let's talk about the transition plan. Ms.
Connor, are you in agreement that this should have a transition
to private entities, faith-based organizations in other
countries?
Ms. Connor. I think we view this as a really strong
opportunity to start the sustainability and transition process.
I think that Ambassador Dybul and I may disagree on the pace of
that. You know, obviously we work at the project level. We have
a lot of experience with transitioning projects to local
ownership, to governments over time. On average, it takes us a
4- to 5-year period of time----
Mr. Alford. Right.
Ms. Connor [continuing]. To really walk through, identify
what we are going to transition and how we are going to
transition.
Mr. Alford. I have 2 minutes left. So you are in agreement
it should be transitioned. It is just a time difference that
you have with the ambassador.
Ms. Connor. Time difference and the planning process. The
well-planned part of it is very important.
Mr. Alford. Ambassador, what is your time frame for a
transition?
Ambassador Dybul. It is difficult for me to have a time
frame because I am not operating, but I do work very closely
with many African leaders. They want to work to transition as
quickly as possible, and I do think----
Mr. Alford. Five years? Ten years?
Ambassador Dybul. We can start the reductions now. It is
not as if you do fund completely and then you just transition.
It is a constant reduction.
Mr. Alford. What guarantee do you have that if we
transition out, that China won't transition in filling in the
void that we leave behind?
Ambassador Dybul. Well, the thing is, if you do the
transitions right, there is no void left for them to fill
because you would transition to local organizations,
government, non-government, faith, community-based
organizations doing the work, and we have seen this happen. We
know it can happen. We already have 60 percent of domestic
resources going to fund the programs. The issue is timing and
planning. It is going to be country specific, so there are some
countries that have relatively large resources. For example, I
have talked with people in South Africa. They could transition
probably in a year or less, but they need to know where to put
the money. There are other countries in similar position--
Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Namibia, Botswana--countries that
actually have decent incomes.
So the risk is that if we go too quickly, that void will be
there. If we plan with them, bring in the private sector to
invest as well, it is a gain for all of us, there will be no
void, and we will be the heroes. We will have successful
transition versus failed transition. It is the failed
transitions that will lead to that void and opportunity.
Mr. Alford. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mrs. Torres, thank you for your patience,
and you are recognized.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for holding
this meeting with such an important organization, but I have to
say that I am extremely disappointed that we are continuing to
hold briefings here in the U.S. Capitol where people have no
access unless they are escorted by a staff member while
conducting a tour of the Capitol. You know, so much has
happened. Where is the transparency and accountability? Trump
has completely destroyed our American brand. He and Elon Musk
are isolating us, and you know it, Mr. Chairman. It will not
end well.
In just 11 weeks, Members, 11 weeks in office, Trump has
taken $11 trillion out of our economy, yet here we are talking
about a $4,000 illegal expenditure that was paid back. So you
are so concerned about $4,000, but head in the sand of the $11
trillion that has been taken, stolen out of the pockets of the
retirement accounts of all of our constituents. This is
insanity.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to request unanimous consent to
submit for the record an original, un-doctored DOJ webpage
thanking USAID for critical support capturing and charging the
MS-13 gang leaders because the truth is, USAID has done a great
job for the American people keeping us safe, ensuring that the
people that want to come and do us harm, working with other
governments, like Mexico, don't get to our Southern border. But
yet when the Department of Justice recently arrested three of
those top MS-13 gang leaders in the world on terrorism charges
and publicly thanked USAID as providing critical support for
the mission, a few weeks ago the Trump administration, Mr.
Chairman, shamelessly tried to erase that action by deleting
this document from the DOJ website. So I want us to put it to
the record so that we have some transparency and accountability
about the good work that is being done by USAID.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So again, you are asking to submit that on
the record.
Mrs. Torres. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We will do that without objection.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
Congress can fix this demise that is happening, and why
have we not held a USAID hearing as of yet? Why have so many
Members forgotten their oath to uphold and defend our
Constitution? Breaking the law should be a concern for
everyone, regardless if you have an ``R'' or a ``D'' after your
name, and this administration's blatant illegal acts and the
ignoring of court orders should be at the top of our list, the
law and order party that we say that we are. So here we are.
Ms. Connor, PEPFAR is another example of successful
programs that help both America and the world that are now
under attack. And it is estimated that over 30,000 adult deaths
and over 3,000 child deaths have occurred that are associated
with this administration's foreign aid funding freeze and
discontinuation of the PEPFAR programs. As an HIV practitioner
for many years, can you share with the committee what your
assessment is of the Orphans and Vulnerable Children programs,
and what it means for children now that these programs have
been completely shut down?
Ms. Connor. Thank you for that question. You know, I think
part of the PEPFAR program has always included the desire to
make sure that children grow up in stable and safe homes, free
of exploitation and violence, and that has been since the
beginning of the epidemic, as Ambassador Dybul mentioned, when
there was a real crisis. That still continues today, and, in
fact, what OVC really does is it really strengthens the
community and the caregivers around a child so that they can
thrive. We see this a lot in our work. We are largely a
clinical organization, but we rely on our OVC partners and OVC
programming to supplement what we can't do in that clinical
setting.
One of our community health workers recently told us about
a story, that he was sitting with a recently-diagnosed five-
year old girl. She was diagnosed HIV positive and TB positive,
so gravely ill 5-year-old from a poor family. Mother doesn't
have money. Father doesn't have money. In those situations, the
first thing you do is reach out to your OVC providers. OVC
providers provide nutritional support, economic support,
caregiver support. They are the ones who really go to that
household level, that community level, and say how can we make
sure these children thrive. And when our community health
worker contacted that OVC program, they said, I am sorry, we
have been terminated, there is nothing we can do. And so that
is the level that we are facing. I mean, that is a real patient
experience, but we are seeing it in other places, too.
Another health worker said there is a 10-year-old who had
been struggling to stay on medicine because of food and there
had been food support through OVC, and now that wasn't
available. So I think it is a real struggle because OVC was
sort of characterized as non-lifesaving, that it has not been
prioritized in the waiver process. That doesn't mean it may not
be prioritized after the review is done, but we really are
concerned about the hole that we are seeing there. And one last
thing: there is a Lancet article that came out today that
really puts a finer light on what is happening around children
and orphanhood, and they actually predict that there could be
millions and millions more orphans if PEPFAR funding if it is
ceded or retracted too far.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you for the extra minute. I am going to
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. I think this has been a very
helpful hearing. Let me, again, because people have to move on
in other meetings, and I think everybody has been very good. I
think the witnesses have been extraordinary. Let me recognize
the Ranking Member if you have any further questions or
closing.
Ms. Frankel. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If you can just do your closing as well.
Ms. Frankel. I am going to do my closing with a question.
First of all, I want to thank our witnesses again. You are
so obviously so competent and professional. It has just been an
absolute pleasure to have you here today, and I want to thank,
Mr. Chair, for bringing this hearing and bringing these
witnesses. Exceptional. I don't like to exaggerate or be trite,
but I do think that what we listened to today is earth
shattering, it really is, because there are millions of people
whose lives are at stake. You know, the real possibility of
losing opportunities with Africa, the fastest-growing
population in the world, opportunities in regard to security
and trade. We also heard that we are on the brink of finding a
way to keep people from ever having their HIV come back with a
simple injection every few months. I mean, that is just
absolutely amazing.
But here's what you both said, I think, and that is what I
want to end with. Before I end with the question, I have to
take one more potshot, okay?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Go ahead.
Ms. Frankel. Just one more. He understands me well. Listen,
I just want to say this. A violation of the Helms Amendment
which affected 21 patients--I am not going to minimize your
shock--but it is not an excuse to put 20 million lives in
jeopardy right now. It is not an excuse. We are going to move
on, and we are going to try to do this the right way.
But I think what both of you have said, as I have heard
you, is this, and you can correct me, let's not shatter, let's
not lose what we have had with PEPFAR. Let's find a way to
transition to where other health systems in other countries can
take over, where this can be a sustainable program, which will
mean, really, the United States, our taxpayers, to be able to
use their money in different ways, but maybe in other ways to
stop other calamities.
This is my last question from both of you. Do you both
agree that it is very important that we do not let Humpty
Dumpty fall on the ground all shattered before we try to make
this transition, that we have to make sure there is prevention,
that the whole comprehensive PEPFAR is looked at before we are
able to transition? I am trying to say that as diplomatically
as I can, and that does mean that have to make sure, the CDC,
USAID--well, we don't have USAID, but the pieces of USAID--the
Defense Department, the Global Fund, that those pieces are
working, too. Did I make my question clear here?
Ms. Connor. I think so.
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Ms. Connor. I am happy to go first. You know, I would hope,
Ranking Member Frankel, that your taxpayers and your
constituents were proud of PEPFAR. You know, I would hope that
they would see the work that has been done and really consider
it an American success story, not just an African success
story. You know, it has been very personal, I think, to many
Americans who are knowledgeable about the program that we have
been able to save so many millions of lives. And one of the
things I have reflected on is sort of, you know, in the polling
that is done that shows that Americans really like this, you
know, I think it resonates because it is some of the values
that they see in their own communities, that we don't let
families suffer unnecessarily, that Americans are uniquely
built to tackle big problems, and this is a big problem that
Americans have tackled, and I think they should be really proud
of that.
So as we look ahead, we shouldn't forget those values and
why that is so important. And again, I think Ambassador Dybul
and I are aligned in many ways that, you know, we do need to
think of a transition and sustainability plan. But first we
have to look at the capacities that are there, you know, and
really reassess what are those capacities we have, what are the
strengths of American ingenuity and American companies that we
really want to bring to bear. I think we have to look at sort
of the goals we still want to achieve. PEPFAR's mission has
been very clear. It has been meant to save lives, reduce
infections, put people on treatment, and stop people from
dying, especially children, dying of AIDS. Are those still the
goals? And then you can look at a sustainability plan on a
country-by-country basis and say, here is where we can move,
here are the roles and responsibilities we are going to share,
here are the roles and responsibilities that have moved on to
you, here is where private sector can leverage this work and
really help us bring those innovations, like digital health,
like AI, like those new prevention technologies, to bear.
It is a longer conversation. I don't think it is just a
U.S. policy talking to the National Government's discussion. I
do think you need all the partners at the table to really go
through it and assign those roles and really think to the
future, because I don't think we want to arbitrarily pick a
timeline and, as you said, sort of waste all the
infrastructure, waste all the work we have done because we
decided that we wanted to be out by a certain day, and all
those reasons we were doing this work no longer mattered.
Ms. Frankel. Mr. Dybul.
Ambassador Dybul. Thank you to this Subcommittee, and to
the Chair and Ranking Member, and to the whole committee for
holding this hearing, first of all, because there are so many
other things to do, and for your constant bipartisan support. I
do think you framed it exactly right. We have the opportunity
to have not only the legacy of the last 20 years, but a
tremendous diplomatic, national security, and economic success.
So we do want to transition from financing over time, but we
want to transition to stronger economic, national security,
diplomatic partners, and that we can do. It will be different
country by country. There are some countries that will require
long-term support because of their socioeconomic status. Others
can move more rapidly. And I would like to emphasize again that
if we move too quickly, the groups most likely to be impacted
are faith- and community-based organizations because
governments don't actually have mechanisms to fund them, but we
know, because we have done it in the past, we can support them
to create those mechanisms.
So we have an opportunity before us, similar to 25 years
ago when PEPFAR was started, we have an opportunity to have a
massive win for the United States on all levels by having
successful transitions, by working with the countries. And I
can guarantee you that the countries want that transition, but
it has to be done in a staged, structured way rather than a
chaotic rapid retreat.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Again, thank you both. Mr. Chair, I
just have a request. I mean I think what we heard today is so
important. I hope that we can find some consensus to deliver a
message, not a political message. We have got to keep PEPFAR
stabilized, keep the component parts together now so that we
can do this transition because you cannot transition from
nothing or from a mess. It will cost a lot more money. So I
hope that we can find some way to deliver this message that I
think I have gotten from these two witnesses today in a very
nonpolitical way and then move towards the transition that we
have heard about, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much. Let me, again, thank
both of you. I think this was very helpful. It is amazing what
you can get done when we actually have folks who understand
what they are doing and who understand the subject matter,
because I love activism, but it is nice to be able to do this
here in a forum where we have been able to talk about it. So it
is clear we have a lot of work to do as we put the fiscal year
2026 bill together, and I think we have heard some great
recommendations and some great ideas today. It is clear that we
have to increase accountability, ensure transparency, and we
can always do more and better, and we always have to strive to
do more and better in that sense, and so I think today's been
very helpful.
With that, Ambassador Dybul and Ms. Connor, thank you again
for your time. One thing that we never get back, right, is our
time, and so with that, this concludes today's hearing.
The Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State,
and Related Programs stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 9:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED
PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Wednesday, May 21, 2025.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESS
THE HON. MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairman Diaz-Balart
Mr. Diaz-Balart. The Subcommittee on National Security,
Department of State, and Related Programs, will come to order.
Secretary Rubio, it is a deep sense of honor and privilege
to have you here with us today to provide testimony on the
President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department
of State and Related Programs.
Before I get started, I want to recognize the
subcommittee's new Members. We have got a tremendous group of
members. Each Member has something very unique to contribute,
and I am so grateful to have them on the panel.
I want to welcome our new Subcommittee ranking Member, my
dear friend, Lois Frankel. The Secretary, actually, Lois, and I
go back many, many years. We served together in the Florida
Legislature. And while the Ranking Member and I don't agree on
everything, I cannot think of a better partner in leading the
subcommittee.
I would also like to welcome the new members of the
subcommittee--from the majority. Julia is not here, but we have
Julia Letlow, who is a returning Member of the subcommittee;
John Moolenaar, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on
the Chinese Communist Party; Mark Alford, who brings important
experience from the Armed Services Committee, among other
things. And from the Minority we have, again, a personal friend
of mine, Mike Quigley, who has joined the Subcommittee.
Now, I would also like to take a moment to recognize our
subcommittee Vice Chairman. I didn't forget you, Chuck. On the
contrary. Chuck has been a tremendous vice chair, and I look
forward to continuing working together with you. And I want to
thank the chairman of the Full Committee, obviously, for
appointing such a great member.
Finally, I need to acknowledge our tremendous leader, the
Full Committee chairman, Tom Cole, who, again, I think there is
nobody better in the country to lead this Committee; and his
counterpart, Ranking Member DeLauro.
Chairman Cole did an important thing, among the things that
he has done, to this Subcommittee at the beginning of Congress,
change its name to better reflect the investments being made on
behalf of the American people that are intended to advance U.S.
national security. I am committed to ensuring that the fiscal
year 2026 National Security Department of State and Related
Programs Appropriation bills does just that.
Let me once again welcome Secretary Rubio. I firmly believe
that there is no one better in our entire country who could
serve as our Secretary of State in this critical time.
Mr. Secretary, your steadfast leadership, your devotion to
country and to freedom, and your focus on national security are
exactly why you have my full confidence in advancing President
Trump's foreign policy agenda.
In just 4 months, in just 4 months, the President, with
your assistance, Mr. Secretary, has achieved really remarkable
victories for the American people and our national security.
Let me just name a few.
Taking back the Panama Canal from China's influence.
Freeing 47 American detainees abroad; designating the Houthis,
the cartels, and also dangerous criminal gangs as Foreign
Terrorist Organizations; obtaining the Bahamas' pledge to
directly pay Cuban doctors, ending the practice of human
trafficking, and compelling the Government of Colombia to
accept deported migrants as to what was arranged. All of this
while carrying out several other important official duties. It
truly has been tremendous to watch, Mr. Secretary. So, again, I
congratulate you, and the President, for the choice that he
made in having you in this position.
Now, turning to the matter at hand. Mr. Secretary, the
spending proposal of the fiscal year 2026 budget request for
the Department of State represents a reduction of about 48
percent. It is also largely offset by rescissions from prior
year balances.
I intend to provide the same scrutiny on the budget request
as I have in the past years. As you know, there are some large
gaps obviously in the information that we have at this time, so
I hope we will receive the details backing up the request as
quick as possible.
Since I became Chairman of this Subcommittee over 2 years
ago, I have overseen, and supported, a notable reduction in
funding for the international affairs budget. The last two
House bills cut funding in the double digits, and the fiscal
year 2024 bill enacted into law saw the largest cut of all 12
appropriation bills at 6 percent in real numbers. The fiscal
year 2025 bill made a few additional reductions.
Now, there was a reason why I pressed for those cuts. The
Biden administration was pushing, frankly, an extreme agenda
across the State Department and USAID. I repeatedly, repeatedly
warned and publicly and privately warned that promoting
controversial programs abroad would not only weaken American
support for foreign aid, but also, really more importantly,
harm U.S. interest, and even endanger national security. In
last year's budget hearing for USAID, I told Administrator
Power that funding and promoting polarizing and politically
charged programs will mean additional cuts to the
Subcommittee's top line because it is just indefensible.
So, I completely understand, Mr. Secretary, and support
your efforts to carry out a review and defund woke programs and
misguided activities.
I have a number of inquiries remaining about the review
process and status of awards, as do many of the Subcommittee
Members here, so I know, Mr. Secretary, that I can count on you
to work with us in those very important steps.
Now it is time to work together on the fiscal year 2026
budget to determine the appropriate funding levels going
forward for the people and programs needed to advance our
national security. And if we can't show that we are doing that,
we shouldn't be funding it.
Now, from ensuring our key allies and partners around the
world have the military assistance required to defend
themselves, to preventing deadly infectious disease from
reaching our shores, to investments that lay the groundwork for
American businesses abroad, to supporting those suffering under
tyranny by standing in solidarity against oppressive and often
dangerous anti-American dictatorships, that is American
leadership, something President Trump has shown and that has
been sorely lacking, I would add, in the last 4 years.
In the meantime, it is critically important that we work
together to ensure that you have a domestic and overseas
workforce with the size and capability necessary to manage and
oversee the programs that were funded in fiscal year 2025 and
that are potentially forthcoming in fiscal year 2026,
especially as you continue to take on certain responsibilities,
obviously that were previously carried under by USAID, whatever
those may be.
Even as we better align our foreign assistance with
strategic priorities--and, Mr. Secretary, you have been very
clear about that--oversight remains essential and requires a
right amount of people with the right skillsets. So again, Mr.
Secretary, I look forward to working with you on this in the
weeks and months ahead as you further develop your plan and
your reorganization.
Mr. Secretary, the President's foreign policy is clear and
showing results for the American people. And your capacity to
advance that foreign policy is, frankly, unmatched. I look
forward to working with you to ensure you have the resources
and tools to be successful in advancing President Trump's
America First foreign policy.
Now, let me turn to the very distinguished ranking Member
for her opening remarks. You have the floor.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Frankel
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it is an honor to
work with you.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary. I hope you are going to find
this is a very thoughtful Committee, both sides of the aisle.
And I would like your participation for us to work together.
Secretary Rubio. Yep.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. You and I and Chairman Diaz-Balart, we
go way back to our time in the Florida Legislature, and I was
very happy to join you at your welcoming ceremony when you came
into the State Department. I thought your speech was inspiring.
Thank you for that.
But today I come with a deep sense of alarm, not to be
personal in any way, but because I have a serious disagreement
with some of the policy.
With so many conflicts around the world, we are at a crisis
point in the American's foreign policy and humanitarian
leadership. The progress of this country under both Republican
and Democratic administrations that we built over decades is
now being dismantled recklessly, needlessly, and dangerously.
And I say, why should Americans care. And the answer is simple.
Foreign assistance is a strategic investment. It costs less
than 1 percent of our Federal budget, yet delivers enormous
returns for our national security, our economic
competitiveness, our health, and our global standing.
I don't know if you know this, but my son Ben is both an
officer in the United States Marine Corps, an artillery
officer. He served all over the world, including Afghanistan
and Iraq, and then he went back and served in USAID also around
the world. And he agrees with many military experts who will
tell you that investing in soft power means less spending on
weapons of war and less brave soldiers coming home in body
bags.
USAID, our nation's premier development agency, has been
central to this strategy. It has helped prevent violent
extremism through education, stopped deadly pandemics before
they reached our shores, and delivered American-grown food to
the world's most desperate corners. And yet, under this
administration, we are witnessing Elon Musk's chainsaw taken to
the entire system.
While taking away food security, healthcare, economic
opportunities away from the poorest people in the world,
Republicans are, sadly, focused on giving tax cuts to
billionaires. My, my, my. I know my committee office hears me
saying that. My, my, my. The richest man in the world--not
you--Mr. Musk--killing the poorest children in the world.
President Trump's January 12 executive order launched what
was called a review of foreign assistance, and it is hard to
believe that a responsible review was done in such a short
time. It became a chaotic freeze and termination of over 80
percent of foreign aid programs, more than 5,200 across 100
countries, without consultation with Congress, without public
criteria, and without a plan. Just canceled.
Let's talk what this actually meant on the ground, just
some examples. Millions of people in the world left starving,
including in Nepal, a critical nutrition program serving over a
million women and children was canceled over night, leaving no
transition, no staff, no delivery mechanism. And the government
has now stopped purchasing therapeutic food because there is no
one to distribute it.
Education for 40 million children around the world was
halted, including education and work opportunities in Central
America, aimed at preventing violence in communities and making
people less likely to migrate, undermining United States'
immigration goals.
And in April, we heard from a PEPFAR implementer who told
this Committee that HIV testing programs were cut. Even while
prevention services were still technically funded, it was
impossible for pregnant women to know they are infected they
even needed care, and that itself is projected to add 26
million new infections in just a few years.
And although these programs were lawfully appropriated and
competitively awarded and underway, yet Congress was not
consulted on award terminations. And this is also--which was
just so sad--thousands of hardworking Americans and foreign
partners who were sent on a mission by us then had their lives
turned upside down in minutes.
Implementing partners were left in the dark, embassies had
no answers, the so-called lifesaving waivers were announced
with fanfare, but with no process.
So instead of building allies, we are leaving vacuums. And
what happens when the rest of the world is hungry, illiterate,
agitated, and afraid for their future? They turn to whoever is
offering help, whether that is China or an armed terrorist
group.
China has conducted development projects all over the
world. And in Cambodia, just 1 week after we canceled maternal
and child health programs, Chinese officials announced nearly
identical efforts. And let's not forget what happens when
disenfranchised men turn to ISIS or al-Qaida.
And here at home the fallout continues. Florida farmers--
actually, all our farmers around the country--have lost
international food contracts. U.S. university research labs
have gone dark. Nonprofits in our communities have had to lay
off workers. Data shared just recently reported that European
business bookings in April are down 26 percent because of the
message that we are sending to other countries.
We all want efficiency and we all want accountability, but
a serious government doesn't throw Humpty Dumpty off a wall and
hope we can put him back together again, which is what we are
afraid of here.
The haphazard and chaotic way this has been done--it just
makes waste, fraud, and abuse more likely. This likelihood is
actually reported in a USAID and State Inspector General's
report.
Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to enter into the record two
recent reports by the State Department and USAID Office of the
Inspector Generals highlighting the complexity and changes
needed to successfully integrate humanitarian global health and
development assistance into the State Department.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So done without objection.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned in your--we have a typewritten
statement that you made, and there was a mention of what looks
like a $20 billion rescission. I am not sure whether that is a
take-back from the 2025 budget or the 2026, but I could tell
you this, to me it is a no-go.
And I do have an ask, and it is very respectful, and I want
to say this again. The people on this Committee, we got on this
committee because we believe in the value of foreign
assistance. And I think every one of us wants to work with you.
This is a thoughtful group of people. So I am just respectfully
suggesting this, that you hold off on the staff and program
reductions immediately and develop with us a plan to go forward
because I think, if we work together, we can make our country
safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you to the ranking member.
It is a privilege now to yield to the chairman of the full
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Tom Cole, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Chairman.
Opening Statement of Chairman Cole
The Chairman. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the privilege is to
be the first person who is not a member of the bipartisan
Florida mafia to actually be able to speak at this meeting. I
want to commend my colleagues for their rise in position.
My friend, the Chairman, is my classmate, as well as my
partner on this Committee, and my co-Chairman, and it is a
great honor to be with him. And Ms. Frankel is a wonderful
Member. We have served a lot of years together on Labor-H.
This really is, Mr. Secretary, one of our very, very best
Committees.
And it is always a pleasure to be with the ranking Member
of the Full Committee, again, my partner for many years on
Labor-H as well, and now at the pinnacle level of the
Committee.
Mr. Secretary, it is a great honor to have you here today.
As you know, this is the newly renamed Subcommittee on National
Security, Department of State, and Related Programs. More than
mere terminology, the change reflects renewed commitment to
strategic engagement and diplomacy to build a stronger and more
secure future. We are leading with sharpened purpose to ensure
Americans are safer at home and abroad. The work of the State
Department is core to this mission and the cause of freedom,
and every action and investment we make should protect and
promote U.S. security, prosperity, and values.
Secretary Rubio, we know your commitment to that duty, and
it is an honor to have you here with us this afternoon. From
day one, you have acted as a force multiplier for the
President, and we deeply appreciate your service to our
country.
As you know, Mr. Secretary, peace through strength isn't a
matter of chance. It is the result of effective policy,
national focus, and marshaling resources to where they drive
maximum impact.
The America First agenda, which has been mandated by the
people, advances that critical doctrine. It is not about
retreating from the world stage, but resetting our guiding
principles. No longer will weakness and the detrimental
policies of the previous administration harm our Nation. And no
longer will U.S. taxpayer dollars be funneled to extreme
agendas and initiatives that have undermined trust in foreign
assistance programs.
The Trump administration has been clear about a new path
forward from the very beginning. That is why I support your
efforts, Mr. Secretary, to reorganize and streamline department
operations and better integrate programs with our diplomatic
and strategic objectives.
I will note that the rapid pace of certain restructuring
has caused some concerns and may require adjustments. Reforms
must ensure meritorious programs are not lost, while also
improving the benefits that they deliver. We recognize that
being accountable and effective are not binary choices, and we
should ensure that deployed instruments of power support our
interests, deter our enemies, and deepen our strength on the
world stage.
As we look to the summary of your fiscal year 2026 request,
these efficiencies and mandates are reflected. This committee
commends this start and is eager for a complete budget to
ensure you have the resources needed to carry out core
diplomatic functions, effectively counter China and other
adversaries, strengthen our alliances and critical
partnerships, such as our ironclad commitment to Israel, world
economic competitiveness, and keep America the beacon of the
free world.
Moving forward, we are committed to working with you and
the authorizing committees, to ensure that the Department has
the capabilities, flexibility, and people it needs to represent
the full range of our interests abroad in the service of
American national security.
Finally, again, let me reiterate what I said at the
beginning. We are exceptionally proud of your appointment. I
think the President chose wisely and well when he put you in
this position. And I am extraordinarily impressed with the
speed and the energy that you have acted on since your day of
confirmation. So we want to be your partners and your friends
as you push forward on a new agenda that, frankly, needed to
happen and that we are fully supportive of.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will now yield, and it is a pleasure, to the ranking
member of the full Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for
her opening statements. You have the floor.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Frankel. It is an honor to be here with the chair of the
Appropriations Committee, my dear friend. And I want to say
thank you for holding what is an extremely important hearing on
the Trump administration's budget request for the Department of
State.
Secretary Rubio, good afternoon. I welcome you to the House
Appropriations Committee for your first budget hearing. Thank
you for appearing with us here today.
As you know, bipartisanship allows us to govern in the
interest of the Nation. However, I cannot thank you for your
proposal to slash funding for the Department of State by $51.6
billion, an 84 percent cut to our ability to conduct diplomacy
and save lives around the world.
But before we talk about your request to suffocate your own
department next year, I want to talk about what is happening
right now.
Mr. Secretary, this administration is dismantling programs
that save lives, and protect our national security, for the
sake of a tax cut for billionaires. It is recklessly and
unlawfully freezing and stealing congressionally appropriated
funds from agencies, programs, and services across the
government.
Congress holds the power of the purse. It is right there in
the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. And while
this administration has engaged in the unrestrained destruction
of institutions across our government, nothing compares to the
human consequences of what is happening under your watch.
I might add that for FY 2025, we are on a continuing
resolution. We are following the 2024 budget. And there are
directives in that budget, and if we are to follow the letter
of the law, which is you pass it in the House, you pass it in
the Senate, the President signs the legislation and you have a
law, and that law says that, for 2025, we are going to move in
the direction of the 2024 budget. That is not happening, and we
need to question that.
There is, as I pointed out, unrestrained destruction of
institutions across our government.
You followed the orders of unelected billionaire Elon Musk
and oversaw the evisceration of USAID and a freeze on programs
actively saving the lives of vulnerable people around the
planet. Food for people on the verge of famine already on ships
was halted. Administration of lifesaving treatments for
horrific diseases was stopped. Your actions have cost human
lives already and will cost many more in the near and long-term
future. It is despicable, it is shameful, and it is a stain on
our Nation that may never be fully erased.
The funding freeze was made under the guise of eliminating
waste, fraud, and abuse, but the American small farmers who
feed millions around the world are not waste, and the human
lives they support are not either. I am all for finding and
eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, something Inspectors
General Richardson and Martin at State and USAID, respectively,
were tasked with doing before they were illegally purged in the
dead of night. The administration has not brought one
allegation of fraud or misuse to this Committee either.
And, Mr. Secretary, I know that I do not need to lecture
you on what soft power is and how it works. You used to be well
aware of how having the world on our side through diplomacy,
cultural influence, and through humanitarian aid keeps
Americans safe and our economy strong and growing. But your
familiarity with the irreplaceable role of the institutions you
oversee makes it even more baffling as to why this
administration has seemingly done everything in its power to
estrange us from our allies and sow distrust of America around
the world.
Insulting and abandoning our allies does not put America
first. Cozying up to dictators and accepting lavish gifts from
petro-states does not put America first. Taking food from the
mouths of the most vulnerable people in the world, millions of
whom are children, does not put America first.
When we are helping impoverished communities and nations
treat diseases, when we are feeding starving children in
conflict zones, and when we help ensure villages have drinkable
water, we are using and gaining soft power.
We do these things because they are the right thing to do.
We also do these things because they are in our own interest.
They build influence, our global standing, and strengthen our
national security. When we retreat from the global stage, China
and Russia fill in the gaps, and the world becomes a more
dangerous place for Americans.
Whose name is on the sack of flour, the door of the clinic,
on the schoolbook? The United States of America, period. It
must remain that way. Both political parties and you understood
that in the past.
While we only have a few lines of political rhetoric
masquerading as a budget to work with, this is what we do know
about you, what you are proposing for the Department of State
next year. You create a slush fund for the President while
abandoning our allies and partners around the world with an 84
percent cut to diplomats and development experts. You cut
educational and cultural exchanges by 93 percent. You cut
support for people in the poorest countries in the world,
depriving millions of clean water and sanitation, putting them
at risk of death from cholera and diarrhea, and depriving them
of food and shelter.
You cut our ability to cooperate on narcotics control and
law enforcement by over $1.2 billion, increasing the threats of
transnational crime, terrorism, and drug and human trafficking.
This does not make America stronger, safer, or more prosperous.
The administration is putting billionaires and our
adversaries first. Americans, our allies, and vulnerable people
around the world will be worse off for it.
As the leading Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, I
assure you we will not stop fighting to protect America's
interests and against this administration's dangerous
dismantling of our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts across
the world.
I thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much.
Secretary Rubio, your full written statement will be placed
in the record, so, you know, feel free to summarize your
testimony. As I said before, it is a privilege and honor to
have you here. You are now recognized, sir.
Statement of Secretary Marco Rubio
Secretary Rubio. Thank you.
And thank you for having me here today. And I am not going
to go off the written testimony. How about I just tell you what
is happening.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. The committee will be in order. The
chairman reminds our guests that disruptive demonstrations from
the audience are a violation of the House and will not be
tolerated.
Secretary Rubio. So let me just talk to you about the goal
here. Our foreign policy has to, once again, return to the
national interest. That is what it needs to be built on. We
need to define what the national interest is, what is good for
America. That doesn't mean we don't care about the world. That
doesn't mean we don't care about great causes on this planet.
But it means that when it comes to the conduct of foreign
policy, whether it is the policies we stake out or the dollars
we are spending, it has to be aligned with defined national
interest. What is in it for America?
Now, you could argue that alliances are in it for America.
You can argue, and we can, that in some cases humanitarian
assistance or development assistance and all these sorts of
things are in our national interests, and we are going to
continue to make that argument. We are going to continue to be
the world's most generous provider of humanitarian assistance,
of food assistance, of development assistance way more than any
other country.
We already are, and we are going to continue to be, but we
are going to do it differently. And we have to do it
differently, because we are engaged in a very different world
than the one that existed 30 years ago or 40 years ago, in some
places 50 years ago, when some of these programs were set up.
So there are two things that I want to focus on today in
the 3 minutes that I have or less here with you. Obviously we
will get into your questions. The first is the reorganization
of the State Department. It is not designed to either cripple
the Department in any way--it is not even a cost-savings
endeavor. It is more about being able to deliver results in a
better way. What we want to do empower our regional bureaus and
our embassies.
Here is how I want this--this is how we want this to work.
We want to be able to go to--let me back up. The most important
thing I read every single day, every morning I get a book with
10 or 15 cables from our embassies around the world. The best
ideas, the best innovations that I get from our building--and
this is not disrespectful to the people working here in
Washington--is from the embassies and from the cables. They are
identifying problems and opportunities well in advance of some
memo that works its way to me.
We want to get back to a situation--or we want to get to a
situation where we are empowering ideas and action at the
embassy level and through our regional bureaus. Those are
literally the front lines of American diplomacy. And so we have
structured a State Department that can deliver on that.
The second thing--and included is to understand the full
toolbox available to us to advance the national interest. And
in the past, unfortunately, humanitarian assistance and
development assistance and AID and what the State Department
does have in some cases been unrelated, in other cases have
found themselves to be in conflict.
So what I want and what we want is for our regional bureaus
to have available to them aid, diplomacy, economic development,
all of these different tools in the toolbox of statecraft and
tailored to the specific country and/or region based on our
national interest. That is what we seek to deliver on.
And that is why we wanted--and by the way, I am not the
first Secretary of State. Multiple secretaries of state,
starting with Condoleezza Rice, I believe Secretary Albright
herself, and others, privately have wanted to bring AID and all
of it underneath the fold of the State Department so that aid
is provided through the context of our broader foreign policy.
And I want to be frank with you about this as well. There
are a lot of great causes in the world, but we don't have
unlimited resources. We never have and we never will. And even
though we spend more than anybody else, these resources have to
be tailored as part of a broader strategy, and, frankly, they
have to have some return on the United States as well.
There are countries in this world where we have invested a
lot of money, I mean a lot of money, in humanitarian
assistance, even in development assistance. And so you go and
you hear about these countries; we feed people, we take care of
their medical systems, we even help them build their security
services, but all the minerals contracts are with China, all of
the other benefits are with China. There has got to be some
situation here where we say, hold on a second, there has to be
some relationship between the amount of help we give and what
the United States is getting out of it.
That includes their votes in international organizations.
There are countries we have poured billions of dollars into
over the year who consistently vote against our interests in
international relations. You know who doesn't do that? You know
who doesn't tolerate that? China doesn't tolerate that. They
don't tolerate that. All of their help is leveraged.
By the way, all of their help is primarily loans. So they
lend you money that you pay them back so you can hire Chinese
companies to do work in their country with Chinese workers.
That is what they call aid. And that is what they still call
aid.
So the purpose here is to structure a State Department and
ultimately--that can deliver on the foreign--on the national
interests of the United States driven at our regional bureaus.
We are not withdrawing from the world. We are not
withdrawing from foreign aid, but we are going to engage in the
world and we are to conduct foreign aid and foreign assistance
in a way that furthers the national interest.
Not only do I look forward to working with you, I have to
work with you because you are the appropriators, and you are
the ones that write the budgets and you--or the appropriations
bills. And by the way, we welcome to taking input through this
process. We need that input because our intention here is to
leave something behind that is good, not something that is
counterproductive or in some ways does something unintended
that is negative.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Members, I will call on Members based on seniority of those
present when the hearing was called to order, obviously
alternating between each side. Each member will have 5 minutes
for questions and the responses. And I anticipate that we will
have enough, potentially, time for maybe two rounds. We do have
a hard stop at 4 o'clock.
I will start, Mr. Secretary. You know more than most the
plight of the oppressed and the fragility of freedom. And I
think democracy programs, when potentially done right, without
an extreme policy agenda, woke agenda, agenda du jour, can be a
valuable national security tool to advance our safety, our
security, and, frankly, our values abroad.
Now, while the skinny budget, we understand why it doesn't
address democracy programs, but a lot of these awards were
terminated during the assistance review.
Now, I will tell you, Mr. Secretary, I had a, sadly, a
front row seat to the Biden administration's effort to co-opt
important bipartisan programs to advance the woke agenda while
damaging our national security. And by the way, democracy
programs were a big part of that. So I get it. But, we need to
get back into basics and get back into the game in the right
way.
So what can you tell me about your plans and the
President's plans and policies to support freedom around the
globe, and what are your plans as far as potentially for
democracy? Is that a priority, democracy programs? So give me
your read on that.
Secretary Rubio. Well, a couple things. First of all, I
think in the context of our broader foreign policy, we need to
recognize that there are countries, for example, whose
governing systems are not the ones we would want for our own
country, but, nonetheless, we need to have a relationship with
them because it is in our geopolitical interest.
Two countries I recently visited, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Saudi Arabia is not a democratic society, but yet they are an
important strategic partner for us in the Middle East for a
variety of reasons.
On the other hand, you see where there are opportunities,
and you would hope to be able to support a vibrant democracy
development in places in our hemisphere, as an example. And I
think what that draws to bear is that what democracy promotion
or programs like this mean will vary from region to region and
country to country.
I think we all wish we lived in a Pollyanna world where
everything was equal across the board, but the fact of the
matter is that foreign policy never looked like that. We have
always had to treat different countries in different ways,
sometimes because our geopolitical interests require it.
That said, I think it is also important in these programs--
just because a program--and I am not criticizing any program in
particular--but just because a program has a nice and
impressive title, democracy promotion, well, I think we would
all be supportive of democracy promotion. But at some point,
these programs have to prove that they are actually promoting
democracy, that they are actually delivering on an outcome.
And so, again, I am not speaking about any program in
particular, but when you have been promoting democracy in some
society for 20 years and have made no advances, you have to ask
yourself--at least at a minimum--you have to ask yourself, are
we spending the money on the right thing? Is it with the right
people and in the right way?
And so I do think that these things are worthy of review,
but, ultimately, if we see opportunities that fit our national
interest, to promote democracy, to promote pluralism in a
society, we are going to--I can give you--I keep going back to
this because it is very recent, but, you know, you would hope
one day, for example, that we would be able to promote, if
possible, and whatever efforts we can do, a society in Syria,
which right now is under a transitional authority run from--by
some people that I know have some difficult pasts, but,
nonetheless, have expressed a desire at a national project,
meaning, they want to build a country. They are not interested
in fighting a war with Israel, they are not interested in
exploiting revolution or becoming a playground for jihadists.
And in order to have a real functioning society in Syria,
you are going to have a government that is inclusive of
Alawites and Druze and Sunni, some elements of Shia, and Kurds
and Christians. And if we can help somehow in bringing that
together, we would be open to doing it, but it has got to be a
program that actually has a chance to succeed, not just some
NGO with a nice title and they pitch us a contract.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Very little
time, and I am going to keep myself to the clock as well. I am
so sorry. I may cut you off at the end of your answer.
So very briefly, look, one of the flaws, I think, during
President Obama's Iran JCPOA was that it did not cover Iran's
ballistic missiles, their support, you know, for terrorists and
proxies. Can you give us an idea--and, again, I don't have a
lot of time and I am going to cut you off, so just know that--a
little bit about those talks with Iran.
Secretary Rubio. Well, again, I can't tell you as much
because, you know, when you are in the middle of a negotiation
you don't want to imperil it. Suffice it to say that the
President and his entire team has been very clear. Iran cannot
have an enrichment capability because that ultimately makes
them a threshold nuclear power. And there are sanctions related
to terrorism, sanctions related to their ballistic missiles
program and the like. Those sanctions, if they are not part of
the deal, they will remain in place if those things are not
addressed. But the enrichment piece is the key piece, and we
continue to say that Iran cannot have an enrichment capability.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
And, members, you see that the Chairman stuck to the clock.
I am going to demand that everybody else does the same thing.
To the distinguished Ranking Member, you are recognized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
And I agree, Mr. Chairman, in terms of Iran, no enrichment,
but no funding proxies. We have got to stop their terrorist
activities.
Mr. Secretary, we all like efficiency, and every President
has a right to review programs, but with all due respect, what
has been happening is backwards.
Congress created USAID as an independent agency. Then
without Congress, the administration has unilaterally
dismantled USAID. Now you are bringing some functions, you say,
over to the State Department.
I want to ask you about what is going on with all these
people who are working, first of all, who are working for the
USAID. There are thousands of them all over the world, I
understand, some of them brought back, some haven't, and some
are waiting until June or July and they will be permanently
fired. Maybe you can give me those statistics.
Under Title 5 authorities, if an agency function is
transferred to another agency, you must hire the employees from
the old agency first. Is that something that you are going to
do?
Secretary Rubio. Well, first of all, you are right about
employees are in staggered return status. Some of them,
frankly, are because their kids are finishing school or some
medical need or a pregnancy, and so we wanted to be
accommodating. We have actually allowed some to come back as
late as September, October depending.
As far as the function is concerned, well, the function
will be the same, in essence--humanitarian assistance, food
aid--but it will be conducted out of the State Department and
with new contracts. And we are in the process today of,
hopefully by July 1, having personnel in place to assume these
responsibilities. And some of them will be former USAID
employees. In fact, we are involved in the interview process
now.
I can't give you a percentage of how many it will be. There
are some others that may be have not been--were not working at
USAID that are interested in applying. And there are some
individuals within the State Department that perhaps had done
development work in the past that would seek to transfer to
that as Foreign Service Officers or career civil servants that
could fill that role.
But I can tell you for certainty that we have had numerous,
large number of former USAID or soon to be former USAID
employees, applying for employment in the State Department in
these different bureaus that we are setting up.
Ms. Frankel. So I understand what is underway. What I don't
understand is what the rush is about. I mean, to just upset
people on a mission, working, dedicated, no fault of their own,
you have turned their lives upside down. But not only that,
disrupted all kinds of programs. I won't go through that.
Why was it such a rush to do that without coming to
Congress and working with us as partners? Because I will tell
you, it is maddening. You want us to give you money for another
budget, and you want us to rubberstamp these actions.
Secretary Rubio. Well, I would say that these are reforms
that people have talked about for a long time. As I said,
multiple secretaries of state have wanted to bring the function
of foreign aid, humanitarian assistance, the like under--all of
it under the umbrella of the State Department, and it never
happened.
And so I think in this case, quite frankly, there is just a
real impatience to get to reform and to restructure. When you
move at that pace, obviously there is going to be some
disruptions, as there have been. I have talked to several of
you during this period of time about some of this in the
process, and it was a lot of hard work, but we feel like we
have turned the corner and are now heading in the direction of
building something that we will be able to deliver on a
national interest.
Ms. Frankel. Well, let me just say, in this case, not
having patience is not a virtue. And I really hope that you are
going to halt some of these actions till we can actually work
with you.
As our Ranking Member said, there are congressionally
directed programs--like family planning; democracy; education;
Women, Peace, and Security--are these things that you are
planning to continue in the State Department?
Secretary Rubio. Nothing that is statutory has changed in
the organizational changes. We did not touch any statutory
functions. Obviously, if Congress passes an authorization, you
know, or--and/or its own reorganization--and we would hope it
would look a lot like ours--and if we can work with you on it,
then that would be ideal because it would make some of these
changes permanent.
Ms. Frankel. The thing is we don't know what your plan is.
It doesn't sound like you know what your plan is yet. So how do
you know what your staffing needs are? I mean, you are firing
all these people before you or we even know what the plan is.
Secretary Rubio. Well, that is in USAID. There has been no
real--I mean, about 180 employees are the only numbers that
have been released from the State Department because we got rid
of an entire bureau, the Global Engagement Center, and one
other. So that is different from USAID. I think that is what
you are referring to in terms of the large numbers.
As far as our plan, well, here is what we did. We sort of
sent a proposed organizational structure. We are now receiving
comments as a result of that proposal, including from members
of this committee and your staff, and people inside of our
building. And then we hope to bring you a congressional
notification on reorganization on the basis of that comment
period.
Ms. Frankel. Mr. Chair, I just have one very important
question left, very quick, because we want to work together.
But I want to ask you whether you will commit yourself to using
the funds that we put in to the congressional directives of
this and the next budget.
Secretary Rubio. Well, that is a decision OMB will have to
bring before you in terms of what it is they seek to do with
the remaining funds that are at this point unspent.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right.
Ms. Frankel. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We are going to move on. And, again, thank
the Ranking Member.
Chairman Cole.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And just before I ask my question, to that point, it would
be helpful--and I know you are trying to do this--if you could
urge OMB to get us a full budget. We are months behind when one
should happen. I give any new administration a lot of latitude.
Nobody can possibly meet the congressional deadlines on this.
But we are at the time now, if we are going to give you the
budget you need in a timely fashion, we need the kind of
information that you and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
were talking about, and we need a detailed proposal, more than
we have gotten. So I would just ask you to lend your voice.
Help us help you.
Now my question. You know, obviously you walked into
office--or came into office at a time of unprecedented
international upheaval, war in places we did not expect to see
war--Europe, in particular--have not seen it on a scale like
this since 1945. You know, it has been a tragedy, obviously,
the loss of life, and I commend you and the President for
talking about that in those kinds of terms. This is a contest
that does need to end.
On the other hand, I look at it and I see an unmitigated
disaster for Russia to this point. I mean, they pushed Sweden
and Finland into NATO. They suffered 900,000 casualties or so.
They, you know, are busy rearming Europe, quite frankly. And
the President was right on that, in his first term, warning the
Europeans about the danger of this kind of threat. But they are
rearming and doing so rapidly.
I know you have been in discussions, obviously, with Russia
and its leaders, and I know the President has as well as
recently as yesterday. So I am just curious of what your
assessment the state of play is and what you think the United
States ought to be doing to try and bring the war to an end
without rewarding an aggressor.
Secretary Rubio. Well, first, the state of play I think is
as follows, and that is that Russia wants what they do not
have. They want to conquer land they do not currently occupy.
And Ukraine wants what they cannot get, which is pushing Russia
all the way back to the lines in 2014, or even before that when
the previous incursions happened.
And so what we have here, basically, is in many ways a
protracted stalemated conflict in which people are dying every
day. And, in fact, that is why you are seeing these long-range
strikes. Since they can only make small advances in one
direction or another on the front lines, they launch UAVs and
they launch drones and they launch rockets into populated areas
far from the battlefield and inflict tremendous harm, as we see
every single night.
The President's goal is to end it. In order to end this
war--this war has no military solution. This war will end at
some point in a negotiated settlement. And the question is,
when does that happen. The sooner it happens, the less people
will die, the less destruction there is going to be. It has to
be a negotiated settlement to a peace that is sustainable, not
a peace that lasts for 3 years and then restarts another war.
In order to get to that peace, in order to get to that
negotiation, you have to be able to talk to both sides, and
both sides are going to have to make concessions. As hard as
that sounds, both sides are going to have to give up things
they want and give the other side things they want. That is the
way negotiations work. The President has wanted to preserve our
opportunity to be able to engage with both sides of this
debate, and that is what we have done.
The President's hopes have been clear, and we have been
clear with the Russian side. Number one, that the President
retains sanctions authority that he has not yet used. All the
current sanctions remain in place. None of the sanctions that
were in place on the day he became President have been lifted.
But there are additional sanctions, and he has alluded to
those.
And the others, which I and others have directly reminded
the Russians of, is there is a congressional effort to impose
sanctions, which at some point in time Congress will lose its
patience with the pace of advances on a peace deal and may very
well impose sanctions that in some ways are even more crippling
than what the President can do on his own.
But we hope we can have a peace deal. Again, it is
difficult. The Russians are supposed to produce a document, or
a memorandum of peace, as they have called it, in the next few
days that will outline what they will require for a ceasefire
that can then lead to a broader negotiation and then a final
settlement. And I think we will learn a lot from what that
memorandum of peace contains. If it is reasonable, then I think
we have made progress. If it is not, then I think we are not
any closer here, and the President will have options available
to him. Let's hope it is the former, not the latter.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
I don't have a lot of time, but I want to ask one quick
question, take what little time you have to respond. Look, I
was--Ranking Member and I, of the full Committee, were actually
in the Middle East in October--Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Israel. I was enormously impressed with what the President
accomplished in this recent visit.
Could you talk to us briefly about the opportunities that
you see coming out of that visit?
Secretary Rubio. Well, there are a number. The first is to
attract foreign investment into the United States for a bunch
of different industries here, and I think that is always
important.
I think the second, obviously, is the ability to find
strategic joint partnerships in different ventures, like, for
example, AI and, in particular, semiconductors. The production
of semiconductors is heavily energy dependent, and so to find
nations that have surplus availability of energy that they can
dedicate to the production of semiconductors and increase the
global supply chain of semiconductors so we are not overly
reliant on one chip plant in Taiwan is critical to our national
security but, frankly, to global stability.
And I think the third, and really was meaningful, was the
speech the President gave in Saudi Arabia at the forum. It was,
I think, a pretty important speech, if you go to it, where he
said a number of things. He doesn't believe in permanent
enemies. He is a builder, not a destroyer. He wants to seek
peace. He actually outlined these two paths that exist, the
path of destruction and war, and then the path of prosperity,
as witnessed in these three countries that he visited. And that
is what we are hoping to advance, and I think we helped
advance, in an important part of the world.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, thank you.
And I want to thank the Ranking Member because, since she
went a little bit over, it made it possible for me not to cut
off the full Committee Chairman, which is always a good thing
to not have to do.
Now we will go to the full Ranking Member.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I just would like to quickly say that a while ago we had a
briefing by USAID senior officials Jim Kunder, Chris Milligan.
What has been done was an 84 percent cut to USAID. It scatters
the remnants of USAID across a dozen State bureaus and almost
guarantees that our competitors will dominate in local
competition. The fact is people have been fired and agencies
and programs have been terminated.
Secretary Rubio, human lives have been lost, extensive
damage is done to the U.S. international standing under your
watch. This would not have happened if the administration had
followed the law and congressional intent.
Congress appropriated foreign aid funding with a clear set
of directives, yet with no notice to Congress, the
administration has broken the law, completely dismantled U.S.
foreign aid, hijacked funding for the State Department and
USAID, at the behest of Elon Musk and DOGE.
I might just say, you don't have the authority, Elon Musk
doesn't have the authority, the President doesn't have the
authority, and OMB doesn't have the authority. The authority to
appropriate funding comes from this body, the United States
Congress, and it is so stated in the Constitution.
You are now sitting on billions of dollars. This
Subcommittee, which appropriated that funding in the first
place, has no idea of how you plan to use them.
Secretary, how do you plan to spend your agency's remaining
fiscal year 2025 money if not as directed by the Congress?
Secretary Rubio. Well, I think the President through OMB is
going to work with you and the Congress on how best to, you
know, reset the funding levels for the new year and how to move
those funds, and we await OMB guidance in that regard.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, I will just say, for months, we have
been asking for a list of which programs were cut and why, and
all we have received is this unintelligible spreadsheet that
does not seem to reflect reality. We need clear answers on how
you plan to spend this year's funding, and I'm asking for a
commitment that you let us know, because you have terminated
programs, you have fired staff. What are you going to do with
that money that was already appropriated?
Secretary Rubio. Well, again, we are waiting for OMB
guidance, and obviously they will reach out and work with
Congress on these funds that have not been spent.
Ms. DeLauro. OMB is not working with Congress. The
President is not working with Congress. You are not working
with the Congress. We need to understand, if we are going to
appropriate dollars, what it is that has happened, what is it
that you propose to do with the billions of dollars that you
have expropriated?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, again, that is a function--as you
know, OMB has those decisions to make and they will have to
work with you on it.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, then I guess you don't have much control
over your agency, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rubio. Well, ultimately--we have a lot of control
because----
Ms. DeLauro. According to public reporting, you have
terminated more than 90 percent of USAID programs, 60 percent
of programs at State, of all our development experts in the
next few weeks and are preparing to fire hundreds more at the
State Department. We need accountability. If we can't get it
from the Secretary, then from whom are we going to get this
accountability? It is your department.
Secretary Rubio. Well, with all due respect, some of your
numbers are incorrect. We have not cut 60 percent of the
funding at the State Department. If you are referring to the
budget request, that is different. There has not been mass
layoffs at the State Department. I think there has been less
than 200 people that have been RIFed from the State
Department--from the State Department.
Ms. DeLauro. I am talking about USAID----
Secretary Rubio. Well, that is a different one.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, no, it is not a different issue. You now
plan to take on, and the gentleman said, you are going to
scatter the remnants of USAID throughout the State Department.
Who is going to make sure appropriated funds are spent
properly?
Secretary Rubio. Well, they are not going to be scattered.
They are actually going to be consolidated in a number--a
couple of funds that deliver, for example, international
humanitarian assistance fund. We will also have an increase to
the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance fund.
Ms. DeLauro. You mentioned previous secretaries who have
looked in this direction, and I just want to say to you that
they decided not to do it because it was ill-advised. There is
15 percent planned cuts to State staff. Now, who is going to
make sure that appropriated funds are spent properly if you
have fired all the staff with experience overseeing the
process? Will you personally be approving every expenditure? I
know you have a lot of jobs already.
Secretary Rubio. No, we are not--first of all, we haven't
fired any experienced staff, other than the people that were
RIFed out of the two divisions in the Department. But other
than that, I said at the State Department there has been only--
under 200 people have been removed. Some have retired and so
forth, but that is normal in any cycle.
We are also going to hire new people, including, as I have
already----
[Clerk's Note.--Response from the Department: ``we're also
going to bring in people from USAID''.]
Ms. DeLauro. My time is short, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rubio. Well, so is mine, and that is why I want
to tell you that----
Ms. DeLauro. My time is short here. My time is short. I
reclaim my time.
You have terminated key monetary evaluation programs allow
us to account for the use of this funding. How does allowing
the money to flow out the door while hamstringing your own
ability to track that money make our government more efficient
and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse?
It is clear that, from the administration and Musk, that
the process is ignorant of the purpose of foreign aid, utterly
unprepared to manage their own dictates, taken a chain saw to
foreign aid with no concern for human lives or the broader
consequences for our security, no plan for the future.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Before I recognize the vice Chairman of the Subcommittee, I
just want to remind members that let's--please, obviously these
conversations are helpful, but if we can allow the Secretary to
answer, I think that would also be helpful.
Vice Chairman, Mr. Edwards, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for being with us. Thanks for taking
on the task that you have. Contrary to the comments you heard
immediately before Mr. Diaz-Balart called on me, I applaud the
work that you are doing. I firmly believe that you are doing
the job that the American people asked of President Trump. And
I would like to associate myself with the comments from
Chairman Diaz-Balart, although I am not part of the Florida
mafia.
I have a great deal of confidence in the job that you are
doing, and I applaud the work that you are doing. It takes a
great deal of courage to make bold decisions like you have,
like President Trump has.
In looking at funding that many of us for years have
questioned, the American people have questioned, the money that
goes out of Washington into foreign countries, I applaud the
fact that you reminded us that the United States is a
humanitarian nation, that we are going to perform our duties to
humanity, that we are committed for--to help development in
other countries, and that you are going to demand that, in
return, the United States get a return, that we are building
relationships and allies.
I look at what you are doing as what most fiscal
responsible folks in government would want us to do. It is a
form of zero-based budgeting. There are so many programs. I
have gone through the list of programs. There are so many, none
of us on this panel can read or understand. I believe that it
was the right decision to hit the pause button and wring out
some of the things that most of us on this panel would agree
that don't need to be there, and then begin to rebuild. I think
it is the right thing to do, even though it takes quite a bit
of courage.
And I also thank you for your openness to restart those
programs. The thing that is not being talked about up here is
the State Department, as you are learning of the programs, as
you are hearing from the embassies, are restarting programs
every single day because you recognize our role in the world.
Mr. Edwards. I am going to ask one simple question, but I
need to use another moment just to reiterate my observation in
Ukraine. I had an opportunity a year or so ago to spend several
days in Ukraine. There is no question that Putin is the
aggressor. He has committed atrocities beyond the comprehension
of most average Americans. I realize the difficulty that it is
when you have got two very egotistical leaders, world leaders,
that we do. And I thought you eloquently pointed out the
difficulty in getting those folks together to stop the killing.
I would urge you and the President to continue applying the
sanctions that we have available to us.
With all that pontification, now I will just ask a simple
question. While I was in Europe, I realized that Radio Free
Europe is an organization which has traditionally gotten funds
from this Subcommittee, through U.S. Agency for Global Media,
to educate the folks as to really what is going on out there
and to fight the propaganda war, which most of us just do not
realize that is taking place. I had a chance to witness that.
What are your thoughts about continuing to fund organizations
like Radio Free Europe?
Secretary Rubio. Well, I think a couple of things. First of
all, they are not in the State Department. We don't operate
those. They are operated independently. I know that they are
going through their own process that the administration is
reviewing. So I don't want to speak about the reform efforts or
what their plans may be because that is not a portfolio that I
am working on. I am working on a lot of other things, but that
is just underneath the State Department.
There are some that have suggested that global engagement--
or Global Media be brought under the auspices of the State
Department. That is not a concrete proposal. I have seen that
bandied about by some. If that is a decision that is made,
then, you know, we will look forward to creating programs that
are effective at delivering these and, most importantly, access
to unfettered and free information given changes in the way
people consume information in the world today.
But that is not something I am involved in right now
because that is outside the umbrella of the State Department.
It is under the umbrella of your Committee, however.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you to the vice Chairman.
I am privileged to recognize Ms. Meng now.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. First, I
wanted to continue to urge you and the President to do
everything in your power to bring home the 58 hostages who
Hamas still holds in captivity. That includes four American
citizens: Itay Chen, Gadi Haggai, Judith Weinstein Haggai, and
Omer Neutra. And I want to urge you to continue efforts to
please get humanitarian aid into Gaza and make sure it is
getting to Palestinian civilians and not Hamas.
Mr. Secretary, I too am extremely concerned that your
actions will prevent the State Department from fulfilling
requirements under Federal law to comply with congressional
directives and fund programs that Congress agrees, bipartisan
agreement, are a priority.
One example is basic education authorized by the
Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development, or READ,
Act. This is a bill that you personally introduced in 2017, and
I was proud to co-lead its reauthorization last year in the
House.
However, during your review of foreign aid, you personally
canceled all international basic education programs. As a
result, an estimated 44 million learners will lose access to
education, vocational, and workforce development programs
supported by the U.S. Government. These are programs that make
us safer, stronger, and more prosperous by building stability
and helping kids stay in school. This is statutory. Under
Federal law, you are required to spend these funds.
What is your plan to fulfill the congressional directives
of the READ Act and ensure millions of children around the
world can stay in school?
Secretary Rubio. Well, number one, we always look--that
would characterize that as development assistance, because that
is what it is; you are trying to build the development
capabilities of a country. And I think those would have to be
driven--you know, we would be open to doing programs that work,
but they would have to be driven because an embassy or a
regional bureau thinks these kinds of programs will work in
this particular setting as opposed to this global view on it.
But just because something is called something nice doesn't
necessarily mean that is what it is delivering on.
There are many of these programs--well, frankly, if you
talk to the partner nation, they would say--I will give you an
example. I was recently in one of the Caribbean nations, and
they are very grateful for help with schools, but their number
one need is security. They have to build up their police
departments and their security assistance. So they would tell
you, before we can focus on our educational systems, we want to
build capacity in our law enforcement so we can provide
security, so they are going to have a society that can flourish
and that can be possible. That doesn't mean education is not
important; it just means that the nation has identified that as
a more important need. And we want to have the flexibility to
be able to prioritize what could be most helpful.
Ms. Meng. So that, I agree, and we would love to work with
you on potential legislation and programming on safety and
security. But this legislation, it is not just something that
sounds nice and has a pretty title. We worked on this
together--the Senate, the House, Republicans, Democrats--it is
something that is important and keeps us safe, and that is, you
know, statutory. That is something that has been touched.
And so I wanted to follow up also in the same vein with
international family planning and reproductive health programs.
You have also canceled all international--all of these
programs. These programs are lifesaving. In 2024 alone, they
were estimated to save the lives of 34,000 women and girls,
prevent over 5 million unsafe abortions, and serve over 47
million women and couples around the world with modern
contraceptive care. You are statutorily required to spend $575
million in bilateral international planning awards as Congress
provided in 2024. What is the plan?
Secretary Rubio. Well, there is no plan. As I said, on
those programs, with regards to that, there is no plan to spend
that money. We are not going to be in that business globally. I
mean, we are not going to do it.
Ms. Meng. So it doesn't matter that Congress passed the
law?
Secretary Rubio. Well, the money--that is not--the money
that has been appropriated is for that purpose, but the way it
has been spent, those programs, the way that money was being
spent and the specific uses, we are not going to continue to do
it in that same way.
Ms. Meng. What is the plan then? I know you talked about
reorganization----
Secretary Rubio. Again, all of those funds that will be
brought under one of the two buckets of humanitarian
assistance, it could be development assistance, it could be
refugee and migration assistance. We will work with Congress to
find a way to channel those funds in a way to comply with the
statute but at the same time are not funding activities that
the administration feels is outside even the purview of the
statute.
Ms. Meng. Okay. I just want to say that that is statute,
that is law. And contrary to your testimony, you are touching
and changing it. And you said you wanted to work together with
Congress. On April 24, almost 90 Members sent you a letter
about these programs requesting a response. We still have not
received a response. I respect that you say you want to work
with us, but we need more than words, we need action.
Secretary Rubio. You will get a response. What day was that
letter?
Ms. Meng. April 24.
Secretary Rubio. Okay.
Ms. Meng. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Chairman Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. And it was a
privilege to work together with you on issues related to China
when you were in the Senate, and I am excited to do so again in
your new capacity especially as you undertake this much-needed
reorganization of the Department.
And following up on your earlier testimony and statement,
you rightly identified China and the Chinese Communist Party as
a principal threat to the United States. And for decades, as
part of its strategy of civil-military fusion, the CCP has
stolen intellectual property to stand up its state-owned
enterprises and build up its military. It is constantly working
to evade export controls to get cutting-edge and legacy chips
to leapfrog the U.S. and the AI race and to supply its missile
systems. We cannot give the CCP the means to displace the
United States.
Recently, the Department of Commerce rescinded the overly
complex AI Diffusion Rule, which intended to cement our lead in
AI technology by limiting U.S. chip sales, particularly to
countries that may allow Chinese entities access.
As Secretary of State, you have a vital role in protecting
dual-use technologies from being used by America's adversaries.
I wanted to ask you, how do you see the replacement to the
diffusion rule taking shape, and what guardrails do you think
are needed to prevent China from syphoning more U.S. innovation
to build up its military?
Secretary Rubio. Well, as you know, the Commerce Department
is undertaking a review of the previous administration's
decisions with regards to specific countries and also specific
technologies. And so we are providing guidance for them on that
regard. We are providing input. Ultimately, they are the ones
that will have to do that. We have heard from a lot of partner
nations, some who feel they were unfairly treated in that
decision, others who feel--were happy with the outcome. So I
know some of those decisions are ongoing. But it is of highest
priority.
The fact that we have to assume that, basically, every
country--or any company that operates in Communist China is
under the control of the CCP. They can be an independent
company that can argue that they are a corporate entity that is
not related to the government. But the truth of the matter is
that, based on our national security law, in China every
company has to do whatever the government tells them to do and
turn over any technologies they tell them to turn over.
In addition to that, because of the civil-military fusion
that exists, virtually any company in China is basically part
of their defense industrial complex. They are. And we have seen
that repeatedly over and over again. And we have seen advances
that the Chinese have made in their own defensive capabilities
and offensive capabilities militarily as a result of technology
transfers.
So it is among the highest of priorities for this
administration to protect against that, and, frankly, it is
also an issue that I raise with every one of my engagement with
our partners. It was a big topic of conversation at the recent
foreign ministers' gathering of NATO last week in Turkiye. So a
growing number of our allies are also interested in similar
moves on their front.
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, thank you very much for raising that
issue because, as you know, acquiring U.S. technology through
third parties is something China is actively trying to do.
There are also national security concerns with Chinese
nationals coming to the United States to study at our colleges
and universities, since the CCP has previously threatened some
students' families if they don't spy for them. And there have
been instances, including in my home State of Michigan, where
Chinese nationals studying in the U.S. engage in trespassing on
a military base.
What can the State Department do to protect our college
campuses and improve the vetting of Chinese Nationals who come
to the U.S. to study?
Secretary Rubio. I mean, it is not a difficult issue. It is
difficult in a sense that where I think we as a people
generally are uncomfortable with saying an entire group of
people from one country cannot come. On the other hand, it is
hard for us to ignore the repeated and large number of
industrial, commercial, and educational research, and
intellectual property theft being tracked back to primarily
graduate students from China.
Now, on the one end you can sort of vet it at the front
end, and there are some that have had links, prior to the
studies in this country, to the intelligence services or
military services. Those are easy to take out. But the others
are more complicated. And that is someone who could be
threatened because their family is back home.
And in many cases, some of these students do not consider
what they are doing to be espionage. They consider it totally
sort of acceptable that if you come across a secret or
something that is valuable, you would bring it back home to
your country.
So it is a huge challenge, and it is one that we take very
seriously, and it is one that is under consideration now. In
fact, there is an interagency conversation happening on
different proposals to address it. But it is one I have always
been was raising for years, especially with our institutes of
higher education in our country.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for being here.
Congratulations on your appointments.
With great power comes great responsibility--the
responsibility to our Constitution, to the American people, and
to the truth. You have built a reputation as someone who stood
up to dictators, someone who defended our democracy from
foreign threats. And I know that firsthand because you, Mr.
Secretary, defended me in the past.
When President Bukele of El Salvador targeted me, telling
his followers, don't vote for Rep. Torres, endorsing my
opponent, and unleashing a campaign of vile threats,
harassment, intimidation, and leading an online lynching
against me three times, your response, Mr. Secretary, was clear
and direct. My home was vandalized with gang graffiti. My
husband was confronted in our front yard while we were having a
toddler swim party. That child is watching us right now. A man
filmed himself planning to shoot me.
Our Justice Department agreed with us in a 2022 court
indictment alleging that Bukele has a deal with MS-13 gang
leaders, receiving support from MS-13, and strategizing on how
to better hide murderers from the public, disappearing them. In
fact, a woman who dared to lead an anticorruption unit in El
Salvador was just arrested by Bukele's attorney general, and no
one knows her whereabouts.
You understood what was at stake then. You called it out.
You stood with me against this outrageous, dangerous
authoritarian.
I am a bit confused with what has happened. You are now
shaking hands and cutting deals with him. And you facilitated
what our Supreme Court has ruled as an illegal rendition--a
Maryland father sent to a torture prison in El Salvador.
In my hand I have evidence here, news reports and
affidavits that detail the deal you worked on with El Salvador
and Bukele's deal with MS-13. I have here interviews with MS-13
gang members revealing the truth behind Bukele's gang ties.
And I ask unanimous consent to enter these documents into
the record.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Without objection, done.
Mrs. Torres. Congress has been very clear. The law requires
you to share these secret agreements. And let me be clear on
which agreements I am talking about. The State Department is
usually the lead agency but, at the very least, a part of
negotiations with foreign countries. Not the Homeland Security,
the State Department. The U.S. has an agreement with El
Salvador. According to the U.S. law, State must share all
international agreements with Congress when requested. And
Congress has requested this agreement numerous times. You have
so far ignored us.
So let me ask you directly, will you commit right now to
handing over the requested agreement that the United States has
entered into with El Salvador under your watch as required by
Congress?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, I am not sure what you are referring
to. The United States--number--two things have happened. The
first is El Salvador agreed to take back nationals--Salvadorian
nationals, including the individual you mentioned. These are
people that were in this country unlawfully, had MS-13 ties,
and they were repatriated to their country.
Mrs. Torres. Okay.
Secretary Rubio. Then there was a group of gang members
from Tren de Aragua in the United States, and he agreed to take
them into his prison system. The United States, in addition to
that, has provided law enforcement funding to El Salvador,
which they are free to use any way they want. They can use it
for their jail system. They can use it for other law
enforcement functions. But that is the deal.
Mrs. Torres. Okay. That is not correct.
Secretary Rubio. No, that is correct.
Mrs. Torres. Those agreements did include giving MS-13 gang
members to El Salvador at their request, right? We turned over
a gang member who committed a murder in the U.S. without
allowing for our judicial system to try him to give some
justice to that family of that murdered victim. But we sent him
to El Salvador because Bukele requested him, because it is in
his best interest to hide his ties with MS-13 gang members.
So do the agreements to send migrants to El Salvador
contain provisions saying that the U.S. retains any future
control over the individuals transferred?
Secretary Rubio. Well, those El Salvadorian citizens are--
--
Mrs. Torres. No, no, no.
Secretary Rubio [continuing]. Citizens of El Salvador. They
are here unlawfully. Gang association is a crime in El
Salvador----
Mrs. Torres. We send----
Secretary Rubio [continuing]. And he will face justice in
his own country.
Mrs. Torres. That is why we send other country nationals to
El Salvador. We disappear them to a prison that is known for
torture and inhumane dealings with their imprisoned people.
How much U.S. taxpayer money did your department send to
Bukele originally?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, Mr. Secretary, I will ask you to
answer very briefly and--because we have to move on.
Secretary Rubio. Yeah. Bottom line is we gave them law
enforcement funding, as we did for other countries in Central
America. And who we sent to them were Tren de Aragua gang
members that Venezuela won't take. So we have to send them
somewhere else. We don't want them in our country. We don't
want these gang bangers in the United States.
Mrs. Torres. I agree with you on that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Chairman Diaz-Balart. Thank you,
Ranking Member.
Secretary Rubio, I want to thank you for your efforts to
really refocus as you have talked about the State Department
and its foreign aid programs and what their core mission should
have been all along, should be now going forward: safeguarding
U.S. interest abroad as a first line of defense. And I agree
with you wholeheartedly; we must see some return to the United
States of America on these programs.
Foreign aid is not, never should have been, a private
charity. While we lap the world in humanitarian aid, we have to
make sure that these taxpayer funds are spent in accordance
with security needs. That is why Chairman Diaz-Balart and
Chairman Cole renamed the Subcommittee National Security,
Department of State, and Related Programs to better reflect
what we are doing here. And that is why I would like to propose
to you, sir, that we reorganize the best, most impactful
foreign aid programs that remain into national security
investment projects. Basically, sir, if it doesn't have to do
with our national security interest, we shouldn't be spending
taxpayer money on it.
A lot of those things fall into this bucket, though, sir,
of national security investment projects. In Jordan--we were in
Jordan last October. I was honored to go with Ms. DeLauro and
Chairman Cole on this congressional delegation trip. There is a
desalinization plant that takes water out of the Red Sea--as
you know, we have invested millions of dollars in this--
supplies drinking water to Amman, Jordan. That country, as you
know, is growing. The parliament is growing. Number of Muslim
Brotherhood members. King Abdullah, we met with him, and he is
very concerned about the state of that country. The folks of
Amman spend one-third of their paycheck on drinking water.
And so it is our national interest, I feel, projects like
these to go forward so these friends of ours that we rely on
and they rely on us can have great relationships. But as you
know, this whole program has gotten screwed up. We spent
$50,000 in taxpayers' money to fund transgender opera in
Colombia; $2 million for sex changes in LGBTQ activism in
Guatemala; $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland.
Mr. Secretary, we are getting a handle on how this all
happened. Okay. I am still trying to get my head wrapped around
this, how did we get this screwed up with these programs. How
do we keep it from happening again, sir?
Secretary Rubio. Well, I think that is precisely the point
of these reforms. Someone has to speak up and say they own
these projects or they think it is going to make a difference.
You highlighted a few. I was just looking here on my papers
because I wanted to read you a few from the, you know, the
greatest hits----
Mr. Alford. Please do.
Secretary Rubio [continuing]. Of some of the programs that
we have identified that--I mean, look, this is not fully
representative of every--you know, $10 million for voluntary
medical male circumcision in Mozambique; $227,000 for Big Cats
YouTube Channel. I don't know what that is, but--$20 million
for fiscal federalism in Nepal; $1.5 million for voter
confidence in Liberia; $14 million for social cohesion in Mali.
You know, the list goes on and on.
I mean, there is more here, but the point being is that
some of these programs--look, there are programs that are
really good in our national interest. You spoke about the
desalination programs in Jordan. We brought most of those back
right away. They actually were part of the initial carve-out.
There was an error made. Those were added in, and the remaining
two programs are coming online.
There are programs that are not bad but are not necessarily
core to our national interest. And then there are some that
were just absurd and ridiculous, and nobody owned them, and no
one could raise their hand and say that is my program, this is
why I think it is important. And in many cases, were coming at
the expense of something else it could have been spent on. That
is what we are trying to avoid. And that is why driving these
decisions and this ownership of what we fund down to the front
lines at our embassies and regional bureaus is so critical to
preventing this from happening again.
Mr. Alford. Since its inception in the 1980s under
President Bush, PEPFAR has saved more than 25 million lives.
This is a program that is critical, but it was never meant to
be a permanent program.
How do we work to ensure--and I have got a plan to curtail
U.S. spending over a period of years, not to just cut it off
entirely, but to turn it over to secular entities rather than
being taxpayer funded through these programs. We have got to
keep this program going until it can gain other legs from other
sources. What is your thought on that, sir?
Secretary Rubio. Well, 85 percent of beneficiaries under
PEPFAR are back on and have been. So that is good news. You are
right about the program. And that is that, ideally, foreign aid
and development programs are programs that end, and they end
because they achieve their goal. And the goal here is to
either, A, end the transmission of the disease, which is
critical, and also to improve our partner capacity, basically
the nation-states' ability to deal with it themselves.
What cannot be the foreign policy of the United States is
that we offer an undefined period of time or, in perpetuity, we
are going to fund every great cause on the planet. We just
can't do it. We can't afford it. And we are not going to
continue to do that. We can't continue to approach foreign aid
in that way.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary--Mr. Quigley, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your comments last
week. You said the U.S. is troubled by the humanitarian
situation in Gaza, echoing in some respects the words of our
new Pope, Pope Leo, calling the situation in the Palestinian
enclave ``yet more worrying and saddening.'' Quote, I renew my
fervent appeal to allow for the entry of fair humanitarian help
and to bring the aid to the hostilities' devastating price,
which is paid by children, the elderly, and the sick.
I know your heart is in the right place on that. And you
stated that the engagement from the U.S. and other countries,
Israel had started to allow that aid to reenter. We are talking
about a hundred trucks, reportedly, entering yesterday. Far
fewer than the 600 during the ceasefire per day. But that the
aid is still, not getting through to the Palestinians.
What further diplomatic efforts are we going to do, and
what are the benchmarks? What are we telling Israel has to
happen, and what are we saying the consequences are, if any, if
it doesn't happen?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, thank you for that question. That is
a very serious and important question. I want to answer it
here. I am not trying to filibuster. You deserve an answer to
it.
Obviously, Israel is a key ally of the United States, and
so we are always careful about what we say publicly about the
nature of our conversations with them. But I think they have
acknowledged, in their own statement, that due to the
intervention of the United States and others is the reason why
they have started to allow aid, albeit, as you have pointed
out, not at the levels that are necessary.
I can tell you I was in Rome this weekend on, was it
Saturday, and I met with Cindy McCain at the World Food
Programme just to get a better understanding of the systems
they have set up for distribution and what amount of aid is
ready to move in. And we have been engaged constantly.
Obviously, I have been on the Hill all day, but I know members
of our team, and this includes Mr. Witkoff, our special envoy
and ambassador on the topic, he has been working on that as
well to ensure that additional aid is provided to people there.
Because as we said, we were concerned about the conditions and
the directions that they were headed.
I think ultimately what we would like to see is for this to
end, for all the hostages to come home, all of them, including
those who are deceased, but their families deserve to have that
closure, and we are committed to that as well. And I have said
this a number of times in the past, so I don't want to get
ahead of myself or over my skis, but I have some level of
optimism that we may have breakthrough achievements here pretty
quickly, hopefully, on an end to this and the release of all
the hostages.
Again, I have felt that way now at least four separate
times in the last couple of months, and for one reason or
another at the last minute it didn't happen. And so I don't
want to be disappointed on it again. But I want you to know
there are efforts ongoing to both provide more humanitarian
assistance and bring about the end of this--to this conflict as
it is ongoing. Because, frankly, you can't begin to provide the
lives that the people who live there deserve free of Hamas
until that ends.
Mr. Quigley. And agreed as to the issue with hostages and
that Israel has every right to defend itself, but the manner in
which they conduct the war has consequences as well for the
safety of Israel in the meantime.
So beyond just the talk and the diplomatic efforts--and I
know you don't want to reveal negotiations--but there has to be
at least some framework of benchmarks in which we are talking
to the Israelis about what at the bare minimum has to happen on
the humanitarian side with at least some repercussions. And we
hear from our allies who are talking about sanctions. But at
the very least we have to have some sense that the U.S. is in
this beyond just please would you do this because it is the
right thing to do.
Secretary Rubio. Well, I would say that our conversations
are more substantive than just please do this because it is the
nice thing to do obviously. Again, Israel, we support a hundred
percent. They are right not just to defend themselves but to
protect themselves from Hamas. To, frankly, we can't have a
future for the people of Gaza. There can't be a future that is
prosperous and safe as long as Hamas or any group like Hamas is
governing it. And there is a lot of work to be done post-
conflict in that regard.
But in the interim period, the one thing we made abundantly
clear is that the humanitarian situation--and I think this was
acknowledged by the Prime Minister in his statement--the
humanitarian situation and the direction that it was headed was
undermining Israel's standing in national security.
And so we have had these conversations in a frank manner. I
don't want to characterize them or go further because, again,
they are an important ally, and I also don't want to imperil
the work that is being done both to bring a permanent end to
that conflict but also to get the aid in in an increased and
timely manner.
Mr. Quigley. It is in both countries' interest. It is in
the Palestinian and Israelis' interest that there is a long-
term agreement that allows both to exist peacefully with some
security assurances for both.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Quigley.
Ms. Letlow.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being with us today. And I
wanted to start with a topic that is very important to me
personally but also to my constituents. We have been battling
it at a national level, but unfortunately it is a worldwide
issue, and that is human trafficking. It remains an urgent and
devastating human rights issue worldwide. It disproportionately
targets women and children, trapping them in cycles of forced
labor, sexual exploitation, and modern-day slavery. Combatting
this crisis requires sustained commitment to prevention,
prosecution, and survivor support.
An anti-human trafficking group recently shared with me
that, although this takes place overseas, it has a direct
impact on our own citizens. I have learned that human
traffickers have forced victims to work in scam call centers
where they are made to target vulnerable Americans,
particularly the elderly, with the intent to steal money and
commit identity theft.
Secretary Rubio, what strategies is the Department
employing to ensure that anti-trafficking efforts remain
effective and targeted, particularly in high-risk regions where
women and children are most vulnerable, and what steps is the
Department taking to strengthen international cooperations and
enforcement mechanisms to disrupt and expose trafficking
networks and safeguard survivors?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, thank you for the question. First of
all, that is one of the reasons why we have preserved and
actually advanced one of the bureaus under the Office of
Coordinator for Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs. We
have a new division--or not a new division--but moved under
that branch of population, refugee, and migration. And the key
is we are not in the business--in many cases some of these
programs in the past were about, frankly, accelerating
migration, helping people along the migratory path as they came
towards the United States. And we want to prevent mass
migration, because mass migration lends itself to human
trafficking.
I would argue, in many cases, mass migration, frankly, is
human trafficking because you are getting people, you are
charging them money, promising to bring them to the border of
the United States, and then committing horrifying atrocities
along the way, including in many cases handing those people
over at the border to traffickers inside our own country who
then tell them they have pay off their debt by working for
them. And this was happening, and it was happening on a
consistent and horrifying basis.
There is nothing humanitarian, there is nothing
compassionate about mass migration. The only people who benefit
from mass migration are the traffickers. And so that is one of
the things that we want to be able to prevent.
I think you also see, obviously, the opportunity to disrupt
it at the ground level. I am very concerned about Haiti, a
country that we have seen a long history of not just the
abduction of children and young girls, but of people writ large
into trafficking networks. So that is what instability creates
in places like that.
And I think all of our missions around the world already
have a mandate but will have an increased mandate, in our view,
not just to prevent mass migration, but to identify networks
that are preying on vulnerable individuals for purposes of
human trafficking.
And I would say that there are many countries around the
world that have a willingness to tackle it but don't have the
capacity.
Ms. Letlow. Right.
Secretary Rubio. And then there are other countries,
frankly, who look the other way, because it is an industry or
it is run by people who have ties to the government, and that
needs to be called out as well.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much. My constituents will
appreciate that response.
I appreciate the administration's continued commitment to
protect life and ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used
responsibly. I also understand the desire to refocus State
Department funding towards core priorities like safeguarding
our own national security by addressing the spread of
infectious diseases abroad that could impact the U.S. and its
citizens.
As the budget priorities evolve, it may be worth
considering how the U.S. health investments align with the
broader objective of supporting effective programs that address
preventable infectious diseases, improve health outcomes, and
save lives, and reduce long-term dependence on external
assistance. Programs such as Gavi and PEPFAR, which you
discussed earlier, have contributed to these types of goals.
Secretary Rubio, with the adjustments and the proposed
budget, how is the Department planning to reorganize or
reprioritize its health resources in a way that reflects the
original intent behind these initiatives?
Secretary Rubio. Yes. Well, as mentioned on the question of
PEPFAR already, we have preserved--85 percent of recipients are
now receiving PEPFAR services. And we want to build on the
program and improve it because it is one that has strong
bipartisan commitment, has been successful. But it needs to be
measured not just by how much money we spend, but by the
success of empowering local government--the host governments to
eventually build their capacity and graduate from the program.
In the case of vaccines, we continue to provide vaccine
services. What we have problems with is, a number of these
international organizations, like Gavi and others, in the way
they have conducted themselves--I would extend to that the way
the World Health Organization behaved during the pandemic
where, frankly, I think they did not just a poor job, but an
outrageous job of covering up for China and the
irresponsibility on the Chinese end when that started.
So we are looking actively at alternatives to multinational
organizations like Gavi to provide the same service but in a
better way, in a way that actually ensures our purpose which is
to prevent disease and instability in other countries.
Ms. Letlow. That is encouraging news. Thank you so much. I
yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ciscomani, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being here. And thank you
for your words, especially at the beginning when you were
describing through the questions on your fast and, I would say,
intentional actions in restructuring, refocusing the Department
in its true mission of expanding American interest around the
world. I think that is exactly what we should have been doing
for a long time, and you are definitely getting there very,
very quickly.
I will start off with this. I represent Arizona's Sixth
Congressional District which is along the U.S.-Mexico border.
First, I would like to state how impressed I am with how fast
the administration has been able to combat the transnational
criminal organizations and secure our southern border. However,
low border encounters by CBP are, the fentanyl crisis continues
to ravage many of our communities across the country still.
How is your budget request going to prioritize programs for
counter-drug initiatives and border security, particularly with
relation to fentanyl?
Secretary Rubio. Well, we have remained very committed,
especially--I mean, we preserved the Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement at the assistant secretary level,
and that is underneath the broader trajectory that we--
directory that we built on the Under Secretary for
International Security. And it is a top priority for many of
our partners. I can give you a few examples of places where we
think we can make a difference.
First, let me say in full concession. The Mexican
Government has been probably more cooperative and forward-
leaning than at any time that I can recall in my 15 years here,
for a couple reasons. But, one, because I think they too
identify the cartels as a threat to their government and their
national stability. There are parts of Mexico today that are
governed by drug cartels, and they recognize the threat that it
poses.
But I think it is also--and by the way, if you go all down
Central America, country after country, the primary threat they
face in Ecuador, in Costa Rica, in Panama to some extent,
certainly in Guatemala, is the threat of these transnational
organizations that use their countries as transfer routes,
which we seek to help them develop the capability to partner
with us and disrupt. And that will be a priority.
And the Caribbean Basin, that has also been an issue of
grave concern. But primarily what we hear there, one of the
things we are working on now with the Department of Homeland
Security, the FBI, the ATF is how can we disrupt the flow of
illegal gun shipments primarily leaving the Miami River in
containers embedded among other things that is finding its way
into the hands of Haitian gangs, gangs in Trinidad, gangs in
Jamaica. That is also destabilizing the region in those
countries. And what they want, if you talk to our embassies and
you talk to those governments, is for us to help them build the
law enforcement capacities so that it is foreign aid that ends.
Because one day they will have the capacity to disrupt it.
The Dominican Republic is currently seeking radar systems
to be able to detect boats and planes that may be coming to
their shores, because they have become a very attractive place
to bring drugs through because it is quickly from there be
shipped into Puerto Rico and, at that point, has entered the
U.S. and crossed our border.
So I think this is an example of where embassy and
regional-based policymaking will help us to identify the
critical capacity needs that each individual country gets, and
then drive our assistance based on what they need as opposed to
what we think they need.
Mr. Ciscomani. That is great to hear, especially on the--
and I agree with you on the--we talked to the Coast Guard about
that, about the interdictions also of drugs across the ocean.
And when you mentioned about the Mexican Government, I agree
with you. I worked on that issue for a while, and I have seen a
very open willingness from them. I think it is a win-win for
both countries to be able to tackle that.
In the little time that I have left, and you already
covered some of this, I was going to bring up also the
situation with the hostages and the interactions with Hamas
there and the hostages remaining, especially the four
Americans. Israel has successfully destroyed much of Hamas'
terror capabilities, but the group is not yet defeated, and all
hostages are not free. You talked a bit about that.
So I will focus my question really on UNRWA. And does the
administration support the continued prohibition on funding of
UNRWA? And is the administration working with others in the
international community to design an alternative to UNRWA as
well that meets the needs of all Palestinians without
perpetuating the conflict?
Secretary Rubio. We do oppose working with UNRWA. In fact,
that is exactly what we are working on is finding alternative
mechanisms to deliver aid that doesn't find its way into the
hands of Hamas where they steal it and in some cases resell it
at exorbitant prices to people that are hungry and suffering.
And in many ways it is the grip they had, you know, on the
population there as well.
One of the things they used to be able to control
population is their ability to steal those. And in some cases
they weren't stealing. They had people inside the organizations
that were cooperating with them. We do need to find alternative
mechanisms. And there are some that exist that are independent
of UNRWA that are out there.
I said we put out some proposals. We are open to any
proposals that exist that provide assistance and aid,
especially if we can get to a peacetime posture to help rebuild
that does not help a group like Hamas benefit or restart and
grow again.
Mr. Ciscomani. You are right on that. Over a billion
dollars stolen in the last 18 months on that. So I am glad you
are on it, and I trust you are going to get that done. So thank
you, sir, for your time today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Ciscomani.
Folks, Members, the Secretary has agreed to--we will do
another round. We are going to have to stick everybody to 3
minutes. I am going to be a little bit more aggressive in
keeping people to 3 minutes. So thank you all very much for
your cooperation.
Mr. Secretary, I will start. I mentioned in my opening
remarks that, you know, you have hit the ground running in a
serious way, in a successful way. The Latin America policies of
the last 4 years under President Biden did tremendous damage, I
think, to the U.S. security interest and to the region. The
previous administration cozied up to anti-American dictators
and, you know, tended to pressure our allies.
If you could in broad strokes, how does the Trump
administration approach to Latin America differ from the
previous administration? You know, specifically when we are
dealing with rewarding our democratic partners, our allies,
countering the PRC and anti-American regimes, and making sure
in something that, you know, we have talked a little bit about
already together, all of us have, ensuring that U.S. assistance
actually advances our core national security interests.
Secretary Rubio. Well, I mean, it first starts by
characterizing. We have three kinds of countries in the Western
Hemisphere. We have democracies that have elected leaders that
are friendly to the United States and want to be friends with
us and ally with us. And we need to make sure there is benefits
to being an ally to the United States. I tell people, in
foreign relations, your counterpart, whether they are elected
or they are not, are politicians. They are in politics too.
They have domestic audiences and domestic constituencies. They
have to be able to go back and show people that being a friend
of the United States is beneficial. And this is one of the
things that maybe it is aid, sometimes it is trade, or
commercial relations and the like.
There is a second group that is, you know, democratically
elected but not so friendly. We are not seeking to get into
conflicts with them per se, but obviously we can't treat them
the same as we treat those who are friendly to us. There is
benefits to being our friend, and, frankly, I mean, maybe not
as many benefits to not being our friend. But, again, that is
our national interest.
And then there is a third group that are autocracies--
Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba--that we just simply can't ignore
what is happening there. Because in addition to the fact of
lack of democracy and the like, they are sources of grave
instability. 11, 12 percent of the Cuban population has
abandoned the country in the last year and a half; 8 million
Venezuelans have abandoned that country over the last decade,
one of the largest migrations in all of human history. And, in
addition, destabilizing Colombia and other countries in the
regions. In fact, Venezuela allows a narco-terrorist group to
operate within their territory, with impunity, constantly
threatening the Colombian state.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Again, leading by example, I am going to go to the Ranking
Member with still almost half a minute left.
Ms. Frankel. Well, I will use your first half minute.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ha, ha, not part of the deal, but good
shot. All right. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. I just want to remind the Chairman that our
President is trying to accept a $400 million plane from a
country that funds Hamas.
Okay. With that said, this has been a bad day for the
women. You have already nixed education and birth control. I do
want to ask you about Women, Peace, and Security. That is an
act that President Trump signed into law. You were a co-
sponsor. Also, the WEEE Act, which is an economic empowerment
act that was actually championed by Ivanka Trump.
And it is really your recognition that the--WPS--the
participation is central to have women in peace talks for
stability, and that is because women bear the brunt of war in
so many different ways from men. Not that men are not affected
by war, but we are talking about sexual violence, trafficking,
being widowed, forced to become breadwinners, and taking over
new responsibilities, becoming refugees. So when it comes to
trying to figure out what to do, it is very important to have
women at the table.
The Secretary's office had what is called the Office of
Global Women's Issues in order to implement this law. What
worries me right now is, although it looks like your intentions
are to scatter this program but not have a central office with
you that is going to oversee this. I think that would be a
mistake. And I want to just ask if we can discuss that. Because
I have got to tell you, I have spent a lot of time on this
issue, and I think it is very, very important that you do not
dismantle that particular office.
Secretary Rubio. Yeah. No, and I will engage with you. I
know it is important, and I share your commitment on it because
I sponsored that and supported that bill as well. So I think
the question, though, is do we need to have a bureau that that
is all it does from a global perspective or is that a function
that we should insist each of our regional bureaus prioritize
and have someone assigned to working that.
Because I do think that, while the challenges women face
are global, they are different in different parts of the world
and in different regions. I assure you, the challenges being
faced in the European Continent, women, are very different than
the challenges that they probably face in the Indo-Pacific and/
or in the African Continent or somewhere else.
And so I think that what you are--I am trying to
paraphrase. What you are saying is you want to make sure that
the issue doesn't lose focus because it no longer has a
centralized office. I hope I can convince you by interacting
with you that we can stay committed to the goal but do so at
the regional--making it a regional priority as opposed to a
one-size glo----
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Well, I hope we can agree to this.
Because I don't want you to lose your staff on all these
programs until we together work and see what is best moving our
country forward.
With that, I am just going to put some letters into the
record, Mr. Chair. We have a bunch of questions for you. I know
you have been traveling, and I hope you can get to them. And if
I can put them in?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Absolutely. Without objection. Thank you.
I thank the Ranking Member.
Ms. Frankel. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And thank you for sticking to the clock.
Mr. Ciscomani.
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I will continue the same line of questions
and the conversation we were having just a minute ago. Since
2005, the United States has funded an effort to train
Palestinian security forces and help coordinate security
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The mission led
by an American general has received bipartisan support over the
years, helping to support critical security cooperation between
Palestinian and Israel security forces.
What are the current plans for the continuation of this
function in the region, and what funding do you anticipate for
fiscal year 2026?
Secretary Rubio. The function will continue. I think what
is being contemplated is whether the function should be brought
under the auspices of the embassy and the ambassador. That is
really the internal conversation that we are having right now,
and I tend to believe that it should because I think it needs
to be part of our coordinated response to the challenges in
Israel in particular.
So I think that is really--but the function will continue.
The question is, is it under the authority of the ambassador.
Mr. Ciscomani. And I, again, agree with your streamlining
of these services and the mission that we have in order to
reach that objective.
On that vein as well, one consistent frustration we had
with USAID under the previous administration was the lack of
information and data shared with Congress on the impact of the
programs paid for with taxpayer dollars. I believe that any
U.S. taxpayer dollar that leaves the country must be working in
our national security interest and have strict accountability
metrics to be measured and see what is working and what is not,
as you previously mentioned.
If you can elaborate on this a little bit, you kind of
touched on it, but how will you ensure the consistent and open
communication between the State Department and this
Subcommittee going forward and how you are planning on
repositioning our aid towards prioritizing national security?
Secretary Rubio. Well, a couple--I think what would be very
helpful--and I used to--you know, when people used to tell me
this when I was in the Senate, I didn't fully appreciate it.
Now I really appreciate this idea that we do need to get more
of our Senate-confirmed people onboard. We are starting to get
some of them. But if we can really start to get our Under
Secretaries in place that oversee some of these bureaus.
We have good people functioning there now. Many of them are
career Foreign Service Officers who are acting as the chief
bureau officer for the time being. But it is helpful to have
someone there that you brought in for that specific purpose.
And, in fact, many of these senior bureau officers are
welcoming of that.
So I maybe did not fully appreciate it while I was in the
Senate and we were slowing up some of these nominations in the
past, how critical--not me, I wasn't a big holder of
nominations, but others were--how critical having some of these
Senate-confirmed positions are. We are making good progress on
it now, but I think--I don't know, what, 18 weeks into the
job--I believe I have five--or four or five in the building
currently. And I don't think any of our Under Secretaries are
in yet. So we are anxiously awaiting them. And that will really
help us improve everything from legislative relations to
actually answering your questions.
On the national security component of it, everything we do
is driven by the national security because the national
security is at the core of our national interest. The most
important thing the Federal Government does is keep America
safe. Without safety you can't have prosperity. So it is the
most important thing we do. And all of our foreign policy
should be geared first and foremost on what keeps America safe.
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you for that. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a note. It would appear that in terms of what the
estimate is in terms of money that has been impounded or, if
you will, stolen, as it is congressionally directed money, is
about $40 billion in development and humanitarian funds. This
is from State Department and USAID; this is money not being
spent.
Mr. Secretary, we need to have an accounting of what has
been cut, what has been terminated, and what may be being
restored. We asked Mr. Marocco several weeks ago to let us know
about what was cut, what were the criteria for making the cuts
and, to date, we have not heard one word. So this committee
would like to know that information before dealing with an
appropriations bill.
Mr. Secretary, warehouses full of food rations that could
feed millions, including the entire population of Gaza for a
month and a half, are rotting in warehouses because of this
administration's decision to gut the U.S. foreign aid
structure. Some of the food supply will be incinerated, will
expire as soon as July, while children across the world are
starving. The administration's haphazard cancellation of
contracts and freezing of funds have stopped food aid from
getting to the most vulnerable people.
World Food Programme Director Cindy McCain called me. They
ran out of food, WFP, and the Israelis would not open the
gates, so that the food is there rotting.
This food is grown by U.S. producers, paid for by American
taxpayers. I don't know how the administration justifies
allowing this food to rot while civilians are starving.
Can you commit to us to ensuring that the food aid will not
go to waste in warehouses and will instead be distributed to
people in need as directed by the Congress? Will you ensure
this food aid moves as quickly as possible to its intended
destinations?
Secretary Rubio. Well, you just highlighted--the answer is
yes, because you just highlighted the impediment was not us. We
are not telling them they can't distribute the food. The
impediment--you pointed out that Cindy McCain told you about
was that some government was standing in the way. And that has
been part of the conversations that I was speaking about with
Mr. Quigley a moment ago.
Ms. DeLauro. With Mr. Quigley. You were doing that, but
that really gets to the question of how strong the U.S. is
going to be in leading the humanitarian assistance that needs
to get into Gaza and some of these other places. That is a
leadership role. That is a role for the Secretary of State, and
it is a role for this administration.
And with regard to UNRWA, set up in 1949 to be there for
dealing to the Palestinians but only meant to be temporary. It
has been the major source, the major source of distribution of
food and also with education and healthcare services. I would
like to ask you, tell us your alternatives to UNRWA. To date,
we have not had any alternatives.
Secretary Rubio. Well, we would love to find an
alternative. We need to find an alternative. We are actively
looking, if not to build an alternative with our regional
partners, but it is not going to be a group that is controlled
by Hamas and has a bunch of Hamas operatives.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, the fact of the matter is Qatar is
hosting Hamas.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. We have to--folks--thank you,
Ms. DeLauro.
Look, we have a hard shutdown at 4 o'clock. And so what I
would like, if that is possible, is if folks can limit them--
because otherwise the folks at the end of this are not going to
get time. So let me go to Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Moolenaar, if you
can limit it to really quickly, you are doing a favor to
everybody.
Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Secretary, this month the CCP
implemented new laws severely curtailing religious liberty in
its campaign to control religion and people of faith in China,
including foreign missionaries. What can the administration do
to raise this issue, to ensure that it is clear to the CCP that
religious freedom is an inalienable human right, and that no
one in China should be persecuted for their faith?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah. Obviously, in the case of China, we
have very little influence over their internal politics because
it is a repressive communist regime and, you know, the second
largest economy in the world, and then a powerful government,
unfortunately. But it will be the top priority of our religious
freedom under Secretary and our assistant secretary and all the
efforts that we place is calling out anywhere in the world
where religious freedom is under duress, particularly in places
like this. I am well aware of the challenges of religious
minorities. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party is unfriendly
to anything, anything, religion or otherwise, that challenges
the authority of the Communist Party. But we will continue to
be a strong voice on their behalf nonetheless, in the hopes
that global pressure and attention, as we have done it to some
extent with the Uyghur situation that a lot of people weren't
even talking about many years ago, and now it has become
globalized, people's awareness of it, although the atrocities
there continue as well.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Chairman leading by example.
Ms. Meng, thank you.
Ms. Meng. Mr. Secretary, as a mom, I am really troubled by
the way that the Department has treated public servants,
USAID's public servants who dedicated their lives to this
country, including some who are my own constituents from
Queens.
One example, in February, a USAID Foreign Service Officer
who was overseas needed a medevac for his pregnant wife who was
at risk of hemorrhaging due to a life-threatening condition.
She was 31 weeks pregnant, after having spent tens of thousands
of dollars on fertility treatments. Her medevac request was
denied twice. The response was there is no USAID funding for
medevacs. And it took intervention from a Senator to finally
get her the care she needed.
Should we be abandoning our dedicated public servants this
way, and was there a plan in place to ensure the health and
safety of our own public servants and make sure that it wasn't
compromised?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, that was a media account of that.
That was inaccurate. That is not accurate. The medevac has been
provided to anyone who needed one--including in that particular
case. The problem is the mede--under the State Department
mandates, and the State Department mandates are we medevac you
to the nearest available facility that can treat your medical
emergency, not one you choose, I would rather go here than
there.
But that one had nothing to do, nothing to do with funding.
The medevac was available; they wanted to go to a different
site than the one that was--that the policies allowed them to
go to.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Just a quick followup. Earlier today you
told HFAC that no one has died because of the actions to
destroy USAID. Do you stand behind that testimony, and has
there been any assessment conducted by the Department to this
point of how many people have died?
Secretary Rubio. I think that question about people dying
around the world is unfair one. First of all, the United States
is the largest humanitarian provider on the planet. I would
argue, how many people have died because China hasn't done it?
How many people have died because the U.K. has cut back on
spending? And so has other countries. Canada, they have cut
back an humanitarian spending.
So the United States continues to provide more than anybody
else, by far. We feed more people than anyone on this planet
does in humanitarian assistance, by far.
Ms. Meng. Sorry, I am running out of time, and I want to
make sure my colleagues have time. But these--just so you know,
there were programs and commitments and contracts made--
statutorily promised to the people around the world, and to
withdraw them in a very sudden and irresponsible way may have
led people to die. And I would love to have more transparency
in the future. We could work together.
Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Secretary, these are the programs that are being cut in
the USAID program. These are the ones that we are retaining.
There are five columns on these sheets. And I have reviewed a
lot of these. I am trying to make heads or tails of why these
programs are being eliminated. I know that we are refocusing.
That is great. National security investment projects, I am with
you on that.
There are five columns: contract number, vendor name,
contract title description, estimated life contract value, and
obligations to date. Would it be possible to go through here
and add a sixth column to let us know as a Committee why
programs are being terminated and why specifically some
programs are being retained?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah. I mean, in some cases programs are
being canceled simply because we just don't view why that is in
the national interest. Why are we funding some cultural program
some part of the world? We just don't think that is a core
mission of the United States. So, I mean, we could elaborate
more in a sixth column in that regard. Some of them we are not
claiming fraud; we are just saying we shouldn't be spending
money on that.
I mean, I was reading the list here a moment ago, I
probably put it away, but there are a bunch of programs here
that I would ask myself, I mean, do we really need to spend--I
will give you one example here. Do we need--$7 million for the
American Bar Association to promote the resilience of the
Eurasian legal sector and civic society. So I would say that
is--I don't know why that is in our national interest. I can
put a column----
Mr. Alford. I am in total agreement with you. We are--we
want to work with you. We want to fund the programs that need
to be funded. We want to fund the State Department. We want to
help you. But we need help from you.
Would you commit to having your senior official staff spend
some time with us and our staff and our committee staff going
through these spreadsheets so that we can more in detail
understand where you are coming from?
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, absolutely.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mrs. Torres, you are the one between the
Secretary and the last one, but you are always quick. So go
ahead.
Mrs. Torres. I don't want to hold you back, Mr. Secretary.
Can you tell me, how much money have you given to the Bukele
regime?
Secretary Rubio. Well, it is not a regime. He got elected
by an enormous majority.
Mrs. Torres. Well, the second--his reelection was actually
an illegal reelection. Remember that he took over Congress and
then by bringing the military and firing all of the entire
judiciary.
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, they still had an election. He won
by--I don't know what the margins were, but they were--I just
don't think it is fair to call him a regime. I know you don't
like him, and you have reasons not to like him, but I don't
think it is fair to say they are a regime. A regime is in
Venezuela. This guy had a real election.
Mrs. Torres. How much money, sir?
Secretary Rubio. Well, I have to give you the number, but I
think it is $1.4 million or--let me not par--I have the exact
number, I don't have it in front of me, but it was law
enforcement funds provided to them, as we do other countries
under that program. You know----
Mrs. Torres. Senator Murray had said it was $15 million.
Are you saying that that amount is incorrect?
Secretary Rubio. That amount sounds incorrect to me. But I
will get you exact number because I owe you that much.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. And are we doing a second round to
give him more money?
Secretary Rubio. Other than maybe--no, I don't believe that
there is a second round per se. Well, there might be because
these are 2024 dollars.
Mrs. Torres. I would love to----
Secretary Rubio. So it is possible that they are eligible
for 2025 dollars.
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. Continue this conversation with
you at another time, maybe in a private setting, so that we
could really talk about----
Secretary Rubio. Yeah. But these are law enforcement funds.
So he may--they could receive under 2025. I can't say they
won't. Obviously, we are working through that process.
Mrs. Torres. Well, the Leahy law prohibits, you know,
sending money to a country that terrorizes people and punishes
them without due process.
Secretary Rubio. Yeah, that is not our assessment of what
is happening there. Our assessment is that he has cleaned up
the country and gotten rid of gangs. That was a country you
couldn't even walk in the streets 4 years ago.
Mrs. Torres. By disappearing people.
Secretary Rubio. No, they are not disappeared. They are in
the jail.
Mrs. Torres. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Mr. Quigley, you are recognized.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you for sticking around. Just in terms
of Ukraine, my concern is that when you equate these two powers
at the negotiating table, it does seem to diminish the fact
that Russia was the aggressor. And having been there five times
since the war started, stood at Bucha at the mass graves, and
heard accounts of rape and murder and the kidnapping of kids, I
just don't hear the administration talking about holding Putin
accountable for these things as part of these discussions.
And, finally, recognizing that Putin doesn't seem to have
any reason to negotiate in good faith because he has, four to
six times the manpower, treats his troops like cannon fodder,
and I think he probably recognized this is an administration
that will not do another supplemental. So what in the world are
we doing to hold him accountable and to actually force him into
negotiating in good faith, and, again, not rewarding him with
de facto land that he currently occupies? And what is it we are
doing so he can't have additional land.
So what is it we are doing to actually hold him accountable
and force him to negotiate in good faith beyond really stern
tweets?
Secretary Rubio. On the second point, those are the details
that would have to be worked out in any negotiation. And as I
said, he will have to make concessions, and so will the
Ukrainian side. I don't know what those are. We are not going
to predetermine what those are. That is why we wanted to enter
into direct negotiations.
We all honestly continue to believe--we are open to any
peace deal, but we think it is very difficult to enter peace
negotiations without a ceasefire, because something blows up
somewhere, some attack happens in the interim and then
negotiations fall apart.
On your first question, listen, I sense, and I think we all
do, what you are arguing here, okay, about the imbalance in the
relationship, by who--the invasion, things of that nature. But
the bottom line is this war has been going on for 3 years, and
there was no end in sight. And the only way you can end it is
you have got to be able to bring both sides to the table. And
we feel like the President--we know the President was in a
unique position to be able to bring both sides to a table and
be able to talk to both sides. It may ultimately not work out.
It may ultimately not work out, but we have to at least try to
make it work.
And I think it is the same position, for example, the
Vatican has adopted. There is a lot of pressure on the Vatican
to condemn the Russians for their--but the way the Vatican has
viewed it is, unless we have both--unless we are able to talk
to both sides, we have no hope whatsoever of trying to force a
negotiation.
Mr. Quigley. But there is no impetus on Putin to do
anything. He won't do anything, and he will be rewarded. This
is more like Chamberlain than someone who is trying to win a
Nobel Peace Prize. Chamberlain didn't win a Nobel Peace Prize
conceding saying, well, this war could be going on for a long
time. FDR didn't say this war has been going on a long time,
you know, we are not going to engage in it all. We are just
going to see if both sides can work this out. Aggressors like a
tyrant like Putin aren't going to listen to good will.
Secretary Rubio. Well, I understand. I think the goal here
is to reach a ceasefire so they could negotiate a broader deal
that is fair and, frankly, sustainable. If it is an
unsustainable peace, meaning, if it is an unfair imbalanced
peace, it won't be sustainable, and our goal is to get them to
that point. I hope we are successful, because the alternative
is more people will die.
Mr. Quigley. I agree.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. [Off mic] Members may submit additional
questions for the record.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your time and
your service.
This concludes today's hearing. The Subcommittee on
National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs is
adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Meeks, Hon. Gregory W............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Costa, Hon. Jim.................................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Kelly, Hon. Robin L.............................................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Dybul, M.D., Hon. Mark, Center for Global Health Practice and
Impact, Georgetown University Medical Center................... 88
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Connor, Catherine, Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy,
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation..................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Rubio, Hon. Marco, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State.. 149
Prepared statement........................................... 152
[all]