Spread Freedom, Not Woke Values: An American Agenda for Democracy and Human Rights

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                SPREAD FREEDOM, NOT WOKE VALUES: AN AMER-5                  ICAN  AGENDA  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND HUMAN6                  RIGHTS78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                                 OF THE1314                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE1516                               BEFORE THE1718                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS19                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             FIRST SESSION24                               __________2526                              May 8, 202527                               __________2829                           Serial No. 119-1730                               __________3132        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs3334              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3536Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,37                       or http://www.govinfo.gov38                                ______3940                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE414260-777PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254344                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS4546                    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman47MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,48CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey       Ranking Member49JOE WILSON,, South Carolina          BRAD SHERMAN, California50SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia51DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts52TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California53MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas54ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada55RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California56YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California57MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,58BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                Florida59AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona60  American Samoa                     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida61WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois62JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California63THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California64MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island65CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland66RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington67KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE LATIMER, New York68RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland69JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas70ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware71JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois72SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania73MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington74RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania7576              James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director77                 Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director7879                                 ------8081                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE8283               MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida, Chairwoman84CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas, Ranking85MARK GREEN, Tennessee                  Member86MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             DINA TITUS, Nevada87CORY MILLS, Florida                  SARA JACOBS, California88JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            GREG STANTON, Arizona89SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois90RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California9192               Jamie Goewey, Subcommittee Staff Director9394                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S9596                              ----------9798                            REPRESENTATIVES99100                                                                   Page101Opening Statement of Chairwoman Maria Elvira Salazar.............     1102Opening Statement of Ranking Member Joaquin Castro...............     2103104                               WITNESSES105106Statement of Hon. Robert A. Destro, Former Assistant Secretary107  for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. State Department..     4108  Prepared Statement.............................................     6109Statement of Dr. Patrick Quirk, Vice President of Strategy,110  Innovation, and Impact, The International Republican Institute111  (Iri)..........................................................    14112  Prepared Statement.............................................    16113Statement of Hon. Tom Malinowski Former Member of Congress,114  Former Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and115  Labor, U.S. Department of State................................    23116  Prepared Statement.............................................    25117118                                APPENDIX119120Hearing Notice...................................................    50121Hearing Minutes..................................................    52122Hearing Attendance...............................................    53123124                        Materials for the Record125126Republican Guidance Memorandum, submitted by Robert A. Destro....    54127Congressional Notification Transmittal Letter, submitted by128  Robert A. Destro...............................................    74129130                   SPREAD FREEDOM, NOT WOKE VALUES: AN131                     AMERICAN AGENDA FOR DEMOCRACY AND132                     HUMAN RIGHTS133134                         Thursday, May 8, 2025135136                  House of Representatives,137            Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,138                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,139                                                    Washington, DC.140141    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:06 a.m., in142room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maria Elvira143Salazar [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.144    Ms. Salazar. Good morning to all of you. The Subcommittee145on the Western Hemisphere will come to order.146    The purpose of this hearing is to discuss democracy and147human rights in the United States foreign policy for the148purposes of the State Department reauthorization bill.149    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.150151      OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR152153    As I said, today, we are here to examine the Bureau of154Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. That has been a core155mission of the United States since we became the modern world's156first true democracy in 1776.157    Our country was founded on inalienable rights, the ones158that are fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, to own159private property, and freedom of religion, and many others.160But, unfortunately, this Bureau has shifted its focus161dangerously away from promoting these rights to promoting162wokeness in the last few years, and here are some of the163examples: In Mexico, for instance, $250,000 for an NGO that was164promoting sex workers; in Costa Rica, $1.5 million for LGBTI165elders; in Colombia, $47,000 for a transgender opera; in Peru,16632,000 for a gay sex education comic book for children; and, in167Ireland, $70,000 for a musical promoting diversity. What does168that have to do with democracy? The irony is that these are169progressive countries that protect civil liberties already.170They did not need any more funds to pursue that purpose.171    As this wokeness crusade plays out in free countries like I172just mentioned, the real enemies of freedom, like Cuba, Iran,173North Korea, Venezuela, go sometimes unchallenged. We ignore174freedom of religion in Nicaragua, and over 150 Catholic priests175were being arrested and some of them disappeared. While we176ignore free speech in Cuba for shouting ``libertad'' on the177streets, anyone lands in jail. While we ignore freedom of the178press in Venezuela, 12 journalists are imprisoned for exposing179the truth about Maduro's stolen election and what he signed180with President Biden called the Barbados accords.181    Unfortunately, the Bureau of Democracy and Human Rights has182been ignoring its mission, and it should be clear: Defend183freedom, support the oppressed, and stand up to tyrants. The184conversation we need to have today is how do we go back to185basics and defend freedom and democracy in our backyard and186around the world. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from187our witnesses.188    Now, I will recognize the ranking member of this189illustrious subcommittee, Mr. Castro from Texas.190    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman.191192       OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JOAQUIN CASTRO193194    Thank you to our witnesses for your coming testimony, and a195special thank you to our former colleague, Tom Malinowski, for196coming back to guide us with his expertise and wisdom. And,197Tom, we still have your old placard here that we will give to198you at the end of the hearing. Welcome back.199    We, the United States, started the year as the most200powerful, most prosperous, and influential Nation on earth.201Today, we find ourselves with a shrinking economy, badly202damaged relationships around the world, including with allies,203and dwindling influence for future years.204    Let me start by addressing the framing of today's hearing.205The phrase ``spread freedom, not woke values'' isn't just a206slogan. It is really a misrepresentation of what American207foreign policy has stood for across Republican and Democratic208administrations alike.209    Let's be clear. Supporting democracy, human rights, and210civil society is not some recent ideological agenda. It is who211we are. These values are American values. They are why people212around the world have looked to our country as a beacon for213hope. Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last 4 months214is a full-scale retreat from those values.215    Under the Trump administration, foreign assistance programs216have been slashed. Support for human rights defenders, civil217society organizations, labor organizers, and many others have218been cut, sometimes overnight, and without notice or even219explanation. Offices that stood against atrocity crimes,220protected the rights of women, and fought human trafficking221have been closed or swallowed up in bureaucracies where their222missions are being sidelined.223    The President budget proposes an 85 percent cut to224diplomacy and development programs. It eliminates funding for225the National Endowment for Democracy, a bipartisan institution226that has supported democratic movements for generations. This227isn't reform. It is sabotage. And the consequences are stark.228We will pay the price as Americans for generations to come.229    I want to paint a picture for my colleagues. Imagine you230live in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, or one of other231despotic societies. You believe rightly in your people's right232to a democratic government that is accountable to the people.233You work with the United States to organize your community,234document your regime's abuses, or advocate for something as235basic as free elections. You work with groups like the236International Republican Institute to travel to the United237States and meet people from all over the world who want the238same thing. You do this while putting yourself and your family239at great personal, often physical risk.240    Then one day, with no notice or explanation, Elon Musk and241a group of kids walk into the State Department or USAID and--242without understanding any of this or its significance or its243history--they illegally end these vital, lifesaving programs,244and the funding overnight disappears, the program vanishes, and245your security--your own personal security for you and your246family--is threatened.247    The American Government you have worked with stops248answering your calls because the Trump administration has249prevented them from explaining why the funding has stopped.250Members of Congress demand answers, and the administration251refuses to give them and remains silent. You read the news and252see that your government's officials are celebrating Donald253Trump's decision. You are all alone now, abandoned, and at the254mercy of the regime that you had the courage to take on with255the support of the United States at one time.256    The message from President Trump and the State Department257is clear: This administration does not value democracy or human258rights. If you want help, go somewhere else. This is not a259hypothetical. This has played out in dozens, if not hundreds of260cases across the world over the past 4 months.261    We know that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and262Labor, DRL, is more than a symbol. It is the institutional263backbone of our democracy promotion efforts. Congress264established it by law to serve as an independent voice within265our foreign policy, one that doesn't defer to political266convenience or the sensitivity of authoritarian leaders. It has267statutory obligations from the Foreign Assistance Act, to the268Leahy Laws, to the country reports on human rights practices.269It is meant to speak up for the people of other countries, not270just their governments or their leaders.271    And, yet, the administration's reorganization plan proposes272removing DRL's policy voice and redistributes its foreign273assistance work to regional bureaus with no human rights274expertise. That is not reform. It is about erasing human rights275from our foreign policy. It is announcing that we don't care276what despotic leaders do to their people around the world, and277we are not going to watch them anymore.278    The administration wanted to make foreign assistance more279effective. If they wanted to make it more effective, they would280have strengthened DRL's role, not sidelined it. And so Congress281must step up. The administration has already effectively ended282USAID and hundreds of foreign assistance programs established283by law, all without input from the Congress, and the State284Department has proposed a sweeping and destructive285reorganization plan by July. I urge my colleagues, especially286my Republican colleagues, to assert Congress' rights under287Article I of the Constitution and demand accountability from288this administration.289    With that, Chairwoman, I yield back.290    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member, the gentleman from291Texas, Mr. Castro.292    Now, other members of the committee are reminded that293opening statements may be submitted for the record.294    We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses295before us today on this important topic, starting with the296honorable Robert Destro, the former assistant secretary for297Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the Department of State.298Welcome, sir. It is wonderful to hear your statements.299    Mr. Destro. Madam Chair.300    Ms. Salazar. We also have Patrick Quirk, vice president of301strategy, innovation, and impact at the International302Republican Institute.303    Finally, the honorable Tom Malinowski, former Member of304Congress--I remember serving with you the first term--and305former assistant secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and306Labor at the Department of State.307    Now, this committee recognizes the importance of the issue308before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us309today. Your full statements will be made part of the record,310and I will ask you to keep it to 5 minutes in order to allow311time for other member questions.312    I recognize Mr. Destro for his opening statement. Welcome313once again, sir.314315               STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. DESTRO316317    Mr. Destro. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member318Castro. Thank you for your comments.319    I am going to try and keep it brief, but one of the things320I think we should see here--and I am really happy that you have321Tom Malinowski and Patrick Quirk here because this is--what you322are looking at, I think, is a great working group. What we need323to do--it is not a question of whether we are committed to324human rights. We wouldn't be here unless we were.325    You know, what we are concerned about here is we have--now326we have, I think, a once-in-a-several-generation opportunity to327look at the organization of State. Secretary Rubio has given328you the proposed, you know, reorganization. Lots of questions329about that in my mind, too.330    I particularly have the same concerns as you do, Mr.331Castro, about, you know, giving it all to the regionals. I am332not so sure about that.333    You know, but what we need to be looking at is we have an334opportunity here for Congress and the President to be working335together to optimize it because the country is not made of336money. We can't afford to--we should be spending on human337rights, and I completely agree with that. You know, but338whatever the disagreements we might have, you know, we need to339be focusing on the outcomes of our programs. I mean, and that340is something we just don't do.341    So what I would begin with, basically, is inviting my342colleagues here and offering our services to the staff, if I343can, you know, to say let's sit down around a table and start344talking about some of the hard questions.345    And so one of the hardest questions is that--I think we346often need to put our areas of disagreement out on the table.347The first one is even in the title of the hearing. It is not348freedom versus woke. My friends who would proudly describe349themselves as woke see themselves as just as committed to350freedom as I do. In fact, my son coached at a university that351had its woke rating right on its website.352    You know, so it is a--so I see the issues we have as one of353process. If our goal is to spread freedom and foster354inclusiveness, sovereignty, and interdependence--because that355is really what we are talking about is the interdependence of356our people and the people of these--who live under repressive357regimes or who live in pretty good places. We must look at how358the State Department actually operates.359    Now, spreading freedom is a laudable goal, you know, but360the hard question is how successful has the State Department361actually been? What are the outcomes? You might want to start362with asking the people of Libya, where our regime change363operations and democracy building has left them with slave364markets. You know, you can ask the people of Guatemala or365Venezuela or Cuba. You know, how many years have we been366working on Cuba, and we don't seem to be making much progress.367There is a lot of money been spent on that. What is our return368on investment? I would argue not very much. So whatever we are369doing, it is not working.370    So I have seen with my own eyes, you know, that the--how371other organizations--it is not just State. It is not just372USAID. It is all of it, including the Millennium Challenge373Corporation.374    You know, I just got a text this morning from a friend in375Belize. I have been working with the Belizeans now for several376years in a really--their really innovative, wonderful People's377Constitution reform process. Our embassy has not been around.378You would think they would be helpful, but--and during the379conversation within that commission, one of the huge issues for380the people of Belize--they have had town meetings all over the381place--is control of their--control of education. Just this382week, one of our government-funded NGO's came in and basically383offered a school money to buy control of their education384program, exactly at odds with the proposition that we are385arguing here.386    So what I would suggest to you is that--the Universal387Declaration of Human Rights is everybody has a right to388participate in their government. The question around this table389ought to be how do we make that happen. We know where it is not390happening. We know where it is happening. And I can tell you,391having been the assistant secretary like Tom Malinowski has--is392when you direct money flows, that is where the policy actually393hits the road.394    I am going to leave it at that, and I look forward to your395questions.396    [The prepared statement of Mr. Destro follows:]397398    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]399400    Ms. Salazar. Wonderful. You have changed my whole script.401So I am going to ask different questions when I get back to402you.403    Mr. Destro. Okay.404    Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much for that----405    Mr. Destro. Thank you.406    Ms. Salazar [continuing]. opening statement. Thank you, Mr.407Destro.408    I recognize Dr. Quirk for his opening statement. Welcome,409sir.410411                 STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK QUIRK412413    Mr. Quirk. Thank you. Chairwoman Salazar, Ranking Member414Castro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank415you for inviting me here to testify on the reauthorization of416the Department of State, including programs through DRL and417assistance related to democracy.418    I will be summarizing my full written statement and would419like to begin by applauding the full committee, notably420Chairman Mast, and this subcommittee for their rigorous421oversight and review of foreign assistance. Your leadership has422enhanced accountability and ensured that programs pointed423externally remain on point and continue to be an effective soft424diplomacy tool, one that is aligned with diplomatic strategy425and complements military strength, economic investment, and426humanitarian aid.427    Democracy programs--I am here to testify--when executed428cost-effectively strengthen American security and prosperity.429They foster democratic societies abroad that align with U.S.430values, reject terrorism, and resist authoritarian influence431from adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. These432programs, in a very cost-effective way, reduce conflict,433mitigate migration pressures, and promote transparent markets434that drive U.S. trade and investment, all of which benefits435American families here at home.436    Three decades ago, U.S. democracy assistance, including by437the National Endowment For Democracy, transformed former Soviet438Bloc nations. We supported free elections, revitalized439parliaments, and guided transitions from single-party rule to440multiparty systems. Most of these countries became strong U.S.441allies. Poland, Lithuania, and Romania have emerged today as442partners countering terrorism and authoritarianism. Poland443alone did 24 billion in trade with the U.S. last year. Now, if444asked whether supporting Poland in the early 1990's was worth445U.S. taxpayer investment, my answer would be yes.446    Now, of course, not every country receiving democracy447support becomes a Poland, just as not every U.S. military448economic or sanctions effort succeeds. However, keeping449effective tools in our arsenal is a prudent way to protect450American interests in today's volatile world.451    In 2025, supporting democracy abroad is increasingly452complex. Authoritarian regimes fuel drug trafficking, attack453allies, and launch cyber attacks. Others like Venezuela drive454migration to U.S. borders, and theocratic regimes like Iran455destabilize regions, pulling the U.S. and our soldiers into456costly conflicts. The PRC in particular poses unique457challenges. Its cyber espionage, intellectual property theft,458economic coercion, and influence operations all threaten U.S.459security. But democracy programs directly counter these actions460by promoting transparent governance and freedoms as well as461complementing efforts like those from the DFC.462    Now, Chairman Mast has quite ably exposed the failures of463State Department democracy programs, from funding drag shows in464Ecuador to atheism promotion in Nepal, but as we chart a path465forward, I think we need to be intellectually honest and466recognize that there have been many more programs which have467not been critically flawed and that do benefit the United468States. These include, amongst others, ensuring peaceful469electoral processes in Kenya and the Dominican Republic,470helping Mongolia--a strategic country situated between China471and Russia--for the last 20 years to be a successful democracy,472and supporting East Timor as it worked through independence and473internal conflict 25 years ago.474    Looking ahead, countering PRC influence is indeed a475priority and requires a multifaceted strategy. While military476readiness and capitalization are necessary in large-scale477tools, democracy programs, I would affirm, are modest, cost-478effective complements. Just a few examples. In Taiwan, State479Department funding has helped expose PRC election meddling. In480Sri Lanka, programs to elevate public scrutiny of Chinese port481deals. IRI's upcoming work in Ecuador sponsored by the NED will482help local organizations and media analyze the harmful effects483of predatory PRC investments like the Coca Codo Sinclair Dam484like I know you, Madam Chairwoman, are tracking quite closely.485    Now, failing to reauthorize the State Department's486democracy components--including DRL, the Democracy Fund, and487ESF--risks ceding ground to adversaries who exploit democratic488weaknesses and undermine our interests. Sunsetting NED would489also be detrimental.490    To ensure effectiveness, I would urge reauthorization with491five considerations amongst others. First, regular audits,492clear metrics, and public disclosure while balancing safety for493partners in autocratic states. Second, consider using AI to494analyze democratic growth data and security tie-ins for better495outcomes and evaluation. Third, design programs that must496first--before they are funded--articulate how they enhance U.S.497security and prosperity. Fourth, refocus funding back to core498democracy work: Free elections, political party strengthening,499civilian scrutiny of government, amongst others. Fifth and500finally, question the point of, quote-unquote, localization.501    Accomplishing things is what we want to do on behalf of the502American people, not to say we put X percentage of funding into503the hands of locals like the goal of the last administration.504Helping countries become democratic enhances U.S. security and505economic opportunities. I urge you to wisely evaluate the cost506of eliminating this vital tool when you are reauthorizing the507State Department and democracy programming. I welcome your508questions.509    [The prepared statement of Mr. Quirk follows:]510511    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]512513    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Dr. Quirk, for your statement. I am514looking forward to asking you a few questions.515    Now, I recognize Mr. Malinowski for his opening statement.516Thank you. Welcome.517518                STATEMENT OF HON. TOM MALINOWSKI519520    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. I well521remember the work you and I did together on these issues.522    Representative Castro, it is great to be back.523    One of the few things that Democrats and Republicans have524long agreed on is that America should be a force for freedom525and for human rights in the world. So, when freedom-loving526people tore down the Berlin Wall, when a young man in China527stopped a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square, when young women528in Iran and Afghanistan said they wanted to be treated like529human beings, not as property, when people in Venezuela rose up530to demand free elections, we might have debated how to respond,531but there was never any question amongst us in this room about532what side America was supposed to be on.533    For this reason, Congress has, for decades, passed law534after law to make human rights a priority in American foreign535policy--aid restrictions, sanctions, broadcasting to closed536societies, the annual human rights reports, creating the537National Endowment for Democracy--and it was Congress that538created the Democracy and Human Rights Bureau at the State539Department so that there would be an independent voice in that540Department for strong human rights policies.541    Why was this vital? Because the natural tendency of542diplomats is to avoid friction on sensitive actions. So having543a DRL Bureau ensures that, when there is tension between544defending liberty and some other U.S. national interests, the545Secretary of State at the very least will hear competing views.546    Now, I understand the committee is interested in how we can547improve and rationalize this system. Chairwoman, you said we548need to go back to basics. The problem is the administration is549eliminating the basics right now. How do we know that? Well, we550have seen the Department submit a sworn statement in court551promising to end all grants for democracy and civic society552around the world--not some but all--and that derisively refer553to those grants as regime change promotion, language that is554straight from the Chinese and Russian propaganda playbook.555    The key organizations implementing these programs--like556Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, NDI,557IRI--have been blacklisted and publicly disparaged. Today,558multiple State and AID programs backing activists in countries559like China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela have been terminated560despite strong congressional support.561    And, Representative Castro, you are absolutely right. When562the program is terminated, that is a message to those563governments that we don't care about those people anymore and564it is open season on those people.565    This week, you all passed my dear friend Congressman566Wilson's bill on democracy in Georgia. Every Republican on this567subcommittee voted for it. So I assume you all don't think that568is a woke priority. The administration has terminated all569democracy grants to Georgia.570    And, for those democracy programs that have survived, the571President's skinny budget would--looks like it would finish572them off completely, as you mentioned, Representative Castro.573    So, again, no more American support for people challenging574authoritarian regimes from China, to Iran, to Cuba, to North575Korea. No more broadcasting to closed societies through Radio576Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, which would be a huge gift to577Putin and Xi Jinping.578    Meanwhile, we are seeing virtually no public statements579from the Secretary of State on human rights issues with, I580would say, the bizarre and disturbing exception of constant581advocacy for the rights of a neo-Nazi party in Germany. The582Department is paring back the annual human rights reports to583the bare statutory minimum, which is a way of saying they don't584want to do them at all.585    Now, Madam Chairwoman, one reason I find this so586bewildering is that, when I was assistant secretary for DRL, no587Member of Congress was a stronger champion of our work than588Senator Marco Rubio. Had I proposed any of the things that his589Department is now doing to retreat from that mission and to590eviscerate DRL's reporting, aid, and policy functions, he would591have demanded my resignation and rightly so.592    So, again, I would say the issue of the moment is not how593to fix DRL. You cannot reorganize the number zero. The question594is are we still going to be a country that defends human rights595and freedom even when it is uncomfortable? Are we still a596shining city on a hill or just a department store, as the597President recently said?598    So, if you care about this cause, even if you have599disagreements about how best to advance it, now is the time.600Don't wait for the authorization bill. Now is the time to601insist that the State Department stay in the fight. Even if602some of our top officials don't believe in any of this,603Congress can preserve the institutions and programs that you604believe in. I would be delighted to speak to you in more detail605about how you can do that. Thank you very much.606    [The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]607608    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]609610    Ms. Salazar. Yes. Thanks to you, Mr. Malinowski,611Congressman.612    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.613    It is fascinating, everything I hear from three of you. We614all agree, I think, that we want to continue being the shining615city on the hill, that we are the only game in town because the616Russians and the Iranians and the Chinese are really not going617to promote anything close to democracy or freedom.618    So I am going to go start with you, Mr. Destro. And I think619that your statement was highly enlightening. So, when you say620that we have got to ask ourselves hard questions, that the621title of the hearing is not necessarily what we need to be622looking at--we agree that we want some return on our623investment, that we want to promote democracy. That is what we624are here for. And it is a little bit disturbing to hear that we625have not--we have spent so much and the return has been so626little.627    So just give me an example of in the last--let's say in the628last 4 years or in the last 10 years, what have we done wrong?629What did we do wrong in the last 4 years with Biden? I am sure630that there were some moneys going to good programs, but, you631know, perception is reality, and when we hear that there is632going to $12 million for the Guatemalans--for the native633Guatemalans to have a sex-change operation, you know, that634doesn't really sound really good.635    So what did we do wrong in the last 4 years, and what did636we do wrong in the last 10 years? Put it into perspective for637us, please.638    Mr. Destro. Well, with respect, I think that is a bit of639the wrong question. I think the question is what are we doing640right.641    Ms. Salazar. Okay. So then tell me which one is the right642question.643    Mr. Destro. It is what are we doing right.644    Ms. Salazar. What are we doing right?645    Mr. Destro. Yes. What are we doing right?646    Ms. Salazar. Okay.647    Mr. Destro. Okay? And, you know, Congressman Malinowski and648I talked about this when I was in office, and this question649of--as the DRL assistant secretary, you have 1.5 billion tools650at your disposal in the ESF and in Human Rights Fund. You also651have $40 billion worth of really committed professional people652working with you on those projects. And so the question becomes653where is the best place to put them.654    Now, all of those places that you just talked about--the655sex-change operations, everything else--that is not the best656way to put them. It doesn't really advance our foreign policy.657    Ms. Salazar. Correct. So you agree that we need to change658that vision----659    Mr. Destro. I do.660    Ms. Salazar [continuing]. and leave wokeness and go back to661democracy?662    Mr. Destro. I think we need to foster freedom, right?663    Ms. Salazar. Right.664    Mr. Destro. And that is why I used Belize as the example.665Here is a great small country who--they are trying to figure666out should we keep the king? Should we stay in the Caribbean667Court of Justice? Should we revise our Constitution, you know,668and where is our embassy? Nowhere.669    Ms. Salazar. Right. So----670    Mr. Destro. Where is Millennium Challenge? Pushing that671same agenda you just talked about.672    Ms. Salazar. So this reorganization of the State Department673that you just mentioned under Marco Rubio now--so, if you were674his advisor, what are the three things that you would tell him675in order to have our return on investment to be really high?676Three.677    Mr. Destro. Well, I think the first thing I would do is678make sure--and this is one of the things that I tried to do as679assistant secretary, is to make sure that the assistant680secretary who has statutory authority to maintain constant681oversight of that funding, both humanitarian and----682    Ms. Salazar. Oversight?683    Mr. Destro. Yes, oversight. Right.684    Ms. Salazar. No. 2?685    Mr. Destro. We don't. And I know it is fair to say, well,686what do you mean you don't? You know, I had to spend a million687dollars to put together a data base to pull it all together.688    Ms. Salazar. So oversight of where the money is going. That689is No. 2?690    Mr. Destro. Oversight of where the money is going, who is691spending it, and it doesn't matter whether it is in State or692HHS because there is human rights and humanitarian funding all693over the government. And so the first thing would be let's694figure out where the money is going.695    Ms. Salazar. All right. So you are telling me that we do696not know as a government where the money is going?697    Mr. Destro. No, we don't.698    Ms. Salazar. We are only spending taxpayers' money, all699right? So----700    Mr. Destro. Right. But that is your power of the purse. If701you don't know, then you don't have any effective oversight.702    Ms. Salazar. You mean Congress--I am sorry--or the State703Department officials?704    Mr. Destro. I am talking about--this is a dual, joint705executive Congress thing. You have the power of the purse, and706you have the right to see how the money is being spent, and you707are not getting it. That is my point.708    Ms. Salazar. And then that would be the most important709advice you would give to the Secretary of State?710    Mr. Destro. Is make sure that there is at least one person,711if not more who has continuous oversight and can demand712oversight of that money. And I can tell you stories. I won't713bother to burn the record now, but I basically faced absolute714insubordination when I tried to get that. And assistant715secretaries really don't have the authority to take personnel716actions like that. You know, but the fact of the matter is that717I was told I didn't have any right to see the money.718    Ms. Salazar. Thank you. I don't want to overextend my time.719    So I now recognize Ranking Member Castro for 5 minutes.720    Mr. Castro. Thank you.721    I know in your testimony just now and I think in your722written testimony you stated that you are often unaware of what723programs the Department funded or operated, and that suggests724unaccountability.725    And, Tom, you served in the same role in the Obama726administration, I believe, and I wanted to ask you, you know,727is it accurate that, as assistant secretary, you had to sign728off on all the funding recommendations?729    Mr. Malinowski. Absolutely, yes. I find this very strange.730I signed off on every single grant program and reviewed every731single grant program. If I had questions, they were answered.732If I had concerns, they were addressed. Congress was briefed on733every grant program at that point that it wanted to know about.734It was briefed on grant programs it didn't want to know about.735That wasn't the issue.736    And DRL--one of the hallmarks of what makes it so good is737that it actually has an office of people who are dedicated to738grant management. These are very small grants going to small739organizations, often in developing countries, and so the740oversight function of DRL is especially important and one741reason it needs to be empowered and not dismantled, as the742Secretary of State is intending to do.743    I understand you all have been briefed that the people744overseeing these grants are either going to be fired or moved745into the regional bureaus, which I think former Assistant746Secretary Destro and I agree would be a bad idea. So there is747oversight, DRL is key to it, and that is why it needs to be748strengthened.749    Mr. Castro. Thank you.750    Mr. Malinowski. And, by the way, there will be nothing to751oversee if everything is cut.752    Mr. Castro. Right.753    Mr. Malinowski. So we are kind of rearranging the deck754chairs of the Titanic here unless we focus on the fact that755everything is being eliminated.756    Mr. Castro. I mean, to your point--and that is why I said757this is not reform. This is sabotage. This is a total758dismantling of the infrastructure for diplomacy for the United759States.760    Let me ask you: The administration's skinny budget proposes761cutting all funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, or762NED, making claims about a lack of transparency and763disinformation.764    Dr. Quirk, are you aware of the claims made about the NED?765Did the administration reach out to the NED or its grantees to766seek information before making these claims?767    Mr. Quirk. Thank you, Ranking Member Castro, for the768question. I appreciate it.769    The charges against the NED from OMB in the skinny budget770were, frankly, news to me. I am not here to defend the NED. I771do know they responded with a fact sheet, which I have here. I772am happy to submit it for the record. What I will say is that773individuals making similar accusations never at least knock on774our door and say, hey, we have a concern to an X, Y, or Z775program. Can we discuss it?776    Often, the charters aren't backed up with any evidence.777There is no followup. The NED are audited. They report to778Congress and the USG, frankly, quite frequently. So the bit779about them not being transparent just baffles me.780    Mr. Castro. And the administration's cuts to democracy and781human rights programs was far-reaching and included significant782cuts to the International Republican Institute's programs. Can783you speak to how these cuts were made? And did the784administration seek information from you all specifically785before making these decisions, and did you feel like it was a786thoughtful and deliberative process?787    Mr. Quirk. So what I will say about the foreign aid review788is we--any administration has the right to do it. We supported789it from day one. Certainly, there were some programs cut that,790in my view, were not sufficiently linked to advancing U.S.791national security. That said, there were many that were cut792that were, in fact, advancing U.S. interests. Tell me how it is793not in our interest to be supportive of the people in Cuba,794Iran, China, elsewhere.795    To your question, Ranking Member, about did the State796Department reach out for information, the former F director of797the State Department whose name now escapes me--his office798never came to us asking for that information.799    Mr. Castro. You know, we spent years talking about the800threats of China both to the United States, to our allies, but801also to their own people, nations like Cuba. And I actually802agree with you on Cuba, although I would say that we have, for803some time now, pursued a strategy that failed a long time ago,804and we should have made the change sometime back.805    But let me ask: Does anybody agree that cutting the806diplomacy budget by 85 percent--85 percent--is actually going807to make the United States safer and stronger and more secure808around the world?809    Mr. Destro. Well, Mr. Castro, if I can respond.810    Mr. Castro. Please.811    Mr. Destro. There is nothing like a hanging to clarify the812mind. I mean, you know, I am sure that is a negotiable figure.813You know, and that is----814    Mr. Castro. Well, let's say it ends up at 50 percent. Do815you think it is good at 50 percent?816    Mr. Destro. I can't answer that question, and the reason is817it is what you are spending the money on. It seems to me when818we talk about things like countering China----819    Mr. Castro. Well, but China is increasing its funding,820right? It is not decreasing its funding.821    Mr. Destro. Of course. But the question is how do you822counter China. And one of the ways you do that is by increasing823the independence of the countries that you are working with.824Some of that is going to be trade policy. Some of it is going825to be human rights funding.826    I have spent a lot of time working with people in West827Africa about how do we use trade funding to do human rights. I828mean, these are not incompatible. In fact, our programs here at829the United States--human rights in the workplace is one of our830most stellar human rights achievements in the last century.831    Mr. Castro. But they cut all the labor rights programs. I832mean, I think what you are describing is a situation, also,833where the countries are not likely--I mean, it could be834possible--but aren't likely to become stronger and more835independent on their own. They are more likely to rely on some836other Nation like China or Russia, which is I think what is837going to happen.838    Mr. Destro. Well, you know, again, I don't disagree. I839don't think we disagree about the importance of it. But a good840friend who is from a South Asian country--one that will remain841nameless--has come here to study. Her Secret Service came to842her and said, you know, you are working through the CIA. And843then she says, well, are you telling me I shouldn't come? To844which they said, no, no, no, no. We just want you to know where845the money is coming from.846    That is the perception. If that is the perception, it is847not a big surprise why a country like India enacts something848like our Foreign Agents Registration Act. So, I mean, actions849have consequences. It is the how. Diplomacy is about how. It is850not about whether.851    Mr. Castro. I have gone over my time; so we will have to852continue the conversation another time.853    Thank you, Chairwoman.854    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Ranking Member.855    Now, I recognize the representative, Sara Jacobs, from the856State of California.857    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.858    And thank you all for testifying.859    Look, I am glad that we all seem to agree that human rights860and democracy are an important part of our national security861and foreign policy. I know there are some on this committee who862maybe think they aren't, like our Chairman Mast, but I believe863that it is actually in our national interest to prioritize and864center human rights and good governance in our foreign policy865because it is in our long-term interest to do so, right?866    Like, let's take the African continent, the youngest867population in the world. Seventy percent of the population is868under 30. These young people are the future. Do we want them to869remember the U.S. supporting their autocratic regimes or870supporting populations who need protection and support to fight871for a better future?872    Obviously, we can have that policy discussion, but what we873are talking about now is the grave mistake I think this874administration is taking to sideline human rights, democracy,875and governance at the State Department.876    And, Madam Chairwoman, I first of all don't believe any of877the programs that you cited are actually DRL programs, but,878also--look, you can cherry-pick a random grant or a program879here or there and frame them as something that is silly. That880is fine, actually. I am actually fine if you disagree with some881of the programs that the Biden administration put in place.882They were aligned with Biden's foreign policy priorities, which883included supporting human rights, including LGBTQ+ rights.884    It is totally normal for a new administration to come in885and decide that they have different priorities and to terminate886those programs that they don't think align with their policy887priorities, but that is not what this administration has done.888It has actually canceled nearly all human rights programs,889including human rights programs that we are working on fighting890for freedom in China and Venezuela and Nigeria, and it is891gutting the expertise in the Department around human rights.892    So, first, Dr. Quirk, I want to dig into a little bit more893the impact of this administration's gutting of democracy894programs. Approximately how many of your programs were895terminated by this administration?896    Mr. Quirk. At the start of the administration, we had897roughly--from State and AID--95 active awards, and all but a898handful have been terminated899    Ms. Jacobs. And the administration has assured us that this900review was being done in a systematic way, that they were901focused on waste, fraud, and abuse, that they are just doing902due diligence. Did any of those terminations include a903rationale for why the program was canceled?904    Mr. Quirk. No.905    Ms. Jacobs. Would you consider any of those programs woke?906    Mr. Quirk. I would not. Look, anyone implementing democracy907and rights programs over the last 10 years could be accused of908doing woke programming insofar as a work plan or proposal had909to include those words based on that administration's foreign910policy. So did IRI documents include those terms? Yes. Did we911do any woke programming? Decidedly, no.912    Ms. Jacobs. Were there any allegations of waste, fraud, and913abuse in any of your programs?914    Mr. Quirk. Not that I am aware of.915    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I think it is clear that this review916was not thoughtful or thorough and that it was never actually917about waste, fraud, abuse, or efficiency.918    I also want to get to another thing my colleagues like to919say. They like to say we shouldn't be doing programs that other920governments don't want us to do because that hurts our921diplomacy.922    Dr. Quirk, a concrete example. The U.S. previously provided923significant support to the Syrian civil society under the Assad924regime. Would you agree there was bipartisan support for these925programs?926    Mr. Quirk. I support providing democracy assistance in927closed societies because long-standing autocratic regimes--928whether it is Cuba, Iran--are stable until they are not, and929providing support in these countries is about maintaining the930small amount of civic space and ensuring that there are leaders931in place that have the skills to lead when that regime falls.932    Ms. Jacobs. I think that is exactly right. So, clearly, the933Assad regime did not like what the U.S. was funding, but it was934in our interest to fund it anyway, and that is true in many,935many of these countries.936    So, with my last minute, Congressman Malinowski, could you937talk about why supporting civil society and promoting good938governance in other countries is so critical to our strategic939U.S. foreign policy and national security?940    Mr. Malinowski. Well, thank you. In addition to being941obviously the right thing to do, I think the most important942argument for it is that this is our comparative advantage over943adversaries like China. It is what makes America special. We944are not just a bunch of people defending a piece of soil. We945stand for something larger in the world that is attractive,946that people are inspired by all over the world. Why would we947give that up?948    Mr. Destro compared what is happening--maybe949inadvertently--to a hanging. Yes, that is true. We tied our own950noose, we put our neck in it, and we are about to hang951ourselves, even as China and all of our adversaries are952increasing funding for their influence operations around the953world. That would be catastrophic for U.S. national interests.954Thank you.955    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I yield back.956    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Jacobs.957    And, now, we recognize Representative Mike Lawler from the958State of New York for 5 minutes.959    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Madam Chair.960    As you may know, I currently cochair the Moldova Caucus and961have since I joined Congress. A place like Moldova really962exemplifies how some good governance and anticorruption963assistance can actually go a long way.964    Can you discuss some of the impactful programming that the965U.S. has supported in Moldova in the last decade? I will ask966any of you for--to opine.967    Mr. Destro. I think I am going to defer to Dr. Quirk on968that one because I don't have the details on Moldova.969    Mr. Quirk. What I can say, broadly speaking, the support we970provide in countries like Moldova is to support the971infrastructure of democracy--strong political parties, civil972society, legislatures--so that they can rule their own country973and govern in a way that makes the country stable.974    Mr. Malinowski. I mean, one more specific example that--as975you know, there was an extremely important election in Moldova976last year that Putin tried to undermine in every way that he977could. That election was observed, as I recall, by NDI and IRI978observers on the ground, all funded 100 percent by the U.S.979Government. If there were an election in Moldova today of equal980importance, we could not deploy a single person because all of981that money is frozen.982    Mr. Lawler. Mr. Quirk, to that end, can you share from your983perspective how election monitoring is actually helpful, and984are there ways to make these trips and verifications more985effective?986    Mr. Quirk. Happy to. IRI, along with our NDI colleagues,987have provided election observation services for hundreds of988elections. These efforts provide an independent check from pre-989election, Election Day, post-election, to ensure that the990processes are free, fair, transparent, absent of which a ruling991or opposition party might be inclined to conduct fraud.992    And, moreover, following the election process, the reports993indicate areas in which the country should improve their994electoral processes so it is even better the next time around.995    Mr. Lawler. Transnational repression--obviously, when996governments reach across borders to harass and silence997dissidents--has become a significant human rights concern in998recent years. Repressive regimes abuse Interpol Red Notices and999use overseas law enforcement offices in an effort to control1000citizens living abroad. NGO's report that there have been over10011,000 cases in the last decade perpetuated by over 441002countries, with the most common perpetrators being China,1003Russia, Turkiye, and Egypt.1004    What transnational activities by authoritarian governments1005are most concerning from a human rights perspective, and how1006could the State Department respond to that?1007    Mr. Destro. Mr. Lawler, can I address that?1008    Mr. Lawler. Sure.1009    Mr. Destro. I mean, I will give you a really good example.1010Overseas Chinese police stations, right? And they exist here.1011    Mr. Lawler. We have had them in New York.1012    Mr. Destro. That is what I mean. They have them in1013Minneapolis-St. Paul. So, when countries transcend their1014borders--and it is not just countries, I might add.1015Transnational organized criminal groups like Boko Haram, you1016know, the various gangs that control our border--you know,1017those are all very concerning.1018    And so the question becomes what is the best diplomatic1019response, you know, and then how do you back that up with some1020serious money? I mean, that is the--nobody is arguing here that1021we shouldn't do this. In fact, having helped run a statewide1022election in my home State of Ohio, I know exactly how elections1023get run. I know the machines. I know the counting. I know all1024of the things.1025    By the time you get to election observers--I think election1026observers are great, you know, but many boards of elections in1027this country get nervous when we bring in observers. That is1028our problem. You know, what we need to do is bring in election1029officials and watch how the election actually happens. You1030know, and that is not just observing. It is a long process over1031a couple of years.1032    Mr. Lawler. Mr. Malinowski?1033    Mr. Malinowski. Yes. So it is most disturbing when it1034happens on our soil, obviously. It is the countries you1035mentioned. I would say Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi, and a1036number of other countries. When I was in Congress, this was a1037priority, pushing the State Department to do more about this.1038    One success we had was that they started including examples1039of transnational repression in the annual human rights reports1040on every country in the world. Those are important because it1041is the one time in the year when the State Department is forced1042to be honest about everybody, whether it is comfortable or not.1043And I am afraid the news we have gotten is that the1044administration has decided to take out from the annual human1045rights reports that section on transnational repression. So I1046would encourage you to take that up with them before that1047decision is final. Thank you.1048    Mr. Lawler. I appreciate it. Thank you.1049    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Lawler.1050    Now, we recognize for 5 minutes Representative Jackson from1051Illinois.1052    Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairwoman.1053    Thank you, Ranking Member.1054    Thank you, distinguished panelists.1055    We are here today to discuss an American agenda for1056democracy and human rights. I believe we can all agree on the1057importance of freedom, democracy, and human rights as pillars1058of a stable and a just world.1059    The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has1060historically championed these universal values. Its mission to1061bolster democratic institutions, confront democratic1062backsliding, promote accountability, uphold labor standards,1063and advance the rights of marginalized communities globally1064reflects the best of who we are and what we aspire to be as a1065Nation, a Nation that cherishes democratic values, embraces1066diversity, and strives to promote peace. These are not woke1067values. It seems like one fool said ``woke'' is a bad word to1068have a sense of consciousness, and a lot of other people1069sitting on the vine have echoed it.1070    Many people are saying what is ``woke.'' I would like to1071know from you, Mr. Quirk, is there a definition that has been1072published on what is the definition of ``woke''?1073    Mr. Quirk. I am by no means an expert nor do I desire to be1074on wokeism. I am not aware of any particular definition that is1075published.1076    Mr. Jackson. Okay. Thank you. You don't know. So it is kind1077of what this administration is doing.1078    Mr. Bill Gates, who has done a lot of great things in1079philanthropy, has called Elon Musk just today and his DOGE1080companions ``geographically illiterate.'' They may have some1081level of intelligence, but they can be really foolhardy and1082unintelligent in so many other ways.1083    Let us consider the global landscape at this time, from the1084devastating conflicts in the Sudan, to the ongoing war in1085Ukraine against Russian aggression, the heart-wrenching1086violence in Israel and Palestine, the dire human rights that is1087happening off of our shores right here in Haiti. We talk about1088the struggle for democracy in Myanmar, the escalating1089instability in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo1090and Sahel. Nearly every continent is touched by conflicts and1091democratic backsliding when we retreat.1092    This will be for you, Hon. Malinowski. At this very moment1093when the world is rife with instability that directly impacts1094Americans' national security interests, is it wise for us to1095diminish these very tools designed to address these challenges?1096    Mr. Malinowski. Certainly not. And, you know, one thing1097that I heard a lot from President Trump during the campaign is1098that he wants fewer wars in the world. He doesn't want the1099United States fighting as many wars in the world.1100    A budget that cuts the State Department by 83 percent1101leaves us--and I am a proponent of strong military spending. I1102would have voted for any increase in the military budget when I1103was here. But to cut the State Department by 83 percent means1104that, when there is a crisis in the world, the only tool we1105have is a gun. The only tool we have is the one that President1106Trump claims he doesn't want to use, and that makes absolutely1107no sense to me.1108    Mr. Jackson. Thank you so much.1109    Mr. Destro, there is the comments of woke. This1110administration uses these terms, and then they run and people1111don't seem to ask the second or the third question. This1112administration also talks about America being first. How are we1113being first? What are our interests in this hemisphere? What1114are our goals to become first in what?1115    Mr. Destro. Well, thank you, Mr. Jackson. That is a really1116good question. And I would say that--and I have to give credit1117to my wife on this one--that putting America first is exactly1118what the flight attendant tells you when you get on an1119airplane. Put your own face mask on first, and then help the1120people around you. And that is really, I think--and I agree1121with my co-panelists that our obligation is to help all the1122people around us, you know. And why? That is good for us.1123    And so when Mr. Castro mentioned earlier labor programs--I1124mean, I started out as a labor lawyer. I had no idea how much1125of my portfolio was dealing with human rights in the labor1126field, supply chains. You know, people mention Democratic1127Republic of Congo. I mean, but how do you solve the problem of1128kids being slaves in cobalt mines? I mean, that is not just a1129human rights problem. We have got to find American companies1130who will go in and run those mines and apply good, you know,1131labor standards. So this question of how much do we spend, it1132is not just a question of how much. It is how do we put it1133together.1134    I mean, I will give you an example. My friend and1135colleague, former Assistant Secretary Dave Stilwell, who ran1136the East Asia-Pacific Bureau--he and I were talking about how1137do you help countries that are under pressure from China to1138maintain their independence. And one of the answers was you1139translate the master agreement that the Chinese make you sign,1140but it is in Chinese. You don't even know what you are agreeing1141to. That is not independence. That is not freedom. You know,1142but where does it fit? Where does the funding--what is the pot1143out of which you take that money?1144    Those are the practical problems that assistant secretaries1145have to solve every single day. And it is not just me. It is my1146counterparts in Labor, my counterparts in USTR. I mean, all1147this thing has to be put together as a little symphony, and it1148is the Secretary and the President who has to conduct it.1149    Mr. Jackson. Thank you so much for your participation. I1150thank you, Madam Chairwoman.1151    And I would encourage all of you to keep on doing the work1152of diversity, equity, and inclusion. And for those who use some1153inflammatory terms and try to make woke and consciousness a bad1154word, push back on that ignorance with all your might.1155    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative----1156    Mr. Jackson. Preserve your integrity.1157    I yield back.1158    Ms. Salazar [continuing]. from the State of Illinois. Thank1159you.1160    Now I recognize for 5 minutes the Representative Titus from1161the State of Nevada.1162    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.1163    And thank you to Mr. Jackson for bringing up about woke. I1164have got to just first take exception to the name of this1165hearing. We want to not promote woke values. I don't even know1166what that means, and I have never heard a very good definition1167from the other side.1168    And if you look at democracy and spreading freedom, which1169is the other half of the title here, we are talking about1170freedom of the press, programs that promote this, protecting1171reporters. You are talking about helping women run for office,1172talking about helping legislatures draft bills on1173anticorruption. Is that woke? Does that qualify for woke?1174    That sounds to me like we are spreading freedom and1175democracy. So I don't get where that title comes from. And when1176we are doing away with the programs that promote that, like IRI1177and NDI, we are not spreading democracy.1178    Mr. Malinowski, it is nice to see you here, as a former1179colleague, to talk about these issues. You know, every time you1180strike one of these issues, look what we have done in1181Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Hong Kong, Tibet,1182Burma, all kinds of democracy programs.1183    And then the latest is now we are going to change Voice of1184America to what is this super-right wing, One America News1185Network. That sounds pretty woke to me or pretty asleep. I1186don't know which it is.1187    But, anyway, I know the good work that IRI and NDI do.1188    I would ask you, Dr. Quirk, I have seen it through my1189visiting countries with the House Democracy Partnership, on the1190ground helping to build democracies, and that is what the1191Partnership promotes.1192    So would you just talk about how the phrase has affected1193some specific work that you have been involved in. What are1194some of the specific programs that you have that do promote1195democracy that the other side is cheering for us eliminating?1196    Mr. Quirk. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I am1197not here necessarily to talk about the programs that IRI has1198had canceled. What I will say is that yesterday we had at IRI1199foreign events, three courageous opposition leaders, Maria1200Corina Machado from Venezuela, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya from1201Belarus, and others.1202    You don't need to hear it from me, hear it from them. They1203quite forcefully said, we need the U.S. in this game. We don't1204need the U.S. to be leaning back when the likes of China and1205Russia are leaning in.1206    Ms. Titus. Well, I think that is absolutely true, because1207they will be only too willing to step into the breach if we are1208not present.1209    And when you pull out all the people who are in the field1210working with villages, working with remote areas, working with1211new legislatures, what is left there?1212    I mean, this is such a source of soft power for us, as you1213were saying, that just help the person with his face mask on,1214it helps everybody around us, that I just find this astounding1215when I look at the cuts that are being made.1216    Mr. Malinowski, would you continue this conversation with1217me about what we are losing and talk about the State1218Department's reorganization and how that is going to impact the1219regional approach to things?1220    Mr. Malinowski. Well, we are losing our heart and soul.1221That is the headline. Specifically, you asked about programs.1222It would take me hours but, you know, we are losing grants. We1223were talking about Cuba. There is a wonderful organization1224called Diario de coup De Cuba, which has been exposing1225corruption by the Cuban regime for years. Defunded.1226    There is an organization called China Human Rights Monitor1227which--China Dissent Monitor, which is the main--the best1228source of information in the world about local protests against1229the Chinese Communist Party. Even the Chinese people learn1230about protests in their own country through this. 100 percent1231defunded.1232    All of the work we have been doing to try to help women and1233girls in Afghanistan who we abandoned, that the State1234Department, USAID, DRL continued to help them, through women's1235shelters, through emergency grants to get them out of the1236country. All of that has been defunded.1237    And you mention the other side. I know that Representative1238Salazar, Chairwoman Salazar, you don't want to defund those1239programs. I know that Representative Smith, who has been1240championing this work longer than anybody in this room, does1241not want to defund these programs.1242    And so very, very seriously, as a former colleague, I need1243to appeal to you guys to stand up against this. This is a1244President of your party. And if you do that successfully, I1245still expect and understand that there will be conservative1246priorities imposed on these programs, because it is a1247Republican administration, and that is fine. I want them to1248survive, and they are not going to survive unless Republicans1249in the House and the Senate stand up and say they need to1250survive.1251    Ms. Titus. Thank you.1252    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Titus.1253    Now I recognize for 5 minutes Representative Chris Smith1254from the State of New Jersey.1255    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Chairwoman.1256    And welcome to our distinguished panel. Tom, it is great to1257see you again. And, of course, Bob Destro, who I have known for1258decades as well. And welcome to you, Dr. Quirk.1259    Just a couple of questions. I know you were speaking about,1260Secretary Destro, about the DR Congo. I just had like my sixth1261hearing on it earlier on March 25th, just a few weeks ago.1262    And we focused again on the issue of cobalt, the fact that1263I have been to North Kivu. I have been to Goma. And we do know1264that, unfortunately, kids are being used to mine in the1265artisanal mines, but also about 25 to 40 thousand kids and1266about 200,000 adults are in forced labor.1267    I have appealed repeatedly to the DRC Government to sever1268their ties with the Chinese Communist Party. We know that there1269are moneys flowing that are ubiquitous to help facilitate this1270terrible exploitation. And, you know, wherever you come down on1271EV cars and the need for cobalt, make sure it is coming from a1272supply chain that is clean of this kind of horrific abuse.1273    I do have a bill in, H.R. 2310, which we are going to try1274to get passed that would provide a rebuttable presumption,1275because it is all coming from China. It is all coming from1276Xinjiang, where they process it, process it there or in a good1277country where there is real ILO type labor standards. And, as1278you indicated, you know, American mines, you know, are more1279likely to have a much better track record.1280    You testified at several of my hearings, and I thank you1281for that. And so I just want to underscore the need to get1282these kinds of bills passed and out of the Senate.1283    Last night, 406 to 1, both sides of the aisle voting for1284it, my Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act passed again. It passed12852 years ago, died in the Senate. And it is very serious.1286    I mean, the sanctioning not just of Chinese officials but1287also of anyone who is complicit in it, you know, whether it be1288the brokers working out of New Jersey or New York or anywhere1289else to procure livers and any other thing, go to Shanghai, get1290it. In 2 weeks, you got the liver. It is coming from a Uyghur1291or it is coming from a Falun Gong practitioner, as we know.1292    And the numbers are staggering. The high number is 100,0001293murders per year to get these. I had one doctor who did them.1294And you testified at that hearing, Bob. I will never forget it.1295And you said, you know, this is a human rights and also a1296trafficking issue almost without parallel, and we need--this1297bill I think would stop a lot of it--it never stops it all--and1298it applies to the world.1299    So we got to make sure the TIP Office remains strong and1300intact. We are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the1301Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I authored that law. It1302took 3 years to get that passed. There was all kinds of1303opposition to it.1304    The Assistant Secretary at the time testified. And they1305didn't want it at the Clinton administration but, thank God, at1306the end of the day he signed it. So alls well that ends well.1307    And then we had problems implementing it through various1308administrations, including Republican and Democratic, to be1309faithful to stand with the victims. Don't be indifferent or1310enabling of the oppressor.1311    So that TIP Office, we got to make sure that any reorg1312protects the TIP Office robustly, the Ambassador-at-large.1313Ditto for the Religious Freedom Office, which was Frank Wolf's13141998 law.1315    So maybe if you wanted to speak to that because I think,1316you know, if we are not speaking out on human rights issues,1317who will? I mean, we do get some good work from the U.K. and1318some of the other democracies, but we have got to be the1319leader.1320    So Mr. Destro and then Tom, if you want to speak.1321    Mr. Destro. Well, let me start by saying amen. I mean, what1322you just said is exactly right. And if we want to take the--you1323know, let me give you the example. Come back to the idea of the1324cobalt mines.1325    I mean, one of the most fascinating meetings I had as1326Assistant Secretary was a group of people who represented the1327footwear and apparel industry. And basically, you had State1328Department, Justice, Labor, Customs Enforcement, everybody in1329the same room saying, if we find slave labor goods in your1330supply chain, they are not coming in, period.1331    And, by the way, if we find out that you know they are1332coming in, you are going to go to jail. That is effective1333foreign policy, I mean. And it is the coordination piece that I1334think often gets missed in all of this.1335    I have been called by people in Africa to say, will you1336help us find some American companies that will mine this stuff1337for us in DRC. That is not an easy task. You know, they don't1338even know who to go to. And so part of it is you almost need--1339on human rights, you almost need--I hate to put it this way--a1340human rights concierge.1341    I mean, what is happening with organ harvesting, I had no1342idea how bad it was. And, as you know, we actually found the1343first survivor of an actual organ harvesting and the Chinese1344admitted it, you know. And there are organ brokers.1345    So there is lots of work and lots of I think potential1346money to spend, but we just have to get our act together and do1347it effectively.1348    Mr. Quirk. If I could just add quickly, there are many1349potential positive components of the proposed reorg, and one1350mistake, given how critical the work of the TIP Office is,1351moving it under PRM. It deemphasizes the nature of the work.1352    Mr. Destro. And actually, if it is going to go anywhere, it1353should go under organized crime, not under population, not1354under migration.1355    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Representative Smith. You are going1356to be able to have more time to ask other questions. We are1357going to go into a second round of questions, and I just have a1358couple for all of you.1359    Let's talk about Venezuela. You mentioned Venezuela. You1360mentioned Mexico. Let's just go Venezuela. Yesterday, five1361members of the Maria Corina Machado team were rescued. They1362were able to escape the country in a special operation.1363    So the question is, and it is for three of you, what else1364do you think DRL could do in order to push for democracy in1365Venezuela? We have such a difficult situation. Maria Corina, in1366my understanding, is the new Simon Bolivar of this generation.1367She is in the country. Maduro signed the Biden Accords,1368promising that he was going to leave if he lost the election,1369he was going to stay if he won it. We understand that she has1370produced the tallies that he lost by 70 points.1371    What else can we do as a country to help the freedom forces1372and the democracy to go back to Venezuela? Start with right1373there. Yes.1374    Mr. Malinowski. So a couple things. First of all, I saw1375that news. It sounds great. I applaud Secretary Rubio for what1376I assume was a lot of work that he did behind the scenes to1377make that happen.1378    But, OK, we rescued five people from Venezuela and brought1379them to the United States. And we are threatening to deport1380300,000 people right back to the Maduro regime?1381    Ms. Salazar. I understand, but----1382    Mr. Malinowski. Right? I mean, I am sorry. I can't help1383raising that difficult issue, but we are----1384    Ms. Salazar. We understand what is happening, but if we1385were as a country, we need to--what do you think we should do?1386What are the forces we need to? What are the resources we need?1387    Mr. Malinowski. Don't be making deals with dictators to1388take back people who are their opponents. That is core. You1389cannot claim to be for democracy and human rights in a country1390if you are doing that.1391    No. 2, don't take away DRL's tools and funding, because--1392and to be fair, not all of the Venezuela democracy programs1393have been frozen or terminated, but everything running through1394the NED, through Freedom House, through that whole family has1395been terminated.1396    That is absolutely crazy. And my understanding is because1397they just don't like Freedom House. Like, really? That is your1398reason?1399    Ms. Salazar. Programs that have not--so putting aside the1400ones who have been terminated or the ones that are still1401current, what else can we do as a country?1402    Mr. Malinowski. We can resume the things that have been1403terminated. It shouldn't be unreasonable for me--I mean, look,1404if I had done this when I was Assistant Secretary, if I had1405come to you, Chairwoman Salazar, and said, I am terminating1406half of our democracy programs in Venezuela, you wouldn't have1407said, well, besides that. You would have been very cross with1408me and rightly so, right? And I am saying you have got to be1409angry about this.1410    Ms. Salazar. We are angry about the whole situation with1411Venezuela, and the Biden administration did a gesture in trying1412to bring democracy back and look what Maduro did.1413    Mr. Malinowski. And it didn't work. No, I understand. It1414didn't work.1415    Ms. Salazar. He laughed. Maduro laughed in our faces, in1416the face of the United States and the government at the time.1417So----1418    Mr. Malinowski. It didn't work.1419    Ms. Salazar. So the other witnesses, Mr. Quirk.1420    Mr. Quirk. Yes.1421    Ms. Salazar. Any ideas of what do you think this money--1422where else can we do?1423    Mr. Quirk. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. The question is1424really an important one. The NED, the State Department, we have1425an evidence-based set of tools, resources and programming that1426we have used in countless other places, to include Venezuela,1427that are proven to bolster opposition movements. It all comes1428back to resource levels.1429    If we have access to the funds to provide that type of1430support. If staff at NED, IRI, NDI that are ready to go.1431    Second, from a diplomatic standpoint, I think as a country,1432being clear that we stand on the side of the oppressed and1433those pushing back on authoritarian regression, being1434consistent with those messages.1435    Ms. Salazar. Mr. Destro, your idea, if you were to be the1436one guiding the resources, where would you put them when it1437comes to democracy in Venezuela?1438    Mr. Destro. One thing you can do, and I think that it is1439uniquely within your power to do that, is to beef up the1440foundations of Evidence-Based Policy Act, you know, which1441basically should be requiring transparent evaluation of all1442these programs so we get this return on investment question.1443And right now it is a data-integration model, but what we need1444to do is move it into a real evaluation model.1445    The second thing is, as you look at the reauthorization of1446these offices, you need to make sure that, by statute, you1447break down barriers among the agencies, OK? Because if I had1448called over to HHS, they would have said, who are you, click,1449you know. But if I actually call across the hallway to INL, I1450mean, they would have said, who are you, click.1451    I mean, so, you know, that is even though I, as DRL, had1452statutory authority to maintain oversight. So it is the1453process, you know, that I am worried about. I think we can make1454the money work, you know, but it is how we spend it.1455    Ms. Salazar. You made it very clear that is the process on1456how we structure these programs. And thank you.1457    Now I yield back, and I recognize the ranking member for 51458minutes. Thank you.1459    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman.1460    And I say to Tom's point, it was IRI and NDI that helped1461expose that the last Venezuelan elections were not free and1462fair elections. And so even though it is true Maduro is still1463in place, it was that work that helped expose the elections, I1464think, as fraudulent and exposed him to his people.1465    But I wanted to followup on something you said, Mr. Destro.1466You indicated that you disagree with the proposal to move1467foreign assistance programming responsibilities to the regional1468bureaus.1469    Can you speak further on this? And what challenges would1470such a change pose and how would it dilute the prioritization1471of human rights?1472    Mr. Destro. Well, I think that when you are dealing with--1473let me give you a real concrete example. The Rohingya, right,1474they live right on the boundary of East Asia and South Asia,1475right, the bureaus. Who takes care of them? I mean, they are in1476orbit in both bureaus.1477    And so when the focus of the regional bureaus ought to be1478the management of bilateral relationships between our country1479and other countries, but when it comes to human rights1480programs, humanitarian, that is actually much more of a focus.1481And that is one of the reasons I don't want it to go into the1482regionals is because it is going to get lost there.1483    And so when you look at a question that Representative1484Smith and I have looked at a lot, which is the issue of all the1485genocide going on in Nigeria, right? If I call over, as1486Assistant Secretary, to the Intelligence Community and I want1487to know who is buying the AK-47s, who is buying the Land Rovers1488that they are using to kill villagers, you know, what I am1489going to get from the State Department is, oh, it is all1490climate change.1491    What I want to know is, wait a minute, I need the financial1492intelligence, and somebody is going to hang up on me. I could1493not get that kind of information out of the Intelligence1494Community. And so only you can break that down for us, you1495know.1496    So I have some very--like, I really mean it when I say we1497ought to have a little working group and say, look, what are1498the concrete things that you, only you, as Congress, can do,1499and then let the executive branch try to figure out how to do1500it.1501    Mr. Castro. [Presiding.] Thank you. I yield back. Rep.1502Smith?1503    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Castro, Ranking Member.1504    Just, Tom, I would like to yield to you, because I know you1505wanted to answer the original question, and then I will put out1506another question as well. You might want to incorporate it.1507    The idea of the regional bureaus getting even more of a1508voice I think is a very dangerous possibility and a very1509dangerous outcome for human rights. I can't tell you how many1510times on the trafficking issue, no matter who is at the White1511House. We have had individual Ambassadors and the regional1512bureaus weigh in in such a way so that with the TIP Ambassador-1513at-large and with the TIP Office, it is a large number of very,1514very--you know, they are policy experts.1515    They have got data calls from each one of the embassies.1516They have gone through it. And very often their narrative,1517which would lead to a Tier 3 designation, doesn't match what1518the tierage was.1519    There have been numerous examples where other issues1520intervene at the regional bureau level and Secretary of State1521level that then said, no, we are not going to make you Tier 31522because of fill in the blank.1523    Oman got an inflated grade because they were working on the1524agreement with Iran. We saw it with Malaysia, because the TPP1525would not then apply to them if they were Tier 3. And they were1526Tier 3 absolutely. And others look at that and say, wait a1527minute, they politicize this process.1528    So those regional bureaus, they have a role to play, but1529they can't have an outsize role when it comes to human rights,1530because human rights always is on page 6 unless you are the1531Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Labor and Human Rights. Then1532you are walking point every day of the week.1533    So I think we need to make sure that that--and then the1534knowledge base is that much higher too, you know, the1535commitment. That is why you wanted that job, Tom. That is why1536you wanted that job, Bob. Because you are committed to these1537human rights issues.1538    So our hearing that we had the other day, I asked a number1539of questions. One was an ambassador. And we talked about TIP1540and he said, I fought like hell to make sure my country wasn't1541on it, but then, you know, we were--because it does complicate1542the statecraft that they are involved with, or so they think. I1543think if we put human rights first, everything else will fall1544into line. As you were saying, stand with the oppressed, not1545the oppressor.1546    So if you could speak to that, because I think that would1547be a very flawed outcome. We saw with David Goldman, remember,1548Tom, when his son was abducted to Brazil. We got nowhere for 51549years. You know, I got into it the final year, because he1550wasn't my constituent. And then I went down there and I1551realized that it was on page 5 of the prioritization with1552regards to our work with Lula in Brazil. And, you know, that is1553just not good.1554    So maybe you could speak to that. And, Tom, you also wanted1555to, I think.1556    Mr. Malinowski. Yes, this is a key point. It is the job of1557our regional Assistant Secretaries and our Ambassadors first1558and foremost to manage the relationship with the foreign1559country. That is not a criticism. That is just No. 1 of their1560job description.1561    And often, not always, that means they are going to be1562avoiding the most sensitive issues that automatically create1563friction with that government. That is why Congress created the1564trafficking in persons Ambassador. That is why Congress created1565the Assistant Secretary for DRL, to ensure that when there is a1566dispute, when there is a conflict between competing interests,1567the Secretary of State and the President are going to hear from1568two officials of equivalent rank and stature, both of whom are1569confirmed by Congress and accountable to you as well as to1570them. And then whatever decision is made is the decision that1571is made.1572    If you put the staff--if you put the function within the1573regional bureaus, it is never going to get up to the President1574and the Secretary of State if the regional bureau doesn't want1575it to. And that would defeat the purpose of all the laws that--1576you know, you have passed more of these laws probably than any1577Member in this body. And all of them depend on the institution1578implementing the law being strong.1579    So the final point, don't wait for the authorization bill.1580You know how hard it is to pass those. I hope you do. But even1581if you do, this is all going to be settled before you can pass1582a bill. This is a three-alarm fire right now, and Secretary1583Rubio needs to hear from all of you before all of this stuff is1584settled.1585    Mr. Smith. Thank you. Let me just--your point was well-1586taken. I agree with it. I will never forget--and, again, this1587isn't partisan because we have had problems with both sides of1588the aisle on this at the White House.1589    But when Boko Haram is on a killing spree, I went over,1590went to Jos, met with Archbishop Kaigama, who was an amazing1591man, met with the Imam, who he said, they are not us. Muslims1592are being killed too, and they are and they continue to be1593killed as well.1594    But Johnny Carson, who was the Assistant Secretary, so the1595Regional Bureau for Africa, very good man. But I asked him1596repeatedly to designate Boko Haram as an FTO, foreign terrorist1597organization, and he wouldn't do it or they wouldn't do it, the1598administration.1599    They kept saying that, you know, they are just trying to1600embarrass Goodluck Jonathan. I said, embarrass? There is a1601whole another agenda here. And the Chibok girls was just one1602very terrible, you know, manifestation of that, but it was1603happening all the time to boys as well, where they would kill1604them as well as other people.1605    On the day when he left and there was a new Assistant1606Secretary, on the day I was marking up a bill, it was Sense of1607the Congress so we couldn't do more than that, but it would1608have said, please designate--find out where they are getting1609their weapons and their money. On that day's date, 3 years1610after we started the effort, which was stymied I believe by the1611regional bureau, the FTO designation happened. And it was late,1612but thankfully it happened, and I applauded them and thanked1613them profusely.1614    But, again, what you are saying--and it is true--you know,1615the Nigerian Government did not want it. They thought it was1616like a black mark. And they are saying the same thing about CPC1617now on the religious freedom side. I said, it is called Country1618of Particular Concern. We are concerned for your people, that1619is why we are doing this, Christian and Muslim. And there are1620more Christians dying in Nigeria.1621    I had another hearing on that just the other day and met1622with 16 Members of the House of Representatives from Abuja1623earlier this week. And I said, you got to realize there is a1624two-step process. One is the designation. Think of it as a1625mirror to help you too to crack down on this terrible abuse,1626the Fulani and the Boko Haram and ISIS, West Africa and others.1627And I think they got that.1628    The part two is the sanctions. There was an effort you1629recall, Tom, a strong effort to help the Abuja Government, the1630Goodluck Jonathan's government. There was a Fusion Center, all1631this good--so then everyone kept telling me, including many in1632the administration, well, the Leahy amendment precludes us from1633helping them.1634    So I had a hearing on it. I had the Under Secretary come1635and testify. She was excellent. She goes, half of the Nigerian1636military can be trained in counterinsurgency, at least,1637pursuant to the Leahy Amendment. And then we had specific1638breakouts of units that could be trained tomorrow. And it never1639happened. And they were dying to try to get out there and stop1640this cancer from spreading to a stage four, which it has1641become, the type of cancer.1642    So, again, the regional bureau, you know, I understand you1643want to make friends but make friends with human rights as your1644lead. And that is why we have the bureaus like DRL.1645    I can tell Bob wants it.1646    Mr. Destro. Probably the most common argument I would get1647from a regional bureau, I would also add just for purposes of1648inclusion, the L Bureau, is you can't do that. We can't do1649that. You know, you are going to embarrass the government.1650    My reaction is, the job is to convince the government, you1651know. And you have to have every trick of the trade. Sometimes1652it is going to be economic. Sometimes it is going to be1653sanctions. But then there is the old--you know, one of my good1654friends in Nigeria, I showed him a list of grants. He says,1655wow, that is amazing.1656    None of it hits the ground, right? This is a big problem. I1657actually talked to people before I went to Abuja who were in1658Borno State. They were running peace-building programs, but it1659was too dangerous for them to go outside.1660    And when I made the suggestion, well, maybe we ought to1661shut that one down and move it someplace else, oh, no, no, no,1662you can't do that. You say, well, wait a minute. If it is not1663working, if it is too dangerous to go outside, then maybe you1664ought to reprogram the money.1665    So you have got the politics of reprogramming money and all1666this, plus you have the inertia, the literal drag of the1667regional bureaus and the L Bureau, you know, that basically1668say, you can't do that.1669    I have had to remind the lawyers, your job as a lawyer is1670to advise me on how to get things done, not to tell me I can't1671do it.1672    Mr. Smith. Tom.1673    Mr. Malinowski. I think these are conversations for a1674normal time. There will be no money to reprogram. There will be1675no bureau to reorganize. There will be no strategy to rejigger1676if things continue in the direction that they are heading right1677now.1678    If you guys can somehow stop this train and save the TIP1679Office and save the religious freedom process and save DRL and1680preserve the institutions that implement these programs and the1681funding that has gone to them, then we can have a conversation1682about how to improve it all.1683    And I will probably lose some of those arguments, because I1684am a Democrat and it is a Republican administration. That is1685OK. But right now, what we need all of you to do is to stop a1686train that is going to run over this 50, 60-year tradition of1687American support for human rights and democracy around the1688world. The rest is academic.1689    Mr. Smith. Anybody else before we close? Thank you very1690much.1691    I would like to, on behalf of the chairwoman, thank our1692very distinguished witnesses for their testimony and the1693members for their questions.1694    The members of the subcommittee may have some additional1695questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond in1696writing, if you would.1697    Pursuant to the committee rules, all members may have 51698days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials1699for the record subject to the length limitations.1700    Without objection, the committee does stand adjourned.1701    [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]17021703                                APPENDIX17041705                              ----------17061707               Material Submitted for the Hearing Record17081709[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]17101711                                 [all]