During Wednesday’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) questioned State Department Officials about human rights and democracy protection in U.S. foreign policy.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Recognize Ranking Member Meeks.
00:04And I actually don't disagree with almost anything
00:07that Mr. McCall has said.
00:10You know, in fact, that's a big concern of mine
00:13because what we've seen before us is not reform.
00:19It's abandoning decades of bipartisan support
00:22for centering human rights and democracy
00:25in our foreign policy.
00:26Without consultation, without engagement,
00:29and without any regard for Congress's constitutional role
00:33as a co-equal branch of government.
00:36To this day, Secretary Rubio refuses to follow the law
00:40and consult with Congress.
00:42And we have no reason to believe that will change.
00:46In the weeks ahead, we fully expect him to endorse
00:48the next chapter of Project 2025,
00:50which will closing hundreds of critical offices
00:53and potentially dozens of overseas posts,
00:56gutting the department's workforce,
00:57and slashing the budget.
00:59All of which will leave America weaker and more isolated.
01:03In fact, China and Russia will continue to celebrate
01:06as they've done so almost every day since January 20th.
01:11And you know, what Mr. McCall said,
01:13I have a long track record
01:15working with any administration
01:17that wants to strengthen our national security
01:20and works in good faith towards that end.
01:22But obviously, this is not business as usual.
01:26Donald Trump has taken a wrecking ball
01:28to our foreign policy,
01:30treated our allies as adversaries
01:33and our adversaries as allies,
01:35threatening to invade some of those allies,
01:38and launched a trade war that is hurting our economy
01:41and our constituents.
01:43So I would love more than anything
01:45to have a good faith effort
01:46to reauthorize the State Department.
01:49And I would welcome discussion to that end.
01:52But you know what?
01:52The State Department officials came to brief staff
01:56earlier this week,
01:57only after their,
01:58but it was after their reorganization
02:00had been set into motion.
02:03and programs were cut
02:08and after the firing notices
02:11were started going out,
02:13that's not consultation.
02:15That's, to me, insulting.
02:17And while I want to thank the chairman
02:20and my majority colleagues
02:21for arranging that belated briefing,
02:25Secretary Rubio's messengers
02:26could not even answer basic questions
02:28like what offices should be closed
02:31or how they arrived
02:33at a 15% domestic staffing reduction.
02:36So I think that there should be more consultations.
02:40Let me just ask you these questions.
02:42You can answer yes or no.
02:44Do you believe Congress
02:45must be meaningfully consulted
02:46on major state reorganization
02:48or changes to USAID,
02:50including ending the vast majority
02:52of congressionally appropriated foreign assistance?
02:55Yes or no?
02:56Yes.
02:57Yes, sir.
02:58Yes.
02:59And another yes or no.
03:01Do you believe
03:02that sweeping changes like this,
03:04especially on items mandated in law,
03:07should be done,
03:08should it be done by an executive order
03:10or should you have to come to Congress?
03:13There are legal issues here, Congressman,
03:16that I am not competent to get into.
03:18But again, I'll go with my first answer.
03:21When appropriate
03:22and when it's under law,
03:24Congress must be consulted.
03:28Mr. Hal?
03:28Yes, if you want a sustainable decision,
03:32I think it requires legislation
03:33and consultation with Congress.
03:36I believe it absolutely requires
03:38consultation with Congress
03:39and a clear-cut connection
03:43between the ends and the means,
03:46which I am not seeing in this plan.
03:48And also, on top of all that,
03:49Secretary Rubio's cuts are already underway.
03:52And the White House is reportedly readying
03:54a rescission of more than $9 billion
03:57from the state
03:58and foreign operations budget.
04:01Would the practical impact of these cuts
04:04on our ability to advance U.S. interests
04:06globally be significant
04:07or would they be detrimental?
04:09I'd have to see what the specifics are, Congressman.
04:18I agree with Jim's answer.
04:19I'd want to see the details.
04:21I do believe that an organization
04:22the size of the State Department
04:23could definitely use some serious reform.
04:28I come out differently on this
04:30based on what I've seen so far
04:32in press reporting,
04:33a 50% cut in states' operational budget
04:36combined with the 80%-plus cut
04:40in foreign assistance from USAID.
04:42I think this has devastating consequences
04:45with respect to our own security
04:48and prosperity
04:49and our ability to project leadership.
04:51I would just note that the PRC
04:54is already filling that gap.
04:55That's my next question.
04:56And we are seeing China
04:57increase its diplomatic spending.
04:59I've seen by over 8% for 2025,
05:02over 6% last year.
05:04And so, again, to what end
05:07are we retreating from the field
05:11when our greatest geopolitical challenger
05:15is doubling down?
05:18Okay.
05:19Now, just to have an answer
05:22with the two of you
05:23about what was just mentioned
05:26about our ability to compete with China,
05:29significant or detrimental?
05:31I'll draw on an article
05:37in The Economist from March.
05:40And The Economist,
05:41as I think you all know,
05:42is a very internationalist,
05:43globalist, engagement-oriented platform.
05:47The death of foreign aid.
05:49It says that three-quarters
05:50of all foreign aid
05:51is in development, economic,
05:53political assistance.
05:55And it basically says
05:56there is very little evidence
05:57that this produces any results
06:00and goes on to say
06:02the idea that aid buys soft power
06:04is unconvincing, too.
06:06Now, anything in print
06:07can be challenged,
06:08but I would have to say
06:09my own experience on the ground,
06:11beyond humanitarian assistance,
06:13which is critical,
06:14beyond security assistance,
06:16equally critical,
06:17all of the things we're doing
06:18to try to change societies,
06:21whether to compete with the Chinese
06:22or push back on the Russians.
06:25I haven't seen a whole lot of success,
06:27and I've been responsible
06:28for some of the largest ones,
06:30Congressman.
06:32I'll just draw one chapter
06:34of my experience
06:35in Pakistan as ambassador there.
06:38I inherited, you know,
06:39the Kerry Lugar-Berman aid pipeline,
06:43which, frankly, in hindsight,
06:45I think, was an experiment
06:46that proved to not have really succeeded
06:48in achieving foreign policy goals.
06:50There are some good things
06:51that were done with it,
06:52but for the most part,
06:52the Pakistanis didn't want the assistance.
06:55They blocked a lot of it,
06:56and I don't think
06:57that if you had
06:57an objective measurement
06:59that it really changed
07:00either the growth
07:02of violent extremism
07:03in that part of the world
07:04or the cooperation
07:05of the Pakistani authorities
07:06to U.S. policy.
07:08In contrast,
07:09the Chinese were spending
07:10$50 to $60 billion
07:11in Belt and Road Initiative programs
07:14in Pakistan at the same time.
07:16They got a lot of credit for it,
07:18but over time,
07:19it turned out,
07:20as people discovered,
07:21these were not grants like ours.
07:23They were loans,
07:24and the business plans
07:26didn't make any sense.
07:28There's a lot of favoritism
07:29and corruption in it,
07:31and now they have a debt overhang
07:32that they can't deal with.
07:34So the Chinese approach also soured.
07:36So I'm not sure that I want to,
07:39while not ignoring the fact
07:41that resources matter,
07:42that the amount of money
07:43we're spending
07:43versus what the Chinese are spending
07:45in any given country
07:46may be a starting point
07:48for a conversation.
07:49I don't know
07:49that it necessarily reflects
07:50an outcome
07:51of a way to measure
07:53exactly the best way
07:54the United States
07:55can influence behavior,
07:56because aid
07:57does not change policies.
07:58It can enable a partner
08:00who already is in agreement
08:01with us
08:02to do the things we want,
08:03but dangling aid
08:04isn't going to make somebody
08:05do things
08:06that they don't otherwise
08:07feels in their national interest.
08:10I appreciate those answers.
08:12We now recognize...
08:12Could I...
08:13Is there time to...
08:14Is there time to...
08:15Is there time to...
08:15Is there time to...
08:16Is there time to...
08:17Is there time to...
08:18Is there time to...
08:19Is there time to...
08:20Is there time to...
08:21Is there time to...
08:22Is there time to...
08:23Is there time to...
08:24Is there time to...
08:25Is there time to...
08:26Is there time to...
08:27Is there time to...
08:28Is there time to...
08:29Is there time to...
08:30Is there time to...
08:31Is there time to...
08:32Is there time to...
08:33Is there time to...
08:34Is there time to...
08:35Is there time to...
08:36Is there time to...
08:37Is there time to...
08:38Is there time to...
08:39Is there time to...
08:40Is there time to...
08:41Is there time to...