U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–645PDF 2018

ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS THROUGH THE

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 14, 2018

Serial No. 115–115

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

PAUL COOK, CALIFORNIA, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Thomas Melito, Director, International Affairs and Trade, Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 8

Mr. Alfonso Aguilar, president and CEO, International Human Rights Group . 27

Mr. Peter Quilter (former secretary for administration and finance, Organization of American States) ...................................................................................... 33

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Paul Cook, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 5

Mr. Thomas Melito: Prepared statement ............................................................... 10

Mr. Alfonso Aguilar: Prepared statement .............................................................. 29

Mr. Peter Quilter: Prepared statement .................................................................. 35

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 54

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 55

Written responses from the witnesses to questions submitted for the record 

by the Honorable Paul Cook ............................................................................... 56

(1)

ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS THROUGH THE 

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Cook (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COOK. A quorum being present, the subcommittee will come 

to order. I’d like to now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

The Organization of American States, or OAS, is the oldest multilateral regional organization in the world. As Secretary Tillerson 

recalled in his recent remarks earlier this month, the precursor to 

today’s OAS began with the first international conference of American states in 1889, hosted by the United States. By the way, I was 

not part of their conference. 

We and 20 American states are signatories to the OAS, which 

was chartered in 1948. The Inter-American Democratic Charter 

adopted in Lima on September 11, 2001, on the very day that the 

U.S. was brutally attacked was a unified response by our neighbors 

that tyranny will not win. 

Article I of the Inter-American Democratic Charter affirms that 

the people of the Americas have a right to democracy and the governments have an obligation to promote and defend it. 

This is the underlying reason for the existence of the OAS and 

it is a vision that we share with our Latin American and Caribbean 

partners. 

Yet, today the OAS is composed of 35 nations in the Americas. 

The member states of an organization devoted to promoting democracy welcomed the Communist Cuban regime back into its membership in 2009 and has so far prevented the suspension of the 

Venezuelan dictatorship that has wreaked havoc on its people and 

sent hundreds of thousands of refugees to neighboring countries, 

all for some preferential financing and subsidized oil. 

OAS Secretary General Almagro has shown leadership in fighting for the Venezuelan people to reclaim their country, as has Peruvian President Kuczynski, in yesterday’s decision to rescind the 

invitation to Venezuela to attend April’s Summit of the Americas, 

a bold action in defense of democracy and human rights. 

Today, we need to consider the role of the OAS and other InterAmerican organizations such as the Pan-American Health OrganiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\021418\28645 SHIRL
2

zation, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture 

and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History toward 

advancing U.S. interests in the region. 

U.S.-assessed contributions to these organizations is nearly 60 

percent of their budgets and the American people have an interest 

in knowing why we contribute money if U.S. investments have 

achieved results and if there are areas for reform. 

Following years of advocacy from the Foreign Affairs Committee 

for the OAS to appoint a secretary to the Multidimensional Security and a new inspector general, I commend Secretary General 

Almagro for filling these key positions. 

Conversely, the Government Accounting Office recently found 

that the U.S. faces challenges in tracking results for aid to InterAmerican organizations and the U.S. may have difficulty complying 

with the 2013 Organization of American States Revitalization and 

Reform Act, which prioritized quarter reforms in the OAS so that 

no member state pays more than 50 percent of the OAS’ assessed 

fees. 

The next OAS General Assembly meeting occurs in June. I believe this is the time to address this issue if the OAS is ever going 

to move forward to address this financial deficit. 

The U.S. should no longer shoulder the uneven financial responsibilities when half of the OAS member states had quotas below 

$100,000 and quotas for 26 member states equaled less than 1 percent. 

Today, the OAS has an $80 million budget with four objectives: 

Promoting democracy, human rights, development, and regional security. 

OAS electoral missions played critical roles in safeguarding the 

electoral process in the hemisphere and this year 10 countries have 

requested OAS observation missions. 

This is no small thing when the region will be holding six Presidential elections and regional confidence in democracy is at an alltime low. The OAS political missions like the OAS Mission Against 

Corruption and Impunity in Honduras assist countries with important anti-corruption efforts. 

The OAS Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism and 

Cybersecurity Program prioritizes cybersecurity and terrorism finance prevention efforts. 

Yet, for all these efforts, some say that OAS is overstretched and 

underfunded, lacking clarity about its missions. Others laud the efforts by the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 

and Inter-American Court on Human Rights but question whether 

these entities respect the members, states, sovereignty, and domestic rule of law. 

In addition, the Inter-American Organization I mentioned earlier 

all receive U.S. funding and these entities support work that is significant to many member states. 

However, some have raised concerns about these efforts along 

with OAS efforts related to scholarships that lead to overreaching 

mandates and siphon away resources from other critical priorities. 

There may be ways to modernize these priorities to achieve 

greater cost savings through other entities or the Inter-American 

Development Bank. 

3

I want to take a moment to note that the U.S. is a 30 percent 

shareholder of the bank and the bank’s initial selection to host the 

IDB—International Development Bank’s—60th anniversary meeting is unacceptable for the U.S. and others that want to see greater 

private sector investment and transparent government in the 

Americas. 

In conclusion, the Trump administration has named this year the 

Year of the Americas, and I believe the U.S. has a vital role to play 

in leading efforts to modernize the OAS, which definitely needs a 

new IT system, for instance, and ensuring that U.S. support for the 

OAS and Inter-American organizations support U.S. interests. 

To do so, United States’ mission in the OAS needs an Ambassador and a cohesive strategy. I urge my Senate colleagues to move 

quickly to confirm President Trump’s nominee, Carlos Trujillo. 

With that, I turn to the ranking member for his opening remarks, sir. 

Mr. SIRES. Good afternoon. Thank you to our chairman for holding this timely hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being 

here today. 

The Organization for American States has been a tool to bring 

democratic members of the Western Hemisphere together since 

1948. 

This Inter-American system has served as a forum where the 

U.S. can work with its neighbors to strengthen the hemisphere 

while advancing our strategic interest. 

Its four objectives are democracy promotion, human rights protection, economic and social development, and regional security operation. The OAS has been able to convene actors to perform important duties such as election observation, hearings on human 

rights violations, and the promotion and protection of free press. 

Unfortunately, though, the OAS has stalled when it has come to 

taking concrete actions to hold bad actors in the regional accountable. 

It is clear that there are management issues, an antiquated payment system, structure inefficiency, and budgetary problems that 

have plagued the organization and weakened the institution. 

The OAS ends up needing ad hoc contributions and volunteer 

contributions to fund its programs rather than rely on its annual 

budget. 

Additionally, a coordinated and steadfast campaign led by Venezuela’s regime to cripple the organization and grind its productivity to a screeching halt has only made matters worse. 

Adding insult to injury, the Trump administration has shown little regards for a multilateral institution and continues to either alienate or retreat from every relationship that U.S. has spent centuries investing in, the humanitarian, political, and economic crisis 

in Venezuela getting worse with each day that passes. Daniel Ortega and his cronies are consolidating power and Evo Morales, in 

Bolivia, has already announced that he will find a way to make his 

fourth term in office a reality. 

It is more important than ever that the regional body dedicated 

to promoting democracy and standing for human rights should be 

operating at full steam. 

4

Under Chairman Cook’s leadership, our subcommittee has already examined several elections taking place in 2018 and protected the integrity of these elections. Promoting democracy and 

protecting human rights need to remain a top priority. 

I am eager to hear from our panel on how we can improve engagement with the OAS and better enable them to be the leader 

in the region. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Congressman. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, I am going to 

explain the lighting system in front of you. Actually, this is a statement from me that the staff puts in there so I won’t screw this up. 

You each have 5 minutes to present your oral argument. When 

you begin, the light will turn green. When you have a minute left, 

the light will turn yellow, and when your time has expired the light 

will turn red. 

I ask that you conclude your testimony once the red lights comes 

on or you might here a little tap, tap, tap, and it’s Edgar Allen Poe 

and ‘‘The Raven.’’ It’s just me. 

After our witnesses testify, members will have 5 minutes to ask 

questions. I urge my colleagues to stick to the 5-minute rule to ensure that all members get the opportunity to ask questions. 

Our first witness to testify will be Mr. Thomas Melito, the Director of International Affairs and Trade at the United States Government Accountability Office, the GAO. 

Mr. Melito has been at GAO for more than 29 years. Wow. And 

in his capacity is primarily responsible for GAO’s humanitarian assistance and multi-lateral portfolio. 

Our second witness to testify is Mr. Alphonso Aguilar, the president of the International Human Rights Group, which seeks to defend and protect political rights, religious freedom, and the dignity 

of the human person through the Inter-American system of human 

rights. 

Previously, Mr. Aguilar was the former Chief of the U.S. Office 

of Citizenship and served in numerous high-level government positions in the Bush administration and the Government of Puerto 

Rico. He is also a well-known policy and political analyst. 

Our last witness to testify will be Mr. Peter Quilter, a former 

secretary for the administration of finance at the Organization of 

American States. Most recently, he spent 2 years as a senior fellow 

at the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance, where he endured the snows of the Northeast, and before the 

OAS he advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking 

Member Eliot Engel on the Americas. He also served at the State 

Department under President Clinton. 

Mr. Melito, you are recognized. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

5


28645e-1.eps
6


28645e-2.eps
7


28645e-3.eps
8

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS MELITO, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. MELITO. Chairman Cook, Ranking Member Sires, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to discuss our 

work regarding U.S. assistance to Inter-American organizations. 

The United States belongs to several Inter-American organizations that, among other things, promote democracy, security, 

health care, agricultural development, and scientific exchange in 

the Western Hemisphere. 

These organizations include the Organization of American 

States, the Pan-American Health Organization, the Inter-American 

Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History. 

The United States uses its membership in these organizations to 

promote U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere. 

My testimony today summarizes the findings from our June 2017 

and December 2017 reports on U.S. assistance to Inter-American 

Organizations. 

This testimony addressees three topics: First, U.S.-assessed contributions to the four organizations; second, the extent to which the 

organization’s strategic goals align with those of U.S. agencies; and 

third, the extent to which U.S. agencies included and documented 

key monitoring provisions as part of their assistance agreements. 

Regarding the first topic, State provides the United States’ assessed contributions to these four organizations’ regular budgets. 

For calendar year 2016, the United States’ assessed contributions 

to these four organizations totaled over $130 million and represented more than 50 percent of each organization’s budget. 

In October 2013, the U.S. enacted the Organization of American 

States Revitalization and Reform Act. The reform act directed the 

Secretary of State to submit a multi-year strategy that establishes 

that no member state pays more than 50 percent of the OAS’ assessed fees. 

Any change to OAS-assessed fees will also be reflected in U.S. 

contributions to the other three organizations. We found that the 

U.S. share of assessed contributions to the four organizations may 

be reduced in the future. 

In 2014, State submitted to Congress a strategy for reducing 

U.S.-assessed contributions below 50 percent. In 2017, State officials informed us that they worked with other OAS member states 

including Canada and Mexico to explore quota reform options. 

Soon after publication of our June 2017 report, OAS member 

states voted to draft a proposal to modify the quota structure to potentially reduce the maximum assessed contribution to below 50 

percent. 

According to State officials, the modification to the quota structure, if approved, will be gradual and will not be implemented until 

2019 at the earliest. 

Regarding our second topic, we found that the strategic goals of 

the four Inter-American organizations are predominantly aligned 

with the high-level strategic goals for the Western Hemisphere documented by State, USAID, HHS, and USDA. 

9

According to officials, the agencies all consider U.S. strategic 

goals when deciding which projects to fund at the four organizations. 

U.S. agencies on an ongoing basis evaluate each Inter-American 

organization to ensure that U.S. and organization goals are 

aligned. 

For example, according to USAID officials, assistance policies 

and procedures ensure that all USAID-funded activities are linked 

to applicable U.S. agency strategies. 

Regarding the third topic, State, HHS, USAID, and USDA fund 

activities at three of the organizations in the form of assistance 

agreements such as grants and cooperative agreements. 

In our December 2017 report, we reviewed 12 such agreements 

across the four U.S. agencies and found that State and USDA did 

not include all key monitoring provisions in their agreements as 

called for by applicable guidance. 

State has taken corrective actions since the grants were awarded. We also found that all four agencies did not have full documentation of the activities required by the 12 assistance agreements we reviewed. 

State and HHS both initiated corrective actions prior to our review. Monitoring the implementation of U.S. assistance agreements 

and fully documenting the results of such monitoring are key management controls to help ensure that U.S. agreement recipients use 

Federal funds appropriately and effectively. 

In our December 2017 report, we recommended that USDA ensure inclusion of all monitoring provisions as part of their agreements, and two, USAID and U.S. State ensure full documentation 

of monitoring activities. 

The agencies concurred with these recommendations and indicated they will take actions to address them. 

Chairman Cook, Ranking Members Sires, and members of the 

subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I’d be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melito follows:]

10


28645a-1.eps
11


28645a-2.eps
12


28645a-3.eps
13


28645a-4.eps
14


28645a-5.eps
15


28645a-6.eps
16


28645a-7.eps
17


28645a-8.eps
18


28645a-9.eps
19


28645a-10.eps
20


28645a-11.eps
21


28645a-12.eps
22


28645a-13.eps
23


28645a-14.eps
24


28645a-15.eps
25


28645a-16.eps
26


28645a-17.eps
27

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. I must say, you were right on 

the second. I wish I could do that. 

Mr. Aguilar, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALFONSO AGUILAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP 

Mr. AGUILAR. Chairman Cook, Ranking Member Sires, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be part 

of this afternoon’s hearing. 

From the outset, I would like to state my strong belief that a 

strong OAS is needed to promote democracy and human rights in 

the region. 

Yet, we must recognize that the relevance of the OAS has been 

seriously diminished. For the last 20 years, as left-leaning autocratic regimes have taken hold in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, 

and Nicaragua, manipulating elections, overturning the existing 

constitutional order, and violating fundamental, political, and 

human rights, the OAS hasn’t been able to take any meaningful action to address these situations. 

It is important, therefore, that we ask what has led to this situation and what the U.S. can do to turn things around at the OAS. 

First, we must understand that the basic structure of the OAS 

as established in its charter, and its consensus approach to decision 

making inherently limits and slows down the ability for the organization to act swiftly or at all. 

It’s very easy for a significant minority of countries to prevent 

the organization from taking action on important matters. A good 

example of this is the case of Venezuela. A small coalition of nations ideologically aligned with Venezuela, which includes countries 

like Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, with the support of the small 

but numerous island states of the Caribbean, has prevented the deteriorating situation in the country from being properly addressed 

by the organization. 

The OAS hasn’t been able to pass a resolution to denounce the 

abuses of the Maduro regime. This obstructionism, however, has 

generally prevailed due to the leadership vacuum at the OAS left 

by the U.S. 

The U.S. today seems to have lost interest in the OAS and is not 

exerting adequate and proper leadership in the organization. 

The OAS needs strong leadership from the largest and oldest democracy in the hemisphere. It’s not about being heavy handed or 

trying to impose our way. 

It is about regularly and consistently playing a leadership role to 

try to forge the necessary consensus to make the organization 

work. 

Furthermore, the continuous new mandates and initiatives the 

organization takes up as well as the overly broad strategic goal of 

promoting development in the region may also distract the organization from properly addressing the regional challenges to democracy and human rights. 

The OAS manages projects and technical assistance programs in 

a wide array of issues. Many experts argue that these initiatives 

are well beyond the organization’s expertise, and human and finanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\021418\28645 SHIRL
28

cial resources and could be better managed by a multilateral agency like the Inter-American Development Bank. 

Turning now to the Inter-American Commission on Human 

Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I should 

say that something quite different is happening with these bodies. 

These forums are affiliated to the OAS but they’re autonomous 

and act independently of member states. Both the Commission and 

Court have actually acted swiftly to condemn attacks to democracy 

and human rights in the region. 

The Commission has issued important reports and precautionary 

measures on human rights violates in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, and the Court has issued strong sentences against rulings 

from Venezuela and courts controlled by the regime which violate 

the fundamental rights of its citizens. 

The problem, however, with these bodies is that they are compromising their credibility by often weighing in a myriad of issues that 

go beyond their mandate under treaty law and that are of the internal jurisdiction of member states. 

The Commission recently questioned the U.S. Government’s decision to end temporary protected status for nationals from certain 

countries, calling on this Congress to provide them with legal status. 

In 2011, the Commission requested the Government of Brazil to 

halt work on a hydroelectric plant until it addressed concerns from 

indigenous communities. 

The Brazilian Government responded by suspending relations 

with the Commission as well as its funding to it, calling the request precipitous and unwarranted. 

The Court, for its part, has been issuing rulings and opinions not 

based on the text of the American Convention of Human Rights. 

Just last month, without any basis of the actual text of the convention, the Court issued an advisory opinion instructing member 

states to recognize same-sex marriage and gender identity. 

Disinformation in the internal affairs of member states have understandably caused great concern in the countries of the region 

and are perceived as an attempt against their sovereignty and constitutional order. 

The recent Court’s advisory opinion on same-sex marriage became the principal issue in the general elections in Costa Rica, propelling to victory in the first round of the Presidential election the 

candidate of a small party who promised to withdraw Costa Rica 

from the Court. 

In the case of the Court, since we are not under its jurisdiction, 

the U.S. could demand that none of our funds are used to finance 

the Court until it goes back to working within the legal mandate 

and framework under which it was created. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue 

and will be happy to answer the questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]

29


28645b-1.eps
30


28645b-2.eps
31


28645b-3.eps
32


28645b-4.eps
33

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Quilter, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER QUILTER (FORMER SECRETARY 

FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE, ORGANIZATION OF 

AMERICAN STATES) 

Mr. QUILTER. Chairman Cook, Ranking Member Sires, members 

of the distinguished subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to return to testify today, this time on the OAS, its place in the 

foreign policy options of the United States, and its place in the region. 

I am not going to tell you that the organization is the premier 

forum for dialogue. I am not going to tell you it’s the oldest regional organization around. I am not going to tell you that it’s the 

only multilateral game in town, mostly because the two of you just 

told us that and you know it. 

What I will say is that we need it now more than ever, and by 

we, I mean the United States. Let me describe the neighborhood 

as I see it right now. 

Venezuela is swirling down an economic and political drain. 

Brazil and Peru are grappling with the result, and with epic levels 

of corruption in their political classes. 

Hondurans appear stuck with the results of an election most observers agree was stolen. The Caribbean area is struggling with 

the increasingly dire consequences of climate change and the 

Northern Triangle countries of Central America are being strangled by violence, drugs, and economic distress with the attendant 

destabilizing consequences on migration flows. 

Now, let me describe the U.S. relationship to this region right 

now. Secretary Tillerson just returned from his second trip to the 

neighborhood, intended basically to manage feelings of deep 

unease. 

Why? President Trump. Here are the highlights. He’s pulled the 

U.S. out of the TPP. Obviously, several Latin American countries 

are part of it. 

He’s threatened to exit from NAFTA, calling it the worst trade 

deal in history, with untold consequences for the economies of both 

Mexico and Canada, to say nothing of the U.S. itself. 

He has weaponized the immigration issue which, of course, has 

special resonance for Latin Americans and specifically targeted 

200,000 immigrants here by ending TPS. 

This month, he appeared to threaten to cut off counter narcotics 

aid to our strongest allies in the counter narcotics effort. 

His budget released Monday appears to bear this out. And then 

there’s the wall. The Gallup Organization has placed the approval 

of the United States and its President in this region in 2017 at 16 

percent—one six. 

As someone else said, there’s six elections in 2018 coming in this 

region, all of which are very important. The U.S. faces an unprecedented challenge and it faces it now. 

It needs a strong and functional multilateral forum to meet that 

challenge. Multilateralism in this context is the OAS. In my written testimony, I have a longer series of recommendations for action 

but I am going to highlight a few. 

34

The financial plight of the organization—I will say this because 

secretary generals don’t like to say it. The OAS is operating today 

in the context of a full blown financial crisis. 

It is down 23 percent in its budget in real terms in the past 10 

years. There is nothing left to cut. I was the guy who was trying 

to cut things for a couple of years. 

There is nothing left to cut. So they cut the staff. It’s very easy 

to see that over time that will destroy the organization. 

Second, the OAS is a creature of foreign ministries, not Presidents. Effectively, that’s creating a political ceiling for the organization. We need to get it out from under the foreign ministries. 

I think the way to do that is to tie it more directly with the summit process so that they formally answer to the Presidents and you 

should know that Venezuela is the implacable foe of that idea, and 

there’s a reason why. 

Number three, the buildings—it’s a pet peeve of mine—we know 

that the buildings like the beautiful one on 17th Street are, in fact, 

falling apart. 

They look beautiful, but they’re falling apart. The OAS is carrying $30 million in deferred maintenance and they’ve been carrying it for years. 

The longer you don’t maintain, the more expensive it gets. I believe the U.S. has a special responsibility because we are the host 

country. 

Number four, the secretary general should have one single term. 

Secretary General Almagro has said he will be a one-term secretary general. I give him a lot of credit for that. It has bolstered 

him politically. I believe the OAS should institutionalize that. No 

reelection. 

Summarizing, yes, concerted action is needed. Resources are 

needed in order to stand this organization back up. It is also likely 

that we will need some sort of action-forcing event. 

I think it’s distinctly possible that the action-forcing event will 

be the fall of the Maduro government in Venezuela. That’s going 

to happen. 

When it happens, Venezuela will need all the help it can get. The 

OAS will be the go-to organization. It needs to be strong and it 

needs to be ready. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quilter follows:]

35


28645c-1.eps
36


28645c-2.eps
37


28645c-3.eps
38


28645c-4.eps
39


28645c-5.eps
40

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. I will yield myself 5 minutes 

for questions. 

You know, a lot of great points were raised there and just to let 

you gentlemen know, I am also on the NATO Parliament and it’s—

I felt like, wait a minute, I am at a NATO meeting right now. 

We are all going to try to agree on 29 countries where we are 

going, plus the other ones. It’s very, very difficult when you have 

these multilateral groups in getting a consensus, and part of the 

reason we are doing this is, I think, we are looking for direction 

or maybe the words form the experts. 

I don’t know if we can ever get there simply because of the complexity and the number of countries that are involved and the 

issues. 

I do agree that if we get down there in the weeds too much and 

we start lecturing or sermonizing certain countries about what is 

in their country there, I think we run the risk of countries just saying, we don’t need this stuff anymore. 

They want to be part of this. They want to work together. And 

I am looking for solutions and, obviously, on how we can simply 

this where maybe we can at least have a new action plan to simplify this. 

Obviously, we don’t even have our agencies there working together, let alone the countries, and it’s going to impact on the 

budget and where we go so that our missions, what we want to accomplish are several—it’s too important an organization to screw 

up. 

And so we are having this hearing today. We’ll probably have 

more on this. How we, and whether we, can solve this problem in 

the future—I think were just one of many. 

But if this thing blows up, it’s like NATO blowing up the U.N. 

I can go on and on and on. Yes, there’s always going to be faults 

to this but I think if we don’t meet and we don’t get together—but 

I think we got to keep our topics very general, try and get a buyin, a consensus as much as possible so we can attack some of these 

things, and with that consensus maybe we can get better funding 

for it. 

Any comments on my diatribe? Left you speechless. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. AGUILAR. Back to my statement, I agree with you. But that 

requires a high-level commitment from the administration and 

from future administrations to be actively involved in the OAS. 

I remember everyone saying there’s many experts that say that 

for the past 15 to 20 years the U.S. hasn’t been really been present, 

actively engaged. 

I think if we are involved in the process of high-level diplomacy 

at the OAS and the region, we may be able to forge the coalitions 

to be able to pass resolutions, for example, a resolution denouncing 

Venezuela. 

I think we’ve had an issue with the Caribbean countries. I think 

if we engage the Caribbean countries in a conversation to see how 

they can support us at the OAS, we may be able to create a consensus. I think that’s happening. I think we are present there but 

I don’t think we are having a leadership role. 

41

Mr. COOK. Well, I agree with you. I made this comment when I 

first took over this committee that we’ve kind of ignored the region 

for a variety of reasons, and it shows. 

Just like we are flip-flopping, whether it was Europe or whether 

it was the Far East or China. But I think because of all the issues 

that we’ve talked about, the number of countries, it’s just too important to the United States to ignore and how we do that I think 

is going to be very, very difficult. 

A lot of us have been on different committees and everything else 

and it’s easy to say one thing and then when you get together, 

hammering out a consensus. 

But I want to turn it over to Mr. Sires. You are now recognized. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Chairman. 

You know, over the years I’ve been very critical of the OAS, critical because, in reality, you know, they never spoke up about 

human rights abuses anywhere. 

I thought they were controlled by just a few countries, you know, 

which I think managed the OAS for their benefits, and we are seeing it today with Venezuela where Venezuela is, you know, blocking anything that the OAS wants to do. 

They get together with a couple of countries and, to me, it’s like 

an organization that—where is its usefulness? 

In fact, can anybody tell me what is the most effective part of 

the OAS besides the guy living over here in Washington, DC, in a 

nice house? 

Mr. QUILTER. I certainly agree that the United States has been 

punching below its weight in the organization for a very long time. 

It might be enough to say that we haven’t had an Ambassador 

there since 2014. 

So I agree with Mr. Aguilar that we—that the U.S. needs to take 

a good hard look at why it’s not punching at its weight. 

I would also agree with you that Venezuela is punching above its 

weight. They’ve put a lot of resources into their presence in the 

OAS. 

I mean, the guy who was Ambassador for the very longest time 

was the senior diplomat in the United States in any organization, 

including to the White House or to the U.N. 

They put him at the OAS. So they knew the game they were 

playing and the U.S. was apparently playing a different game. I 

think that’s right. 

Mr. MELITO. I do want to point out that in April 2017 Venezuela 

indicated it’s pulling out of the OAS—that it will take up to 2 years 

for that to be finalized. So it could change things. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Two quick points. First of all, I think, in terms of 

our Government, there’s an over-reliance on the secretary general. 

And I commend Secretary Almagro for speaking up. It is consistent with his additional duties on the Inter-American Democratic Charter. But that’s not enough if there is no collective action 

from the organization. 

My second point is, in terms of bodies that are effective, I would 

argue that the Commission and the Court are effective when it 

comes to singling out violations of political rights, of freedom of the 

press in those left-leaning countries. 

42

Those countries have actually complained and have blasted the 

Commission and the Court. My concern is that those bodies that 

can be very effective are compromising their credibility when 

they’re getting involved in issues for which they don’t have a mandate. 

And this is a very important point. You know, I mentioned the 

recent case about same-sex marriage that was based on an opinion 

requested by the Government of Costa Rica. 

Look, I am not taking positions on this issue. What I am saying 

is that the principle of noninterference is a very important principle for the United States and for the countries of the region. 

If the Court starts issuing decisions on this type of issues that 

are of the internal competence of the countries, I think there’s 

going to be a push back against the Commission and the Court at 

a time when we really need them to monitor the violations to fundamental human rights and to political rights. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, look, I certainly commend Secretary Almagro. 

He’s spoken up about the issues in Venezuela. You know, I’ve spoken to him. He’s been very out there, much more than previous secretaries of the OAS. 

And I couldn’t agree with you more that they should only serve 

one term, because I think what happens if they can serve—you 

know, they like to cozy up to these countries so they get reappointed, and I think that’s a big problem with this organization. 

You have to have people there that want—you know, are able to 

speak, knowing that they don’t have to run for anything else—you 

know, that they’re there to do a job. 

And, quite frankly, I don’t know if those changes would be made 

at the organization in the near future. It’s just—I don’t know if this 

organization is just, like, floating in the Caribbean and not getting 

anywhere. And there’s a lot going on, you know, in all these countries. 

I mean, at one point, I thought that this organization should be 

disbanded. That’s how, you know, upset I was with the organization. But I do think that they have a role, especially when it comes 

to human rights. 

You know, all those years with the human rights abuses in Cuba, 

they never spoke up. You know, and Cuba wasn’t even a member 

at the time. They pulled out and they were controlling the organization, I think, through the surrogate countries. 

So, you know, sometimes when this country says, you know, 

maybe we shouldn’t fund these people if they don’t change their 

ways, there’s some merit to that. 

I thank you. 

Mr. COOK. Mr. Yoho from Florida is recognized. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you gentlemen being here. 

Being from Florida, we are, obviously, very connected to that 

part of the world and very concerned about it. 

What I want to know is how do you make it better. I see OAS 

and then I see the other agencies with it and the other—was it 

three of them—IICA, PAHO, and PAIGH. 

Is there a dilution of the mission statement to where you have 

too many people trying to accomplish the same thing and they’re 

43

not focused on one? They’re all trying to reinvent the wheel. And 

with us paying 59.7 percent of the budget, the American taxpayers, 

I don’t feel, are getting their benefit. 

You know, one of the main mission statements was to promote 

democracy and since 1980 and I see that failing. A lot of it is tenuous. 

How can we make that better if we are going to continue in this? 

And I take the same stance and kind of the attitude as Mr. Sires 

that I think it’s a very ineffective agency and I think—I would like 

to hear what your thoughts are. 

And then I want to come back to you, Mr. Quilter, because you 

said some very interesting things I need to rebut. 

Mr. QUILTER. Okay. I think the ideas about how to make this 

better are out there. They’ve been out there for a while. 

The Inter-American dialogue came out with a big report on precisely this issue today. I don’t think that was an accident. I think 

it was timed for this hearing. 

I have a bunch of things in there that overlap a lot with the dialogue. The ideas are there. The issue is does anyone feel an urgent 

need to try to implement these things, and that’s the question 

mark. 

I really think the U.S. has a huge role to play and they haven’t 

done it. And by the way, that precedes the Trump administration—

the U.S.’ lethargy on this issue. 

Mr. YOHO. I’m glad to hear that, because you brought that up. 

What I see is a U.N. type organization in the Western Hemisphere 

that is as inept as the United Nations. 

We are putting all this money in there to promote these things, 

yet we see what’s going on in Venezuela and you say Venezuela is 

punching above their weight and we see what’s going on in Venezuela. 

You have got people dying there. Children are dying because the 

parents don’t have food in the 21st century in the Western Hemisphere. Yet, I don’t see people speaking out against that from the 

OAS and raising hell about that. 

And I thought you were a little bit disingenuous saying it’s 

Trump’s fault when you said there hasn’t been a secretary general 

there since 2014. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but to 

blame an administration, we can blame plenty of them, and we 

have dropped the attention in the Western Hemisphere probably 

for the last 20, 25 years. We’ve been distracted and, you know, I 

hear the human rights things, the LGBT, and, you know, same-sex 

marriage. 

Those are important issues. But when I have babies dying in 

hospitals from malnutrition in Venezuela in the 21st century, those 

are important issues. But I think these are bigger issues that we 

need to deal with, and to hang everything on these social issues 

versus the lives of people dying, I think we need to refocus the organization’s attention. 

What are we trying to accomplish? Are we accomplishing democracy? You know, democracy has been bastardized around the world 

because there are so many facades of democracy. 

44

People have elections but they are fake elections. So it’s not really a democratic process that we have cherished and have experienced for 200-plus years in this country. 

And so to move forward, if we are going to spend 59.45 percent 

of the budget of the American taxpayer’s money, I want a return 

for that and I know they want a return. 

Again, I came up here—I’ve only been here for going on my sixth 

year—to get rid of foreign aid, and I realize we can’t do that. 

So let’s reform it to where we get the bang out the buck that the 

American taxpayers expect, and that we develop these allies that 

are going to side with us, not side with a communist regime, not 

side with China, not side with Russia or Cuba, and if we are here 

we need to do a better job and I need to know what we need to 

do. 

Mr. Aguilar or Mr. Melito, go ahead. I have got about a minute 

left. 

Mr. MELITO. One positive thing I will say is there has been a 

commitment to improve their oversight. So in 2015 the OAS replaced its IG, which the U.S. had a very short role in and they endorsed it. 

They do have a commitment to both internal oversight and external oversight. So these are recent things which I think would, 

hopefully, be built on as the years go forward. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I just want to clarify in terms of the LGBT agenda. 

Look, I understand if, for the Commission or the Court, to ensure 

that there’s no discrimination. 

Mr. YOHO. Right, and I agree with that. 

Mr. AGUILAR. At least, that’s part of the American convention. 

But my point is that the Court and the Commission are going beyond their treaty law mandate to go into issues for which they 

have no mandate. 

Take, for example, the issue of same-sex marriage, which is very 

controversial. It has been controversial in this country. That’s an 

issue for the Argentinians, for the Costa Ricans, to decide through 

their constitutional system. 

When the Court gets involved in an issue like that, it loses credibility at a time when it should be really focussing on issues that 

have to do with democracy and human rights as clearly defined in 

the American Convention. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. AGUILAR. So that is my concern and that’s how the Commission and Court I think at this point are losing credibility. 

Mr. YOHO. When I see a house on fire and I need to get my family out, I don’t need to stop and water the plants before I leave and 

that’s—I think we need to refocus. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Meeks from New York is recognized. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to first welcome Mr. Quilter back. You know, he did 

a great job here on the committee and then, of course, over at OAS 

and thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

I am listening to my colleagues, who I respect and admire. I 

come out a little bit on the other end. I don’t think that we get rid 

45

of an organization. I am a firm believer in multilateral organizations—the U.N. being an example, the OAS being that. 

Are they perfect? I don’t know anything that is perfect. I don’t 

know any government, including mine, that is perfect. So there’s 

room for us to improve, there’s no question—to make sure that we 

are spending appropriately and that there is no waste. 

But sometimes you can do when you are cutting and you cut off 

your nose to spite your face because the very things that you want 

to accomplish when you cut a budget so strictly then there’s nothing left and you can’t accomplish anything. 

And I, for one, believe, as I look over history, though we have 

problems and there’s no question about that in places like Venezuela. 

Democracy in Central and South America a few years ago 

wasn’t—you know, you would name many more countries than the 

countries that we are naming now. There was not any, you know, 

democratic elections. 

So, to me, what I see on the Western Hemisphere but particularly in Central and South America is thriving democracies with 

the exception of a few, and we should not terminate and/or eliminate something because you have a few that are not doing what we 

want them to do. 

In fact, we should then figure out, you know, and understand 

that, you know, yes, I want to make sure that the United States 

is getting its bang for the money. 

But that does not mean that the United States can come, whether it’s the U.N. or the OAS, and just dictate this is what in our 

best interests without consideration of what some of the other nations in these multilateral organizations consider is in their best 

interests, and then the dialogue and the conversation that goes on 

after that. 

And so I don’t think that we are wasting our money when we are 

investing in the OAS. In fact, with so many elections coming up, 

I would like to know what the role that you see of the OAS in the 

coming and the pending elections that are coming up to try to 

make sure that they, and the countries that have had—even 

though, you know, I know Brazil and Peru they’ve had problems 

recently with reference to corruption. 

But the elections themselves, you know, so you have got to make 

sure—and they’ve got elections coming up what role with the OAS 

play to try to make sure that there’s true democracy taking place. 

Mr. Quilter. 

Mr. QUILTER. Thank you. Good to see you again, Mr. Meeks. 

I think the Human Rights Commission and Court are the jewels 

of the crown of the OAS. I think that is correct. 

But another thing the OAS does well, and it does some things 

not well—and we can talk about those—is election monitoring, and 

election monitoring doesn’t only mean, you know, seeing if an election is—election monitoring is a complicated thing and the OAS 

has a lot of history doing it and they do it quite well. 

They will be or should be front and center on all of these elections. Let me say something about Venezuela, because I’ve heard 

a lot about judging the OAS because the Venezuela situation has 

not been solved by the OAS. 

46

Let me make a comment about that. The OAS, like any multilateral organization, is a roiling cauldron of country interests, momentary circumstances, et cetera. 

For a country like the U.S., the trick is to utilize or to try to get 

as much done within each of these—each of these—with each of 

these tools at it can. 

I actually think the OAS has done a decent amount of things on 

Venezuela. No, it hasn’t solved Venezuela but it has done a decent 

amount of things. 

Just yesterday, the Inter-American Commission came out with a 

report on Venezuela saying all the things you think it should say. 

As we know, the secretary general has been quite vocal about Venezuela. 

There is—I am going to correct you—there is a pretty decent one 

single resolution on Venezuela condemning Venezuela quite well in 

mid-2017. 

Perhaps that’s as far as we could go as the U.S. on that issue. 

So you put a momentary stop on that and you look at other issues 

and try and keep advancing the call. I think that is the way to utilize these organizations. 

Mr. MEEKS. Anybody else? 

So let me just ask this question then. Do you believe or are there 

other countries in the hemisphere that you think are utilizing their 

influence at the OAS better than the United States? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, yes. I think we’ve, as I’ve said in my statement, I think we are leaving a vacuum. So a country—will Venezuela now decide to withdraw from the OAS? 

But they have been very effective with their partners Nicaragua, 

Ecuador, and Bolivia to ensure that very little happens. And it’s a 

consensus-based system. 

So only a few states can band together and ensure that nothing 

happens—that they don’t have the consensus to be able to actually 

pass anything that would actually have any real impact. 

Mr. MEEKS. I am out of time. But my next question would have 

been then what should we be doing, in your estimation, as the U.S. 

to have a better bang. 

But I will leave that. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. 

Maybe your colleague to the right might yield time but I am not 

going to get involved in that. My good friend from New York is recognized. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Chairman Cook, Ranking Member 

Sires. 

Much has been said about the vacuum of leadership that has 

been left open by the United States for decades and decades, and 

we may think that the main beneficiary of such vacuum are countries like Venezuela. 

But I submit to you that I believe it’s China. I think China will 

come in and fill that vacuum and build roads and bridges and 

dams and tunnels and major infrastructure projects that are necessary and critical to the economies of these countries, much like 

Venezuela did with Petrocaribe in the Caribbean when oil was very 

expensive and can cripple the economy of those small countries. 

47

So, in essence, what you see is an allegiance of those countries 

based on pure economic interests, very much the way we do with 

some countries in the Middle East where we support a dictator, a 

ruthless leader, because they may benefit our crude political interests or economic interests there. Those countries chose to align 

themselves, at least temporarily if not permanently, with troubling 

governments like the one in Venezuela. 

So we must regain the ability to invest in the region so that we 

could, again, fill that vacuum and we do not yield that vacuum to 

a country that is already very much present there, and investing 

heavily and bringing with it all the negative issues such as currency manipulation, an assault of intellectual property rights, and 

the rest to our hemisphere. 

And so I think that we are really—Almagro has been very active. 

In fact, he has been demonizing Venezuela and Ecuador. He is persona non grata in those countries. He has been a strong supporter 

of bringing democracy and stability to Venezuela. 

But, unfortunately, he could not get the votes. We could not get 

the votes because we have abandoned the region in a dramatic way 

in the last 40 if not 60 years. 

So my question is to Mr. Aguilar. He has really emphasized the 

issue of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage. Let me remind you 

that same-sex marriage is already legal in Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and although not entirely in Mexico, in Mexico 

City, as well as my madre patria, Spain. 

So I just want to ask you, if you don’t think that violating—the 

high number of homicides or violent vicious crimes against gay people in those countries or the patterns of discrimination, preventing 

gay people from getting jobs or any other sort of discrimination 

that is rampant and institutionalized in those countries maybe because even of their religious background, if that doesn’t constitute 

a reason for the court to have a strong decision on whether or not 

that is a troubling situation in those countries. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you for the question. I think it’s a very valid 

question, and I think I was trying to make that point that those 

are the type of issues that the Commission and the Court should 

get involved in. 

When there is discrimination and harassment against people because of their sexual orientation, clearly, that’s a violation of the 

American convention. 

Now, that is different from the issue of same-sex marriage. You 

mentioned several countries—Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay—

where it is legal, and that’s fine. 

They’ve gone through their political process, through their constitutional system like the United States has and have legalized 

same-sex marriage. But it’s up to them. It’s not for the court to 

make that determination for them, and this is the problem. 

When we’ve had a court, just a few weeks ago, come up with a 

decision imposing on 20 countries under the jurisdiction, some of 

them—most of them who haven’t legalized same-sex marriage telling them, now you have to, that’s for those countries to decide. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Well, I think it’s very much connected. I think it 

is very much connected that if people of the same sex holding 

hands down a street are viciously beaten because they’re married, 

48

or killed, and there is a vicious pattern of that, I think that that 

constitutes a very big violation of their rights. 

And so, Mr. Quilter, maybe you would like to add to that? 

Mr. QUILTER. Yes, I would. I have a very, very different take on 

this specific issue and that is I am a lawyer—it is a normal thing 

for a court to either be pushing on the arc of a particular issue 

within a society or maybe sometimes lagging. 

I don’t see this as a problem for the Inter-American Court at all. 

I think that what is being said here is that it may have been impolitic or may have been out step. But we all know that the arc 

of this issue bends toward more protections for the LGBT community, not less. That is where it’s all going. 

The fact that the court is a little bit ahead of a particular country really—that’s not a reason for them not to be playing in that 

sandbox. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying 

that I very much feel that this current budget, as presented by 

President Trump, further aggravates the reliability and 

functionability of the OAS and that we must move in a different 

direction. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

I recognize Mrs. Torres from California. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, thank you, Chairman Cook and Ranking Member Sires, for holding this very important hearing. 

This is very—definitely a timely hearing, and I agree that the 

OAS is very important to U.S. interest in Latin America. 

Sadly, over the course of the past year, we have lost a lot of influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. There have 

been a lot of missteps by this administration. 

Just to name a few, President Trump offended Mexico and many 

countries in the region not just during the campaign but after the 

campaign. 

He rattled our allies and played into Maduro’s hand when he 

threatened military intervention in Venezuela. What do you think 

that statements like that could have an impact on our ability to advance our interests in the region and the OAS in particular? 

Meanwhile, his Secretary of State didn’t even bother to show up 

at the OAS General Assembly in Cancun and missed an important 

opportunity to build consensus on the issue of Venezuela. 

So what kind of message do you think that sent? In Honduras, 

we have lost a lot of credibility on the issue of democracy when the 

State Department failed to call out an election for what it was, and 

if I recall correctly, it was the OAS only that stood up and said 

there are certainly a lot of discrepancies and we need to ensure 

that if we truly believe in democracy that we follow our own advice. 

It is unfortunate that it seems to me, from what I’ve heard today, 

it is democracy of convenience. I mean, we’ve talked a lot about 

many other issues and hungry kids absolutely are a priority to me. 

But women being imprisoned simply because they have had a miscarriage is also important to me. 

So, of course, it doesn’t help that we still, after more than a year, 

don’t have an Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere or 

an Ambassador at the OAS. And now that we have a nominee for 

49

Ambassador to Barbados, who is a peddler for conspiracy theories, 

if President Trump went to the Summit of the Americas, what kind 

of reception do you think that he will receive? 

These failures do not help advance U.S. interests in the Western 

Hemisphere or the OAS. I would like to hear your comments on 

those three questions. 

Mr. Quilter. 

Mr. QUILTER. Thank you. There’s a lot there but I will—summits. 

Summits are tricky even when everybody loves you. 

In Cartagena, President Obama got an earful on both U.S.’ Cuba 

policy and our drug policy. It was, for him, a bit of a disaster, even 

when he was riding high. 

What’s going to happen with President Trump? I don’t know. 

Fasten your seatbelts, I think, is the way to think about that. 

Tillerson in Cancun—that was malpractice. We were just a few 

votes away and we know that for—to send in the most important 

guy you got is the way you close the deal and that didn’t happen. 

And then later they said, well, the OAS is useless because it was 

two votes short, which is a little disingenuous. 

Finally, Secretary Tillerson went on his recent voyage and one of 

the things he was doing—he was doing good stuff on Venezuela, I 

think, by the way. I have to give him that. 

But the other thing he was doing is warning that China was—

the presence of China economically was spilling over into a political 

presence and that was a problem. That too is disingenuous. 

What he’s in fact saying is that there’s a leadership vacuum in 

Latin America and China is filling it. Well, whose fault is that? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Just briefly. 

I would say I would agree with you that Mr. Trump’s comments 

often make it very difficult to work with our partners in the region. 

Having said that, it is disingenuous to think that these problems 

that we are facing now are just because of Mr. Trump. I think for 

a long time we haven’t been paying attention to——

Mrs. TORRES. I didn’t say that the problems that we are facing 

in Latin America are solely the fault of the current President. 

I did say that the lack of leadership currently in this administration has actually made things worse in the region. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I agree. 

Mrs. TORRES. Don’t misquote me. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, it wasn’t my intention. 

But there was certainly, I would argue, a lack of leadership 

under the Obama administration at the OAS. 

Mrs. TORRES. The Obama administration is not currently in a position to make a change so——

Mr. AGUILAR. No, but I think——

Mrs. TORRES [continuing]. In moving forward, Mr. Aguilar, I 

would like for you to speak on current issues——

Mr. AGUILAR. I think it’s——

Mrs. TORRES [continuing]. And current time frame, today. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I appreciate your point but I think it’s good when 

we look at Latin America to look at the historical perspective just 

to ensure that we are objective and we can make some sound comments. 

50

Mrs. TORRES. Historical perspective doesn’t help unless you’re 

talking about—when you’re referring to Latinos that look like me 

as drug dealers and drug pushers and prostitutes. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I’ve never agreed with——

Mrs. TORRES. My time is up and I yield back. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith is recognized, from New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman, first of all, I am sorry I was late. I was 

chairing my own hearing on China that ran over, especially with 

the witnesses. 

But I just want to thank our witnesses. I am sorry I missed it 

all, but I will go back and look at the record. 

I have worked on human rights. I’ve been in Congress for 38 

years and, frankly, we have had under many administrations a 

lack of focus on human rights. 

I was in Bolivia working, joined by Lidia Velasquez, against Evo 

Morales and, frankly, the last administration did nothing to help 

this American named Jacob Ostreicher who was being held in 

Palmasola Prison. 

I went to Palmasola Prison twice, went to the court hearings, 

and our Embassy would not help him. I even asked it—requested 

it. If Jacob Ostreicher, an American from New York—and I am not 

from New York, I am from Jersey, like my good friend, Albio Sires, 

and Albio was very helpful on that as well—would you at least provide him asylum, an American within our own Embassy and they 

told me no. 

I couldn’t believe it. I held four congressional hearings on it. So 

there was a lack of focus on Bolivia. There was a lack of focus on 

Venezuela, and when it came to Cuba, you know, how many hearings did we have on Cuba, Albio? One after the other after the 

other. 

There was no sense of wanting to extradite a cop killer who continues to run free. We made that—we said there ought to be conditionality before things—you know, the rapprochement with Cuba 

occurs say, these are the nonnegotiables that we have to have, and 

none of that happened. 

And, you know, what got me into Cuba years ago was Armando 

Valladares’ book, ‘‘Against All Hope,’’ which exposed the facade of 

what’s going on in Cuba and it continues to this day. 

Political prisoners who are tortured. I have tried for 25 years to 

get into Cuba. I tried recently going down to the Embassy and I 

said, ‘‘I would like to go to Cuba. I would like to be with different 

dissidents,’’ and you know what I was told? ‘‘We tell you who you 

can’t see.’’ And I said, ‘‘Do American Members of Congress agree 

to that’’ and they told me yes. That’s the Ambassador. 

Piero Tozzi and I went down there with the hope of going and 

okay, if there is a changed attitude in Cuba, well, let’s test it, and 

I can’t get a visa to go to Cuba. 

There’s four places where I couldn’t get a visa. One I just got 

changed. Russia is one. The other is Cuba, and the other two have 

switched. I’ve been able to go to China and to Belarus where I 

worked on human rights issues as well. 

So, again, I want to thank the chairman for having this hearing. 

The OAS could do far more in holding people to account, in my 

51

humble opinion, and Albio Sires and I have worked for so long on 

Cuban human rights, which have always been in the back bench—

always been, you know, an afterthought on the part—particularly 

of the last administration. 

So, you know, Cuba was taken off the—and I will end with this—

the Tier 3 listing for traffickers. They were on there because of 

labor trafficking abuses, which they claim don’t happen, and because of their feckless response on sex trafficking. 

I am the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 

and fourth—three—one or two reauthorizations and another—but 

all focused on human trafficking. 

There is nothing in the behavior of the Cuban dictatorship that 

warranted an upgrade except a belief by the last administration 

that, you know, if we just act nice and take them off. 

Human rights have to be—whatever authoritarian, left or right, 

who cares? If they commit human rights abuses and they’re being 

tortured or, in this case, being trafficked, it doesn’t matter what 

style of dictatorship you’re dealing with, and they gave them an artificial upgrade, which I denounced. 

Did a press conference on it—nobody covered it, and I find that 

to be appalling. Unfortunately, they’re still on the upgraded list. 

This administration did not change that. 

I have appealed to the administration to do so in the TIP report 

when it comes out on or about mid-June because the situation 

there is awful. Then what they’ve done to our Embassy personnel 

is off the scales in terms of diplomatic breaches. 

So, again, I want to thank all of you for your testimony and, 

Chairman, I thank you. I am sorry I didn’t get into the full flow 

of the hearing but I was doing my own, and I apologize. 

Mr. COOK. Well, I want to thank you very much. 

You know, I was going to ask a couple of final questions but I 

just want to make a comment. 

Obviously, I think we need another follow-up here, not—because 

some of the issues here are—you know, we kind of skirted around 

them but I think we’ve got to break it down and some of these different aspects of it. 

Yes, I think the Organization of American States has got some 

problems, and now we are going to fix it? We are not going to fix 

it today, for a variety of reasons, and contrary to some of the other 

testimony, I am one of those ones that think you have to bring the 

states together. 

You’re not always going to agree. It’s tough. It’s tough doing this 

stuff and, you know, I probably said it in here. You know, Bismarck said making good policy is like watching them make sausage. 

It’s not very much fun but it’s something you have to do when 

you have a lot of different countries and you have a lot of different 

people, and I think a lot of it is everybody—there’s enough blame 

to go around and I am optimistic that we are finally looking south. 

We are looking at our neighbors. I think they’ve been ignored far 

too long, and, you know, the money issue I think reflects the fact 

that a lot of people don’t understand how critical the area is or how 

critical some of the issues that we address. 

52

And each and every person here has probably got an axe to grind 

or they get excited about it, and that passion I think warrants another hearing on how we can do it. 

I don’t know whether you gentlemen would agree with that bottom line that I am taking away that we kind of scratched the surface here and maybe we can build on that. 

We’ve got to, and maybe our agenda would be more inclusive on 

maybe suggestions or questions on how we can repair this including many of the issues that were raised today. 

So my guidance to everybody based upon what we learned today 

is maybe we can go forth and find out certain things and how we 

can propose and maybe fix it in our own committee. 

So with that, this meeting is now adjourned. 

Thank you very much for your patience. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

54

f


28645n.eps
55

f


28645m.eps
56


28645d-1.eps
57


28645d-2.eps
58


28645d-3.eps
59


28645d-4.eps
60

Æ


28645d-5.eps