SECRETARY RUBIO: Thank you. Thanks for having me here today. I think I'm going to skip the long opening - you have it in writing - I'll just do a couple brief points. I'd rather spend the time on your questions. It'll probably be a better use of our time.
Just suffice it to say what I told you a year ago, and getting back to that point now - a couple things. The - in terms of U.S. foreign policy —
(Protest utterances.)
SECRETARY RUBIO: All right. The core of our - am I - is that - can continue now? All right.
CHAIRMAN DIAZ-BALART: Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY RUBIO: So the core of our foreign policy must always be the national interest of the United States. That is basically defining what that national interest is and then operationalizing it in such a way that our foreign policy reflects it. This is across the board, in the work of diplomacy and the place in which we - and that requires prioritization, by the way. It requires us to prioritize some parts of the world over other parts of the world, some issues over other issues. That's just the reality of limited resources, and every country in the world has limited resources, including the United States, despite our vast resources.
The second is in terms of how we procure aid and in how we provide aid. We are still the world's largest aid provider, and I mean by far. Like, there isn't a close second. But we don't want aid to solely be judged by how much you spend. We want it to be judged by what its results are. And I think we can talk about it today, but there are a couple points that I would raise that I think are very promising.
The first is we've now entered, in the Global Health Strategy, over 32 health compacts with countries around the world. And these health compacts basically are - the countries that are signing them love it, not just because they're getting the resources but because we're investing in their domestic resources. In essence, we are trying to lay the groundwork in many of these countries where, one day, they will no longer need foreign aid, because they will be able to sustain it. We're helping build the internal infrastructure, other than - as opposed to relying on extensive NGOs and things of this nature in the long term. We want them to build their own domestic capacity, we'll help them, and they're very happy, because it also gives them sovereignty over the way some of their aid is being disbursed in those countries.
Likewise with humanitarian assistance. One of the great success stories of the last year is we are able in a time of disaster to respond faster than we were responding under previous administrations and organizations, and with - much more effectively. Jamaica is a great example. They had a hurricane in the Caribbean; Jamaica was heavily impacted. We were able to respond very quickly and very effectively. The same has been the case in a couple of typhoons, and we're doing it now with Ebola, where we were able to program upwards of over $200 million very quickly in responding to it, down to the point of being able to even, through diplomatic means, establish a facility in Kenya for any Americans that are infected as an observation post for Americans. If someone's infected with Ebola, they will be transferred to a facility that could care for them; if they're not infected after the observation period, they'll be able to return to the United States or wherever it is they're traveling to.
But we've also provided assistance to the individual partners that we have at the UN and in other places in providing aid immediately.
So I would say that today, foreign aid has become more nimble, more responsive, it's operating faster because of some of the flexibility that you've given us to respond, but also more creative. And that's particularly true in the Global Health Strategy.
We can talk more in depth later on about some of the arrangements that we've made with international organizations - as an example, the Global Fund, and our ability to meet our commitments to them. We've worked very closely with them. They're very, very happy with the way we've outlined our contributions to the Global Fund. I think there was a statement today from the UN and OCHA on the work that we've done with them, and the ability to provide them the funds and resources necessary to carry out their mission.
So I would just say that I feel like - while it is still ongoing and there's always a process, I feel like we have made dramatic improvements in the way American foreign assistance is delivered across the world, but we're able to do it now not just in a targeted way but in a more effective way, in which the - it's not simply being judged by how much money you're spending; it's being judged by what results are you getting from it.
And there'll be more to talk about in the field of PEPFAR and otherwise if you want to ask about those, and I'll find a way to work it in. But I don't want to take any more time; I want to get to your questions. So thanks for having me.
