    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    THE STATE OF AMERICAN INFLUENCE IN 2023:
                     GREAT POWER COMPETITION AND PERSISTENT
                     CRISES IN AN ERA OF BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  May 17, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-24

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    54-129 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     	GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina               	Member
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	 	BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DARRELL ISSA, California		GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri			WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    BRIAN MAST, Florida			DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    KEN BUCK, Colorado			AMI BERA, California
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee			JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee		DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky			TED LIEU, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas			SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    YOUNG KIM, California			DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida		COLIN ALLRED, Texas
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan			ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN,   	SARA JACOBS, California
      American Samoa			KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas			SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio			 	Florida
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana			GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida			MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey		JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York		JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
    CORY MILLS, Florida			SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia			JIM COSTA, California
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas			JASON CROW, Colorado
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan			BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas
                        Brendan Shields, Staff Director
                        Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Power, Honorable Samantha, Administrator, U.S. Agency for
      International Development......................................     9

        INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE JACOBS

    Information submitted for the record from Representative Jacobs..    45
    Information submitted for the record from Representative Perry...    54
    Information submitted for the record from Representative Mast....    57

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    71
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    72
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    73

        STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

    Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    74

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    76

     THE STATE OF AMERICAN INFLUENCE IN 2023: GREAT POWER COMPETITION AND
               PERSISTENT CRISES IN AN ERA OF BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

                            Wednesday, May 17, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
    room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman McCaul. So, the Committee on Foreign Affairs will
    come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the
    USAID Fiscal Year 2024 budget request and explore the myriad of
    challenges facing the United States and its humanitarian and
    development professionals around the globe. I now recognize
    myself for an opening statement.
        First of all, I want to thank you, Administrator Power, for
    joining us today. I've really enjoyed working with you over the
    past 2 years and I look forward to continuing to work with you
    in your new role as chairman and in my new role as chairman
    and----
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman McCaul. I'm just--can I just say it's been a long
    day? And I've been reading so many of these tags and sometimes
    the words just--but I'm glad I'm the Chairman and you're the
    Administrator.
        Ms. Power. I have a few questions for you, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman McCaul. And I do not have a subpoena for you
    today. So just wanted to say that as well.
        OK. Let's start this whole thing over.
        USAID is the U.S. Government's primary humanitarian and
    development assistance organization in the world. They are the
    people who bring food to starving children, bring medicine to
    the sick and dying, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads
    when war or natural disasters have washed them away and we're
    seeing quite a bit of that today.
        In other words, Administrator Power, you are the face of
    America's soft diplomacy and that's a very important face. We
    have our hard power with our weapons this committee deals with
    and we have our soft power and that's your department.
        So, therefore, I think it's critical that USAID have a
    cohesive strategy to grow America's soft influence while using
    U.S. taxpayer money effectively and as efficiently as possible.
        The budget you have submitted to our committee has some
    good provisions to project American leadership. It does include
    funding for the Global Fragility Act, legislation that I
    championed and introduced.
        This bipartisan program pushes the U.S. Government to take
    a more long-term approach to preventing conflict by looking at
    its root causes. Unfortunately, though, much of the budget
    reads more like a wish list rather than a strategic document to
    promote American leadership through our generosity.
        The Chinese Communist Party poses a generational threat to
    the United States of America, I think, on both sides of the
    aisle, and you as well recognize this. They use the debt trap
    diplomacy through Belt and Road, broken promises to woo leaders
    around the world, and to some extent they are succeeding.
        Now, USAID is one of the primary agencies this government
    can use to confront the malign influence of the CCP. Yet, the
    President places higher priority on cutting carbon with his
    request for $11 billion in the climate finance than he does on
    building much needed infrastructure in Africa.
        In fact, I at the Milken Institute met with about 12
    ministers of finance from Africa and bankers, and I asked all
    of them have you worked with the Development Finance
    Corporation.
        I know that's not perhaps, your direct portfolio. But every
    one of them--no one raised their hand. In fact, none of them
    have worked with the DFC. That's maybe another issue for
    another day.
        Also, this budget makes it harder, I think, for our
    partners to do business with USAID by expanding requirements
    for the so-called DEL. These further slow the pace of USAID's
    core contract and grant-making business.
        The budget is also not clear on how USAID plans to spend
    the requested $400 million for the Countering PRC Influence
    Fund and that fund could be a valuable tool to counter the CCP
    if done correctly as Congress intended.
        So, in short, our foreign aid must serve as a clear
    alternative to the CCP and our adversaries while also saving
    lives and projecting U.S. global leadership around the world.
        Now I'd like to turn to Afghanistan, where the Biden
    Administration's chaotic and deadly withdrawal left a moral
    stain on this country and created a massive humanitarian
    crisis.
        We know for a fact that taxpayer funding aid is flowing to
    the Taliban fighters and loyalists rather than suffering Afghan
    women and children. In fact, the ranking member and I met with
    some Afghan women this morning, including Ambassador Roya
    Rahmani, and we have some thoughts on that and I'll turn to
    that when I ask you a question.
        But the women are hurting and they're left behind. USAID
    and the U.S. State Department cannot tell us also exactly how
    much money is flowing to them and we need to know that.
        When you were here in July 2021 I warned that President
    Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan would limit our
    ability to conduct oversight of assistance directed there and I
    think we're seeing that today.
        That went forward and now it's very difficult to track this
    assistance. At the same time the Taliban has banned Afghan
    women from working for the groups dispersing aid in the
    country. The NGO's cannot even hire women because of the
    Taliban's strict enforcement and this greatly diminishes the
    ability to get aid to the women and the children who need them
    the most and it further limits our oversight capabilities.
        The U.S. must adamantly oppose these new rules. We must
    work with our friends and allies to pressure the Taliban to
    lift this ban. Hard-fought gains to advance women's rights and
    promote democracy and stability in Afghanistan were wiped out
    by President Biden's horrible decision to withdraw unilaterally
    against the advice of top generals and the intelligence
    community.
        So I think it's incumbent upon the President and his top
    officials like you to fix this problem.
        Looking at the Western Hemisphere, the crisis at our
    southern border, as you know, is the worst I've seen in my
    entire career. I believe it's a direct cause and effect from
    this Administration rescinding the migrant protection protocols
    known as remain in Mexico.
        USAID plays and must continue to play a critical role in
    combating the root causes of this migration and, again, going
    back to DFC I'd like to see more private investment in Central
    America to stem the tide and get to the root cause. You know,
    the U.S. is and has long been the largest foreign aid donor but
    we must do this strategically.
        We cannot do this alone, and I think the premise for
    foreign assistance is that 1 day we will not have to give
    foreign assistance once we can stabilize.
        As the U.S. does more the Biden Administration must urge
    our partners to step up as well.
        So again, Administrator Powers, thank you so much for being
    here. Appreciate what you do. I know you travel a lot. You go
    into some dangerous hotspots.
        I know you had a trip planned to go to Africa and the Sudan
    region, which is war torn as we speak and the violence and the
    killing there is absolutely devastating and I know you're doing
    your best to help get assistance to those who need it the most.
        So with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Administrator Power, for joining us today to
    discuss President Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 budget request for
    international affairs and the U.S. Agency for International
    Development.
        Administrator, the agency you lead is an indispensable
    component of the United States' national security that is vital
    to American global leadership.
        As I've said before, the foreign assistance that the USAID
    administers is not a handout but a strategic investment in our
    future and I cannot think of it being in any better hands and
    led by you with all that you have done and accomplished and
    continue to do.
        Your focus and your dedication is a merit to all of us and
    in fact it is something that leads the world. When you show
    up--as indicated by the chairman, you go to different places--
    it shows the very best of America and I want to thank you for
    that.
        The tools also that the USAID has it safeguards U.S.
    interests in promoting stability, strengthening democracy, and
    fostering economic growth, all of which cultivates strong
    United States partners and directly contributes to our own
    security and prosperity.
        A key component of the Biden Administration's National
    Security Strategy is an emphasis on strategic competition.
    America simply cannot win this competition without soft power.
        Victory in this competition will not be defined by military
    strength alone. It will be about ideas, values, economic
    development, technology, health, and multilateral systems.
        This competition is not happening in China or Russia. It's
    happening, actually, in Latin America and the Caribbean. It's
    happening in the Indo-Pacific. It's happening on the continent
    of Africa, and to win the competition, first and foremost, we
    need to show up.
        But leadership is a choice and, unfortunately, the choice
    that many of my Republican colleagues have made clear is that
    House Republicans' vision for America's role in the world is
    not, in fact, leadership but retreat and isolationism.
        Now, do not just take my word for it. Let's just read the
    Republican budget proposals. If House Republicans had it their
    way they would slash the U.S. foreign assistance and the budget
    of USAID by up to 22 percent, effectively surrendering the high
    ground to our adversaries, who will be more than willing to
    fill that void.
        Just check this out. China and Russia aren't slashing their
    international affairs budgets by nearly one-third. In fact,
    they are growing and expanding their foreign assistance
    programs, wielding them as a means to advance their national
    interests and exert influence on the global stage.
        We are losing ground on the continent of Africa. For
    example, Russia now has more consulates than we do. We will
    lose ground. So we simply cannot allow our adversaries and
    competitors to gain ground and shape the world in their image
    and to their advantage while we stand idly by.
        So what do these cuts mean for Bangladesh, where we have
    seen a dramatic improvement in maternal and child health
    indicators and on labor rights? Or in Senegal where our work
    with smallholder farms through Feed the Future has
    significantly decreased food insecurity, improved livelihoods,
    and helped send a generation of girls to school? Beyond how
    these budget cuts play into the hands of our adversaries let's
    also talk about how they will directly hurt the American
    people.
        These cuts will damage U.S. economic competitiveness. Our
    economy is not isolated. In fact, it is deeply integrated into
    a global marketplace. A reduction in foreign assistance weakens
    the very countries we rely upon as trading partners,
    undermining economic stability and inhibiting our ability to
    expand into new markets.
        Furthermore, a thriving economy at home requires a
    prosperous and stable world abroad. These budget cuts are a
    recipe for global instability. This year a record 339 million
    people are in need of humanitarian assistance, an increase of
    more than 25 percent since just last year.
        At a time of unprecedented global humanitarian need the
    Republican budget proposal would kneecap U.S. humanitarian
    operations worldwide, from Sudan to Ukraine to Venezuela, and
    jeopardize our capacity to respond to new and emerging natural
    disasters and conflicts.
        The consequence would be scores of lives lost, mass
    migration, and a vacuum where terrorists thrive. So if we are
    serious about global stability, American competitiveness, and
    promoting American values we need to fully fund the President's
    budget request for foreign assistance and provide sufficient
    resources for the people power that USAID needs.
        We also need a regular legislative vehicle to update the
    tools and authorities of USAID. Under my chairmanship in 2021
    we passed a State Department authorization bill for the first
    time in 20 years. We should similarly regularly update the
    authorities of USAID as we do for other critical agencies
    responsible for the United States national security.
        So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to
    allow this short-sighted and perilous Republican budget
    proposal to take us backward and I urge you to recognize the
    dangers of standing in place.
        We need to move forward together to support robust and
    sustained investment in USAID and other foreign assistance
    programs.
        So thank you, Madam Administrator, for your focus on these
    issues and I look forward to a productive discussion on how we
    can work together to strengthen our commitment to United States
    global leadership.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Let me just say, first, to the members on my side of the
    aisle that I--the order in which I recognize Republican members
    today will be different than usual because there were several
    members who were unable to ask Secretary Blinken questions at
    our April budget hearing.
        Therefore, after the ranking member and I ask questions I
    will first recognize Republican members at the first row, not
    the bottom row--the first row of the dais--who were an unable
    to ask Secretary Blinken questions, in fairness to you.
        My first question--what am I saying? Where's my script?
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman McCaul. Like I said, it's been a very long day.
    Other members are reminded that opening statements may be
    submitted for the record.
        We're pleased to have the nineteenth USAID Administrator,
    Samantha Powers, before us today. Your full statement will be
    made part of the record and I'll ask you to keep your remarks
    as close to 5 minutes as possible.
        With that, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAMANTHA POWER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
                  AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. Power. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Meeks, and to all of you for being here today and to all
    distinguished members of the committee.
        Before I start with my prepared statement I just want to
    take a moment to acknowledge the embassy personnel and
    escorting police forces in Nigeria who lost their lives
    yesterday and to extend my deepest sympathies and, of course,
    the sympathies of the American people and I'm sure all of you
    to their loved ones who are grieving this devastating loss.
        Their convoy was brutally attacked while en route to a
    U.S.-funded distribution of emergency humanitarian assistance
    to people who were displaced by last year's historic flooding.
        Other members of the convoy are still missing and the State
    Department is working closely with Nigerian authorities to
    locate them. The individuals who were killed paid a great
    service to both our country and their own and they should be
    remembered as heroes who dedicated their lives to building a
    better future for the people of Nigeria.
        I sincerely hope that we can honor their memory both by
    holding those responsible--by holding responsible those behind
    this atrocious act and by continuing to foster greater peace,
    prosperity, and stability in Nigeria and beyond.
        Unfortunately, as you all well know, such violence is not
    unique to Nigeria and, indeed, the decades of development gains
    that have laid a foundation for an era of relative peace,
    relative stability, and relative prosperity are at serious risk
    globally.
        During our lifetimes it is wonderful, actually, to behold
    that the United States has helped accelerate tremendous
    progress in reducing extreme poverty around the world and
    fighting disease and addressing hunger, getting kids into
    school and fueling democracies' rise.
        But now many of those very same trends have moved into
    reverse. The pandemic decimated health systems, leading to a
    resurgence in diseases from measles to tuberculosis. It also
    battered many nations' finances.
        After a decade of heavy borrowing and, more recently,
    rising inflation exacerbated by Putin's war, 60 percent of the
    world's poorest countries are at or near debt distress, and
    natural disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity,
    leading to a sharp rise in humanitarian needs.
        The upshot of all of this is stark. For the first time in
    decades, literally since the late 1950's, human life expense
    expectancy is on the decline while extreme poverty is on the
    rise.
        At the same time, democracies everywhere are under attack.
    Our rivals are using transnational corruption, digital
    repression, disinformation, and in Ukraine actual artillery and
    missile fire to undermine freedom, to elevate autocrats, and to
    curry favor.
        A quarter of the world's population face conflict, a rate
    not seen since World War II, with the horrific violence in
    Sudan serving as just the latest example.
        It is a daunting list of challenges and I know that some
    and maybe even some here today question whether the United
    States should be taking on these challenges through our
    development investments or whether the scope of the challenges
    is too great to make a meaningful difference.
        But the fact is our national security, our prosperity,
    hinges on this work. Deprivation and indignity abroad can fuel
    resource competition, political fragility, and extremism that
    endangers us here at home. Disease outbreaks can cross oceans,
    as we have seen so recently, and recessions in foreign markets
    can threaten our own economic growth.
        If we do not lead efforts to take on these challenges, as
    the chairman alluded to and as Ranking Member Meeks did as
    well, the People's Republic of China and Putin are ready to
    step in, whether through opaque loans on unfavorable terms or
    with mercenaries in tow.
        An international order that values democracy and human
    rights and respects international borders is not a given.
    Indeed, authoritarian actors are challenging and aiming to
    reshape it. We have to invest in the stable and more humane
    world that we need.
        USAID is truly privileged to have a leading role in
    tackling the most significant challenges of our time in close
    coordination with our interagency partners advancing diplomacy
    and defense and we are grateful to the American people and to
    you for giving us the resources to make a major difference.
        That said, we know that to drive progress on the scale that
    we need in this era in this moment we have to bring other
    countries, the private sector, multilateral institutions,
    foundations, and local organizations in our partner countries
    along with us.
        So USAID has set out a new reform agenda aimed at
    delivering progress beyond our development programs, using our
    expertise, our convening power, our advocacy, to draw in others
    to leverage more resources, to spark innovation, and to inspire
    broader movements for change.
        The Biden-Harris Administration's Fiscal Year 2024 request
    of $32 billion for USAID's fully and partially managed accounts
    will allow us to make more of that transformative impact and,
    again, we recognize that we have to use any resources we get as
    leverage to pull in others.
        We will invest in countries experiencing democratic
    openings, helping them show that democracy delivers tangible
    results for citizens. We will work with nations to attract
    private sector investment and drive broadly shared economic
    growth.
        We will support countries that are rebuilding their
    decimated health systems and we will meet growing humanitarian
    needs not just with emergency assistance but with long-term
    investments in resilience and, crucially, we will invest in
    USAID's work force to carry out this ambitious agenda.
        Since 2019, because of the State of the world and the
    generosity of this body, our operating expense funds have
    increased at half the rate that our programming has grown,
    giving us more to do with fewer people and resources.
        So we are incredibly grateful, again, for those plus-ups in
    programmatic money and resources spent out in the world. But
    our team and our staffing needs to keep up. This budget that we
    have proposed for Fiscal Year 2024 will help us invest in the
    people and the systems that we need to power an agency that is
    nimble and responsive.
        We know that with the United States leading the way the
    world can drive meaningful progress against our toughest
    challenges because we have decades of gains in global health,
    in education, and in prosperity to prove it. It is on us now to
    resume that progress. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Power follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Administrator Power. I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
        As I mentioned, we met this morning with Afghan women
    leaders in the movement against the Taliban and it was very
    powerful testimony that we heard. I worry not only about the
    American citizens still left behind, the Afghan partners left
    behind, the interpreters that are now being hunted down by the
    Taliban.
        We left our biometrics on them behind and they go door to
    door checking biometrics to hunt and kill those that we
    promised we would protect.
        But when you get to the women and the girls it's probably
    the most depressing thing to see women who have never lived
    under Sharia law now subjected to this depravity. They cannot
    go to school past sixth grade. They have no rights. They're
    treated like property. They cannot leave the house. It's really
    disgraceful.
        With our assistance going into Afghanistan without a
    presence there, which we do not have, as you know, makes it
    very difficult to control that situation.
        But we would like to have some assurance--we're a very
    generous, generous nation--with money going in that is not
    going directly to the Taliban but, rather, to where it needs to
    go and I would say primarily the women and the girls left
    behind.
        The NGO's have a very difficult task. I spoke at the Munich
    Security Conference about this. The idea came up about why
    cannot we condition this aid on assurances from the Taliban
    that, No. 1, they will hire women as part of these NGO's to
    administer these assistance but they will also give that
    assistance to women and girls in Afghanistan. Seems to me we
    got a carrot and stick approach that if they do not do that
    then we just simply withhold the funding.
        Ms. Power. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    meeting with those with those women. It's something I do at
    every occasion I can as well to be reminded of the human toll
    that the Taliban regime is exacting on people on the ground.
        So let me take a few different dimensions of your question.
    I mean, for starters, on the humanitarian, which is where the
    bulk of USAID funding goes into Afghanistan, we work only with
    trusted international partners like the World Food Programme,
    like UNICEF.
        While the U.S. does not have a presence in Afghanistan, as
    you rightly say, the World Food Programme, UNICEF, all of the
    major U.N. agencies still do.
        Obviously, the Taliban edicts related to U.N. staff and
    women working are vastly complicating also what they do and
    causing them to engage at the highest levels in negotiations
    with the Taliban to get them to reverse that order.
        What we're finding on the ground is that compliance with
    Taliban strictures related to women employees is uneven and so
    there are parts of the country where we have been able to work,
    where our partners have been able to work unimpeded, where
    women are still staffing those agencies, and where women
    beneficiaries are able to receive services or assistance.
        But a number of our partners have, in fact, suspended
    assistance because they have been unable to have basic
    conditions of humanity and inclusion met and so I think the
    latest number I saw is five, actually, of our humanitarian--
    five of our 24 partners have had to suspend outright because
    it's just impossible to work in the way that they need to.
        With regard to--and I know there's a lot more one can say
    on that--again, we have third party monitoring. We have remote
    monitoring. We do have safeguards----
        Chairman McCaul. Because my time is expiring I want to----
        Ms. Power. Yes. Sorry, sir.
        Chairman McCaul [continuing]. Let other members have time.
    I just--I can followup with you. I just think we have the power
    of the purse here and they can take it or leave it.
        Ms. Power. I think the challenge----
        Chairman McCaul. They take it under our conditions.
        Ms. Power. Indeed. Oh, I think that's what our partners----
        Chairman McCaul. Yes.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. That's a version of the attitude
    they're taking.
        Chairman McCaul. Yes. And the question--the question really
    has to do with the PRC. You know, DFC has done a inadequate job
    countering the malign influence and that's why we created them
    and they will not loan--they will not have investments in
    anything that has to do with energy, fossil fuels.
        It's got to be all green energy. It's got to have all these
    different value systems attached to it. In Africa it hardly
    makes any sense. It's not working is my point.
        What is USAID doing to counter the Belt and Road Initiative
    and I know Amos Hochstein has left the State Department. Who's
    in charge of that?
        Ms. Power. Thank you, and I know we're short on time.
        Amos has moved into, actually, the White House for a
    coordinating role on Belt and Road--on the global
    infrastructure partnership and I actually just met with him
    last week and the ambition around major infrastructure
    investments in Africa is definitely there.
        Bringing the private sector, the DFC, the multilateral
    development banks, of course, is something that has to be done
    with urgency. You asked about USAID. Virtually everything we do
    stands in contrast with the Belt and Road model.
        We are providing technical assistance to governments that
    are in debt restructuring talks because they've been saddled
    by--with so much debt, as you said in your opening statement,
    by the Chinese.
        We are working to ensure a non-extractive approach to
    natural resource development. That is in contrast to the
    extractive approach that the PRC has backed in the past, and
    all of our support for----
        Chairman McCaul. And my time has expired but let me just
    close with we have certain elements of power here--USAID, DFC,
    Millennium Challenge Corporation--and we need to coordinate
    this to effectively counter because I know the Ranking Member
    has had this experience--when you talk to the African nations,
    the Ambassadors, and they just say you're not here.
        We do not have another alternative. But and if we're not
    there on the field China will fill that void and they are not
    only in Africa, in that continent, and Indo-Pacific but in our
    own hemisphere, I think, here, and I look forward to working
    with you more on this.
        And with that, I now recognize the ranking member.
        Mr. Meeks. Administrator Power, I want to do a couple of
    things real quick. But just following up on the chairman's
    statement about DFC, I was wondering--one of the things that
    I've beenI have been fighting for is to make sure that we give
    the DFC the authorities that it's been asking for, particularly
    in regards to--and I was supportive last term--the equity fix
    that it was looking at and has requested, and I think that that
    would help it. Just give me a quick--do you think that would
    help if we were able to fix the equity aspect of it?
        Ms. Power. I think that the resources that the U.S.
    Government as a whole has to bring to bear around
    infrastructure investment are way smaller than they need to be
    and that's in part because of the way that scoring is done.
        It requires an actual appropriation to do things that might
    be done in a different way. So that's a long-winded answer but,
    in short, more resources are needed.
        Mr. Meeks. Let me ask this, and I'm going to--you know,
    because I want to get a lot in this short period of time that I
    have and I want to make sure that the American people are clear
    on the impact of the McCarthy-Republican budget cut proposals,
    and so I'm going to just ask a couple and then I'll get into a
    little bit more if I have more time yes or no questions.
        Do you believe that the McCarthy budget cuts would damage
    U.S. competitiveness and our ability to combat the malign
    influence of China and Russia around the world? Yes or no.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. Do you believe that it is true that the
    Republicans budget cuts would result in at least 80 million
    fewer people receiving food aid through the emergency food
    security program and that the program could be severely reduced
    or even eliminated in entire regions including west Africa,
    southern Africa, and Central America? Yes or no.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. Do you believe that the McCarthy-Republican
    budget cuts that slash funding for programs that can--that
    combat democratic backsliding, support civil society, and
    independent media, counter corruption, and strengthen nascent
    democracies would benefit authoritarians around the world? Yes
    or no.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. And is it true that the Republican-McCarthy
    budget cuts would mean 13 million fewer children being
    vaccinated, resulting in an estimated 115,000 additional
    deaths, almost 900,000 children not being reached by essential
    nutrition services, and the spread of tuberculosis infections
    to an additional 6 million people reversing decades of progress
    and billions in U.S. taxpayer investments in global health? Yes
    or no.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you. So for all of these reasons the
    developing world must be at the core of our National Security
    Strategy and particularly on the continent of Africa, which is
    the youngest and fastest growing region on this planet.
        Now, I have concerns about what's happening there because,
    unfortunately, Administration after Administration has failed
    to prioritize Africa--and I'm on this bandwagon in a very big
    way--and as a result the United States is facing a growing
    credibility gap on the continent and our interests are
    suffering as a result.
        Now, I know and appreciate President Biden's work to
    organize the United States Africa Leaders Summit in December.
    But symmetry and rhetoric and high-level visits, for me, are
    not sufficient.
        So, Administrator Power, as a member of the Biden National
    Security Council can you tell us what actions are you able to
    or are you taking to ensure that Africa is a priority for the
    Biden Administration?
        Ms. Power. Well, I think you know better than most, having
    seen some of these programs on the ground, the impact that, for
    example, PEPFAR or malaria work or anti-TB work, all the work
    in the global health space, the work not only distributing
    vaccines but getting shots in arms in COVID where we worked
    with, for example, Zambia to go from 15 percent coverage to 84
    percent coverage over the course of a year. While the headlines
    are not capturing African vaccination rates, tremendous impact
    there of U.S. investments.
        So I think you see that visibly. What's exciting about the
    African Leaders Summit, Prosper Africa, where you've been very
    involved, is the diaspora communities, the private sector, and
    the enthusiasm for investment on the ground.
        USAID's piece of this right now is rather modest. But it's
    indispensable, which is how do you create a regulatory
    environment such that American businesses are going to want to
    make those investments, such that these big infrastructure
    projects can go forward.
        What China does is they do nine to one loan to grant. What
    the United States does is we do nine to one grant to loan. But
    complementing using those grants catalytically and then
    bringing in over the top the World Bank, the other big
    infrastructure players, African private sector actors as well,
    that's where you're going to see the kind of visible
    infrastructure impact along the lines of what I think some of
    these leaders are hungering for.
        Mr. Meeks. I'm out of time. Thank you. But I just want you
    to know, Madam Administrator, that I am focused on making sure
    that we are investing on the continent of Africa, doing the
    kinds of infrastructure projects that needs to be taking place.
        We need to give the equity to the DFC so that we can get
    and invest and work with the African Development Bank and
    others there. There's a lot of work we need to do for our own
    national security interests from my recent visit to Ghana and
    talking to other nations and other Ambassadors and other heads
    of State on the continent.
        So I thank you for your work and I know where you're
    headed, and you're doing the hard work. But I appreciate you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman McCaul. The chair now recognizes the gentleman
    from Texas, Mr. Self.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think
    our entire budget should be--both in hard and soft power should
    be dedicated to the interests of our national interest.
        Frankly, my perspective will be informed by a decade
    overseas, both in the Third World, in the developed world, in
    the Pentagon, and to include over a decade in joint
    headquarters.
        As I--and those are awfully noble words but as I look at
    this list of countries that was in our read ahead packet, many
    of these countries, if not failed States, are near failed
    States.
        Speaking of Africa, Africa has had trillions of dollars
    poured into it over the last decades and when I look at this
    list many of these are even in the Iranian or Iranian
    satellites.
        I was in Afghanistan when the ground command was still in a
    tent. The dust was still six inches thick and it has not
    changed. It is a nation of tribes. We must understand that
    Afghanistan is a nation of tribes.
        I want to prioritize this entire budget along in a
    dangerous world. China is on the prowl. We do not have a lot of
    time. So soft power is dedicated--is predicated on time and I
    will tell you that when I think back to the cold war the
    Russians were 10 feet tall at the time. They were moving around
    the world and, frankly, we determined--because we built up our
    military and we turned them into a paper tiger.
        Our time is short. China has demographic issues. They have
    a command economy now. They're going to have issues in the near
    term. But that makes them very dangerous in the near term
    because they know their window is short.
        I think that we ought to prioritize the entire--this entire
    budget toward hard power. The Economist said that we could save
    $32--$.32 on every dollar by shifting resources away from the
    traditional contractors to more in-country partners, which
    means to me that I think we probably ought to relook this
    entire budget and take 32 percent of it and turn it into the
    Defense Industrial Base.
        So I am asking this committee to look at what we need to do
    to deter China. Our first mission is to deter. Development is
    great. Development is fine.
        But, again, our first mission is to deter and I would
    appreciate any comments, Administrator Power, on that because
    we will have to prioritize in this constrained budget
    environment. Our priority must be to the short term because we
    have decimated our military to the degree that I think we have
    no choice.
        Ms. Power. Thank you, and, above all, thank you for your
    service in so many different roles.
        I'm tempted to just take the select quote of what you said,
    which is development is great, but I will not. I will not
    because I hear the spirit of the question.
        So, first, to say it absolutely goes without saying
    thatnothing that I'm proposing here should come at the expense
    of the appropriate investments in our defense and in the
    competition that we are in with the PRC globally.
        Indeed, if you look at this request when looked at in
    isolation it looks--it may look like a large number. When
    looked at juxtaposed next to the Defense Department's budget
    request and I hope what will be delivered upon, you will see
    this is a very, very small price to pay to complement defense
    expenditures.
        When we're looking at the choices that countries are making
    about whether, for example, to have a PRC base in their country
    or a deep-water port or something that has--I'm sure you and I
    would agree hassignificant geostrategic consequence there were
    a lot of factors that go into that decisionmaking on their
    part, and how they feel about the United States, how their
    people feel about the United States, whether we have been there
    for themwhen a hurricane hits or to supportsmall business--
    small business owners with a tiny little microfinance loan----
        Mr. Self. I have--I have 30 seconds. May I ask one more
    question?
        Ms. Power. Please.
        Mr. Self. I think history has shown that most of the world
    admires one thing, to include China, to include Russia, to
    include most of the world. They admire strength. I think that's
    why today we lack admiration around the world, which is what
    you're describing. You're not putting it in those terms but
    that's what you're describing.
        And my time is up. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. I want to commend the chair for his selection
    of the title of this hearing, which illustrates how our foreign
    aid budget is an important part of our geopolitical efforts and
    geostrategic efforts.
        I agree with the ranking member that in addition to aid we
    need to focus on diplomacy and consulates, and I would add that
    the visa process delays do probably more harm to our image in
    the world than anything else that isn't covered in the news.
        It undermines our ability to trade, do business deals,
    cultural, et cetera, and it's just a matter of not processing
    paperwork quickly. We spend .2 percent of our GDP on aid. Other
    wealthy countries as a group average .4 percent. So we're at
    half the level. And, unfortunately, Republicans are proposing
    to slash that by almost a quarter.
        I'm glad that we have talked a little bit about China's
    efforts. There are those who view China as doing a lot in the
    foreign aid area. But as you point out, it's nine-tenths loan.
        A little interest on that loan eats up the last tenth, and,
    of course, China, in competing with us for foreign influence,
    has the option of giving bribes, which I think they do
    effectively and which we disclose way too--way too rarely.
        Ranking Member points out the importance of Africa. I want
    to focus on Tigray. We have suspended our food aid to an area
    where five of the 6 million people are dependent on food aid.
    The U.N. has done the same and that is because there has been
    diversion apparently by both sides in the recently concluded
    civil war.
        We need humanitarian monitors on the ground in Tigray
    because not only does truth die in the darkness, women and
    children die in the darkness and also that monitoring, having
    people on the ground, will allow us to give out the food aid
    without it being diverted to an undue degree.
        Ms. Power, do you have the clout inside the Administration
    to make sure that we're not reauthorizing AGOA, that we're not
    backing the international lending that Abiy wants until we can
    get our humanitarian monitors and food distribution people onto
    the ground in Tigray?
        Ms. Power. First, I think I have to put on record a
    condemnation on behalf of USAID but also on behalf of the
    American people for the diversion of aid when you have more
    than 5 million people who are facing famine like conditions.
    Just outrageous.
        And, yes, we have paused. I think as faithful stewards of
    the resources given to us when you get word of something of
    that nature, pausing and figuring out how to get the access
    that you need on the ground, the systems in place, we have them
    all around the world. This is a very rare occurrence.
        Mr. Sherman. If we do not have people on the ground we will
    not get it done. Can you hold up AGOA and international lending
    until Abiy lets our people on the ground?
        Ms. Power. I am a member--as you noted, in your question, a
    member of an interagency team and needless to say this is an
    absolutely critical factor as is getting human rights monitors
    on the ground to monitor the treatment of the people in Tigray
    as well.
        Mr. Sherman. I do want to move to another question. We have
    got a blockade of Artsakh as part of an effort to ethnically
    cleanse the area. People need food aid. Does this area meet the
    USAID's definition of a crisis and what can you do to provide
    aid to the people of Artsakh?
        Ms. Power. Well, the major implementing partner now that
    has been able to get in to Nagorno-Karabakh are ICRC, which is
    funded actually by the State Department. But the U.S. is the
    largest donor to ICRC. A convoy, in fact, just finally moved
    before this hearing just as we were coming in.
        But what I will say is that Nagorno-Karabakh should not
    have to rely on humanitarian convoys. Again, prior to late last
    year you had commercial traffic moving freely into the area. So
    it's absolutely imperative that the roads into Nagorno-Karabakh
    be opened.
        Mr. Sherman. Our Ambassador was there at the road to
    demonstrate our dedication on that. Finally, we have the
    Pacific Islands. My father fought for those islands as did
    others here because of their geostrategic importance. They
    control much of the world's land surface area, much of it
    underwater. China is making a play in that area. What can we do
    to secure our relationship among these lightly populated but
    strategic islands?
        Ms. Power. Well, you'll see a significant increase in the
    resource requests for our programming in that region. I will be
    traveling to the country of Fiji later this summer to open a
    USAID mission in Fiji.
        We have not had a mission there since 1994, and I think
    it's in keeping with the point that's been made by others about
    the importance of presence but also the programming and the
    soft power and the other forms of power that come with actually
    making those investments and the people seeing that.
        We will also have a country representative in Papua New
    Guinea and by 2025 we will have 51 staff across the region,
    which is important.
        Mr. Sherman. I hope you'll focus on the smallest and least
    populated of the countries there, and I yield back.
        Ms. Power. Thank you.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Director Powell--Power, we understand that USAID OIG has
    recently been focused on strengthening access to the U.N.
    agency records relating to USAID-funded programs. More access
    furthers the OIG's efforts to hold the U.N. officials
    accountable for misusing USAID funds or committing sexual
    atrocities against program beneficiaries.
        There is language in the relevant agreements contractually
    obligating U.N. compliance with OIG requests for information.
    But will you commit to ensuring that the USAID OIG is able to
    obtain the information from U.N. agencies it deems necessary to
    conduct its independent oversight work?
        Ms. Power. I'm unaware that there's an issue in any
    compliance with USAID OIG requests so your question puzzles me
    a little bit.
        But we have a constant flow of information. Without knowing
    the specifics I would not want to generalize but we are
    mandated to cooperate with USAID OIG. We have many open
    requests and audit recommendations that we are working on as we
    speak. So I absolutely commit to cooperating further.
        Mr. Moran. Great. I hear the commitment to cooperating and
    ensuring that USAID OIG is able to obtain that information. I
    also understand that USAID's Office of Inspector General has
    informed USAID that its lack of pre-award certification
    language requiring prospective awardees to disclose past
    engagements with entities sanctioned for corrupt activity and
    human rights abuses creates significant vulnerabilities, and
    also USAID OIG has flagged that the lack of forum selection
    clauses in USAID's award agreements prevents the U.S.
    Government from bringing suit in U.S. courts against foreign
    NGO's alleged to have misused USAID funds.
        Can you address those issues and explain why the agency has
    failed to take those steps?
        Ms. Power. Again, knowing how important compliance is and
    the rooting out of fraud, waste, and abuse in our programming
    we do everything in our power--and also the importance of the
    integrity of our partners including on corruption grounds or
    any link to extremism or to terrorism.
        So the specifics of what you're describing and that
    recommendation I'd want to just work at a staff level and I can
    followup with you personally when I understand exactly to what
    you're referring.
        But, again, the relationship if you--some here may have
    attended the--there was a hearing just a week or two ago where
    our OIG testified on Afghanistan and assured again that she and
    the team were getting full cooperation and full access.
        Same on Ukraine. I think there was an OIG hearing not long
    ago on Ukraine. So I'd want to know the specifics, again, of
    where you're hearing a complaint or some lack of cooperation.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, and I appreciate the followup.
        Really, the second question relates to contractual language
    and so, in particular, the disclosure requirements in the
    contracts and also the forum selection clauses, those are the
    two issues from the contractual standpoint that I'd like for
    you to look at and get back to me about.
        Ms. Power. Absolutely. Yes.
        Mr. Moran. When you guys at USAID begin to look at the
    priorities for each of the expenditures you have in the budget
    request each year, tell me in your words what are those
    priorities that you would list? Shortly, by the way.
        Ms. Power. Yes. Not my strong suit, as you can tell.
        You may not be aware but we are 90 percent earmarked. So I
    wish we had the luxury of sitting down with all of you and
    laying out what our priorities are and how they should be
    implemented.
        Obviously, in the wake of a pandemic that has taken
    millions of lives we have a global health priority, including
    global health security, making sure that countries in which we
    work have the systems to detect viruses before they become what
    they became in the case of COVID.
        Helping countries transition to clean energy but more
    urgent for most of the countries in which we are working is
    adapting to changing weather patterns, which are undermining
    their agricultural and other gains.
        Mr. Moran. I presume that when you're looking at a lot of
    these different projects or countries that are possible to help
    or assist with that you have--you do not have enough money in
    your terms to provide the assistance to all the different
    projects in all the countries. Is that correct?
        Ms. Power. Absolutely have to be very selective, yes.
        Mr. Moran. Do you take into account national security
    interests when you decide which particular projects to
    recommend funding?
        Ms. Power. It really depends on what domain we are talking
    about--our humanitarian assistance, for example--because it
    goes to people who are at risk of famine. That's needs based.
        When we are looking at strengthening relationships, we are
    part of the interagency if President--you know, if there's some
    strategic imperative--we have talked about USAID programming
    generally--standing in contrast to how the PRC is doing its
    business.
        The exchange I had with your colleague, recognizing, I
    think, that USAID actually helps open up doors, we're the
    ground game, in fact, to that strategic competition in some
    sense.
        So it really depends on the circumstance. But I'd be happy
    to sit down with you and we could talk about particular regions
    or countries of interest.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you. And I know my time's up and I'm going
    to yield back. But I just want to say I would hope that if all
    things are equal that national security interests would tip the
    scale in favor of those countries and projects that meet our
    security--national security interests.
        Thank you for your time.
        Ms. Power. If I could just say one more thing, which is
    President Biden is the first president to actually make the
    USAID administrator a member of the National Security Council
    for this reason, believing that development, diplomacy, and
    defense have to be coordinated and channeled in areas of
    national security importance and also recognizing, again, to
    the prior exchange, the criticality of development to our
    national security on, for example, issues like global health
    security.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
    Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
    Administrator Power, and our deep sympathy goes out to all of
    those who were affected by the tragedy in Nigeria and to the
    greater AID family.
        I'd like to--first of all, I want to thank you for your
    leadership. I have known most of the AID administrators for the
    last 40 something years. I think you're one of the most
    outstanding, if not the most outstanding. You've been willing
    to spend political capital.
        You got--you rolled up your sleeves and helped us pass the
    global health security bill and you weren't shy about
    protecting the right provisions to make sure that we got good
    law into law and I thank you for that. That shows great
    leadership that not everybody who preceded you have shown.
    Thank you so much for your leadership.
        I want to followup on the line of questioning of the
    ranking member and maybe go into programmatic impacts of the
    hostage-taking debt ceiling bill passed by the Republican
    majority that requires draconian if not reckless budget cuts
    all across the Federal Government and, certainly, a significant
    budget cut potentially for AID.
        The emergency food program--you help 36 million people a
    year, $1.8 billion. What would a 22 percent cut do to that?
        Ms. Power. It would mean hundreds of thousands of farmers
    would not get access to seeds, female farmers not get access to
    micro finance, and, most frustratingly, we would probably end
    up in a situation of coming back and appealing for emergency
    aid when what communities most want is to be, as the chairman
    was saying earlier, resilient and self-reliant, not dependent
    on handouts.
        So the sort of ethos, I think, that we all embrace here of
    the importance of people being able to fend for themselves and
    to close USAID missions, which is our ultimate objective, we
    set that back when we move away from our core food security
    programs that are all about them having the agricultural
    productivity----
        Mr. Connolly. Almost seems self-defeating, given the common
    views we all share about trying to help people get on their
    feet and be able to then sustain their own growth and
    development.
        Maternal and child health care--there'd be a $20 million
    cut in that program. What would that do?
        Ms. Power. Well, you'd have about 19,000 maternal and
    newborn child deaths that you would not have if we could just
    preserve our funding from this year and, additionally, 13
    million fewer kids vaccinated because that's the chapeau under
    which we do childhood immunization. So that would be
    devastating.
        Mr. Connolly. So life and death kind of issue?
        Ms. Power. Indeed.
        Mr. Connolly. The malaria initiative, another $20 million
    cut, what would that do?
        Ms. Power. Four million children with malaria would not be
    treated and you'd see a dramatic cut in the number of bed nets
    that we could put out where you can actually prevent people
    from dying from a mosquito bite.
        Mr. Connolly. And the irony as well as tragedy of that is
    we're actually making progress on malaria in terms of both
    prevention and maybe even a cure. Is that correct?
        Ms. Power. It is, and we have also the changing malaria
    patterns because of climate change and so forth having to--
    wanting to keep up with that and not lose these gains that we
    have made where some whole areas are declared malaria free. We
    want to be in a position to be preventive in areas where
    malaria may be migrating.
        Mr. Connolly. TB, tuberculosis, which we know is a stubborn
    phenomenon even though it's potentially curable, we also know
    there areresistant strains that we're very worried about with
    the spread of TB if we do not control it. What would a $23.5
    million cut to the TB program do?
        Ms. Power. Six million more infections and about 350,000
    more deaths.
        Mr. Connolly. And possibly continued transmutation of the
    bacterium that would be resistant to treatment.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. Tropical diseases--the $7 million reduction
    in funding for tropical diseases, why is that important?
        Ms. Power. Well, we leverage that $7 million and we have
    the private sector actually giving the medicines away and USAID
    doing the distribution. So that $7 million investment allows us
    actually to eliminate neglected diseases in countries as we
    just did this week in Mali and at such a minimal cost to the
    taxpayer and, again, bringing the private sector in in ways
    that are free for the American people.
        Mr. Connolly. Yes, and things like schistosomiasis, which
    was almost eradicated?
        Ms. Power. Indeed.
        Mr. Connolly. Final point, Mr. Chairman. I just think we're
    shooting ourselves in the foot with these kinds of cuts,
    especially if on a bipartisan basis, as we have expressed,
    we're concerned about growing Chinese influence.
        Why would we create a vacuum for them to step into?
        I thank you and I yield back my time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. McCormack.
        Mr. McCormack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a emergency
    medicine physician I think it's important to address--I have
    some statements I'd just kind of set aside for just a second
    because we just got done talking about global health.
        We just talked about the spread of diseases. Most people do
    not realize that when Mr. Connolly was bringing up tuberculosis
    and other contagious diseases the most deadly disease over the
    last decade is tuberculosis.
        About 1.7 billion people are affected with it right now.
    Some estimates--the CDC said--I'm not sure if I trust all the
    CDC's data but it says about 23 percent of the world population
    has been exposed to or has some sort of TB infection, most of
    it latent, of course, and about 1.5 million people die of TB
    every year.
        So it is a problem and, matter of fact, we're right next to
    a nation that has a moderate amount of infection, Mexico. They
    also have a whole bunch of other diseases that we do not have
    here in America until now.
        I just want to point out the hypocrisy that a party that
    talks about controlling disease and rants and rails about the
    money we have to spend combating these diseases has a wide open
    border policy that allows diseases into our own country that we
    have to combat. That's a deadly disease, the most deadly
    contagious disease in the world.
        So when I hear the people on the other side rant and
    railing about health and spending, we are going to increase our
    health spending and decrease our health by not controlling the
    spread of diseases.
        It used to be we actually--most people do not realize
    this--historically we used to test people for glaucoma because
    we did not know how it was spread or we did not know if it was
    a contagious disease.
        We were very strict on the people we allowed in America,
    historically, for a reason. We have forgotten that. We forgot
    it during the most deadly pandemic we had recently, which is
    COVID. We had open border policies.
        Meanwhile, we're lectured by the other side on how we
    should wear masks and how we should be locked down and close
    our businesses and yet we brought people across the border and
    disseminated them all over the United States during the most
    contagious deadly disease we have ever had in American history
    in recent times.
        So it does strike a nerve with me as an emergency medicine
    doctor who worked countless ER shifts at nighttime during this
    pandemic the hypocrisy of being accused of not being concerned
    about health care.
        I put my life on the line. I was on the front lines. I
    suffered the consequences of this disease when I held people's
    hands as they died, as I prayed over them, as I watched
    families who could not even get in and see their families as
    their family members died.
        So I think it's a bit outrageous to start talking about
    responsibility and disease processes. With that, I'll get back
    to my current tirade because that's a nerve that you struck
    with me.
        I'm deeply concerned about the violence in Nigeria as well,
    by the way. I spent a lot of time in Africa, a couple of tours
    over there with the military as a Marine. I spent months away
    from my family, and I understand that we have an accountability
    problem and we have a significant problem with violence over
    there against our own folks, which I'm deeply concerned about,
    and I think some of that comes from the foreign policy
    weaknesses that are perceived by our current Administration.
        I'm worried that we'll put more people in jeopardy by a
    perception that we just will not stand for what we're supposed
    to stand for and that we do not have the--we do not have the
    military that can really be out there in a MEU--Marine
    expeditionary capacity because we have a shortage of ships and,
    quite frankly, even the ability to project our power like we
    used to.
        When it comes to you--I really want to give you time
    because I'm almost out of time. I'm sorry about the
    distraction. Once again it hit a nerve with me. But when you--
    transparency for the government is really important for all of
    us. I think we'd all agree on that.
        When you were confirmed 2 years ago and you pledged to make
    reforms to the agency, from my understanding you made a promise
    about changes in transparency but I have not seen your released
    promised list of changes.
        Are you ready to publish that as far as changes from when
    you took over to where you're at right now and what you intend
    to do to make sure that we're transparent in all the moneys
    that we spend?
        Ms. Power. Again, it's a--I'm not sure if you're talking
    about transparency related to awards that USAID gives in the
    war or transparency tohow we hire people or--but any aspect of
    that I'm absolutely happy to engage on.
        I mean, I'd want you--if you could be specific about what
    you want insight into we're here.
        Mr. McCormack. No, and I'm not accusing you of anything, by
    the way.
        Ms. Power. That's good.
        Mr. McCormack. This is not a confrontational statement.
    It's more of a I just--we went through kind of how when you
    took over and you're in your present capacity we were just
    talking, and I know I'm out of time.
        But we'll talk more. I'm looking forward to work with you,
    working to see how you're reforming and making sure that we
    have really good transparency so we can move into the future as
    we're doing what we're supposed to do around the world.
        With that, I yield.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here, Administrator Power.
        When I heard the ranking member detail the effects of the
    McCarthy budget cuts I was reminded of a former Republican-
    appointed Secretary of State, Jim Mattis, who quoted--who's
    quoted as saying, ``If we do not fund the State Department
    fully then I need to buy more ammunition,'' and nothing
    underscores this more now and nothing's more dramatic than your
    work in Ukraine and the surrounding areas as a result of
    Putin's illegal war.
        And I want to thank you because that's an area of my
    concern as former chair and now ranking member in your--for
    your tireless effort in support of the people of Ukraine in the
    fight for freedom.
        I know that you had to overcome amazing security and
    logistical hurdles just to operate in and around that area, and
    it was not easy. It was risky, and I want to thank the whole
    department for their efforts. It's truly heroic work.
        And that's just not dealing with people in Ukraine but the
    refugees that are coming to places like Poland and Moldova
    because in Ukrainethe wars--the war exists beyond the front
    line over there right now and I think that's important to
    remember that now, not later on, because just as the hot war is
    being waged these other conflicts are going to have to be dealt
    with now or the whole war will be for naught.
        We have to make sure as those soldiers in the front line
    who so courageously are risking their lives, seeing their homes
    just blown out from under them and families move, we have to
    make sure there's health institutions in place and that they
    remain open.
        We have to make sure first responders meet the emergency
    medical needs that are necessary and we have to make sure
    children that are going through all this trauma can at least
    continue their education.
        Without that kind of support assistance those fighters will
    not be able to fight on the front line andwe have to think now,
    not later, about what's going to happen when the war ends
    because that's--you're going to have one of the strongest
    military powers in all of Europe in Ukraine.
        All that modern equipment, all that training, all those
    military assets are going to exist in Ukraine, and if we do not
    maintain as the work you're doing now working for democracy and
    maintaining support for civil servants making sure government
    works every day, making sure that at the end of this war it
    does not collapse again and create an enormous problem for all
    of us and a situation where all that bloodshed and treasure was
    in vain.
        And along those lines, too, I also want to--the important
    work giving assistance to making the Russians accountable for
    their war crimes and what they commit continues to be
    important.
        We have got to continue and expand those efforts of
    assistance as well. This committee moved out a bill I have
    worked on in a bipartisan fashion yesterday for a special
    tribunal on the crime of aggression.
        So we're moving in a bipartisan sense on that. But I want
    to just touch on other areas of Europe in terms of promoting
    democracy, preserving democratic institutions and governments
    in that region, because I just want to point out a couple of
    areas where there's democratic backsliding that concern me.
        One is Hungary, where the actions there are co-opting the
    rule of law and violate minority rights and are coddling up the
    Russia and China right now, in Georgia where efforts to pass a
    Russian style foreign agent registration law was a concern, and
    in Turkey where they're slowly drifting toward authoritarianism
    there.
        In a more encouraging note, thank you for the work in
    Northern Ireland. You know, we celebrated the 25th anniversary
    of the Good Friday Agreement. There's still work to be done but
    the work that's being done there through the Ireland fund and
    other things, preserving peaceful environment and moving
    forward.
        So I just wanted to take the opportunity to demonstrate how
    important--I do not even like the term soft power sometimes
    because it appears soft. It should be--it should have another
    term.
        But without the work you're doing we will not have the
    ability in terms of our own security needs to meet these
    challenges and, importantly, to make them successful.
        So thank you for your work and I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. Mills.
        Mr. Mills. Really quickly, thank you, Mr. Chair, on what my
    colleague, Mr. McCormack, said. He was talking about whether or
    not you believe in transparency. You said, ``I do but I need to
    talk about specifications.''
        I'm very happy to talk about specifications and I'd really
    like to talk about the fact that the Special Investigator for
    the general for Afghanistan's SIGAR, John Sopko, had mentioned
    that USAID was not in full compliance with SIGAR's oversight
    efforts to the tune of billions of taxpayers' dollars being
    spent in Afghanistan.
        Why is it that USAID has been obstructing SIGAR's work in
    Afghanistan?
        Ms. Power. We have not been obstructing SIGAR's work in
    Afghanistan. Quite the contrary.
        Mr. Mills. So Sopko is lying then under--is what you're
    saying?
        Ms. Power. We are not obstructing SIGAR's work. And so if I
    could finish and elaborate.
        There was--there is a question since it is the SIGAR for
    reconstruction And the statute makes clear that once you're
    under $250 million in reconstruction jurisdiction for such a
    SIGAR, as it did for Iraq, would recede, right, except for
    legacy reconstruction oversight that would be done.
        So there was a question of jurisdiction. But even as we
    asked those questions and engaged on the modalities we
    continued to cooperate and, indeed, right now we're working on
    six requests for information, 26 financial audits, and 68 open
    audit recommendations with SIGAR.
        Mr. Mills. Just really quickly----
        Ms. Power. We have extensive working level and high level
    contact.
        Mr. Mills. Right. Just really quickly, you said that
    anything under 250 million----
        Ms. Power. That's in the statute. I believe that----
        Mr. Mills. That's interesting because I used to work on
    some of these implementing for-profit partners for about 6
    months so I realize that cash diplomacy was a complete failure
    in many efforts.
        And I had worked on a program that SIGAR had actually
    provided an investigation on in November 2011 called ASI South,
    which is an OTI program, whereby they showed that the Afghan
    stabilization initiative, which in many cases would fall under
    that $250 million threshold you talked about, had failed most
    of the time.
        Ms. Power. Yes. I think--I think--sorry, maybe I misspoke
    or you misheard.
        I was not--SIGAR, when it had--when it has jurisdiction
    over what we do has jurisdiction over everything. What I'm
    talking about is the statute which says that that office comes
    into existence with its staff and its resources when more than
    $250 million is being expended by the U.S. Government in
    reconstruction.
        So since we're no longer doing any reconstruction there was
    a legitimate question by the lawyers and others about whether
    we should revert to the situation where only the USAID
    inspector general or the State Department inspector general is
    doing their work because that work has continued alongside
    SIGAR's throughout the period.
        And as you know from the hearing, perhaps, our USAID
    inspector general testified that there was absolutely no issue
    with cooperation and so we're now cooperating with both at the
    same time.
        Mr. Mills. Speaking on cooperation, Mr. Sopko also further
    testified in April that USAID nor the State Department can
    identify how much U.S. assistance in Afghanistan has actually
    gone to the Taliban in taxes, fees, bills, rents, and other
    expenses.
        Why is your office unable to identify how much money your
    Administration is paying directly to the Taliban?
        Ms. Power. This is actually something that we're in touch
    with both our own inspector general and SIGAR on. It's
    something that every day as we expend resources there's a
    question.
        We do not provide resources to the Taliban. We do not work
    through the Taliban. But it's true that when the World Food
    Programme works in Afghanistan to feed hungry people they do
    pay for, for example, electricity. So we have to dig into those
    kinds of expenses in a systematic way.
        Mr. Mills. So will you then confirm at least--firmly commit
    to providing my office and this committee then with an itemized
    list of expenses paid to the Taliban for taxes, fees, bills,
    rent, and other expenses?
        Ms. Power. We will commit to looking at this question
    together. It is----
        Mr. Mills. But you will not commit to submitting it to our
    office and to our committee?
        Ms. Power. A specified list of what electricity bills are
    paid in what places?
        Mr. Mills. Correct. Goes toward the Taliban.
        Ms. Power. I think I commit to working with you to make
    sure that you get the accountability that is appropriate.
        Mr. Mills. Got it.
        Ms. Power. Thank you.
        Mr. Mills. So continuing on with this as part of the mind
    set for the USAID, did USAID provided any after action reviews
    with regards to the Afghan withdrawal?
        Ms. Power. We did. We did a kind of a hot wash,
    particularly on the question of evacuation, given how many of
    our staff were vulnerable. We have 123 Afghan staff, all of
    whom wanted to leave, have eventually made it to the United
    States. But it was very difficult, of course.
        Mr. Mills. I'm very aware of that, given the fact I'm the
    only Member of Congress who actually went over there and
    conducted rescues for Americans left behind by the Biden
    Administration.
        I wanted to go on that. So if yes, you have actually done
    that, will USAID provide its after action review to this
    committee?
        Ms. Power. Again, that's the kind of thing we will engage
    with your staff and look at what can be provided.
        Mr. Mills. You know, it's just funny to me. You know, both
    Secretary Blinken from the State Department as well as for
    yourself, Administrator Power, not only did you show up late to
    this but you're actually asking for $32 billion in requested
    funding and yet you're giving us a hard stop time at 5 p.m.
    because you do not want to actually allow us to be able to ask
    for the questions of every single member this committee who has
    a right to ask those questions before appropriating $32 billion
    of taxpayers' money.
        As legislators we are stewards of the taxpayers' money and
    so the fact that you're actually not even willing to stay here
    to have every member of this actual body be able to ask you
    questions, what is so important that you can come in here and
    ask for $32 billion but not afford every member of this
    esteemed committee to be able to ask these questions?
        Ms. Power. So, first of all, I was on time for the hearing,
    just let the record show. We had an engagement with the
    chairman and the ranking beforehand. So apologies if it got
    started late.
        And while I cannot make public the reasons that I'm--that I
    need to leave at 5 p.m. I'm happy to followup with you later
    this evening and explain. Thank you.
        Mr. Mast [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Mills. I yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Ambassador Power. It's great to
    see you and thank you for your extraordinary service to our
    country.
        You know, our colleagues sometimes may not fully appreciate
    that we are making our constituents safer by addressing the
    root causes of conflict and violent extremism and promoting
    stability by reducing poverty, cultivating freedom and
    democracy, and stemming migration, which, of course, is the
    central part of your work.
        There was even a suggestion made if we just spent more
    money on defense, which currently we spend $816 billion and on
    diplomacy and development about $78 billion so about a tenth of
    it, and so I think this notion of if we would just spend more
    on defense and less on diplomacy and development misses the
    mark, significantly and I know you have made that point
    throughout this hearing.
        I want to just quickly turn to one issue and that is both
    Senator Baldwin and I worked very hard to increase funding to
    protect LGBTQI people around the world and particularly if
    we're successful including a historic $25 million for USAID's
    inclusive development hub protection of LGBTQI+ persons.
        Can you just confirm that that money is in fact being
    appropriated to LGBTQI+ groups working on inclusive development
    programs around the world? Because I know there's been some
    question raised as to whether all of that is actually going to
    that effort.
        And I'm happy to followup with you. Ok.
        Ms. Power. I was not aware the questions were being raised.
    I mean, there are an array--as we look at inclusive development
    there are array of groups that we're seeking to work with who
    are marginalized and persecuted because of status or lack of
    status. So maybe we can just followup and look at the
    disaggregation. But thank you for your leadership in securing
    those resources.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        In 2023 a record 339 million people rely on humanitarian
    assistance and protection, an increase in more than 25 percent
    since last year.
        You have, in fact, proposed an increase to meet that
    obligation or that need and I'm just wondering if you would
    comment on what would be the consequences of not only not
    responding to that increase but a 22 percent cut in that
    funding----
        Ms. Power. Thank you. Well----
        Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Which the Republicans have
    proposed.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. Let me be brief but just start by
    saying that as humanitarian needs exploded, and they've been
    steadily exploding but last year the worst year in recorded
    memory, the Ukraine supplementals ended up absolutely pivotal.
        They brought in and it brought to the United States on
    behalf of the American people an additional nearly--I think
    nearly $5 billion on top of our base budget. Every penny of
    that was obligated and was expended and was needed, whether in
    Afghanistan or in the Horn of Africa where there was
    unprecedented famine or even when a hurricane hits in our own
    hemisphere, for Venezuelan refugees and others.
        So we are in a different situation this year where as of
    now, at least, we do not have additional supplemental resources
    being brought in. So already we are looking at a very
    substantial diminishment even as with the earthquake in Turkey
    and Syria, with the new crisis in Sudan compounding the
    previous crisis.
        Needs are going to be much, much higher this year than last
    and so if you cut on top of our--cut our base on top of not
    bringing in, again, those supplemental resources it'll mean
    whole countries will basically have no access to food
    assistance and that would be devastating. It'll mean hundreds
    of thousands if not millions of lives likely lost.
        Mr. Cicilline. Democracies consistently prove to be the
    most reliable geopolitical allies and trading partners for our
    country and they outperform non-democracies in delivering
    prosperity, stability, and good governance.
        Unfortunately, by some measures democracies have declined
    for 15 consecutive years and fewer than a fifth of the world's
    people now live in fully free countries.
        Would you just speak a little bit to USAID's efforts to
    modernize its tools of democracy assistance to address emerging
    threats such as digital repression, weaponized corruption,
    election meddling, disinformation, and attacks on independent
    media and how that work would be impacted by the Republicans'
    action to cut USAID's democracy rights and governance agenda by
    22 percent?
        Ms. Power. Well, over the more than decade and a half that,
    by most indicators, democracy has been on its back heel and
    backsliding has been increasing investments by the United
    States in standing up for civil society, independent media, and
    open digital infrastructure, standing against corruption, those
    investments have been steadily decreasing.
        So the state of democracy has been decreasing as have our
    investments in contesting that. I think that's finally being
    reversed. There's finally a realization that we need to fight
    back against some of these trends that our geopolitical rivals
    who believe in a different system are fighting back.
        So we are modernizing the toolkit alongside the traditional
    tools like those I've just mentioned--supporting independent
    media, civil society, election monitors and the like.
        We're creating a new insurance fund to protect journalists
    from lawsuits. We're bringing about economic dividends in
    places where there are reform openings, which I think is really
    important that when you have a reformer who's swept into office
    either out of popular protests or an election change, for the
    United States to be there in a visible way with programs that
    matter in the lives of ordinary people--bread and butter
    programs.
        So linking our development--our economic development and
    agricultural, health, and other work with our democracy
    promotion agenda, I think, is a part of that vision and when
    we're finally getting back to being at the table and fighting
    to cut those resources, again, would be immensely harmful at
    just the time you actually see the smallest net decrease in
    democratic indicators globally in 17 years.
        So, finally, there's about to be a level playing field.
    That would be the worst possible time and it would be the best
    thing we could do for the PRC's ambition, which is to see those
    autocratic movements grow.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Lawler for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Power, incitement and the promotion of hatred within
    the Palestinian schools has been widely documented. What steps
    has the Administration taken to press the Palestinian Authority
    to improve its educational materials and how are we ensuring
    USAID partners do not promote incitement?
        Ms. Power. Well, obviously, we strongly condemn and disavow
    any messages that promote hate whether in a textbook or in the
    public sphere. I think what you're referring to is the UNRWA
    programming, which is usually where this textbook issue arises.
        That is something that is funded out of the State
    Department. But the programs that we fund through the Middle
    East Partnership Program are meant at bringing communities
    together so as to humanize each other so that those kinds of
    sentiments are also fought in a different way.
        So in terms of engagement with the education system we--
    USAID, to my knowledge, does not have programming now of that
    nature. But, again, we try to foster as much cross line
    cooperation as we can so as to diminish that sentiment.
        Mr. Lawler. And you're confident that our partners are not
    doing that?
        Ms. Power. Oh, our implementing partners--well, I mean, we
    have what--in any instance where you have any link to extremism
    orvery problematic actions of that--of that nature--of the
    nature that you're describing for people to bring those forward
    and for us to be able to engage, I mean, we have systems meant
    to choose partners who share our values.
        And so on the front end I think our systems----
        Mr. Lawler. Right. But are you confident that our partners
    are not doing that?
        Ms. Power. That they're not doing what? Something with
    textbooks specifically or that they----
        Mr. Lawler. Yes, that they are partaking in helping promote
    incitement within Palestine with respect to the school system
    there. Are you confident that U.S. taxpayer dollars at your
    disposal, working with our partners, are not being used to
    foster that incitement? Yes or no.
        Ms. Power. In the education system I'm confident that--but
    USAID is not--is not working, again, in education programming.
    What we do when we--in any appeal, whether on sanitation or on
    health, we look and do full due diligence in a manner to root
    out the risk of that.
        Mr. Lawler. OK. This past weekend I spoke at the Moldova
    and American Convention and met with President Maia Sandu.
    Under President Sandu's leadership the country has made
    significant strides in a short period of time to root out
    corruption and enact reforms, sought increased European
    integration and, reallyin cooperation with the United States
    has gone after Russian-aligned officials and entities.
        Maintaining and strengthening our relationship with Moldova
    is absolutely critical to furthering this progress and
    promoting resilience to Russian malign influence and much of
    this work is done through USAID, and I met with the
    administrator there, Ambassador McKee, and she's done a great
    job.
        But what do you feelwe can do to support and bolster
    Moldova's economy and work with the Administration there and
    what are we doing to promote energy security in Moldova as
    well?
        Ms. Power. Well, first of all, thank you for speaking at
    the conference. Thank you for your support for the Ukraine
    supplementals because it is actually through those
    supplementals that we have been able to make a strategic
    investment in Moldova to take not just USAID programming but
    across the board energy investments and other lines of effort
    to a different level to meet the moment where somebody who has
    come into office swept into office and an anti-corruption
    agenda--as you say, on a reformist agenda, on an integration
    with the West agenda, but finds herself being subjected to
    Putin's energy blackmail on a daily basis.
        There's great vulnerability in that for her, as you know.
    We have worked with her to come up with an energy plan. Also
    our mission in Moldova has worked with our mission in Ukraine
    because actually Ukrainian developments in the energy sector
    have actually enabled Moldova to use--to rely on the Ukrainian
    grid more than they had in the past.
        But it's, obviously, going to take years for the full kind
    of energy independence that she's seeking and I really hope
    that the United States can be with her and the Moldovan people
    every step of the way.
        Mr. Lawler. In the limited time I have left, with respect
    to Haiti, obviously, there's been gang violence activity. The
    government has basically been overrun. What is USAID doing this
    year to improve conditions in Haiti?
        Ms. Power. Well, like other members of the interagency
    we're very focused on the security situation because many of
    our programs now have been impeded by virtue of the spreading
    gang violence.
        And so the question of whether there can be some kind of
    multinational police or other security force to support the
    Haitian National Police is one that, like others in the U.S.
    Government, we are pushing.
        We are alsothrough our democracy assistance trying to
    support civil society and other efforts to finally get a
    political path forward because the political insecurity and
    lack of a political horizon combined with the physical
    insecurity, again, just makes for a very chaotic situation.
        In addition, we're doing humanitarian programming to try to
    reach people who we can still reach where conditions allow.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Bera for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are dozens,
    hundreds, of reasons why I'm proud to be an American. One of
    the things I'm most proud about is what we did in the 75 years
    post-World War II, the fact that through the Marshall Plan we
    rebuilt Europe, created stable democracies, avoided a
    continental war, what we did helping rebuild Japan, creating a
    stable democracy--an ally--what we didstepping up to defend the
    Korean Peninsula but then working with the Korean people to
    take what was once one of the poorest countries in the world to
    what is a Korean miracle today, and we can follow that example
    over and over again.
        Those weren't Democratic or Republican ideals. Those were
    American ideals of being present, investing, working with
    folks, and there used to be a time when we celebrated that as
    an institution and I think we should be proud of that aid and
    development.
        I also--you know, listening to some of my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle I hear them talk about how we have got
    to be present in the world when we talk about the Belt and Road
    Initiative, when we talk about countering PRC influence.
        But you cannot say that on the one hand and then denigrate
    the tools that we have available for aid development, fostering
    democracy building. That is USAID. That is our foreign aid and
    development program. That is the State Department, and we want
    to be present around the world.
        You know, we're talking about budgets here. You know, often
    the--you know, I get the impression that my colleagues think we
    spent an exorbitant amount on foreign aid and development.
        Administrator Power, if we were to just cap aid and
    development budget at 2 percent of the Federal budget would you
    take that deal?
        Ms. Power. Yes, please.
        Mr. Bera. Exactly. So just, again we spend a minuscule
    amount and while we spend more than any other country in the
    world, Administrator Power, on a per capita, per GDP--I guess,
    per GDP basis are we at the top of spending on foreign aid and
    development?
        Ms. Power. We are not, and if I could just give you one
    example because it just recently came to my attention. The
    American people--and you all have been so generous on Ukraine.
    We talked--Representative Keating spoke about the investments
    that we make on the civilian side as well as on the military
    side.
        Norway just announced a $5 billion package that is
    something like 1.7 percent of GDP, just to give a sense of the
    scale of investment there.
        So I know there's a sense of we're doing a lot of this
    alone. We're not. We really are leveraging what we're doing to
    get other countries to step up.
        Mr. Bera. Great. So let me actually follow that line of
    reasoning andagain, I'm very proud of what we did in aid
    development and creating peace and stability in the post-World
    War II world in those 75 years.
        Going forward, obviously, we have partners--Japan, Korea.
    You know, you talked about Norway, our European allies. You
    know, resources are tight and I understand we have got an
    obligation to protect the taxpayers' dollars.
        What are some examples of how we're working with like-
    valued like-minded partners to, again, go into third countries
    anddo that aid and development work?
        Ms. Power. Well there are things like multilateral funds
    like the Global Fund on HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria and what I
    love about that is that if the U.S.--basically the U.S.--if we
    can deliver our resources it is a formula by which we can only
    give as much as we are able to mobilize from other countries.
        When it comes to global health we are part of something
    called a global health financing facility where I think we have
    invested something like $400 million and turned that into $1.6
    billion.
        You see this on issue after issue after issue. As we, for
    example, in line with the prior exchange, changed our approach
    to democracy promotion and invest in these new tools to kind of
    support democratic reformers we go to country after country
    after country and say, hey, we have just created this new
    insurance fund to protect journalists around the world who are
    doing anti-corruption work--will you join us.
        So there's not a sector that we think about only from the
    standpoint of what we do. We want to do just like what we do in
    the Global Fund, which is for every dollar that the U.S. spends
    we get $2 from other donors, and it works.
        When countries know that they can unlock U.S. taxpayer
    resources that makes them also able to go to their parliaments
    and their people and say, look, we're all jumping together
    here.
        Mr. Bera. Right. So that does seem like a model for aid and
    development, moving forward, where we're leveraging our
    resources, leveraging the power of our taxpayer dollars, to
    also then get other partners and donors engaged.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. Kean for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Administrator Power, for being with us today.
        Our nation is once again in the midst of a great power
    competition across the globe at a time when it is critical to
    exercise every tool in our national security toolkit. Foreign
    assistance played an important role.
        Administrator Power, your agency accounts for more than
    half of all U.S. foreign assistance and right now the world is
    facing a crisis, whether it is the war in Ukraine, conflicts in
    countries in Africa, CCP's nefarious exploitation of assistance
    as a policy tool. Many, many others.
        I am concerned by reports the White House is not planning
    to ask Congress for new Ukraine funding before the end of the
    fiscal year.
        I know this is outside of your direct wheelhouse but
    Presidential draw down authority is running dangerously low and
    I find it unacceptable that we are providing smaller biweekly
    PDA packages as Ukraine approaches its critical counter-
    offensive strategy than we were earlier in the war.
        Moreover, the Fiscal Year 1924 request for Ukraine is
    comparable to pre-war levels and does not reflect the reality
    of the full-scale war of conquest that Russia is waging against
    it.
        From your perspective, can you please discuss Ukraine's
    economic and humanitarian needs in the coming months?
        Ms. Power. Sorry. I thought you were continuing.
        Thank you so much, and thank you for championing this vital
    cause and also for recognizing the interlinkages between the
    battle front and the need for security assistance rapidly and
    appropriately, and the other front, which is the ongoing battle
    for Ukraine to keep its finances flowing, to keep the lights
    on, but also to continue to strengthen its democracy and its
    institutions because that's the ultimate--in addition to
    wartime defeat the ultimate repudiation of the Putin project.
        You know, I think, for us we have been--one of the most
    important things that you have given us is resources to provide
    direct budget support and that is money that without which the
    Ukrainian government could not have survived the last year and
    3 months.
        It is money that pays for health workers, for teachers, for
    health services, for the most vulnerable in the society who
    otherwise would not have access to pensions.
        I mean, when you when you're looking at a $5 billion
    monthly deficit $1.5 billion a month from the United States
    leveraged, to the prior exchange with Congressman Bera, to
    secure $1.5 billion, if not $1.6 billion now this year from the
    European Union, is absolutely vital.
        I think that as we look out on the civilian side these
    resources are doing everything from helping Ukraine do what it
    just did, which people have not really taken note of
    sufficiently, I think, which has survived the winter as Putin
    sought to weaponize winter, our ability, thanks to you all, to
    provide $400 million in pipes and boilers and thermal blankets
    and generators that was the difference between Putin achieving
    his war aim.
        But, again, not--this isn't just on the battlefield.
    Achieving his wartime by actually sapping the will of the
    Ukrainian people. It is those resources that you have provided
    that were so indispensable.
        With regard to the timing----
        Mr. Kean. Do you think that they need additional resources
    before the end of the fiscal calendar year?
        Ms. Power. You know, I'm working with--we're working with
    the White House to think through the timing. We were very
    grateful to get in December an infusion that at least on the
    direct budget support will take us to the end of the fiscal
    year.
        But the more notice we have about how resources--I mean, we
    will act very differently if we do not know we have more
    resources after September as we start to get deeper into the
    summer.
        So I certainly think that the conversations back and forth
    are very important in helping us plan how we stretch out the
    resources that have been allocated to us to provide to the
    Ukrainians.
        Mr. Kean. OK. And then on the issue of what's going on in
    South Africa right now it's deeply concerning to me. Inviting
    Xi and Putin to the country is not a reflection of the South
    African people.
        What does this budget reflect in terms of support for
    institutions and people wanting a democratic future for South
    Africa?
        Ms. Power. In this budget proposal we request--we do not
    have large programs in South Africa because it's such an
    advanced economy. We have very big health programs.
        But in this budget we have requested an additional $3
    million in democracy rights and governance support to do
    everything from support for civil society, anti-corruption
    work, voter education, because they're heading into elections
    in 2024.
        But let me, obviously, just get on record as well just
    grave concern with the events of recent days and with some of
    the actions to which you have referenced.
        We still find ways, of course, to work with South Africa on
    a whole host of regional international challenges and we have
    had a very robust dialog these last weeks on some of the issues
    that you have raised.
        So, hopefully, again, the bilateral relationship will
    continue to offer as much as it has, I think, for both the
    American people and the South African people over many years.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Administrator. I yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Castro for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Castro. Thanks.
        Administrator Power, it's good to see you today. Thank you
    for your testimony.
        You and I have discussed the importance of supporting
    innovation in development programs previously and I think that
    those of us who support development assistance should not shy
    away from being candid about where our programs work and where
    they do not work.
        As you know, Rep. Young Kim and I recently introduced the
    Fostering Innovation and Global Development Act. This
    legislation would strengthen USAID's ability to generate
    innovative approaches to international development and would
    establish a proven solutions program at USAID to identify and
    scale up those highly effective interventions.
        I believe that this legislation is well aligned with your
    goals to support better use of evidence in USAID programs and
    I'm wondering if you've had a chance to look over the
    legislation and, if so, would love to get your views on it and
    also see how we can work together to make foreign assistance
    much more effective.
        Ms. Power. Well, Congressman Castro, let me just thank you
    for always getting in the weeds of sort of how we're trying to
    do our business, some of our staffing concerns.
        This objective that I think we all share, which is how to
    ensure that we have the most nimble, the most responsive, the
    most innovative agency, I think we think that the draft
    legislation would provide really interesting opportunities.
    We're heartened by the fact that it has bipartisan support from
    Representative Kim, who's also such a champion of these issues.
        We're grateful already for the Innovation Fellows that have
    been placed at USAID. Certainly, if you remove the $100,000
    award cap that would allow the agency to significantly increase
    its impact in priority areas, including climate and food
    security, and I think we already have--and I know, again,
    you're very familiar with it--but the Development Innovation
    Ventures' scale-up stage four initiative trying to use a gift
    from Open--a grant from Open Philanthropy to support our new
    chief economist's office as well to be able to just, in a
    sense, just like they do in the private sector pick those
    winners where small investments on the front end can help
    startups or entrepreneurs or civic minded individuals scale
    what they're doing with great development impact down the line,
    and you're familiar with the programs in the past that have
    made such a difference.
        Mr. Castro. Sure.
        Ms. Power. So we're excited to build on the Div 17 to 1
    return on investment. That's a pretty handsome ratio and we're
    hopeful that this legislation or something like it would help
    us advance that goal.
        Mr. Castro. No. Well, thank you and thank you so much for
    your focus on innovation on evidence-based solutions on scaling
    up the best solutions on all of it.
        And you just mentioned that you recently created the
    position of chief economist and appointed Dean Karlan to the
    role. I think this is a great opportunity to better integrate
    the use of evidence in the USAID programs.
        And so how do you measure success for this new position at
    USAID? How are you setting it up to succeed and integrating
    evidence across USAID?
        Ms. Power. Well, we are starting by addressing some of the
    attrition that had occurred, to my surprise, over the years at
    USAID in terms of economic expertise. The number of economists
    on staff is much fewer now and not because anybody intended it
    as such but just other priorities took center stage.
        So creating an Office of the Chief Economist, hiring a
    highly regarded economist like Dean and then building out
    expertise in everything from debt restructuring, which so many
    of our partners are crying out for support on, to building in
    as a design feature impact evaluations, cost effectiveness
    analysis.
        I mean, in a world of scarce resources even if we got every
    penny we asked for in our 1924 budget requests it's still too
    little compared to everything that we have talked about vis-a-
    vis the PRC or humanitarian needs.
        And so that cost effective analysis, to me, isa huge part
    of my responsibility in my tenure to leave the agency in a
    position to know that every penny that we spend is being
    leveraged and being optimized in terms of cost effectiveness.
        So he's building out the team. Again, it's a wide array of
    expertise that we need. We're getting university professors to
    come on loan for a couple years when we can. But as we hire
    foreign service, civil service, and others, bringing in that
    economic expertise and those people who can do those
    evaluations, supplementing the measurement, evaluation, and
    learning units that we already have and that have been working
    very productively over the years is very important.
        Mr. Castro. Well, thank you for that. I think it's a wise
    move and please let us know how we can help enable through any
    authorities the success of the chief economist, as we go
    forward.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Baird for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Madam
    Administrator, we appreciate you being here.
        You know, since we're talking about budgets, according to
    the USAID between October 1921 and August 22 the United
    States was the largest donor to Sudan with more than $457
    million in humanitarian assistance, and that's almost $100
    million more than in 2020.
        However, Sudan policy still remains a disaster. Even on
    April the 15th of this year, 2023, more conflict broke out
    between the rival factions of the military government in west
    Sudan.
        So my question is this. Is USAID rethinking their approach
    in Sudan and, if so, how is the USAID working with Sudan to fix
    this policy? And then, last, what measures are being taken to
    ensure anti-corruption is not happening with the American
    taxpayer dollars in Sudan?
        Ms. Power. Thank you--thank you, Congressman.
        Well, let me distinguish a couple of phases in the U.S.
    relationship with Sudan just in that period that you were
    describing.
        So, as you might recall, thanks to a popular uprising among
    people who were fed up with the corruption and the repression
    you actually had an AU-brokered deal with a civilian prime
    minister and, yes, the same military elements who have caused
    such havoc recently.
        But they were--they constituted kind of a transitional
    authority and they were aiming--allegedly aiming to get to
    civilian government.
        Then there was a coup in 2021. Prior to the coup I think
    the previous Administration and the Biden Administration were
    very enthusiastic about meeting this reform moment. They locked
    up somebody who'd been indicted for genocide, Omar Al-Bashir,
    who had ruled for decades and perpetrated a genocide against
    the people of Darfur.
        So at that point, we were thinking about doing a fair
    amount of development programming, working in social services
    trying to strengthen institutions and did some of that in that
    period.
        But the coup ended all of that and so our work really then
    migrated to just what you pointed to, which is humanitarian
    assistance, because it's a poor country.
        It's a country that put itself in isolation with its
    actions over the years and we were trying to help keep people
    alive through the World Food Programme--David Beasley--which
    David Beasley was championing and helping us figure out how
    best to channel that food and other assistance--but with very
    difficult climate conditions and very poor investments, as you
    say, in the infrastructure of the country over the years that
    humanitarian assistance was life or death and it was needs
    based.
        We are now in a situation, as you know, where a civil war
    has broken out between two--the two actors who had conspired to
    overthrow the civilian prime minister and now we are just
    trying to basically meet the needs of people who are in full
    flight.
        I mean, you will have a million--you probably already have,
    between internally displaced and displaced to neighboring
    countries, a million people already displaced and already,
    again, the needs of the country--a third of the country needed
    humanitarian assistance before this military conflict broke
    out.
        So your question is a very fair one. Humanitarian
    assistance is incredibly important. I mean, you see--nobody
    wants humanitarian assistance on this Earth. They want to be
    able to fend for themselves, feed their families on their own.
        But if they are having to get humanitarian assistance it's
    because they do not have other options and if we can get our
    partners moving again on the ground despite the insecurity
    that's what we do.
        It's what America does around the world and it's why we're
    known as the world's leading humanitarian donor and very
    compassionate, and it's a form of soft power and all the like.
        That does not substitute for the core challenge that you
    put your finger on, which is when is Sudan going to be back at
    peace, when are civilians going to be in charge, when are the
    people going to have a say as to who governs them.
        With regard to your anti-corruption concern, that is really
    about working only with trusted partners and that's why large
    international organizations that have in place the safeguards
    and the systems and who we have worked with in other parts of
    the world where we can have confidence and represent to you
    that we think the money is going to the intended beneficiaries.
        That's what we're doing right now in Sudan. But I want to
    stress 22--only 22 of our 33 partners are working right now and
    that's with very limited capacity. So, sadly, we are not able
    to reach all the people that we would like to at the moment.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you very, very much and I appreciate that
    perspective. I see my time is almost up so I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. Phillips for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Mast, and welcome, Madam
    Administrator.
        I spent this morning at the Vietnam War Memorial. My dad's
    name is on that stone, 58,000 others. I thought about my
    friend, Mr. Baird, who served the U.S. with honor and made
    extraordinary sacrifices.
        And as I was walking and observing other veterans at the
    wall I thought to myself what if our country dedicated the same
    energy and resources and intention to diplomacy that we do to
    national defense.
        Some have referenced how much money $32 billion is and darn
    right it is, and we have every right and need and
    responsibility to ensure oversight and accountability for it.
    But your budget is about 3+ percent of that $900 billion or so
    and I recognize that the best defense is often the most
    successful--I'm sorry, successful development in investments
    and that is why I so respect what you and your teammates do and
    I recognize that it is, indeed, an art, not a science. So thank
    you, most of all.
        I'm the ranking member of the Middle East, North Africa,
    and Central Asia Subcommittee working with my friend and
    colleague, Mr. Wilson. Our region has great challenges from
    Tunisia to Lebanon to Syria to Yemen, among so many others.
        But despite the challenges there's some good signs. The
    Abraham Accords, I think, are to be celebrated. The Negev Forum
    is another example. But I wanted to ask a question about the
    Nita Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act. I was
    recently in Israel and I spent some time in east Jerusalem with
    some Palestinian entrepreneurs.
        I asked them the question about these dollars and these
    programs. But I want to hear from you. How do you see those
    programs working, how do you measure success, and anything you
    can share about some of these micro programs and their
    outcomes.
        Ms. Power. Thank you. And what I would say is that we have
    really picked up steam on the Middle East on MEPPA and you see
    that in terms of the visibility of the program, of people
    coming forward with initiatives.
        It's challenging, because the conceit of the program is
    cross-line collaborations, and that gets harder as the security
    situation deteriorates, as it has. And there's a ton of
    polarization as well and some skepticism about whether peace is
    possible or a two-State solution can be secured.
        But I think what we try to do, as you say, with these micro
    grants or starting small work on everything from a startup that
    might be doing something that, again, brings in people from
    both communities, a water quality project that's going to have
    benefits for people on both sides of the lines, female
    empowerment, which is something that would serve communities
    everywhere.
        The board for MEPPA, which was named by the ranking and
    chair of each of our oversight committees just visited and I
    think came back really blown away by the good that's being
    done.
        But, again, it's critically important that the other--that
    the political process gets reawakened at some point. It's
    critically important that people have the security that they
    need in their day-to-day livesto be able to even go out and
    experience what a startup has to offer or do some kind of joint
    sporting event or something across communities.
        But I think the MEPPA board, which is a very diverse
    composition reflecting the diversity of our chair and rankings
    across the House and Senate, they came back really feeling as
    if this was exactly the right way to go, especially in this
    period where not a lot is happening in the political
    negotiation track.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you. I've got about a minute left. I
    also want to talk about load sharing. We're the largest food
    assistance donor in the world but I'm concerned that other
    countries are not providing what I think they can and should.
    Is that a fair perspective?
        Ms. Power. I think there's no question that the war in
    Ukraine has pulled resources away from the Middle East and
    North Africa or sub-Saharan Africa and places where there are
    great humanitarian needs.
        You know, I will say that the--what the Europeans have
    done, for example, for Ukrainian refugees coming init's 17
    billion euros worth of support and that is counting against
    their overseas development assistance overall budgets just in
    the way that they are scorekeeping there in their budget
    conversations and----
        Mr. Phillips. So I've only got 10 seconds left.
        Ms. Power. Sorry. Yes.
        Mr. Phillips. If I could just ask many of us, all of us, I
    think, on this committee spend time with Ambassadors from
    countries all over the world.
        Ms. Power. Yes. Please lobby if that's----
        Mr. Phillips. That's what I was going to ask you. Would you
    like us----
        Ms. Power. Please, please lobby. Yes. I think untraditional
    partners who have not been big givers but have the resources we
    know to step up in wholly new ways to meet the moment is really
    important and we look forward to when the war in Ukraine is
    over and we can get back to right sizing investments all around
    the world.
        We have been very lucky because of the supplementals to be
    able to both support the people of Ukraine and meet this food
    insecurity moment and deal with the destabilizing effects of
    the Ukraine war in other parts of the world.
        That has been harder for other countries. If the pie does
    not get bigger fundamentally it's going to come out of
    somewhere. So thank you.
        Mr. Phillips. All right. Thank you. My time has expired and
    I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Power, we--I noticed in your budget request
    that you--that AID has essentially requested about the same
    amount for--overall for Afghanistan aid across the programs in
    1924's and 1922, roughly. It's almost as though nothing
    happened there in terms of your budgetary request.
        Regardless of the number, can we just talk for a moment on
    your visibility on to how that aid is being distributed? I
    understand it's going through the U.N. The U.N. then goes
    through local implementers.
        I'm hearing consistently from Afghans or from people in the
    region, for example, the Taliban are essentially--and Haqqani--
    are registering NGO's amongst their members and receiving that
    aid. Can you provide the committee a list of NGO's that the
    U.N. is providing the aid to?
        Ms. Power. Yes. I think that absolutely is something--that
    those would be the sub awardees and that is something we should
    be able to do. And obviously, because we do not have--let me
    first just say about the number.
        That does not--that does not accord with what I think is
    true and so I wonder if there's just a timing issue where the
    1922 number is in fact the number enacted after the withdrawal.
        Our development--you know, we had huge development programs
    there that were such important investments in girls education
    and civil society and independent media on the ground.
        Mr. Waltz. Right. Right.
        Ms. Power. So all of that halted.
        Mr. Waltz. But the bottom line is----
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Set the number side.
        Ms. Power. Ok.
        Mr. Waltz. Can you confirm that the U.N. is not--is or
    isn't distributing aid to Taliban and Haqqani--linked groups?
        Ms. Power. Well, they certainly--I can tell you that we
    have had no reporting to that effect. I mean, there are----
        Mr. Waltz. You've had no reporting that the Taliban is
    influencing or directing----
        Ms. Power. That the U.N. is giving aid to the Taliban,
    which I thought was the question.
        Mr. Waltz. Right. With Taliban linked groups, right. These
    are groups that are essentially registering NGO's.
        Ms. Power. As sub-implementers. Let me not say we have not
    but I am not aware of reporting to that effect. If our partner,
    let's say, in this case, WFP or UNICEF or if you're hearing
    these reports, if you bring those reports to us and to our
    inspector general, I mean, that's exactly the kind of thing
    that we would----
        Mr. Waltz. Can you confirm? Because what we are hearing
    regularly and repeatedly is the Taliban have put officials on
    every one of these NGO governing bodies, that they are
    threatening these groups to provide it in accordance with
    Taliban and Haqqani wishes, that they are discriminating
    ethnically, that they are rewarding those who occupy formally
    minority occupied villages and homes, particularly in central
    Afghanistan.
        Can you just confirm to us that that's happening or not
    happening?
        Ms. Power. I mean, the Taliban runs Afghanistan and they
    control activities----
        Mr. Waltz. And Haqqani.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. And they control activities in
    areas where our implementing partners are working. In
    instances, for example, if the Taliban were to instruct an
    implementing partner official to not give money to a disfavored
    ethnic group or to women or our----
        Mr. Waltz. Are you confident you have visibility of that
    happening?
        Ms. Power. Our partners have an obligation to report it. I
    am confident that we have systems where if these allegations--
    if you are getting insight into this happening in specific
    places we would be--and we would have to cutoff assistance in
    places----
        Mr. Waltz. But it's a self-reporting system.
        Ms. Power. No, we have third party reporting. We have
    organizations----
        Mr. Waltz. In Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. On the ground that are doing
    monitoring of the implementing partners. Say again.
        Mr. Waltz. In Afghanistan, in a place controlled by the--
    regardless of that----
        Ms. Power. We ordinarily do----
        Mr. Waltz. Regardless of that, I mean, we know the Haqqani,
    in particular, are also running Afghanistan. Their interior
    minister is Siraj Haqqani, running the police. You're well
    aware that it's a foreign terrorist organization. It's illegal
    to provide directly or indirectly material support to a
    terrorist organization.
        So I would look forward to the committee coming back to me
    with real systems, not kind of a hope and a prayer on third
    party monitoring in, essentially, a denied space.
        Can you--can you--are you confident that that's not going
    to terrorism, that it's not supporting a terrorist
    organization, that they're not centrally directing those funds?
        Ms. Power. What I am confident of is that the United
    Nations partners that we have robust systems. Let me--let me
    finish. And it's not--you know, I think what you are looking
    for is more visibility into the granularity of what those
    systems look like if that's what we are relying upon. I also
    know----
        Mr. Waltz. You are confident in the U.N. systems?
        Ms. Power. Everyone is aware that if U.S. assistance is
    going----
        Mr. Waltz. Director Power, that should be a yes or----
        Ms. Power [continuing]. Is going----
        Mr. Waltz [continuing]. I'm confident or I'm not confident.
    This is a lot of taxpayer money going to a war zone----
        Ms. Power. Absolutely. I've just----
        Mr. Waltz [continuing]. And I just--I'm out of time.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Waltz. The fact that you cannot say, Congressman, I'm
    confident this money is going where it should be--go?
        Ms. Power. I am confident that--but what I want--the reason
    we had this exchange earlier--I'm not sure you were here----
        Mr. Waltz. We're going----
        Ms. Power. If I could just finish, because you're--you
    know, there are issues related to working in a Taliban-
    controlled Afghanistan, as you might imagine, for our
    implementing partners. For example, when they pay their utility
    bills, that money is going--that's an incidental fee that is
    going into, ultimately to the Afghan government.
        Mr. Waltz. But that's very different than the Haqqani, a
    foreign terrorist organization----
        Ms. Power. No. Exactly. So that's why I'm asking you----
        Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Picking winners and losers and
    using taxpayer dollars to decide who gets this money and who
    lives or dies, and basically empowering themselves----
        Ms. Power. Correct.
        Mr. Waltz [continuing]. With our money. And the fact that
    you're not slapping the table saying, it's not happening, Mr.
    Congressman, I can tell you that, I think would be outrageous
    to every American, and I can tell you that this House, this
    committee, will seek to cut those funds until you can do that.
        Ms. Power. But I agree with the outrageous, and that's why
    we have systems in place and we have an inspector general and
    we have reporting requirements of our partners. And we'll
    cutoff partners who are providing assistance in the manner that
    you're describing. That's what I can attest.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Ms. Jacobs for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, Administrator Power, I want to thank you for your
    comments about the Nigerian attack and make sure you know that
    we're here, stand ready to do anything we can to help make sure
    that we get those who have not yet been identified found and
    back home safe, and condolences to the families of those we
    have lost.
        And I also want to thank you for your words about Sudan and
    express my solidarity with the Sudanese people. I was glad to
    see a DART set up.
        Now we need to make sure that enough resources are
    allocated to actually be able to respond to the humanitarian
    crisis and also make sure that we're working with Sudanese
    organizations that are currently there on the ground doing the
    life-saving work that needs support and we know that a lot of
    that work we cannot do now because of this situation.
        So as the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee I'm
    very focused on ensuring Congress and the Biden Administration
    prioritizes the African continent. I think we heard from a lot
    of people today how important that is for strategic
    competition.
        I was just on the continent last month visiting Benin,
    Niger, Senegal, Ghana, and Kenya. What I heard echoed what the
    chairman said he heard from folks in every conversation,
    whether it was with our partner countries or with our own
    military.
        They said that, yes, they need military assistance but even
    more they need increased economic development assistance and,
    in fact, our own military said on multiple occasions that no
    amount of money we can give them will substitute for USAID's
    increased presence in these countries.
        And, yet, every single House Republican, including every
    single Republican on this committee, including the chairman,
    voted for a budget that would cut the foreign assistance by at
    least 22 percent. But, actually, if they do what they say and
    hold defense and vets harmless actually could be up to 50
    percent.
        So I was hoping you could explain the consequences of these
    proposed foreign assistance cuts, particularly in Africa where
    China and Russia have been making major inroads.
        Ms. Power. Thank you. Well, we have been having some back
    and forth on that already in this hearing. I mean, it's
    everything from the heartbreaking 13 million kids who will not
    be immunized for preventable diseases to strategically
    blunderous.
        You know, I would note in Latin America--and this is
    reflected in other parts of the world as well--but you see
    consistent polling now that shows a drop in support for PRC
    engagements by host governments or by the countries in which we
    work and an uptick in a desire to work with the United States
    along the lines of what you've described in Africa and as
    others have said, again, to vacate that space or even just to
    diminish because, again, if we are cutting our programs, let's
    say, in half or by a quarter that's a program that they would
    have had last year that they will not have, right.
        So what you'll see is the USAID shingle going away or the
    number of beneficiaries we can cut in half.
        And what we're also seeing is the PRC stepping up, not--I
    used earlier the ratio that the PRC does around--has been doing
    around $9 in loan for every dollar in grant and we the
    opposite, $9 in grants because we're not interested in creating
    dependencies and saddling countries with debt.
        That's actually changing. I think the PRC is seeing the
    utility of coming in. They're seeing the buyer's remorse that
    countries saddled with debt are themselves experiencing.
        So at just the time the PRC is thinking, oh, well, maybe
    we'll do it a little more like USAID and we'll come in and we
    will not ask for things right at the beginning--you know, we'll
    make these longer term investments, for us to be pulling down
    programming at just the time that we want to support an open
    and secure digital ecosystem to walk away and say, no, we do
    not want you to do Huawei--we know the national security
    reasons for that but actually we do not have any support to
    offer you as you think through how to create a free and open
    internet or how to bring out other providers, I mean, that
    would be incredibly counterproductive.
        And I could just--the last thing I'd say is your point
    about economic development and economic growth, we have made
    our budget request but one of the things that we are massively
    under invested in is just core economic development, economic
    growth, programming resources.
        We're great on health and could always use more. But our
    Feed the Future program is a flagship program. We do not have
    anything comparable that other countries really associate with
    the United States and the combination of us and DFC, which I do
    think is every year doing more and more deals, really investing
    more and more in meeting people where they are at this moment
    of economic vulnerability, I think is going to be really
    important.
        Ms. Jacobs. Yes, I totally agree and I actually have a
    letter from 18 retired military leaders on the importance of
    development investments that I'd like to enter into the record.
        Mr. Mast. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. And my colleagues like to talk a lot
    about the southern border. I would just also say that we know
    that if they cut what they want to that would also cut our
    programs in Central America, which is exactly the thing they
    say they want us to do.
        Just really quickly, I know we talked about making sure the
    efficiency of aid and the effectiveness. I know you have a
    localization agenda. I'm a big supporter. I've got legislation
    to help support you.
        I would love for you to just talk briefly about why that
    matters for cost effectiveness and how that can help
    potentially assuage some of the concerns from my friends on the
    other side of the aisle.
        Mr. Mast. The gentlelady's time has expired. If you have
    time to answer in the next round, sure, by all means.
        But the chair now recognizes Mr. Smith for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Administrator Power, it is great to see you and your senior
    staff again. Thank you. We have worked together on a lot of
    issues in the past so it's great to see you, and thank you for
    your leadership.
        This past Friday I chaired a hearing on combating human
    trafficking. We had three amazing survivors, victims who have
    become bold leaders in the effort to end and eradicate modern
    day slavery.
        We had a couple of NGO's. We also had the Ambassador-at-
    large, Cindy Dyer, and with a great deal of respect but also
    with a great deal of expectation I did ask her a question about
    how many of those who are coming across our border have been
    trafficked.
        We know that too often in the minds of the media there's a
    conflation of the issue of smuggling versus trafficking,
    although very often smugglers do end up trafficking their
    victims because they realize how vulnerable they are,
    particularly young women and young children.
        So it's like an engraved invitation to the exploiters and
    the predators to hurt and to destroy and to rape.
        And so my question to you--I know Homeland Security takes
    the lead but we have tried to get that information. Can't get
    it. How many?
        There's 85,000 unaccompanied minors that are--and that's
    just one estimate. Have they been sold into a trafficking
    situation? Do we have any sense of the magnitude of this issue
    so we can combat it?
        You know, if you do not have the numbers how do you--the
    who, what, when, where, why of it all--how do you combat it?
        So if you could lend any--because I know you do work on
    this.
        Ms. Power. We absolutely do work on this, thanks to your
    support, and good to see you and, again, thank you for all the
    things that we get to do with you and all the insights you
    bring to us when you travel the world on these kinds of issues.
        You know, I do not have the breakdown on the border data. I
    do not--I'm not sure myself. I can look into this. But what the
    surveys--you know, we do a lot of intention to migrate surveys
    as a government.
        We certainly look at what the reasons for migration are
    when there's--when somebody is engaged or apprehended at the
    border. We work in the home countries and in countries where--
    for example, we work in Colombia where Venezuelan migrants have
    come in the communities in which those Venezuelan migrants have
    settled in the hopes that we can reach them so that they know
    their rights but also reach them with economic programming and
    economic investments so that they do not see fit to rely on
    smugglers.
        That's a different question than the kind of law
    enforcement effort that you need also to crack down on both the
    smugglers and the traffickers, again, which lives with
    different agencies.
        Mr. Smith. If you could--again, with respect--get that
    number. Even if it's a guesstimate----
        Ms. Power. It's so far beyond my jurisdiction, but what I
    can get you--what I know I can get you is a breakdown of all of
    our programming in the hemisphere that's aimed at combating
    trafficking and gender-based violencefor that as well. But on
    that, I mean, it really is, as you said, a DHS question.
        Mr. Smith. Well in this 2023 TIP Report, because obviously
    the U.S. is included in the narrative--narratives of the
    countries it does make a very strong point, a recommendation
    that we screen for trafficking and to the best of my knowledge
    we're not doing it, and that was made a year ago with the 2022
    TIP Report. So----
        Ms. Power. Let me engage my colleagues at DHS----
        Mr. Smith. Please do.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. And see what the barriers are,
    whether that data exists somewhere and we're just not accessing
    it.
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. Let me ask you with regards
    to Nagorno-Karabakh. You know, 120,000 people--Armenians--are
    subject to the Azerbaijanis' government's blockade. Maybe you
    could shed some light on whether or not that any aid--because
    ICRC cannot get through. If you could speak to that.
        Second, on the Chaldean Catholics those who survived the
    genocide by ISIS we have talked about this many times. You
    know, how well are we doing with helping those individuals, not
    just the Catholics but all the others, the Yazidis?
        And then on the TB issue I noticed in your submission last
    year we spent $394 million on tuberculosis. This year the
    request is for $358 million, a $36 million cut.
        Is that because we're making progress on TB or is itthere
    just was not enough money to go around in the budget? Whatever
    insight you could provide on that.
        Ms. Power. Thank you. What was the first question? I'm
    going to work backward, but what was the first one?
        Mr. Smith. The first one was on----
        Ms. Power. Oh, on Nagorno-Karabakh. Ok.
        So with regard to TB, no, there were major setbacks because
    of COVID and the inability to maintain the progress that we had
    before the pandemic struck. So, sadly, it's not because things
    are--have been trending in the right direction.
        But as we do things like invest in global health security,
    expanding the number of countries that have adequate
    surveillance to spot pandemics, which is in turn an investment
    in our own national security, as we do more in the primary
    health care system, for example, seeking to train--we have a
    $20 million request, I believe, for training of health care
    workers who are massively underpaid and, yet, that's the
    foundation for TB, malaria, all the disease-based programming
    that we do--so I believe it was just not enough to go around.
        Second, in terms of our dialog--ongoing dialog--you know, I
    think on religious minorities generally in the MEAN region
    there's not a huge budgetary allocation. I think it's around
    $15 million over the last couple of years.
        The emphasis has been on the reintegration of Yazidis, the
    reintegration--and this is not in Iraq but in Lebanon of
    Christians who were displaced by the Port of Beirut blast,
    alerting Christians in Iraq to the rights that they havehelping
    them organize a little bit within the Iraqi political dynamic
    or ecosystem and then helping them as well recover from shocks
    whatever that shock is, whether pandemic, climate, et cetera.
        OTIs we discussed when you were last in my office, also is
    doing work in a more stopgap way but with particular attention
    to that population.
        On Nagorno-Karabakh I think you weren't in the room when I
    shared that actually I gather that an ICRC convoy did in fact
    get in today. But access has been very, very limited. You know,
    many, many staples are in short supply.
        We understand we're not physically present on the ground
    and you asked how food is getting in when it gets in. It should
    be coming in through commercial means, as it always was.
        But since the roads--the road has been blocked and the
    checkpoints have been erected commercial access has not been
    possible. So we understand it to have been a combination of
    Russian peacekeepers and ICRC deliveries when those can go in.
        We have had--USAID has sent two assessment missions to----
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Ms. Power. Two assessments----
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Kim.
        Ms. Power. Two assessment missions to the region and we are
    encouraging the U.N. to send an interagency assessment mission
    as well. Thank you.
        Mr. Mast. Mr. Kim for 5 minutes is recognized.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Thank you. Thank you, Administrator,
    for coming and talking with us. I really appreciate it.
        I had a couple other questions but I wanted to just kind of
    start because I have to say I was a bit alarmed by some of the
    conversation earlier in this hearing that wasquestioning the
    importance of what USAID does, of what development does and
    this type of humanitarian assistance does in our broader
    efforts.
        I guess I just wanted to start by kind of asking you to
    just kind of help us just kind of in your own words explain the
    role that USAID plays in particular in our Indo-Pacific
    strategy that I know the Biden Administration has worked hard
    to be able to craft together.
        Can you kind of explain to us the role that USAID plays
    there?
        Ms. Power. Well, I hear broad support for development and
    for USAID at this hearing so maybe I'm hearing what I want to
    hear and disregarding the rest. I think fair questions about
    accountability and whether resources are going where they
    belong and hard questions about how to prioritize.
        With regard to the Indo-Pacific there are so many sectors
    in which USAID is working that it will be hard in our
    respective time to go through them. But needless to say there's
    been democratic backsliding in large parts of the region.
        So continuing to support civil society, independent media,
    those who are holding governments accountable. There is a very
    strong desire for energy transition in a lot of those countries
    because clean energy and renewables are now cheaper to employ.
        So we're--I was just in Vietnam working with countries that
    want to make that transition, to make sure that the regulatory
    environment is the right one, to make sure that when they are
    using solar panels they are procuring them not from Xinjiang
    but from places that respect the rights of the people who are
    working in the factories.
        Fueling economic growth and development--I mean, with a
    burgeoning population, ensuring that the millions of people who
    come online every year have access to work. That's an
    investment in stability. It's also an investment in future
    markets for U.S. companies.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Well, one thing that--one thing that
    you also mentioned earlier in a different way is I just feel
    like so much about this is that that critical note of the
    strategy about coalition building and how we engage in that
    capacity and, for instance the more that we can make this not
    just this kind of just U.S. versus China but the more that we
    talk about a global coalition coming together, and here in this
    space I feel like there's been some really interesting
    movements.
        I know last year Japan, the U.S., and Australia announced
    trilateral cooperation on 5G network development in an effort
    to kind of hedge against some of what China has been doing on
    that front.
        I want to ask about your level of coordination or
    cooperation with other regional partners to be able to maximize
    and make sure that we're engaged in that kind of level of
    coalition building.
        Ms. Power. Thank you. I think there have been major inroads
    through the Quad with--I think you've seen major initiatives
    come out of that feeding into the G-20. I'll give you one
    example.
        In the Pacific where we're just amping up USAID's physical
    presence on the ground but with Australia we have managed an
    undersea cable effort in Micronesia and in Papua New Guinea
    that is going to mean a connection to the outside world that
    would not have existed before and something that probably would
    not have been possible for any one of our countries to do
    alone. But actually doing it in lockstep has been very
    important.
        We have just signed an MOU with Taiwan hoping, really, to
    encourage their substantial investments. They're already making
    them bilaterally but, again, if we can do this work together
    we'll all be better off.
        And then, last, just one--part of the challenge with some
    of the smaller countries in the Pacific, for example, is they
    cannot access--they have trouble accessing large development
    financing because it's so resource intensive to fill out the
    forms and create bankable projects.
        So with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, to work with each of
    those countries to provide human capacity and technical support
    so that they can submit proposals to unlock much larger sums
    than USAID or any development agency.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Yes. And as we're working together
    with these different partners here how do we do better at
    making sure we're getting credit for what we're doing?
        I think oftentimes it's this question of, like, do people
    see what we're doing and we do not always necessarily do that
    kind of at the front end.
        But I'm kind of curious where can we do to be better at
    letting people know what we're doing?
        Ms. Power. Well, Chairman McCaul actually--normally asks me
    this question because he's, I think, one of the sponsors of
    some of the branding language that has come out of Congress--
    branding requirements--and USAID is pretty recognizable.
        I think we're pretty good at branding the things we do. But
    if you're providing a microfinance loan to a small female
    farmer that's difficult to brand in the same way thats ome of
    the bricks and mortar investments we have made over the years
    have done.
        I think the information space is where we need to tell our
    story better and I've just released a new policy framework
    whereby new investments in communications are--and a new way of
    thinking about communications are now central to our reform
    agenda because with all the misinformation coming at us with
    the PRC doing what it does this imperative on telling our story
    and showing the impact that our work has had not just here in
    the United States but actually in the countries in which we
    work I do think that modernizing that effort is very important.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Perry for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Administrator, for coming here today.
        I was looking at the website for USAID and it said the goal
    is to save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democratic
    governance, and help people progress behind--correction, beyond
    assistance.
        Sounds laudable. I think it's something we all probably
    agree with and I think it's--in the context of Russia is often
    a country that has a cross purpose than we do. Certainly, China
    does, and I'm going to focus on Guatemala today and, certainly,
    China and Russia are there.
        And so if we want to do those things I think, look, the
    American tax dollar is important. It can do a lot of things.
    But one of my colleagues said he was alarmed by some of the
    folks here questioning what we're spending our money on and
    that the fact that we might not spend that money.
        When I find out we spent nearly a million dollars to train
    and support the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute that trains and
    supports left-wing candidates in Guatemala after Guatemala
    pushed to be the pro-life capital of America and then invested
    $11 million in assistance for groups to push for abortion
    activism in Guatemala I'm just wondering, Administrator, how
    that fits into save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen
    domestic--correction, democratic governance and help people
    progress beyond assistance.
        Can you help me out there? How did that help?
        Ms. Power. Sure.
        Well, I'm not--I want to say off the bat I'm not familiar
    with either of those programs. We have, as you can imagine----
        Mr. Perry. I'm sure you've got a lot.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. Thousands of programs around the
    world but----
        Mr. Perry. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, ma'am.
        Ms. Power. But I am absolutely--I would actually like to
    hear more about what you're referring to and----
        Mr. Perry. I'll give you some more.
        Ms. Power. Ok. No. No. That, too. Ok.
        But for starters to simply say that we do stand with
    marginalized communities and we do have a situation where you
    see significant spikes in attacks on LGBTQI----
        Mr. Perry. We're not talking about slavery, ma'am. We're
    not talking about what's happening in East Turkestan. We're
    talking about different view points.
        This is a sovereign country, which we wish to help, and
    instead of helping them economically we're telling them
    culturally--we're spending our money to change them culturally
    because we disagree with their--where they are culturally.
        Ms. Power. That is not the approach that we take in
    Guatemala.
        Mr. Perry. But it is.
        Ms. Power. No, it isn't.
        Mr. Perry. Let me--let me give you another one. We spent
    $30 million for climate and environmental-related programs,
    including funds to teach radical climate agenda in schools.
        Ma'am, if we sent--if we gave USAID money under a different
    Administration and they took the NRA to that country and said
    we're going to train all these kids in self-defense and gun
    ownership what would you have to say about that?
        Ms. Power. Congressman, just the language that you're using
    suggests that these are not USAID. These are somebody's
    characterization of USAID programs.
        Mr. Perry. Ok. Well, let me give you another one.
        Ms. Power. When you say radical left climate agenda it's
    probably not something that we do funding.
        Mr. Perry. Let me give you this one. In 2021, so that's not
    too long ago, USAID headlined--headlined--an event to discuss
    plurinational constituent assembly aligned with the indigenous
    agenda of radical leftist groups, including those sponsored by
    Chile and Bolivia.
        Ma'am, like my colleague just said, are we promoting the
    good things that United States of America does through USAID? I
    suspect we're promoting this in Guatemala and it's not looking
    too good for the United States of America.
        Ms. Power. So I really want to make sure that at some point
    we can correct the record because you're characterizing these
    programs as if those are factual descriptions of USAID
    programs.
        I cannot tell you exactly the right way to describe the
    programs that you're describing but I can assure you that the
    descriptions you have do not belong on a record of fact here in
    the Congress.
        What I could also say is that, as you probably know, a very
    significant share of the Guatemalan population is indigenous
    communities. It is the case that central----
        Mr. Perry. Yes. But they also have property rights issues
    and those kind of things destroy property ownership, which was
    a hallmark of climbing out of poverty. Let me give you one more
    because we're running out of time and I want you to be able to
    respond to it.
        Under education--under education under USAID they financed
    Association Lambada which has trained hundreds of political
    leaders on gender identity and sexual orientation. Look, I'm
    all for election integrity and making sure people vote and all
    that stuff.
        I'm not sure that we should be spending American tax
    dollars in America on political candidates and ideology any
    more than we should be spending them abroad. Would you agree?
        Ms. Power. I believe that the United States--a major source
    of our strength over the last 75 years has been our support for
    human rights and marginalized populations in countries like the
    one you mentioned are often suffering more than mere
    discrimination or disenfranchisement.
        They're suffering outright attack. Without knowledge of the
    particulars I'm unable to explain to you why I think it's
    outrageous to run that program.
        Mr. Perry. Ma'am, I will get the article for the record for
    you.
        Ms. Power. But I'm happy to engage offline and talk more
    about what actually these programs do----
        Mr. Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Power [continuing]. Because I do not think that's an
    accurate----
        Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit the article for
    the record.
        Mr. Mast. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [Information not availableat press release time.]
        Mr. Perry. I yield.
        Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Ms. Manning for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Administrator Powell, for your hard
    work, your dedication, and your patience today. I want to start
    by thanking you and USAID staff for everything you've done to
    help the country of Moldova.
        North Carolina is very proud to be partners and sister
    States with Moldova and I appreciate the support the American
    people provide to help this democratic partner and ally.
        Earlier in this hearing Ranking Member Meeks said that
    USAID is a diplomatic tool that is a strategic investment in
    our future. It is also an investment in a safer, more stable
    global future and I'd like to focus on a few areas where our
    strategic investment can bring about a safer, more stable
    future for critical regions.
        I'd like to start with the Middle East. Ninety-four members
    of the House signed a bipartisan letter supporting continued
    funding for the Nita Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace
    Act--the MEPPA Act--which supports people-to-people exchanges
    and economic partnerships to improve relationships between
    Israelis and Palestinians.
        And my colleague, Mr. Phillips, asked you a few minutes ago
    about the impact that some of those grants have had and you had
    a positive view of what they are doing and what they can do in
    the future.
        So I'd like to ask you what would happen to the MEPPA
    program if the Republican budget cuts are implemented?
        Ms. Power. Well, I mean, you would be looking at, depending
    on the extent of the cut, if it's 22 percent presuming all cuts
    are shared equally and I'm sure every program would have to
    feel the pain that kind of cut that would mean less leverage as
    well to go to international partners because, again, we want to
    use MEPPA as a means of getting others to support this kind of
    micro programming.
        You know, depending, again, on the particulars it could
    mean that what was meant to be a 3-year endeavor to really
    invest in community-to-community ties gets truncated and
    terminated before its time.
        But also, I think we have made a commitment on the basis of
    the bipartisanship that MEPPA has enjoyed from the outset that
    we're in it for the long haul, that we recognize that right now
    conditions are not auspicious for peace or even for much
    contact across lines. And, yet, we're going to invest in young
    people, in entrepreneursin these communities that are the
    future.
        And so it would signal either at a 22 percent rate or a 50
    percent rate, potentially, that we are much less enthusiastic
    about that goal.
        Ms. Manning. About setting the stage for future peace in
    that region.
        Ms. Power. Indeed, and the micro good that we do--we can do
    every day. You know, if you cannot change the whole world or
    bring peace to the region you can change many individual worlds
    and that's what the generosity of the taxpayer has allowed
    USAID to do over such a long period of time.
        Ms. Manning. I'd like to turn to sub-Saharan Africa. This
    year marks the 20th anniversary of the President's Emergency
    Plan for AIDS Relief--the PEPFAR program--which I believe is
    one of the most successful bipartisan foreign policy
    accomplishments, which is due for reauthorization this
    Congress.
        Can you tell us about USAID's role in implementing PEPFAR
    and any recommendations you would have for strengthening that
    program?
        Ms. Power. Well, let me just commend everybody who's been
    involved in PEPFAR over the duration of its life. I think the
    numbers are at something like 25 million lives saved or
    affected.
        USAID is a major implementer of PEPFAR along with our
    colleagues at the State Department and the CDC. Much of our
    health work in sub-Saharan Africa and our investments in health
    systems started through PEPFAR.
        I would note, to your point about strengthening, I think
    the commitment that has been made in PEPFAR to work with more
    local organizations is an incredibly important one. It's a cue
    that we are trying to take in the rest of our programming at
    USAID because they have managed in a short period of time to
    move from funding large international partners to local actors.
        They have also managed to do government-to-government
    programs. You know, there was a time when we used to do a lot
    of support for various ministries. Corruption concerns and
    other concerns led the United States to do less of that. PEPFAR
    is a place where they've proven that it can be done with
    safeguards that work.
        So I think more of--more localization, more of these kinds
    of investments that can have collateral benefits outside HIV/
    AIDS prevention.
        But the fact that so many countries whose life expectancies
    had plummeted by 10, 20 years when this program started--when
    President Bush started this program that those countries are
    nowliving--individuals are living as long or more in some cases
    than advanced economies and democracies is a tribute to
    everybody who's been a part of that.
        But I would say localization. The question of how--focus on
    this single devastating disease can translate into benefits as
    well in health systems I think that's where our emphasis is.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Chairman McCaul [presiding]. Madam Administrator, are you
    still--the gentlelady's time has expired. We have one, two,
    three, four, five, six, seven members, and I want to make sure
    every member has a chance to ask a question. Are you willing to
    stay a little bit after 5 o'clock?
        Ms. Power. Yes. Yes.
        Chairman McCaul. Ok, and----
        Ms. Power. If I could just--I have a flight. That's my only
    challenge, but I think we're fine.
        Chairman McCaul. And it would probably take us about 10
    after 5 maybe.
        Ms. Power. That's fine.
        Chairman McCaul. But I'm going to keep you all that 5
    minutes so we can--I'll be very disciplined in my time.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
        Ma'am, you're familiar with the term ``gender integration
    technical assistance task orders''?
        Ms. Power. I do not think I am.
        Mr. Mast. It's reports. I've read a number of them from
    Ghana, Kenya, Serbia, Niger, Laos, other countries. In reading
    a number of these reports and looking at the funding levels for
    them, most of them are around 70, 80 pages.
        Some of them may be close to 100 pages. Most of that I
    read, ultimately, through a company named Banyan Global. I'm
    not specifically familiar with it but that just happened to be
    the name of the company that was tasked to do them. And to the
    tunes of millions of dollars for these reports.
        The one on Serbia, roughly, $12 million. One on Ghana,
    Kenya, Serbia, a part one for $4,351,644. Another one
    $7,295,806. Niger and Laos $12,295,733.
        And my question, really, is this. That seems like an
    astronomical number for 70-, 80-, 90-, 100-page reports. Can
    you explain that?
        Ms. Power. I think, for me, it's something that I would
    just have to look at what you're looking at. Happy to followup.
    Again, it's very hard for me to speculate. I'm looking to see
    if I have some----
        Mr. Mast. From your position leading USAID--these are
    directly through USAID. I would expect you to know. This is not
    outside of USAID. This is----
        Ms. Power. No. No. I completely understand. But the idea of
    an $80 million report--an $80 million report does not sound
    right, and given the prior exchange----
        Mr. Mast. It does not sound right to me either but we're
    not just talking about one----
        Ms. Power. It does not sound accurate. Yes.
        Mr. Mast [continuing]. For $8 million. Like I said, we're
    talking about $4 million plus, $7 million plus, $11 million
    plus, $12 million plus, parts one----
        Ms. Power. Yes. I'm happy to take--on the particulars,
    again, I'd be happy to engage with you on that.
        Mr. Mast. That would be pretty important, especially in a
    budget hearing.
        Ms. Power. OK. Then maybe we----
        Mr. Mast. I want to talk about one of those specifically as
    it relates to Serbia. It resulted in a funding request
    providing up to $2 million--this is in front of me--and
    specifically advancing equity and equality for marginalized
    groups for activities in Serbia specifically promoting
    empowerment of transgender, queer, intersex, lesbian, and gay
    people in Serbia, and then more specifically it asks for
    experimental approaches to advance social and economic
    wellbeing of the aforementioned.
        Can you tell me what we are spending $2 million in
    experimental approaches to advance social and economic
    wellbeing of transgender, queer, intersex, lesbian, gay,
    bisexual?
        And I would just go on to say this. You know, it's been
    spoken about where we are ceding the high ground and where
    China and Russia are making advances around the globe. Your
    agency is forcing gender identity on countries and that's
    neither soft power nor hard power. It's simply weakening for
    the United States of America. But I would like to know about
    that $2 million, please.
        Ms. Power. So I was just in Serbia, as it happens, last
    week. Notwithstanding that, I'm not familiar with the program
    and I'll have to get back to you. The characterization of us
    foisting ideology on this country or that country is false.
        Mr. Mast. It's entirely accurate. It's literally
    promoting----
        Ms. Power. I'd be happy to--if you would like to--no,
    that's not what happens.
        Mr. Mast [continuing]. Equity and economic empowerment of
    transgender, queer, intersex, lesbian, gay, bisexual through
    innovative and experimental approaches to advance the social
    and economic--social and economic well being of the
    aforementioned people in Serbia.
        So I'm not making up words. I'm not inserting them into
    your mouth or the agency. I am reading to you directly, which I
    will ask can I submit this for the record, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [Information not available at press release time.]
        Mr. Mast. Thank you. I'm not mischaracterizing anything.
    It's $2 million exactly for that, and this isn't the first
    time. Other people have brought up drag shows in Ecuador,
    things like that. You know, the things going on within State
    are absolutely forcing gender identity on other countries.
        Ms. Power. Not true.
        Mr. Mast. And, if anything, this should be considered
    weakening to the sexes, to women, to advance somebody because
    of how they are identifying instead of because of their
    biological sex should be considered a form of disempowering
    women.
        I want to ask you one other question with my remaining
    time. Within USAID would you consider gender dysphoria a
    qualifier for employment or a disqualifier for employment?
        Ms. Power. I'm not--I'm not able to answer that. Sorry.
        Mr. Mast. Let's try again. Would you consider gender
    dysphoria a qualifier for employment or a disqualifier for
    employment within USAID?
        Ms. Power. Again, I'm not--I'm not going to comment. Thank
    you.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired. The
    chair now recognizes Mr. Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    for being here today, Administrator Power. I represent Arizona,
    a border State that benefits tremendously from a strong working
    relationship with our neighbors in Mexico, Central and Latin
    America.
        But we are struggling to process an increasing number of
    asylum seekers, particularly from countries in the Northern
    Triangle. These migrants are fleeing poverty, corruption, human
    rights abuses, persecution, and violence fueled by narco-
    trafficking and they seek to find safety and economic
    opportunity here in the United States.
        It's critical that the United States tackles the underlying
    factors driving this migration so that families are far less
    likely to make the dangerous journey north. Two weeks ago this
    committee marked up my bill, H.R. 2789, the American
    Cooperation with our Neighbors Act, which instructs the State
    Department and USAID to strategize with local partners,
    including law enforcement and local governments on both sides
    of the border to combat fentanyl trafficking throughout our
    region, one of the larger--largest drivers of violence and
    corruption.
        But while fighting narco-trafficking in the region is key
    we must also work to create economic opportunity and to use
    every diplomatic tool to stop democratic backsliding in the
    region.
        Congress should provide strategic long-term support focused
    on building security and opportunity in Latin America.
        Administrator Power, the State Department started
    implementing the U.S. strategy for addressing the root causes
    of migration in Central America in 2021. From your perspective,
    what parts of the strategy have worked well and what parts have
    not worked so well?
        Ms. Power. Thank you so much. I--and thank you for your
    knowledge of and commitment to addressing root causes and, as
    you say, when people are on the move in these numbers it is a
    symptom of things that are badly broken in their communities
    because if you engage these people the last thing they want to
    do is leave their homes. It's something none of us would wish
    to do. But physical insecurity or economic despair has been a
    major factor.
        To your question very specifically, I think we have--USAID
    has made for the first time a real investment in lawful
    pathways and labor pathways, and with very modest resources
    have strengthened the capacity in the labor ministries and in
    El Salvador the foreign ministry to process people who come to
    the United States on seasonal work visas, the H-2B program,
    doubling our numbers and I think those numbers can go up in the
    H-2A in the agricultural sector as well.
        That is outsized in its impact because of the people who
    benefit from the program, the resources they bring back to
    their home country. If they overstay they are no longer
    eligible. Indeed, the country is at risk of not being eligible.
        So there's strict compliance with that program. But also if
    people believe that they can come seasonally then they get the
    best of both worlds of being able to come to the United States
    and earn money if they have not been able to at home but also
    coming back and be with their families.
        I think something like that has been very effective.
    Obviously, on governance the trend lines speak for themselves.
    They're going in the wrong direction across the board in terms
    of treatment of independent media, in terms of judicial
    institutions, which are meant to be stewards of Guatemalan and
    Honduran and El Salvadoran resources but themselves falling
    prey to political influence.
        We have had to reroute resources that had been invested in
    government judicial programs in Guatemala and El Salvador to
    civil society organizations that are holding those--the
    governments accountable.
        So the governance trend lines in the region are very----
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Administrator.
        The People's Republic of China has increased its
    investments in Mexico and Central America, particularly in the
    energy and telecommunication industries.
        This has serious implications for United States' national
    interests. In addition, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and
    Honduras have all severed longstanding ties with Taiwan in the
    last few years and favors--in favor of strengthening their
    relationship with Beijing.
        Does the PRC pose a threat to a free and open Latin America
    and how is USAID responding to those challenges?
        Ms. Power. Well, you have not touched upon the Caribbean
    but one way is significantly alongside the rest of the
    Administration significantly increasing our presence in, our
    programming in, or at least appealing for resources to be able
    to do that in the Caribbean, which is really--has been very
    susceptible.
        I think what DFC is doing with support from USAID field
    teams on the ground is really important, and then taking
    advantage of democratic openings or anti-corruption openings
    like that in the Dominican Republic to channel support, to
    support near shoring, which will provide economic livelihoods
    there, make us less susceptible to shocks and so forth.
        So there's a lot one can say country by country but bottom
    line to support economic programming, to support democracy and
    governance and to always remember our comparative advantages
    alongside PRC investments.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
        Chairman McCaul. Mr. Burchett is recognized.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The mission of USAID
    is to promote and demonstrate democratic values abroad. So,
    Ma'am, why does USAID think taxpayers should pay for a study on
    the intersection of gender equity and climate conflict?
        Ms. Power. I'm going to have to do--I'm sorry I keep doing
    this, but I want to know more than the headline----
        Mr. Burchett. Ma'am, it's in your--it's in your own
    literature and----
        Ms. Power. It may be but there's a lot--we have a lot of
    literature and a lot of programs. So if we could followup on
    this.
        Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. But knowing that you're coming up
    here to discuss this and knowing that at least from our side of
    the aisle might be concerned about some of these things it just
    seems that you all should be more prepared for this type of
    thing.
        USAID seems--they think it's a need--we need to accelerate
    the transition to renewable energy and net zero development.
    Why net zero development? It seems like more development,
    agriculture areas, people would be able to feed themselves
    more. So explain that to me, ma'am.
        Ms. Power. Well, I think we all have a responsibility to do
    what we can to try to limit the amount of warming that is going
    to occur, given the devastation that the current level of
    warning is wreaking not only globally but also here in the
    United States as farmers can attest and as anybody who's
    experienced one of the ever growing number of natural disasters
    can attest.
        But putting that to one side, actually in this instance,
    even though there's a perception among some that we are
    foisting our values on others globally, the demand signal we
    are getting from the countries, the governments, the leaders,
    that we engage as we think through what our broad agenda should
    be is that that is where they want to go.
        They also know that renewables prices are coming way down,
    that they can leapfrog other stages of electrification more
    easily than solar and wind.
        Mr. Burchett. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Stop. Stop for
    a second, ma'am.
        Leapfrog--say that again and what does that mean?
        Ms. Power. Oh, thank you. Sorry, jargony maybe. But in many
    of the communities we work you can imagine there's no
    electricity.
        It can be very, very expensive and very hard to connect
    individuals with whom we are working to grids which may, in
    fact, use--you know, be powered by nonrenewable sources of
    energy. But, regardless, we cannot get them to the grids
    because it's too expensive, too hard.
        However, you can pop up a solar panel and electrify an
    entire health clinic or an entire school system or university
    in a heartbeat.
        Mr. Burchett. Well, I would suggest to you, ma'am, it would
    take more than just a solar panel to do that.
        Ms. Power. Yes. But what I--you get the point. My point is
    we have been able to do off grid electrification that we never
    would have thought possible 10 or 15 years ago through Power
    Africa and other initiatives.
        Mr. Burchett. Is it really necessary for--and this is in
    quotes--the most vulnerable populations to be focused on a net
    zero climate development pathway when their populations are
    struggling to find food?
        Ms. Power. I promise you that the people who work at USAID
    in the field two-thirds of our staff are nationals of the
    countries in which we work, care about the poverty in which
    communities are living and that is the animating emphasis of
    their work and of their problem solving.
        As it happens they are also watching climate havoc drive
    people into poverty who were not in poverty even just 5 years
    ago because of natural disaster or because agriculture has
    dried up because of drought or because of flooding, too much
    water, too little water.
        It's different everywhere. But that is a factor as to how
    we design our programming is listening to the needs of the
    communities in which we work, which starts, you're right, with
    an emphasis on ending poverty.
        That is the number-one thing that communities' families
    want to do. But they also--communities even now see the linkage
    with the changing weather patterns.
        Mr. Burchett. Ma'am, and I go back to the original--my
    original statement that you all are paying for a study on the
    intersection of gender equity and climate conflict. I do not
    think that that fits into this. I think it's social
    engineering.
        I think that you all come in here to these things and you
    know your votes and you run the clock and you tell us, we'll
    get back to you on that, and I really do--would expect you all
    to get back to us on these things that we have raised and I
    would like someone in my office talking to me about the
    intersection of gender equity and climate conflict.
        And I really do not think any of these really promote and
    demonstrate democratic values. I believe they're basically
    presenting a far left ideology. At some point, we'll get to the
    bottom of this.
        You know, I appreciate your job and I know you've got a job
    to give us the runaround and that's the deal and you all get
    your check from the taxpayers. But I can assure you not all the
    taxpayers agree with this agenda.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
    Ms. Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator Power,
    I am so delighted you are here. Admirer of your work and the
    work of your entire team as you partner with countries around
    the world and I want to say at the outset that I do not
    associate myself with some of the line of questions that you
    have just received--the very slanted line of questions--and I
    ask a rhetorical question.
        To members on the other side of the aisle have no members
    of their community or of their families who are LGBTQ+? Do they
    have no one that they know?
        Because this is certainly not a question of culture, pop
    culture, whatever kind of dynamics they were talking about.
    This is a question of humanity and the business you're in is
    lifting up humanity.
        So I wanted you to know I do not associate myself with
    those questions. We are here about the Biden-Harris budget
    request for USAID, $32 billion direct dollars. I support it. I
    support the work you do.
        I see the safeguards that you are putting into your
    programs in the most difficult parts of the world struggling
    with poverty and no food, terrorism, and all kinds of problems.
        While it's a $32 billion request can you talk to the
    multiplier that by prevention work, by leveraging these
    dollars, what the multiplier effect is of $32 billion budgets?
        Ms. Power. Well, maybe I'll just use one example. First of
    all, thank you for your comments. And I think all questions
    about our programs are reasonable.
        It's just challenging when you have thousands of them to be
    able to know the specifics on any one. So I actually will
    sincerity will get back to people who have questions on
    specific projects.
        I'll use the one example of Pakistan where I traveled after
    the floods last year. A third of the country was under water
    because of heavier monsoon rains than they'd had and melting
    glaciers, presumably attributable to climate change and it
    was--you'd be hundreds of miles inland and it looked like the
    ocean if you're in a helicopter going over these communities.
    Schools devastated out of use probably forevermore, health
    clinics, out of--I mean, just under water.
        When the water receded some of the only schools that were
    ready to be used again as schools once the displaced people
    moved out of them were USAID-funded schools that had been
    rebuilt after the last flooding with an eye to prevention, with
    an eye to what the floods would mean and this eye as a design
    feature to disaster resilient infrastructure of all kinds is
    just an example of something now our humanitarians are doing
    much more of in the wake of a hurricane orany kind of natural
    emergency or in the wake of conflict when reconstruction
    occurs.
        But so that's, I think, just an excellent example that
    those schools were actually able to withstand floods because
    they were built to withstand floods and so----
        Ms. Dean. That's a great example. May I ask you a little
    bit more?
        Ms. Power. Please.
        Ms. Dean. Pakistan was on my mind. We were just on Zoom
    with a Pakistani American about his concerns in Pakistan. I
    have many Pakistani Americans in my district, which is suburban
    Philadelphia, and you think about what you just described, the
    current political instability, economic challenges, inflation
    over 35 percent, the severe fall floods, hunger, food supply
    issues.
        Can you speak to what USAID is doing there? And also I'd
    like to layer in there China's influence. By one article I read
    China's influence there is at one of its highest in terms of
    malign influence, frankly, whether it is in the domains of
    technology, foreign policy, military.
        So a little more on Pakistan. We urgently care.
        Ms. Power. Yes. In brief, I would say that I do think
    showing up at the right time is really important, which is why
    I and so many of us at USAID try to get out and about and do so
    when it really matters for people.
        So when the floods hit last year announcing, I think,
    initially a $50 million and then $100 million investment in
    flood response right at the beginning while other countries--
    not onlyour traditional donor partners but also the country
    that you mentioned, hang back.
        I mean, the Pakistani people remember. That's something
    they'll remember, just as they did the work that we did after
    the last floods.
        So that--those kinds of humanitarian investments we wish to
    make fewer of those because you do not want to live in a world
    of too many emergencies. But being the world's largest
    humanitarian donor is a point of privilege and I think it
    really reflects well on the United States.
        The other kinds of initiatives we're doing are, largely,
    catalytic economic growth. Agriculture, female entrepreneurs--
    --
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
    chair now recognizes Mr. Davidson.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman.
        Ms. Power, thanks for sticking around a little bit longer.
    Under the Biden Administration, USAID plans to give $500
    million to support the Palestinian people and advance a, quote,
    ``two-State solution.''
        However, it's well known that Palestine houses foreign
    terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Why is this $500 million
    a good use of American taxpayer dollars?
        Ms. Power. Well, our goal, of course, is to reach
    vulnerable communities around the world. We absolutely have to
    do so in a manner that makes sure that terrorist elements are
    not getting access to USAID resources.
        But we do programming that really looks at what causes
    somebody to join Hamas in the first place and a lack of
    opportunity, a lack of exposure to people from Israel or people
    from outside of narrow echo chambersis a factor.
        Mr. Davidson. Do you feel like this is promoting peace
    there or is it facilitating further development of the Iron
    Dome? Because Palestinian territory keeps seeing launches just
    even recently of rockets directed against Israel.
        Ms. Power. Yes.
        Mr. Davidson. So how do we--how do we solve this?
        Ms. Power. Well, I do not know that in my three and a half
    minutes I can tell you how to solve Middle East peace. But,
    obviously, USAID's support for development investments is a
    very small piece of the broader----
        Mr. Davidson. Are you confident none of it's flowing to
    illicit use?
        Ms. Power. I am confident that we have systems in place.
    You know, when allegations come forward through our inspector
    general, through our third party monitors on the ground we dig
    into those allegations.
        We have had to cutoff funding to organizations in the past
    because something did not surface in a vet and then came
    forward and then--but we are absolutely determined, again, to
    make sure. Given the complexity of the environment it is not an
    easy place to work. It's not an easy place to work----
        Mr. Davidson. It is an easy place not to spend $500
    million. You know, turning to Ukraine and Russia, since Russia
    invaded Ukraine in February 2022 the U.S. has committed nearly
    $23 billion in direct budget support through USAID specifically
    to support the Ukrainian government.
        This is for Ukraine's government to operate. These tax
    dollars--the American tax dollars fund a variety of things
    including pensions for Ukrainian people.
        Why should U.S. taxpayer dollars foot the bill for pensions
    in any other country but Ukraine when we have our own pension
    shortfalls here at home?
        So as we're looking at budget priorities and not like we're
    flush with cash, the only way to pay our bills is to borrow
    more money ourselves. Why should we borrow money to pay for
    Ukrainian pensions?
        Ms. Power. Well, it's a very fair question. I think, in
    general--stepping back from that particular but I will come
    right back to that--the Ukrainian government is running a $5
    billion budget deficit every month. Part of what its budget
    goes for as here is to take care of vulnerable elderly people.
        Mr. Davidson. I understand there is vulnerable people all
    over the world----
        Ms. Power. Yes. I understand but----
        Mr. Davidson [continuing]. And there are particularly
    people very vulnerable in war zones. Why are we paying to
    operate the Ukrainian government?
        Ms. Power. Well, we are the world's largest humanitarian
    donor well and apart from Ukraine so we are invested in helping
    vulnerable people. That's part of what the United States does
    around the world.
        Mr. Davidson. I think that's a lot of money that we should
    not be spending. Let me move on.
        Ms. Power. No. No. We're not--we're not spending that money
    on pension----
        Mr. Davidson. It's a non-answer.
        Ms. Power. No, it's not a non-answer.
        Mr. Davidson. So let's move on.
        Ms. Power. No. No. You're mischaracterizing what we're
    doing. We are not spending that--those sums of money on
    pensions.
        Mr. Davidson. We are paying to--we are paying to operate
    the government of Ukraine.
        Ms. Power. I understand that's a subset. We're also paying
    for generators----
        Mr. Davidson. We're paying for a whole lot. There's $113
    billion. I did not ask you about the other money. I asked you
    about the money we're paying to operate Ukraine.
        Ms. Power. I thought you had a concern specifically about
    pensioners. That's a very small subset of broader support
    because the greatest gift to Putin that we could give is to
    have the lights go out on the Ukrainian government, to have
    Ukraine collapse not for reasons of missiles but because they
    cannot actually support people in need.
        Mr. Davidson. All right. Let's go to another topic. It's
    been touched on by a number of my colleagues butdiversity,
    equity, and inclusion has got a great sounding ring to it but
    the equity part in particular has got a lot of concerns.
        It's--really, it's a socialist redistribution. It's not
    meant as a salve to heal old wounds. It's meant to divide
    people and in particular last year USAID wrote its gender
    policy to redefine gender as a social construct that can be
    self-determined.
        These new definitions open the category of women to anyone,
    including men who identify as women. Today, USAID boasts a
    network of over 200 gender advisors. Many countries find this
    abhorrent but the Administration continues to fund these
    policies in countries where our policies aren't in line.
    They're creating tension instead of facilitating things. Why?
        Ms. Power. Our approach has been broadly caricatured
    including, I think, in this exchange, unfortunately.
        Mr. Davidson. My time has expired, and I yield.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you,
    Ranking Member.
        Honorable Administrator Samantha Power, I want to say I'm a
    true admirer of your work and the good things that you do. I've
    had the opportunity to go to Kenya and see the front lines of
    the climate change. So continued success in the work that you
    do and the enormous crisis that you're confronting around the
    world.
        And at this time, I'd like to yield my time to my
    colleague, Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that. I just have to share
    with you, Administrator, some of the things that I've heard in
    this committee, that Mexico is a disease, that Africa is full
    of failed States, that Afghanistan is a nation of tribes, and
    that there's violence all over there in Africa.
        For me, there's just too much hegemonic patriarchal
    invective coming from my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle. The most dangerous disease is not tuberculosis.
        It's anti-democratic mob rule, which I think was catalyzed
    by our former president, a xenophobe, a white supremacist
    sympathizer, an agitator, someone who disobeyed the law, raged
    about being able to shoot people and assault women. He was the
    ultimate migraine.
        If people are deprived and undignified they resort to bad
    options, the only bad options that generally tend to be on the
    table, and those options have the power to corrupt freedom and
    democracy.
        I see USAID as helping to create better options all over
    the world, especially for women and girls. I, too, recently
    came back from Kenya and looked at the devastation that's there
    because of climate change and also had very sobering
    discussions about gender-based violence, female genital
    mutilation.
        There are 150 million more women and girls that are going
    hungry than men and women, and so I will yield the balance of
    my time because we do not have any more.
        But I'm very interested in what USAID is doing to help
    address and leverage the issue--well, doing around the issues
    of women and girls that are suffering from gender-based
    violence in Latin America but also across the continent of
    Africa and how else we can stay engaged.
        Ms. Power. Thank you so much. You know, I think one of the
    reasons I'm troubled by the caricaturing of our programming and
    mischaracterization of it but also the cherry picking and then
    redefinition of it is it misses out--that those exchanges miss
    out on the opportunity to talk about how to do really hard
    things when it comes to gender empowerment and when it--and it
    certainly misses out on the opportunity to talk about the very
    real threats that women and girls face, that LGBTQI+ people
    face and it misses out on the opportunity to celebrate the U.S.
    standing with the underdog and standing with communities that
    deserve an equal shake. You know, nothing more, nothing less.
        That's not what women or girls are asking for, just a shot,
    and gender-based violence is a prime example of something that
    stands in the way of getting that shot.
        So it is--you know, it depends country by country how much
    resources we have to invest. It's been a big area of focus in
    Central America.
        Shifting gender--shifting norms as well, which could easily
    be caricatured but shifting norms away from thinking it's ok in
    a society, that it's a sign of masculinity to beat up your
    spouse. You know, we have programs that do that.
        You know, how they're titled and how they could be
    caricatured--but those make a meaningful difference if it gives
    a community and particularly men in the community the courage
    to stand up and contest norms that end up being destructive not
    only for women but for society's progress.
        And so much of our gender work and our gender integration
    is rooted also in acknowledging the economic development payoff
    of women actually having equal opportunity and not being
    subjected to barriers like gender-based violence.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I yield back my time to the
    Congressman.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I yield my time to the chairman.
    Thank you.
        Chairman McCaul. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Mr.
    Issa is recognized.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Administrator, I'm pretty sure I'm the last so--I may be
    second last so last on this side. So take a deep breath, relax.
    You've rationed the water properly. You've made it. I'm
    taking--I'm taking a little bit of what's left so I apologize
    for not having my good questions you were hoping for.
        But one question that I have that apparently has not been
    asked you're familiar with the organization EcoHealth Alliance
    and you're still funding them. That's correct? About $8 million
    or more?
        Ms. Power. Tell me when you're ready and I can get into the
    modalities of our--we fund them in a part of Africa to do
    forest conservation.
        Mr. Issa. How do we protect this organization that was part
    of the cover-up of Fauci's operation with the Wuhan laboratory?
    How do we justify that the head of that organization has, in
    fact, been part of the cover-up, lied about it?
        How do we not say your work is real important but you got
    to hand it off to somebody else where we can trust the
    management?
        Ms. Power. This is a--there's a broader question about
    EcoHealth Alliance that I think you probably have for other
    agencies that are working in domains, perhaps, similar to the
    one that causes us all so much concern in the past.
        Mr. Issa. But it's about trust. You disqualify
    organizations regularly for what they do in a number of places.
    So, you know----
        Ms. Power. The award was--the award was granted in October
    2021. It was an open procurement, open competition, the usual
    rigorous process.
        Our team in Liberia, which is where this grant is given--
    and, again, it's to a local group of individuals who are
    helping train park rangers.
        You know, they went to the SAM data base. They looked at
    all of the vetting that we normally do and so--and the program
    itself has been Impactful and we have had issues along the
    lines----
        Mr. Issa. So would it be fair to say that you might make a
    different decision today than you made back then and this is
    his legacy?
        Ms. Power. I'm not going to speculate because I also cannot
    get involved in procurement decisions for all the right reasons
    because you want to prevent political interference of that
    nature.
        But, certainly, we want to make sure that what we are--that
    the integrity of the organization is foolproof and so we want
    checks and balances that----
        Mr. Issa. And, Administrator, I only want you to speak on
    behalf of the broad question of let me--I'll phrase it in a way
    that might be fairer.
        If an organization anywhere in the world--but particularly
    one based out of the United States but anywhere in the world,
    if an organization is involved in what appears to be false
    information to a government agency and especially ours, your
    organization--not you personally but your organization has an
    obligation, and I assume takes it seriously, to include that in
    the vetting process. Is that fair?
        Ms. Power. Yes, I think so. Just on this I would have a
    very hard time. I'm answering generalizable questions but I do
    not know if the predicates align with the facts.
        Mr. Issa. Yes. We're not necessarily talking any longer
    about that.
        Ms. Power. Ok.
        Mr. Issa. We're talking about that's an obligation. Now I
    have one that's left. You know, at $32 billion we could make
    you a full-fledged Cabinet officer and you would not be under-
    funded compared to some Cabinet positions.
        It's a lot of money and it's fair to say that you control a
    lot of money. We have at least alleged that there's about a 30
    percent savings if instead of using U.S. companies that apply
    for grants if to the greatest extent possible you regionalized
    the NGO's, you regionalized the procurement.
        Now, I know that's not always popular and as a matter of
    fact some years ago I remember on behalf of almonds and raisins
    I made the question of, well, just because it costs more why
    aren't we sending almonds and raisins from California.
        But leaving aside the politics that we're responsible for
    would you opine on how, with a limited budget, millions or
    billions of dollars could be better spent if you were allowed
    to and encouraged to and able to regionalize to the areas that
    you're helping or to the nearshore areas of those both for
    saving money but also for helping with the economy?
        And I know that's not easy to say when American taxpayers
    are wanting you to buy American goods. But would you opine on
    that? Because I'd like to hear how you view and what you'd like
    to do.
        Ms. Power. I think I do not have much time but it's an area
    of great interest to me.
        I think that you could look at cost effectiveness along the
    lines of what you're describing in two ways. One is just is it
    cheaper to work with a local organization or to regionalize.
        The other is do you yield more sustainable development
    outcomes so it ends up being a better investment over time
    because the people that you're investing in are from the
    countries and then carry the work forward even when the grant
    dries up or the contract dries up.
        So we have a localization agenda. We're trying to get to 25
    percent of our assistance by 2025. It's incredibly important.
        We're also trying to figure out whether there are savings
    that can be accrued by having, for example, contracting
    officers in a hub in Pakistan who can provide contracting
    supportif there's a surge of need in Sudan.
        These kinds of savings I feel it's incumbent on us to find,
    not because we have too much money but because the resources
    that we need, both with the PRC geopolitical dimension in mind
    but also just because of the needs out in the world and the
    demands that the world is placing on us, we need to be able to
    say that we are using them optimally.
        So we are moving in that direction. But it's has--there are
    challenges.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Schneider is recognized and we're going to wrap this
    up.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be
    brief just because I know we have votes called and,
    Administrator, you've been here a very long time so thank you.
        A long, long time ago when this hearing started you talked
    about a stark view of the world and some of the challenges we
    face around the world--debt disasters, natural disasters,
    threats to democracy.
        You also talked about some of the remarkable things the
    United States has done through our aid and development
    programs--reducing poverty, providing--addressing hunger,
    providing housing, health care, education, opportunity, hope
    around the world and making a difference.
        If I link the two things, and you have as you're in the
    conversations here, we spend more than any other nation direct
    dollars on defense and security. We spend a greater share of
    our budget than other nations on defense and security.
        If we did not have the investment we make in aid and
    development how--I do not want to say how much more. In a sense
    just skill wise what would happen to our needs from a security
    standpoint?
        Ms. Power. Well, I presume--it's hard to quantify--but you
    would see people lacking economic opportunity, turning to those
    who can provide it, and whether that's a militia--a Russian-
    sponsored militia in a place who's hiring locals or an
    extremist organization.
        You would also see major costs for American companies. I
    mean, these are markets for our goods and so the--as we enhance
    economic growth and livelihoods or prevent disease those are
    consumers as well and we have seen economic--U.S. economic
    growth ride emerging markets and this new consumer base.
        We're doing an awful lot and want to do a lot more in trade
    facilitation. You know, these are the kinds of catalytic
    investments that do not cost much money in the regulatory
    environment that make trade with the United States easier but
    also make American companies better able to invest in these
    communities.
        And then just at a human level the number of people who
    would not be alive if humanitarian assistance were scaled back
    that oh, the number of infants who suffer severe and acute
    malnutrition who we provide ready-to-use therapeutic feeding
    tubes, brings them back to life.
        I mean, that's a privilege for the United States to be a
    part of that kind of work.
        Mr. Schneider. So long story made short, and I'll wrap up,
    the money we invest in foreign aid and development, the soft
    power that the United States projects around the world
    multiplies and amplifies our hard power.
        It makes it easier for us to lead economically and supports
    our companies as they do work around the globe. It makes us a
    stronger country and at the same time, to quote Ronald Reagan,
    is he called the United States that shining light on the hill.
    It puts us in a place to be the country that other countries
    look up to, that citizens around the world look toward for
    relief.
        So I just want to say thank you for your work. Thank you
    for your patience and staying here and giving me the chance to
    sing the praises of USAID.
        You, just as important, all the people who work in USAID
    and the services they provide to our nation--on behalf of our
    Nation helping others around the world.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Well, Administrator, you made it. Thank you for staying a
    little later. But we do--let me just say this as the chairman
    of this committee. This committee----
        Ms. Power. I thought I was the chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. Well, you were for about a couple seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman McCaul. I just personally want to thank you for
    your service to our country from both sides of the aisle, and
    we know how hard your job is and how important your job is and
    we support you in your efforts.
        And I know you're embarking to go to Sudan and we
    appreciate you doing that. Very dangerous, and please be
    careful while you're over there and give us a call when you get
    back. Love to get a report on that.
        And, again, thanks for your service to our great country
    and----
        Ms. Power. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. And with that, pursuant to committee rules
    all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions,
    extraneous materials for the record.
        Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]