[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE USAID BETRAYAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AAFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
February 13, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-1
__________
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
59-986 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Member
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
MARK GREEN, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
ANDY BARR, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
RONNY JACKSON, Texas TED LIEU, California
YOUNG KIM, California SARA JACOBS, California
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan Florida
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, GREG STANTON, Arizona
American Samoa JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
JIM BAIRD, Indiana SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
THOMAS KEAN, JR, New Jersey JIM COSTA, California
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York GABE AMO, Rhode Island
CORY MILLS, Florida KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RYAN ZINKE, Montana GEORGE LATIMER, New York
JAMES MOYLAN, Guam JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland
ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana SARAH MCBRIDE, Delaware
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania
James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Brian Mast......................... 1
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Gregory Meeks................ 3
WITNESSES
Statement of Max Primorac, Former Acting Chief Operating Officer,
Senior Research Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center For Freedom,
The Heritage Foundation........................................ 5
Prepared Statement............................................... 8
Statement of The Honorable Ted Yoho, Former U.S. Representative,
Florida 3rd Congressional District............................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................... 13
Statement of The Honorable Andrew Natsios, Former Administrator,
U.S. Agency For International Development...................... 17
Prepared Statement............................................... 19
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 94
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 96
Hearing Attendance............................................... 97
Materials for the Record
Material for the Record submitted by Ranking Member Gregory Meeks
submitted...................................................... 98
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Tim Burchett. 104
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Maria Elvira
Salazar........................................................ 106
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Bill Huizenga 108
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Anna Pauina
Luna........................................................... 110
Statement for the record submitted by Representative Gerald
Connolly....................................................... 119
Material for the record submitted by Representative William
Keating........................................................ 122
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Sarah Jacobs. 139
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Greg Stanton. 145
Material for the Record submitted by Representative Jonathan
Jackson........................................................ 148
Responses to Questions for the Record
Responses to questions for the record from Representative Kweisi
Mfume to Andrew Natsios........................................ 158
Responses to questions for the record from Representative Kweisi
Mfume to Ted Yoho.............................................. 160
THE USAID BETRAYAL
----------
Thursday, February 13, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:34 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian J. Mast
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Mast. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
to order.
I ask that everybody in the room, regardless of your
position, please rise, join me in reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Chairman Mast. The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss
the misuse of public trust through USAID's woke programming and
explore ideas for reorganization to promote a stronger, better,
and more prosperous United States.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST
I now recognize myself for an opening statement on this
hearing.
I can tell you that we are here today very simply because
many of the people and many of the programs in USAID have
literally betrayed America. My colleagues to my left will say
that I am lying about these programs, and I know they damn well
wish that I was lying.
The programs that USAID and the State Department have spent
money on are indefensible, they hurt America's standing around
the globe, and I think the fact is clear that America would
have been better off if your money had been simply thrown into
a fireplace.
Instead, the Biden administration spent it imposing their
far left wing ideology onto other nations. Under them USAID
spent $2 million for sex change surgeries in Guatemala, $22
million to increase tourism in Tunisia and Egypt. That is not
lifesaving. $520 million to pay consultants to teach people in
Africa about climate change. That is not medicine. $4.5 million
to teach people in Kazakhstan how to fight back against
internet trolls. That is not lifesaving.
Twenty thousand dollars to help LGBT individuals vote in
Honduran elections. That is not medicine. $5.5 million to
improve the lives of LGBT individuals in Uganda, $14 million to
identify LGBT leaders in Cambodia, $425,000 to train Indonesian
coffee companies on how to be more gender friendly, $15 million
for condoms to the Taliban, and I have pages and pages more.
That is not diplomacy. It is a slap in the face to every
American who got up this morning and went to work. To this
moment you haven't seen or heard any of my colleagues
apologizing for this being wrong or wasteful. Instead, for the
left their biggest concern is that the person assembling the
team to make sure that these programs are not funded is a
billionaire named Elon Musk.They are so out of touch that they
actually believe these programs are bringing other countries
closer to us or that our adversaries are going to gain some
kind of foothold if we don't continue doing these programs.
That is not what competing looks like for the United States of
America.
On the contrary, last month when I participated in a Q&A
with my colleague here to the left in the United States
Institute of Peace, which will have to explain their funding,
the Ugandan ambassador stood up and said these programs were
not doing anything to improve relations between our nations.
Take a look at the video.
[Video shown.]
Chairman Mast. Maybe we will get some audio on it.
[video shown.]
Chairman Mast. Maybe we won't get audio on it.
Mr. Burchett. Is there a 14-year-old in the audience? Maybe
they can fix it.
Chairman Mast. Or a 19-year-old, Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Maybe we won't do this video. But I have the video that
shows exactly what the Ugandan ambassador was saying, and they
were thanking us for not continuing these programs. That is
what took place, and that is just one of the countless
Ambassadors that got that phone call, conversations, and
meetings thanking us that these programs will not continue,
that they are going to come to an end. Yet my colleagues to the
left are arguing for these programs to continue, arguing for
the people who put these programs in place to go back to work,
arguing that the agency that did this be allowed to continue
wasting your money.
They are going to argue that President Trump doesn't have
the authority to do this, but the fact is of those who were in
Congress, all but three of them voted to give him the authority
in 2024, and it says very specifically--and that is FOPS
approps--that the administration may potentially expand,
eliminate, consolidate, or downsize covered departments or
agencies or organizations. That is the language of that
authority.
It is not just the content of USAID that is the betrayal.
It is the larceny that USAID has conducted, crooked NGO's
around Washington, DC, swindling American taxpayers out of
their money. A recent audit found that USAID's implementing
partners were using upwards of 50 percent of their grants for
overhead costs, not lifesaving measures.
The administration has said that the aid pause is
temporary, and they have proven it. The recipients of USAID
programs can apply for a waiver. I have a list with me. Many
have applied. Many have been denied, and some have received
waivers that actually prove their work was lifesaving.
Let me give a warning to my colleagues. It would be
shortsighted of you if you turn a blind eye to USAID's betrayal
and more broadly the betrayal within the State Department
because we are going to bring in the people who put these
programs in place. We are going to show to the American people
exactly what they were doing. The videos, the documents--
everything-- they are going to see it, like $25,000 for a drag
show seminar for Venezuelan migrants in Ecuador. We are going
to show you that video.
[video shown.]
Chairman Mast. That is the USAID program spending your
money.
We will be writing these programs out of law as we conduct
our first full State Department review since 2002.
I would say that when done right, foreign aid can be one of
the best tools. It can help strengthen our relationships with
our allies that need a hand up, and it can help countries
realize that America is the best partner.
But this is only true if we understand a couple of things.
What does America actually need from each country or region?
What does that country or region actually want from the United
States of America? Because it is not these things.
It is only fair to Americans if we can prove that a dollar
is better spent going abroad than staying in the pocket of an
American who is right now hustling and grinding it out at work.
I now recognize my colleague, Ranking Member Gregory Meeks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS
Mr. Meeks. I want to welcome our witnesses to our first
full committee hearing this Congress, but I would be remiss if
I didn't make clear my disappointment in the midst of the chaos
created by the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to
shutter USAID and pause foreign assistance funds.
We don't have anyone here today from the administration to
explain, to appear and to explain their actions before this
committee. It shouldn't be just private sector individuals
here. We are the oversight of the U.S. Government, and we
should have members from the State Department, the Secretary of
State Rubio present.
My Democratic colleagues and I have asked the chairman to
have a committee hearing with Secretary Rubio, and I urge that
to be done as soon as possible.
The American people deserve to have their elected
representatives question the administration about the decision
to shut down a government agency established in law by
Congress.
We don't have a king. We have a system. If the
administration believes what they have done is legal and
merited, they should be before Congress. They should be here.
They should be talking to the American people directly. We
should be summoning them here.
I also want to do away with the myth that this exercise
with DOGE and USAID is about addressing waste, fraud, and
abuse, because if you really care about waste, fraud, and
abuse, you don't illegally fire 21 independent Inspector
Generals in the dark of night. You don't fire the head of the
government ethics office.
Just this week President Trump fired USAID's independent
Inspector General, just 1 day after he issued a report showing
that the administration's own effort to dismantle USAID is
wasting taxpayer dollars and putting our national security at
risk. That is what is happening. Our national security is at
risk.
I am asking unanimous consent to enter that IG's report
into the record.
Mr. Meeks. This committee and the American people deserve
to hear from the IG. I would urge you to invite the Inspector
General to appear before this committee to tell us about the
actual work of addressing waste, fraud, and abuse if that is
what this is really about.
Now, many Republicans--this has not been a partisan issue.
Many Republicans have long championed U.S. foreign assistance
as critical to our national security, as a source of United
States soft power, and a key to outcompete China's growing
global influence.
Despite my disappointment over not having Trump's
administrationpanelists here, I am pleased that among our
witnesses today we have a number of individuals who are
Republicans. I look at my former colleague, Ted Yoho, who I
have traveled with on several times, on several CODELs, and we
visited USAID programs.
I know when you go and travel and see firsthand the work of
dedicated USAID foreign service officers, civil servants, and
local staff to whom we owe our gratitude and our thanks, not
the dishonor shown to them by wealthy billionaires with a
social media platform.
Now, I only have a few minutes left, so I won't spend my
time debunking every mischaracterization or outright lie we
have heard from the Republican distractors of USAID. These are
distractions meant to obscure the critical work USAID does. I
instead submit into the record the stories by the Washington
Post, the New York Times fact-checking dubious claims made by
the Republicans.
Chairman Mast. Do you have them?
Mr. Meeks. Yes.
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
Mr. Meeks. What I will use my time on is making clear that
this hearing title, ``The USAID Betrayal,'' is absolutely
correct because this is a betrayal. The Trump administration is
betraying our national security. It is betraying our allies.
It is betraying the Americans who carry out USAID's mission
in some of the world's most challenging and dangerous places.
It is betraying the generosity of the American people, and it
is betraying the investments Americans have made for decades to
stop diseases before they spread, to make sure girls have the
same educational opportunities as boys, and to make sure that
the innocent victims ravaged by war and natural disaster have
basic human necessities.
It is betraying babies who have been born with HIV in the
last 3 weeks who could have been born HIV-free if only we
continued to provide their mothers with the necessary
medication that was sitting on the shelves. It betrayed
Americans' victory in nearly wiping out polio around the world
by stopping the funding to stamp it out in the last two
countries on the earth with the virus still present.
Want to know what happens when we stop funding this type of
work, just look at Kansas with the outbreak of tuberculosis
right now grow.
So it is not just about health programs. Economic
development programs in Latin America build stronger
communities and help reduce migration to the United States.
Good governance, independent media, civil society programs in
developing countries help break death traps from China and
ensure citizens can enjoy their God-given rights.
Bottom line, who wins when we pull back from one of
America's greatest threats? China wins. Russia wins. Our
adversaries win. So, yes, this is a betrayal. This is a
betrayal of our national security.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Mast. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think I called it exactly right what the arguments were
going to be.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have our panel of witnesses here today on
this important topic: Max Primorac, senior research fellow at
the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage
Foundation; The Honorable Ted Yoho, former U.S. Representative
from Florida's 3d congressional District; and Hon. Andrew
Natsios, former administrator at the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
This committee recognizes the importance of the issues
before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us
today. Your full statements will be made a part of the record,
and I will ask each of you to keep your comments, spoken
remarks to less than 5 minutes in order to allow time for
member questions.
Hopefully you give us something more than what we can just
read in your opening statements.
I would also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. McCormick, be allowed to sit on the dais and
participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize Mr. Primorac for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF MAX PRIMORAC
Mr. Primorac. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before this committee. My name is Max Primorac. I am
a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. I
previously served at the U.S. Agency for International----
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chairman Mast. I guess these guys don't watch the news.
They didn't realize that PEPFAR was one of the many programs
that did prove to be lifesaving, so the funding was restored.
Somebody better give them a link to, I don't know, maybe Fox
News or something like that.
You may resume your opening statement.
Mr. Primorac. Mr. Chairman, I previously served at the U.S.
Agency for International Development and U.S. Department of
State. I have dedicated 35 years to international relations
work. The views I express here today are my own.
President Donald Trump's decision to shutter USAID reflects
the agency's loss of bipartisan support in Congress and the
trust of the American people. It exposes a bureaucracy that
went off the idealogical rails and no longer reflects the will
or the values of the American people.
What should be and must be an effective tool of U.S.
foreign policy has turned into a partisan global vehicle
focused on spending money rather than achieving concrete
outcomes aligned with American interests and on imposing
radical social ideas that divide us at home and spur resentment
abroad.
They refuse to be held accountable to Congress and American
taxpayers who fund them. Advocates evoke dangers to our
national security, citing programs to counter Communist China,
protect us from the global spread of infectious diseases, and
provide lifesaving humanitarian aid.
I understand the importance of these programs. At USAID I
cochaired a counter China interagency group, oversaw
containment of two Ebola outbreaks, and led the bureau for
humanitarian assistance. But USAID's obsession with identity
politics, gender fluidity, population control, and climate
fanaticism undermine these goals. Americans are now aware of
massive waste, fraud, and abuse of their money. Every single
project was corrupted by this radical agenda. They are not
happy.
USAID's leadership failed in its most basic fiduciary
responsibility, and that is to avoid the kinds of reputational
risks that would imperil the agency's legitimacy with Congress
and the American people.
USAID pushed developing countries to rely on Communist
China for their green energy needs. 2 years ago 131 African
lawmakers and religious leaders from 13 countries implored
Congress not to use PEPFAR to promote abortion, stating, We
want to express our concerns and suspicions that this funding
is supporting abortion, that it violates our core beliefs
concerning life, family, and religion.
Many Africans have told me, but also from other places in
the world, the Chinese do not ask us to give up our religion to
do business with them.
Mr. Chairman, our aid approach has severely harmed our
global standing. USAID's humanitarian system is also broken. In
Gaza, American aid financed Hamas's campaign to exterminate
Israel. Similarly, in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria, where we
lack physical presence to ensure that our aid is not diverted
to terrorists, our aid is sustaining these war economies.
USAID failed to properly manage the billions of dollars
entrusted to it. This committee discovered that USAID partners
were charging 50 percent or more for overhead. A government
audit showed that USAID could not account for overhead charges
concerning $142 billion worth of awards. These funds proved a
boon for the progressive dominated foreign aid industry.
President Trump's leadership has created a unique
opportunity to fast track important reforms of our aid system.
Secretary Rubio might look at the reforms made during the last
Trump administration. Our starting point was that the purpose
of foreign aid is to end the need for it. Foreign aid is not an
international welfare program. USAID is not an international
NGO. These must align with American interests and values.
A final point, Congress must also do its part. Why should
pro-Hamas South Africa, Beijing's point country in Africa,
receive billions of dollars of aid from us? We should support
our friends instead.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Primorac follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Primorac.
I now recognize Mr. Yoho for his opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TED YOHO
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meeks, and members
of the committee, it is an honor to participate in this hearing
regarding USAID.
I am a former Member of Congress, serving from 2013 to 2021
representing Florida's 3d Congressional District. During my 8
years in Congress, I served on this and the Agriculture
Committee. I had the honor to serve as chairman of the Asia-
Pacific Subcommittee during the 115th Congress. I entered
Congress----
Chairman Mast. Mr. Yoho, could you move a little closer to
your mic?
Mr. Yoho. It will help to turn it on too, won't it?
Chairman Mast. Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. I lost that knowledge already, huh?
I entered Congress with the goal of eliminating foreign aid
for various reasons. Looking back I was ignorant on what I
thought foreign aid was, what it did, and thought it was
unnecessary. Soon after my first foreign congressional
delegation trip, I realized that foreign aid when used properly
can be a tool in soft diplomacy that strengthens the Nation's
economy, security, increases trade, decreases migration,
creates strong partners and allies. When used improperly, it
has the opposite effect on both our friends and adversaries and
wastes taxpayers' money.
I became a strong proponent of reforming international
assistance by working in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion
with my cosponsors, along with the first Trump administration,
when we introduced the BUILD Act that authorized the creation
of the DFC. This was the largest reform in foreign aid in over
2 decades. And my goal was to move countries from aid to trade
with the use of effective tools managed correctly.
I chaired, along with Congressman Adam Smith, the Effective
Aid Caucus and met with members and outside groups to improve
efficiency and effectiveness on assistance. This committee has
had many hearings dealing with USAID.
It is frustrating that an agency set up to further our
security prosperity, engage in humanitarian projects, and work
to prevent the spread of diseases, hunger, and conflict have
strayed so far from its original intent when it was created
under President Kennedy in 1961. USAID has lost the trust of a
large portion of the American people and the international
community. Remember, President Lincoln, he said, With public
support, you can do almost anything. Without it, you can't do
anything.
The redesigned U.S. foreign assistance entity will have to
work hard to recreate that trust here and abroad. Many new
reforms are necessary in USAID. There are many ways reform can
be performed. Many administrations and, as I heard here today,
Congresses have acknowledged this, yet we did not act. The
Trump administration acted, and there is a lot of angst and
concerns about who has authority, how is it going to be done.
Those debates will go on as long as people want to debate,
criticize, and complain.
President Trump and Secretary Rubio stated the objectives
of international aid very clearly moving forward. Does it make
America safer, stronger, and more prosperous? It will serve the
Nation, our security, and economy as well as the developing
nations and our allies to get new reforms in place as soon as
possible. Not all aid is bad, nor is it all good. We should
focus on those programs that are good and make them better and
more effective. Programs that were misused and not aligned with
the administration should be eliminated. Congress should look
to support programs that have a proven track record of success,
and there are many examples to look at, and I'll be happy to
discuss those.
Moving forward I would recommend the Trump administration
place aid into two categories. First, the hard infrastructure
projects like road, water, energy, transportation, these are
the projects that are necessary to build an economy in the
recipient countries so we can wean them off of aid. The U.S.
Government has instruments like the DFC, MCC tasked with the
heavy lifting and initial phases of a project by providing risk
insurance, technical assistance, and expertise and brings in
outside investors and other nations' DFIs. Second, the
humanitarian side of assistance via a repurposed USAID type
entity working synergistically with the DFC and other USG
agencies. Feed the Future and African Growth and Opportunity
Act are effective health and food security programs when
implemented properly and generate much soft power goodwill.
Unfortunately, if mismanaged, we lose credibility, money and
drive the affected nations to our adversaries.
By pausing U.S. international assistance, a vacuum is
created. China, Russia, or others are already moving in to fill
those voids. The U.S. must quickly bring back the authorization
funding and a knowledgeable workforce to implement those
programs that align with the administration's goal, does it
make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous?
One last point. By not being effectively present can be
arguably worse than pausing a program, and all you have to do
is look at South and Central America and look at how much we
have ceded to China and their influence from Russia, China, and
Iran. That has to be dealt with immediately. That is a national
security threat.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I yield back my
time and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoho follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
I now recognize Mr. Natsios for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW NATSIOS
Mr. Natsios. Thank you very much. I speak for myself today.
Chairman Mast. Microphone.
Mr. Natsios. I speak for myself today. I have been involved
in humanitarian work.
Chairman Mast. Let's try that microphone one more time,
maybe pull it a little closer.
Mr. Natsios. Okay. How is that?
Chairman Mast. Much better.
Mr. Natsios. Better. Okay.
I speak for myself today. I don't represent anyone, and I
have been doing this work since 1989 when I joined the Bush
administration, the first Bush administration as the director
of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance when the world
order was collapsing. And our little office, along with the
Food for Peace office, saved tens of millions of lives around
the world, which they continue to do through the BHA Bureau
which is now much larger than it was when I was there.
If you are upset about getting off course, so am I, but
let's course correct, not course destroy.
When I took over AID as the administrator in Bush 43, W's
administration, in early 2001, I ordered my deputy to begin
reviewing every single project, every single program in AID
line by line, and we eliminated 80 programs over a month, and
we moved that cash back into the program because there was a
Cassava mosaic that was destroying the Cassava crop in Uganda,
Rwanda, Burundi, and eastern Congo. There was the risk of a
famine. And we got cuttings in, and we stopped the pandemic--
the disease pandemic for the Cosaba.
My point is I eliminated a lot of philosophically offensive
programs that a conservative administration would not tolerate.
And when the Democrats took over, they moved the agency to the
left. I moved it to the right. The Obama people actually said I
was very right wing, I was the most right wing administrator in
the history of the agency, and yet the career people followed
what I wanted to do in the agency. We put heavy emphasis on
economic growth.
Some of the things you have criticized, sir, with all due
respect, are economic growth programs that have been highly
successful. Ten percent of the workforce in Egypt is from
tourism. AID has properly invested $100 million over the years,
and it has massively increased the number of jobs in Egypt.
They are our ally. Don't we want people working instead of
being unemployed?
It is 12 percent of the GDP of Egypt, tourism. We call it
development tourism. We do it in Lebanon. We do it in Tunisia.
We do it in Kosovo and Bosnia. We have done it in Morocco. We
do it all over the world. It brings in revenue and employs
people. It is an economic growth project.
I believe in economic growth. I believe in the private
sector. I believe in free markets. That is what AID does. The
notion that AID is some kind of a Marxist institution is
absolutely ridiculous. Okay. I know the career officers. I work
with them. There is a career track called the private sector
officers. And what do they do? They work with the business
community.
I started a program, which the Democrats continued, called
the Global Developmental Alliance. We started it very early on,
2001. What it does is it matches AID money with corporate money
to supply their supply chains. We do this all over the world.
We are working with hundreds of American corporations. We have
raised $60 billion in private sector funding with the American
business community to increase jobs all over the world. We have
been doing this for 24 years, very successfully.
The Europeans and the Canadians and the Australians have
taken our lead in this and tried to replicate these public
private alliances. Twenty 5 percent of the money in those GDAs
is U.S. Government money. Seventy 5 percent is private money.
We invest together. We don't give them any money. They don't
give us any money. We design the project. We coinvest, and then
we manage it.
The notion that AID is irresponsible in terms of its
oversight is utter nonsense. I wrote an essay 12 years ago
called ``The Clash of the Counter-bureaucracy and
Development.'' It was published. It is the most cited thing I
have written in the scholarly literature. And it was based on
my frustration with the level over and over and over again of
oversight, the Inspector General, the Special Inspector
General. Why do we need two Inspector Generals in Afghanistan
and in Iraq? Then we have the GAO, we have the OMV, we have the
congressional Oversight Committee. Every line of what AID does
is overseen by seven different levels of oversight.
You know why money disappears? I will tell you why. Where
do we work? Where do we work? Christian NGO's are now
delivering food in Sudan in a famine. There will be 2 million
people dead by the end of this year. Those are the projections.
There is no government in Sudan. There is no police in Sudan.
There is no courts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsios follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Mast. I thank you for your opening remarks this
morning.
I now recognize Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member Meeks for
his 5 minutes of questioning--Chairman McCaul, I'm sorry.
Chairman Emeritus McCaul for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When I was chairman of this committee, I got congressional
notifications of spending programs from USAID and State
Department, and I put holds on those programs, many listed by
the chairman. Instead of working with me, the administration,
the prior Biden administration, decided to blow through those
holes, bucking a longstanding tradition.
I want to go through some of those I put on hold. $1.5
million to promote LGBTQ causes for immigrants in Latin
America, allowing them to litigate against foreign governments,
primarily Catholic nations. I don't know how that advances the
U.S. interests abroad. And as a Catholic myself, I find that
very offensive.
We have also heard about the $15 million for condoms and
contraceptives to Afghanistan, a country under surreal law, $15
million. What did USAID do? They blew through my holds in
complete and utter disregard of this committee's oversight
responsibilities.
I also uncovered the department had spent $500,000 to
advance atheism in Nepal, atheism in a country where Tibetan
Buddhists is a predominant religion. What does that have to do
with advancing U.S. interests abroad? The humanist
international group that they gave money to, the $500,000, the
CEO called the Catholic Church an institution you should be
ashamed to be involved with, our taxpayer dollars to condemn
the Catholic Church. Again, as a Catholic, I find that
extremely offensive.
And then the one we have heard so much about, $20,000 for
drag shows and drag workshops in Ecuador. Mr. Chairman, I have
seen the video you sent out. It is utterly disgusting to the
American taxpayer that we are funding that kind of behavior.
All these programs gave USAID a black eye, and that is
unfortunate because you go back to the Marshall Plan, really
the genesis for thinking about USAID, the Marshall Plan was one
of the most successful programs we endeavored in after World
War II to make sure a Hitler never arose from the ashes again.
The Food for Peace Program, sir, that you discussed, the
American farmer benefits from this. It has been extremely
successful.
Why was USAID created in the first place in 1961? It was to
counter the Soviet Union during the cold war. I believe it
still has a legitimate purpose to counter the rising threat of
China and Belt and Road and our other foreign adversaries. It
also has the ability to counter terrorism.
Lindsey Graham and I passed the Global Fragility Act,
State, DOD, USAID all working together to stabilize
destabilized nations which breed terrorism.
PEPFAR, one of the most successful global health programs
ever developed under President Bush, yet all of this is called
into question because of the irresponsibility of the Biden
administration's woke agenda and policies.
Mr. Yoho, we have been friends. We worked together,
colleagues. Your greatest legacy is the BUILD Act, and we need
to reinforce that policy as well. But when you look at the core
mission, all these programs need to go, and they will be gone.
But as we look at program by program and strip down to the core
mission, do you still believe that this is a worthwhile
endeavor, the core mission of USAID?
Mr. Yoho. I do. I think what you see over a period of time
is a mission creep. You know, these programs were designed with
purity of purpose, this is what they are supposed to do. And
when you get mission creep, you get these things that we are
seeing, and they are indefensible, some of the programs that
you guys mentioned, and that loses trust, like you said.
In business, what I have learned--and I think everybody can
agree with this--people like to do business with people they
know, they like, and they trust. If that is true with us on a
business setting, it is the same in nations. If other nations
know us, they like us, and they trust us, they are going to do
business with us. And we have heard this over and over again.
You know, it has been brought up by other leaders that----
Mr. McCaul. Can I just ask--my time is almost up--is it in
our national security interest to maintain the core mission and
I would argue under the State Department for proper
supervision?
Mr. Yoho. Yes, it is. And if we don't do that, we cede that
leadership to other people.
Mr. McCaul. I yield.
Chairman Mast. I now recognize Ranking Member Meeks for 5
minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
I too am a chairman emeritus of this committee, and I can
recall where President Trump when he was the president blew
past some of my things that I wanted. In fact, he has blown
past some already in this term, so that is just the will of
what presidents do at times in that regard. But in this
instance, 93 missions, every one has been closed, every one.
That is not trying to fix something. That is destroying
something.
But let me stop there because one of the reasons why I
asked Mr. Natsios to testify here, because he is a lifelong
Republican and he understands the insides and the outsides of
running USAID, more so than anybody--no disrespect to anybody
that is on this panel. He is the one that has done it. I will
admit we don't agree on certain things. Democrats and
Republicans don't agree, some things that Republicans do that I
believe is full of waste, destructive, but if they win the
elections, they have a choice to try to move it in that
direction. When Democrats win, what we stand for we move in our
direction. That is part of having a free democratic society. We
are not Russia.
So I want to put the politics aside for this discussion and
ask Mr. Natsios, can you explain to the committee why you
believe foreign assistance and the work of USAID as you have
done so is so essential and you feel so passionately enough
about it that you did respond? Because I have seen
administrators, Democrats and Republicans alike, who have
worked at USAID alike come out against closing USAID. Can you
tell us that today?
Mr. Natsios. Well, let me tell you two stories. One story
is my last month at AID. No one knew, except my wife, that I
was going to leave and teach at Georgetown, and this was in
December 2005. And I always would get briefing from the
director of counterterrorism at the CIA, and he came in to see
me, and he said, Mr. Natsios, the chatter is you are coming and
they are going to attempt to assassinate you. I said, Who? He
said, Well, obviously the Taliban. I said, Why are they going
to assassinate me? Because you are the head of AID. They can't
deal with AID. They can deal with the military, they just shoot
each other, but they can't build health clinics--we built 400
health clinics. We got the child mortality rates and the
maternal mortality rates down by a third.
It took 7 years to do that, but we did it very
successfully. And we opened schools. We published 90 million
textbooks in the schools to get the kids back in school, and
the Taliban can't deal with that. They are going to try--and we
advise you not to go. And I said, Well, let me think about
that. But if you do go, announce you have arrived as you are
stepping on the plane to leave. I said, What? He said,
Announce--when you are stepping on the plane to leave, announce
you arrived. So, in other words, they won't know you are there.
So I went--I decided to go, and nothing happened, What I
found out was from talking to the MOAS in the village, the
religious leaders, who were pro democracy and pro America, that
the Taliban regarded their greatest enemy to be USAID. You know
in Kosovo they name their kids Usaid? The Albanians are Muslims
in Kosovo, and they made it into a Muslim name, Usaid. If you
go to the refugee camps and displaced camps around the world,
USAID is the image of the United States.
We used to bring 20,000 students to the United States to
get their advance degrees during the cold war. You know what
the Chinese--you know what we are doing now? 900 scholarships.
We stopped doing it. The Chinese are spending huge amounts of
money to bring 40,000 people from the developing world to get
their degrees in China. We should be investing in that. We are
not. And I think we are falling behind and we are focused on
the wrong things.
The amount of DEI stuff--I started going through the RFAs.
It is a small percentage. Some of these things that have been
shown are not AID projects. Those are State Department
programs. Why are you blaming AID for what the State Department
did? The F Office in State controls all this stuff.
Now, let me tell you the a second story. After the Aceh
tsunami, we did a huge response. Ache is a part of Indonesia
which had a Muslim insurgency for many years against the
Central Government. We did a huge response. We put the AID logo
on everything. The mission director got carried away, 50,000
stickers USAID from the American people. Before the Ache
tsunami, Bin Laden had a 57 percent approval rating in
Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world in a
democracy. After the tsunami, Bin Laden's approval rating
collapsed from 57 percent to 27. The U.S. approval ratingwent
from 28 percent to 63 percent.
Now you say Americans like to be liked. We all like to be
liked. But what does difference does it make? President
Udenono, the president of the country, said, I like President
Bush. I like the United States, but it is very hard to work
with you because you are so unpopular. Not after the Aceh
tsunami. The newspapers in Indonesia said, Where is Bin Laden
when we need him? The Americans here we really don't like, and
now we realize who our real friends are. The United States is.
Chairman Mast. Thank you for answering our questions today,
sir. We appreciate it. We agree a lot of waste, like $10
million through USAID--everything I listed was USAID. $10
million for circumcision for Mozambique, there is another
example for you.
I now recognize Mr. Smith from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Upon assuming office, President Biden repealed President
Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy expanded by Donald Trump in
2017, but the Biden administration didn't stop there. They
initiated a new radical vision that integrated aggressive
abortion on demand into PEPFAR programming, called it
Reimagining PEPFAR, that included explicit guidance directing
recipients--and this is billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer
funds--to use their leverage to enact pro-abortion laws and
policies in PEPFAR countries. Biden hijacked PEPFAR, and he
shattered--I mean, I did the reauthorization of PEPFAR for 5
years during the Trump administration, the first one. I am all
for it. In this place here and on the floor of House and all
over Africa as I traveled, all for it, but then it was
hijacked.
It is strong rebuke--and Max had mentioned this earlier--
131 African lawmakers and religious leaders said that the
PEPFAR funding is supporting abortion, and they admonished us
to say the NGO's that we finance are highjacking their ideals
by pushing it so aggressively in Africa.
Mr. Natsios, as you testified today, and I read your
written statement, the USAID needs to be refashioned, and you
said that, quote, you believe it is bad policy to transfer
domestic culture wars into politics to the developing world.
Do you believe that the Biden administration was wrong to
integrate abortion on demand as interglobal health? Because
they did it across the board, USAID, and, of course, PEPFAR,
much of that money is, you know, deployed through USAID. When
you did say that efforts to protect the weakest and most
vulnerable from extermination, I do believe that is trivialized
when you somehow--bottom line is you say it is a culture war.
We believe in depending unborn children and their mothers
from the violence of abortion. Is that a culture war? It is a
fact when they are in these countries pushing it that,
unfortunately, children will die. I and like-minded pro-life
advocates in Congress and around the world seek to protect
unborn baby girls and boys from violence of abortion, including
dismemberment, decapitation, and, of course, the abortion pills
which are now being pushed all over the world, including the
United States. How do they work? They starve the baby to death.
That is how it works. So the baby--you know, I am all for
global--we did two bipartisan--I was a proud sponsor of it--
Global Food Security Acts.
I am all for mitigating global hunger, but when you turn
around and say to an entire segment of humanity, unborn
children, we are going to starve you to death through these
abortion pills, to me that is unconscionable.
So do you agree that pro-abortion NGO's should continue to
be empowered and subsidized with millions of dollars each year
by the American taxpayer to promote abortion with the goal of
changing pro-life laws in these nations? And I would ask all
three of our witnesses.
Mr. Natsios. Congressman, you can check my voting record in
Massachusetts. I am 100 percent--and this is in Massachusetts--
I am 100 percent pro-life voting record for 12 years in the
House, so my position is very clear. And I took a lot of heat
from the feminist groups in Massachusetts, and my views have
not changed.
I called you once because we found them doing vaginal
scraping in Bangladesh in a remote village.
Mr. Smith. I remember.
Mr. Natsios. And the mission director called me immediately
and said, We discovered this. We put a stop to it, Andrew.
Because if you do that and the woman is pregnant, the child
dies. Okay. And you are supposed to check before you do it.
They weren't trained properly. They weren't doing it
maliciously. They just didn't understand because they weren't
trained properly.
We fixed it very quietly. I called you up and told you what
happened. We were being transparent about it. Other than that,
that is the only violation we had in the 5 years that I was AID
administrator.
The career people will do what they are told to do. I am
appalled at what you are telling me that they have done. And by
dragging AID into these culture wars, the Biden administration
has undermined the need for bipartisan support for AID. We
cannot tolerate in an agency with programs all over the world a
war between parties which I am seeing right now. In my view, it
is a failure. All of the things I did at AID, I tried to do it
in a way that would not alienate the Democratic party when I
left.
If you look, before they took apart the agency, everything
I created is still there, was still there. They left it in
place.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I am almost out of time.
The other two distinguished witness. Thank you.
Mr. Primorac. Congressman, everything that we did during
the first Trump administration and I had these senior
positions, we worked very hard to make sure that everything
that we did had bipartisan support. What I have seen with the
last administration is actually breaking the law because you
are not supposed to--by law you are not supposed to. And I
think the PEPFAR coordinator has stressed that point. But when
you fund international planned parenthood, when you fund U.N.
agencies that openly promote it and when the Africans
themselves tell you it is happening, then the law is being
broken. I hope that the second Trump administration pursues the
pro-life policies that it had in the first one but also to
include humanitarian assistance.
Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. When we set these policies forward, it is going
to behoove all of us--and this is hard to do. These policies
should be what is best for America. If it is best for America,
it is going to be best for the rest of the world. And those
policies are based on our beliefs as a Nation. If we are a
Christian Nation as we always talk about, that is the right
thing to do, and I think we need to stay that way. And the hard
part is with us in this body we have to keep the checks on
that. If not, it goes away.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Mast. Thank you.
And I am glad to hear the conversation about university
spending as well because there is a lot of that within USAID
also. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research and drive
social behavior and $250,000 for FIU for DEI training, and
$244,000 for Stanford to do leadership training, not lifesaving
programs.
I now recognize Mr. Sherman from California.
Mr. Sherman. Foreign aid is a good thing. Americans think
that we spend 25 percent of the Federal budget on foreign aid
and want it reduced to 10 percent, but the fact is it is way
less than 1 percent. It helps us challenge China and the world.
It reduces not only hunger but migration to our borders, and it
helps us fight communicable diseases over there before they
mutate and come here. And that is why Ronald Reagan recognized
the importance of foreign aid.
Mr. Chairman, my fear, because I have been here for a long
time, when I got here it wasn't just Democrats against
Republicans. It was the legislative branch against the
executive branch. And we need to play that role, and as the
ranking member points out, we need to have government witnesses
here so we can talk about the future rather than just be a
cheering squad for the executive branch.
But I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, an
action taken by the State Department today that was too woke
for Sherman. They announced that they are going to spend $400
million on zero greenhouse gas emitting armored cars. That's
right, electric armored cars, $400 million to replace perfectly
good gas-driven armored cars. They said they were going to be
Tesla Cybertruck armored cars. This administration will get too
woke for Sherman if it helps the shareholders of the Tesla
automobile.
There have been a number of falsehoods stated. The biggest
one is the $50 million for Gaza condoms. Musk admitted that it
was just completely false. He apologized. So he made a--DOGE
made a mistake. Are we going to terminate DOGE? Well, I would
like to. But are we going to terminate DOGE because it made one
mistake? No. You identify mistakes that are a lot less than $50
million, people want to terminate USAID. Musk, the statement he
should be apologizing for and publicizing because the truth has
a tough time catching up with the falsehood.
But let's go through a few others. We are told that there
is $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt. Mr. Natsios, you would
demonstrate how that is a good program. We should give credit
to Donald Trump for that program. He started it under his first
administration. Now it is being attacked.
We are told that circumcision is terrible. It is a very
cheap operation. It is only done voluntarily. It has been done
by Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump.
Why? Because it is a 60 percent reduction in the risk of
female-to-male transmission of HIV.
We are told that USAID was spending $80 million on
subscriptions to Politico. No. The entire executive branch was
doing that. But you know who else spends money on Politico?
Republicans in Congress who spend $800,000 of their office
budget on Politico. And, Mr. Chairman, you didn't spend any
money on Politico. Like me, you spent your money on Bloomberg,
as do I. Of course, Michael Waltz spent his money, over $8,000,
on Politico just for his own office.
The list goes on and on. But we are told that there are
waivers for all of this. Well, PEPFAR has been allowed to work,
but they have had no access to funds. But what doesn't get a
waiver is democracy programs, and we need democracy in Iran.
Education programs and economic development.
So it is okay under Trump to give a hungry man a fish, but
it is illegal to spend a dollar to teach them to fish or to
tell them how to get a fishing pole. And under that we will be
feeding hungry Egyptians forever because they won't have the
tourism so that they can buy their food on the world market. We
needed education. We need democracy. We need economic
development.
Finally, there is a sad incident. 71-year-old Pe Kha Lau.
She was able to survive and flee from Myanmar to Thailand. She
was in a camp with over 10,000 people. They cutoff the money,
and they cutoff her oxygen, and she died. And no future waiver
is going to bring her back to life.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this committee take a minute of
silence to remember Pe Kha Lau.
[Pause.]
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
And I would also point out that PEPFAR care and treatment,
HIV prevention under the PEPFAR programs have been reauthorized
for $500 million and other appropriations as well just in case
you were not aware.
I now recognize Mr. Wilson from South Carolina.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Mast. Mr. Wilson is recognized.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Brian Mast, and
thank you for your leadership on this very important hearing.
In the past I have supported the very inspiring messages
and missions of American outreach. I have, though, sounded the
alarm for abuse and wasteful spending in aid programs sadly for
years. We have routinely seen aid diverted to dictators, such
as Assad of Syria, and oppressing the very people it was meant
to help. The Biden administration insanely provided and funded
woke deranged depravity in Syria instead of trying to help the
people, and the U.N. delivered aid through the regime itself to
the people as they were being slaughtered by Bashar al-Assad.
Legitimate aid was diverted from the needed earthquake recovery
that occurred there in Syria. Fortunately, Assad is now removed
by the people of Syria, and he is in hiding, of course, in the
appropriate location, Moscow, with war criminal Putin.
Another example, Mr. Primorac, is the tragic example of
dictator diversion, and that is in Tunisia. Once a shining
success of the Arab spring and partner in North America, it has
now been turned into a full-blown dictatorship by Kais Saied.
While Millenium Challenge Corporation rightfully suspended aid,
USAID sent $30 million to cover unclear programs while the
dictator has corrupted the economy destroying jobs.
What can be done to stop propping dictators and also aid
being diverted, as you correctly identified, even to terrorists
themselves?
Mr. Primorac?
Mr. Primorac. Yes, sir. I am not familiar with the
situation in Tunisia, but this happens a lot. I think there is
a lot of good will in these programs. There is a lot of good
programs overall but the problem is that very often these
things just go on year after year after year, and though there
is no change, we are actually propping up bad regimes and
socialism.
I was in Mozambique in October for the elections there. We
have a marxist, leninist regime. They stole the election. We
are spending a billion dollars, half a billion to a billion
dollars a year. And what happens? There is no reform. We are
supporting socialism, and the government, just 2 months before
we came there, provided their port in order to allow the
Chinese Navy to project their power into the Western Indian
Ocean.
So there has to be a much better affinity between what we
do on the development aid side and the diplomacy where we put
our Ambassadors on the hook to make sure these things don't
happen.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. And, indeed, we have seen in the Republic of
Georgia, the corrupted election of October where the legitimate
president, Salome Zourabichvili, has been replaced by a
Georgian dream, which, as you identify ports, indeed, the
Chinese Communist Party has taken over the port there in
Georgia on the Black Sea.
And simultaneously, the Georgian dream dictatorship in
Tbilisi has reached out to work closely with Tehran at the same
time as Tehran has sent assassins to murder Donald Trump.
With that in mind, thank goodness we have good people like
our congressional alumnus Ted Yoho here. And so Ted, delivering
mechanisms for aid have been co-oped by enemies to the United
States running the U.N. Fortunately, President Trump has
supported Elise Stefanik ans the U.N. Ambassador in the
transition of Ambassador Nicky Haley who will stand firm for
America first.
Many of the nonprofits that are doing the bidding of
dictators are being supported. What can we do to ensure that,
indeed, these agencies are working for the people we are trying
to help and not prop up dictators or support terrorists?
Mr. Yoho. I think the biggest thing is just oversight, and
we need to followup on the oversight. We hear every year how
many erroneous spending programs there are, how money is being
wasted. We hear those reports, but yet when I was in Congress,
I didn't see us acting. It was hard to get everybody to act.
And that's where I go back to the purity of purpose and
what is the mission. We have to stay within those guardrails,
and we need to make sure--well, the body of Congress needs to
make sure that they stay that way. And it is a tough thing. If
it was a static world, it would be easy, but it is a tough
world.
Mr. Wilson. And also, in the best Florida tradition, our
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has announced just last week a
great letter to Chairman Mast about how they would be stepping
in to identify programs and promote those that promote the
people legitimately in the world who need it.
I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Wilson.
I now recognize Representative Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome two of my former colleagues here, Ted Yoho, who
is one of the more conservative people I served with here in
Congress, and Andrew Natsios, who I think is the most
conservative member I served with in the Massachusetts house as
a Republican and a Republican leader in Massachusetts as well.
You know, I think that what we are seeing with our
witnesses, witnesses like this is the fact that up until 3
weeks ago, this issue, the USAID used to be the most bipartisan
issue. And I have been on this committee now for 14 years plus.
We used to agree with these things. We could find things wrong
with it that we can correct.
And the irony of all of this is this. The Republicans are
in charge of the White House, the House, and the Senate. They
have the power to do this the right way. They have the power of
oversight to look at all the things being pointed out. That is
your responsibility if you don't like it, and you have the
power to do it.
You don't need this draconian executive directive to do it.
It is causing chaos not just here in this country but around
the world. It is not necessary, and it is a huge departure from
everything I have seen occurring in the 14 years before this.
Along those lines, I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, a
letter to the Republican and Democratic leadership in the House
and the Senate. And it is from almost 150 former administrative
officials, Republicans and Democrats, those who served in the
military and the State Department urging the rescission of the
Trump executive orders aimed at freezing our foreign assistance
and dismantling USAID. It deplores the undemocratic and
unconstitutional dismantling of these agencies.
I would like to submit this with unanimous consent.
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
Mr. Keating. I would also like to point some other
correspondence that occurred around this issue. The people that
praised this action, where did they come from? I will tell you
where they came from. They came from our greatest critics, the
greatest critics of democracy right now in the world. They came
from the leaders of Russia and Hungary and Venezuela. They are
praising this effort. That is who is for this effort.
In fact, the speaker of the Russian State Duma said that
anyone who received funding from USAID should be made to
publicly confess and repent on Red Square. That is who is
praising this. That is who is happy with this. Putin is happy
with this.
This is so important now in Ukraine. One example, Putin's
primary target in Ukraine is to destroy the electrical grid to
us that as an energy weapon of war against the Ukrainians in
his illegal aggression. And what does USAID do? They are
helping to train and give the resources so that the Ukrainians
can repair these damaged electrical grids so they can keep the
power on and fight Putin. Putin is happy with this.
I mentioned the military leaders. General Mattis, who is
also Secretary of Defense under Donald Trump, he used to come
to this committee time and time again and say don't fully fund
these programs like USAID. And you know what, if you don't fund
it, just buy me some more ammunition. The military in our
country understand the importance of this program.
I have had discussions for years, and I just recently had
discussions with our special operations forces. Those people, I
respect them beyond words. They are in the most dangerous parts
of the world in small numbers, a global footprint, working to
know where our greatest threats are in the country.
They are placed in positions, hosting the most dangerous
threats to our country, as are so many people working for
USAID, risking their lives as well trying to secure the safety
of people not just in the world but in our own country, from
terrorists threats that are metastasizing and pose increasing
threats right here back at home.
They told me of the importance of USAID. They told me how
they work together on security issues, on intel issues, on
understanding how they can use their ability to keep us safe
and use it more effectively. And they particularly pointed out
what a threat China is, and it will become a greater threat in
the absence of USAID. That is whose asking us not to make these
draconian changes.
And, you know, do it the right way all those things you do,
all the little small cuts. I won't say anything about
circumcisions being a small cut. Listen, all these small cuts,
you have the power to do it yourself. Do it. Do it the right
way. Don't support this.
I yield back.
Chairman Mast. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. We
will write $10 million of foreskin out of the budget.
I now recognize Representative Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
USAID was created through executive order in 1961 by
President Kennedy, long having lost and strayed from its
mission, lots its direction. Even the Clinton administration
tried unsuccessfully to reform it, and we spent, I don't know,
somewhere between 40 and $50 billion annually on this
organization.
And with the things that you hear, while many of us,
probably most of us in this room agree with projecting
America's power for the good of all the world around the globe.
Quite honestly, if our enemies were asked to design a foreign
aid program that would actively undermine the United States of
America at maximum cost to the taxpayer, they would be hard
pressed to create a scheme more effective than USAID. That is
shocking to say.
Look, let's just go to a couple things here. We left
Afghanistan, and I will just characterize it as left in August
2021. August 2021. So the Taliban is in charge. The Taliban
threatens the lives of the NGO personnel distributing USAID.
They claim credit for USAID distribution. They interfere with
the distribution of USAID aid.
They tax the beneficiary of the aid. They tax the delivery
service. They steal the food commodities. They divert the
funds. They extort citizens for protection for USAID aid. They
create sham procurement schemes, and they threaten the lives of
those who oppose those schemes.
Now, that all occurred before August 2021 when we were
there, when we were there. Now, you know, you don't have to be
a rocket scientist. You could just read. The Taliban is
classified. And if you don't know, the Taliban is in charge of
Afghanistan. They are classified as a specially designated
global terrorist organization by OFAC.
So post 2021. So this is last year, 2024. We spent 697
million of the taxpayers' dollars in Afghanistan, including
$534,719,000 and change from USAID in Afghanistan. I don't know
what we think we are going to change in Afghanistan. We lost
22,000, lost or wounded 22,500 Americans in Afghanistan over
the course of our term there in the war, spending over $2
trillion. We are just going to keep on spending because somehow
we think it is going to get better.
And if you are wondering who is in charge of Afghanistan
getting the money, and that money I just mentioned, the 697
million is on top of and is in addition to the weekly to every
10-day shipments in cash of 40 to $80 million.
Afghanistan is ruled by folks named Sirajuddin Haqqani.
Haqqani Network mean anything to anybody in the room? How about
Abdallah bin Laden who gets some of that money? Does that name
ring a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money, your
money, $697 million annually, plus the shipments of cash fund,
madrasas, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS-Khorasan, terrorist
training camps. That is what it is funding.
If you think that the program under Operation Enduring
Sentinel entitled Women Scholarship Endowment, which received
$60 million annually, or the Young Women Lead, which gets about
$5 million annually is going to women who, by the way, if you
read the Inspector General's report is telling you that the
Taliban does not allow women to speak in public, yet somehow
you are believing and the American people are supposed to
believe that this money is going for the betterment of the
women in Afghanistan. It is not. You are funding terrorism, and
it is coming through USAID.
And it is not just Afghanistan. Because Pakistan is right
next door. USAID spent $840 million in the last year--last 20
years on Pakistan's education-related programming. It includes
$136 million to build 120 schools of which there is zero
evidence that any of them were built. Why would there be any
evidence? The Inspector General can't get in to see them.
But you know what, we doubled down and spent $20 million
from USAID to create educational television programs for
children unable to attend the physical school. Yes, they can't
attend it because it doesn't exist. You paid for it. Somebody
else got the money. You are paying for terrorism. This has got
to end.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Perry.
In addition, we don't even have an embassy in Afghanistan.
The chair now recognizes the representative from
California, Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start off by saying I know a lot of USAID
workers, former workers, alumni are watching this hearing. I
want to thank them for their work. They are patriotic
Americans. They are out there doing God's work, helping save
lives and everything else. And I'm sorry that you guys are
caught up in this. So I want to appreciate you on behalf of the
United States of America. You guys are patriotic Americans.
I visited with a lot of these folks. I travel a lot, gone
into refugee camps and have seen what they do in terms of
lifesaving stuff. And, again, it is super important work that
they do. It represents the best of American values, and it is
really sad to see these folks get thrown under the bus.
When we talk about stronger, better, more prosperous, I
think we are all in favor of that. We are all in favor of
working together.
You know, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Yoho is my classmate,
and he may have been more conservative than you when he got to
Congress.
Ted, you and I traveled I think on your first trip abroad.
We went out and saw some of these USAID projects. I watched you
over time, become the champion of the Build Act, the champion
of reforms, and we have continued to stay in touch.
Now, what saddens me about this whole approach--now, I am
not going to talk about Elon Musk. I am not surprised about how
he is approaching things. But this isn't Twitter. I don't want
a 21-year-old tech bro going through deciding which programs we
should continue and not continue.
Mr. Chairman, I want us to work and do that work. We can go
line by line, or we could hire Mr. Yoho to go through line by
line and say, Hey, here are the programs that make sense, here
are the ones that don't. But that is our job. That is what we
are supposed to be doing. That is our oversight.
I don't want that 21-year-old tech bro who probably has
never traveled anywhere, has no passport, doing our job. Let's
do this work together.
I am not here to defend every USAID program, but I do
believe it serves a really important purpose for our values.
You know, we have read Heritage Foundation reports. I worry
about what is happening in the Pacific Islands. They put out a
good report. We have met with them. We are seeding our
influence there. We are already seeing China step in and take
things over.
We are watching in Cambodia, in Southeast Asia, programs
that are good programs like demining. China stepped in. It is
front page news. Let's not shoot everything down. Let's make
necessary reforms. Congressman Yoho said let's focus on
humanitarian aid. Let's focus on development, and let's look at
the programs that do this.
For the American people, the most successful development
program in the history of the world was the Marshall Plan. That
was us. That was the United States of America rebuilding
Europe, creating stable democracy, preventing war, lifting
hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. That was us.
We can do this, and we can do it better and smarter and not
betray our values as Americans. But we should do this. This is
Congress job. It is not someone else's job, and I am willing to
work with you to figure out what programs make sense.
Let's write a foreign aid authorization bill, but let's do
it in a smart way. Let's get former administrators in here.
Let's us do the work, Democrats and Republicans, to rebuild a
better, stronger, more prosperous USAID--
Congressman Yoho, we are friends, and we have stayed in
touch over the years. I appreciate the Build Act. That was
bipartisan and your leadership there.
I am a little bit worried because I have heard President
Trump talk about creating a sovereign wealth fund, perhaps
making that DFC's mission. Will you actually talk about the
difference between DFC sovereign wealth fund?
Mr. Yoho. Yes. What I see is the DFC was designed for a
specific purpose when we put it together. We wanted to move
countries from aid to trade. That was our big thing. I won't go
into why I came up with that. We were on a CODEL over in the
DRC.
And if they want to create a sovereign wealth fund, I think
they should do that separately. And I think there was an
executive order, in fact, to do that, which is good because if
you put it in the DFC, it starts clouding the mission. You
know, are we going to do development? Are we going to build the
trust fund or the sovereign wealth fund? And you start clouding
the mission, and you get away from what I like to call purity
purpose.
The DFC was for hard core infrastructure projects that will
bring in other investors in a region that needs those jobs and
the opportunity so that we can wean them off foreign aid. You
know, foreign aid by itself has not brought anybody into
prosperity, but working together to build that infrastructure,
to create that structure there, that will. That brings in the
opportunity, outside dollars, and then we create friendships
and allies around the world. It increases trade.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work. Let's do the work here
in Congress in this committee, and let's build a better,
stronger, more prosperous----
Mr. Yoho. And I commend you guys for saying that.
Mr. Natsios. Could I just add something if I could?
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
I do thank the representative for wanting to work on the
State Department reauthorization. I look forward to working
with you on that.
The representative from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, is
recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to submit for the record an article, why condoms
cannot always be trusted. It is dated March 19, 1993. And it
goes on to say that USA distributed around 800 million condoms
last year. And this was in 1993. The argument that condoms are
not being distributed obviously has some holes in it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Primorac, can you provide an example of a USA program
that was harmful to the U.S. foreign interest?
I probably didn't say your name right.
Mr. Primorac. That is okay, Congressman. And thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Nobody gets--Jonathan Jackson still doesn't
get Burchett right, so we are good.
Mr. Primorac. I have heard a lot about the issue of China,
and I agree that it is very important to counter China, but the
last 4 years went in the opposite direction. The strong
counter-China infrastructure that we had developed over at
USAID was simply dismantled by the next administration.
I can't think of anything that has harmed the developing
world than the climate agenda. It has pushed all of these
countries, especially in Africa, to go green. Solar, wind, EV,
who produces all of those materials? It is China.
Then on top of it, we tell them, no, you can't develop your
own fossil fuel industry because it is anti-green. So what
happens? They can't generate the revenues to create good jobs
at home. They can't generate the revenues in order to finance
their own health, education, and other needs. And it increases
the price of energy, which does what to the poor? It hurts
them.
The climate agenda has done more at increasing poverty and
increasing hunger than anything else. Of course, the resentment
that is building up from around the world that is much more
conservative than we are on these woke things, it is extremely
damaging.
Look, a friend of mine at work provided me this morning
with something that is very, very telling of 19 of the top 20
countries receiving aid from USAID are part of the belt and
road initiative that China runs. I mean, this is showing that
our efforts are not working.
I agree with Congressman Yoho and Administrator Natsios
that the developing world, they want more trade. They want more
investment. I don't care if you are speaking to government
officials, business leaders, religious leaders. They don't want
all of this other kind of aid where 50 percent of it is gone
and we are violating their----
Mr. Burchett. Let me get a couple more questions in to you,
if that would be all right.
Did USAID assist in illegal immigration on our southern
border?
Mr. Primorac. I think that is something--it is both State
and aid that shared in that responsibility. PRM over at State I
think is doing this.
There was this whole thing about root causes and spending
billions of dollars in Central America, as if that would stem
illegal immigration, but the problem with that argument is that
these countries earn tens of billions of dollars of
remittances. So the amount of aid that we are spending, it is
such a tiny amount. It doesn't have any impact.
If you want to stem illegal immigration, it is not foreign
aid. It is closing the border, and we are seeing the results of
it now.
Mr. Burchett. Did USAID fund foreign terrorist
organizations, such as the Taliban?
Mr. Primorac. You know, when I launched and led the Bureau
for Humanitarian Assistance, we had an internal risk assessment
tool, and I pushed it immediately into red because we were
sending money in places where we didn't have an actual
presence. In a place like Afghanistan, we are not there. All of
the international NGO's that we worked through, they left. And
the Afghans that had worked for us, they fled or were killed.
So we have absolutely no idea what is happening with that
money, but it is being spent.
Before I left as the COO, I put in a very tough vetting
requirement that anybody who touches the money must go through
our data bases to see whether or not these are terrorists, but
the next administration just removed it. So I think we can
safely conclude that we are.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you. Thank you. Those groups will hate
us for free.
Ted, does Congress authorize the spending for every
individual USAID program? And that is to say did Congress
approve the $20,000 for the drag show in Ecuador or the $47,000
for a transgender opera in Colombia?
Mr. Yoho. No, they don't. Again, those things happen
without the oversight, and it is hard to do oversight when you
have a big organization like that. That is why, again, you have
to have the purity purpose, and we had to be diligent, when I
was in Congress, to be the ones that say we are not spending
this money.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Mr. Natsios. But those two projects are State Department
projects. They are not USAID projects. That is inaccurate, sir.
Mr. Burchett. I didn't--did I say--I asked--I didn't say
that, sir, but thank you for putting words in my mouth.
I would like to submit this article for the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
The gentleman's time has expired.
And I would add they don't just happen whether we authorize
or deauthorize. They happen because of bad people in USAID or
the State Department that put these forward, programs. You
don't belong there if you are putting these programs forward,
and their time at those agencies will come to an end.
I now recognize the representative from California, Ms.
Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, a question for my colleagues. I know all of
us probably remember Ebola from the 2014 outbreak that
President Trump, a private citizen at the time, was
particularly outspoken about and terrified of.
For those of you who don't remember, Ebola is a disease
that has about a 41 percent fatality rate. No vaccine, no
treatment. It causes vomiting, muscle pain, and hemorrhagic
bleeding. Pretty bad.
I would like all of my colleagues, please raise your hand
if you would like Ebola in the United States? No one?
Chairman Mast. Can you say your question again.
Ms. Jacobs. Would you like Ebola in the United States?
Chairman Mast. I am glad the Trump administration approved
Ebola response in their waivers.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes. On that point, I ask for unanimous consent
to enter into the record a New York Times article, Lifesaving
Aid Remains Halted Worldwide Despite Rubio's Promise.
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
But it is not if you want to see the list.
Ms. Jacobs. And on Tuesday, Elon Musk, the billionaire tech
entrepreneur empowered by President Trump to combat the
agency--I am quoting the article now--told reporters in the
Oval Office that the administration had turned on funding for
Ebola prevention and for HIV prevention. But in reality, again,
quoting this article, the Ebola funding and virtually all of
the HIV prevention funding remains frozen, according to USAID
employees and several aid groups. And that is because the
payment system called Phoenix that USAID relies on to disburse
financial assistance has been inaccessible for weeks.
So as you may know, Mr. Natsios, the outbreak of diseases,
infectiosus disease is one of the big things that USAID helps
to prevent, which is why I think we all should be so horrified
that because of Elon Musk's illegal takeover of USAID, USAID is
no longer able to screen travelers at airports leaving Uganda
where there is currently an Ebola outbreak that Americans have
already been infected by.
Mr. Natsios, you led USAID, correct? Do you think stopping
the screening of travelers makes America more or less safe?
Mr. Natsios. It makes us less safe, but I would add that
over the last 30 years, we built a system in 90 southern
countries for monitoring all infectious diseases, and that is
the early warning system. So if an outbreak of any disease
takes place, we know about it.
The countries like China where COVID started--and I
certainly wouldn't advocate having an AID mission there, but
the countries where there is an Aid mission, the ministries of
health have been trained, and there is a comprehensive early
warning system to protect us. That system, in terms of AID
support for it, has been shut down.
Ms. Jacobs. That is right.
Mr. Natsios. I might also add----
Ms. Jacobs. Sorry. I just want to reclaim my time because I
have a few more questions, but I completely agree with you.
So let's take my Republican colleagues at your word. You
want to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. I agree with that. You
want to reform how USAID does its work. I agree with that, too.
In fact, I have bipartisan legislation to do that that I am
happy to work with you, Mr. Mast, on.
But let's talk about what is actually happening. So, Mr.
Natsios, again, would you consider yourself liberal or woke in
any way?
Mr. Natsios. No.
Ms. Jacobs. Okay, great.
Do you believe USAID is a criminal agency plagued by waste,
fraud, and abuse?
Mr. Natsios. No.
Ms. Jacobs. And on February 4th, nearly the entire USAID
workforce was notified that they were being placed on
administrative leave. Mr. Natsios, would you say that removing
the majority of the staff responsible for overseeing USAID's
programs increases or decreases the risk of waste, fraud, and
abuse?
Mr. Natsios. Well, it increases it because there AID
officers there for oversight. That is what they do. Forty
percent of the staff of AID are compliance officers. They spend
all day trying to make sure these things don't happen. They do
happen sometimes because of where we work.
Ms. Jacobs. And the USAID Inspector General agreed with
you, as the ranking member entered into the record, stated that
all of USAID's oversight controls are largely non-operational.
But instead of addressing this problem, Trump actually fired
the Inspector General who released this report the very next
day.
Mr. Natsios, does firing USAID's Inspector General
generally reduce or increase waste, fraud, and abuse?
Mr. Natsios. Well, Congresswoman, I am trying to stay out
of the vitriol here.
The Inspector General is there to investigate abuse. And
let me tell you how it works. People think that they watch us
and then they find this stuff and then they arrest us. That is
not how it works. Eighty percent of the investigations done by
AID are initiated by AID compliance officers who call the IG
and say there is a problem, you need to come in here and fix
it, and then they work with them.
Ms. Jacobs. So just to clarify, not only is this freeze
endangering Americans, but Trump and Musk's argument for
stopping this assistance to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse is a
complete lie because they are doing the opposite. That is
because this is not about oversight. It is not about reform. It
is about completely gutting foreign assistance itself.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Mast. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
And I would remind everybody that Ebola response has been
restored 250,000 through IOM, 1.5 million through UNICEF,
another 250,000 to IRFC and others. The list goes on. And we
should be supporting the correct programs.
Uganda was brought up, and I would say there is an example
there. There is a program, oh, $5.5 million for promoting LGBT
acceptance in Uganda. That is not lifesaving, and that is not
combating Ebola.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Green, is now recognized.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman Mast, and I appreciate your
leadership, and I look forward to working alongside you to
bring needed reform to our diplomatic strategy. We certainly
have a lot of work to do, and this hearing is just beginning.
Accountability is coming.
Thank you also to our witnesses today. The corruption going
on behind USAID's doors has been a wake up call for all
Americans.
As chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, I
spent the last 2 years exposing the Biden administration's
sabotage of our border and the policies that kept America safe.
I saw firsthand their willful refusal to protect this country.
Under the guise of foreign aid, USAID has been an
unapologetic front for a far left agenda. It has become self-
evident there weren't a handful of foolish policies, but,
rather, a coordinated strategy of radical, idiotic, and often
anti-American priorities. Idiotic, you say? Millions to teach
Moroccans how to make pottery? The Moroccans were making
pottery before we were a country.
This entire debate today and the crocodile tears from
Democrats just goes to show what is wrong with this town. Not a
single Democrat I have heard has expressed dismay at the many
examples of crazy, wasteful spending. I don't understand the
objection to a deep dive in how we spend our money.
But perhaps it is the fact that over the last several
weeks, a massive surge has occurred in the search for a
criminal defense attorney. That probably says it all. Five
times in this city, any other city in the Nation.
I would like to remind the committee that President Kennedy
unilaterally created USAID through an executive order in 1961.
Yet, the President, President Trump, orders a momentary pause
after winning a mandate for reform, and Democrats cry
constitutional crisis. This is after 4 years of reckless
spending and unrepentant lawlessness from the Biden
administration.
I want the American people to understand how this works in
Washington. As long as you are spending other people's money,
no one bats an eye, but the second you want to save taxpayer
dollars, the swamp cries wolf or, in this case, unprecedented
constitutional crisis.
This breathless, fake outrage from the left is utterly
insane. And you know what the American people, you know they
can see right through it.
The generosity of Americans and the blessing of giving aid
to others has always been one of our most valuable tools for
diplomacy. The American people have a proud history of
championing aid to our fellow man, but lawless bureaucrats have
poisoned that good will.
Many USAID programs are wasteful and actively sabotage our
diplomatic relationships by forcing woke ideology on our
partners. Just look at PEPFAR, a beacon of hope in the fight
against HIV aids, yet the Biden administration even weaponized
this crucial program, jeopardizing lives and undermining our
relationship with African nations.
Under Administrator Powers, our message to Africa was
explicit as it was heinous. Abort your babies and violate your
religious convictions or we won't grant you lifesaving aid.
Let me be crystal clear to those who have been complicit in
this betrayal. Firing those involved is just a start. We have a
long way to go.
And one last point. I want to correct the record on a
couple of things. First, Elon Musk and the team that is working
does not have access to personal data. They don't have access
to your Social Security number. That is a lie.
Elon Musk does have a security clearance. He has a top
secret security clearance. By God, he makes the rockets for
NASA. But the suggestion that he somehow can't be trusted to
dig into how we are spending our money is nothing but a smoke
screen to hide the corruption and the wasteful spending that
has occurred there.
And I am personally offended at the left's continued
references to 19-year-olds and 21-year-olds in there doing
work. There are 19-year-olds who have won the medal of honor
defending this country. Just because you are 19 doesn't mean
you are some child who can't be trusted. It is offensive.
And if you are 19 years old out there, 20 years old and you
are serving this country, by God, your service matters. Keep
serving. We thank you for that.
It would appear that I am out of time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Mast. Amen.
Representative Castro is now recognized.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman.
I would just say that if you can find us a 19-year-old
medal of honor winner who would love to serve in the U.S.
Government, we would love to have him rather than this 19-year-
old who is a mystery man and got fired from his last job.
As you all hear a lot of angry fire-breathing rhetoric
coming from the other side, I want you to consider as Americans
where we started the year. Our country, for all the complaints
and all the anger, is still the most powerful, prosperous
Nation on earth with the lowest unemployment rate in decades
and a strong economy, where foreign aid represents about 1
percent of our total budget.
And yet, Elon Musk and this administration's attempt to
illegally shut down USAID and freeze ongoing foreign assistance
programs has been met with support and applause from some of
the world's worst authoritarians.
Venezuelan interior minister, and Nicolas Maduro's key
lieutenant celebrated the Trump administration's actions in
ending support to the Venezuelan opposition.
In Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega's sons said that, quote, Trump
turned off the faucet for terrorists when he shattered USAID
funding.
Belarusian leader, Lukashenka, applauded the
administration's decision to cut funding for, quote, the
fugitive opposition. The opposition that for years Republicans
have said they support they have now abandoned. President Trump
has abandoned.
He cutoff TPS for Venezuelans and betrayed the people of
South Florida and sent them back to a man he says is dangerous,
yet sent Rick Grenell to handshake with.
After this administration's halted funding to Cambodia to
remove unexploded bombs that the United States dropped on their
country years ago, China offered to move in and replace U.S.
funding. China has offered to go do the job that we are no
longer doing.
What do you think that does for American diplomacy? What do
you think it does for our reputation around the world? What do
those people think of us, that we won't help them take away the
bombs that we dropped years ago?
Similar celebrations have come from leaders in Russia,
Iran, Hungary, Cuba, and other countries as we have cut support
to democracy activists in these countries. Democracy activists.
Republicans have been eager to accuse Democrats of, quote,
abandoning our allies. The reality is that the Trump
administration abandoned our allies everywhere, and it didn't
even take a week. Donald Trump has abandoned those fighting for
democracy in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and
China. He has abandoned Taiwan, freezing security assistance to
the island nation facing threats of invasion from China.
Donald Trump abandoned our partners in Indonesia, Malaysia,
Iraq, and other countries fighting terrorism with the support
of USAID. He has abandoned the country of Jordan by freezing
security assistance, abandoned millions of victims of HIV AIDS
supported by PEPFAR and abandoned those suffering from malaria
and TB.
Donald Trump has also abandoned American citizens, American
farmers that feed the world, whose produce is rotting in ports
and warehouses, and our USAID professionals and families that
he stranded abroad.
Make no mistake. These decisions will come back to haunt
the United States of America and not only in terms of
diplomacy, not only in terms of how people think of us in
faraway lands. Those diseases that we are no longer helping to
cure, people will get sick not only in those countries but in
the United States.
I hope that just as folks are taking credit for what is
going on now, that when those diseases hit the United States,
that they will take full credit for that.
I have a question of the panel. I want to ask Mr. Natsios
whether you think these actions--you were the USAID
administrator. You saw the good and the bad and you had reform.
I had a reform bill myself, which some Republicans joined me on
last Congress.
Do you think the totality of this is making us stronger in
the world or weaker?
Mr. Natsios. I think that our aid program makes us
stronger, and I think USAID, prior to all of the controversy,
was achieving that, except for the woke programs that were
introduced, which have alienated very conservative Christian
societies in Africa.
Mr. Castro. And Mr. Natsios, I want to interrupt you for
just a second because there was an example of funding to help
LGBTQ communities in Uganda. In Uganda, the death penalty was
proposed for gay people. Is that considered woke? Is that what
they are using as an example of woke is helping gay people
because they are under the threat of death by their own
government?
Mr. Natsios. Any violence against any person is not
acceptable. So I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Castro. So you would be for that funding then?
Mr. Natsios. What I am saying is that we are dealing with a
very conservative society, Muslim and Christian, and we need to
respect--not what you are talking about because that happened I
think in reaction to us, actually, because it wasn't there
before.
But let me just say that we give, AID gives 973.5 billion
dollars a year to Christian NGO's, Evangelical, Pentecostal,
Roman Catholic, my church, the orthodox church, and mainline
Protestant a billion dollars a year. All those programs are now
frozen. They have laid off the staff, and I have to say it is
damaging the church's mission in the world.
I think this whole shutdown--and I might say, Mr. Chairman,
not to be partisan. Just to tell you what is happening. I met
with the Christian groups. Even though they have waivers, the
Phoenix system is not operating. Unless the Phoenix system can
operate, they can't issue checks. No one is getting funded even
though the waiver has been granted.
I am not saying that in a partisan way. Please do something
about it. It is having an effect in the field in a profound
way. There are a lot of AIDS orphans are being taken care of by
the church.
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Natsios. And the staff has been laid off.
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
The representative from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is now
recognized.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the very important hearing exposing the jaw-
dropping waste at the USAID. And may USAID foreign assistance
grants are not only wasteful but counterproductive to our
diplomatic and foreign policy objectives.
Just a few examples. $75,000 for a drag show workshop in
Ecuador, $37 million for services for sex workers and their
clients and transgender people in South Africa, $31 million for
providing USAID employees with resilience, wellness, and work-
life balance counseling, 24 million to build green
transportation alternatives in Georgia, a half a million
dollars to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate
and gender friendly, $15 million to promote LGBT rights for
individuals Kenya, and $2 million to conduct sex change
surgeries in Guatemala through a trans-led organization.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are whining
that President Trump has fired the Inspector General of this
agency. Thank goodness for President Trump for firing an
Inspector General for not exposing what Elon Musk has exposed
with this waste. Are these programs what hardworking American
taxpayers should be funding?
But let me focus on Uganda because my colleague from Texas
raised that issue. A country that has thousands of soldiers
fighting for our counterterrorism interests against Al-Shabaab
in Somalia, and that country was severely punished by the Biden
administration for signing its anti-homosexuality law into law
in May 2023.
The Biden administration revoked Uganda's AGOA eligibility,
enacted visa restrictions on Uganda and individuals, and
pressured the World Bank to prohibit new public financing.
Despite this, USAID has provided a $600,000 grant to, quote,
empower Uganda's LGBT community to push back against this
legislation and a $5.4 million grant to shift public perception
and attitudes in Uganda toward LGBT acceptance and to train
LGBT individuals on the skills needed to engage in the economy.
Now in Uganda China is expected to finance the $5 billion
East African crude oil pipeline directly because Western
leaders and the World Bank are walking away from the project
because of the Biden administration's response to their own
domestic legislation.
Mr. Primorac, should taxpayer dollars go toward penalizing
countries like Uganda for making their own internal domestic
political decisions on social issues that one administration
doesn't agree with, which, in turn, strengthens countries'
relationships with our adversaries like the communists in
China?
Mr. Primorac. Congressman, I have spoken to many officials
from the region there, and they explained to me their shock
when they would prepare for meetings with Secretary Blinken.
They prepared about how can we work together to combat China,
actually.
But when they had the meeting, they were hit with the woke
things about the climate, about the LGBT, and all these issues.
They were utterly stunned that here they are, Africa. They know
about the challenge and the great GO strategic fight that we
have, ready to work with us, but we weren't ready to work with
them.
Mr. Barr. Well, look, I get it. The gentleman from Texas
disagrees with the Ugandan people. I get it. The Biden
administration disagreed with the Ugandan people and Secretary
Blinken and USAID in the previous administration, disagreed
with the Ugandan people on this issue of homosexuality
legislation. I get it.
The question is not their opinion. The question is what is
the diplomatic job of the State Department and USAID? Is it to
lecture the Ugandans, or is it to help us counter Belt and
Road? Is the job of the State Department and USAID to advance
American national security? That is the question.
And what they did in that instance with Uganda is
compromise American national security and empower our
adversary.
Representative Yoho, Ted, it is good to see you. Thank you
for your amazing work and your authorship of the Build Act. You
were instrumental in the passage of that bill and authorized
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. Can you see
DFC playing a much more effective role in advancing our
interests abroad and countering China's Belt and Road?
Mr. Yoho. Absolutely.
Mr. Barr. And if you could, how can reforms like equity
scoring and country eligibility changes help U.S. investments
in countries like Panama?
Mr. Yoho. It is a big reform. I mean, that is the best tool
we have to counter the BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative. And
the equity scoring is a must fix. It is something that has to
be because right now it limits what the DFC can do.
And then raising the country of eligibility allows us to go
into these countries strategically where we can counter the BRI
where we can't go now. And this is something that we are going
to talk about next money in the reauthorization. It is a
bipartisan effort, and there is a lot of support, but if we
don't do it, we are going to see that much more influence, and
it goes to people that aren't friendly to the United States.
Mr. Barr. Well, thanks for your leadership on that. And I
agree with you, move from aid to trade.
Mr. Yoho. To trade.
Mr. Barr. And thank you to President Trump for his
leadership on rooting out all of this waste and, frankly,
frankly activity that undermines our national security.
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
Votes have been called. We are going to go through one more
round of questions and then recess until the conclusion of
votes.
So Representative Cherfilus-McCormick, you will be the last
one to be recognized before we recess.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, ranking member. And thank you, everybody, for being
here.
USAID along with the State Department has been one of our
strongest mechanisms to secure the region and national security
and also build relationships throughout the entire world.
In Haiti, we have seen huge support and huge forward
movement when it comes to USAID providing an option for many
children who are either forced to join the gangs or face
starvation and their families dying. But USAID has stepped in
and actually gave them an option, which is to eat and provide
food.
We recently spoke with the World Health Organization and
other organizations that are there feeding people in Haiti, and
one of the things they brought up to us is that if they don't
have the funds by March, they will not have the option to start
feeding again and doing those programs in Haiti.
Although, there is a waiver, we have already talked about
at length about the problems with the waiver and them kicking
in back with the payment system. But we also have to talk about
how there is not enough people to be working at USAID right now
to facilitate that.
We have gotten several calls of people who are anxious
about what is going on, including people who are actually
sending food out through our ports in Palm Beach. We have heard
a lot of people wondering if their food is going to be sent.
Farmers now are worried. We have over 23 farmers that are being
impacted in the State of Florida.
So I have a question for you. My question is I think we all
can come together and agree that auditing USAID is actually a
good thing. We can talk about where we agree and disagree.
However, the real issue is implementation. We are finding that
this implementation is creating extensive collateral damage to
American citizens and also to our partners, and we are also
finding that some of this damage is irrefutable harm, meaning
that we just can't fix it by giving them money.
We are hearing more and more about people who are exposed
and who need lifesaving treatment who are not getting it
despite the waivers. And so I believe that the strength of our
Nation is us following that constitutional privilege of us
embodying and allowing Congress to actually determine the
implementation.
So I want to know from you how much of USAID's programs are
actually lifesaving programs?
Mr. Natsios. Of the $38 billion last year, 15 billion was
humanitarian assistance and emergency famine relief, disasters,
civil wars; 8 billion was for health. Most, except for the
family planning program, which the last time I checked was 275
million, most of the health programs were lifesaving.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And so do you believe that if
Congress----
Mr. Natsios. That is about 55 percent of the budget.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So do you believe if Congress
actually had the opportunity to do its role in actually
crafting out the implementation over DOGE, do you believe that
we would have been able to substantiate or even to make sure
that many people who are being harmed right now are not being
harmed?
Mr. Natsios. Well, there is a problem now that people who
are being denied, who can't get the anti-retrovirals because
the system is shut down, there is violence against the AID
workers and against our AID offices.
There was an incident just now in Kinshasa, the capital of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo where the AID officers had
to take their family and go across to Brazzaville, across the
river to another country because they were under attack for
people who thought they were going to die because they couldn't
get this aid.
There is a whole bunch of articles on this. This is not a
small incident. This was very, very serious. Some of the
embassy people were under attack, too.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Well, thank you so much for
identifying that because USAID is not a faucet that you can
turn on and off. You cannot pause it and then turn it on and
think that there will be no damage.
However, I do have confidence that if Congress had the
opportunity, instead of DOGE, that we could have worked across
the aisle to identify what would have been the consequences
and, in fact, protect not just our farmers but the people who
are using it.
We are hearing more and more stories about people who are
actually losing their lives because they were part of an
experimental program, they were part of the USAID program. Even
hearing stories about people who have objects and instruments
that are still in their body, and because there is a stop
order, they cannot remove them.
And so as we move forward, I would like for us to focus on
what is the strength of our Nation. Us being able to work
together and identify how we can actually promote the agenda of
the United States but still preserve our compassion. And I have
full faith and confidence that if we had the opportunity to do
our constitutional duty as Members of Congress, working with
the chairman, who I have worked with several times before, and
I believe he is a compassionate person, that we would have saw
what was happening and prevented any kind of collateral damage
to our farms, to our districts, to our ports, especially the
loss of life.
So as we go forward, I think we should stop focusing on a
few programs, which we may disagree on, but focus on how we can
regain ourselves internationally because every single day that
we actually have these arguments and funding isn't going out,
China is stepping in. Russia is stepping in. And what they are
telling them is that we are not reliable, that we will not be
there, that we will start and we will stop and people will get
hurt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, representative.
We do have time to do one other round of questioning before
we recess for votes, and so we are going to recognize
Representative Salazar.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to the witnesses.
My name is Maria Salazar. I am the chairman of the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee here in the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, and I am very distraught because some of the
programs that we have been talking about come from the region
that I represent. Many people in South Florida come from those
countries of origin, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Peru.
So I understand, Mr. Natsios, that you do not agree with
the way that Elon Musk has conducted his investigation into
USAID, but I do believe, you know,coming from the world of
television, that you are judged by the results not by the
process. And Musk has discovered things that are completely and
absolutely embarrassing and specifically in the region that I
am saying that I am representing, a lot of constituents.
So I just want to salute you because you said that you did
the job, you were the administrator, that you went line by
line, that you were cleaning up the different programs, that
you took your job very seriously. But, apparently, we are in
different times.
And I am just going to share with you within the time that
I have three programs coming from Latin America, which I think
are highly embarrassing. Let's start with Venezuela. And here
is the video that chairman played before.
You know, Venezuelans, they are fleeing Marxism. They are
hungry. The average Venezuelan weighs 15 pounds less because of
lack of food. We know that Chavez has destroyed the country.
They make it to Ecuador. They are tired. And then they
encounter the United States, which is the beacon of hope, is
offering this program to become a drag queen.
So I think there is something wrong with that picture. And
I am not sure if we can play it again, but I just wanted your
opinion.
Mr. Natsios. Well, that particular program was a State
Department program, and I have great respect for the State
Department, but I think it is troubling they did it, to be very
frank with you.
Ms. Salazar. So you do not agree with those $35,000
invested----
Mr. Natsios. No, I don't. I think we should stick with our
basic mission.
Ms. Salazar. But you agree that they have not. Not under
you but----
Mr. Natsios. Oh, no, they have not, and I think that needs
to be changed.
Ms. Salazar. I just want to hear your thoughts because,
unfortunately, time is of the essence.
$2 million for Native Indians in Guatemala. You know,
President Giammattei called me. I mean, I have never had a
President from a country saying I don't want the United States'
money. I mean, highly conservative. These are the Native
Indians in Guatemala, people who are just, you know, flipping
the tortillas, and they just want to learn how to do a job, not
sex change surgeries.
What do you think about that?
Mr. Natsios. That is beyond what the USAID mission is. I
don't think----
Ms. Salazar. Good. That is all we need to know.
Peru, in the Amazon. This is the jungle. This is not Jeff
Bezos' Amazon. This is like where people have harsh conditions.
They need mosquito nets to fight malaria.
So $25,000 for diversity recruitment events. What is a
diversity recruitment event in the middle of the jungle?
Mr. Natsios. I have no idea.
Congresswoman, just one comment. You can move AID to do
what you want by hiring a development professional, a
conservative who knows how to manage a large complex operation.
Mark Green was such a person, okay, under Trump.
Ms. Salazar. But then what happened between your time and
this time? Tell me. What happened?
Mr. Natsios. Well, politics gets involved.
Ms. Salazar. Oh, politics.
But then Elon Musk comes and tries to clean politics and go
back to the original mission of the program. Is that correct?
Mr. Natsios. I think it would be useful if Musk and some of
his staff would go to the field and see the projects.
Ms. Salazar. Well, I am not sure--wait, wait, wait. I am
sure they don't have time, sir, to do that. But what I am
saying is that he did something that, according to what you
just explained, brings benefits to the USAID programs.
Mr. Natsios. USAID staff do what the political appointees
tell them to do.
Ms. Salazar. Well, Okay.
Mr. Natsios. They don't initiate these things.
Ms. Salazar. They don't.
Mr. Natsios. No.
Ms. Salazar. So that means that all those directives came
from the White House?
Mr. Natsios. The White House, yes, and the State
Department.
Ms. Salazar. Okay. But then the White House--the State
Department responds to the White House.
So you are telling me that under the Biden administration,
USAID lost its course? Yes or no?
Mr. Natsios. I think AID needs to be more independent of
the political wars in Washington.
Ms. Salazar. You just told me that the State Department is
the one that directs?
Mr. Natsios. Yes.
Ms. Salazar. Okay. And the State Department responds to the
White House?
Mr. Natsios. That is correct.
Ms. Salazar. All right. So that means then that the White
House gave the wrong directives to USAID.
Mr. Natsios. In my view. In my view.
Ms. Salazar. In your view, good. Thank you. Well, that is
all we needed to know.
So now we have a new sheriff in town called Donald Trump
and then that guy brought another guy called Elon Musk to do
the job, something that no one else has done before. So why do
we need to criticize him?
Mr. Natsios. Because he doesn't know anything about
development. He may be a genius at technology. He does not know
anything about development.
Ms. Salazar. Wait, wait, wait. Development has nothing to
do with what is the mission statement for USAID. Secure,
prosper, and value, American values. $2 million for the Native
Indians in Guatemala to change their sex surgeries has nothing
to do with that.
Mr. Natsios. $15 billion was spent on humanitarian
assistance and emergencies in refugee camps. There is
particular skills you learn in doing that. I did that. I know
what that is.
Ms. Salazar. I understand but you are talking about what
works. I am talking about what does not work.
Chairman Mast. The gentlelady's time expired.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you. I appreciated it, chairman.
Thank you, sir, for your time, too.
Chairman Mast. I will also let you know, Ms. Salazar, that
I have had numerous calls from Ambassadors during the Biden
administration who intend to provide us with the reprimands
that they wrote against career employees who were undermining
their work, doing these programs that they didn't want but did
them anyway, and the administration didn't care. And we look
forward to bringing those things to light as well.
We are going to recess, as votes have been called, as I
mentioned. We are going to recess until 10:50, and we will look
forward to returning.
The committee stands in recess.
Chairman Mast. The committee will come to order.
The chair now recognizes Representative Kamlager-Dove for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair and to the Ranking
Member.
You know, I have noticed a theme with Republican hearing
titles that always seem to have one word of truth in them, but
they are strung together by callous duplicity, or as the chair
said, lies. ``Betrayal'' is the word of truth today, and it is
an incredibly accurate description of what Musk, Trump, and
silent Republicans are doing to the American people. By
unilaterally dismantling our entire foreign assistance
apparatus, you have endangered every American who relies on
that system to keep them safe from global crises and that
relies on them to feed their own family.
Not only that, but you have betrayed some of the
stakeholders that I thought my colleagues cared most about, our
farmers, our veterans, faith-based groups, diaspora communities
in all of our districts, and the Constitution. Not to mention
the people who have tragically died because you have ripped
away the lifesaving assistance they need to survive, and for no
good reason.
I was struck by the opening remarks of the chair. The chair
mentioned helping people to vote, and why do Republicans not
support the right to vote. There was a reference to all of
these small dollars going to people in need who just happened
to be of the LGBTQ community. And why are the Republicans, who
actually crashed Grindr, the gay dating app, during the RNC, so
focused on the LGBTQ community?
But let's circle back to what the real betrayal looks like.
First, there is the fact that Elon Musk ripped up the
Constitution and our system of checks and balances by illegally
dismantling USAID with zero congressional input. Congress is
not a peanut gallery. It has constitutional oversight
authorities that have been categorically violated. But this
weaponization of government has been met with deafening
silence. Betrayal.
And now to the so-called woke programming. The farmers.
USAID's humanitarian assistance is a major source of income for
American farmers, $2.1 billion in 2020. Farmers supply 41
percent of the food aid that USAID uses to feed starving people
around the world, meaning that farmers' livelihoods directly
benefit from these programs. The foreign aid freeze rips away
their incomes while condemning vulnerable people to famine.
Betrayal.
And veterans. American servicemembers fought for decades in
Afghanistan. Many of them are only alive today because of the
heroic service of Afghan interpreters, like my brother-in-law
who served. And these folks we have worked with tirelessly to
evacuate to the United States, but Trump canceled the refugee
admissions program and left them behind, abandoned by the very
people who use them for political gain and then rip the rug out
from underneath them at the first chance they got. Betrayal.
And then the Christians. USAID supports numerous faith-
based groups in implementing humanitarian assistance in some of
the world's worst hotspots, because their faith teaches them
that every human life has dignity, is sacred, and is worth
saving. Cutting off aid has forced massive layoffs at these
organizations and desecrated their life's work. I guess no one
cares about religious freedom when it interferes with a
billionaire's political agenda. Betrayal.
And diaspora communities. USAID's support for Pakistani
democracy organizations and flood relief efforts is now gone.
Students in Burma benefiting from USAID scholarships have now
been deprived of a better future. Venezuelans who relied on
USAID-funded integration services to build a life outside of
Maduro's oppressive regime are now left in the lurch, and the
Republicans are deporting them back into terror. You can claim
to support any of these communities. How you can do that is
beyond me. It is hypocrisy and it is betrayal.
And, finally, the American people. Every American is less
safe today because USAID is not out in the field stopping
crises from reaching our shores. If there was a pandemic-like
disease outbreak that risks spreading to our shores, we could
not respond. If there is a natural disaster in Mexico or the
Caribbean that would drive people to our border, we could not
respond. The dismantling of those protections is an unequivocal
betrayal of the American people. Oh, but what about that new
$400 million contract the State Department is just signing with
Tesla for cyber trucks, because I guess people need cyber
trucks more than they need malaria pills.
So now to my questions, if I have time.
Mr. Yoho, in your testimony you touched on the important
work of American farmers and the work of American universities
and USAID Feed the Future Innovation Labs. What capabilities do
we lose domestically, and what domestic constituencies do we
hurt by eliminating these programs?
Mr. Yoho. Those are important programs that have worked,
and by this pause that we have right now, I think the goal is,
instead of putting blame everywhere, we focus on how we get
these things back online to do the work they have done. If you
like at like the RUTF program, the ready-to-use therapeutic
food program, that saved over 17 million people, children, and
it sources products from 27 different States in America that
provide, you know, income for our farmers, you know. And those
are things that we need to get back online as soon as we can.
And I think you will see that.
You know, there is a reset. It had to happen, you know.
Shame on us when I was in Congress that we didn't do these
things earlier. It is done. Can't go back. We can only go
forward.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you
for the time, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Mast. You are welcome.
And in answer to the question, the reason LGBTQ is the
focus is because that is what became the focus of USAID and
State Department. It was not the exception; it was the rule. We
are just reading off the lists of grants and pages and pages
and pages more.
I now recognize Representative Kim for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Mast, for holding this
hearing. I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us
today.
The U.S. foreign assistance has long been a very powerful,
soft power tool to advance our American leadership by building
trust with our allies, promoting democracy, stabilizing
terrorism-prone regions, and providing market access for
American businesses. However, we have seen serious and credible
cases of wasteful uses of American taxpayer funds abroad. For
example, $2.5 million was sent through USAID to build the
electric vehicle charging stations in Vietnam. How is this
spending critical to U.S. national security or advancing our
American interests? They are not. Unfortunately, these cases of
unproductive spending abroad undermine the many targeted,
valuable, and effective foreign assistance programs that are
essential to our national security.
Mr. Yoho, as you know very well, the strategic competition
with China and its Belt and Road Initiative is a top priority
for the East Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee that you once
chaired and I now currently chair. Xi Jinping is watching and
he is waiting for the chance to fill any U.S. vacuum. And
already there have been many reports of Chinese Communist Party
officials signaling their willingness to replace USAID in Nepal
and de-mining activities in Cambodia, and these are just the
instances that we know about. Even critics of USAID acknowledge
the critical soft power value of targeted and efficient
programming.
So let me ask you, if USAID is fully merged into the State
Department, what specific authorities will the State
Department's Bureau of East Asia and the Pacific need to
effectively implement USAID programs to directly counter CCP's
influence in the region, such as training journalists to expose
illegal CCP information tactics or strengthening critical
infrastructures there?
Mr. Yoho. I think the important thing they can do is get it
back online as quick as they can and put people--authorize them
to get back into the field, the implementers. The State
Department might can do that, but I don't know if they have the
bandwidth or if they have the expertise and the capability. The
people that were there on the ground with USAID, as
Administrator Natsios said, these are the people that have
institutional knowledge and they know how to do that.
They are not Rs or Ds; they are mission driven. And I think
we can get some of those people back in there that are experts
in their field to move America's agenda forward of are we going
to be safer, are we going to be stronger, and are we going to
be more prosperous, and if we do that, those countries will be
too, and it counters China. And if we are not there, China will
be there.
Mrs. Kim. Sure. So I am glad that Secretary Rubio issued
waivers for lifesaving humanitarian assistance programs.
However, I am also hearing many concerns regarding the lack of
clarity on those scope of the waivers and challenges with
getting paused programs restarted. It is hard to restart them
if we completely turn the lights off, right.
So what recommendations do you have for the administration
to ensure an effective waiver process?
Mr. Yoho. Again, moving forward, I think the quickest thing
they can do and the most effective thing is identify the
program that you want to do and then put the people in there
that know how to implement that. That could be at State. There
is people at USAID, and I know there is this big black eye on
USAID, but I think we need to look at what they did do good.
You know, it is like a cake recipe; one drop of kerosene in
a cake batter ruins the whole thing. So what happened and what
has been exposed doesn't mean the whole thing was bad. And like
I said, not all aid programs are good, not all of them are bad.
Let's take the good ones and implement them as quickly as we
can so we do not cede that ground to China, Russia, anybody
that doesn't like us.
Mrs. Kim. Thank you.
I would like to ask a question to Mr. Primorac. What
specific reforms can be implemented so the current audit and
review processes ensure programming aligns with our U.S.
national interests?
Mr. Primorac. I think transparency is probably the most
important. We have various websites where we are supposed to
provide information to the American public as to what we are
doing in all of these different countries, whether it is
grants.gov or foreignassistance.gov, but it is not
consolidated. And too often, actually probably most of the
time, we don't have information as to who are the awardees, who
are the sub awardees. If those are made available--and not only
to Congress, they should be made available to the American
people--I think by having this kind of transparency that a lot
of these bad things happening, people will be a little bit more
careful because they know lots of people are watching.
Mrs. Kim. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. My time
is up.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Kim.
The chair now recognizes Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here.
You know, we have heard a lot this morning kind of cherry-
picking programs out of context and then a very narrow view and
some that just aren't true about the bad things and the weird
stuff that USAID has been supporting. There are programs in the
Department of Agriculture that I bet we could pull out that
show a waste of money in some weird programs that I certainly
don't support, but I am not calling for the dissolution of the
Department of Agriculture.
It is kind of like Mr. Natsios said, if there is a problem
or you don't like a certain kind of program, you can fix that,
you can address it, you can discuss it and talk about how to
make it better. But you don't destroy it. You don't just throw
the baby out with the bath. So why would we do that with USAID
when the programs that it does support are so much better, so
much more extensive, so much more productive than some of these
little things that you have been hearing ad nauseam from the
other side of the aisle.
One of the areas that I am particularly interested in that
you have heard less about is how USAID supports democracy
around the world, whether it is backsliding in some countries
or whether it is just trying to develop democratic institutions
in others. People are on the front lines in very dangerous
situations often trying to push democratic principles, and we
have a number of programs through USAID that helps with that
development.
Mr. Natsios, would you talk about what happens when we pull
out and when it comes to development of countries that would be
friendly toward us or would be more democratic, what happens to
those people who are on the ground? We know that this is a
great source of soft diplomacy, soft power. We have heard
generals say every dollar you spend on something like this is a
dollar you don't spend on bullets and soldiers having to go and
fight a hot war. But if we are not there, what are the
consequences for democratic development?
Mr. Natsios. My view is that the AID missions in the field
are our greatest strength. Two-thirds of the staff of AID are
not Americans. They are Kenyans or Nigerians. They are
Cambodians. They are Moroccans, wherever you are. And many of
them go on to be the heads of State, believe it or not.
Ms. Titus. I do believe it.
Mr. Natsios. The first woman head of State in Costa Rica
was an FSN with AID for 10 years. The first woman Vice
President in El Salvador was an FSN with AID. The First Lady of
Peru was a FSN. Her husband got a Ph.D. from the University of
Chicago in economics. He was the President of Peru and the
first Inca President in history of the country. All of them
devoted to the United States, all of them right of center and
honest people.
I was in Macedonia just before 9/11, met with and two FSNs
I said, any of you ever run for office? Both of them one--had
just got elected to parliament, and they said, we ran on the
platform that we work for USAID.
So not having our missions in the field has unintended
consequences, because we are a recruitment ground for leaders
in the developing world who are pro-American. Wouldn't it be
better to have someone who got their degree in the United
States rather than Beijing to be the head of State somewhere? I
think it is.
We have a story from Nigeria just a couple years ago,
during COVID, where the minister of health was presented with a
Chinese vaccine, Russian vaccine, or our vaccines. The minister
himself said, I got my Ph.D. in the United States--or M.D. In
an AID scholarship. We are going with the American vaccines. In
fact, I didn't want these other vaccines in the country. And
they bought them. This is not just a contribution.
So having the missions in the field, having scholarships--
having relationships with these countries through the missions
is very important to build trust. And, in my view, shutting
them all down is not in our national interest.
I understand that Secretary Rubio has sent out a message
saying none of the FSNs will be laid off. They will be
integrated into the embassy. But they have to have Foreign
Service Officers from AID or people who know development, know
procurement, and understand all of the rules to manage them.
They can't do a lot of the stuff on their own.
So one last comment about democracy. I am a little
troubled, because I am looking at the patterns of what has been
canceled. All the democracy programs and governance programs
have been canceled.
Ms. Titus. Exactly.
Mr. Natsios. And I am a little--I hope that is not a
deliberate decision. Maybe I am misreading it.
Ms. Titus. I don't think so.
Mr. Natsios. But if that is the case, it is a disaster,
because people around the world who want democracy and want
freedom rely on us. They look to the United States. They
certainly don't look to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran,
the CRINK alliance as we call them in the Pentagon. They are
our enemies. They are not our friends. And we need to support
those democratic forces around the world, in my view.
Ms. Titus. I agree. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Titus.
The chair now recognizes Representative Davidson.
Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman. And, look, I appreciate
this hearing. It is certainly timely.
When we talk about woke and weaponized governments, it is
easy to get desensitized to the long list of frivolous,
frankly, pretty radical programs that are being exposed, you
know, stuff like $1.5 million for DEI in Serbia, $47,000 for
transgender operas in Colombia, $2 million--the former
Ambassador to Guatemala talked to me about this, $2 million for
transgender surgeries in a conservative country like Guatemala.
It is a long list.
I mean, USAID funded scholarships for people who became
terrorists, like Anwar al-Awlaki. We have sent--under the guise
of USAID, we sent money to UNRWA, which returned funds directly
to Hamas. In blatant violation of U.S. law, the Helms
amendment, PEPFAR has funded abortions and killed babies. What
is happening in Africa is just the tip of the pro-abortion
iceberg that the Biden administration weaponized aid agencies
into. It also happens to be against the law that Congress has
passed.
So USAID funded independent media, so-called, in Hungary,
but it was actually trying to run a color revolution playbook
to overturn the government, very popular government, of Prime
Minister Viktor Orban, who is a NATO ally. So let's be clear,
this color cultural revolution playbook hasn't just been
weaponized against allies in foreign countries; it has been
brought home and weaponized against our own citizens right
here.
If you had unapproved opinions of COVID vaccines or origins
of COVID or maybe the Hunter Biden laptop story, there was
almost certainly a puppet NGO working overtime on taxpayer
dollars--which contradicts the word ``NGO'' in the first
place--you know, to shut down or de-platform speech in America.
That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
So, look, our staff has heard every day from--terrible
stories about the abuse of our government in conflict with our
own national interest in places like Uganda, where if they
don't embrace aborting babies, they will be retaliated against
and have aid taken away from them. I mean, coercive activities.
So thank goodness President Trump has brought us back into
the Geneva Consensus Declaration, protecting life, building
pro-life, and other values that align with America First
policies. They advance our interests, but they also help our
allies advance their interests, and that is probably the most--
it is terrible to waste the money, but it is also terrible to
not just waste it but to actually work against the interests of
the United States.
So, look, I agree that there is probably some things--and
we will get to those things--that are good, but when you have a
completely nonresponsive agency actively working to undermine
the guidance that Congress is giving them, they don't steer.
So, last July, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a colleague of ours,
introduced an amendment to defund USAID, and the amendment was
defeated 81 to 331. Now, I voted yes, but 331 colleagues were
opposed to this, you know, somewhat radical change. I bet the
vote would be different today. But thanks, Secretary Rubio is
going to take charge and say, yes, we are going to do the good
things. We are just going to turn it off and we are going to
clean house. And I think that is where they were. We knew there
were abuses there, but, you know, that is what we are up
against, folks.
So let's just--you know, Mr. Primorac, you have written
about disgraceful efforts in the Biden administration to bully
conservative countries into accepting radical gender theory,
abortion policies, a far-left agenda. In a piece last year, you
wrote that East African faith leaders viewed USAID staff as,
quote, missionaries of evil because the Biden administration
hijacked popular aid programs to promote their agenda. Could
you elaborate on that?
Mr. Primorac. Yes. I have been to--I traveled to Africa a
couple of times last year and spoken to many of them who visit
here in the United States. And many of them, like me, remember
the 1990's where I was involved in democracy development and we
helped turn the former Warsaw countries into allies of the
United States. But these were values that were akin to our bill
of rights. Things have really radically changed a lot.
I have spoken to a lot of faith-based organizations that
are feeding Hungary. In Kenya, for instance, they have so many
refugees from surrounding countries. Some of these diocese,
they simply will not take U.S. funding because it is tied to
all--it had been tied to all of these things. I did a--I
monitored a--or moderated a panel on Africa at Liberty
University, and a Governor from north--the northern part of
Nigeria had a conversation with Samantha Power, who told her
that you have to tie food to aid with all of this other woke
stuff and LGBTQ----
Mr. Davidson. Yes. Crazy leverage. And, look, I wish I
could talk more. And I will submit questions for the record,
because, Mr. Yoho, look, nevertheless, there are certain things
post USAID's demise and the imminent funeral for this Agency
that we might want to keep intact, so how do we advance our
interests. I look forward to collaborating with you all, and I
yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
The chair now recognizes Representative Amo.
Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that this hearing is called the
USAID betrayal, because Donald Trump betrayed USAID. He
betrayed the Agency's mission and its employees. He betrayed
the American workers and the businesses supported by USAID
contracts. And he betrayed the literal starving children who
rely on food from USAID to stave off hunger.
I would like to highlight a few of the groups that
Republicans are leaving out in the cold with this freeze. Let's
start with the USAID employees. Americans around the world,
they feel abandoned by our government saying, quote, We have
lost contact with Washington. We are on our own. Some USAID
employees, again, Americans, have been forced to flee the
country where they worked after protests over frozen aid turned
violent.
What does it say about us when we turn our backs on our own
citizens, these global helpers who are just doing their job?
But the betrayal extends to every American worker who relies on
USAID, including American farmers, manufacturers, and
universities. In my home State, the University of Rhode Island
works with USAID to improve aquatic food systems and fight food
insecurity. Right now, the university is unable to access
nearly $300,000 they are owed. Let me repeat, universities are
being stiffed for work they have already completed, and that
was before the funding freeze.
What kind of government refuses to pay its debts? You know,
it might be a government led by a multitime bankrupt
billionaire, I suppose. But of all the people affected, the
worst impact of this betrayal fall on those who rely on USAID
for food and medical care. People are already dying because of
the aid freeze. As you heard earlier, yesterday we learned that
a 70-year-old woman in Thailand died because the aid freeze
cutoff her oxygen supply and her access to care.
Whether from lack of medical attention or from starvation,
more people will die because of Trump's decision and my
colleagues on the other side having a collective silence. It is
mind-boggling. This food aid was funded. Some of it was already
purchased. It is ready to feed starving people. As this
inspector general report finds, right here, before they were
fired, USAID stop work orders jeopardized nearly $500 million
in food assistance, leaving 500,000 metric tons of American-
grown food at risk of spoiling. Look, if DOGE wants to
eliminate waste, it can start with the lifesaving food that is
literally rotting in our ports because of Trump's betrayal.
This administration has failed us. It has compromised our
national security. We beat our chests about national security.
This is hurting it. Adversaries like China and Russia are
salivating at our retreat. They are reaching out to our allies
and partners to undermine our work across the world.
Republicans are abandoning global health work. That is an
insane decision after a global health pandemic that we have
recently experienced.
Right now, there is a deadly Ebola outbreak in Uganda,
where more than a dozen Americans are exposed to this fatal
virus. But where is the United States? Nowhere to be found.
Look, I worked on President Obama's response to Ebola
domestically and President Biden's response to COVID when I
worked at the White House in two stints, and the No. 1 lesson
from the pandemic playbook is that we must contain the virus
before it kills more people and makes its way to the United
States. It is in our best interest to get involved.
So I know I am running short on time, but former
Administrator Natsios, if you could answer quickly, do any of
the betrayals that I have explained here today make America
safer or promote America's values abroad?
Mr. Natsios. I do believe that a robust foreign aid program
properly managed is in our national interest. I wrote an
article for Foreign Affairs that came out 2 weeks ago, February
7, with a realist policy, not a liberal internationalist
policy, on how we should run our aid program during this period
of great power rivalry. The basic argument is that humanitarian
assistance in health should be based on need only.
All the rest of it should be based on the following
standards. One is, there are 14 chokepoints in the high seas
that control the food supply of the world. We should have AID
missions in these countries. We do in Egypt. It is not just
because Israel's security is connected to Egypt's; it is
because the Suez Canal is there. Morocco, they are not going to
change the geography of the Gibraltar Straits.
AID had a mission in Panama, and we left because it is a
middle-income country. We should not have left, in my view.
There should be a permanent mission in Panama because the
Panama Canal is not going to go away. When we left, guess who
moved in? The Chinese do. And who is upset with us now?
Properly so, is the President. We should have had a large AID
mission permanently in Panama. I went down there with my
university, and they all wanted it. They didn't want us to
leave.
So I think we need to place our missions more
strategically. The area around Russia and China are under
severe stress. All of the Central Asian countries want a larger
aids mission. You know the Kazakhs, Kazakhstan, we were going
to move out, and the President said, we will pay for half of
it. I said, what? It is an aid program. He said, we don't want
you to leave, Mr. Natsios. We want aid here. We want the United
States here. And we value what you are doing, so we will pay
from our gas revenues half of the cost of the aid program.
Chairman Mast. I thank the gentleman for his response. The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Amo. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter in the
article from which I cited.
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
Chairman Mast. The gentleman may want to find a time to
apologize on Twitter or somewhere else to the administration,
or thank the administration, as $6 million-plus, as one
example, has gone to the WFP, the World Food Program; $250,000
in one line item for Ebola response; another $1.5 million for
Ebola response; another $250,000 for Ebola response. The list
goes on and on. Those are programs that have moved forward, and
it goes exactly to your point of being more strategic, not
doing the absurd, crazy BS that has been done in the past. It
all comes to an end, and can't wait to have the people come
here and literally stand before us and answer for the craziness
they have been doing.
Representative Baird is recognized.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and
thank the witnesses for being here.
And, Dr. Yoho, it is always good when I can see you. But,
you know, I want to express that the American people really
deserve not to have their tax dollars spent on the programs
that Chairman Mast mentioned earlier in his opening statement.
And I really appreciated Emeritus McCaul reminding us about how
the USAID came about, and it was really and easily created, as
was said, to combat the Soviet Union and their efforts to
spread communism around the world.
So it is disappointing to hear about the billions of
dollars being distributed to foreign countries, and some of
those are our adversaries, without really accomplishing our
mission. So we have people here at home that are really
struggling, for example, those that are still sleeping in tents
after some of the hurricanes and it is cold wintertime. And so
I think you can recognize, and I am sure you recognize, the
importance of taking care of our own people.
But, anyway, Dr. Yoho, thank you for your service in the
113th Congress. And I am interested in agriculture, just as I
know you are. So I would really be interested to hear your
perspective as a veterinarian on the impact of early detection
of zoonotic diseases and the development of early detection in
vaccines for controlling some of these diseases.
Mr. Yoho. Sure. Thanks for that question, because it is
very important.
You know, there are so many things that are going around.
The things that affect people in pandemics and epidemics and
things like that originate in the animal world, the zoonotics.
There is 27 viral families that come through, and we saw the
effect of COVID. I mean, COVID is in the animal world. It is in
the human world.
The thing we are looking at now is H5N1, the highly
pathogenic avian influenza. We are seeing it mutate and get
into the mammals, from the birds to the dairy cattle to the
feline population into the porcine population and into the
human population. This is a very dangerous virus if it gains a
hold in the human population and can get to the point of
transmission the way influenza viruses did.
COVID, as bad as it was, had about a 97 percent recovery
rate. You get one of these bad strains of influenza or the
Marburg virus that is showing up or a new strain of Ebola, they
have a 40 to 50 percent death rate. What we went through with
COVID was bad enough, but it is nothing like what we are going
to see. And the research that we do through organizations like
our land grant universities, those are the ones that are on the
cutting edge of this.
But then you have multifunded donor international
organizations like CEPI, the Coalition Epidemic Preparedness
Innovators. They are doing research on the emerging viruses so
that we can have the platform for the vaccines to be developed
ahead of time. And this is--that platform, the United States
provides about 5 percent of their funding, roughly $170 million
over the last 5 years out of a budget that they have of about
little over $4 trillion--or, yes, $4 billion. The amazing thing
is, we have received about $1.25 billion back here in the
United States of America. They are going to our research
universities, our biotech parks to do this advanced research,
and that leads to global health and national health, and you
can't have national security if you don't have health security.
Mr. Baird. So could you--are you supportive of the idea
that having people in some of these foreign countries allows us
to have early detection into these----
Mr. Yoho. It really does. And I think, as Administrator
Natsios brought up, if we have missions in these, we can
monitor the spread of that. And they are the first ones--if
they are trained in the medical field and they can follow these
things, we can see where it is breaking out. We can do the
mitigation of quarantining that area before it gets to a
pandemic. And it is--again, this is national security. We don't
want to cloud the good that they do with some of these programs
that we heard that were abused. That should never have
happened, because that ruins the whole credibility of us. It
ruins credibility of the AID arm of the United States of
America, and it is--that is all I am going to say.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Do either one of the other witnesses have a comment? We
have got about 28 seconds left.
Mr. Natsios. I agree with every single word of what Dr.
Yoho just said.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you.
Mr. Natsios. He is absolutely correct.
Mr. Baird. That is good.
Mr. Natsios. I didn't think of adding in the zoonotic, the
animal diseases, just from a veterinary point of view, in terms
of monitoring. That is a very good idea.
Mr. Yoho. Stick around, we will help you.
Mr. Primorac. I would just add that, though these are
important ideas, but we also have to strengthen the capability
of other countries to be able to do it on their own, countries
in Africa and Latin America. Year after year, we are spending a
ton of money, and we are not getting ownership from these
countries, and that, to me, is a better, more mature
relationship. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
My time is up, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
The chair now recognizes Representative Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the past 2 weeks, the Trump administration and
unelected billionaire Elon Musk have led a reckless and illegal
attack on USAID, freezing funds for an agency that in the past
words of the Republicans' own witness, Mr. Primorac, quote,
increase countries' self-reliance and resilience all while
advancing American values and interests. Stopping USAID's work
jeopardizes millions of lives and billions of dollars of
investments in American small businesses and farms, all while
undermining our national security, diplomatic efforts, and
global influence.
It is great to be on this committee. Before coming to
Congress, I actually spent many years working for a Seattle-
based global health nonprofit organization that employs about
1,600 people in my district as well as around the world. And
many of our partners were USAID funded, and so I got to see
firsthand the direct impact of effective USAID programs and
lifesaving work all over the world.
The devastation that is being caused by this irresponsible
funding freeze is alarming and painful. Even though Secretary
Rubio did backtrack from Trump's order and said that lifesaving
humanitarian work would be exempt from the freeze on foreign
aid through a complicated waiver process, that process has been
a mess. Funding has stayed frozen even for programs with a
waiver. And now there is a new directive that, again, puts any
approvals for these waivers on hold. Drug deliveries have been
stopped, lifesaving food is rotting at ports, and we have
abandoned people with experimental drugs and medical products
in their bodies, cutting them off from the researchers who
supervise their care.
So let's be clear, this conspiracy theory-driven
liquidation by DOGE is about trying to come up with spending
cuts--that is the other committee I am running back and forth
between--however minor in the grand scheme of things that they
hope will finance the extension of Trump tax scam 2.0, the
effort to make American taxpayers pay for tax cuts for the
wealthiest.
Dangerously, it is also about fueling an erroneous belief
that America spends too much on foreign aid that does not serve
American interests. If you ask any American--or the average
American in this country how much we spend, they will say 25
percent of our Federal budget is going to foreign aid. And I
will say, I will tell you what, give me a number that you would
be willing to spend on foreign aid and we will agree to spend
it. And they will say 10 percent. But guess what? We actually
don't even spend three-quarters of 1 percent of our entire
Federal budget on foreign assistance. And so the reality is
that USAID spends much less than most Americans think, and the
impact for that tiny amount of money is extremely important for
our diplomatic efforts, for our national security, and for our
relationships and global presence on the stage.
Mr. Natsios, you are the former Massachusetts Republican
Party chair. You served as the U.S. administrator under George
W. Bush. Can you briefly explain why the average American
should care about USAID money and work, and what are the
benefits to the average American? And I have a couple questions
for you, so just be brief, please.
Mr. Natsios. So the first thing is, we can't shut ourselves
off from the world because our borders--we have a huge problem
at the border. I have no doubt that that is a legitimate issue.
We need to deal with it. But I will tell you what is going to
happen once the border is impregnable, they are going to come
through the coastline. And you can't put walls up for the whole
coastline of the United States. It is too big.
I live in the coast in the summertime. We even live in
Texas, but in the summertime we live in Maine, because it is a
little hot in Texas, and I don't want walls up on the coastline
in Maine. So how do you deal with that? You make sure that if
famines are starting, you stop them before they get ahead. You
know what people--at the end of any famine, people start moving
en masse. When you have an earthquake, as we did in Haiti, what
did people do? They start leaving the island. Where do they
come? They come to the United States, not through the border,
along the coast.
So we need a presence in the world to reduce forced
migration. This is the biggest forced migration crisis in the
history since World War II. 125 million people are now not
where they intend to be. They are refugees. They are internally
displaced.
No. 2, we already went through the diseases. It is not an
American interest to have a disease get out of control because
it is going to be a catastrophe for all of us. And Dr. Yoho is
absolutely correct, this pandemic was nowhere near as bad at
1918. Five percent of the world's population died in 1918 in 6
months.
Ms. Jayapal. I am going to stop you because I have one more
question before I get to the end of my time.
The waivers. Secretary Rubio said these waivers are there.
Are they working? Even in PEPFAR, are they working? Are we
getting money to these lifesaving programs?
Mr. Natsios. I have spoken to the Christian NGO's, because
I know them, that is the community I come from, and they said
they appreciate the waivers. They have the waivers. But there
is no money flowing to them. That is what they told me.
Ms. Jayapal. A waiver doesn't feed families.
Mr. Natsios. And there is no reason why--many of them are
old friends of mine. They would not make this up.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you.
I just want to congratulate RFK who has just been confirmed
by the Senate. Say congratulations, speaking of health.
And say now Representative Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is an advantage to being this far down the dais.
There is too much material to cover that has come out of this
briefing. So to my colleagues on the other side, they like to
talk about this firing of the IGs. They forget the 2022 law
that specifically says 30 days paid then you can be fired. And
then the unelected people that are working in the executive
branch, as far as I know, there are only two elected people
throughout the entire elected branch--executive branch. That is
the President and the Vice President. Every other one of the 2
million plus the 12 million contractors are unelected. So
everybody that we are praising, as well as the people that we
are condemning, are all unelected.
Mr. Natsios, it is--either you or during one of your--
colleague on the other aisle during your testimony said, well,
it is only a small number. And it reminded me of the reporter
that said about the Argentinian gang taking over just a couple
of apartment buildings. Well, it is only a couple of apartment
buildings. This country is $36 trillion in debt. We are trying
in this Congress to do something about that, but we have taken
all of these small amounts now for decades, and they now add up
to $36 trillion in debt. So every small amount is crucial.
Forty percent. You said that 40 percent of USAID are
compliance officers. That is not the issue. What are they
complying to? During the Biden administration, they were
complying to things that were not in the interest of the United
States. I don't care about the percentage. What are they
requiring compliance of would be my question.
So this is for Dr. Yoho and Max. So the title of this
agency is Agency for International Development. Is it not? Is
that correct?
Mr. Yoho. Uh-huh.
Mr. Self. International Development. So in the--just in the
few grants that we have been looking at, there is a USAID for
activities in D.C., to provide USAID employees in D.C. with
counseling, organizational resilience, wellness, and work-life
balance. Now, I realize that D.C. might be different than the
rest of the United States, but it is not international.
We will skip over the--and having worked in both the Third
World, Africa and the Middle East, we will skip over the
climate change because a poor country doesn't care about
climate change. They care about survival.
But I want to go to a USAID contract for activities in
Albuquerque. And this is for you, Mr. Yoho--Dr. Yoho, excuse
me. Emergency DEI support in Albuquerque. Now, I assume that is
Albuquerque, New Mexico. So it was in 2022 through 2023, so it
may have been in your last budget. Were you aware of emergency
DEI support--probably not. It is an unfair question--in
Albuquerque?
And then the last one I want to talk about is another USAID
for activities in D.C. Now, this one is really interesting
because it is to hire an LGBT adviser for the USAID's U.S.
Personal Services Contractor program, but the interesting thing
about this is they are to--it is to undisclosed contractor.
Mr. Yoho. Wow.
Mr. Self. That one requires some sort of investigation.
So my question is, to you, Mr. Natsios, why do we have
activities in the United States if this is international
development?
Mr. Natsios. Well, I haven't read that so I can't tell what
is in it, but I can tell you I was--sorry. I can tell you, I
was in a commission--this is when I was teaching at Georgetown,
after I left AID. A number of officers came back from
Afghanistan and Iraq whose colleagues had been murdered by the
Taliban. We lost a large number of contract staff in both
countries, and they committed suicide. And so they created a
commission, which they asked me to serve on and I did, to see
what we need to do when people come back, because--and this is
true for the military. My son was in Afghanistan.
Mr. Self. Absolutely.
Mr. Natsios. I was in the first Gulf War as a major in the
Army Reserves that was mobilized. Actually, I was in the Bush
administration. I left to go to Iraq. And there is a suicide
problem in the U.S. military. So I believe, but I am not sure,
that that may have been counseling, because they do it in an
organized way. If they see depression when people come back
from the field who have seen a lot of violence, then they put
them through----
Mr. Self. I will actually give you that because, you are
right, we still have 17 military veterans that commit suicide
every day.
Mr. Natsios. Right.
Mr. Self. I am on the VA Committee as well. I was in
Afghanistan and the Gulf for Iraq.
Mr. Natsios. Let me mention the compliance officers----
Mr. Self. Yes.
Mr. Natsios [continuing]. What they comply with. It is a
very good question. The Federal acquisition regulations, which
were passed by the U.S. Congress, I might add, it is 2,000
pages long. I tried to read it when I was the AID
administrator. I almost jumped out the 4-story window. They are
so complicated. They are worse than the IRS Code. We have to
comply with them. When people say, well, why is the aid stuff
so complicated----
Mr. Self. Let me stop you there, because leadership
matters, and in the Biden administration, leadership came from
the top. We will not--and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but that
is the central point. It is not the regulations; it is
leadership at the top. And I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Self.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Olszewski.
Mr. Olszewski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here and your service.
I will just start with a point my colleague just made about
the inspectors general. In fact, there are provisions to remove
an inspector general, but, again, they were not fired in any of
these cases. Inspector general firings, the President must
provide Congress 30-day notice and, quote, substantive
rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for the
firing. And to my knowledge, that has not taken place.
I really appreciate, again, you all being here. I will just
reinforce the point that was made by Ranking Member Meeks
earlier that I think that, as helpful as these conversations
are, it would be even more beneficial, especially as a new
member, to have representatives of the administration also at
the table so that we can hear directly from them about what
they are doing, why they are doing it as we exercise our
oversight work.
You know, I just want to also say, as someone new here, Mr.
Chairman and colleagues, I welcome the opportunity to go after
some of these programs and some of this spending. I want to be
at the table with all of you. I think that we can agree that
several examples that were cited today merit investigation,
defunding. If there was inappropriate action, there should be
action taken. I completely agree with that. But I think there
is a well-established process that does not include wholesale
elimination or pausing of funding.
I guess my concerns are twofold, one of which is that in
the meantime, we are affecting real Americans--we talked about
that earlier--real Americans who are either employees and have
given their life to this country in service to it or there are
those who are our farmers and other folks who are helping out.
So as we think about this work, I am particularly concerned
about the funding freezes that are being taken place. Congress
explicitly has the power of the purse under Article I of the
United States Constitution. In the wake of overreach by the
Nixon administration, Congress passed the Impoundment Act of
1974 that said the President may only propose rescissions or
pulling back funding with specific notice to Congress and with
approval of Congress within 45 days. Again, none of that has
happened in any of these cases. And I would just encourage
colleagues to say--again, I want to be part of these
conversations, but let's do it through the legal and well-
established process.
For those of you who don't know my background, before I was
a State rep and a county executive I was a school teacher, and
so really believe in the power of education, both domestically
and internationally. And one of the things that worries me,
particularly now as a new member on the Subcommittee of Africa,
as we know, there are tens of millions of individuals on that
continent who cannot read. There are tens of millions of
children now not in school. There were programs that were being
afforded 44 million learners, young people, under USAID-
supported programs were being taken place.
So in addition to the democracy programs being defunded we
talked about, my understanding is there is no waiver and there
is no funding for education. I guess my question is, would
education programs--and we can sort of do a yes or no, or if
you keep your answer--like, do you see any concern for the
education programs that were being supported by USAID?
Mr. Yoho. Do I see any concerns with them or--I see the
benefit that we have with the education, and when you go back
to the 1961, they focused on agriculture and education. And as
Mr. Natsios brought out, we used to educate leaders around the
world that when we go around, as you go on delegations, they
were educated here. There is over 300,000 students going to
China. That used to--not that many coming here in the past, but
China has jumped on this and they see the value, and that
effect from that will be 10 to 15 years down the road.
Mr. Natsios. Let me show you one major benefit of education
that has to do with conflict. They have done studies of all
these militias that are so vicious and so destabilizing all
over the world. Almost all of them, the young men, are
completely illiterate. They have never been to any schooling at
all, and that is how they recruit them.
Mr. Olszewski. Yep.
Mr. Natsios. When I was in Darfur as a special envoy, I
noticed that. They didn't even know what the United States was.
These people were that isolated from the world. They didn't
know what Europe was. And that is not good.
Mr. Olszewski. Yes.
Mr. Natsios. It is destabilizing, and it affects us when
these groups start attacking. Sometimes they attack Americans.
Mr. Olszewski. Yes. Just reclaiming a little bit of time. I
completely agree with both of you. Thank you for that response.
I think as we think about economic development, as we think
about world security, people are less likely to endorse
political violence, to join those, when they are educated.
And so, as we are taking that step, I would just welcome,
particularly you, Administrator Natsios, how you would go about
through a legal framework, if you were working in the position
currently, if you could followup with this committee, how you
would go through and actually make those changes to programs
that are of concern without jeopardizing all of those other
actions.
Mr. Natsios. Well, you can put some of it in statute, and I
certainly would. But part of it is the two parties working
together, when I was in office, the two parties did--they
supported AID and they helped me a lot, I have to tell you. And
when we needed support, I got more support sometimes from the
Hill than I did from the other branch that I was in.
Mr. Olszewski. I will say sign me up, and amen to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Olszewski.
And I would just say that the authority for Secretary Rubio
to consolidate, reduce, eliminate, it does fall--though you
were not here--in a law passed in the 2024 appropriations,
SFOPS appropriations section 7063, where you can expand,
eliminate, consolidate, downsize, cover department agencies,
expand or reduce the size of permanent civil service, Foreign
Service, the list goes on and on. And, again, I would also
remind everybody that all but three Democrats voted for that
that are on this committee that were here at the time.
And I now recognize Representative Moylan.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And as many of my colleagues previously mentioned, the U.S.
Agency on International Development is in dire need of reform.
And the chairman has already done an excellent job highlighting
some of the wasteful and burden--that has burdened the American
taxpayer both in this hearing and on YouTube. Yet, when we talk
about how USAID betrayed the American people, it is also
important to recognize some of the good USAID has accomplished
when done right.
Being from Indo-Pacific, I know the critical role that U.S.
foreign aid has played in disaster response. As an example,
when done right, USAID has provided much needed humanitarian
assistance to Japan after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Specifically, USAID deployed its Disaster Assistance Response
Team to Japan for almost 2 months. With many similar examples
elsewhere, USAID's track record in disaster assistance has
proven to be a positive force when done right.
As an alumni, I can also speak on the incredible
partnership USAID provides to the University of Guam and other
academic institutions by offering internships, fellowships, and
grant opportunities. And when done right, USAID has made it
possible for the U.S. to connect with other nations on a
societal level. And as we look at America's diplomatic
effectiveness, and when done right, I commend the opportunities
that USAID has provided to students.
These successes make USAID's wasteful programs all the more
heartbreaking. For every stride the Agency has made to prevent
disease, they fund drag shows. For every country they have
helped after disasters, they fund DEI seminars. My hope is that
Secretary Rubio maintains what works, but hopefully it is clear
that USAID needs to change.
Dr. Yoho, your previous foreign affairs legislation
highlighted the strong relationships between the U.S. and
partner nations in Pacific and Asia. Where do you think USAID
succeeded in this region, and where do you think it needs to
improve?
Mr. Yoho. I think where it succeeded, there is multiple
examples of that. You look at the work they have done with
organizations like CEPI or in the food programs and the
educational programs like you brought up, those create good
will that make us stronger. Programs like we have heard talked
about today drives nations away from us, and if they drive them
away, it makes us weaker. So we need to focus on those.
I worked a lot in the agricultural sector my whole life as
a veterinarian. And working on food security and taking that
knowledge and going into the island nations or--whether it is
in Africa, wherever it is, teaching them our best practices
that we have learned and then teaming up with AID, USAID, to
carry these out and then wean these countries off, it creates
trading partners. It just makes us stronger in the end, and it
creates that relationship that we have that is going to make us
both more secure.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you.
For Mr. Primorac, your contribution to Project 2025 focuses
on foreign assistance role to counter PRC efforts. Now, despite
the fraud, waste, and abuse, the programs that work in USAID
are an incredibly diplomatic tool. How do you think we can
maintain necessary USAID programs like disaster response,
health, and economic growth, while trimming this mismanagement?
Mr. Primorac. Thank you. Actually, when I was leading the
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, I had to deal with many
disaster responses, and we did it quite well. We also had a
very good and robust to counter China framework there.
Unfortunately, the next administration just tore it all down.
I think when we are talking about how do we prevent losing
the good by taking away the bad, that we have to regain the
trust of the American people. And right now, the more they
learn, the more they are distrustful. That is why I think this
review, this pause in review is very important, so that the
American people can feel that--know all of this bad stuff is
gone.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you. Thank you.
And for my final question, Mr. Natsios, if you can, could
you please explain some of the challenges associated with the
Pacific and Asia time during your tenure, please?
Mr. Natsios. Well, China was not as big a threat when I was
in office. In fact, Hu Jintao was very helpful in getting the
Sudanese Government to be responsive, because President Bush
called him and asked him. And China was liberalizing then, and
that has been reversed by Xi Jinping. I think Xi Jinping--I
shouldn't say this--but is a disaster for China. I think Hu
Jintao, if they followed the route he was taking, China would
not be what it is doing now, and I think it is really sad.
The Asian countries feel very threatened. I was just in
Bangkok, I think it was in October, and my delegation talked to
a prominent political scientist, and this is what he said--and
there were Chinese in the room when he said it. He said, We
love America, we love freedom, but you are unreliable. You come
in, you come out, you leave, we can't predict what you are
doing----
Mr. Moylan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Natsios. And the Chinese are always here.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Mast. Thank you Representative Moylan.
The chair now recognizes Representative Jackson.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you much, Chairman.
I think it is important to hear the voices of employees
directly impacted by this administration's effort to dismantle
USAID. One foreign servicemember recently filed a declaration
declaring how the chaos created by these abrupt actions of
USAID being shut down jeopardized his and his family's safety
during the recent evacuation from the DRC.
I ask unanimous consent that his account be entered into
the record book, Mr. Chairman. It is a harrowing account of we
have left our employees abroad stranded because of the rashness
of this decision.
If I could have this entered into the record, Chairman.
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mr. Primorac, thank you, and thank
you, Mr. Yoho and Natsios, for coming out today.
Mr. Primorac, you have written extensively in Project 2025
about your critique of USAID. May I ask you, do you work with
any of the members of DOGE, or DOGE--how do you pronounce the
name of the committee?
Mr. Primorac. No, not at all. No communication whatsoever.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Do you know the pronunciation of
that organization?
Mr. Primorac. I just call it DOGE like others do.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Is it a private firm or is
it a government entity?
Mr. Primorac. It is a government entity, and the people
working for it are government approved.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. It was formed by who?
Mr. Primorac. The President of the United States.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And how is it funded?
Mr. Primorac. I understand that most are working for free,
but any other costs are going to be covered by the U.S.
Government.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. If they are working for free, who
is paying them? Are they employees of Mr. Musk?
Mr. Primorac. I have no idea.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. I just know that you have an
extremely close working relationship with the organization. And
how many years have you worked in foreign affairs and in
foreign aid?
Mr. Primorac. About 35 years, different capacities, from
NGO to as a contractor, State Department, working for the
Office for the Vice President, and also directly with USAID.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you. Is there anything that
a 19-year-old could tell you about USAID that you don't
understand from your years of experience?
Mr. Primorac. My understanding is that they are technical
staff.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Can any of those 19-year-olds
teach you something that you don't understand about USAID?
Mr. Primorac. In terms of anything to do with data overview
and looking at things, I am just clueless. Sorry.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Well, thank you so much.
I think that--and for the record, I would like it to be
clear that you and I probably would have a difference of
opinion on what diversity means. And this is African American
History Month. Mr. Frederick Douglass had written an article
and a speech regarding composite nation, that this is a land of
many different cultures, races, ethnicities that have all come
to call this great land home. And if we are looking at the
future of Africa, in the year 2050, being one in four human
beings on Earth, that there should be a push for cultural
diversity, expanding how we reach out to people.
And so when we talk about America and USAID betrayal, I
would like to put the eye on DOGE. Not one member on this panel
has had anything to say or do with the cuts of food. And let it
also be entered into the record at this moment the irony of the
richest man on Earth taking food away from the poorest humans
on this Earth. Let it also be entered into the record that the
most powerful man on Earth is denying food assistance, medical
assistance, malaria vaccinations to the poorest people on
Earth. We don't need to operate in this chaotic manner.
I would like to ask, Mr. Natsios, how should this project
work? How should we convene to date that would make this more
productive?
Mr. Natsios. This is a more radical proposal, but I had
proposed this in foreign affairs some years ago. I think we
need to consolidate the MCC, the DFC, AID, and a couple of the
foreign aid parts of the State Department into one department
and raise the visibility and integrate the programs more. I
don't think, for example, there would be a representative for
the DFC and the MCC in each country that they work in. They can
have the AID mission do that. They could be an integrated
mission for all of these purposes.
There are countries where there is CDC and AID running the
same program, PEPFAR. It has never been corrected. They fight
with each other. It is embarrassing, and it is duplicative, and
there is no need for it. I think they should put one agency in
charge of the whole thing and that is it. That is what happened
with the malaria program and it has worked very well.
The third thing I would do is decentralize--now, with what
is going on now, no one will agree to this, but the literature
on bureaucratic processes, James K. Wilson, my favorite writer,
who is, by the way, a conservative, he says decentralize every
administrative function to the lowest level where people have
knowledge of what is going on.
You have to have oversight in Washington. But AID during
the cold war was the most decentralized agency, and it drove
the Russians crazy, because the mission directors and the
Ambassadors could be responsive to the local President and the
local Prime Minister, and that is one of the reasons we won the
cold war. We helped win the cold war through AID because we
were highly decentralized and very responsive. Right now, there
are 275 earmarks in AID. We tell the country because we don't
have any choice. There is no flexibility in the budget.
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.
And I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Jackson.
I would wonder how many transgender operas they funded
during the cold war. Probably not many.
The chair now recognizes Representative Biggs from South
Carolina.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
efforts in organizing this important hearing.
Thank you to our witnesses for your testimoneys today.
So today's hearing has provided a target rich environment
of examples of funding allocations that, while perhaps they
were intended for worthy causes, in my opinion, they raise
serious questions about our priorities and where our focus
truly lies. These include--we have mentioned many, but just to
name a couple others--$3.3 million for being LGBTQ in the
Caribbean and $37.6 million for sex workers, their clients, and
transgender individuals in South Africa.
While I acknowledge the complex global changes USAID seeks
to address, we must ask a fundamental question: Are we truly
fulfilling our responsibility to the American people when we
allocate tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars for
programs abroad while neglecting critical--and, yes, I said
critical--needs right here at home, just like districts in
South Carolina's 3d District which I represent.
I struggle to explain to a veteran in Newberry County who
is fighting to find a job why our resources are directed
overseas to programs that don't enhance our national security
instead of supporting his career prospects.
We have mentioned healthcare. I watched a veteran with his
face in his hands sobbing because he couldn't get healthcare
needs met. We talked about the mental health needs that he
couldn't get met. And he said to me, I feel like I am a hamster
in a wheel. I can't get out of the process.
I find it difficult to justify to families in Greenwood
that are facing mounting medical bills why resources are being
spent on programs abroad when those funds could expand access
to vital healthcare services in their own community.
I question how we can prioritize funding initiatives
overseas, you know, when we have cybersecurity vulnerabilities
in Anderson County that threaten local businesses and critical
infrastructure.
For those of us who are guided by Christian values, the
principle of charity begins at home. It resonates strongly with
me. While we are called to care for all of God's children,
there is also a natural and an understandable inclination to
prioritize the needs of our immediate community, our fellow
citizens, and those within our own Nation.
Let me be very clear. This is not about abandoning our
global responsibilities. It is about investing in the very
foundation of our Nation, our communities, our families, and
our future. It is about ensuring that the hardworking people of
South Carolina's 3d District and all across the Nation are not
left behind while resources are directed to woke programs that
do not advance American interests.
So my question to our witnesses is very simple. What went
wrong, and why did the oversight measures fail to prevent
taxpayer money from being spent on wasteful programs that don't
put America first?
Mr. Yoho. Accountability and transparency. And it is this
body--and I was a part of this body--we didn't do our job, is
what I feel. You know, the American people sent us up here to
do something. We hear the IG reports, you know, this person
that got fired, he got fired, he was the IG, made a report,
gets fired. There is an IG report every year. We don't act. And
if we don't act, this is what happens. You know, we complain
about everything that is bad, and then we don't act. And then
when somebody like Trump comes in--and it will be somebody
after that. And when they come in and they do this, we get
upset. You know, we have got to fix Congress.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. It is why people send us here.
Mr. Primorac. I would also add that what I have seen over
the past 25 years is the progressive left has gradually just
seized control over the entire foreign aid industrial complex,
and that is something--the political sociology of the industry
has to be changed if we are not--otherwise, we are going to
have this same vicious circle occur again and again.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Natsios. Just let me add, there is a large number of
Mormons at AID. I have never met a communist Mormon before.
There aren't any, that I know of. I don't theologically agree
with them, but I have a great respect for the Mormons. There is
a very large number of practicing Catholics in AID and
Evangelicals, and there is a large number, as I said earlier
today, of missionary kids. Why? Because they speak the
languages of the countries they were brought up in, and they
make wonderful Foreign Service Officers, and many of them have
risen to the senior levels of the Agency.
Is there a contingent of younger, very liberal? Yes, there
are, but it is very mixed. And my experience in the Agency--
maybe it has changed--is that when you ask offices to do
something, they do it. I didn't used to have to ask their
backgrounds. I just said, I want this done. And if they didn't
do it, I would take action. I actually fired 16 senior people
when I was in office.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Natsios.
The gentlelady's time is expired.
Even if they are Catholic, if they are doing LGBTQ musicals
in Ireland, their time is coming to an end.
The chair now recognizes Representative Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
And, Ted, welcome back. It is good to see you.
Mr. Natsios, when you were AID administrator, did you
oversee an agency that was rife with LGBTQ dances in Ireland
and, I don't know, condoms to the tune of 2 million in Gaza,
and all kinds of iffy, marginal, flaky projects that were
funded with U.S. taxpayer money bringing dishonor to the United
States of America? Would that be a fair characterization of
AID, from your point of view?
Mr. Natsios. Well, it certainly wasn't when I was there,
and I don't think it is now myself, but I do think there are
programs that I saw on the list that I would not have allowed
in my agency.
Mr. Connolly. Well, let's stipulate that, but let's not let
that characterize AID, because all of us are losers if that
succeeds, it seems to me.
Global health. What percentage of AID's work would fall
under the rubric of global health, fighting disease, child/
maternal healthcare or rehydration projects, on and on, polio--
--
Mr. Natsios. $8 billion.
Mr. Connolly. What is that?
Mr. Natsios. $8 billion.
Mr. Connolly. $8 billion out of 40?
Mr. Natsios. Out of 38 billion.
Mr. Connolly. Out of 38, so big chunk.
What about food security and nutrition programs?
Mr. Natsios. The emergency response part of AID is now by
far the largest. It is $15 billion. It just amazes me because
it is so much more than I had when I was in office so----
Mr. Connolly. So 23 of the 38 billion is just those two
categories?
Mr. Natsios. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And those aren't fringe projects. Those are
really lifesaving projects.
Mr. Natsios. Yes, they are.
Mr. Connolly. Is that a fair characterization?
Mr. Natsios. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And what about disaster relief?
Mr. Natsios. Well, the $15 billion is--the food security
is--food security, for me, is the emergency side. Agriculture
is separate from that, and that is what I think you are talking
about in the longer term development sense.
Mr. Connolly. But when we are talking about disaster
assistance, we are not only talking food?
Mr. Natsios. No.
Mr. Connolly. For example, my fire department is part of a
FEMA-AID relationship where they can go to trouble spots
overseas and, again, try to save lives.
Mr. Natsios. Right. I don't know what part of the $15
billion is food versus what we call nonfood assistance, which
is usually emergency medical care and public health, like
immunizing kids in refugee camps and that kind of thing. I
don't know the breakdown.
Mr. Connolly. So let's say one were sincere about wanting
to clean up marginal fringy projects that should never have
been funded. Is the way to do that to basically announce we are
going to fire 10,000 employees and leave 239 left?
Mr. Natsios. It is not.
Mr. Connolly. And what would be the consequences of
depopulating the Agency to the tune of 10,000 out of 10,239
employees?
Mr. Natsios. In my experience--I have run seven
institutions in the last 50 years. The AID officers that I
worked with were among the smartest and the best managers that
I have worked with and the most creative because of the
circumstances they deal with in the developing world that are
very challenging.
I think losing career people is like losing the cadre of
the military officers. It is a disaster for the United States.
Mr. Connolly. And the chairman seems to be under the
impression that the appropriations bill provides blanket
authority to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. I beg to differ.
My view is that, ultimately, AID was established by statute in
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. And if you want
to dismantle or fold it into another organization, you must get
statutory authority from the U.S. Congress, and we certainly
will fight that out.
Final point, Mr. Natsios, and maybe, Ted Yoho, you may want
to comment as well. I am worried about the vacuum being created
by these actions that China is going to waltz right in there.
They are already big actors. Now we, the United States, are
going to make them even more so, and I struggle to see how that
is in an American interest.
One of you comment.
Mr. Yoho. It is going to drive people closer to China,
Russia, the adversaries, and we see this, but I saw that before
too with the programs. I had one of the past Presidents of
Ghana say that we want aid, but if we have one party from the
United States in power, they have a short list; if we have
another one, it is a long list. He goes, If we go to China,
they say here is your money. But they said this, I would rather
do business with the United States.
That is something that we can take advantage of, and we
need to, and we need to focus on those things because that
makes us stronger, safer, and, you know, more prosperous, not
just here but in those other countries. We need to get back to
the basic mission here.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Connolly.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Kean, is
recognized.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
America is spending $40 billion in foreign aid, yet much of
that money never reaches the intended recipients. Instead it
gets caught up in bureaucratic inefficiencies and organizations
that have not always been transparent with the American
taxpayer.
A USAID report published in June 2023 under the Biden
administration noted that just one out of every $10 reaches the
actual people in need abroad. A recent study by the Middle East
Forum revealed that USAID awarded $164 million in taxpayer
funds to extremist organizations, including $122 million to
groups linked to designated terrorist entities.
I believe that my colleagues here would agree that this
reckless spending has drifted from American interests and
instead has benefited foreign interests. It is time that we
commit to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in government funding
on programs and initiatives that do not align with American
values. American people deserve to know where and how their
money is being spent and how they align with the U.S.
interests.
Now, Mr. Yoho, should this reorganization include a
comprehensive forensic audit of USAID spending over the past 4
years, how should this audit identify waste, fraud, corruption
in programs that may have undermined U.S. foreign policy
objectives?
Mr. Yoho. Absolutely. But, I mean, you could go back years,
but it is a great opportunity for bipartisan leadership
conducing oversight and defining the priorities and the
parameters of future USAID assistance programs. That leads to
the certainty that where we are at, we are not wavering, it
creates continuity in our programs, and it makes us stronger.
Mr. Kean. As you were just--I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Yoho. And it must be done in a bipartisan effort. If
not, it will go away with it when tides change.
Mr. Kean. But as you just said in your previous answer to
another question, you are right, the best policies here and
abroad are consistent over administrations.
Mr. Yoho. Sure.
Mr. Kean. They are transparent with the American people as
well as people looking from abroad. And so having that
bipartisan strategy and consistency is extraordinarily
important.
What are ways you think that we can ensure that they are
consistent over time, these policies?
Mr. Yoho. I ponder that. And if you look at--well, just
take the JCPOA and the Paris climate accord. President Obama
put us in both. President Trump took us out of both. President
Biden put us back in both. President Trump takes us out. Stand
on the sidelines as another nation looking in at America. They
are like, these people don't know what they are doing. We have
no confidence that we are exuding. Congress I think can direct
it as this is the policy of the United States of America, and
give leeway to the executive branch in times of emergencies.
But if we don't have a policy of the United States versus a
Democratic party or a Republican policy--and that is the spoils
of winning an election, but they should also focus on what is
best for America instead of what is best for a party. And until
we do that, we are going to go back and forth on this, and it
is up to us and, of course, the American people.
Mr. Kean. And so how would you--if you were structuring
this legislatively and making sure it is bipartisan solutions
that is consistent over time, how would you structure that
under your best vision?
Mr. Yoho. I think it is just getting consensus and building
a bipartisan movement in this, and you have got a great
opportunity. You have got to--this Congress has an opportunity
you haven't had in over 40 years with the Supreme Court ruling
on the Chevron deference case. The Chevron deference, when that
came into effect, allowed the administrative agencies to have
all this power. All right. That has been repealed. Congress can
go ahead and move forward and say this is what an agency may
do, this is what they shall not do. And if we don't do that in
a bipartisan way, it is going to go right back to these
agencies and Congress has allowed their powers to be usurped
again by an administrative agency and you have administrative
law.
Mr. Kean. And in doing that, in instructing, how do we
ensure that taxpayer-funded aid does not fall into the hands of
corrupt governments, terrorist organizations, or entities that
are hostile to U.S. interests, Mr. Yoho?
Mr. Yoho. Define the mission of what you want, and then you
have to have that oversight, as Mr. Natsios brought up. You
have got to approve these things, and you have to have it done
now. And I think there should be an immediate review after this
stuff. You know, with every--when you send out a check, you
want to get it back. The IRS makes us do that and be
accountable for our taxes, and I think we should do the same
thing in government programs.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Natsios. Could I just one thing in terms of a
suggestion?
Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired, so maybe
in another round.
Thank you. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Representative McBride is now recognized.
Ms. McBride. Thank you, Chairman Mast. It is a privilege to
serve on this committee with you and Ranking Member Meeks. It
is also an honor to be here for my first Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing.
I am looking forward to working alongside each and every
one of you in a bipartisan manner in support of U.S. interests.
Unfortunately, right now, we are seeing a partisan attack on
USAID, one of the most effective tools of American leadership
and our national security.
By gutting this agency, President Trump is not just turning
his back on our global commitments; he is undermining American
interests and our security, and he is causing unnecessary
deaths. If President Trump can get away with gutting USAID, he
can do it anywhere. That means that no part of the Federal
Government, including programs like Medicare and Social
Security and Medicaid, will be safe from this administration.
The President and the majority conference in this House are
fostering opposition to vital government programs by
mischaracterizing diversity efforts and using it as a trojan
horse to gut programs that all Americans rely on.
This hearing is titled ``USAID Betrayal,'' but let's be
clear, the real betrayal is that Donald Trump promised to lower
costs facing families, but instead is pursuing policies that
threaten American jobs and increase costs for workers.
Foreign aid is not a charity. It is an investment in
stability, security, global health, economic security, American
leadership, and American jobs. USAID buys food from farmers in
Delaware to help prevent famine and conflict abroad. USAID
funds over $1 million of critical research at the University of
Delaware on both energy and poultry production. USAID
collaborates with Delaware's businesses to expand agriculture
in places like Ukraine. These cuts, this effort to decimate
USAID doesn't just hurt people in distant countries, it hurts
Delawarians.
And so my first question is for you, Mr. Natsios. I want to
talk about everyone's favorite topic. It may have come up
already. Egg prices. One reason for rising costs is the spread
of bird flu. Yet this administration has stopped monitoring
bird flu in 49 countries, increasing the risk of it spreading
to the U.S. and decimating our poultry industry, a cornerstone
of Delaware's economy.
With USAID halting its efforts on bird flu, I am curious
what you believe could be the impact on egg prices and also, of
course, the health of Americans.
Mr. Natsios. Well, I have said before that I think the 80
USAID missions that used to exist are our frontline defense for
infectious disease generally, and I am now convinced by Dr.
Yoho that we should add in animal disease, zoonotic diseases,
not that it would jump to humans, although that is a huge
problem, but just that are in the animal kingdom because it
affects our domesticated population of animals in the United
States whose food supply is critical to our health in the
United States and, I might add, to the developing world as
well.
We have had some very successful programs over the years to
eliminate the zoonotic diseases in Africa, in Central America,
Mexico, and I think we should revive those.
I know when Bush was President, that they monitored all
birds dying in Alaska because there are billions of birds in
the world and the administration used to test some of them for
viruses. Now, I didn't at USAID, but I think USDA tested them
for viruses to see if bird flu was in the flocks and then try
to take action.
So I think early warning systems in all areas are extremely
important so we can do preparedness work to protect the
American people, but we would also at the same time be
protecting people in the developing world too.
Ms. McBride. That is right.
One quick question, because we have heard commentary about,
quote, fringe programs at USAID. You acknowledge that there are
programs at USAID now that you might not have approved in the
past. I think we have already seen that there have been gross
mischaracterizations of programs, that there have been outright
mistruths said about USAID programs right now, and that many of
the sort of most outrageous things that we are hearing turn out
not to be accurate.
And you led--and I am running out of time, but you led
USAID when PEPFAR was created under President Bush. I am
curious if you believe that there are elements of PEPFAR, which
have saved 25 million lives globally, if there are elements of
PEPFAR that could be mischaracterized and sound a bit
outrageous?
Mr. Natsios. I suppose there are. I actually wanted to
include more local input into how we structured the program in
these countries because it is very standardized, and I am not
into central standardization in aid programs. I am a
decentralist. I guess I am a Federalist, you would say, and I
believe all development is local and that we should allow the
countries more discretion as to how we structure the PEPFAR
program.
But I lost that battle 23 years ago. If it were
reauthorized, I would add a lot more local discretion in terms
of structuring the program.
Chairman Mast. The Representative's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes Representative Radewagen.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Talofa lava. I want to thank the three of you for
testifying again.
Congressman Yoho, it is good to see you. I want to thank
you for all of the good things that you have done in the
region. You have been a true friend of the Pacific.
In the past 2 weeks, independent Samoa and the Cook Islands
have signed deals with the PRC. With Kiribati to the north,
independent Samoa to the west, Cook Islands to our east, my
home district of American Samoa is now surrounded on three
sides by China-friendly nations.
I have a couple of questions.
During the Trump administration and the Biden
administration, the State Department and USAID proposed that
USAID take over and manage U.S. economic assistance and Federal
programs and services to the three strategically vital Compact
of Free Association allies; namely, Palau, Marshall Islands,
and Micronesia. We have made sure that was rejected because
Congress has been providing all such assistance to those
strategic partner island people through Interior Department
since 1961, including under COFA since 1986. Now that
assistance is appropriated so that Interior continues to
actually administer these funds and programs under COFA for the
next 20 years at least, and that will continue until Congress
changes it.
The State and those who have or will be exercising USAID
authorities understand that COFA economic assistance is not
discretionary grants but usually agreed to obligations that
secure the highest level of strategic interests of the U.S. in
the Pacific?
Mr. Natsios? Any one of you are free to answer.
Mr. Natsios. I couldn't quite hear the----
Mrs. Radewagen. Turn your mike on, please.
Mr. Natsios. Could you just repeat it? I couldn't quite
hear your question.
Mrs. Radewagen. I am running out of time now. I don't know
whether the chairman will let me roll that back a bit.
During the Trump administration and the Biden
administration, the State Department and USAID proposed that
USAID take over and manage U.S. economic assistance and Federal
programs and services to the three strategically vital Compact
of Free Association allies; namely, Palau, Marshall Islands,
and Micronesia. We made sure that was rejected because Congress
has been providing all such assistance to those strategic
partner island people through Interior Department since 1961,
including under COFA since 1986. Now that assistance is
appropriated so that Interior continues to actually administer
these funds and programs under COFA for the next 20 years at
least and that will continue until Congress changes it.
Does State and those who have or will be exercising USAID
authorities understand that COFA economic assistance is not
discretionary grants but usually agreed obligations that secure
the highest level of strategic interests of the U.S. in the
Pacific?
Mr. Natsios. Congresswoman, I don't know a lot about how
the program works now, so I don't want to render a judgment. I
would have some outside group that all of you agree upon to
evaluate the interior program and then ask AID how it might
change it and then you decide, but I wouldn't dismiss AID.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Natsios.
Mr. Natsios. But if you are really devoted to the Interior
option, then you keep it.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. My time is so brief and you had
me repeat a long question.
Mr. Yoho. I am sorry.
Mrs. Radewagen. Congressman Yoho?
Mr. Yoho. Yes. Same question?
Mrs. Radewagen. Yes.
Mr. Yoho. The Compact has worked pretty well, and I think
you guys vote on it and you determine your destiny of what you
want to do. I would use USAID or whatever entity comes back as
a facilitator, but I would certainly engage DFC, MCCto do those
structural projects that you need that really boost your
economy down there.
Mrs. Radewagen. Do you think with the reforms for
traditional USAID foreign assistance now underway that the role
of agencies like the U.S. Government's Development Finance
Corporation that was mentioned earlier will become more
important as instruments of U.S. foreign relations, or do DFC
and similar agencies that harness private sector investment
also need to be reformed?
DFC was modeled after the Marshall Plan, which creates jobs
in the private sector overseas instead of handing out grants.
That can create markets for U.S. exports.
Mr. Yoho. Sure.
Mrs. Radewagen. So while we are promoting foreign
investment in the U.S., should we also be promoting U.S.
investment overseas to create jobs back here at home? What
direction are we headed in this regard?
Mr. Yoho. It is imperative that we do that. We need to
revamp the reauthorization of the DFC. And if you look at--post
World War II, if we did not come in there with the Marshall
Plan or something like that, would Germany, Japan, Vietnam,
South Korea, and the other countries that benefit from that,
would they be in our top 20 trading partners? And if we didn't
do that, who would have been in there to do that? It is either
going to be our influence with our values or it is going to be
the other people, and we don't want them there. They are
authoritarian, and then it will be a disaster for the world.
Liberty and freedom will go away.
Mrs. Radewagen. Mr. Primorac, do you have anything you
would like to add?
Mr. Primorac. Communist China cannot compete with our
private sector. It is massive. And when you include our allies
in Japan and elsewhere, it is overwhelming. China cannot come
close. So DFC as that tool to be able to bring in that kind of
capital power I think is a perfect solution.
Thank you.
Mrs. Radewagen. Mr. Natsios?
Oh, Congressman?
Mr. Yoho. No. Go ahead.
Mrs. Radewagen. You have anything to add, Mr. Natsios?
Chairman Mast. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Natsios. I think the DFC----
Chairman Mast. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Chairman, can we get a bathroom break?
Chairman Mast. Can you hold it?
Mr. Yoho. Two of us are 70-plus.
Chairman Mast. Can you hold it for two individuals or no?
Mr. Yoho. I am going to remind you that when you are 70.
Chairman Mast. I ask in seriousness. Can you hold it for
two individuals or no? If you can't, I am happy to give you a
restroom break. I want you to be able to concentrate on
answering to our Representatives. I don't want anybody to say
you were distracted, so--all right. We will continue, and we
will muster on once more into the breach, dear friend.
The chair now recognizes Representative Luna.
Mrs. Luna. Chairman, for the record, I would like to submit
this letter saying that PEPFAR funding was actually resumed. I
know there has been a lot of push saying that the Trump admin
had actually cut it, but----
Chairman Mast. So ordered.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
You know, I want to start off by saying initially I think
the idea behind USAID was done with a good intention. However,
we have come to find out that the Agency has indeed, to a
certain extent, operated in a rogue capacity. And USAID has
absolutely broken the trust with the American people and not
been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going.
There is an individual by the name of Mike Benz. He
actually served over at the State Department for a while, and
he has been going on to expose a lot of what USAID has been
doing, which being a member of Oversight and being on this
committee I wanted to verify and see if he was telling the
truth, which much to my disappointment he was.
And I say that because I am disappointed that our taxpayer
dollars are funding some of these items. I mean, to just put
this in perspective, in 2021, the Special Operations Command
under Mark Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs put out an
instruction manual, ``A Vision for 2021 and Beyond,'' that
contained instructions and examples on how the military could
work with the State Department, intel services, and USAID using
race riots--here are examples of some of the instruction
manuals here, one and two--in order to destabilize nations.
In addition to that, they advocated for setting up job
fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers
could gain employment.
Now, as a Member of Congress, I ask myself, did anyone in
USAID get elected? To Congress? How about to a Presidency? When
you are acting in the shadows and you are destabilizing nations
using race wars to do it and then advocating that the military
does it, in my opinion, not only do you put the future
generations that would have to fight in those wars in jeopardy,
but at the end of the day, you are operating without any
oversight.
So I guess the question for you guys is, Mr. Natsios, is
that something that you were aware of? Are you aware that that
instruction manual is being promoted not just with the military
under Milley but that USAID may be operating in this capacity?
Because, in my opinion--and I am sure I speak on behalf of many
of my constituents--I don't think that is where our taxpayer
dollars need to be going.
Mr. Natsios. Well, I completely agree with you. Personally,
I doubt very much that what you have been told is accurate, but
let me just say----
Mrs. Luna. Well, look, I am telling you right now I brought
the receipts. Okay. And the reason--I am not trying to argue
with you, but I find this disturbing----
Mr. Natsios. Very disturbing.
Mrs. Luna [continuing]. On so many capacities. And I would
like to also just, if I can, sir, Mike Benz, what he is
exposing and bringing receipts, I have confirmed it, thank you
for doing that on behalf of the American people because I
understand that when you take on the intelligence agencies, we
are also now finding that apparently in this manual that they
are also advocating for social media campaigns illuminating
controversy to a global audience. I mean, using disinformation
campaigns. Is this happening here in our own country? Where is
the oversight?
Mr. Natsios. Just to ask you, who in the Agency, what
bureau----
Mrs. Luna. I just sent you--you can actually find that
instruction in this manual that Milley approved.
Mr. Natsios. Military manual, is it?
Mrs. Luna. Yes, but Milley approved it. You have it right
here. USAID working with government agencies. I mean, this is
not----
Mr. Natsios. Wait a second. Did AID say that or did the
military say AID should----
Mrs. Luna. Well, that would be the question for you, sir.
Mr. Natsios. Well, I don't think AID wrote that.
Mrs. Luna. I mean, these operations--sorry to interrupt
you. These operations that are taking place without government
oversight, without the authority of the President, without the
authority of Congress, real men and women serve and they die
because of stuff like this. When you destabilize nations
without any oversight, we have to fight those wars. You have
our chairman right here that literally risked his life----
Mr. Natsios. I----
Mrs. Luna. No. I am sorry to interrupt you. I am
frustrated. I know it is not necessarily your fault.
Mr. Natsios. But I am telling you it is nonsense.
Mrs. Luna. But as the head of the Agency----
Mr. Natsios. I am telling you what Benz told you is
nonsense.
Mrs. Luna. That is not nonsense. These are the information
and forms----
Mr. Natsios. AID didn't write that.
Mrs. Luna [continuing]. And Benz put this out to the
American people.
Mr. Natsios. AID did not write that.
Mrs. Luna. Sir, I disagree with you on so many levels, and
I appreciate you being----
Mr. Natsios. How do you know they wrote it?
Mrs. Luna. How do I know what?
Mr. Natsios. Any person can write AID's name into a manual.
It goes on all the time.
Mrs. Luna. Sir, they are advocating that the U.S. military
work with taxpayer-funded State Department USAID funds to
destabilize nations. That is unacceptable. I don't care who
wrote it. USAID needs to come down and condemn it. They need to
provide oversight to Congress on exactly where our tax dollars
are going.
And I know I might be at 17 seconds with our time, but,
sir, I hope that you agree--yes or no. Do you agree that this
is wrong, period? Should this be happening?
Mr. Natsios. I think the military should be held
accountable. I think it is nonsense that----
Mrs. Luna. And should USAID condemn it?
Mr. Natsios. It is nonsense to suggest that AID wrote that.
Mrs. Luna. Should USAID condemn it? Should they condemn it?
Mr. Natsios. The military should.
Mrs. Luna. Should USAID also condemn this?
Mr. Natsios. Of course. We don't comment----
Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
Mr. Natsios. AID does not comment on military manuals.
Mrs. Luna. Chairman, I yield my time back.
Thank you.
Chairman Mast. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. Natsios. It is none of our business
Chairman Mast. Since there have been a couple more members
that have shown up and I promised you only two, let's do the 5-
minute restroom break and stand in recess for 5 minutes.
[recess.]
Chairman Mast. The committee will come to order again.
The chair now recognizes Representative Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was here earlier in the hearing, and then we had votes,
and I had a meeting to go to, but I am glad to be back,
although I seemed to be walking into some--what seems to me was
a surreal conversation.
Mr. Yoho, it is good to see you again, having served with
you. And our other witnesses, thank you for your service.
You know, Mr. Yoho, like you and I, we have had debates
with our opponents in the past, and I always think that is
good, but I have a line that I like to use when I think a
person on the other side is straying from the facts. I say you
are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to
your own facts. And now that, I guess, we have alternative
facts, it doesn't matter.
But I want to talk about this--part of this discussion
deals with oversight. And Article I of the Constitution gives
not only as the purse strings--power of the purse strings but
oversight. And I must say, in 20 years I have been around here,
I don't think that we do oversight as well as we should.
I have a real problem with this whole issue of hiring
someone--or not hire--but to take over the role of what is this
committee's jurisdiction and every other committee in Congress
to do proper oversight and then point the finger somewhere else
I think is an abdication of our role, not only here in this
effort, but also in advise and consent over in the Senate.
But let's talk about the USAID freeze that--and I am trying
to understand where this administration is now coming with
their policy and what I think is an illegal dismantling of the
USAID. Because we can make changes, we can make modifications,
as we discussed earlier this morning, and we should. And this
administration should put its imprimatur on its own foreign
policy, as every administration does, whether I agree or not.
But the oversight is our responsibility, not the executive
branch's.
So let me ask you, in terms of China, which is our
adversary, there is no clear strategy, it seems to me, the
administration thus far is all over the place.
Mr. Natsios, do you think the actions on the USAID freeze
operations help us counter China and Russia?
Mr. Natsios. I said earlier that I believe our AID missions
are one of our greatest strengths because our FSOs are in the
countries and two-thirds of them are from the countries.
The Chinese do not have an aid system in the field. They
have a highly centralized system. Everything is done in
Beijing. They have no oversight over their programs.
Mr. Costa. So basically it is used as a tool, USAID, to
project U.S. mark power or soft power, whatever you want to
call it, and our influence abroad, right?
Mr. Natsios. That is right.
Mr. Costa. It is not altruistic. It is in our national
interest, right?
Mr. Natsios. That is right.
Mr. Costa. And, by the way, it benefits American farmers by
a tune of about $2 billion, right, in purchase of American
agricultural products, right----
Mr. Natsios. That is right.
Mr. Costa [continuing]. In farm country? And I represent a
significant farm district.
I want to focus on Ukraine for a moment. USAID allocated
over $30 billion to fund supported projects that stabilize the
energy grid, as mentioned earlier, government efficiency
programs, civil society groups. These efforts have bolstered
and strengthened Ukrainian society in the last 3 years
especially and the resolve to fight back against Russian
aggression.
Russia, Mr. Yoho, is our adversary. Would you not agree?
Mr. Yoho. Agree.
Mr. Costa. And so for those who claim over the past 2 years
to care about oversight on how the money is spent on USAID
staff, how do you think these investments in civil society and
development-based projects have helped to bolster Ukraine's
fight against the Russian invasion, the hostile invasion?
Mr. Yoho. You know, there is a need on the humanitarian
side with the food programs and things like that, health,
medical, those kind of things, but I question the role of NATO.
You know, why is NATO not there stronger than we are?
Mr. Costa. Well, I will give you some numbers, and we can
do that off side. But, really, when you add the EU support and
NATO support, it is pretty close to what we have done when you
look at the totality of the numbers.
Let me go to another place, Armenia, that I have worked
with over the years. USAID has played a significant role in
helping Armenians wanting to turn to the West. Russia has
abdicated its role under the treaty and sided with Azerbaijan.
Mr. Natsios, were you involved with the support for Armenia
when they found out or, Mr. Yoho, do you care to comment about
the precarious position they are in right now?
Mr. Natsios. Are you asking me?
Mr. Costa. Yes.
Mr. Natsios. I am sorry. I am trying to remember if we had
an AID mission there. It was not huge, but the relationship
between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is the problem you are
talking about----
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Natsios [continuing]. Was stable then.
Mr. Costa. It is not now.
Mr. Natsios. It is not now. And the Russians and the
Iranians are deeply involved and in fact, the Iranians almost
went to war with Azerbaijan. And, in fact, I was told by one of
our professors that they had actually started to put in
military bridges from Iran into Azerbaijan. This is about 8 or
9 months ago, and they were worried about a Middle Eastern war
over it because then Russia would have been drawn in and
Turkiye. Would have been a catastrophe. I don't know what
caused them to pull back, but they did.
Mr. Costa. Well, my time has expired. More to discussed,
and thank you for your testimoneys today.
Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
I want to thank Mr. Lawler for trading places with me and
allowing me to go a little early.
You know, this has been interesting because I have been in
and out of here, but I have kept it on the television if I have
had to be out.
We seem to have an agreement to disagree because I think we
agree on the following: At least some of the programs that each
of you have seen when you have gotten into it are wasteful,
unnecessary, and/or would be better reprogrammed to some other
use.
Can we all agree on that?
Mr. Yoho. Agree.
Mr. Issa. So are we dealing more with a stylistic complaint
here today that this administration has said stop, go back to
baseline, justify your programs, and we will restart versus, as
Andrew did, you said 80 programs were stopped in a very short
period of time, and that money was reprogrammed to better use?
Many of the programs that were talked about here--and some of
them did turn out to be State Department. So let's assume for a
moment that we are really talking about State and USAID and,
for that matter, maybe the EXIM Bank, maybe a lot of places
that disburse our funds have been used for purposes that the
new administration rightfully objects to and has the power or
the desire to reprogram.
Can we all agree that that is the case?
[nonverbal response.]
Mr. Issa. So now I am going to ask a couple of questions.
One, earlier there was this question that I objected to based
on my 25 years of experience here, and it was, why did we need
a special IG for Afghanistan and why did we need a special IG
for Iraq? And I am going to answer that for you folks. And if
any of you really disagree, happy to--since the answer came
from there as though we didn't need it, these were unique, high
expense areas, like Ukraine is today, in which it was very
difficult to audit and certainly difficult for one IG that does
the whole State Department to do so.
Can we all agree that that was the reason the prompting of
the special IGs?
Mr. Yoho. I would agree with that.
Mr. Primorac. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Okay.
Mr. Natsios. I don't agree with you, but----
Mr. Issa. No, no. But that was the reason for prompting.
You would agree with that?
Mr. Natsios. That is the reason for it, yes.
Mr. Issa. So you disagreed that it made sense, even though
those IGs found time and time again things and brought them to
Congress so we could consider whether to change the programs.
And I am going to ask you, not rhetorically, but directly,
because I believe we will need special IGs from time to time in
the future. Do you really believe that we would have gotten the
same level of oversight if we had simply had one IG sitting at
State Department rather than somebody who had a more direct
mandate and less politically motivated because those special
IGs transcended administration after administration?
Mr. Natsios. We had three audits from three different
inspectors:--the GAO, the special IG, and then the regular
AID--on the same program, at the same country, at the same
time. That is nuts.
Mr. Issa. Okay. So your point for us in the future so we
can do our job better is, if we have two IGs with overlapping,
try to deconflict them so you only get one request from one of
them?
Mr. Natsios. Yes.
Mr. Issa. I agree with that. But I am going to ask you a
followup question in the limited time I have left.
During the entire 4 years--because the other day we had
this big question about IGs, 19 of them being dismissed and
they are going to be replaced. During your time in Bush 2, in
W. Bush, you had an IG and you had a second IG, but you didn't
have an IG for the entire--for the State Department for the
entire period of time that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of
State.
So if we had not had a special IG that transcended that,
Hillary Clinton would have had 4 years with no IG looking at
what was going on in a very expansive--two expansive combat
zones. Isn't that true?
Mr. Natsios. You are correct, but we also didn't have an
IG--I have to say this--for State during the Bush
administration. I am not criticizing my own President, but
State Department does not like IGs.
Mr. Issa. So during the last administration--I left
Congress for 2 years to work for President Trump and was
heading the Trade Development Agency, so I have been on your
side of the fence advocating for the good work that an agency
can do.
But my question to all of you is, don't we need more
oversight so we don't have each administration coming in and
saying, halt, we need to look at this? And wouldn't it have
been better if, before we got to this point, Congress had been
more aware sooner of the need for the kinds of changes we are
hearing about here today?
Mr. Yoho. I have to agree 100 percent with you. You can get
it report after report after report, but if you do not act on
it, the report is worthless.
Mr. Issa. Okay. I want to thank all of you.
And, again, I thank my colleague from New York and yield
back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Issa.
The chair now recognizes Representative Lawler.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Chairman.
How many of you use some form of online banking and get
email notices for your credit card statements?
Have you ever had the moment where you get the email
notice, you open it, and you look and go, Oh, my God, what did
I spend this month? And then you go check the online portal,
and you look and you see the itemization, and you go, Oh, wow,
I didn't realize that.
That is what has happened here, very simply. USAID has an
important mission. And, unfortunately, they have gone askew on
that mission. PEPFAR is a program that I have been in strong
support of, and 60 percent of the program is administered by
USAID. It is a vital program.
Humanitarian assistance--and when you think humanitarian
assistance, you think food, you think shelter, you think
supplies, medical supplies. You think testing for different
types of diseases. Unfortunately, as we peel back the onion
here, we are finding more and more that billions of dollars of
taxpayer money are being misappropriated.
And so what Secretary Rubio has done by putting a 90-day
freeze in place, per President Trump's executive orders, is to
have a comprehensive review. Now, during that review, they have
granted a waiver for lifesaving treatment and care and
humanitarian assistance, inclusive of PEPFAR and food, and that
is what they should do.
Now, some of my Democratic colleagues will say, Under what
authority are they doing this? Well, section 7063 of the 2024
appropriations gave the Secretary the authority to do this. And
I would remind my colleagues that, under the Clinton
administration, Madeleine Albright tried to bring USAID under
the control of the State Department.
So this is not some new concept. And, certainly, USAID
wouldn't have been in the crosshairs as much as it has been had
the people working there abided by the order issued by the
Secretary of State. Instead, they thought their judgment should
be substituted and that, in fact, they as bureaucrats
unelected, have more authority than the elected President,
Congress, or the confirmed Secretary of State.
Mr. Lawler. Now, when it comes to oversight, we had
Samantha Power in here last Congress. We asked her numerous
questions. We asked her for information. And as often the case,
when Congress as a coequal branch ask for information, the
executive tries to stymie that. And because it was a
Republican-controlled House, the Democratic White House and
Democrat-controlled USAID did not want to cooperate with these
investigations and requests for legitimate information.
And so, frankly, in 3 to 4 weeks, DOGE has gotten more
information than Congress ever could because the executive
oftentimes refuses to cooperate.
And for those saying there is no transparency here, how is
it not transparent? You are hearing about it. It is being
released. It is being reported upon. This isn't happening in
the middle of the night.
Now, one of the things we have uncovered is the fact that a
congressionally appropriated fund, the Nita Lowey Middle East
Partnership for Peace Act, and Nita Lowey being one of my
predecessors, is a $250 million fund controlled by USAID. And
it was set up for the purpose of cultural dialog.
And USAID, under this program, gave $3 million to
tomorrow's youth, and ahead of that has produced numerous
antisemitic, anti-Israeli songs as part of this cultural
dialog.
Now, given what has happened in the Middle East and given
what happened on October 7, do any of you actually believe that
is a good use of American taxpayer dollars, to promote
antisemitic rap songs in the Middle East?
Mr. Yoho. Those are criminal activities that need to stop.
Mr. Primorac. I would add that any institution, university,
or otherwise that is engaged in antisemitic behavior or stop it
on their campuses should be disqualified from getting any kind
of foreign aid.
Mr. Yoho. Agreed.
Mr. Natsios. I agree, too.
Mr. Lawler. Well, that is what we are talking about, and
that is what we are dealing with. And for those saying, where
is Congress? We are here. We are having this hearing. We are
providing this oversight. That is our role, but it is the role
of the executive to manage the agencies and departments, and
that is exactly what they are doing.
And, frankly, they have provided more information to
Congress in the last few weeks than Congress ever got under the
Biden administration. And the Biden administration is the one
that approved that $3 million to go to an antisemitic rap
artist to promote Jewish hatred.
That is what we are talking about. That is why the 90-day
pause was put in place, and that is why this nonsense needs to
end.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Lawler.
Representative Jackson was hoping--he was advocating for
you to get another 5 to 10 minutes, but I told him we have to
move on to Representative Mackenzie, our final person for
questions.
You are now recognized.
Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the hearing that we are having today
because it relates to some of the biggest challenges that our
country faces today. And first is we have an economic crisis in
this country. Millions of Americans are still struggling to
make ends meet. We have $36 trillion of debt. We have a $1.8
trillion deficit. And so it is incumbent upon us as Members of
Congress to scrutinize every tax dollar that is spent.
So I am a little surprised when some of our colleagues here
today want to diminish the fact that we are talking about $40
billion. It is still $40 billion of taxpayer money that we are
talking about.
And so USAID does provide, in some cases, very good
services that advance our interests around the world and help
others, and that is something that we want to maybe continue,
but that should come before Congress.
At the same time, we have seen illegal immigration
devaState our country. That is the other big challenge that I
believe our country is facing. We have had a wide open southern
border where the Biden administration took their executive
powers and used them to not build a border wall. There were
funds that were appropriated through Congress to build a border
wall. I was down on the southern border. I saw the equipment
laying by the side of the border not being built. And so
Mexican drug cartels were bringing in weapons and human
trafficking and drugs right across our border, and there was
nothing being done about it.
So those are two of the biggest challenges that we face.
We have heard about the absolute waste that is going on in
USAID today, total waste of taxpayer dollars, adding to our
debt and to our deficit. At the same time, we have seen USAID
has actually made some kind of attempt to stem illegal
immigration, but it seems to have totally failed.
And so I want to bring up, in 2021, USAID announced
Centroamerica Local, a 5-year $300 million initiative to pay
local organizations in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to
address the, quote, root causes of migration. The GAO found
that this initiative did not require training of staff to
detect and reduce fraud risks because USAID did not actually
regulate the training of agencywide individuals.
So we have money that is going to this cause. At the same
time, we have people who in this chamber still want to fight us
on building a border wall and border security. In fact, many of
the Members that were part of the longest shutdown in U.S.
Government history over a border wall are still here, and we
still hear about them saying that they may potentially shut
down the government.
So I would like to ask the members of our panel today if
they have thoughts on is the USAID initiative to stem the root
causes of migration the right way to go or is building a border
wall the right way to go?
Mr. Primorac. I have written on this, and we have looked at
all of the numbers, and the amount of money that we spend, no
matter how much, has absolutely no impact on migration. It is
having a firmly sealed, enclosed border. That is what the
solution is.
Mr. Mackenzie. Well, thank you. I appreciate that response,
and I agree with you. And so I look forward to, as we move
through this Congress, providing funding for a border wall that
will secure our country. And also, I look forward to
scrutinizing every single dollar of the billions that are going
out through USAID for absolute waste and programs which are not
effective or efficient in actually achieving their mission. And
so that is the prerogative of Congress.
But the reason that we are having this hearing today is
because of the executive branch shining a light on all of this
waste and inefficiency and so we can work in collaboration with
an administration to provide for our American citizens safety,
security, actually protecting and spending taxpayer dollars in
an efficient and effective fashion, not putting our children
and grandchildren in trillions of dollars of debt. I believe
that we can do all of that, and we are going to do that this
Congress and with this administration.
So with what, I will yield back my time to the chairman,
but I want to thank all of our panelists and everybody for
today's hearing.
Chairman Mast. I thank the representative from
Pennsylvania.
I am now going to recognize Representative Jackson for any
closing remarks that you may have.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I would like to thank you so much,
Chairman Mast.
On behalf of Ranking Member Meeks, I would like to say we
very much thank you for the time that you all have spent with
us today, your candidness, your forthright, and the amount of
time and sacrifice that you have made in not making your bodies
more comfortable earlier in the program.
So continued success. And I know we have many things in
common. We will have continued success together, and we are
going to continue to work for the best outcome for our Nation
and our great people.
With that, I yield back, Chairman Mast. Great to work
alongside you, sir.
Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Jackson.
I also thank the witnesses for their testimony on this
important topic today. I have no doubt that we will be speaking
on this further.
President Trump, in my opinion, is absolutely making
America immeasurably stronger by gutting USAID and gutting the
State Department forthcoming. He is making it clear that there
is no more stupid social engineering programs that will
continue. No more comic books for $50,000 or $50,000 trans
operas. No more $800,000 job fairs in Bangladesh for trans
individuals specifically in a country where the average monthly
wage is $220. These things come to an end.
Asking the questions, are Americans better because that
dollar came out of their pocket and went to these programs or
not? That is a bar that we have to hold ourselves to. Should
somebody working today have kept those dollars in their pocket
instead of sending their dollars to programs like those? There
is not a more important question that we could ask.
Our President Trump and Secretary Rubio and Elon Musk and
his team, are they eliminating waste? Absolutely, yes. Are they
making the system accountable where the buck stops with
Secretary Rubio? Yes.
Secretary Rubio is, in fact, encouraging important
lifesaving programs to continue. America is significantly
stronger every minute the wasteful programs are ended, and we
are weakened every minute that they are allowed to continue.
We gave the Biden administration and my Democrat colleagues
the chance to work on oversight. One easy example that I worked
on personally would be the expansion of atheism in Nepal with
$500,000 grants. My colleagues played the game; admit nothing,
deny and lie about all of it, and make counter accusations.
Even with all of the documents laid directly in front of them,
that is what took place. We tried. They wouldn't do it.
I know Americans are not stupid. They know there is no
value for them in a $100,000 DEI survey in Ghana. They know
that there is not value for them spending $520 million to pay
ESG consultants to teach people in Africa about climate change.
Also, what is extremely telling to all of us is the amount
of grant recipients who are not asking for waivers. They know
that the gig is up and do not even want to try and justify what
it is that they had been doing, the way that they were grifting
off of Americans who are going to work each and every day.
What is not surprising is that my colleagues have tried to
lie to the American people saying that people are dying. We
have heard that argument before again and again. My colleagues
have said about 10 times at least in this hearing that there is
an elderly lady in Thailand who died because they couldn't get
her the oxygen she needed because America cutoff aid.
Let's tell the truth about what really happened. The NGO
who was providing oxygen, International Rescue Committee, known
as IRC, their CEO, David Miliband, has a salary of about $1.2
million a year. That is the theft, the larceny that is going on
at USAID, where the grants, while even possibly lifesaving
grants, are paying for high salaries for former British members
of Parliament.
Parts of PEPFAR have been approved for waiver because it
provides lifesaving medication to people who need it. Certainly
not the abortions they were conducting. But that took Secretary
Rubio shutting down the program, reviewing the BS that was
going on, and correcting it.
Combating the spread of Ebola has been approved for waiver
because it is lifesaving. World Food Program aid in Haiti has
been approved for waiver because it is lifesaving. What hasn't
been approved is the waste, the grift, and the larceny.
Now, despite the arguments that we have had today, we do
agree that aid can be effective and that aid can advance
America's interests, but the countries that receive aid will
not receive it if they are taking the United States of America
and its people for granted. And it will be lifesaving aid,
period, not social engineering.
In that, I will ask that members of the committee, if they
have additional questions for the witnesses, that you do
respond in writing.
Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
submit those statements and questions and extraneous materials
for the record, subject to the length limitations.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]