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


                     OVERSIGHT, TRANSPARENCY, AND 
                            ACCOUNTABILITY
                         OF UKRAINE ASSISTANCE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             March 29, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-11

                               __________

        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                    
52-399 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman

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

                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Shaw, Ms. Diana, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
  State..........................................................     7
Angarella, Ms. Nicole L., Acting Deputy Inspector General, U.S. 
  Agency for International Development...........................    16
Storch, Mr. Robert P., Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
  Defense........................................................    22

             ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Report submitted for the record from Representative Lieu.........    50

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    85
Hearing Minutes..................................................    87
Hearing Attendance...............................................    88

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    89

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    91

 
   OVERSIGHT, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF UKRAINE ASSISTANCE

                       Wednesday, March 29, 2023

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

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come 
to order.
    The purpose of this hearing is to assess the accountability 
mechanisms that ensure American taxpayer money is being spent 
as intended in Ukraine.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    It has been a year since Vladimir Putin launched his 
unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine. And in response, 
Europe has provided significant aid, but must continue to do 
more to keep the government of Ukraine from defaulting and 
ensure it is able to prosecute the war.
    Additionally, Congress has also provided a significant 
amount of assistance to Ukraine to ensure Putin's aggression is 
stopped at Ukraine's border and that a NATO ally is not next.
    I have supported U.S. assistance because a victory by Putin 
in Ukraine would further embolden America's adversaries--from 
Chairman Xi in Beijing to the Ayatollah in Tehran, to Kim Jong-
un in North Korea.
    However, it is imperative that the American people know 
about the existing accountability mechanisms, including third-
party monitors such as Deloitte and the robust oversight being 
conducted by Congress, and, in particular, this committee.
    When Republicans took the majority, we made it very clear 
that accountability will be paramount to continued assistance 
in Ukraine. This is just the first of many hearings and 
briefings I will hold to ensure the assistance we are providing 
is being used as intended.
    Of the $113 billion appropriated across four supplementals, 
approximately 60 percent is going to American troops, American 
workers, and in modernizing American stockpiles. In fact, only 
20 percent of funding is going directly to the Ukrainian 
government in the form of direct budgetary assistance.
    As required by law, these funds are only disbursed to 
Ukraine following verification that the money is spent on 
approved items and activities. All funds are also subjected to 
external third-party monitoring by Deloitte. They are 
conducting randomized spot-checks to verify the use of this 
assistance. Additionally, they are working with Ukraine's 
Ministry of Finance to review its monitoring, transparency, 
verification, and reporting systems and procedures.
    Today, we have the opportunity to question the independent 
Inspectors General from the Department of State, the USAID, and 
the Department of Defense. This is the first time all three of 
you have appeared together before any committee to discuss your 
oversight role in the 64 planned and ongoing audits and reviews 
of U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
    Your work is a critical component to ensure that Congress 
is being good stewards of the taxpayers' money, and it is 
necessary to prevent waste, fraud, or abuse, and if need be, 
investigate and resolve any incidents.
    Congress has also been exercising oversight. Through the 
passage of several bills, we have ensured that there have been 
39 accountability provisions passed into law. And since day one 
as chairman of this committee, I have been actively exercising 
my constitutionally guaranteed responsibility to pursue 
stringent oversight as well.
    My first committee meeting was a classified briefing on the 
U.S. response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and 
last month I led a congressional delegation to Ukraine and 
Poland to conduct in-person oversight of U.S. aid to Ukraine. I 
saw firsthand the process is working and delivered a clear 
message, not only to our embassy team, but also to President 
Zelenskyy, about the importance that U.S. aid be spent 
appropriately to guarantee continued support. In short, every 
dollar counts.
    The Biden Administration should expect this committee to 
continue to be vigilant in demanding transparency and 
accountability for U.S. assistance to Ukraine. To be clear, I 
do not conduct this oversight to undermine or question the 
importance of support for Ukraine, but, rather, to the 
contrary, oversight should incentivize the Administration and 
Ukraine to use funds from Congress with the highest degree of 
efficiency and effectiveness.
    And while there is strong bipartisan support on this 
committee and in Congress for the continued support of Ukraine, 
transparency and accountability are critical to ensure the aid 
we are providing is being used as intended and it advances U.S. 
national security interests. The American taxpayer wants and 
deserves accountability. They want to, and deserve to, know 
where their money is going.
    And, in closing, I just want to say, as I met with all 
three of you, as the first supplemental was passed, I know, 
speaking with the State Department, with Samantha Powers at 
USAID, with the Department of Defense, with our Ambassador to 
Ukraine, I stressed to them the importance of putting 
mechanisms early in place, from day one, to ensure we had 
accountability in place. And I think we are going to hear from 
you how that has actually been working. It is always better to 
be in right at the beginning, rather than later on, when 
something wrong has happened.
    So, I really, really appreciate you being here today, and I 
look forward to your testimony.
    And with that, I will recognize the ranking member.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses.
    As we all know, Russia's brutal war against Ukraine grinds 
into its second year, and Congress and the American people will 
continue to stand with the brave Ukrainians who are defending 
their rights and freedom. Ukrainians did not ask for this 
unjust war of aggression. They are only asking for our support 
as they defend their home and their sovereignty. And it is in 
our national interest to provide that support to Ukraine, so it 
may win this war, which it will.
    Our effort isn't just about Ukraine and its citizens. This 
struggle is for democracies around the world and free people 
standing up to brutal autocrats, like Putin, to reinforce the 
notion that might does not make right.
    You know, when I was chairman and served as chair, I was 
proud to lead congressional delegations to Ukraine, Poland, 
Moldova, NATO Headquarters, and other critical neighboring 
countries in a bipartisan fashion before and after the February 
24th full-scale invasion. And we were together on many of those 
trips.
    And I believe bipartisan unity strengthens our coalition of 
allies and partners. And I want to thank the chairman, who 
traveled with me to many of those places, and we worked very 
collectively in that regard, as we continue to do here.
    So, on those visits, and in the hearings and briefings that 
we have held over the years, we have had the opportunity to see 
firsthand the impact that American assistance to Ukraine has 
had on the trajectory of this war. And we have also had the 
opportunity to regularly engage with the Administration on its 
diplomatic and military strategy, as well as the unprecedented 
oversight the Administration and the offices of our witnesses 
here today are undertaking.
    Which is why, to be frank--and it is not the chairman--I 
disagree with the premise cited by some others on the other 
side of the aisle who are falsely claiming that support for 
Ukraine is, and I quote, ``a blank check.'' This is simply not 
based in fact, and either reveals a lack of understanding of 
the safeguards that are already in place on our assistance to 
Ukraine or, worse, an effort to mislead the public to undermine 
the assistance in Ukraine's defense against Russia's invasion.
    Embedded in our country's support for Ukraine are strict 
oversight mechanisms. Every dollar and shipment of U.S. 
security assistance provided is audaciously tracked by an 
integrated, whole-of-government effort led by the Departments 
of State and Defense. These mechanisms aren't new. They span 
across agencies and coalesce in the interagency effort that has 
regularly been briefed to Congress, including the 
Administration's interagency effort entitled, ``The U.S. Plan 
to Counter Illicit Diversion of Certain Advanced Conventional 
Weapons in Eastern Europe.''
    Members of this committee have received multiple briefings 
on this very effort and have available to them scores of 
documents detailing the exact types of assistance provided to 
Ukraine and the timing of that assistance. In addition to the 
Administration's own efforts to ensure utmost monitoring and 
accountability of our assistance to Ukraine, three Inspectors 
General, overseeing the State Department, Defense Department, 
and USAID, developed an integrated response and accountability 
investigatory approach called, ``The Joint Strategic Oversight 
Plan for Ukraine.''
    In January of this year, our witnesses traveled together--
and we thank you for that--to Ukraine, underscoring the 
seriousness with which the Administration is taking your work 
as Inspectors General. Your trip is just one facet of a 
sustained oversight over the humanitarian, economic, and 
military aid to Ukraine and to neighboring countries affected 
by the war.
    But the United States does more than provide defense and 
humanitarian assistance. We are providing global leadership. 
When Putin gave the order to invade Ukraine, he did so under 
the false assumption that the West would be divided, and that 
the United States and our partners and allies would not meet 
this historic moment. And I want to commend the Biden 
Administration for leading global efforts to push back against 
Russian aggression and for cultivating unity against Russia's 
actions in Ukraine.
    Now, the world is watching us. And unfortunately, some of 
my friends on the other side of the aisle who happen to be MAGA 
Republicans are putting Putin exactly what he wants--are giving 
him exactly what he wants, even at times repeating Kremlin 
talking points. We cannot allow those efforts to compromise the 
U.S. leadership in places like the United Nations, where our 
diplomats sit across from their Russian counterparts on a 
regular basis to dispel Russian propaganda and work with our 
global allies and continue the isolation of war, of the 
criminal war criminal, Mr. Putin.
    And so, I want to thank our witnesses, and I want to thank 
our chairman for his standing up and fighting to make sure that 
we continue to give the Ukrainian people what they need to make 
sure that they are able to win this war. He has been stand-up. 
We have been working side by side on that, and I want to make 
sure that it is clear that I appreciate the actions and the 
movement of the chairman and I. And we will continue to work 
together.
    And thank you for the work that you do to assure the 
American that we know where every dime is.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    I really appreciate your comments, sir. I think this is a 
necessary step to build confidence with the Congress that the 
money is being accounted for.
    And so, other members of the committee are reminded that 
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
    We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses 
before us today.
    Ms. Diana Shaw is Deputy Inspector General, who is 
currently performing the duties of the Inspector General of the 
Department of State.
    Ms. Nicole Angarella is the Acting Deputy Inspector 
General, who is currently performing the duties of Inspector 
General at the U.S. Agency for International Development.
    And Mr. Robert Storch is the Inspector General at the 
Department of Defense.
    I want to thank all of you for being here today.
    Your full statements will be part of the record, and I ask 
that you each keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes.
    I now recognize Ms. Shaw for her opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF DIANA SHAW, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Shaw. Good morning, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member 
Meeks, and distinguished members of the committee.
    Thank you so much for inviting me to discuss the Department 
of State Office of Inspector General's oversight of the U.S. 
Government response to the war in Ukraine.
    I'm very pleased today to be joined by my counterparts from 
our primary oversight partners in this space: the U.S. Agency 
for International Development and Department of Defense OIGs.
    To date, Congress has appropriated more than $100 billion 
to fund a vast array of activities in support of the U.S. 
response to the war in Ukraine, and we in the oversight 
community recognize that it is vitally important to our 
stakeholders, including all of you and the American people, 
that those precious resources reach their intended 
beneficiaries and accomplish intended goals.
    Fraud, waste, and inefficiency cannot be allowed to taint 
that effort, which is why we take our oversight role incredibly 
seriously and have each made oversight of the U.S. response to 
the war in Ukraine our No. 1 priority.
    The State, USAID, and DoD OIGs are particularly well-
positioned to take on this critical interagency overwork, 
oversight work, given our long history of collaborating on 
overseas contingency operations. Leveraging that history and 
the deep relationships that we have forged with each other and 
others in the oversight community over many years, we 
established a Ukraine Oversight Interagency Working Group 
nearly a year ago, consisting of professionals from 20 U.S. 
Government accountability organizations. The closely 
coordinated work of that group is resulting in agile, 
integrated, and comprehensive oversight of the sizable U.S. 
enterprise, as reflected in the Joint Strategic Oversight Plan 
for Ukraine that we published earlier this year.
    This plan and a report issued this week expanding on the 
plan present the full range of the working group's Ukraine-
related work, amounting to nearly 90 completed, ongoing, and 
planned projects. The plan and recent report detail three 
strategic areas of oversight that cover the waterfront of the 
U.S.-Ukraine response effort. These are security assistance and 
coordination, non-security assistance and coordination, and 
management and operations.
    State OIG has carefully designed its work to contribute in 
important ways in each of these three areas. Our work, which is 
described in more detail in my written testimony and on the 
State OIG website, is expected to culminate in more than two 
dozen products that explore a range of topics within each of 
these strategic areas, including end-use monitoring of U.S.-
origin defense articles and other equipment; how the Department 
is deploying aid to address humanitarian needs; whether the 
Department has developed a strategy for the billions of dollars 
of foreign assistance flowing to Ukraine, and Embassy Kyiv 
operations--from its shuttering in February 2022 to its 
reopening in May, to its current operating status.
    In addition to this important work, we also recognize the 
need to be proactive, especially as it relates to our anti-
fraud and corruption efforts. On that front, we are working 
with our OIG counterparts to disseminate products that will 
increase fraud awareness and reporting, and we are also 
expanding our investigative data analytics capacity to help 
identify trends in the Ukraine-related fraud reporting, as well 
as common criminal schemes.
    I am confident that our completed, ongoing, and planned 
work, when taken together with that of our partners on the 
working group, will provide an end-to-end account of how the 
vast resources appropriated in this context are being utilized.
    We have made an excellent start, but I recognize that there 
is a potentially long road ahead. And to that end, we have been 
thinking strategically about how best to further this important 
work. This was at the forefront of our minds when we traveled 
together to Ukraine and the surrounding region earlier this 
year. There, my counterparts and I directly communicated to 
U.S. and Ukrainian officials the message that U.S. assistance 
must be transparently accounted for and that corruption 
affecting U.S. assistance will not be tolerated.
    That message was well-received at the time, but we 
recognize that continuous in-person engagement and direct 
observation will be needed to ensure that the necessary 
controls are in place. Accordingly, we are working closely with 
the Department to secure positions at Embassy Kyiv, which we 
believe will help us better deliver the independent oversight 
on which our stakeholders rely.
    Thank you for your interest in our work and the opportunity 
to discuss our commitment to timely, objective, comprehensive 
U.S.-Ukraine oversight. And I look forward to addressing the 
committee's questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Shaw follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Ms. Shaw.
    I now recognize Ms. Angarella for her opening statement.

   STATEMENT OF NICOLE L. ANGARELLA, ACTING DEPUTY INSPECTOR 
       GENERAL, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Ms. Angarella. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Meeks, and distinguished members of the committee.
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss the U.S. Agency for International Development Office of 
Inspector General's oversight of assistance to the government 
and people of Ukraine. I'm honored to be sitting here today 
with my close partners, IG Storch and Deputy IG Shaw.
    My testimony will describe USAID OIG's oversight response 
efforts, including a summary of our recent, planned, and 
ongoing work overseeing USAID's economic and humanitarian 
assistance to Ukraine.
    I want to clearly State that providing timely, independent, 
and objective oversight of USAID's Ukraine response is my 
office's top priority. I appreciate the support from members of 
this committee, providing $13 million in supplemental funding 
to our office to conduct this important work.
    Since the start of Russia's invasion, USAID has been the 
primary agency providing non-security assistance to Ukraine. 
This includes $22.9 billion appropriated in direct budget 
support, more than $1.4 billion in humanitarian assistance, and 
more than $800 million in development assistance. This support 
requires proportionate levels of independent oversight.
    To provide this oversight, USAID OIG has more than 60 staff 
supporting its Ukraine portfolio. Over the last 9 months, we 
issued eight products, including a Joint Strategic Oversight 
Plan with our IG partners.
    Our first advisory report drew from our previous work and 
experience providing oversight of USAID's programming in other 
complex environments. Each of these responses presented unique 
challenges for USAID, but they shared common risks that we 
highlighted for the agency as it initiated programming in 
Ukraine.
    Next, we issued a fraud alert identifying common schemes 
likely to affect USAID programming. Following its issuance, a 
major USAID contractor in Ukraine reported to us an allegation 
of collusive bidding which they identified prior to making a 
subaward. We immediately issued a second fraud alert warning 
the aid sector working in Ukraine to look for and to report 
similar schemes.
    In addition, our investigators have provided more than 20 
fraud awareness briefings to nearly 1,000 individuals 
supporting USAID programs in Ukraine. We worked closely with 
our colleagues at State and DoD to issue joint hotline 
materials in both Ukrainian and English. Since broadcasting our 
joint message to report fraud to the IGs, my office has 
received 178 reported related to Ukraine. This is a 556 percent 
increase in reports from the previous 11-month period.
    To date, we have no serious criminal findings associated 
with USAID assistance to Ukraine. This increase in reporting, 
however, shows that our outreach is working, and that 
individuals know how and who to report potential misuse of 
USAID funds to.
    We also issued three products related to USAID's direct 
budget support, an information brief that described the three 
different World Bank Trust Funds and their oversight 
mechanisms. We found the oversight mechanisms align with GAO's 
Federal standards for internal controls. In a future report, we 
will assess the effectiveness of those established mechanisms.
    Our work is also enhanced by longstanding partnerships and 
MOUs with our oversight counterparts at U.N. agencies, the 
World Bank, and bilateral donor countries. With the current 
limitations on U.S. Government personnel in Ukraine, these 
relationships offer a front-row seat to what is happening on 
the ground. This collaboration also sends a powerful message 
that we are united and that we will use our collective 
resources to ensure donor assistance reaches its intended 
recipients.
    Looking forward, USAID OIG has 22 planned and ongoing 
oversight projects related to Ukraine. This work aligns with 
USAID's major programs, objectives, and funding in Ukraine.
    Internally, in furtherance of our oversight work, we are 
recruiting surge capacity staff, enhancing our data analytics 
program, working to add permanent IG positions in Kyiv, and we 
are continuing to develop products that will provide timely 
information to policymakers.
    As the head of USAID's Office of Inspector General, 
Congress and the American people have my commitment to 
independent, transparent, and timely oversight of USAID's 
Ukraine response. Further, I am committed to helping lead, with 
Diana and Rob, our Interagency Working Group. Together, we will 
ensure a comprehensive, efficient, and whole-of-government 
approach to our work.
    Thank you for your support of USAID OIG. I look forward to 
your questions and the discussion today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Angarella follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you for that testimony.
    I now recognize Mr. Storch for his opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. STORCH, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 
                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Mr. Storch. Good morning, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member 
Meeks, and distinguished members of the committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss the DoD Office of the Inspector General's ongoing, 
robust oversight of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.
    Together with our colleagues from the Department of State 
OIG and the U.S. Agency for International Development OIG, and 
the other members of the 20-agency-strong oversight working 
group, we are actively engaged in a whole-of-government 
approach to ensure comprehensive, independent oversight across 
the full range of U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
    In January, as has been mentioned, we published our Joint 
Strategic Oversight Plan for Ukraine, and just yesterday, we 
publicly released a congressionally mandated report updating 
the status of our joint oversight efforts.
    As IGs, our offices conduct oversight through two basic 
means: programmatic audits, evaluations, and other reviews, and 
investigations into allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and 
other criminal conduct.
    Since the 2022 invasion, the DoD OIG has issued five 
programmatic reports related to U.S. security assistance to 
Ukraine, including two management advisories that identified 
areas of concern that we found could impact the DoD's ability 
to transparently track and report the supplemental funds 
appropriated for Ukraine, and our most recent report in which 
we made recommendations to assist the Army with its 
maintenance, inventory, and other processes for prepositioned 
equipment in the region.
    We currently have some 21 ongoing and planned projects that 
cover the full spectrum of what is, essentially, a train-and-
supply mission for the DoD, focusing on, among other things, 
ensuring that tax dollars are used properly; that there is 
appropriate accountability for weapons and other materiel, and 
that U.S. stocks are appropriately replenished, so they are 
available, should they be needed elsewhere.
    Our ongoing and planned projects address critical issues, 
like security and accountability controls for the transport of 
weapons and equipment; intelligence sharing; the replenishment 
of U.S. weapons stockpiles; controls for validating and 
responding to requests for support; the maintenance and 
sustainment of weapons provided; the training of Ukrainian 
soldiers to use those weapons; awards of non-competitive 
contracts, and the DoD's execution of funds appropriated to 
assist Ukraine.
    As our work is authoritative, because we follow rigorous, 
established standards and processes, I cannot release the 
results of our oversight projects prior to their completion, 
but I want to assure you that we of the DoD OIG are committed 
to being as agile as possible in bringing our oversight to 
fruition and as transparent as possible in making the results 
of that work available to the Congress and the public.
    One area in which my office has been, and will continue to 
be, laser-focused is end-use monitoring, known as EUM, and 
enhanced end-use monitoring, or EEUM, which is the DoD's 
tracking of military assistance and sensitive equipment after 
those assets are transferred to other countries. As an 
independent overseer of the DoD, the OIG does not conduct EUM 
or EEUM, but, as early as 2020, we issued a report on how the 
DoD was conducting EEUM of military assistance to Ukraine.
    Last October, with the fighting ongoing, we issued a 
classified report in which we determined at a high level that 
the DoD was unable to provide such monitoring in accordance 
with then-existing policy because of the limited U.S. presence 
in Ukraine, and we outlined the actions the DoD was taking to 
account for the U.S. equipment provided in such circumstances.
    As the situation has continued to evolve, we are now 
actively engaged in our third evaluation of EUM/EEUM in 
Ukraine, and we will continue to focus on this important area, 
looking for opportunities to use agile reporting to release our 
findings and recommendations in a timely and transparent 
manner.
    In addition to this robust slate of programmatic reviews, 
the DoD OIG's Defense Criminal Investigative Service is 
actively engaged in conducting fraud prevention and 
investigative activities, leveraging its existing relationships 
and experience conducting investigations on combat environments 
around the world to ensure the integrity of U.S. assistance to 
Ukraine.
    While I cannot, of course, comment on any ongoing 
investigations, based on our completed work, we have not 
substantiated any instances of the diversion of U.S. security 
assistance to Ukraine.
    The DoD OIG has more than 90 professionals engaged in 
oversight of security assistance to Ukraine, including some 20 
positions forward-deployed in the region, and we are seeking to 
establish a persistent presence at the Embassy in Kyiv to 
further our future oversight work.
    Working hand-in-glove with our oversight partners, my 
office will continue to make robust, independent oversight of 
U.S. assistance to Ukraine a matter of the highest priority for 
as long as the conflict and the need for oversight continue.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Storch follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Storch, and I will start 
with you.
    As I said in my opening statement, from day one, when we 
had the very first supplemental package, I think putting these 
mechanisms in place with three Inspectors General, a Deloitte 
audit is really the way to do this, is right at the beginning, 
not at the tail-end. So, I am pleased that we were able to make 
that progress.
    I was in Poland and Ukraine about a month ago. I went to 
the 101st Airborne, where the logistics of all the weapons are 
going in country, and it is quite fascinating to see that 
amount of NATO weapons from all different countries being 
merged together in a pipeline, and then, the communications 
with the Ukrainians, also with the parts and repairs. I mean, I 
do not think the United States has ever been engaged in 
anything quite like this.
    On the weapons, I was assured that there is a system of 
barcoding with the weapons and end-use monitoring. Could you 
explain that process to the members?
    Mr. Storch. Thank you. Thank you very much for the 
question.
    As you say, it really is remarkable to see the efforts that 
are being made to transport such large volumes of equipment, 
and increasingly, sophisticated equipment, and to get it to the 
battlefield in a timely fashion, and then, as you say, to 
ensure appropriate maintenance and sustainment as well.
    One of the things that DoD, based on our work, has 
emphasized--and we have been overseeing to make sure they 
emphasize--is the accountability of that assistance throughout 
that supply chain, right? So, starting when the material first 
heads out, watching as it is transported throughout the 
process, as it gets over into Europe, and then, is transported 
on into Ukraine.
    And as you say, one of the things that the DoD has 
testified about--and frankly, we are looking at in our ongoing 
review of EUM and EEUM--is this system of barcoding that has 
been put in place to help to track the equipment, once it 
enters into the country. So, that is an area that the 
Department has been exploring. We looked back, in 2020, in our 
initial EUM evaluation at the earlier stages of that. It has 
now moved forward and we are continuing to look at that in our 
ongoing evaluation.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, and any ways that we can even improve 
upon what is already, I think, a good system, please let me 
know.
    When I was there at that time, they said there had been no 
illicit diversion of U.S. weapons transferred to Ukraine. Does 
that still remain the case?
    Mr. Storch. As I said, based on our substantiated work, we 
have not substantiated any instances of diversion.
    And with regard to the improvements in the system, I just 
say that is a big part of why we do this work, right? We are 
looking for compliance, but we are also looking for ways to 
improve the economy, the efficiency, and the effectiveness of 
what, in my case, the DoD is doing with this. So, we are 
absolutely focused on that and we will continue to report on it 
as transparently as we possibly can.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. Ms. Angarella, I am glad to see that 
our European partners are starting to finally step up to the 
plate. I think they could do more. I think Eastern European 
NATO allies have borne the brunt of this because it is in their 
backyard. I think the Western NATO countries could do a better 
job stepping up. And we have seen some countries do this.
    one of the top givers now, right? I think we are going to 
continue to press them. And I do not think the United States 
should bear the burden of this war and responsibility when it 
is in their own backyard. I know that is not part of your job 
description, but I just make that as a statement.
    But, for U.S. direct budget supports to Ukraine, could you 
tell us about the existing accounting mechanisms in place, and 
have you seen any misuse or fraud in these funds?
    Ms. Angarella. Thank you for your question.
    I will start at the end to State that, from our 
substantiated work that we have done thus far, we have not 
identified any instances of fraud or misuse with respect to the 
direct budget support.
    Starting at the beginning, there is multi-tiered response 
and oversight framework in place with many different 
organizations reporting and providing oversight, starting with 
the government of Ukraine and the Ministry of Finance. The U.S. 
Government's direct budget support is going through the World 
Bank, through three different trust funds. The major one where 
the majority of money is going through is operated on a 
reimbursement basis. So, once expenditures are made and they 
are determined to be eligible by the government of Ukraine, 
they are, then, submitted to the World Bank, and the World Bank 
reviews those expenditures for eligibility, as the trustee.
    On top of that, as you mentioned, USAID, the agency, is 
doing its own oversight and monitoring, as the owner of this 
programming and the agency in which the money is flowing 
through. They have contracted with Deloitte, as you mentioned, 
to do capacity-building and monitoring in Ukraine, to help 
buildup the internal capacity of the government of Ukraine to 
do that work.
    Additionally, USAID has partnered with GAO, the agency, not 
the IG, to do capacity-building and training for the external 
auditors and the supreme audit agency within Ukraine.
    On top of that, USAID OIG is providing oversight. And where 
our role is important is looking at the complex structure that 
is in place and identifying any gaps, any weaknesses, and most 
importantly, providing an independent assessment of the 
monitoring and the reporting that is being done. So, to date, 
our office has issued three reports already on direct budget 
assistance, and we have two being worked on right now.
    And additionally, we have Memorandums of Understanding, 
USAID OIG, with the World Bank, their integrity office and 
their internal audit office, so that we have ease of access and 
constant discussions with their internal compliance and 
investigative bodies.
    So, in all of those areas, there are multiple people 
performing oversight, and our job, as the independent body, is 
to assess that oversight.
    Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you.
    And I think putting these mechanisms in place from day one 
has really helped prevent--you know, an ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure--has really helped prevent, I think, 
fraud, waste, and abuse. And that is why I think we are getting 
these positive reports from all three of you.
    So, with that, I now recognize the acting ranking member, 
Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    It is in our national interest and in the interest of the 
free world that the United States, our allies, and our partners 
continue to provide robust support for the government and the 
people of Ukraine. We must stand firmly with a strong, 
democratic Ukraine against the brutal war of aggression by 
Russia and its autocratic leader, Putin.
    In order to ensure that the support we provide is as 
effective as possible, it is critical that we have strong and 
timely oversight. And I appreciate the detailed oversight 
mechanisms that you have each outlined in your testimony, as 
well as the coordination among you that is evident.
    Ms. Shaw, one thing that is essential for proper oversight 
is sufficient and well-trained professional staff. And you 
stated in your testimony that you need increased staffing, but 
are hampered by the current selection and appointment 
requirements which add months to the onboarding process for new 
hires; and that this issue needs a legislation solution. Can 
you describe that problem, as well as the kind of legislative 
solution you would like to see?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you so much for that question.
    Absolutely. Having the qualified professionals on staff to 
do this work is incredibly important. We are so fortunate at 
State OIG to have a very dedicated, very talented staff, but we 
have a global mission and Ukraine is just a part of that. And 
so, we have to make sure that we are staffed and resourced in a 
way that allows us to give the attention that is required to 
the situation in Ukraine while still advancing our global 
mission.
    As you said, some of the Federal Government hiring 
authorities that we currently have do take a long time to 
onboard people. And so, what we are looking for are flexible 
hiring authorities, the sorts of hiring authorities that we 
have in the context of overseas contingency operations; the 
ability to bring on temporary and surge staff to support this 
work.
    And something else that I think could be important is 
extending the period of availability of the supplemental 
funding that we have been given. That is set to expire at the 
end of Fiscal Year 2024, and I think that we expect that our 
oversight role will extend beyond that.
    And so, to get the right people onboard, and to get them 
engaged in doing this work, I think we would be looking both 
for those direct hiring and flexible hiring authorities, as 
well as, potentially, an extension of the period of 
availability of the existing supplemental funds.
    Ms. Manning. And in your opinion, would these changes 
require legislation or are these administrative issues that can 
be addressed with rule changes or agency changes?
    Ms. Shaw. My understanding is that they would, at least 
some of them would, require a legislative solution. And so, we 
have actually been in contact with subcommittees to talk about 
what that language might look like.
    Ms. Manning. And, Inspector General Storch, do you 
experience this same issue, and would you agree that this needs 
a legislative solution?
    Mr. Storch. So, thank you for the question, first of all. 
And let me thank you, as well, for the support that we have 
gotten from Congress, which we have been putting to good use in 
carrying out our oversight.
    Like Diana, we have a lot of things going on. Ukraine is 
very much our job one, and that support has enabled us to do 
that, while maintaining all of our other oversight 
responsibilities.
    In terms of future hiring flexibilities, in our case, we 
are probably do not need quite as many different ones as State 
perhaps, but we have identified one area where there could be 
some additional flexibility in the area of direct hiring 
authority. That would give assistance. And we also have been 
engaged with the Hill to talk about what that would look like. 
That would need, also, legislation as well, but it is something 
that would be helpful just to enable us to be a little bit more 
agile and flexible in getting staff onboard.
    So, I thank you for the question.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Angarella, I notice you are nodding your head. Is 
this an issue in your capacity as well?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. I would not to reState what Diana and 
Rob both said, but it is probably worth a little bit of an 
exclamation point, that staffing--we spend our money through 
staff. As IGs, that is what we do. And so, when are graciously 
appropriated money to do our important work, bringing on staff 
is how we spend the money and do the work. And so, any 
flexibilities we can have that can expedite our ability to 
bring on experienced staff would help us do that work.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Shaw, are you concerned at all that the staffing 
issues that you have just outlined, that are required to 
provide oversight in this area, that you are at risk of having 
to take your eye off the ball in other areas that the 
Department of State deals with?
    Ms. Shaw. So, I'm glad to say that I do not think that that 
is a risk that has materialized, but it is something that we 
are keeping a close eye on. And so, it is not a situation we 
want to find ourselves in, which is why we are giving so much 
thought to this situation right now. I am confident that we 
will be able to meet our global mission and the demands of 
oversight with respect to the situation in Ukraine, but any 
help that we can get on this regard will just help us do that 
more efficiently and more quickly.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you very much. Thank you to all our 
witnesses.
    My time has expired and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate you calling this very important hearing. This 
is an issue that is on the minds of many of our constituents. 
They want to make sure that the money is being very well-
utilized with total transparency.
    And again, I want to thank our three Inspectors General for 
your leadership. Aggressive oversight, obviously, mitigates 
criminality. It also encourages the proper use of scarce 
resources. So, thank you so very much for that leadership.
    A couple of questions. One of them would be, Ms. Angarella, 
you had mentioned that there were no serious criminal findings. 
And I wonder if you could just explain to the committee how you 
define ``serious,'' and maybe some examples of what other types 
of criminality or what you thought did not rise to the level of 
serious, but is a problem.
    I would also, all of you, what were the lessons learned 
from Iraq? We had IGs there, obviously, and a lot of money went 
the wrong way and went wayward. And I'm sure you have taken 
into account all the years-to-date work that, hopefully, leads 
to a better bit of work.
    And then, the IGs from other countries, including NATO, how 
do you collaborate with them to ensure, particularly when funds 
and weapon systems, and the like, are harmonized with our NATO 
partners, that it is all being--that their portion, are they 
doing their due diligence like you are to ensure that it is all 
well-spent?
    Ms. Angarella. Thank you for your question.
    What I mean by ``serious'' findings is, after a process of 
thorough investigative work or audit work, done to the 
standards that my IG Counterpart Storch described in his 
statement, are followed through with. So, to date, we have not 
substantiated any allegations. We have two open investigations 
and five that are in the preliminary stages, where we are doing 
more due diligence and taking additional investigative steps to 
see if they meet the level of investigative resources, but they 
have not been substantiated.
    And by ``serious,'' the example that I gave of the 
collusive bidding scheme which was reported to us by one of 
USAID's major contractors that are working in Ukraine is an 
example of a common fraud scheme that we see in USAID's 
programming around the world. And in that instance, the 
contractor identified it before they made the subaward to the 
collusive bidder.
    On your last question, which I think is really important, 
about NATO or for USAID's perspective, other bilateral donor 
coordination, that is a huge percentage of the time and 
resources we spend doing, as USAID OIG. Much of USAID's work is 
different than other IG offices, including ones that I have 
worked at, in our work is done overseas. It is not done in the 
United States.
    So, we absolutely have to coordinate and communicate with 
other donor countries, and specifically, their oversight 
organizations. So, we have longstanding relationships and 
Memorandums of Understanding in place with other bilateral 
donors, such as the EU anti-corruption unit, OLAF, and also 
with U.N. organizations, because significant amounts of USAID's 
programming is done through U.N. organizations.
    We have similar MOUs and relationships and collaboration in 
place with the U.N. organizations; for example, WFP. I just 
returned with my staff from Rome, meeting with and re-signing 
an MOU with the WFP IG, as well as meeting with Ambassador 
McCain and talking about oversight and collaboration issues. 
So, it is a key part of us doing our work effectively.
    Mr. Storch. Let me----
    Mr. Smith. Yes?
    Mr. Storch. I was just going to add, with the part that you 
opened up to all of us, I agree with everything Nicole said, 
and would just add as well, that one of the things I think that 
we have learned around the world--and the chairman referred to 
this at the very beginning--is the importance of getting in 
early and getting established early and doing the oversight.
    So, Iraq was way before my time as the DoD IG. But, having 
said that, one of the things we have really been stressing--and 
I think you heard it in all of our opening statements--is the 
importance of coordinating early, working together upfront, to 
get ahead of oversight, so that we are not playing catchup 
later. So, that is one important lesson.
    And then, the other one is coordinating amongst ourselves 
and with our partners, and all of our offices have robust 
relationships. We have our own law enforcement. We have law 
enforcement all over the world that we have established 
relationships with. And that is really important as well.
    And then, the final thing I would add is, we have learned a 
lot by doing oversight in conflict situations about what are 
the type of risks that are presented--some of it on the front 
end--things like contracting-type risks and things like that, 
when there is a lot going on in a short period of time. And how 
do you get in front of that?
    So, for instance, my office has literally done dozens of 
fraud briefings in the region, where we have gone out and 
talked to folks who are engaged in this about what to look for. 
So, I think we have learned a lot.
    Mr. Smith. I'm out of time, but just maybe sometime during 
the course of your answers, in-country risks to your forward-
deployed investigators, have any been hurt? And what is the 
risk factor that they--and again, that is very courageous work 
they are doing.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Storch. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to today's witnesses for your testimony, and for 
your written testimony as well, which I have studied very 
carefully.
    Russia's illegal and unwarranted brutal invasion of Ukraine 
marks the largest land war in Europe since World War II and the 
biggest threat to democracy since the cold war. Vladimir Putin 
thought he could divide the West, but he was sorely wrong. And 
now, today, more than a year since the invasion began, the West 
remains united in our commitment to Ukraine's democracy and 
territorial sovereignty.
    President Biden and his Administration restored America's 
standing on the world stage and helped unite NATO and the West 
to provide Ukraine with the help they needed to protect their 
country and stand up to authoritarianism.
    Over the last year, the United States and our allies have 
provided military, economic, and humanitarian assistance to our 
Ukrainian allies in their fight for freedom. Military 
assistance has given brave Ukrainians on battlefields across 
their country the tools needed to fight back Russian forces. 
Economic or direct budget assistance has been deployed through 
the World Bank to help pay the salaries of healthcare workers, 
teachers, and pensioners, allowing the Ukrainian government to 
focus on providing basic services to its citizens and winning 
the war. And humanitarian assistance has been critical in 
delivering safe drinking water, emergency food, generators, and 
medical equipment to vulnerable Ukrainians across their 
country.
    These different sources of funding represent the 
comprehensive approach that the Biden Administration is taking 
to ensure that Ukrainian families have access to basic services 
while their loved ones risk their lives in defense of their 
country.
    Throughout our Nation's history, we have learned a lot from 
U.S. involvement in conflicts abroad about the importance of 
having robust oversight of foreign assistance, ensuring that 
dollars are being used for their prescribed purposes. The Biden 
Administration and the Ukrainian government understand the need 
for trust and accountability just as much as we do. It is 
important to note that, for Ukrainians, the very existence of 
their country and identity is at stake. So, they have a vested 
interest in rooting out corruption and any person who would 
jeopardize further foreign assistance.
    That is why, since the beginning of this conflict, both the 
Biden Administration and the Ukrainian government have 
emphasized the need to prioritize accountability by creating 
layers of oversight. For example, USAID currently provides 
direct budget support to the World Bank within the Public 
Expenditures for Administrative Capacity Endurance, or the 
PEACE Program. That program only allows for funds to be sent to 
projects within a preapproved expenditure category that had 
been verified as an actual expenditure. These funds can only be 
sent on reimbursement, meaning that none of this funding can be 
spent discretionarily.
    The PEACE Program has additional auditing and reporting 
requirements built into it, which serves as additional 
accountability mechanisms. In addition, USAID has recruited the 
firm Deloitte, an independent third party, to oversee the use 
of funds by the Ukrainian government.
    The Government Accountability Office's Center for Audit 
Excellence has created a new partnership with the Ukrainian 
government to strengthen the ability of Ukraine's own auditing 
institutions.
    And today, Inspectors General of the State Department, 
Department of Defense, and USAID have shared the work they are 
carrying out every day to oversee their respective departments 
and agencies to ensure both transparency and accountability.
    The Biden Administration and the Ukrainians know just how 
important it is to build trust to show the American taxpayers 
where their dollars are going. That is why they have taken 
extraordinary steps to buildupon existing mechanisms and to 
create new ones to establish even more transparency and 
accountability.
    Our work to support Ukraine here in Congress has been 
largely bipartisan, because we, especially those on this 
committee, understand what is at stake if Vladimir Putin is 
successful in this war. And it is my hope that we can continue 
to support the people of Ukraine in the same way as they fight 
for their freedom.
    And I really want to use my time to thank the witnesses for 
the work that they are doing in leading this effort to 
establish, without question, the prudent, effective, and proper 
use of American funding for this effort to protect democracy.
    And I will just ask Ms. Angarella, if you would just maybe 
briefly describe in the time that is left why this reimbursable 
model is so effective in ensuring proper oversight of funding 
in the war context.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you for your question.
    I will start by saying, as the IG, we did not have a role 
in determining the mechanism or setting any policy for how it 
would be done. From a subject matter sort of expertise level, 
the reimbursement mechanism, as you so accurately described, is 
on eligible expenditures. And so, what that allows our office 
to do is to review the reports and to assess from an 
independent standpoint whether the expenditures were eligible. 
So, that mechanism that was chosen by the decisionmakers gives 
us the flexibility to look at specific expenditures, as opposed 
to just dollars going into a general account.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much, and thank you again for 
all of your work, the three of you.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start out by saying that no one on this committee, 
no one in America, left or right, agrees with the actions/the 
decisions of Vladimir Putin or Russia regarding Ukraine. Let me 
just say that outright.
    To Mr. Storch I think it would surprise many Americans to 
know that the financial assistance that the United States has 
provided eclipsed the so-called security assistance--the 
ammunition, the weapons, et cetera--to the tune of about $26.4 
billion, from what I gather here, at the very same moment where 
we are in extraordinary measures in the United States regarding 
our own fiscal posture, where the Civil Service Retirement and 
Disability Fund is suspended, where the Postal Service Retiree 
Health Benefit Fund is suspended, and we are, literally, 
funding the pensions and the operation of government in 
Ukraine.
    Can you give us assurance that none of that money that is 
being sent to, arguably, one of the most, if not the most, 
corrupt country on the planet is being misused, misspent, lost, 
malfeasance, gone to oligarchs or special individuals connected 
to the government, et cetera? What assurance can you give the 
American people?
    Mr. Storch. Thank you very much for the question.
    First of all, it is my understanding that, of $113 billion 
that the Congress has appropriated to date for Ukrainian 
assistance, over $62 billion--I think it is $62.3--has gone to 
security assistance. And that is really the area in which my 
office performs oversight, although very much hand-in-glove 
with my colleagues from State, AID, and the rest of the 20-
member-strong oversight working group. And we work every day to 
ensure that we are doing robust oversight----
    Mr. Perry. I get it.
    Mr. Storch [continuing]. Both sort of programmatic reviews 
and the investigations.
    Mr. Perry. So, we get no assurance. And I understand you 
are working with your partners, but you can give us no 
assurance? Is that, generally, the answer?
    Mr. Storch. Well, so what I have testified to, Congressman, 
is that, based on our completed work, we have not substantiated 
any instances of diversion of U.S. security assistance to 
Ukraine.
    Mr. Perry. OK. All right. And it took us years in 
Afghanistan to establish that as well.
    But I need to move on. Ms. Shaw, the Global Engagement 
Center's mission is to focus on foreign disinformation. Would 
you agree with that?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes, I believe that is accurate.
    Mr. Perry. That is their mandate, right? So, is a 
government agency authorized to violate the First Amendment 
rights of U.S. citizens?
    Ms. Shaw. That is a legal question----
    Mr. Perry. No. Really? Have you read the Constitution? Is a 
government--is a government agency or is the Federal 
Government, of which this would be an agency, authorized to 
violate the First Amendment rights of United States citizens?
    Ms. Shaw. I do not believe so.
    Mr. Perry. I do not believe so, either. Is a government 
agency allowed to subcontract or contract out the abrogation or 
the violation of the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens? 
If they cannot do it themselves because it would be against the 
law, are they allowed to contract that out or subcontract that 
out? What do you think_
    Ms. Shaw. I'm sorry, this is not within the purview of our 
oversight work, and we do not have work that looks squarely at 
this issue.
    Mr. Perry. So, you do not, as the IG for State, you do not 
look at the Global Engagement Center? That wouldn't be under 
your purview?
    Ms. Shaw. We do look at the Global Engagement Center. We 
have published work from, I believe, 2020 looking specifically 
at that program.
    Mr. Perry. All right. So, you are familiar with the fact 
that they have themselves engaged Twitter to blacklist U.S. 
citizens under the guise of foreign disinformation or have 
engaged partners that they have funded to do the same thing? 
Are you familiar with that? And would that be a problem, if you 
knew that, if your agency knew that?
    Ms. Shaw. I am familiar with those allegations, yes.
    Mr. Perry. But you have not looked into them?
    Ms. Shaw. No, we have not engaged work in that----
    Mr. Perry. So, if it is true, if it is true that they have 
either engaged directly or engaged indirectly through outside 
partners, some of which they have provided grant money to, what 
would be--what would be the appropriate response from the 
Inspector General regarding that kind of activity which would 
actually, literally, be subverting and denying the civil rights 
of Americans?
    Ms. Shaw. So, Offices of Inspector General do investigate 
allegations of criminal conduct, violations of law. And so, 
that is something that would be within our purview. I do 
believe that--I'm aware that this is also the subject of 
ongoing litigation. And so, that also is an element to this. 
But, yes, we do look at potential violations----
    Mr. Perry. And if they have violated it, and knowing that 
they are up for funding and reauthorization, would you 
recommend, as the Inspector General, that they not be 
reauthorized if they were involved in this criminal conduct 
against American citizens?
    Ms. Shaw. I'm sorry, I do not have a position on that.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Bera.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I normally do not do this, but I would just like to correct 
my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. While there may 
be a history of corruption in Ukraine, Russia is a much more 
corrupt country. And we have seen the actions of Vladimir Putin 
and the moral corruption of Vladimir Putin. So, let's correct 
the record; Russia has demonstrated their corruption here.
    And I applaud the chairman and ranking member for holding 
this hearing, because it is important for us to do oversight. 
It is important for us to defend democracies and the 
sovereignty of nations like Ukraine. And I am proud of the work 
that we have done on the Foreign Affairs Committee in a 
bipartisan way, as well as in Congress, standing up for this 
illegal war and illegal invasion that Vladimir Putin is 
executing, and the moral corruption that we are seeing.
    I'm glad that the International Criminal Court has deemed 
him a war criminal because of what he is doing to children, 
kidnapping them, removing them from their parents--
reprehensible.
    Ms. Shaw, let me ask a couple of questions. And if this is 
not in your purview as an Inspector General, certainly let me 
know.
    You have oversight of the Embassy in Kyiv. I'm curious 
how--obviously, we evacuated the Embassy in the early days of 
the invasion; we have stood that up again--how things are 
going; how operations; how operations are, and the safety of 
our men and women that are representing us in Kyiv.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for that question.
    This is something that is of vital importance to us in 
terms of our oversight. As I mentioned, management and 
operations is one of the three strategic areas that we are 
focusing on. We actually have a series of work ongoing right 
now that, as I said, will start with the shuttering of the 
Embassy in February 2022 to its reopening, to its current 
operating status.
    And while I do not want to get out ahead of those findings 
until we have completed that work, we did have the opportunity 
to meet with Embassy officials in Kyiv. We were at the Embassy. 
I am glad to report that, at least at that time, everybody was 
well, but, obviously, they are operating under very challenging 
circumstances.
    Sort of stepping out more broadly beyond just safety there 
are security issues that in a wartime setting have to be 
considered. We did just issue a classified management alert 
with some technical security issues that we identified at the 
Embassy and were able to put forward some recommendations that 
we think will help address those and ensure the security of the 
operations at the Embassy.
    But I look forward to publishing our completed body of work 
on this question, which I think will be very illuminating in 
terms of how it is operating.
    Mr. Bera. Great. And again, if this second question, if 
this is not part of the Inspector General, certainly let me 
know.
    In the early days of the invasion, we, obviously, saw 
refugee flows coming out of Ukraine, women and children 
particularly. My district, Sacramento County, has a large 
Ukrainian American population, obviously that are very 
concerned about relatives and family that are coming out.
    In your perspective doing oversight of the visa process, 
the humanitarian parole process, et cetera, can you give us an 
assessment of how that is working, if there are things that we 
should be thinking about in Congress? And again, not from a 
policy perspective; just from an oversight perspective.
    Ms. Shaw. So, we do have ongoing work looking at the 
Department's deployment of humanitarian aid. And the Department 
has a large role in assisting refugees. So, again, I do not 
want to get out ahead of the findings in that work, but we are 
putting out an information brief--it will be published next 
month--that is looking specifically at how those funds are 
being deployed, to which of its nine implementing partners, and 
what needs are being addressed by that. And I think that might 
help answer some of your questions.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you.
    And just in my remaining time, Mr. Storch, I think you 
called ``the end-use monitoring,'' EUM. Obviously, I would have 
to imagine that it is difficult in a wartime situation on the 
frontlines, and so forth, to check the accuracy and making sure 
that those munitions are used.
    Again, if you cannot answer this question in this setting, 
just let me know. Are we contracting with Ukrainians to do some 
of the work or are we deploying personnel to do some of that 
monitoring on the frontlines?
    Mr. Storch. So, I appreciate the question.
    And, yes, you are right. I mean, for instance, the point 
that the chairman made about using scanners, right? One of the 
things that the American military has done in a difficult 
situation is tried to figure out alternatives as to how to 
comply with EUM requirements and ensure the accountability of 
the material that is being provided. The details of that, as I 
think you are question suggested, some of that is classified. 
That is why our October 2022 report was classified. So, I 
cannot get into that.
    But I will say, as we look at that, one of the things we 
are doing, as an oversight entity, is looking at the 
alternatives that are being employed and trying to make 
recommendations as to how to do that as effectively as possible 
in what is, as you say, a wartime situation.
    Mr. Bera. Right.
    My time is expired. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So, I want to talk as well about--just ask some questions 
about end-use monitoring to you, sir. And so, as we are looking 
at some of the weapons systems, what to you are the most high-
priority weapons systems, both coming from the United States 
and from NATO/EU at large, for us to be paying attention to in 
terms of end-use monitoring?
    Mr. Storch. Well----
    Mr. Mast. We are paying attention to everything, but----
    Mr. Storch. Yes, right. I was going to say----
    Mr. Mast [continuing]. Give me your priorities.
    Mr. Storch. I was trying to figure out how to say that 
tactfully, Congressman, yes.
    No. So, it is important that the government pay attention 
to everything. And the distinction between the EUM, the end-use 
monitoring, and the EEUM is the EEUM tends to involve systems 
that have more sensitive technologies, such that the government 
has seen fit to require enhanced monitoring in terms of 
security plans, in terms of trying to get serial number 
verification or use alternative means to try to get the 
information necessary to do that, as opposed to the EUM, which 
still is monitored, but monitored under sort of a more general 
approach.
    So, the type of systems that are under EEUM, there's a list 
of them that includes these sort of things, includes things 
like the Javelin missiles; the AMRAAMs, the Advanced Medium-
Range Air-to-Air Missiles; the night vision devices--some of 
those are still on there--Stinger missiles; grip stocks; things 
like that are some of the ones that are subject to EEUM, the 
more enhanced monitoring.
    Mr. Mast. Now, when you look at that enhanced monitoring, 
how does that blur into tactical fielding of these weapons? And 
would end-use monitoring include when Ukrainians chose to use a 
weapons system offensively in a Russian space, instead of in 
sovereign Ukrainian territory? Is that your purview?
    Mr. Storch. So, our purview is to do oversight over the 
DoD's monitoring of the equipment. And the purpose of the 
monitoring is to ensure the accountability of the weapons, and 
so, to determine where they are located and where they are 
being used.
    Mr. Mast. And to ensure not misuse?
    Mr. Storch. Essentially.
    Mr. Mast. And so, the nature of my question is, under your 
purview, is it misuse for them to use a weapon offensively 
against Russia in Russia's borders, within Russia's borders?
    Mr. Storch. Sir, I appreciate the ``under your purview,'' 
because that is not really within our purview. The use of the 
equipment is subject to agreements between the United States 
and donor countries all over the world, including Ukraine. My 
understanding is, whenever our country provides weaponry to 
foreign countries, there are agreements as to how that weapon, 
the weaponry, is supposed to be used. And the purpose of the 
end-use monitoring is to ensure that the foreign country is 
following through.
    Mr. Mast. Well, perfect. I appreciate the information on 
that. That was the nature of my questions. So, you have 
exhausted them.
    And in that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remainder of 
my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman now yields back.
    The chair recognizes Ranking Member Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Our support to Ukraine is vital to keeping the State 
institutions and local and regional governments operating, 
preventing societal collapse. And we are helping keep hospitals 
and schools open, as Ukraine's warfighters defend the Ukrainian 
people. They are fighting for their right to exist, actually.
    And I have been on this committee for both the wars in 
Iraq, the wars in Afghanistan. So, I want to ask about what 
sort of recipient government and society are we dealing with in 
Ukraine.
    Ms. Shaw, can you describe the ability and willingness of 
the Ukrainian government to assist in oversight efforts? And, 
well, let me just ask you that.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you so much for the question.
    So, I would say that we are in the early stages of 
establishing our relationships with the Ukrainian officials. We 
did have the opportunity to meet with a number of important 
people when we were there in January. So, we have a strong 
foundation.
    There was broad willingness on our trip in our 
conversations with others to open the books, to allow our 
oversight in. So, we were very encouraged by that. But, of 
course, we need to follow through. And so, we are working very 
hard to develop those relationships, both within the Ukrainian 
government, but also in law enforcement and prosecutorial 
entities.
    I think establishing and securing positions at Embassy Kyiv 
will be vitally important, in part, because that allows us to 
further deepen those relationships, which will be critical when 
the time comes, if there is fraud or corruption identified, to 
actually ensure accountability.
    Mr. Meeks. So, what you see now, do you see any weaknesses 
in at least their efforts at all in complying?
    Ms. Shaw. So, we haven't assessed their efforts to date, 
but I would say that we did not--or I should put it this way: 
uniformly, the people that we met with who would be the 
critical players for our oversight work were very open to 
working with us, and we have continued to see that sort of 
willingness, as we have explored these relationships further.
    Mr. Meeks. And let me go to--you know, this committee has 
received dozens of briefings and documents and consistent 
updates on the extensive security assistance provided to 
Ukraine's military, as well as the Departments of State and 
Defense's integrated approach to ensuring the utmost 
accountability and transparency.
    And I want to note for the record that, and for all members 
that are present here, that these extensive documents and 
details on our assistance remain available in our committee's 
secure spaces. And I hope members will take advantage of that, 
so that they can see for themselves what is happening there.
    But let me ask, Mr. Storch, given your extensive experience 
working investigatory settings with the U.S. Government 
agencies, could you describe your views on the nature of U.S. 
accountability and oversight over security assistance provided 
to Ukraine?
    Mr. Storch. Thank you very much for the question, 
Congressman.
    I would say this has been a truly extraordinary effort from 
the very beginning on the part of not just my office, but my 
counterparts from State and USAID, and really the larger 
working group. It really is remarkable to see the way everybody 
has come together to ensure that, as Diana said, we are 
covering the waterfront; that there aren't any gaps in terms of 
the oversight we are doing on both the programmatic level, as I 
talked about, in terms of audits and evaluations, and on the 
investigative side.
    Our folks, when I said we are working hand-in-glove, we 
really are working hand-in-glove to make sure that there is 
comprehensive, robust oversight over all aspects of assistance. 
And so, I think it truly has been remarkable.
    One thing I would also add is that all of our offices have 
vast experience in doing this sort of oversight in similar 
settings. Every situation is different. One of the things about 
this that is different, I mention, is that this is, 
essentially, a train-and-supply mission. So, for DoD, the vast 
majority of that mission takes place before the materiel or 
weapons ever gets to Ukraine, right? But we do oversight 
throughout.
    And then, to the earlier question, when the materiel goes 
over, we are doing oversight to make sure that DoD is doing 
everything possible to do the end-use monitoring/enhanced end-
use monitoring in a situation. So, all of that is going on on a 
robust scale.
    Mr. Meeks. So, is there any evidence thus far of Ukraine 
diverting or otherwise losing U.S.-provided security 
assistance?
    And finally, how is the three IG effort examining existing 
U.S. accountability mechanisms, end use of monitoring 
activities, as the conditions in Ukraine evolve?
    Mr. Storch. So, we have not, at DoD IG, we have not 
substantiated any instances of diversion of U.S. security 
assistance. Obviously, we will continue to explore any 
allegations that are made of any sort of waste, fraud, abuse, 
or misconduct of any kind.
    And in terms of how the oversight is working, it is 
ongoing. We have got, as I mentioned, the third EUM/EEUM 
project going right now. We are looking to do some agile 
reporting, so we can get out some management advisories early 
on while that project is continuing, because we are doing 
oversight at the speed of war, right?
    And then, as we look to the future, we are already starting 
to plan for the next EUM/EEUM evaluation. One of the things we 
learned from our trip over there--and it just makes common 
sense--is this situation is evolving rapidly, and that requires 
us, as oversight entities, to be agile in doing that oversight. 
So, we are doing that and we are going to keep doing it.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
    My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    I want to start off with a little outside-the-box question. 
But, Ms. Shaw, you are currently acting. How long have you been 
acting?
    Ms. Shaw. Since December 2020.
    Mr. Issa. And the same for Ms. Angarella.
    Ms. Angarella. Since June 1st of 2022.
    Mr. Issa. OK. And you are confirmed. When were you 
confirmed?
    Mr. Storch. I was confirmed on November 30th of last year.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, you are confirmed. Your job does not 
serve quite as solely at the pleasure. For the other two of 
you, my understanding is you could be replaced at any time, 
either by a confirmation or by simply a selection that they 
take somebody else. Is that right?
    Ms. Shaw. In my case, certainly, a nomination and a 
confirmation would ensure a permanent Inspector General, and I 
would revert back to my role as Deputy Inspector General.
    Mr. Issa. And they did not, they have not named one at 
State, is that right?
    Ms. Shaw. There is not currently a nominee.
    Mr. Issa. How about at USAID?
    Ms. Angarella. We do not currently have a nominee, and the 
same would apply to me. I would go back to my permanent role as 
the General Counsel to the Inspector General.
    Mr. Issa. OK, but permanent role as General Counsel does 
not guarantee that you would be the selection. They could take 
a deputy and promote them over you today, is that correct?
    Ms. Angarella. To the permanent IG position, correct.
    Mr. Issa. OK. I'm asking only because this is deja vu all 
over again. In the Obama Administration under Hillary Clinton, 
there never was an IG, a permanent IG. And that concerns me, 
and I just want to make sure that is in the record; that the 
three of you, I know you are doing your job, but I also know 
that it is a little bit easier to do your job when you go to 
the SIGI meeting and you do not have that ``acting temporary,'' 
``just passing through.''
    So, here is sort of back to the mainline of questioning. We 
have supplied training to, more or less, a hundred countries, 
including we still supply training to Mongolia. We provide 
training to the Lebanese Armed Forces. The list--Jordanian--the 
list is endless.
    Is there anything special about the training for these 
people and the oversight? They are in the middle of a war. The 
weapons we give them, by definition, could be seized, 
destroyed, or lost in combat to an enemy at any time. Is there 
really any reason that we should be, ``Oh, boy, this is really 
different and so much better.''? Or, in fact, are we, 
basically, giving them weapons and we should only be holding 
them to the standard that, basically, it is not being diverted, 
for example, the way it was in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Storch. So, thank you for the question, Congressman. I 
will speak to the security aspect, and then, turn to my 
colleagues, if they want to add anything.
    Yes, it is a great question. And with regard to training, 
we have currently an ongoing project. So, as I mentioned 
earlier, I do not want to get ahead of that because that is 
what makes our work authoritative, right, is we go through our 
processes?
    But I will say one difference with Ukraine is that, from 
some prior situations, is the United States is not standing up 
a new army and sort of training them from scratch, right? 
Ukraine has long had an established military, and the United 
States has had long experience with the Ukrainian military. And 
they have dealt with a lot of sophisticated weapons over the 
years.
    So, we are providing new things to them, some more 
sophisticated weapons. Those require particular types of 
training. We are looking at that now at DoD OIG to make sure 
that is being provided comprehensively and efficiently.
    But I think that is one of the big differences here, is we 
are dealing not just with an established military, but one that 
has worked with our military over the years for many years.
    Mr. Issa. So, I am going to say to all of you--but I will 
particularly move it toward DoD--from a standpoint of a success 
story, it is fair to say that, as Inspector General and in the 
historic role that IGs play, that this is a continuous, 
evolving, and improving relationship and training very similar 
to what we deal with in our own Armed Forces and your IGs deal 
with.
    So, I'm going to use the last 30 seconds for a different 
reason. In a few days, we will be at Arlington with General 
Trefry, who, to a great extent, is the father of the modern IG. 
Back decades ago, he was tasked to straighten out the situation 
with Inspector Generals. As a three-star general, he took the 
assignment. And at 98, he surpassed and he will be laid to 
rest.
    But, as an admirer of the work that all of you do, an 
admirer of what IGs do for our country, and quite candidly, for 
our Congress in providing us eyes and ears, not just on what is 
wrong, but on the improvements and the success stories, I 
wanted to take a moment to honor him, in addition to thanking 
all three of you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thanks for the indulgence. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. That is very nice.
    The chair now recognizes Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank the witnesses. You are some of the most 
straightforward, informed that we have had. I certainly do not 
get the impression you are just ``passing through'' an doing 
this casually. I think you are probably very well-respected in 
your different departments and, certainly, in your field, and 
by me and some of the members of this committee. So, I thank 
you for doing that.
    A couple of things seem to stand out, as we go through all 
of this. The first is that some have kind of implied--others 
have said it straightforwardly--that there is not enough 
oversight of the American tax dollars going to Ukraine. Some 
have threatened to cut it off because they think there is too 
much going, because there is not enough oversight.
    I think that your testimony here proves that that is just 
not the case. There is extensive oversight, expansive 
oversight, a number of reports that have been done, and a 
number that are planned to be done. So, I think that that 
should clear up that question of how much oversight is going 
on. It is, obviously, considerable.
    Some of the information that has come out is misinformation 
from the Russians trying to imply that the Ukrainians are not 
using the money in the right way to attack their credibility, 
and I think hurt their efforts to get assistance from the 
United States.
    The second thing that is interesting is that we are hearing 
we need more oversight, more oversight, from the very people 
who want to cut the budget for oversight, these discretionary 
funds. Right now, the budgets are increased: State Department 
oversight, $3.6 billion; USAID oversight, $108.3 million; DoD, 
$740 billion. You know, this is all money in the budget for you 
to do more oversight, while some of our friends want to do 
across-the-board cuts or cuts of discretionary funding.
    Could you address that? Could you do more oversight with 
these increased funds? Or could you continue to operate if they 
cut back to last year's level?
    Ms. Shaw. So, certainly, with more funding, we can do more 
oversight. We have to employ a risk-based approach to ensure 
that we are directing our resources to the highest-risk, 
greatest-impact areas, but there are always dark corners that 
we would like to explore, to pressure test, to make sure that 
we are covering the waterfront. I'm not talking specifically 
about the situation in Ukraine, but, more broadly, our global 
mission.
    So, yes, there is not just a need for that, but a plan for 
that, if we are fortunate enough to receive those funds. And 
were we to be cut, I am concerned about our ability to continue 
to advance this important work. Our folks are, frankly, burning 
the candle at both ends to meet the extensive mandate that we 
have, and it is because they are deeply, personally committed 
to the mission that they do that. It is not because I ask them 
to. They see the importance of the work that we do, not just to 
themselves and their professional careers in the Department, 
but to the American taxpayer.
    And so, this is the way that we approach our work every day 
and hope that Congress will resource us in a way that allows us 
to further expand our mission.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Ms. Angarella. Yes, I would echo exactly what Diana said. I 
think that those of us that are in the oversight community have 
made a career of it for a reason; that we acknowledge that we 
have the ultimate responsibility for providing oversight of the 
funds and programming within our respective agency, and our 
staff are as committed to that as possible.
    And so, extra funds help provide extra oversight; help 
conduct additional investigations. But I think that we have 
been very creative and very judicious in addressing all of the 
issues that are coming in. We have hundreds of people on our 
staffs working specifically on Ukraine work. As we bring on 
surge capacity, that will help, but I think we will figure out 
a way to do it because it is what we do.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Storch. Yes, I could just rely on what they said, but I 
supposed I agree with all of it and would just add: at DoD OIG, 
we have more than 90 people right now engaged on oversight 
related to Ukraine. About 20 of those positions are forward-
deployed in the region and, as has been discussed, we are 
looking to do more.
    We very much appreciate the support we have gotten from 
Congress. That has enabled us to do all of this work on top of 
all the other priorities we have--INDOPACOM, use of technology. 
I mean, there is a whole litany of things going on at the DoD 
with that big budget you mentioned. And so, we have a lot of 
oversight responsibilities.
    And so, we are able to do everything that we feel we need 
to do with regard to Ukraine because of the support that we 
have gotten from Congress to do that. If that were to change, 
then that becomes difficult. You have to start making choices, 
potentially, and hopefully, we won't get there. But what we 
will keep doing is doing robust oversight over assistance to 
Ukraine.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Davidson.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman for having this 
important hearing.
    It is certainly one of the top questions I get in my 
district from people who are broadly supportive of Ukraine. 
They are happy about the policy, but, of course, this isn't a 
question about the policy. This is a question about, since the 
money has been sent, what is happening to it?
    And, Mr. Storch, I appreciate your statement upfront 
saying, ``Hey, zero instances of diversion have been detected 
so far.'' That is not saying there are no instances. They just 
haven't been detected yet.
    Ms. Angarella, have there been any instances detected in 
your investigations yet?
    Ms. Angarella. No. As of today, sitting here, our work that 
we have substantiated and reports that we have reviewed, we 
have not seen instances of that. But I would say this is the 
early stages. So, we are----
    Mr. Davidson. Yes, thank you. I understand that.
    And, Ms. Shaw, any in your case so far?
    Ms. Shaw. Our completed work has not substantiated any 
allegations of diversion.
    Mr. Davidson. Yes, thank you for that.
    Ms. Shaw, well, let me just say this: early on, we did not 
detect much in Afghanistan, either, and we created an Office 
for the Special Investigator for Afghanistan. Are there 
instances where there are voids, where that added value there--
would we benefit from the same kind of approach here in 
Ukraine? I guess, why or why not?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for that question.
    I think the model that we have developed between our OIGs 
and the other government accountability organizations that we 
work with on the working group is an excellent model to address 
this really cross-cutting, interagency oversight work. It is a 
collaborative model that we have used in other contexts. So, we 
know it is sort of tried and true. It has been pressure-tested.
    But we are deploying it in this context, and I think it has 
been very effective. And so, to add another layer into that, 
that would potentially result in a redundant mandate, 
duplicative costs, duplication of effort, I think, as an IG 
concerned with efficiency----
    Mr. Davidson. Yes, I understand, except that that actually 
worked and we weren't getting results. Until we did that, we 
weren't finding anything. Not saying people weren't looking, 
but we found a lot once we created the Special Inspector 
General for Afghanistan.
    Ms. Shaw, you broke the buckets down into three. You said 
security, non-security, and management and operations, is that 
right?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes.
    Mr. Davidson. OK. One of the questions I have had from 
constituents, which bucket of funds is paying for pensions for 
Ukrainian government workers and employees and citizens? Which 
U.S. dollars are paying for Ukrainian pensions?
    Ms. Shaw. That would fall under the bucket of non-security 
assistance----
    Mr. Davidson. Non-security?
    Ms. Shaw [continuing]. That is going out as direct 
financial support primarily.
    Mr. Davidson. OK. So, how do we audit that? Is the 
Ukrainian government effective in saying, ``Yes, we're only 
spending this much money.''? How is that not just paying 
Ukrainian government officials that go shopping in Paris, or 
whatnot?
    Ms. Shaw. So, if I may, I would actually defer to Nicole. 
USAID OIG has purview over the direct financial support, and 
I'm sure she would be happy to answer your question.
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you.
    One of the techniques that I have mentioned previously is 
the reimbursement. So, the money that is going through the 
World Bank to the government of Ukraine is being done on an 
expenditure, a reimbursement basis. So, after the expenses are 
incurred, then receipts or signed authorizations saying that 
this is what the money was used for is being submitted before 
the funds are disbursed.
    Mr. Davidson. Yes, but how do you validate that? I mean, 
they could give you a bill and say, ``Yup, we had $100 million 
this month. Here's a receipt.''
    Ms. Angarella. So, that is where some----
    Mr. Davidson. What did they do with the $100 million?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. So, that is where the different levels 
of oversight have been or are in the system right now, which is 
the first being the Ministry of Finance within the government 
of Ukraine certifying those expenditures, when they submit them 
to the World Bank. The second line is the World Bank.
    Mr. Davidson. So, they, basically, they promise?
    Ms. Angarella. With expenditures and submitting the report.
    Mr. Davidson. OK. All right. Of course, look, I'm not 
saying that they are not being honest, but they do not have a 
lot of incentive to be honest. And we know there are some 
countries that have problems. Even in our own country, people 
aren't always honest. And in Ukraine, we have had they have one 
of the highest instances of, I guess, corruption reported in 
world indexes, right? So, of countries we are allied with, they 
are one of the corrupt, more corrupt countries. And so, just 
promising I think might not be a sufficient control.
    Mr. Storch, in the GAO report titled, ``DoD Financial 
Management: Greater Attention Needed Over Government-Furnished 
Property,'' from January 2023, they go into detail about how, 
over $220 billion in DoD property assets are unaccounted for.
    First, are the same people overseeing the Ukraine asset 
management? And if so, how can they be trusted, given this 
report? They already cannot account for $220-plus billion in 
American.
    Mr. Storch. So, our office has been very engaged with DoD 
to do a variety of oversight, looking at their management of 
finances.
    Mr. Davidson. Are they the same people, the same tools, the 
same tools for kickback?
    Mr. Storch. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, we 
did a couple of management adversaries just last year looking, 
particularly, at the way in which the systems work and the way 
the accounting is done with regard to the supplemental 
appropriations to Ukraine. We have followed up on those to see 
there has been progress made, but we are going to continue to 
followup to ensure that the money is being accounted for----
    Mr. Davidson. All right. Let's hope we can pass an audit 
this year.
    Thanks, and I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Lieu.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member 
Meeks.
    I would like to, first, thank all three of you for your 
public service and your critical work.
    And I will begin with Inspector General Shaw. So, 2 days 
ago, all of you released this report: ``Joint Oversight of the 
Ukraine Response.'' Correct?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. And in this joint report of all three Inspectors 
General, on the very first page, you say, ``Our offices have 
made oversight of the Ukraine response a top priority.'' Do you 
stand by that statement?
    Ms. Shaw. I absolutely do.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. In this report, you also write, ``OIG 
investigations resulting from these and other allegations have 
not yet substantiated significant waste, fraud, or abuse.'' Do 
you stand by that statement?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes, we do.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. So, Inspector General Angarella, I'm going to 
ask you the same exact questions. You signed on and produced 
this comprehensive report?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. By the way, it is very well-written. It has 
appendixes. It talks about ongoing projects and planned 
projects.
    You stand by the statement that oversight of the Ukraine 
response is a top priority, correct?
    Ms. Angarella. I do.
    Mr. Lieu. As well as the statement that you found--the 
allegations have not yet substantiated significant waste, 
fraud, or abuse, correct?
    Ms. Angarella. I do.
    Mr. Lieu. All right. And Inspector General Storch, I'm 
going to ask you the same question. You signed onto this 
comprehensive report about Ukraine oversight?
    Mr. Storch. Absolutely, and thank you for the kind words 
about the report. Our folks worked hard on it, sir.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
    And you stand by the statement that Ukraine oversight is a 
top priority?
    Mr. Storch. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lieu. And that you found no significant waste, fraud, 
or abuse, correct?
    Mr. Storch. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. All right. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit 
this report into the record--or acting chairman.
    Mr. Mast [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [The report was not submitted by press release]

    Mr. Lieu. OK. Now, I'm going to go through some of your 
individual statements.
    And I will start with Inspector General Shaw. You write 
that, ``State OIG has taken a strategic, agile, and coordinated 
approach to Ukraine response oversight.'' Correct?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. And then, you further write, ``I have great 
confidence in the quality of the Ukraine-related oversight work 
we have performed to date.'' Do you stand by that statement?
    Ms. Shaw. I do.
    Mr. Lieu. All right. And you say, ``State OIG has a proven 
ability to conduct effective oversight in a hybrid context.'' 
Do you stand by that statement?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Lieu. And to date, you have found no diversion, 
correct?
    Ms. Shaw. Correct.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. All right.
    So, next, I would like to talk to Inspector General 
Angarella. You State that, in previous testimony today, that 
you have not identified any fraud or misuse, is that correct so 
far?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes, correct, we have not substantiated 
anything.
    Mr. Lieu. And you have not--OK, anything? Including you 
have not established any diversion, correct?
    Ms. Angarella. Correct.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. You also write that, ``I would like to 
conclude my remarks with assurance, that as head of USAID's 
Office of Inspector General, Congress and the American people 
have my commitment to independent, transparent, and timely 
oversight of USAID's Ukraine response.'' Do you stand by that 
statement?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. All right.
    I would like to move on to Inspector General Storch. 
Previously, you had testified that you found no instances of 
diversion, correct?
    Mr. Storch. We have not substantiated any instances of 
diversion, that is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. So, when the United States provided Ukraine, for 
example, with Stinger missiles and Javelins that the Ukraine 
military got, they weren't diverting them to Russia or North 
Korea or Iran, or anyplace else, correct?
    Mr. Storch. We have not substantiated anything like that.
    Mr. Lieu. In fact, they are using these weapons to stop 
their unprovoked Russian aggression? In fact, the Ukrainians 
have been paying for this equipment with their blood.
    I also would like to point out that you had, in addition of 
saying there was no diversion, that you have had agile 
reporting and had extraordinary cooperation and extraordinary 
effort with all of your other OIG partners, is that correct?
    Mr. Storch. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. All right. So, I do not really know why we 
are holding this hearing. I mean, they literally--these OIG 
Inspectors have already sent out a report 2 days go that 
answered pretty much every question at this hearing. I submit 
we are done here.
    I think we should talk about more important issues, like 
how do we make sure other countries do not give additional 
assistance to Russia? How do we make sure Ukraine has the 
longer-range weapons they need to win this war? How do we make 
sure Ukraine has the air assets it needs to win this war?
    So, instead of trying to respond to false, right-wing 
talking points--by the way, this hearing totally demolished the 
right-wing false talking point that somehow there hasn't been 
effective oversight. Not only has there been effective 
oversight, it has also shown that there has been diversion and 
no significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Thank you for your public service.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. I thank the gentleman.
    We have oversight, so we can make sure we trust, but 
verify. And so, we will continue the hearing, despite the 
objection.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Brian Mast and Ranking 
Member Greg Meeks.
    And we are grateful for the service of the witnesses.
    The people of Ukraine are under an existential threat. 
Putin had a treatise that he published in kremlim.com that 
Ukraine, the people of Ukraine, do not exist. And that was 
August 2021.
    With the War Criminal Putin at hand, I'm grateful for the 
opportunity to highlight the robust oversight mechanisms that 
are already in place. In fact, there are 64 ongoing or planned 
audits and reports, which should be reassuring to the American 
taxpayers.
    Additionally, it is significant that we have four countries 
that are actually providing more aid as a percent of GDP than 
the United States. In fact, we have a number of countries 
almost equal to the contribution by way of GDP, and that would 
include Bulgaria, Norway, the Czech Republic, Canada, the 
United Kingdom. Over and over again, we have so many 
countries--Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland--ahead.
    So, America is not alone. There are countries that 
understand that, truly, we are in an existential threat to 
ourselves. And that is that we have the global war on terrorism 
of 9/11 which continues. And with the open southern border, I 
am concerned there are more risks today than ever before for 
American families.
    Additionally, I believe that we have worldwide competition 
between democracies with the rule of law being opposed by 
authoritarians by rule of gun. And we see that with the mass 
murder that Putin is conducting today in Ukraine. We see this 
with the Chinese Community Party threatened the people of 
Taiwan. We see this with the regime in Tehran threatening to 
death to Israel, death to America, and as they develop a 
nuclear capability, they really mean it.
    And so, it is so important that we all work together for 
peace through strength. And that is why I'm grateful for an 
extraordinary op-ed that Ambassador/Governor Nikki Haley 
provided on March the 6th--20th--which indicates, clearly, 
China wins if Russia conquers Ukraine. So, what you are doing 
is so important, reassuring the taxpayers.
    And with that, our witnesses, for each of you, Ukrainians 
have every reason to make sure that American aid and military 
supplies are used correctly, not just because, if it is abused, 
the aid would likely not continue, but because American aid is 
saving lives. It is saving lives of Ukrainian civilians, women, 
and children. It is preventing the country being overrun by War 
Criminal Putin. I believe that, if there were abuse of American 
aid, that, sadly, that would help Putin, and that is not a good 
way to be popular, obviously, hopefully, in Ukraine.
    So, what attitudes, as you all have visited with the people 
in Ukraine, what is the level of care that you see for American 
aid?
    Mr. Storch. So, I'm happy to start.
    So, when we were over in Kyiv, everyone with whom we met--
up to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Minister 
of Finance, the Prosecutor General--everyone expressed an 
understanding of the importance of transparency and of the 
importance of addressing corruption, and I think a realization 
that, first of all, they need to do that to save their country. 
They are in a war. And second, they understand the 
implications, they indicated to us, of not doing that in terms 
of international assistance for their country.
    And so, we heard that message consistently from the very 
highest levels. The Prosecutor General was back in town the 
next week; reached out to a number of us to meet again. And I 
had a one-on-one with him, where I talked specifically about 
the importance of addressing corruption and ensuring that it is 
done in a meaningful, transparent way. He indicated he 
understood that.
    Just for what it is worth in the world of small 
coincidences, I actually worked in a prior life, when I was a 
prosecutor representing the Department of Justice, as a 
resident legal advisor to assist the people of Ukraine in 
addressing corruption and went back there to help them write 
their anti-corruption package of legislation. And so, I have 
seen the evolution that has gone on.
    They have told us they are committed to it. But, having 
said that, we are IGs; we are in the ``trust, but verify'' 
business. And so, as Diana said earlier, we are going to 
continue to engage, to make sure we are getting the information 
we need to do oversight and to make sure that they are, in 
fact----
    Mr. Wilson. And indeed, thank you for your efforts.
    And this is going to be reassuring to American taxpayers, 
that 64 different reports, 39 different IG requests. And 
indeed, when I was in Kyiv in December, the very first group we 
met with was the anti-corruption organization. And so, there is 
every effort to avoid anti-corruption.
    And, hey, what a classic case: Zelenskyy himself, if he had 
been corrupt, when the President offered him a ride out of the 
country, as Russian troops were 10 miles away coming to kill 
him and his wife, he would have fled the country and enjoyed 
the fruits of corruption. No, he stayed. He said, ``I want to 
be there to--I do not need a ride; I need ammunition.''
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields.
    The chair now recognizes Ms. Wild for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. IG Storch, I would like to ask you a question.
    But, first, let me just say, I have the honor of 
representing a district that includes one of the largest 
Ukrainian American populations of any community in the United 
States, and I suspect, although I haven't been here for every 
questioner's comments, more than a few of us have claimed that 
distinction. But, in my case, it is real.
    And this community also happens to pay United States taxes. 
So, they are taxpayers. They understand just how vital the 
fight for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty and 
democracy truly is, not just for Ukraine, but also for the 
United States. But they also want their tax dollars to be spent 
efficiently, and so do I. They know that this effort to help 
the Ukrainian people has, in fact, been a model of efficiency.
    We sometimes hear assistance to Ukraine described as 
constituting a blank check. I think that, far from a blank 
check, our support for the Ukrainian people has been an 
investment in the rules-based international order that is the 
foundation of our own national security.
    But can you describe the importance of this investment, not 
just for Ukraine, but also for all of us here in the United 
States? How does it make us more secure?
    Mr. Storch. So, thank you for the question.
    And as has been alluded to by both my colleagues, as IGs, 
we are very careful not to set policy or get involved in that 
aspect of things. We do oversight. Congress sets policy; the 
Administration sets policy----
    Ms. Wild. Right. Sure.
    Mr. Storch [continuing]. And then, we do oversight to make 
sure it is being carried out.
    Having said that, given the scope of--and I will speak 
about the security assistance that is being provided--it is 
critically important that people see that there is oversight 
and that the Congress knows that there is oversight, to 
ensure--to your constituents' concerns--that those taxpayers' 
dollars are spent properly and as intended. And that is what we 
are doing.
    Ms. Wild. And just to be perfectly clear for people who may 
be listening who do not fully understand this, your title, 
Inspector General, your job is oversight, is that correct, 
within the Administration, of the dollars that are being 
appropriated by Congress and being spent toward Ukraine?
    Mr. Storch. That is absolutely correct. And, in fact, when 
you say, ``within the Administration,'' we are appointed--or in 
my case appointed by a particular President--but we are 
appointed without regard to partisan affiliation. It is right 
in the statute.
    And sort, again, in the world of strange things, I actually 
have been appointed by Presidents of both political parties to 
be an IG in my prior job and this one. And so, at some level, I 
personify that. But that is true across the community, which I 
have been honored to serve in for a long time. That work is 
done in a non-partisan way.
    What we do is of too much interest to people. So, we have 
to make sure that there is never any question about our work or 
where it is coming from. So, we are very careful about that.
    Ms. Wild. So, let me just switch gears slightly, because in 
your testimony you describe the process of conducting oversight 
of aid ``at the speed of war.'' Can you describe your 
relationships with Ukrainian officials and the process of how 
you work with them under these circumstances to do this 
oversight?
    Mr. Storch. Sure. Thank you for the question.
    As has been testified to previously, that is still in the 
early stages, I would say, but we have gotten good responses 
and we are working to develop those relationships, building on 
the existing relationships we have in the region, both through 
the Embassy and otherwise.
    And so, we do have good relationships that we have been 
developing, and we are looking forward to continuing those, 
particularly, as was mentioned, by the ability to put people in 
country. So that, looking to the future, we are there at the 
Embassy developing those relationships, meeting with 
counterparts in the Ukrainian government and elsewhere on an 
ongoing basis, when we do this oversight.
    Ms. Wild. So, let me just ask you this: have you 
encountered any obstruction, concealment? Do you have any 
concerns that have arisen in your oversight capacity in terms 
of the relationship with Ukraine and how the money is being 
used?
    Mr. Storch. So, we have not encountered any such problems 
at all. As was mentioned, in our relationships within the 
United States, we have gotten great support within the DoD. I 
think they also understand the importance of this, and we 
appreciate that.
    And with the Ukrainians, we have not encountered any 
problems at that time, though, again, this is we are going to 
keep moving forward and we are going to hold them to that.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentlelady yields.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Waltz from Florida for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Angarella, you, in your July of last year, 2022, 
advisory notice, you mentioned that USAID planned to provide 
direct cash assistance to Ukrainians for humanitarian needs. 
You also noted that ``Cash assistance comes with inherent 
risk.'' I think that is a pretty obvious statement, 
particularly in a country that is 120th in the world on the 
transparency scale, because it is highly fungible, difficult to 
track.
    So we are talking about wartime aid. My colleague was just 
talking about wartime aid. Talk to me about how the 
dissemination of U.S. funds through direct cash assistance to 
Ukraine has differed within USAID and what lessons you have 
learned from direct cash assistance to Afghanistan.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you for that question.
    The financial assistance through USAID is being provided in 
two ways, the majority of which is being provided in the direct 
budget support through the World Bank.
    Mr. Waltz. Through the World Bank, right. Got it.
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. And so, that is, those are the funds 
that are being transferred to the World Bank into three trust 
funds, and the World Bank, as the trustee, then, disburses 
those on a reimbursement basis.
    Mr. Waltz. Right.
    Ms. Angarella. The second area, with significantly less 
money, is in the humanitarian assistance portfolio.
    Mr. Waltz. How much money to date?
    Ms. Angarella. Right now, in the total humanitarian 
assistance portfolio, $1.4 billion----
    Mr. Waltz. OK.
    Ms. Angarella [continuing]. But that is not all cash 
assistance through humanitarian assistance. There is a large 
portion--and I would have to get back to you on the specific 
number--that is going as either in-kind humanitarian assistance 
or cash to citizens in need in Ukraine that are included----
    Mr. Waltz. How do you oversee the disbursement of cash in a 
war zone?
    Ms. Angarella. So, what we do is we partner and we have the 
oversight authority for the either contractors or, in this 
case, some of the U.N. organizations and USAID contractors that 
are doing the work. So, we have authority to oversee the----
    Mr. Waltz. Are the contracted firms Ukrainian firms?
    Ms. Angarella. No. No, they are non----
    Mr. Waltz. They are third-party firms?
    Ms. Angarella. Most of these are non-NGO's that USAID has 
longstanding relationships with. And we, as the IG, have 
longstanding relationships with them and regularly interact 
with them.
    So, some of the 20 fraud awareness briefings that I 
mentioned and the thousand people that are investigators have 
gone and done fraud awareness briefings for----
    Mr. Waltz. How many USAID employees from OIG, or otherwise, 
are in Ukraine?
    Ms. Angarella. Right now----
    Mr. Waltz. Right.
    Ms. Angarella [continuing]. My understanding is USAID, the 
agency, has seven employees working specific direct----
    Mr. Waltz. And there is a cap on the number of personnel at 
the Embassy, correct?
    Ms. Angarella. Correct. And we have no----
    Mr. Waltz. Would you be able to--and would you want to, I 
would hope--send more direct U.S. Government personnel to both 
oversee the contractors and directly oversee the aid, if 
allowed?
    Ms. Angarella. Absolutely. And that is----
    Mr. Waltz. How many more would you send?
    Ms. Angarella. Right now, we have requested, at a minimum, 
to have two law enforcement criminal investigators. We actually 
had two that were able to go TDY this week to go build a 
relationship----
    Mr. Waltz. Are these--the seven that you do have, which I 
would postulate is a pittance compared to one of the largest 
humanitarian direct budget and military aid programs, probably 
the largest since World War II--yet, we have self-capped, the 
White House has capped the number of people that we can have 
there from the U.S. Government and from the IGs, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes, that is correct. And just to clarify, 
those seven direct hire staff are for USAID, the agency, not 
the IG. They are not dedicated personnel positions.
    Mr. Waltz. So, you have no IG personnel permanently 
stationed in Ukraine?
    Ms. Angarella. Correct.
    Mr. Waltz. Would you like to?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes, and we are actively----
    Mr. Waltz. We would like you to.
    Ms. Angarella. We are actively pursuing that.
    Mr. Waltz. Why are you being told you cannot?
    Ms. Angarella. We have not been told that we cannot. We 
have received support from--this is a State Department process. 
So, when we were in Kyiv in January, we received support from 
Ambassador Brink and from the State Department, and we are now 
going through----
    Mr. Waltz. I know the Ambassador wants more. I asked her.
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. So, we are actively going through the 
State Department's process on getting those approved spots.
    Mr. Waltz. Do the contractors, since you cannot have direct 
folks there, do the contractors have direct access into the 
ministries, into their financial systems?
    Ms. Angarella. The Deloitte contractors that are operating 
on behalf of USAID, my understanding is, yes. Under the MOU, 
the bilateral MOU, that USAID has with the government of 
Ukraine, Deloitte, USAID, and our staff would have direct 
access to those----
    Mr. Waltz. That is reassuring. I think your efforts, as 
IGs, are reassuring. My message--and please take this back to 
both AID and State--is that there is a direct correlation to 
continued domestic support to your ability to be able to get in 
theater and do your job. And we cannot artificially constrain 
ourselves, and we provide all of this aid, but, then, not allow 
you to go provide appropriate oversight. And I hope we learned 
the lessons from Afghanistan.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Schneider for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank our witnesses today. I speak for my 
district, our country; we are grateful for your world, 
impressed by your personal commitment to what you do, but also 
by the breadth and depth of your organizations and all the 
people who are doing the vitally important efforts to make sure 
that we are overseeing the aid that we are sending to Ukraine.
    I'm going to start with some questions that are maybe kind 
of basic, but just to help my understanding, help me explain it 
to my constituents.
    You have established this Ukraine Oversight Interagency 
Working Group, and I think I'm paraphrasing or maybe quoting 
some of what you said. I see three objectives. One, make sure 
aid is going where it is intended. Two, make sure aid is being 
used as it is intended. And three, that U.S. goals and 
objectives are being achieved or on their way to being 
achieved. Is that a fair description, or should I expand on 
that?
    Ms. Shaw. I think that is fair.
    Mr. Schneider. OK. Let me take it from a different angle, 
again, just to describe it. It is the things that you all look 
for include fraud, waste, and abuse, obviously--I have heard 
and read in your statements corruption and collusion, whether 
it is collusive bidding, or whatever--diversion, misallocation, 
misuse, or misapplication of what is being sent. Are those the 
things that we are looking at?
    Ms. Shaw. Yes, among others.
    Mr. Schneider. What would be some of the others, just to 
make sure that I have them on my list?
    Ms. Shaw. Well, I think an important aspect to our mission 
is efficiency and effectiveness. So, of course, we want to 
identify fraud, waste, abuse, diversion, things of that nature, 
but we are also here to try to help the U.S. Government operate 
more efficiently and effectively. And so, I think that is an 
important aspect as well.
    Mr. Schneider. OK. Anything else I should add or----
    Ms. Angarella. I would also add misconduct. So, from 
USAID's perspective, in addition----
    Mr. Storch. Good point.
    Ms. Angarella [continuing]. To misconduct of personnel in 
the U.S. Government sphere, we are also looking at misconduct 
on behalf of people employed by the NGO's or U.N. partners that 
are implementing USAID programming.
    Mr. Schneider. OK. Going back to what termed before, 
especially the third goal, measuring progress against goals and 
objectives. The reports--and I will go and read them in more 
detail--have you identified that? And I know, I suspect we 
cannot talk in an open forum about the specific goals and 
objectives we have for the aid in detail, but measuring our 
progress toward that, how are you set up to do that, 
specifically?
    Ms. Shaw. So, I can kick it off and just say that a great 
example of one of the ways that we are doing this is with the 
foreign assistance that is flowing through the Department of 
State. So, we have ongoing work right now looking at whether 
the Department has developed a strategy, and what that strategy 
looks like, to inform the funding that is flowing through 
foreign assistance. And so, that is going to be an important 
sort of baseline, and then, that positions us to come back in 
after the fact and look at the effectiveness of that strategy 
as it is actually implemented. So, that is an important part of 
our work.
    Mr. Schneider. Great. And that is exactly what I was 
looking for. Because it shouldn't be just money going willy 
nilly, but have a strategy, know where it goes, and then, go 
back and measure it, and look forward to do that.
    Let me shift gears a little bit.
    Mr. Storch. Can I just add----
    Mr. Schneider. Yes, please.
    Mr. Storch. I was just going to add another example that 
may help. So, in all our work, as I said before, we do not set 
policy, right?
    Mr. Schneider. Right.
    Mr. Storch. That is up to others. But we look to see if the 
efforts of the departments and agencies we oversee are 
achieving the desired policy, and are there ways to be more 
effective in doing that?
    So, a great example of an ongoing project we have right now 
which goes right to this is validating the requests for 
assistance from Ukraine. So, we are looking to see whether 
controls are in place within the DoD to, when they get this 
demand signal for a particular type of military assistance, how 
is that being validated? Then, how is that being coordinated 
with partners, to a point we have talked about before?
    And then, a third part, which we may end up splitting off 
to try to be more agile in our reporting, is, how is that being 
sourced within DoD? When the Americans are going to supply it, 
how does that need get met? And so, we are looking to see, are 
the controls in place to do that efficiently, effectively, and 
as we have talked about before, at the speed of war?
    Mr. Schneider. Yes, great point. I think that is where I 
was going with this. It is important for us to understand not 
just that we have watched and made sure money was spent as 
intended; that there was no corruption, collusion, et cetera, 
but that we are truly achieving our goals and that our strategy 
was up right in the first place.
    I have a big question and I only have a little bit of time 
left. So, I'm going to throw the question out. We can talk 
about it later. But it is really, what are your blind spots and 
how can we, in our role, help make sure that you are working to 
address those blind spots? Some we know; some we may not yet be 
aware of. That is for another day.
    I'm over time and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Moran for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you all for being here today.
    I, first, want to say that your role is absolutely 
critical, as you know, but, publicly, let me just State it is 
imperative that the role that you are providing to the American 
people is fulfilled to the greatest extent possible, because it 
is, in fact, taxpayer money, U.S. taxpayer money, that is going 
abroad, for a number of items that, otherwise, could be used 
here.
    I want to communicate to you some things from my district. 
I come from northeast Texas, and I want to mention five 
specific concerns. And there's a lot of concerns out of my 
district from my constituents, but five, in particular, I want 
to mention here today that I want you to keep in the back of 
your mind. Because, as we go through this process, I need to be 
able to say to my constituents, ``We are addressing your 
concerns.'' It is important for me to do that.
    I want you to know, first, that my constituents are, 
rightfully, questioning why U.S. taxpayers have sent more than 
$100 billion to Ukraine to defend its borders, when this 
Administration does little to nothing to secure our own 
borders, particularly the southern border along the State of 
Texas.
    Second, my constituents, rightfully, question why U.S. 
taxpayers are contributing billions of dollars to support 
pension and retirement plans for Ukrainian officials, when our 
own Social Security Trust Fund is going broke and we have other 
needs here domestically.
    Third, my constituents, rightfully, question whether our 
own military readiness is being compromised by the fact that we 
are sending billions of dollars overseas, and whether or not it 
is taking a back seat to the military assistance provided to 
Ukraine.
    Fourth, my constituents are rightfully concerned about 
potential widespread waste, fraud, and abuse of moneys 
expended--a lot of what you have talked about here today. And I 
am going to get into some of that with my questions.
    And then, fifth, I want to mention that my constituents are 
rightfully concerned about the levels of contribution by 
European nations to the Ukrainian defense of this unwarranted 
Russian invasion, since those nations are closer to that 
conflict and more affected by Russian aggression.
    In fact, what they ask me time and time again is, why are 
we carrying such a heavy load and is our money, in fact, being 
used the way it should be used? And why aren't we using it for 
priorities here in America? And I understand those questions.
    Now, even in light of those questions, I will tell you they 
understand the need to push back against Russia. They 
understand the need to ensure that this unwarranted, uninvited 
invasion by Russia into Ukraine needs to be defended and 
repelled.
    So, we will start there, and hopefully, we will end with a 
good conclusion, but it cannot be in a world where the money 
sent by U.S. taxpayers is unaccounted for and used 
inappropriately.
    Let's talk. Ms. Angarella, let's talk about the fraud 
investigations that you mentioned earlier. I know USAID has set 
up English and Ukrainian language hotlines for reporting fraud 
or misuse of U.S. aid. The State Department OIG initiated 
audits of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Ukraine on September 
29th, 2022.
    From the ``Joint Oversight of the Ukrainian Response,'' 
released on March 27, 2023, it was quoted as saying, ``As of 
March 1, 2023, the three OIGs had received 189 Ukrainian 
response-related hotline complaints, including allegations 
submitted by Ukrainian citizens regarding alleged misconduct 
within Ukraine.'' End quote.
    I would like to know, out of those calls that you have 
received, how many actually get looked into; how long does it 
take to determine that the allegations are either credible or 
not credible?
    Ms. Angarella. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    To answer the first part of your question, we have had now, 
to date, as of earlier this week, 178 at USAID OIG. How long it 
takes to evaluate them, the initial assessment is very quick. 
We have even, with them coming in in Ukrainian, we even have 
inside services, language services, in our office, where we 
have translators that can translate them pretty quickly for our 
first-line assessment in our hotline intake, to decide whether 
it, first, has a nexus to USAID funds and USAID programming. If 
it does not have a nexus, then we will refer it immediately to 
either if it comes in for one of my colleagues here or another 
agency, we would immediately refer it.
    For the ones that have----
    Mr. Moran. What is the most common allegation of fraud?
    Ms. Angarella. Procurement fraud, I would say--collusive 
bidding, the things that are happening at the back end, which I 
think is really helpful for us to get out in front of. And that 
is why it is really important for our investigators to go out 
and do fraud awareness briefings, where they identify, for 
procurement officials and contracting officers, what to look 
for. And that is the example that I gave where the contractor 
spotted this and was able to identify it and report it to us 
before the bidding in collusion happened.
    Mr. Moran. OK. Thank you for that.
    I see that I'm out of time already, Mr. Chair. That went by 
fast. Thank you for your time.
    Ms. Angarella. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Stanton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank the Inspectors General for being here 
today. This is an important hearing and you are doing very 
important work.
    We have a duty to stand by our allies, to support the 
Ukrainian people, as they defend themselves against the 
tyrant's unprovoked assault on their sovereignty. Helping 
Ukraine win this brutal, atrocious war is essential for the 
future of security in Europe and for preserving democracy in 
the face of autocracy around the globe.
    But this committee also has a duty to the American taxpayer 
to make sure that every single dollar of assistance is spent 
the way Congress intended; that every single person--and every 
single weapon--excuse me--sent to aid Ukraine, every single 
weapon is properly accounted for and does not fall into the 
hands of bad actors.
    Now, Congress and the Biden Administration built in 
extensive oversight mechanisms for that very purpose, including 
the fact that Congress, No. 1, voted overwhelmingly to require 
a monthly update to Congress on U.S. security assistance 
provided to Ukraine.
    Two, your work with our allies to track all weapons systems 
before they leave the United States and once they are in 
Ukraine. This included onsite inspections, which restarted in 
October.
    And three, the Department of Defense, State Department, and 
the U.S. Agency for International Development created a Joint 
Strategic Oversight Plan. The oversight activities done as part 
of this plan found that all direct financial aid given to the 
Ukrainian government was in line with congressional 
requirements and Federal control standards, and that the 
various United States Government's oversight offices, more than 
17 are working together to provide comprehensive oversight and 
regular updates to the American people.
    But, as part of the Joint Strategic Oversight Plan, the 
Department of Defense's Office of Inspector General found that 
there is room for improvement in overseeing enhanced end-use 
monitoring items; to trust, but verify that arms, like Javelin 
missiles or tools like night vision goggles end up where they 
are supposed to.
    Now, by necessity, the United States has a limited presence 
in Ukraine, but we all agree that it is absolutely essential 
this work is completed, regardless. With that in mind, Mr. 
Storch, can you tell me more about how the Department of 
Defense Office of Inspector General conducts oversight over the 
enhanced end-use monitoring items in Ukraine?
    Mr. Storch. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, and it 
is an area in which we are laser-focused, and will continue to 
be as long as this continues.
    So, we have sent teams out to the region to gather 
information regarding what is an evolving situation, obviously. 
You mentioned our 2020 report, where we looked at the way in 
which end-use monitoring was done, and it, generally, was 
compliant, though there were some issues with the night vision 
devices. We made some recommendations on that. Most of those 
have been closed.
    Then, we had the report that came out last fall, a very 
different situation, ongoing hostilities, war going on. And so, 
we found that, under those circumstances, that the Department 
was not able to meet what were then existing requirements for 
EUM, although there were other things--and this is where it 
gets classified--that the Department was doing to keep track of 
the weaponry that was provided.
    But the situation continues to change, as staffing in the 
country continues to change. So now, we have ongoing our third 
evaluation in this area, and we are looking to do agile 
reporting to get out some of those results, as we continue to 
work on the overall project.
    And then, we are going to be--we are already starting to 
plan for the next one. So, I would say it is an iterative 
process. We are continuing to evolve as the nature of the 
assistance evolves.
    We have also, I would say, been able to use the lessons 
that we learned during COVID, frankly, in terms of how to do 
some of the remote type of oversight, as we all throughout the 
world had to learn to do things a little bit differently, 
right? And so, we have been able to apply some of that to our 
work.
    And then, looking to the future, as it has been testified 
to, we believe it would be helpful to have people posted in 
country, and we have also engaged the process to start that 
ball rolling, so that we are able to have people in country who 
are able to interact on a regular basis, both with our American 
military folks in country and with the Ukrainians, to make sure 
that the end-use monitoring is done. So, ongoing, it is 
evolving and it is robust.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
    And on the issue of staffing, Ms. Shaw, there was only a 
limited number of civilians allowed at the U.S. Embassy in 
Kyiv, due to security concerns. How has that affected U.S. 
oversight of assistance to Ukraine, and what do you think 
should be the appropriate staffing levels at the Embassy?
    Ms. Shaw. Thanks for that question, and I realize we are 
short on time. So, I will try to be concise.
    We are, to date, able to produce the oversight that we need 
to. We have been creative. We have used some remote 
technologies. We have also engaged with people as they have 
cycled out of Ukraine into Poland. But we are looking to secure 
positions in Kyiv. That will be hugely helpful, especially for 
our future work.
    I do not have an opinion yet on the staffing levels at the 
Embassy. We are doing ongoing work looking at Embassy 
operations, but I do know that, in the lessons learned report 
that we published, that staffing considerations are very 
important. And so, we were happy to arm the Department with 
some of the lessons learned from our past work to help inform 
these decisions.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Self for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I want to say that my fellow Texan, Mr. 
Moran, perfectly articulated the five concerns that my citizens 
have as well. So, please take those back.
    I want to go to your Strategic Oversight Plan that the 
three of you signed. You articulated my two concerns on page 17 
and 18 perfectly. One is internal to USAID; one is external. 
And I want to follow through the U.S. Government to the World 
Bank, to Ukraine.
    Your first quote that I want to have is, following the 
February 2022 invasion, you asked approval for an expedited 
process to do your oversight. And the audit will examine the 
tradeoffs inherent in the accelerated procurement practices to 
determine whether the mission has developed the procedures 
necessary to safeguard the award process from undue risk and 
support to your new strategy in Ukraine.
    Has that happened? That was well over a year ago now. That 
is an internal question.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. So, the work I think that you are 
referencing is an ongoing audit that we are working on. Our 
audits are done to very thorough standards. And we are happy to 
come and brief you on the status of that, but----
    Mr. Self. No, I do not think my question is about the audit 
itself. It is the internal processes that you put in place, so 
that you can measure the risk of your audit, your accelerated 
audit, versus the risk of undue fraud or abuse.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. So----
    Mr. Self. So, I'm asking about your internal processes, not 
the audit itself.
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. So, our internal process, what we have 
done to respond to this new portfolio of work that came to 
light after the February invasion, is to staff up quickly. And 
we are doing that in order to look at the agency, USAID, the 
agency's expedited procurement. So, the expedited procurement 
processes that were approved by the Administrator for USAID at 
the start of the war, which allowed them to reprogram money in 
Ukraine--because USAID was already programming in Ukraine 
before the invasion. So, the expedited procedures are for USAID 
internally, and then, what we, as the OIG, will do is to assess 
whether they--how well they did that, and did they stick to 
internal controls and risk mitigation strategies, when they 
repurposed that money?
    Mr. Self. So, what is your analysis of it? It has been over 
a year.
    Ms. Angarella. So, some of the funding I think took longer, 
depending on the amount of money. And so, one of our audits--it 
is encompassed in several of our ongoing audits right now in 
the humanitarian assistance sector, in the energy sector, and 
in agriculture. So, none of those reports have been issued to 
date. They are ongoing; some are planned.
    Mr. Self. But, again, you are talking about the audits 
themselves. Please assure me that the internal processes within 
AID have been put in place for your accelerated process to make 
sure that this is done correctly.
    Ms. Angarella. I think two things are sort of being 
conflated here. One is the USAID, the agency's accelerated 
procurement actions, and then, the second is USAID IG's 
oversight of those. And what we are doing as USAID OIG is 
looking at those to make sure that they were done according to 
USAID's internal plans and procedures.
    Mr. Self. Again I ask, were they? That is the assurance I'm 
looking for.
    Ms. Angarella. So, as of right now, I----
    Mr. Self. It is over a year.
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. As of right now, that work is not 
complete. So, unfortunately, I cannot give you an assurance 
today without that work being complete. But, as soon as it is, 
we are happy to do that.
    Mr. Self. OK, I have 1 minute left. Let's talk about the 
World Bank. Your very next paragraph was perfect. Multinational 
institutions like the World Bank, where U.S. donations will 
merge with funding streams from other international donors; has 
the potential to reduce transparency and oversight of your 
contributions.
    Assure me that the World Bank--because I'm very concerned 
because the World Bank is independent of the U.S. Government. 
So, we are sending our contributions through the World Bank, I 
understand. They are, then, merged with other donations to 
Ukraine. Have you audited the World Bank?
    Ms. Angarella. So, to be clear, the USAID OIG does not have 
the jurisdiction or authority to audit the World Bank.
    Mr. Self. OK.
    Ms. Angarella. But we have access to all of those reports 
that are being provided to USAID, the agency, and as an 
independent monitor and experts, we are assessing those reports 
as they come in. And if we see indicators of fraud that would 
warrant a deeper dive from an independent perspective that our 
agency provides, we will do that deeper dive. To date, we have 
not seen any significant issues like that.
    Mr. Self. OK. I do not have time to get into it. I would 
also like for you to look at the deep relationships between 
Deloitte and the World Bank.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Sherman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
    We have been talking about the level of aid that we provide 
compared to other countries. I think this is a good investment 
in America's security and in world security. That being said, 
we should be pushing on our European friends. We are doing 
more, even on a per--we are doing more than Europe in total. We 
are doing more as per capita, as Mr. Wilson pointed out, other 
than four countries.
    But keep in mind, Bulgaria does not have a fleet in the 
Pacific, in effect, defending Taiwan. Lithuania does not have a 
responsibility to fight ISIS in Syria. And so, Europeans should 
be spending, I think, more on this.
    And in general, we underState, when we report to the 
American people, and when we tell our European friends how much 
we are spending on national security, by deliberately not 
including veterans' cost. And the veterans' benefits are part 
of how we compensate our troops. Under Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles, that is certainly a cost of our defense.
    And I want to focus on this idea that we should have a 
certified audit of what defense articles we are providing 
Ukraine. I watch a lot of World War II movies, and they are 
pretty similar. There is always somebody for each part of the 
audience to identify with. There is the New Yorker; there is 
the Southern; there is the Italian American; there's the Irish 
American. And I keep waiting for my people.
    And then, you see D-Day and the landing craft comes in, and 
the door opens, and out come the auditors. They have all got 
green eyeshades on. They are carrying their 10-key adding 
machines from the 1940's. There are my people. Netflix has 
everything.
    And so, throughout war, of course, certified audits have 
kept track of every shell and every bullet. But, more to the 
point, it is hard to have a certified audit even of a Defense 
Department at peace.
    Mr. Storch, every other part of the Federal Government has, 
since the 19--well, certainly since 2023, have satisfied the 
requirements of an external audit, except the Department of 
Defense. As of November 2022, the Defense Department had failed 
its fifth-ever audit, unable to account for more than half its 
assets. After 1600 auditors combed through the DoD's $3.5 
trillion in assets and $3.7 trillion in liabilities, an 
official found that the Department could not account for about 
61 percent of the assets, according to the Pentagon's 
Controller.
    Is it reasonable for us to think that we can--that the 
Ukrainian military could pass an audit in war, when we cannot 
pass one in peace?
    Mr. Storch. So, first of all, thank you, Congressman, for 
the very compelling portrait of auditors. My folks will 
appreciate it.
    With regard to your question I'm really not in a position 
to comment on the Ukrainians. What I will say is, on the 
American side, we are doing robust work to do oversight over 
the Department's finances, and particularly, focus on the 
systems that are being used to account for the assistance to 
Ukraine.
    Mr. Sherman. I want to thank all the Inspectors General for 
your work.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Baird for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.
    And I appreciate all the witnesses being here.
    My first question goes to Ms. Angarella. In a statement 
last month, you mentioned, quote, ``But, for real 
comprehensive, robust oversight, it cannot be done remotely. 
The closer we are, the more comprehensive the oversight will 
be.''
    So, my question is, can you provide me the steps that your 
Department has taken to check the use of assistance to Ukraine, 
once it is in the country, since you mentioned it previously? 
And additionally, can you tell me how many auditors have been 
sent to the Ukraine?
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, for that 
question.
    To date, to be clear, we have had no permanent staff 
assigned to Embassy Kyiv. USAID OIG is unique because we do 
have Foreign Service staff and personnel who are willing and 
ready to go. We are in the process, as I mentioned, with our 
colleagues here, to go through the State Department process 
requesting those permanent positions. To date, besides my 
colleague and I who went for the day in January, we have two 
investigators that were just able to go in TDY for 3 days this 
week. They were law enforcement criminal agents doing fraud 
awareness briefings and working on MOUs that we are having 
signed with five separate government agencies within the 
government of Ukraine. To date, we have not personally had any 
auditors go TDY or go to Ukraine.
    How we are doing our work, as I mentioned, on the direct 
budget support, we are reviewing all of the reports that are 
coming in from the World Bank, from Deloitte, and from USAID, 
and ones that are being submitted to Congress, and that we have 
access to, and are taking an independent assessment to see if 
there are any red flags that would warrant a deep dive, further 
deep dive, from our office.
    But, that being said, we are also--I think we mentioned our 
hotline poster, which we distributed within Ukraine. It is 
widely circulated right now. Hence, the 556 percent increase in 
the reports that have come to us.
    So, there are ways that we are being able to do our work 
effectively, but I think to be as comprehensive as we possibly 
can be, nothing replaces eyes on the ground, seeing the 
programming happening, and making those relationships.
    Mr. Baird. So, thank you.
    And then, I want to turn to all the witnesses. And that 
question deals with the Ukrainian government. And have they 
been proactive and helpful partners to oversight--I mean, to 
provide these oversights? And how willing have the Ukrainians 
been to open their books and allow full transparency of how 
assistance is being used? So, all three witnesses. I want to 
start with Ms. Shaw.
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for your question.
    So, it is still early days, but I think we have made a 
really good start. When we were there in January, the three of 
us had the opportunity to meet with a range of well-positioned 
and important Ukrainian officials within the government. And 
so, we conveyed a very unambiguous message about the American 
expectations around transparency and accountability.
    As I said in my opening, that message was well-received at 
the time, but, of course, the proof is in the pudding. And so, 
we are building on those initial interactions to deepen our 
relationships, to identify trusted partners, not just within 
the Ukrainian government, but in law enforcement, within the 
prosecutorial entities as well.
    And so, while we haven't met with any resistance to date, 
and so far, there has been broad willingness, we are continuing 
to press that.
    Mr. Baird. Ms. Angarella?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes, I would echo all of that and say that, 
to date, our office is in the process and has received 
commitments, and in some instances are sharing drafts of an MOU 
with the Prosecutor General, with NABU; with SAPO, which is the 
Special Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption; with the Ministry of 
Finance; with the Economic Security Bureau, and with the 
Ministry of Infrastructure. So, those are all tangible MOUs 
that are in the works right now between my office and these 
government entities.
    In addition, we have agents there right now that are 
working on establishing additional relationships, and then, 
implementation of how this is going to look. We can have MOUs, 
but what does it look like to say we agree to share 
information? And that is happening by our two investigators 
that have been there the last 3 days. So, making significant 
steps toward that as expeditiously as we can.
    Mr. Storch. And I see the limited time.
    I would echo all of that, and I suppose the other thing I 
would add is that we are working very closely together on this 
as well. So, we are able to partner to ensure that we are 
leveraging one another's experiences there. So, between us and 
in the larger working group, we are really able to do this, 
anyway.
    Mr. Baird. So, maybe we can start with you next time and 
you will have more time. OK?
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Storch. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Baird. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Keating.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to discuss the role that non-security 
assistance plays in Ukraine's resistance efforts and 
specifically, I believe U.S. economic and humanitarian 
assistance, two areas of assistance that have been particularly 
scrutinized today that are essential to ensure that frontline 
Ukrainian servicemembers can focus on the fight in the 
battlefield and feel some sense of relief that the essential 
needs of their families are being taken care of.
    In fact, Chair Kean and I recently held a subcommittee 
brief on this very topic. During the briefing, expert 
Administration witnesses provided further details on how U.S. 
direct budget support to Ukraine helps to keep Ukrainian health 
institutions open; allows first responders to meet emergency 
medical needs; ensures that children of Ukraine can continue 
their education, and supports the continued work of civil 
service; provides essential support to pensions, a particularly 
vulnerable portion of the population that simply cannot survive 
without this support.
    This direct budget support not only provides a vital boost 
to the wartime economy, but it also ensures the continued 
legitimacy of the Ukrainian government with its own people, 
which is critical for their will to fight.
    Putin has attacked their infrastructure. He has weaponized 
attacks on energy, on food availability, on healthcare. And in 
the subcommittee briefing, we also discussed how this 
assistance has reached up to 3 million with food assistance; 
support for service internally for internally displaced people. 
It has kept the lights on in Ukraine. It has provided safe 
drinking water for 5.6 million people and distributed 
lifesaving healthcare supplies to 4.2 million people--just to 
name a few examples of what has been done.
    In short, I said, during that briefing, that while U.S. and 
NATO military assistance has been indispensable, I believe U.S. 
economic and humanitarian support are equally necessary to 
guarantee Ukraine's wins in this war are reachable; and also, 
to secure the future after the wartime, hopefully, resolves 
itself quickly.
    I want to recognize recent actions taken by the Ukrainian 
government to ensure effective management of U.S. assistance. 
Ukraine has forged ahead with anti-corruption measures and 
rule-of-law initiatives, demonstrating the importance with 
which they view accountability. In fact, a few weeks ago, I met 
with the Prosecutor General Kostin, who has made clear to me 
Ukraine's determination to root out corruption at the highest 
levels. In my discussions with my Ukrainian counterparts, they 
made it clear that they see any misuse of assistance to Ukraine 
as a treasonous act against the government itself.
    Turning back to our witnesses, I have read your testimony 
and listened here today. And I have to say that anyone 
listening to your testimony should be impressed with the focus 
and attention that your agencies place on oversight and our 
assistance to Ukraine in general. From audits for our 
assistance, to end-use monitoring of defense articles, to 
deployment of third-party monitoring organizations, together, 
your departments have conducted a vast array of congressionally 
mandated oversight measures, ensuring that every dollar of 
taxpayer money spent in Ukraine is spent wisely and without 
diversion.
    For example, with regards to the U.S. direct financial 
support, and to quote the report directly, quote, ``The 
mechanisms for monitoring and oversight of funds made available 
under the Fiscal Year Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act 
for direct financial support for the government of Ukraine are 
in place and functioning; and that the government of Ukraine 
has in place substantial safeguards to prevent corruption and 
to ensure accountability of such funds.'' That is directly from 
the report.
    So, simply put, the report we are discussing today is, 
without a doubt, it is a good news story. The oversight 
mechanisms in place for assistance to Ukraine go above and 
beyond typical safeguards, including hiring a third-party 
private auditor in Deloitte. And I believe the work your office 
has undertaken is another demonstration that U.S. taxpayer 
dollars are being spent wisely, appropriately, and in 
furtherance of our U.S. national security for the benefit of 
the Ukrainian war effort.
    And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Kean.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I would like to thank all three of our witnesses for 
being here with us today, and for the important work that they 
do.
    As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe for the 118th 
Congress, I share Chairman McCaul's sentiments that, while 
military, humanitarian, and budgetary support for Ukraine is 
crucial as they are embroiled in this conflict, we must have 
oversight.
    Like the chairman, I believe that we do not conduct this 
oversight with the intent to undermine or to question the 
importance of this funding to support Ukraine. In fact, it is 
just the opposite. We intend for our oversight efforts to 
incentivize this Administration and our Ukrainian partners to 
use these funds with the highest degree of effectiveness and 
efficiency.
    Congress has appropriated over $113 billion to respond to 
the Russian war in Ukraine, and the American people deserve to 
know how this substantial sum of taxpayer dollars is being 
spent. I cannot overState how important transparency and 
accountability are for the support to continue.
    The first official function that I held, Mr. Chair, of the 
Europe Subcommittee was a briefing by State and the USAID for 
members of the subcommittee and a debriefing on the oversight 
efforts and direct budgetary support for United States.
    To echo my opening statement from that event, to your 
knowledge as the three principal Inspectors General, have the 
departments and the agencies that you oversee cooperated in 
good faith in your oversight efforts?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes. From USAID's perspective, yes.
    Ms. Shaw. True, also, for the State Department.
    Mr. Storch. And for the Department of Defense, yes, 
absolutely.
    Mr. Kean. And they have responded in a timely fashion to 
your request for information? And what about the Ukrainian 
government officials?
    Ms. Angarella. Yes to all of those questions.
    Ms. Shaw. Yes.
    Mr. Storch. The same.
    Mr. Kean. OK. I am encouraged to hear there have been no 
significant cases of corruption involving U.S. assistance to 
date. However, I also wanted to make sure that the United 
States is ready to respond in case any instances of corruption 
were to be exposed.
    To all the witnesses before us today, what roles do 
investigative branches of your offices have in the oversight 
efforts and are they ready to respond to reports of waste, 
fraud, or abuse involving U.S. assistance? And what would that 
response look like?
    Mr. Storch. So, I can start. Just speaking about the 
Department of Defense Inspector General, we have the Defense 
Criminal Investigative Service, which has decades of experience 
investigating cases in wartime situations all around the world. 
We have agents who are forward-deployed in the region who have 
robust relationships with people in country and people, law 
enforcement and others, around the world that we are able to 
leverage to do those investigations.
    As we receive allegations, we look into them, and we will 
take whatever investigative steps are necessary, and we will 
determine what the results are.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you.
    Ms. Angarella. From USAID's perspective, I would echo all 
of those things and say, further, that our investigators are 
used to working in non-permissive environments and where there 
might not be direct jurisdiction for the U.S. Government. So, 
when we have jurisdiction, we will pursue every criminal, 
civil, and administrative remedy possible, and those are not 
mutually exclusive of each other. We can pursue several at the 
same time.
    Our office has creatively used suspension and debarment of 
U.N. officials this past year for officials that we cannot--
that we do not have jurisdiction of, we cannot arrest 
ourselves. But we can use suspension and debarment as a tool to 
keep these bad actors from showing up in other U.N. programs or 
other NGO's.
    Additionally, we will work with local government and 
prosecutorial bodies within the government of Ukraine, where we 
can. And previous work that we had in this area, we coordinated 
with the government of Ukraine and extradited somebody who had 
committed fraud against USAID programs, not a Ukrainian, but 
they were in Ukraine, and we successfully worked with them to 
extradite them to the United States and prosecute them 
successfully here. so, our office has this experience and we 
are ready to do it, if allegations of fraud come in.
    Mr. Kean. Ms. Shaw?
    Ms. Shaw. And I will echo everything that my colleagues 
have said and just note that we are being both proactive and 
reactive. So, the short answer to your question is, yes, we are 
absolutely ready, and that is where some of the relationships 
that we are beginning to forge with Ukrainian officials and law 
enforcement and prosecutorial entities will be so important, 
because there are some bad actors that we may not be able to 
reach on our own.
    But we are also being very proactive, and that is important 
to get out ahead of issues. We do not want to just cleanup 
messes. We would like to try to keep them from happening, if at 
all possible.
    And so, the fraud awareness that we are doing now is going 
to be critically important that; making sure that people 
understand how to report fraud. So, all of those things are 
already happening, and really position us very well to act, 
when the time comes.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you to all three of the witnesses who are 
here today.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Allred.
    Mr. Allred. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses for your work. Thank you for 
being here, for your testimony. I think it has been very 
enlightening.
    I certainly agree with the chairman's statement that he 
said following his trip to Ukraine earlier around there being 
no significant acts of fraud or misuse involving U.S. 
assistance; and also, the oversight that has been done I think 
is important.
    There are limits to that usefulness, and I do wonder--you 
know, we on this committee held a markup this week on a 
Resolution of Inquiry to request another audit and transmit a 
huge amount of documents related to our support for Ukraine 
that I think was introduced by a Member of this body who does 
not support our support for Ukraine. And so, it does not go 
hand-in-hand that all oversight is productive, because it is 
also true that the Kremlin is watching closely the discussions 
that we have here, and any cracks in our support for Ukraine 
will be used against Ukraine.
    We want to make sure the dollars are spent wisely, but 
there are limitations to it. And I find some of the continued 
focus to try to find something where there is nothing to be 
disconcerting and not in the pursuit of oversight, but perhaps 
in pursuit of something else.
    But I want to ask you about two things that I think at this 
point in the hearing maybe have not been discussed yet, which 
is very few things that are left. One is partner country 
oversight and the other is training, audits, and how that 
operates.
    And so, I just wondered, Mr. Storch, if you could discuss 
how you evaluate partner country oversight mechanisms to what 
they are doing. How would you characterize our efforts in 
comparison to theirs, lessons learned, maybe lessons they can 
learn from us?
    Mr. Storch. So, thank you very much for the question.
    And if I can, with regard to the preparatory remarks one of 
the things that we are able to do as IGs in each of our offices 
is bring sort of a methodology that we use to address all sorts 
of issues, right, and bring it to bear here. So, when we go and 
we do audits and evaluations, we are using the same standards 
and methodologies we use in all sorts of other work to ensure 
that we are making findings and recommendations that are 
authoritative and really drive positive change.
    So, with regard to partner countries, our remit is, 
obviously, focused on the Department of Defense, but we 
understand the Department of Defense isn't operating in a 
vacuum here, right? There are a lot of countries that are 
assisting Ukraine. So, we are looking at issues where those 
intersections affect U.S. security assistance.
    So, one that is an interesting project that is going on 
right now--and I think an important one--is looking at the way 
in which, when Ukrainians request assistance, how that is 
validated, but, then, how it is coordinated with partner 
countries. And how are the partner countries, how are we 
working with them to ensure we, the United States, to ensure 
that that is being handled as efficiently as possible?
    So, we have lots of relationships with oversight entities 
for our partner countries, particularly on the investigative 
side, and then, also, the international audit organizations as 
well. But what we are trying to do is bring that and leverage 
it for the specific Ukraine oversight mission.
    Mr. Allred. Would you say that we are helping them in their 
oversight efforts as well? Does that characterize it? Or is it 
that, independent of, they do their own----
    Mr. Storch. I would say they do their own, but we engage.
    Mr. Allred. Yes. State and USAID, would you agree with 
that?
    Ms. Angarella. I would agree with that. I would say, in 
this context, especially with the limitation of being on the 
ground, the relationships that we have with other donor 
countries who might not have the same restrictions are really 
enhancing our work and the lines of communication.
    So, for example, last fall, my office convened a group of 
oversight folks from the donor community, as well as the U.N. 
community. And we sat and said, how many allegations has your 
office of investigation had? How many has yours received? To 
compare, to make sure that we are also getting the same data 
and we are staying on top of issues, and one of us isn't 
missing something. So, that enhanced communication and 
collaboration I think also helps us do our work better, 
particularly in the Ukraine context.
    Mr. Allred. Yes. USAID, anything----
    Ms. Shaw. I concur. Nothing more to add.
    Mr. Allred. Yes. And I'm assuming that our return to a 
presence in Kyiv will help with that as well. Yes. OK.
    Well, thank you all so much for your testimony. Thank you 
for your hard work, and we will certainly, I'm sure, be talking 
again.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair now recognizes Mrs. Kim.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
    I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
    You know, I want to start by asking all of you, the 
reporting requirements or the reporting mechanisms that you all 
have in place for Russian capture of American equipment, the 
weapons. And do your agencies have a means of tracking those 
captured equipment?
    Mr. Storch. So, with regard to security assistance to 
Ukraine, when the weapons go into the country, there, then, are 
agreements as to how that is supposed to be tracked. And the 
Department of Defense has the responsibility do this end-use 
monitoring we have talked about, or enhanced end-use 
monitoring, to ensure the accountability of the weaponry.
    What we do, as OIGs, is we do, and as I have testified, it 
is a robust, ongoing series of work and it is going to continue 
to be so, because of the importance of the issue, to ensure 
that Department of Defense is doing that work in compliance 
with applicable regulations and doing it efficiently and 
effectively, to make sure that there is that accountability for 
the weapons.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Can I hear the other agencies?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for your question.
    So, Department of State has a much smaller role in end-use 
monitoring than the Department of Defense, but we do have a 
small piece of that, particularly, on the front of civilian 
security assistance and direct commercial sales. And so, that 
is something that is the subject of our ongoing work. We are 
looking very carefully at how the Department is doing its end-
use monitoring under the circumstances and are looking forward 
to publishing that work, which I think will highlight some 
important issues, and hopefully, offer some good 
recommendations as well.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Briefly, Ms. Angarella.
    Ms. Angarella. USAID is not doing end-use monitoring.
    Mrs. Kim of California. I wanted to know--one of the issues 
that I am following very closely with regard to the Ukraine 
conflict is the food security issue. Russia's bombing of ports 
and grain silos in Ukraine has worsened what was already a dire 
food security situation. So, I am really committed to ensuring 
that our food security assistance is getting to the people who 
need it, and that there is no waste or abuse.
    So, I want to ask your working relationship with those 
large U.N. agencies, especially those with World Food Bank and 
UNICEF. So, can you explain how you coordinate with them on 
your oversight efforts, and what role does information-sharing, 
those information-sharing agreements play in that oversight 
that you conduct?
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you for that question.
    USAID is actively doing agriculture assistance in Ukraine 
right now, both on looking at the resilience of the Ukrainians 
in their agricultural system, and then, also, looking at the 
impact it is having on the rest of the globe and the food 
insecurity that you just described. And our office has two 
ongoing or planned audits of those two programs.
    With respect to the U.N. organizations, as I have testified 
earlier, we just came back from Rome and met with the three 
primary agriculture U.N. agencies there--WFP, FAO, and IFAD--
WFP being the largest of those. According to USAID, 
approximately a quarter of USAID's funding goes to the WFP. So, 
that is a primary relationship that we have, one with the 
leadership at WFP, explaining what USAID's expectations are, 
and us as the IG, for them to report and disclose to us when 
they see allegations of fraud or misuse.
    And then, also, the relationship that we have with their 
oversight, their IG. We have a longstanding partnership with 
them where we meet monthly. We share our investigative reports. 
They have a requirement in certain programs to also report to 
USAID IG if they find instances of fraud with respect to USAID 
programs. Sometimes we work those cases jointly; sometimes we 
let their inspectors or investigators work them, and then, they 
report back to us and USAID. So, those are very effective in 
helping us identify what is happening and where we can jointly 
put our resources together to investigate cases.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you for explaining that.
    I know you mentioned the Ukraine's agricultural sector. So, 
can you speak to that assessment of the oversight and 
accountability measures, that I know you just talked about it, 
but with respect to the projects that include joint ventures 
with private sector entities?
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. So, in July 2022, USAID committed $100 
million to bolster the agricultural exports and alleviate the 
global food security crisis. There are four separate programs 
right now that the mission is conducting, the largest one 
being, I think, the AGRO program. And so, the implementing 
partners that USAID is using are ones that they have used in 
the past, mostly, Chemonics, DAI, and the World Council.
    And so, we have relationships and we have longstanding work 
that we have done with those NGO's as well. They are included 
in our fraud awareness briefings that I mentioned that our 
investigators are going out and identifying and training the 
staff on the ground for the NGO's on what to look for, for 
potential schemes that might be compromising U.S. assistance in 
agriculture programs happening right now in Ukraine.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. I wish we had more time, 
but I think my time is up.
    So, I will yield back. Thanks.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I appreciate the opportunity for this important hearing 
to talk about an issue that has been discussed a great deal 
here in the last year. And that is the American taxpayer 
dollars being spent wisely in this effort, as we support the 
brave Ukrainian people, and as people talk about Ukraine 
fatigue. And I remind them that the Ukrainian people are not 
fatigued because they are standing for their sovereignty, and 
in a much bigger way, standing up for democratic institutions 
around the world, including our own.
    I want to get to the heart of this matter. Obviously, I am 
a very strong supporter of our involvement, along with our 
European allies and NATO, to ensure that the war criminal, 
President Putin, does not get away with the atrocities of this 
invasion of a sovereign nation.
    Having said that, the aid that we have given Congress has, 
appropriately and fittingly, as we do in the past, required 
audits to ensure that these taxpayer dollars are wisely spent. 
And I must tell you that the Ukrainian members of parliament 
that I have worked with over the last year who are very much at 
the forefront of ensuring that the corruption that has 
historically been a part of Ukraine does not prevent them--that 
they put a stop to it and that they manage their own best 
practices to ensure that we feel that there is integrity in how 
these dollars are spent.
    But, with that said, I'm going to ask the three of you the 
same question. Mr. Storch, you, with the Department of Defense, 
have been doing this, I think, for a while. In all of your 
efforts with the audits on the moneys that we have sent to the 
Ukrainian military for their defense, have you been able to 
find any misuse of funds in your audits that would raise red 
flags to Congress, to ensure that something is wrong here and 
we need to address it?
    Mr. Storch. We have not.
    Mr. Costa. You have not.
    And, Ms. Angarella, with the audits that you have conducted 
in terms of humanitarian aid and USAID and other efforts, have 
you determined or have you found any misuse of American 
taxpayer dollars in the assistance that we have provided to the 
country of Ukraine?
    Ms. Angarella. Our audits have not, no.
    Mr. Costa. And, Ms. Shaw, with the Department of State, and 
obviously, you have a lot of experience as well in U.S. 
support, not only here in Ukraine, but in other countries that 
we have provided support. Were any misuse of funds or dollars 
that were targeted for certain purposes, for economic and for 
nation-building, as the State Department works, have you found 
any misuse of funds thus far of the, literally, billions of 
dollars of taxpayers' money that we have provided Ukraine?
    Ms. Shaw. Our completed work has not substantiated any 
findings like that.
    Mr. Costa. All right. Well, my concern is this, and 
obviously, people can have different views on this: but because 
I believe, for ourselves and our for Europe and for NATO, that 
this is the test of our time and whether or not we are going to 
stand up for the common values we share as democracies, that 
some people who do not share that view are trying to cast doubt 
as to whether or not taxpayer dollars are being misused as a 
reason that maybe we should withdraw our continued support. And 
that is why the work that you are doing I think is so important 
for the integrity of our support for this critical challenge 
that we face today, ourselves and our European allies.
    Do you get a sense in your audits, in working with the 
ministries in the Ukrainian government and with their 
parliament, that there is a similar concern? Because, clearly, 
it is not in their interest, I would not think, if, in fact, 
they--and they have had to deal with corruption historically in 
their country. So, they understand the problem--that this would 
undermine the support we are giving them and that the Europeans 
are giving them. Have you detected in your working efforts with 
them about their concerns?
    Mr. Storch. So, I would just say, to be clear, we do not 
audit the Ukrainians. In our case, we audit the----
    Mr. Costa. No, I understand.
    Mr. Storch [continuing]. United States provision of 
security assistance. But, having said that, in our engagements 
with the Ukrainians, both when the three of us went to Kyiv and 
in subsequent engagements, we have heard consistently they 
understand the importance of being transparent; they understand 
the importance of accountability, and----
    Mr. Costa. My time is just about gone. Any best practices 
that you would recommend to the committee in terms of how we go 
forward in the future to ensure that these tax dollars that 
Congress and the Administration appropriate for this very 
critical, important purpose can ensure that we provide the 
protections and the guarantees that we in Congress want to 
have; that the Administration wants to have, and that the 
American taxpayers feel that they deserve?
    Ms. Shaw. A complex question, but a simple answer is to do 
exactly what you did, which is to empower OIGs and oversight 
professionals to get in early, to be prepositioned to get out 
ahead of fraud and issues like that.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The chair recognizes Mrs. Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I thank our witnesses for their service.
    The United States is leading international efforts to help 
Ukraine defeat Russia's abhorrent and utterly unprovoked 
invasion of its sovereign territory. These efforts are 
necessary to stop Russia in its tracks now before it attacks a 
NATO partner, triggers Article 5, and puts U.S. servicemembers 
in harm's way.
    Equally important, U.S. support for Ukraine demonstrates to 
the dangerous and volatile regimes in Tehran, Pyongyang, and 
Beijing, and elsewhere, that the United States is prepared to 
meet any threat to its partners, and meet it with strength and 
resolve. The deterrent power of this signal is critical for 
international security. We must continue to ensure our support 
for Ukraine is as efficient and effective, with the proper 
transparency and oversight that I think you all are providing, 
as possible. I appreciate our witnesses' important work in this 
regard.
    Deputy Inspector General Angarella, put simply, how many 
audits are being conducted of U.S. direct budget support to 
Ukraine, including by the World Bank, the government of 
Ukraine, USAID, the USAID Inspector General?
    Ms. Angarella. For USAID Inspector General, our planned and 
ongoing work includes 22 separate audits. That includes the 
direct budget support and all of USAID's programming. I could 
get back to you. I'm not sure exactly how many reports between 
the World Bank, between their third-party auditor that they 
have contracted, between USAID's 6-month reporting to Congress, 
and Deloitte's reporting. It is a substantial amount.
    Mrs. Wagner. We would like to get that figure. That would 
be very helpful for the committee just as a whole.
    Congress requires that, prior to obligating any direct 
budget support funds, the Secretary of State and USAID 
Administrator must--and I quote--``certify and report that 
mechanisms for monitoring and oversight of such funds are in 
place and functioning, and that the government of Ukraine has 
in place substantial safeguards to prevent corruption and 
ensure accountability of such funds.''
    The IGs for the State Department and USAID are also 
required to report to Congress about your assessment of these 
monitoring mechanisms and safeguards, I will say.
    Deputy Inspectors General Angarella and Shaw, what is your 
assessment of these monitoring mechanisms and safeguards? Are 
they adequate to detect any potential misuse of U.S. direct 
budget support? We will start with you, Ms. Angarella.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you for that question.
    And we have recently issued a joint report looking at 
whether or not the World Bank mechanisms and oversight controls 
that are established right now meet GAO's internal control 
standards. And our assessment and evaluation is that they do. 
The next report that we are working on is looking at the 
effectiveness of how those mechanisms are working, and that is 
our next step in our process.
    Mrs. Wagner. Ms. Shaw?
    Ms. Shaw. And for our part, we looked at the Department of 
State's certification process and whether that was consistent 
with their typical process and well-informed. And we, in the 
two reports that we have issued to date, certified that they 
had followed their process.
    Mrs. Wagner. Great. Thank you very much.
    Deputy Inspector General Angarella, USAID has contracted 
Deloitte to work with Ukraine's Ministry of Finance to review 
its internal monitoring, transparency, verification, and 
reporting systems and procedures. Have you evaluated Deloitte's 
work with Ukraine's Minister of Finance? And how do you assess 
the systems and procedures of Ukraine's Ministry of Finance?
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. With respect to the work that we have 
done, we have access to Deloitte's reports that they provide to 
USAID. They just provided, issued a report in January. And our 
audit team that is focused solely on direct budget support and 
oversight of it reviews those reports and identifies if there 
are any areas or flags of concern for fraud that we would want 
to do a deeper dive and look into. As of today, in all of the 
reports our independent team has assessed no such instances 
have occurred.
    Mrs. Wagner. And they have been working specifically with 
Ukraine's Minister of Finance in this regard, correct?
    Ms. Angarella. Correct.
    Mrs. Wagner. Wonderful. Thank you so very much.
    I have completed my questions and I yield back to the 
chair. Thank you.
    Mr. Burchett [presiding]. Representative Hill for brief 
comments.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to 
have recognition from the gentleman from Tennessee.
    Thank you for your patience being here, IGs. We are 
grateful for your participation, because, as you have heard 
from every member on both sides of the aisle, while there is 
tremendous, strong, bipartisan support for the humanitarian, 
governmental lending, and military support for Ukraine, there 
is also tremendous anxiety and interest from our constituents, 
not only here in the United States, but also Europe, for 
European countries, that there is a full accounting made for 
all of that support. So, thank you for the work you are doing 
on the frontlines of that.
    In December, after the House was briefed by Secretary 
Blinken and Deputy Secretary Adeyemo on funding for Ukraine, I 
made two principal points to them and followed up with a 
letter. Congress has, to date, not really had the full 
financial overview of our support in each of the buckets that 
you have referred to--so, direct governmental support; 
humanitarian support, both at the United Nations and through 
USAID, and military, in a way that they can compare it to other 
countries.
    Because part of building consensus in Congress is to 
demonstrate that, while we may have been upfront a major, major 
contributor here, and the dominant military contributor, that 
we want to see the world come behind us and play an important 
increasing role. And we saw that just in Presidents' Day week 
when Prime Minister Kishida in Japan pledged for $5.5 billion 
toward Ukraine's support. And that is what we want to see more 
of. And so, this work is very valuable and I'm grateful to you.
    Ms. Angarella, I want to ask you a question about USAID. 
So, you give money to the U.N. and you give money to 
contractees with USAID, which are trusted NGO groups that you 
regularly do business with. But the agency was pressed to give 
money directly to NGO groups preferred by Ukraine, for example. 
Is your auditing different in how one looks at the trail of 
money going into a U.N. agency versus a long-time USAID 
contractor, versus a Ukrainian NGO?
    Ms. Angarella. Thank you for the question.
    With respect to the NGO's, whether they are large NGO's 
that we have worked with for years in the past--``we'' being 
USAID, in terms of providing oversight; not ``we,'' as in the 
agency--versus a smaller, local NGO or a new partner, we do our 
work the same exact way.
    It is a little bit different with U.N. organizations and 
the access that we have. It goes as far as what USAID's access 
is agreed to in the ADS for access to U.N. documents.
    With respect to what USAID calls implementing partners, the 
NGO's, right now, in Ukraine, because of the work, it is major 
NGO's that I mentioned that USAID has partnered with in the 
past, and then, there are subawardees that the largest 
implementing partners will conduct, will give subawards. And 
our oversight extends to all of those agencies.
    Mr. Hill. Good. That is helpful.
    Ms. Angarella. Yes.
    Mr. Hill. You each have investigative arms of your bodies. 
And so, to what extent do they, are they responding to 
allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse? Maybe each of you could 
just respond to that. What does their response look like to 
you? Are they on the ground? Are they doing it by email? How do 
they operate?
    Mr. Storch. So, DCIS, which is part of the DoD Inspector 
General's Office, has people all over the world, including 
people in Europe posted forward. And we respond to all 
allegations of waste, fraud, abuse and----
    Mr. Hill. And have you seen that call for, and therefore, 
deployed a team into Ukraine or into Poland, or another port of 
entry of material moving into Ukraine?
    Mr. Storch. Right. So, we have gotten a variety of 
allegations, frankly, without getting into specifics, typical 
of the type of allegations one gets in these sort of conflict 
situations. And on at least one occasion I'm aware of, our 
folks have reached out into Ukraine to get information. We 
haven't had to deploy anyone there, but if we need to, we will.
    Mr. Hill. Let me turn to our two others--the State 
Department.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. We have received 178 complaints 
related to Ukraine, which is--I have mentioned the 556 percent 
increase, which, to me, indicates our outreach is working and 
people know who to come to report things from the ground in 
Ukraine.
    We do not have any permanent staff in Kyiv right now. We 
have Foreign Service agents deployed closer to it in Europe, in 
Frankfurt, but this week we just had two criminal agents do 
TDYs for 3 days in Ukraine--one taking further investigative 
steps on an open investigation and others just doing sort of 
this relationship-building that we were talking about.
    Mr. Hill. Good. I will leave it there. But if you could 
respond in writing, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Hill, for your riveting 
testimony and questions.
    At this time, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Angarella, say your name for me, ma'am.
    Ms. Angarella. Angarella.
    Mr. Burchett. Angarella. Well, you can imagine Burchett; it 
just gets----
    Ms. Angarella. It is OK.
    Mr. Burchett. Thomas Massie always says he wants me to have 
an event called ``Fish Fillets with Tim Burchett.'' But that is 
not how you say it, but anyway.
    Ma'am, what methods are used to prevent waste, fraud, or 
abuse when paying these Ukrainian pensions?
    Ms. Angarella. Thank you for the question.
    The pension support is being provided through the direct 
budget support, which is going through the World Bank and being 
done on the reimbursable basis. So, when the expenditures are 
incurred, then the process is for the Ministry of Finance or 
the government of Ukraine to certify that, submit it to the 
World Bank. The World Bank, as the trustee who manages and 
supervises the fund, looks at it to make sure that the 
expenditures comply with their internal procedures and their 
protocols, and then, they disburse the funds.
    On top of that, USAID, the agency, has contracted with 
Deloitte to do its own spot-checks, and within the Ministry of 
Finance----
    Mr. Burchett. All right. You said with who?
    Ms. Angarella. With Deloitte.
    Mr. Burchett. Deloitte & Touche?
    Ms. Angarella. To do spot-checks and capacity-building, not 
audits per se, but capacity-building, including with GAO doing 
capacity-building for the internal or the external audit, 
entities within Ukraine.
    So, those are some of the different levels in this multi-
tiered oversight approach. And then, our job, as USAID OIG, is 
to make sure that we are aware and we are monitoring all of 
these reports, and from an independent perspective, we are 
identifying if there are any gaps in those monitoring controls 
that are already put in place.
    Mr. Burchett. So, you have a pretty good feeling for this 
that it is not being stolen; that it is going to where it is 
supposed to, toward the Ukrainian pensions, is that correct?
    Ms. Angarella. As of today, yes.
    Mr. Burchett. As of today. Thank you.
    Are those the same methods we use when we pay housing and 
utility subsidies?
    Ms. Angarella. Through the direct budget support systems, 
those are all done the same way, when they are going through 
the multi-donor trust fund, the PEACE Fund, yes.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Another report by USAID to Congress says 
that the Ukrainian tax revenues will remain depressed for the 
foreseeable future. And does your report detail how long we 
will have to provide money to Ukraine?
    Ms. Angarella. It does not, Congressman. That would be more 
of a policy decision for, most likely, this body and our State 
Department and USAID senior leadership. But our role, as the 
IG, would be to oversee any of the funds that are expended.
    Mr. Burchett. If you had just a gut reaction to that, would 
you have any idea at all, or you just do not want to get into 
that, ma'am?
    Ms. Angarella. Both.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Burchett. Both?
    Ms. Angarella. Both.
    Mr. Burchett. All right, ma'am. That is a good answer. You 
are not from--what end of the country are you from, ma'am?
    Ms. Angarella. Rhode Island.
    Mr. Burchett. Oh, wow, ma'am. All right.
    Let's see. Can you think of a time when the Inspectors 
General have had to revise their initial report because of 
fraud, waste, or abuse was discovered?
    Ms. Angarella. I would say that not that we would have to 
revise an initial report, but we would do a subsequent report. 
A lot of our work is done in phases. Disbursements of money and 
programming happens in phases. And so, we try to phase our work 
that way. So, we wouldn't go back, necessarily, and change an 
initial report, but we would modify or have different findings 
in a subsequent report.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you all for 
being here.
    And I yield back my time to no one. I'm not really sure why 
we even say that.
    Mr. Lawler, you are currently recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Storch, I certainly appreciate DoD's end-user 
monitoring of U.S.-origin defense articles to ensure 
transparency and verification of U.S. military aid. Can you 
please describe how DoD conducts end-use monitoring on the 
frontlines and other areas east of Kyiv, and what challenges 
are there in conducting effective oversight?
    Mr. Storch. So, thank you for the question, Congressman.
    End-use monitoring, and enhanced end-use monitoring for the 
more sensitive items, is something that we continue to focus 
on. We have done, as I'm sure you know, a series of 
evaluations. We have one pending right now and we are going to 
keep doing it, as the situation continues to evolve, and 
frankly, the standards have evolved, right? Because end-use 
monitoring is something that, historically, has not taken place 
during active combat necessarily. And so, the ability to get to 
the frontlines, to your point, may be limited.
    So, it is probably not my place to testify about what the 
Department is doing right now. We are evaluating that. I can 
say I have heard in testimony that the Department has indicated 
that they are getting out more than they were able to before to 
do some of the visits to actually lay eyes on, and they are 
using other methods. Some of those get into classified-type 
issues, so I cannot really talk about that in this forum.
    But we are looking. We are looking at all that and we are 
going to continue to look at all that going forward. And one of 
the things we are going to do is try to use agile reporting, as 
we do that work, to get things out as quickly as possible and 
as transparently as we can.
    Mr. Lawler. Great. Thank you.
    Ms. Shaw, as you may know or may not, my wife is a Moldovan 
immigrant, and I currently serve as the co-chair of the 
congressional Moldova Caucus, which all of my many colleagues 
who are here are welcome to join.
    Moldova has felt the effects of Russia's war on Ukraine 
significantly. They have taken in over 600,000 refugees, which 
amounts to almost a quarter of their current population within 
the country's borders. And they have suffered disruptions in 
trade and energy supplies. Increased aid to Moldova is 
necessary to maintain economic growth, secure its borders, and 
further assist the country in responding to Russian aggression.
    I understand your inspection of the programs and operations 
out of our Embassy in Chisinau are ongoing. But can you please 
describe its scope and methodology?
    Ms. Shaw. Thank you for the question.
    So, we recognized that countries in the surrounding region 
are going to be very heavily impacted by this. And so, we felt 
it was important to make sure that our work reached to those 
areas. As you said, we do have an ongoing inspection of the 
Embassy is Chisinau. And so, the scope of that work will be to 
look, not only at the typical functions that we look at with 
any of our inspections--executive leadership, alignment with 
strategy and performance goals, resource management, and the 
like--but a specific focus will be how the situation in Ukraine 
is impacting the country and the Embassy, and how the Embassy 
is responding to that challenge. And so, I think that that work 
will address some of the concerns that you have raised.
    Mr. Lawler. And when do you expect the investigation to be 
complete?
    Ms. Shaw. It is an inspection, and I can get back to you 
with the specifics, but I think it would probably be out later 
this summer----
    Mr. Lawler. OK.
    Ms. Shaw [continuing]. Or early fall.
    Mr. Lawler. You know, prior to, obviously, the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine, President Sandu was working with our 
government here in the United States and the previous Congress 
to put in place sanctions on Russian oligarchs and others who 
had corrupted the prior Administrations over there. So, I think 
the more that we can continue to support her efforts, 
obviously, will ensure their long-term stability there.
    How many USAID, State, and DoD personnel are currently on 
the ground conducting oversight across all the inspections?
    Ms. Shaw. If that is a question about Office of Inspector 
General----
    Mr. Lawler. Uh-hum.
    Ms. Shaw [continuing]. Personnel, we currently do not have 
permanent staff based at Embassy Kyiv. For our part at State 
OIG, we have been able to advance our audit work by sending in 
teams on TDYs. And so, that has been effective up to this 
point, but we have officially requested from the Department 
positions at Embassy Kyiv going forward for oversight. I know 
that is true for each of my colleagues as well. To date, we 
have received Department support for our request. And so, we 
are working through that process and we have been assured it is 
being given expedited review, given the circumstances.
    Mr. Lawler. OK. My time is almost expired. Obviously, 
transparency and accountability and oversight is critically 
important, but we must continue our support of Ukraine, and I 
support the efforts to help them reclaim their sovereignty.
    So, thank you for your work.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Lawler.
    And we now recognize Mr. McCormick, who bravely served our 
country in the United States Marine Corps as a pilot, and now 
is in Congress with us.
    Mr. McCormick, you are recognized.
    Mr. McCormick. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I definitely feel like it is to America's great benefit to 
be a partner in defending Ukraine, preventing the unprovoked 
Russian ambitions to take over a country and to continue to 
expand their, what I would say is probably something that Peter 
the Great has been quoted by Putin. People think that he is 
just a former KGB guy who was part of the Soviet Union. He, 
literally, quotes Peter the Great, and in many ways, it is in 
their DNA, when you talk about Catherine the Great having to 
expand her borders in order to secure her borders. So, we 
understand what is at stake here.
    I thought it was interesting that the Biden Administration 
has constantly been too slow in delivering needed weapon 
systems for Ukraine to win this. The President's irresponsible 
rhetoric prior to the invasion, and reluctance to act more 
decisively since then, has caused Russia's unjustified 
aggression war to Ukraine to continue for longer than it should 
have ever been continued.
    I will say the original Biden plan, as I understood it, was 
to have President Zelenskyy flee to America, not learning the 
lessons from Afghanistan, which I participated in also and 
which I think would have been catastrophic, as Ukraine would 
have folded instantly without leadership, and we would have had 
another war probably in Moldavia or possibly Estonia or 
Romania. Who knows? Because his stated objective was to 
continue to grow the Russian Empire, if you will.
    I understand the violent and chaotic U.S. withdrawal from 
Afghanistan has created this security vacuum, where now China 
is very aggressive; Russia is very aggressive, and there is a 
lot of uncertainty as to where we are going to go from here 
right now.
    What I am concerned with is I have seen great 
accountability as far as my questions being answered on where 
our military aid is going. We can see downrange how it is 
affecting this war and how Russia is being, really, beaten 
badly in many ways. You have seen a massive amount of armor 
taken out, personnel. We are at a stalemate right now. There is 
about to be a counteroffensive. With any blessings, hopefully, 
we will be successful, and when I say, ``we,'' I mean them.
    What I am concerned with is any protracted war. Anybody who 
has been to command and staff school, anybody who has studied 
warfare, and understands the limitations of American warfare, 
it is you lose popular support by extending a war, no matter 
who you are. Russia lost popular support in Afghanistan. So did 
we.
    If we do not have accountability for our equipment, we have 
a problem. I feel like the military equipment has been well 
accounted for. What I'm concerned for is the Biden 
Administration's plan to spend about a third of our money in 
their economy, and not in ways that I think American people 
would be supportive of. For example, union pensions. I just do 
not think that that is going to be popular. I do not think it 
is going to be sustainable.
    And what I'm worried about is losing popular support for a 
war that has great ability to keep us out of a war. And I 
wanted you to speak on that, as far as how we are spending the 
money outside of military.
    Ms. Angarella. Sure. Thank you for your question, as I 
appreciate it as the proud daughter of a retired Air Force 
pilot.
    The funding that is going to the government of Ukraine to 
supply pensions and salaries for civil servants is, as I 
described, going through the World Bank's Trust Fund as the 
direct budget support. So, it is not going directly from the 
Government of the United States to the government of Ukraine. 
It is going through the World Bank, as the trustee for the 
funds.
    In addition, the mechanism that policymakers decided to use 
was a reimbursement mechanism. So, the expenditures are being 
submitted after they have already been paid for by the 
government of Ukraine. And the government of Ukraine is 
certifying that these were eligible expenses. So, it is not 
money that is allowed to go to support any other even 
government ministries other than the salaries or what is 
specified in the agreement. And that is what the government of 
Ukraine is certifying, that they went to the eligible 
expenditures.
    And then, the levels of oversight that have been built into 
this system of oversight, is what I'm calling it, then falls to 
the trustee, which is the World Bank, to look at using their 
own very well-established like internal standards, controls, 
and procedures to certify that they were eligible. And then, 
USAID has a responsibility as well.
    Mr. McCormick. Yes, so when you talk about eligible 
expenditures, this is exactly what I'm talking about--the fancy 
words for, basically, saying things we do not want to go to. I 
understand how the reimbursements work. But, just like when we 
give money to anybody in the Federal Government, we usually 
have strings attached to where that money goes.
    I think it would be a very good idea to understand that the 
American people, ultimately, hold us accountable, and we will 
hold anybody we give money to accountable, and it cannot go to 
things the American people do not support.
    And with that, I yield.
    Mr. Lawler [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Barr. I thank the chairman.
    And I want to express upfront that I believe it is in the 
national security interest of the United States to provide 
assistance to the resistance in Ukraine to repel the Russian 
invaders, for several reasons. No. 1, to prevent a broader war 
in Europe, to deter that broader war, and to prevent a 
triggering of our Article 5 obligations under NATO.
    I think it is also important to send a signal to other 
totalitarian regimes, including the regime in Beijing, that 
aggression toward a sovereign, or at least independent 
democracies, is something that the civilized world will not 
tolerate.
    Having said that, Congress, the American people through 
Congress, has now appropriated over $113 billion in emergency 
supplemental funding to respond to Russia's war in Ukraine. 
That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money.
    And so, in order to sustain the American people's support 
for that effort, and to fulfill our national security 
interests, we have to have accountability. And so, I appreciate 
you being here today to testify about your efforts. It is why I 
support the 39 provisions enacted over four Ukraine 
supplementals that require reports to Congress on oversight and 
accountability of all the aid sent to Ukraine. It is why I 
support the 64 ongoing, planned or ongoing, audits and reports 
by GAO and the IGs for DoD, State, Treasury, and USAID.
    My first question relates to the return on investment here 
and this national security interest. Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, testified to Congress 
last week that, if Russia were to prevail against Ukraine, the 
United States would need to be doubling--doubling--our defense 
budget.
    The $49 billion in security assistance packages to Ukraine 
accounted for just 6 percent of our 2022 defense budget. 
Spending single-digit percentages to support Ukraine seems like 
a pretty good return on investment for taxpayers, considering 
that we are delivering a body blow to one of our strategic 
adversaries--a blow that would have cost us much more to 
deliver ourselves.
    Given our national security priorities, would you say that 
our current spending in Ukraine reflects a responsible use of 
taxpayer funds compared to the cost of defending our allies in 
Europe, should Russian imperialism go unchecked?
    Mr. Storch. So, with regard to the policy question inherent 
in that, that is really a question for the Administration and 
Congress, of course. What I can say is each of our offices 
individually, and working together and with our oversight 
partners, are committed to doing oversight to ensure that the 
money that is appropriated is used as intended.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you.
    And we, obviously, cannot stand alone in our support for 
Ukraine, and the United States has assembled a coalition of 
over 50 countries to get critical weapons and supplies to 
Ukraine. According to a report by the European Union Delegation 
to the United States, the EU and its member States have made 
available over $73 billion in financial, military, 
humanitarian, and refugee assistance, including a commitment of 
up to $19 billion in additional assistance for 2023. Over $13 
billion in military assistance has been provided to finance 
military supplies to Ukraine, train over 30,000 Ukrainian 
military personnel, and more. These numbers tell me that we are 
not alone in our support for Ukraine, nor are we alone in 
trusting Ukraine with the assistance provided.
    Could any of you speak more to the efforts made by our 
partner countries in Europe and beyond to support Ukraine?
    Ms. Shaw. Well, I will take a side route on that and simply 
note that at Department of State OIG we have two inspections 
that are soon to be released looking specifically at the U.S. 
mission to the European Union and the U.S. mission to NATO. And 
the focus of that work will be looking at how we are 
coordinating with our partners. So, it won't be sort of 
assessing the sufficiency of the inputs that they are making, 
but ensuring that, where we are also providing similar 
assistance, that there isn't duplication of effort; that we are 
staying closely coordinated, and that those contributions are 
aligned with strategic goals.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Storch, after the fall of Afghanistan, there 
seemed to be a large amount of confusion on the amount of 
weapons and materials given to the Afghan National Security 
Forces that, then, fell in the hands of the Taliban. Have we 
learned any lessons from that? And to your knowledge, have any 
U.S. arms or munitions fallen into Russian hands?
    Mr. Storch. Thank you for the question.
    My office--again, prior to my being there--but my office 
did a substantial amount of work related to the weaponry that 
you are speaking about. And to my knowledge, we have not 
substantiated any diversion of weaponry, but it is something we 
continue to look at on an ongoing basis, obviously.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. I yield.
    Mr. Lawler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the 
members for their questions.
    The members of the committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond in 
writing to those questions.
    Mr. Lawler. Pursuant to the committee rules, all members 
may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous 
materials for the record, subject to the length limitations.
    Mr. Lawler. Without objection, the committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

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


                                 [all]