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


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

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              May 17, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-24

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


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

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

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

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


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

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

    INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE JACOBS

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

                                APPENDIX

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

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    74

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

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

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

                        Wednesday, May 17, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

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

                                 [all]