Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Foreign Assistance: Lessons Learned and Charting a Path Forward

the subcommittee on oversight intelligence will come to order the purpose of this hearing is to review waste fraud and abuse in us foreign assistance and to examine how ineffectively internal controls and oversight mechanisms have enabled bad actors to profit i also just want to advise members and witnesses that votes are expected at three p m this afternoon. when votes are called we will temporarily adjourn this hearing, should it not be already over. to allow members to participate and we will reconvene immediately thereafter. i appreciate everyone's flexibility and cooperation in advance. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. good afternoon and welcome to today's oversight and intelligence subcommittee hearing entitled waste. fraud, and abuse in foreign assistance. Lessons learned in charting a path forward. I'd like to thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today and for supporting our efforts to safeguard US taxpayers' dollars to expose waste, fraud, and abuse, and hold accountable those who have been exploiting US generosity. As a nation, we should be embarrassed that funding for foreign assistance has too often strengthened America's adversaries, the same adversaries who have oppressed and terrorized the populations we sought to help. Whether through a local NGO, a large for-profit entity, or a public international organization, opportunistic bad actors have for years exploited pervasive weaknesses in the system of foreign assistance that we created. From my old time, my own time in Afghanistan, I witnessed firsthand how contracts profited enormously with little to show for it. Between two thousand and five and two thousand seventeen, two hundred and fifty-nine million dollars was spent on a road project that was never even completed. After twelve years, only about fifteen percent of the road was built, and even those sections that were completed quickly deteriorated. Contractors benefited from lack of oversight and took US taxpayer dollars without completing the projects. And two thousand twenty five, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Sigar, estimated that as little as thirty to forty percent of donor funds actually reached the intended population after the talibans and other fees, bribes, and extortion. Terrorists have extorted and enriched themselves through international aid around the world. For years, Al Shabaab, a designated terrorist organization, extorted millions of dollars annually through collecting taxes, establishing roadblocks to UN aid. In the early nineteen nineties, Somalian warlords deliberately starved their own people to encourage international aid and in line, basically, to pie their own pockets. For decades, inspector generals and auditors have sounded the alarm to systemic oversight and accountability failures, that have enabled waste, fraud, and abuse in foreign assistance, from the lack of internal controls in the early stages of awarding a grant or contract, to the opaque lay- the opaque layers of the subcontracting that follows, the bad actors at every single level have profited from US foreign assistance. In June of last year, a contracting officer for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, received an estimated one million dollars in bribes to repeatedly manipulate the procurement process, approve awards and deceive USAID decision makers in favor of two awardees. Three owners and presidents of their respective companies also pleaded guilty for a decade-long bribery and fraud scheme that involved over five hundred and fifty million dollars in prime contracts. Last year, the president took an un- a very important step to end these wasteful and corrupted practices. With USAID's failures now behind us, we have an opportunity to chart a new path forward, a path that safeguards US funds and that does not enrich our enemies. A path that does not measure effectiveness by dollars spent, but by real outcome, that doesn't just benefit the intended recipients, but also clearly make the United States safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Reform in foreign assistance has been long overdue. And with that, I look forward to hearing how we can chart this new path together. With that, I will now recognize my ranking member, Representative Moskowitz.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, appreciate the opportunity. Good afternoon. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today's hearing on fraud, waste and abuse in foreign assistance. Um, obviously I think it's fair to say that there is fraud, waste and abuse uh in our federal government. In fact, it would be crazy to not think that in a seven trillion dollar budget, that there wouldn't be some fraud, waste and abuse. And obviously that would also apply uh to foreign assistance. Um. And and when you have a government spending seven trillion dollars, it's not gonna be perfect. There's gonna be errors uh in our system. Um however in order to root out actual fraud, waste and abuse and make our government programs more effective, I think it's important that we all operate on the same basic definitions. Luckily for us, Miss Lovegrayer's agency has definitions for all three. And as a reminder, the Government Accountability's office whole purpose is to analyze how taxpayer dollars are spent and to provide Congress and others with fact-based information that can help the agency save money and work more efficiently. So from the GAO, fraud involves obtaining something of value through willful misrepresentation. Waste occurs when individuals or organizations expend government resources, carelessly, extravagantly, or without adequate purpose. I think we're gonna find out that Corey Lewandowski did a lot of that at DHS. Abuse occurs when someone behaves improperly, unreasonably, or misuses a position or authority. I think again we'll find out some more about DHS. My concern is that fraud, waste, and abuse, um, lately is becoming a cover for programs I don't like. Just because I don't like a program, if I say there's some fraud, waste, and abuse, I can try to get rid of a program. And maybe there are, maybe look, maybe there are people out there that think programs that feed starving starving children should go away or providing basic maternal care or eliminating deadly diseases or stopping human trafficking. If they believe those programs should go away, they should vote for that. uh they shouldn't just claim there's fraud, waste and abuse. They should go on the record. Um, I also think it's interesting that, you know, we're talking about fraud, waste and abuse in an administration that both in the second term and the first term is added trillions of dollars uh to to the deficit. And so look, I can disagree with you. I can believe that these programs help stabilize fragile regions, that support our partners to advance democratic values and provide strategic advantages to the United States, also why lifting people out of disease and poverty. I can argue that when we pull back our soft power, adversarial nations like China are all too happy to fill the void we've left. Just look at the fact that when we rapidly stood up identi- that China rapidly stood up identical programs that we pulled out of last year. And and I just don't think you can have it both ways. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I agree with them on this, are worried about Chinese influence around the world, but at the same time, if you're worried about that, then you can't withdraw from the international community, knowing full well China uh will fill that void. Uh, and so because of, you know, these precarious zones in which a lot of foreign assistance is delivered, conflict areas, weak governance regions, we much have an even more rigorous and informed oversight. Uh, that's why he- what hearings like this are designed to do. And that brings to a point that I believe deserves acknowledgement today. If the administration really believed that ways for foreign abuse and foreign assistance were serious enough to justify dismantling major foreign assistance uh agencies, then these oversight hearings should have happened first. And this should have happened a long time ago. We should have examined the evidence, heard from the experts, evaluated the oversight mechanisms, and considered reforms. That's how a legislative process is supposed to work. Oversight should precede major structural decisions, not follow them. But we all know that's not what happened. In fact, we watched Doge actually sideline Congress. They even sideline the Doge caucus. OK, there was a caucus created in Congress to look at government efficiency, and Elon Musk and Doge never even brought them into the fold. Congress was completely cut out. They canceled programs across government claiming w- fraud, waste and abuse. And they left the Department of State scrambling. In fact, Trump's administration had to undo some of the things, uh, that Doge wound up, uh, doing. They never got to the efficiency part. Doge never did anything that created more efficiency, uh, for the government. And then the Foreign Affairs Committee got one closed round table with then-deputy administrator of USA Today, Peter Marocco. It lasted forty-five minutes, uh, and he didn't have a lot of the answers. That's not what legislative oversight is. So eliminating institutions doesn't automatically eliminate waste. In fact, after USAID was closed, food purchased with American taxpayer dollars was allowed to sit in spoil, and then more American tax dollars had to be spent to incinerate the hundreds of metric tons of food. To me, that sounds like the GAO definition of what waste, uh, which we reviewed earlier. It's our goal to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, and the answer is not simply dismantle institutions and to eliminate programs just because you don't like them. The answer is to strengthen oversight, improve transparency, modernize monitoring tools, and ensure Congress receives clear and timely information. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our oversight responsibilities are met. Thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much, the ranking member. Uh, while I agree that we didn't get necessarily to the efficiency piece, that's why the investigation such as this is so important. But I would say the elimination of certain for example like you saw in the veteran administrations building where they were having a fifty to seventy thousand dollar per year contract to water five plants i think that's something that we can look at as a waste fraud and abuse area i'll also note that we don't always have to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at nations in order to build strong relationships i just came back from honduras yesterday where i met with the new president as well as for the uh head of the congress and i can tell you that they are very much in line with trying to get rid of china and the corrupt practice that are going on there to get rid of communism which is a uh long fought goal of not just the conservative party but the liberal party and uh all it took and this was coming directly from the president and from the head of congress said what really got us over the edge was when president trump had tweeted out and asked to have a free and fair election and showed support for this administration so sometimes the thing that people hate so much a simple tweet can be very effective Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us. Our two witnesses today include Mister Adam Kaplan, the Associate Deputy Inspector General for the Office of the Inspector General at the US Agency for International Development, who has been at the forefront of holding organizations accountable for terrorist diversion, fraud, and corruption. Miss Letitia Love-Grayer is the Director of International Affairs and Trade, at the government of accountability offices. Mislev Greyer has over twenty-three years of experience leading performance in forensic audits leading to millions of dollars in savings across federal programs where US taxpayer dollars were at risk of waste, fraud and abuse. This committee recognizes the importance of the issue before us, and is grateful to have you both here to speak with us today. Your full statements will be made part of the record, and I'll ask you to keep your opening remarks to five minutes in order to allow members to have enough time for questioning. With that, I'll now recognize Mister Kaplan for your opening statements.

Thank you. Chairman Mills, Ranking Member Moskowitz, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Nobody has a track record like the USAID IG in fighting fraud and corruption in foreign assistance. As the only IG dedicated solely to overseeing foreign assistance programs run by multiple agencies, we know the people places and schemes that put taxpayer dollars at risk. USAID had a dedicated staff and solid mechanisms to manage risks to its programs. As the IG, we naturally found shortcomings. Today, I'll summarize three such challenges identified in my written testimony applicable to any agency administering foreign assistance. Challenge one, ensuring transparent access to information. USAID heavily relied on award recipients operating in locations to self-disclose fraud allegations. Of all award recipients, the least the least transparent is the United Nations. We encounter nonstop obstruction by the UN to share information about potential misuse of US funds. To illustrate, we've sought information from five different UN agencies on ten investigations. Response times ranged from six months to two years. This is unacceptable. We urge the State Department to implement a clause mandating that awards to the UN provide us with access to information. Challenge two, ensuring that award terms prioritize accountability. USAID had hundreds of regulations designed to address risks to programs. However, there were shortcomings. For example, USAID declined to include a forum selection clause in agreements with foreign-based NGOs. There's no reason why a Florida-based aid organization can be sued for fraud in US court, while one based in London can't. But cases have been dismissed because US aid omitted this clause. Further, USAID's anti-terrorism certifications applied only to grants, not contracts. This certification allowed the Department of Justice and OIG to bring cases against grantees for concealing past support to Iran and Hezbollah. Inexplicably, However, gr- contractors were not required to make the same representation. Also, USAID's required partner vetting of eight organization staff designed to ensure that terrorists don't get our money exempted UN staff. To address this gap, USAID IG is investigating UN staff for ties to Hamas, to ensure US taxpayers don't pay their salaries. Challenge three, ensuring effective monitoring and staffing. Mitigating risks requires more than announcing costly monitoring contracts. For example, USAID missed opportunities to improve programs in Somalia because it lacked a system for managing recommendations from its monitors. In Ukraine, contractors USAID hired to oversee its twenty-six billion dollars in direct budget support failed to provide required reports on time or at all. Moving forward, the government must ensure monitors provide timely information and that officials leverage monitor findings to ensure To further mitigate risk, the government must adequately staff awards and monitor sub-awardees. Our audit found in Ethiopia, USAID employed too few people to manage awards, and ultimately failed to detect a massive food diversion scandal. The path forward requires an appropriate ratio of staff to awards given the money at stake. Lastly, despite fraud often occurring at the sub-award level, there's no internal database of sub-awardees. despite their outsized role in programs and involvement in fraud schemes. Finally, combating overseas fraud requires an IG that is willing to follow the money, ask difficult questions, and hold perpetrators accountable. Rather than playing Monday morning quarterback, USAID IG's experience places us in the pre-game huddle, allowing us to inform Congress and agencies of risks before billions of dollars of programming goes out, not years later. Our unique authority to employ foreign service officers also allows us to routinely visit project sites and remote in dangerous locations. In doing so, we've uncovered roads that were reported as complete but were never built. We found edible grain meant for starving kids being replaced with animal feed. And distribution sites where food reported as delivered never arrived. Without USAID IG on the ground, those losses would remain hidden and the schemes would continue. And critically, we work to protect and empower confidential sources who face real risks for coming forward to report to report fraud diversion and sexual exploitation and abuse. The American people deserve confidence that their taxpayer dollars are protected and the communities who rely on US assistance deserve assurance that the support intended them is not lost to fraud corruption or abuse. I thank the committee for its continued support for USAID IG's unique brand of oversight and look forward to your questions.

Thank you so much, Mr. Graplin. I now recognize Miss Love-Grier for an opening statement.

Chairman Mills, ranking member Moskowitz, and members of the subcommittee. Can you hear me now? Chairman Mills, ranking member Moskowitz, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss GAAL's work examining a federal efforts to manage the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in foreign assistance. U. S. foreign assistance plays an important role in advancing U. S. foreign policy goals. It supports countries that are strategic to U. S. security and economic interest, countries experience c- experiencing conflict, and vulnerable populations around the world. In fiscal year twenty twenty six, Congress appropriated roughly fifty billion dollars for the Department of State and other foreign affairs programs. For many years, much of this assistance was administered by the U. S. Agency for International Development. However, following changes in twenty twenty five, The US Department of State is now the federal government's primary provider of foreign assistance. This time of transition calls for a focus on fraud risk management. Foreign assistance is often delivered in a complex environment, marked by conflict, instability, and humanitarian crisis, conditions that can heighten the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. Although most federal spending is not lost to fraud, every diverted dollar weakens programs, weighs taxpayers' dollars, and undermines public trust. Because fraud is costly and difficult to detect, prosecute and recover, prevention is the most effective way to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure program integrity. Our work has identified several factors that make foreign assistance particularly vulnerable. First, assistance is often delivered through implementing partners such as contractors, nonprofits and international organizations. These partners may also fund sub-partners. Controls, if controls are weak anywhere in that chain, the risk of fraud increases. Second, Many programs operate in conflict zones where violence and instability may limit in-person oversight by agencies and partners making it hard to verify how funds were actually used. Third, humanitarian crisis often require rapid delivery of aid. When agencies must move funding to quickly to address emergencies, maintaining strong controls can be more challenging. Finally, agencies have a desire to work directly with local organizations to deliver assistance. This approach can improve long-term sustainability. but some local partners may have limited experience managing federal awards or maintaining strong financial controls. GAAL's work has identified real examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in foreign assistance. For instance, our recent review of the US African Development Foundation identified significant fraud risk management weaknesses, as well as highly questionable procurement practices that we reported were red flags for potential fraud schemes. The Director of Financial Ma- Management later pled guilty to contract related offenses. In another example, our twenty twenty-three review of fraud risk management and conflict zones, described widespread diversion of food aid in Somalia. And in Afghanistan, GAO reported multiple instances of fraud and ways tied to reconstruction programs. These examples demonstrate why strong fraud risk management is essential. Agencies have taken some positive steps. They conduct certain risk assessments, review some partners' past performance, require reporting of suspected violations to inspector generals, sometimes use third-party monitoring to access hard to reach locations. However, our work has identified significant weaknesses. For example, some agencies like State and USAID did not conduct program-specific fraud risk assessments leaving them vulnerable to predictable risks. Fraud awareness training was not required, limiting officials' awareness of how to prevent, detect, or respond to potential fraud. Oversight of sub-partners was inconsistent or wholly lacking. Third-party monitoring often focused on performance management and was not designed for fraud risk detection. And agencies did not always use available data analytics to identify unusual spending patterns that can be indications of fraud or abuse. From July twenty sixteen through September twenty twenty five, GAAL has made more than fifty recommendations to improve fraud risk management in foreign assistance. As early as twenty twenty six, agencies had implemented only twenty-two of those recommendations while twenty-nine remain unimplemented. Addressing our recommendations will be particularly important. as foreign assistance programs are restructured, and the State Department assumes a larger role in administering them. Congress can also help strengthen oversight by reinstating certain requirements for agencies to regularly report on their anti-fraud and risk management activities. By strengthening controls, learning from past risks, and implementing GAO and OIG recommendations, agencies can better protect taxpayer dollars and ensure that foreign assistance achieves its intended purpose. Chairman Mills, Rinky Miramaskowitz, Members of the subcommittee, this concludes my oral statement, be happy to take questions at this time.

Thank you, Ms. Love-Grier. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. USAID attempted to develop a number of oversight mechanisms to improve program effectiveness and safeguard US funds over the years. Yet foreign assistance has remained susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. Regardless of the type of implementer, bad actors have profited from US generosity abroad. Whether they are contractors committing fraud or terroristic diverting aid, a multitude of systemic weaknesses have enabled bad actors to commit waste fraud and abuse. How have you seen bad actors exploit gaps in the US oversights? I'll start with you, Mr. Kaplan.

Thanks for your question. Um, they certainly have tried to exploit gaps, and some of them are exactly what I just identified in my opening testimony. And they're examples, I mean. And sometimes they're very slight examples and they go to the actual clauses that either exist or don't exist. So, for example, the form selection clause I mentioned, we actually had a great case in the Southern District of New York, where a British NGO had falsified its past support provided to Hezbollah and Iranian affiliates. They had to declare it under certification. They made the false representation. We hadn't dead to write. Brought the case. The judge in New York said, well, there's really no ties to um, it's a British firm, and other than the actual contract to a grant, there's no ties to the United States. They don't have an office in the US. It's a personal jurisdiction issue. Case dismissed. You have no idea how much that frustrated us, cuz it was a great case and this contractor lied about his past representation with, uh, affiliation with terrorist actors. The judge said, had USAID simply put in a form selection clause where the grant recipient would have said, " OK, by virtue of us accepting millions of dollars in aid, we accept the risk that we could be brought, um, brought in US court for a fraud suit." They should accept the risk. They accept our money. The same goes for the United Nations. The United Nations we d- puts up every excuse in the book as to why they cannot comply with our invi- information requests. Every excuse in the book. They're a grant recipient. The problem is the accountability mechanisms are limited when it comes to United Nations. We have more access and more enforceability over there's criminal consequences, civil consequences for contractors in NGO. With the UN, the enforcement mechanisms are mechanisms are much more limited. However, there's still things that USAID and the State Department can and State Department should be doing. And that's enforcing vetting, there's no reason again why NGO staff and contractor staff operating in high-risk environments controlled by terrorist actors had to put their folks through US government vetting systems. The UN was exempt. Why? Are we to trust the UN's own vetting procedures, given what happened with UNRWA? And the mass infiltration of UN staff? that also are Hamas affiliates or participate in the October seventh terrorist attacks, there is no reason why UN staff should escape the same level of vetting and scrutiny as NGOs and contractors. No reason at all. Form selection clause, access to information. There's three bugs of you, of recipients, contractors.

I just wanna get to a couple more questions.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

We've got them before.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Thanks.

If you wrap up, please.

Yep. No, I think I've said my piece on this. Go ahead.

All right. and and to your point i wanted to point these out cause i know you're aware of them you know example of waste fraud and abuse that we have for example the five hundred and fifty million dollar bribery scheme a USA contracting officer and three executives pled guilty to improperly vetted contractors to your point about vetting for eight hundred million dollars in USA contracts last year it was uncovered USA awarded for a joint venture to receive up to eight hundred million to address irregular migration of central america to the united states in climate change uh i even after that the substantial evidence that is the partner uh company visitant was involved in that bribery scheme uh scheme uh debarment of former under employees for participation to your point former us aid sub-awardee uh employees debarred for five years for embezzling us global health funds for falsifying documents and also the director of us aid projects arrested for nine year fraud scheme that resulted in over two hundred and forty thousand to his pocket so um with the time that i have remaining at this point i wanna talk with jo for a minute and this is kind of important

We did identify weaknesses in USAID's efforts to do so. Mm-hmm. You mentioned some of them, uh the screening. and the of implementing partners and sub-partners was limited. Here's an- another area we haven't talked about yet. When we are working with partners who we know have committed fraud, waste, or abuse, or been suspended or debarred, that information is often not making it back into the federal procurement databases that are used to screen them for future rewards. So we have a si- we can have a cycle of working with the same actors who we know have had a history of violating uh our rules, our regulations, and fraud, waste, and abuse. being among them. So that's one of the internal control weaknesses we identified. There's uh others that relate to monitoring,

Uh-huh.

uh uh especially in conflict zones where we can't uh go ourselves, for example, we're not using third party monitors effectively, and we have been recommending for over ten years that third party monitors be trained on fra- fra- fraud uh awareness, and it be built into their contract that they look for fraud and and report on detecting fraud. That is still inconsistently happening.

And so you both believe that members or companies or for-profit entities or implementing partners who have been accused and found guilty of wage fraud and abuse should be disbarred from being able to, like, go for future contracts, correct?

They sh- they sh- they should be debarred whether or not they're found guilty or convicted. Sometimes it's very hard cuz of the jurisdictional issues, but at very least they should be debarred and USAID IG has been

Perfect.

exceptionally aggressive in referring implementers for debarment.

And Miss Lovegray or just yesterday note how how many of your feelings are that as well.

Yeah, depending on the case, uh absolutely. We should not be working with actors who have a a repeated history of uh fraud, waste, and abuse.

Thank you so much. With that, I'm gonna go ahead and turn over to the ranking member, Mister Moskowitz, for five minutes.

Uh, thank you Mister Chairman. Uh, Mister Kaplan, you spoke about issues in accountability at the UN and mentioned that we should tighten mandatory disclosure requirements and add clear consequences for failure to comply. Can you provide uh some more details on on what you think that should look like and Would you recommend additional auditing and transparency tools?

Yeah, abs- absolutely. Thanks for that question. It's just a constant source of frustration. It should frustrate every single American taxpayer where money is going to the United Nations where money continues to go to UN agencies um again, they're a one bucket of recipient. You have UN agencies, NGOs, and contractors. When it comes to the UN, we have the least enforcement remedies available, we have the least access, and the least transparency. in that. So I think there's absolutely means to tighten up in the twenty twenty four Appropriations Act there's a specific clause section seventy forty eight, if you're keeping score at home, that requires the secretary of state to seek to implement in all agreements with the UN access for the US eight IG state IG and GAO. That is essential and failure to comply with that should either result in not receiving an award or reward remedies for non-compliance.

All right, well I appreciate that. Nice. I I agree. I I wanna go with this logic for a second, that because there was waste, fraud, and abuse in USAID, we should get rid of it. Right? Which, that was the argument. Um, I I assume you would agree that in a seven trillion dollar budget, we could probably find, in fact, we have found waste, fraud and abuse in every department. Right?

That's why you have inspectors general to root it out.

That's right. So there's there's waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, right?

Correct.

And there's waste, fraud and abuse in DHS.

Yes.

In fact, we just saw the other day, two hundred million dollars, right, to be spent on uh advertising, right? That sounds like a waste to me. I mean, there was more money that was spent on the last Jurassic Park movie or one of the Lord of the Rings movies or one of the Harry Potter movies. Uh, I think the Barbie movie was less expensive. In fact, I think every movie except one that was nominated for an Oscar was less expensive, than what Kristi Noem spent. To spend two hundred million dollars, Kristi Noem, and not get nominated by an Oscar, I think shows their liberal bias. Um. So there's definitely waste, right? But no one's talking about getting rid of those places. No one's talking about, you know, just because we're spending, you know, nine million dollars on crab legs in the Pentagon or two hundred and twenty million dollars on furniture in the Pentagon or you know a hundred thousand dollars on a Steinway piano in the Pentagon. No one's talking about getting rid of the Pentagon just because there's waste, fraud, and abuse, right? That would be unreasonable, Mr. Catlin. You agree.

No one's talking about getting rid of those agencies.

Right, right. Of course.

Right.

Right? So it would be it's unre- And that's where the disconnect is here, is that somehow because this agency, no different than all the other agencies, we could sit HUD, Department of Agriculture, we could go through them. Right? There there's there's waste, fraud, and abuse, and we owe it to the American people, by the way, to eliminate that waste, fraud, and abuse. There's no excuse for that. OK? We owe it to them. But in the search of trying to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't mean we should get rid of a hu- entire agency. No, we should eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse from those agencies because all of these agencies still have important functions obviously the Pentagon we're not gonna rid of the Pentagon even though they haven't been able to pass an audit eight years in a row there's over two and a half trillion let me say that again over two and a half trillion dollars missing in the Pentagon like real money OK and no one's talking about getting rid of it and so you know uh that's the function of the problem I have look in my own household budget Right? I can tell you my kids are definitely, the, there's tons of waste in my family budget based on what my kids like to spend. OK? There's definitely abuse going on. And based on the amount of boxes that show up in my house every day, my wife is definitely committing fraud. OK? But, but the point is I'm not getting rid of these people. Right? What am I gonna do? I'm gonna sit them down at the co- at the kitchen table and I'm gonna say, we need to spend less. Right? What are we spending on? We didn't have that conversation here with USAID. We never got to say, hey look, these programs, delete them. These things, get rid of them. OK? Every other agency somehow is getting that benefit of the doubt. Right? We're giving that benefit of the doubt to the Pentagon. I wanna end with this. Now that these functions are gonna move over to the State Department, alright, Mister Caput, do you think the State Department has the resources, the personnel, to do all of this oversight, the grant oversight? you know, to to to the capacity to handle all of this without, uh, adding more personnel to the State Department.

Let let me let me get begin with this, um, Congressman Moskowitz, um, I can assure you that the same vile predators that sought to steal from USAID or divert funds to terrorist organizations or sexually abuse m- minors like they did in the Ebola response will try to do the same thing at State.

Yeah, and look, that's all terrible. We we all We all support, you know, cramping, clamping down on that and getting rid of it. My question is, do, do you think the State Department at this juncture needs additional resources, now that they have all this additional responsibility?

You know, contrary to media reports, foreign assistance programs are not dead, and there are billions and billions and billions of dollars now being spent and administered by not only State Department,

Right, but my my my time is up,

but agriculture.

I'm just trying to get an answer,

Yeah.

so I I, OK, yes, I'm I'm with you. But do you now think that now that that is all moved over to the State Department, Do they need more resources to limit the fraud, waste and abuse? Cuz otherwise, aren't we gonna wind up in the same situation where there's gonna be fraud, waste and abuse because we're not investing in that oversight?

Maximum oversight is essential, and that's what we brought as the IG for USAID. And max over when you have billions going out in complex emergency environments, and money spent overseas and areas controlled by terrorist organizations and any armed group, you need adequate staffing, people, good monitoring, and an

Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much. I will just note really quickly though that, while comically anecdotal, the, un- unlike other agencies, Foreign Assistance has benefited designated terrorist organizations who have preyed on civilians and undermined US national security. So, that's a little bit different and I don't throw your family into that, although I understand Amazon can be terroristic. Um, trust me, my son gets on my uh phone and looks at Amazon and I've had packages that came without my even knowing. Uh with that I'm gonna go ahead and recognize uh the gentleman from Rhode Island for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses uh for being here and for uh your continued work uh conducting oversight and ensuring federal funding is spent on foreign aid pro programs as Congress directed. Now, last year President Trump and Secretary Rubio used unfounded claims of waste fraud and abuse as an excuse to illegally close uh USAID and decimate our foreign assistance programs. While their justifications may have been false, the impacts are very real. Between five hundred thousand and one million people died in twenty twenty five. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the name of eliminating fraud that didn't even exist. By twenty thirty, these cuts could lead to more than fourteen million deaths, including the deaths of more than four point Because of this administration, children were allowed to starve while food was left to rot at ports and in warehouses, and die of treatable diseases as medicine expired on shells. And while Secretary Rubio continues to claim that no one has died from his aid cuts, I think we all know the truth. He's continuing to endanger lives and even worse, is causing more waste, fraud, fraud and abuse. In February twenty twenty five, he fired the USAID Inspector General Paul Martin when he warned in February, twenty twenty five, that four hundred and eighty nine million dollars in food assistance was at risk of spoilage or potential diversion. In July, twenty twenty five, he greenlit the State Department incinerating five hundred metric tons of emergency food assistance that could have fed one point five million children. The GAO defines waste as the use or expenditure of resources Carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. Spending eight hundred million dollars of taxpayer funds on life-saving food aid that no that feeds no one, and then another a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars to incinerate it seems to match this very definition of waste from the GAO. So, Director Love-Grayer, uh, in your expert opinion, would incinerating life-saving food aid and spending nearly one million dollars in the process be considered waste under GAO's definition?

Paying for food that never reached its uh intended beneficiaries would be something that we probably would classify as waste if it could have been avoided.

And on top of that, spending money

And spending money to do so,

while wasting.

if it could have been avoided, is something that probably would meet that definition.

Check. Waste. The rapid determination of our foreign assistance programs and the firing of expert USAID staff caused many reported instances of wasted uh supplies and equipment. There are reports that USAID inventory and and equipment uh were abandoned or auctioned off at a significant loss to the US government due to a lack of guidance from USAID and the State Department before USAID was illegally closed, there was clear guidance on what to do with extra supplies. But now, over a year after the administration shuttered the USAID website, erasing that guidance, the risk of waste continues. That's why I introduced the Supplies Act, which would require the State Department to establish clear guidance on handling unused supplies to ensure that aid is not diverted, destroyed, or allowed to expire. So, Mister Kaplan, what guidance should be established to prevent continued waste and to ensure our aid helps the people we intend it to save, not waste away in warehouses or in shelves beyond the reach of those who need them?

Y- yeah, th- thanks for that question. Um, look, After we issued that report in in February, that launched a multitude of USAID IG products, and we did look exactly at that issue about the disposition of of assets, um, that US government h- funded assets in the field. We dispersed auditors to eight countries, including Ukraine, to account for taxpayer-funded equipment. This is IT, including IT equipment, laptops, armored vehicles. I will say this, to USAID's credit, and to the USAID's staff, still around and despite having limited staff, generally

So it's uh it's uh well the agency shuttered, so they're not USAID staff anymore.

At the time, but to their credit, generally the assets were disposed of, sold or donated according to plan, and that is a testament to their responsibility and the policies that were in place and that they did follow. So we gave a solid rating to USAID for managing the disposition of assets under some very extenuous circumstance.

Well, thank you, Mr. Kaplan. And it's good that they have a solid rating, but the agency is closed, shuttered illegally. And so even with guidance in place, now uh it would be nearly uh uh impossible for the State Department to be able to implement this this guidance without expert staff. So in May twenty twenty five, the State Department's Inspector General said that the department may not have the staffing capacity to implement the foreign aid programs and now overseas. So, Mr. Kaplan, what would uh the the state department need to do to insure its workforce has the capacity and capabilities to prevent waste in our foreign assistance programs.

First of all you need two things, you need adequate people to ad- to adequately staff programs, especially in complex emergency environments. And we've, you know, we dinged USAID for years that USAID was not, did not staff its awards well enough. There was one statistic for every contracting officer, there was one contracting officer for every sixty-five million dollars in USAID funds. spend overseas, one for sixty five. DOD is one for fifteen million, one for fifteen million, USAID's were one for sixty five. Adequate staffing is essential. We saw this in the Ethiopia um aid response to the crisis in the crisis there. Only six of sixteen positions were filled. Six of sixteen, USAID staff on the ground were looking left and right, where is everyone, where are the other ten coming in to adequately monitor and oversee these awards. They never showed up and that placed US funded food commodities at great risk, and it has resulted in a massive food diversion scandal, also involving the UN by the way, but massive food diversion scandal because it was not adequately staffed so that there could be a rapid response to reports of misuse of funds. So yes, adequate staffing is vital as far an assistance moves forward.

Well, I I appreciate you making that point. I thank you both uh for your work. to root out waste, fraud and abuse and I'm hopeful that uh we see real efforts at that uh going forward. With that I yield back.

Thank you so much. At this time I'll recognize Representative Schneider for five minutes.

Uh, thank you Chairman Mills and uh I wanna thank the witnesses for being here. I think it is notable that uh we have a imbalance on the uh representation here. We hear a lot about waste, fraud and abuse from my colleagues on the other side, but evidently this hearing is not important enough for them to come and what you all do is important and uh, Mister Captain, you mentioned, you talked about one to sixty five million uh dollars, it's it's a matter of return, and every one of our Inspector Generals, every one of the people in jail more than pay for their salaries with what they protect in investments uh for what we spend in a time where we're spending a billion dollars or more in in Iran a day um having that ins- inspection uh capacity is important and the money we spend on uh USAID development is so important for us to to protect and defend American interests around the world. Um couple of questions for you, Mr. Caput. Um President Trump has undermined the very oversight mechanisms that was put in place to mitigate fraud, waste and abuse. Uh Trump, Elon Musk, Secretary Rubio Rubio fired nearly ten thousand USAID experts overseeing billions of dollars in our foreign assistance with no plan for transitioning oversight. uh of USAID functions to the State Department. On top of this, State Department laid off another thirteen hundred State employees, including many with foreign assistance programming experience. Public reporting suggested the process by which the State Department assumed primary responsibility for managing US foreign aid programs was rushed and uncoordinated so Mister Kaplan have those staff reductions in the USAID state merger impacted the United States' ability to mitigate fraud waste and abuse in foreign assistance?

Look, I'll I'll defer any questions specifically about staffing at the Department of State to the Department of State. We do not we as USAID IG currently currently do not have access to that information. We'd like to have access so we could do our oversight work at State Department. We don't have that access. So respectfully, I would defer that that question. I think in general what I can tell you is that, yes, the given the billions of dollars going to the most remote remote or dangerous locations, it's absolutely essential to have experts understanding the risks, the vulnerabilities to programs, understanding the implementers, not just once it's awarded but at the pre-award stage.

Do y- do you,

Point

to to extend on that, do you, in your view, do you think the State Department of OIG has the cap- capabilities and personnel to oversee former USAID programmings or new initiatives like the two billion dollars UN OCHA uh memorandum of understanding announced in December?

I can tell you that USAID IG has the capacity and long-standing historic experience to oversee these funds. We have been authorized five different times by Congress to provide oversight of additional agencies administering foreign assistance agencies. We also really appreciate the support and the confidence of Congress in the recent SFOP's twenty-six bill to fully fund USAID-IG for to provide continued oversight of foreign assistance dollars we is we appreciate that confidence on the part of conf Congress in our office, I know I have several of our best law enforcement personnel sitting right behind me. We are hungry for the work.

Thank you.

We wanna do the work. We have an overseas presence, which is unique to us. We were in Ukraine, Israel, El Salvador, Thailand, South Africa. We're looking to expand to other places. We are confident we can do the work. It requires more oversight, not less.

Uh, thank you. And, and let me turn to uh, uh, Director Love-Grayer. Uh, you're well aware, uh, last May, uh, ranking member Meeks, Congressman uh Jacobs requested GAO review GAO review of the financial costs and strategic consequences of the Trump administration's illegal effort to collapse USAID into the State Department and terminate thousands of state and USAID contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. Trump's USAID closure has led to the needless deaths of thousands of people around the world and exposed the executive branch to legal actions which it cost. US taxpayers, millions of dollars. Unfortunately, not a single Republican signed on to the letter. It seems like potential waste, fraud, and abuse by the Trump administration is something they're willing to let slide. So my question, uh, Director LeGrayer is it is our understanding that the state has delayed providing critically important information response to GAO's requests for over six months since that letter was sent which hinders congressional oversight, limits accountability, and reduces opportunities to improve the process. In your understanding, why has State delayed responding to these requests? And what do you need from Congress to succeed in meeting GA GAO's congressionally mandated reporting requirements on these issues?

Can, okay, good. Um, thank you for the question. Uh, you are correct. We have had a request out to the State Department to understand what programming they've assumed, uh, what programming it, they've actually pulled over from USAID, along with their current programming, what their staffing levels are, Due to the questions that have been asked today about whether they have adequate staffing, we are trying to understand whether they have adequate staffing for oversight, as well as the processes they've been using to not only uh move those programs over, but also to uh oversee them in the future. And we have been delayed for almost eight months in getting a response to those questions. It's not clear a hundred percent uh why we've been delayed. We've h- we've heard uh part of it is the transition of staff, uh different not sure who's supposed to be taking on certain questions that we have. But I did uh thankfully receive some assurance over this last Friday that there will be greater cooperation in the future. What we need from Congress is encouragement from the of the agencies to respond to GA and OIG audits. Again, this is information that's critical to understanding whether they are capable or or positioning themselves to effectively oversee all of this new foreign assistance. We're unable to provide that information to Congress and taxpayers in a timely way when we're waiting, you know, up to eight months for basic answers to questions.

Thank you and and I'll yield my time, but before I do, uh, I ask the chair join us in helping to get that pressure and let's get those reports done. I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Schneider. I will just have one rebuttal which is that USAID's budget steadily increased over the years. More money to not fix USAID's systemic problems, further the cost of compliance, can exceed the cost of delivering foreign assistance as well. And Congress has a right to fund or not fund any department, agency, and or bureau. It's not illegal for the president to eliminate anything where wage fraud and abuse, or create anything such as doge.

Mister Chairman, I have a UC request.

Without without, go ahead.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, I would like to enter uh, submit to the record a statement from Donald Sherman, President and CEO for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and a statement from uh, Asher Amos, the Executive Director of the Alliance for the American Leadership,

It shall be entered. With this,

Thank you.

I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Davidson, for five minutes.

Uh, Uh, thank you, thank you, Chairman, Chairman, for holding this hearing and, for holding this hearing and you know, you know, Mister Kaplan, Mister Kaplan, Appreciate your work uh a as uh Inspector General. And, you know, when you think about the uh premise, you know, somehow it's controversial that America's resources should advance America's interests. I I think, you know, that's long overdue. So when Secretary Rubio came in and started looking at, you know, USAID, look, we've talked about it for years. They they felt they were so autonomous that they didn't even need to respond to the Secretary of State. They certainly didn't respond to Congress. They would come give us information. But they would continue on autopilot, doing the things that they felt were important, regardless of what the executive branch told them, regardless of what strings were attached on ledge branch money. So I think it's long overdue for them to be shut down. And uh, the essential things are being done. And the things that, you know, some of my colleagues are, you know, grieved about are, you know, funding like millions of dollars for DEI initiatives and climate agenda things. Things like transgender operas or transgender surgeries. And, you know, advancing these in particular in countries where their laws found it offensive. So if you look at Guatemala, for example, they were being pressured to change their constitution because it is pro-life, it protects life. Uh, that was the priority for the administration inst- uh, the Biden administration, instead of trying to say, well, how do we work together with Guatemala to do the things that are mutually important uh, to Guatemala and the United States. And when Guatemala offered to try to help all the migration crisis that was flooding our country, the Biden administration was like, " No, no, no, we're doing that on purpose. Do- don't get in the way here." Uh, to the point where they were actively trying to remove the Prosecutor General and put leverage on the members of Guatemalan Congress to do that, all to advance, you know, an agenda that isn't the United States' agenda. It's a radical left agenda, uh, run by the Democrat party today. So, That's why my colleagues are here venting their frustrations today, as we turned off their bootle bag. You know, you look at, uh, mister Kaplan, so much of this money is essentially laundered through non-government organizations. I think there's a lot of irony in the word " non-government organization" because, of course, it's funded almost completely by the government. So, uh, can you talk about the challenges of transparency when the money goes through non-government organizations, And maybe with specil- specific application to Ukraine, for example.

Thanks for that question, especially for referencing Ukraine. We are the only I G office with full-time criminal investigators posted in Kiev that are investigating fraud and corruption involving non-security US foreign assistance to Ukraine. So very active in that space. We always have been. Um, with NGOs, I w- again, put it the three buckets of recipients, contractors, NGOs, and United Nations, I'd put the UN at the very bottom in terms of transparency and accountability, way at the bottom, like under this table, for transparency and accountability. NGOs really depends. And if it's a foreign NGO, meaning an NGO that's based in London or based in Guatemala, as opposed to an NGO which is really just another name for an aid organization, you know, think Mercy Corps based in Oregon, say the Children with a DC office, Perth and North Carolina, there's different types of aid organizations. We had trouble with foreign NGOs. Usually they're lawyers and they would, you know, NGOs based in Europe, they would again try to hide behind um European general data privacy regulations or some other thing that they'd seem like they'd make up on the spot, as to why they couldn't share information regarding employees who corrupted, defrauded US programs or even worse, sexually assaulted. beneficiaries while performing US government funded awards. We would have those fights, we would navigate those challenges, we would find solutions, I think tightening up award tightening up award provisions both with the United Nations and foreign NGOs where transparency and access is much more limited and challenging and recourse is much more limited too is much harder to subpoena a NGO based in Geneva than one based in Ohio. So that is a major challenge, access and transparency, that challenge continues, not just USAID, it's gonna continue at future foreign assistance agencies.

Yeah, and I think, look, you know, if they're not supportive, if they're not fully cooperative in transparency, why would they be eligible for another dime of aid? And in particular here you've got uh, you know, NGOs and others that are in clear violation of the United States law. So if you look at the Helms Amendment, you're not supposed to be able to use US money to fund abortions. In domestically that's Hyde and in foreign aid it's Helms, uh Helms Amendment. And so, you know, we had uh statements by East African faith leaders who viewed US aid as quote, "missionaries of evil" because the Biden administration hijacked the aid programs to promote abortion LGBTQ transgenderism initiatives, um with US dollars. So with respect to abortion, that violates our laws, and that's why I introduced uh that's why I introduced the Aid Accountability Act of twenty twenty five to permanently defund these agencies. So I think that's the question. Can we get something like that applied and would you be able to audit?

On on the abortion specifically or or access in general?

Correct. Correct. Uh, you know, compliance with law, abortion as an example. If that aid, if that passes and becomes law, would that be easy for you to audit and apply?

Eh, what whatever compliance requirements were imposed on aid recipients by either Congress or the administering agency, potential violation of policy laws, rules, regulations on the books, that would be something that we absolutely would be able to audit and investigate. It would be our responsibility to do so. If a law is on the books and an organization receiving US taxpayer dollars is violating that law that absolutely would be in our remit.

Thank you. Uh, you're back.

Thank you so much. Uh, this time we'll recognize Congresswoman Jacobs for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, um, I just wanna reiterate my colleagues who, um, requested that the administration cooperate with the GAO review that was requested in a bipartisan way by by a ranking member and myself, um, to look at the impacts of the illegal dismantling of USAID and the foreign assistance cuts. Um, I also wanna follow on, uh, my colleague, Mister Davidson's questions. Um, Ms. Lovegrayer he highlighted the difficulties in, you know, being able to do oversight when you're giving it to N when you're giving money to NGOs. Um, but the Trump administration has actually taken dramatic steps to change how we're doing foreign assistance. For example, in the past we would give NGOs money to deliver key global health assistance, including in countries known to have high levels of corruption. However, now the State Department will provide health assistance directly to those governments through government-to-government memoranda of understanding. And while government-to-government can be an appropriate tool to enable long-term sustainable transit- transition of foreign assistance, its implementation actually requires enhanced oversight and risk mitigation techniques to prevent fraud. So, in your view, what risks do such changes present, and does the State Department currently have the appropriate oversight in place to ensure accountability for that funding?

Thank you for the question. Uh, as you mentioned, there are there are risks to all the different types of delivery mechanisms. When we work directly with uh NGOs, other um international organizations, depending on the type as Adam has mentioned, we often d- have stipulations. We have access to their documentation, we have access to the information that um they're collecting, and that uh access is limited when we're doing government to government. We don't have audit authority to audit another federal government. We can't require or another country. We cannot require them to uh provide us with certain types of information. So the the visibility into how the funds have been spent can be a little less um, it can be a little less transparent. So there are risks to government to government. There are actions you can take to improve those risks, such as building in requirements for certain types of reporting, and building that into the actual award as a stipulation for receiving the award. But we would need to see how these government to government awards are being structured. to determine if they have the right level of oversight uh built into the actual word language. And in terms of whether state has the capacity to oversee them, um we have in the past identified uh weaknesses in both state and USAID in terms of having a sufficient number of staff to conduct oversight with the uh new programs that state is administering and uh with the fact that they have not increased their staff we this is an area that we're looking into we wanna be sure that they do have sufficient oversight.

Thank you. So it's clear that changing the way we're doing this is not actually to decrease fraud, waste, and abuse because this is actually potentially opening it up to even more. Um, Mister Kaplan and Miss Lev-Grayer, since January, twenty twenty five, have senior USAID leadership ever impeded GAO or the Office of the Inspector General from addressing instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in foreign assistance?

I'm sorry, I wanna make sure I captured your entire question. Can you say that one more time?

Sure. Have senior USAID leadership since twenty January of twenty twenty five ever impeded GAO's ability to address instances of waste fraud and abuse in foreign assistance?

So we have um requests for information to USAID, uh the the current leadership that's left, and of course since twenty twenty five that uh we have not received responses to. But we have not had uh any senior officials directly tell us that they were not going to cooperate. We just have um a lack of responsiveness. Yeah.

Mister Kaplan?

It's been, we have n- we have not had anyone tell us um that we can't do an auditor investigation. However, it's challenging. It's sometimes very quiet at the USAID office space and trying to get access to um individuals to answer our questions or produce uh required records has been challenging if if they're no longer there.

Yeah, and what about at the USAID legacy unit at state or the state department more broadly? Are they fully cooperating with GAO and OIG inquiries and investigations related to foreign assistance?

Oh, our general counsel is currently uh collaborating with theirs to try to uh get past some of the the concerns that uh, USAID has raised with regard to providing information moving forward. So we are at a bit of a standstill, but we're hoping to move forward with some progress soon.

For USAID, I'd say, um, we believe, and I think Congress just confirmed in SFOP's in the State Appropriations Bill that USAID has continued oversight jurisdiction over programs under part one of the Foreign Assistance Act which is basically all humanitarian in development. We have the expertise to do so. We know the people's projects, problems, places where the fraud occurs. Uh, it it we are working with the Department of State to try to obtain access, both operationally to State Department systems and records and personnel. It has been to date the position of State and the State IG that we, USAID IG, despite our expertise, should only look backwards, only look at allegations that came in pre-July one, not post-July one. We appreciate Congress's support. We appreciate the ongoing efforts and work with the department to get access to state records information so we can continue to combat fraud, waste, corruption, diversion, sexual exploitation and abuse, human trafficking, so on and so forth in foreign assistance programs, cuz we know what we're doing.

Thank you. Well, I urge the administration to cooperate with you all. These investigations are important. We all wanna address waste, fraud and abuse, but what they're doing is actually making it harder to do so. Mister Chairman, I

Thank you so much. At this time I'd like to r- uh recognize Miss Madeline Deen from Pennsylvania for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member, uh I'm glad we're having this hearing. It is important to uh focus in on auditing, forensic auditing, uh identification of waste, fraud and abuse whenever taxpayer money is involved. So I thank both of you for testifying today. Thank you for the work that you do. Uh and Mister Kaplan and Miss Love-Grayer, I wanna enlist your help. Because what we hear in this committee, and so often from the administration, is misinformation, is propaganda, and sometimes downright lies. Repeated so often in order to damn the work of USAID, and the many, many people of USAID who have done extraordinary, lifesaving work. The truth is powerful. I need your help. We have heard this majority party and the administration focus on a small handful of examples, about which they are not being honest. You heard it here today. Seventy thousand dollars for production of a DEI musical in Ireland. Shocking. You know what the DEI of it was? Number one, it was not USAID. This was a State Department grant, not USAID. In twenty twenty two, the US ambassador hosted an event featuring Grammy winning folk duo, uh, Therese, and Giddens along with other Irish and American musicians. Horrible. How did we ever let that happen? Forty seven thousand for trans- transgender opera in Colombia. How often have we heard about the transgender opera? I'm sick of it. Because guess what? It wasn't USAID. They did not fund it. The White House appears to be referring to a twenty-five thousand dollar State Department grant that uh was in Bogota. to stage an opera as one it is called, composed by Laura Kaminsky. It is a well-known opera in the United States and highly acclaimed by its audiences. How about thirty-two thousand dollars for a transgender comic book in Peru? We've heard that one from the president, from this majority party. Wrong! USAID did not fund this. And it was not specifically transgender. Instead, the grant, State Department grant provided thirty-two thousand dollars under the guise of public diplomacy to Peru's education department, to cover expenses to produce a tailor-made comic book featuring an LGBTQ plus hero. Not USAID. Let's talk about the vast, vast majority of what has been cut. Critical, life-saving aid. I've purposely brought these with me. I was recently in West Africa, visiting programs impacted by the shuttering of USAID. programs helping pregnant women with vitamins. The United States pulled out of that program, lifesaving vitamins for the women's uh nourishment as they were pregnant. Programs that measure, maybe you've seen this band used, it is used around the arm of a baby. And if you see the red, they are malnourished. I can't tell you the number of arms that I saw in programs in Ghana and Togo where the children were in the red. Children the size of infants when they were actually toddlers. What did we do? We pulled out. We're not gonna do that anymore because of the trans-operas. Honest to God, help me with the truth. This is already costing lives. Studies have estimated that USAID's dismantling will lead to fourteen million additional deaths globally. Think of the irony. Think of the hypocrisy. Think of the paradox. The Trump administration wants you and us to gut the mechanisms and staff that are essential to mitigate against waste, fraud and abuse. And so, let me ask you one question. Speaking of waste, as my colleague said, let's repeat this horrific example. In twenty twenty five, following the president's shuttering, the United States government chose to destroy nearly five hundred metric tons of emergency food assistance, procured by USAID. Starving children. Their families hungry too. Instead of using it to feed as many as one point five million hungry children that had already been purchased eight hundred thousand dollars worth of food it costs another hundred and twenty five thousand dollars to incinerate it. Would anyone in this room oversee a program that would do that? Would anyone? Would you?

That certainly wouldn't be our intention, no.

Well somebody should have stood up and stopped it. I consider that grotesque waste. I consider that a fraud on the American people. And I consider it abuse of the global health system. I don't know if Were any of my photographs available from my trip? Were they shown while I was speaking? Just to show you. In the middle is a a vaccine clinic in Togo, where the village elders were encouraging the mothers, the fathers to come with their children. We helped administer vaccines, as of course we have the nonsense here in this country under secretary of health and human services. These parents were so eager to make sure their children were vaccinated against disease. so that they could thrive. You can see the mothers holding their babies. You can see that baby being weighed and not nourished enough. They measure their arms. They measure their development. And they come in regularly. UNICEF is doing the middle program. US isn't helping. Uh, and these other programs, the United States dollars have been shuttered. And that's just a handful of programs. There are programs around women and girls, uh, sexual abuse. rape, incest. What did we do? We visited one such program. Our money is gone, and so the program is far less effective. We saw a woman who was waiting for help. She had been badly beaten. We went in and visited with her. She was bloodied. And in order to get to the next doctor with no US funding, in the program that had been US funded, she needed five dollars. She didn't have it. So guess what? the person who beat her up was called to come pick her up. That's failure of US leadership. I will argue till my dying day that we should spend more in humanitarian aid in this kind of financial assistance around the world. Dollars spent like this magnify versus dollars spent in war, a billion dollars a day, taking lives. I ask for your help to please stop the majority party and the administration from putting forward these lies that are actually harming health around the world. I yield back. And I thank you for the indulgence.

My pleasure. I understand the passion that we have and certainly it is always important for us to ensure that money gets to those who are in need. But the problem we have seen is that the increase in USAID funding hasn't led to better oversight but more waste fraud and abuse. It's demonstrated to include to include, Miss Deen,

It's led to better outcomes, Chairman.

the exact program that you talked about when it comes to global health funds where there are falsified documents over three hundred and fifty nine unauthorized wire transfers just in the us aid funded bank accounts and so this is why the oig being referred to this case the us attorney's office of the district columbia which declined to pursue criminal prosecution but us aid issued the former another employee a five year debarment uh from working so they these programs have been grossly abused but the necessary aid and support to those in need certainly we should find, and that's why this is about finding a pathway to ensure that we can get control of the wage fraud and abuse, and guarantee that the money gets to those in need. I wanna thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Pursuant to committee rules, all members have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials. For the record, subject to the link limitations without objection the committee stands adjourned i thank you both so much for this opportunity and look forward to working with you in the future as well as for helping to support more transparency and no stonewalling with that we're adjourned