U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

56–740 WASHINGTON : 2024

EXAMINING FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET FOR 

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH 

AFRICA AND CENTRAL ASIA 

JOINT WITH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INDO-PACIFIC 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 13, 2023 

Serial No. 118–46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

( 

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

or http://www.govinfo.gov 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

RONNY JACKSON, Texas 

YOUNG KIM, California 

MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 

American Samoa 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

JIM BAIRD, Indiana 

MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida 

THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey 

MICHAEL LAWLER, New York 

CORY MILLS, Florida 

RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia 

NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas 

JOHN JAMES, Michigan 

KEITH SELF, Texas 

GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 

Member 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

GABE AMO, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

TED LIEU, California 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota 

COLIN ALLRED, Texas 

ANDY KIM, New Jersey 

SARA JACOBS, California 

KATHY MANNING, North Carolina 

SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Florida 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania 

JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida 

JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois 

SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California 

JIM COSTA, California 

JASON CROW, Colorado 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

BRENDAN SHIELDS, Majority Staff Director 

SOPHIA LAFARGUE, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND CENTRAL ASIA

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennesse 

RONNY JACKSON, Texas 

JIM BAIRD, Indiana 

MICHAEL LAWLER, New York 

RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota, Ranking 

Member 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia 

KATHY MANNING, North Carolina 

GABRIELLA ZACH, Subcommittee Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INDO-PACIFIC

YOUNG KIM, California, Chairwoman 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

MARK GREEN, Tennesse 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

MIKE WALTZ, Florida 

AMI BERA, California, Ranking Member 

ANDY KIM, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DAN MARKUS, Subcommittee Staff Director 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES 

Page 

Ms. Elizabeth Horst, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South 

and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 10 

The Honorable Michael Schiffer, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, 

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 14 

APPENDIX 

Hearing Notice ......................................................................................................... 43 

Hearing Minutes ...................................................................................................... 44 

Hearing Attendance ................................................................................................. 45 

MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD 

Material for the record submitted by Representative Manning .......................... 39 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Responses to questions for the record from Ms. Horst to Representative 

Keating .................................................................................................................. 46 

Responses to questions for the record from The Honorable Michael Schiffer 

to Representative Phillips ................................................................................... 51 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
(1) 

EXAMINING FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET FOR 

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS 

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH

AFRICA AND CENTRAL ASIA, JOINT WITH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INDO-PACIFIC, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committees met jointly, pursuant to call, at 2:28 p.m., in 

Room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Joe Wilson [chair of the subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia] and 

Hon. Young Kim [chair of the subcommittee on the Indo-Pacific] 

presiding. 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, as Chairman of the Middle 

East, North Africa, and Central Asia Subcommittee, I am grateful 

to hold this joint hearing with Indo-Pacific Subcommittee Chairwoman Young Kim, to examine the fiscal year 2024 budget for 

South and Central Asian Affairs. And, we welcome each person 

here today. And we’re particularly appreciative of our witnesses 

today. 

Central Asia’s geographic proximity to Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iran, have contributed to its minimal economic impact 

globally and relative neutrality toward the malign interests of its 

neighbors. 

As a war criminal Putin continues the genocidal invasion of 

Ukraine, the countries of Central Asia are in a particularly difficult 

situation, given their deep historical, geographical, and economic 

ties to Russia. 

It would seem that their relative respective governments are 

seeking to decouple from Russia where possible and balance their 

economic and security policies to respond to the realities imposed 

by war criminal Putin. 

Memberships in the Putin-led multilateral organizations like the 

Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization have inevitably proven to be more of a burden than a benefit. Members take on the burdens of sanctions, ancillary trade 

policies, and military dysfunction with no clear benefit. 

Sadly, on the current trajectory, the main beneficiary of any of 

the decoupling with Russia, will be the Chinese Communist Party. 

The countries of Central Asia are rich in critical minerals and the 

Chinese Communist Party has already significantly increased its 

predatory economic and security engagement in Central Asia. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
2 

Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and 

Uzbekistan are all members of the debt trapping colonizing Belt 

and Road Initiative. As one of the first to recognize their independence of the five Central Asian states following the collapse of the 

Soviet Union, the United States now has a mutually beneficial opportunity to increase engagement with Central Asia, particularly 

Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. 

As democracies work to rid our supply chains from malign influence, Central Asia could play a role in diversification. The Central 

Asia area could present an alternative to Russian energy for our 

European allies. 

Additionally, minerals that are critical to our supply trains are 

largely controlled, sadly, by the Chinese Communist Party. Expansion of the United States’ economic and security strategies in the 

Indo-Pacific, is critical to counter the malign expansionist threat of 

the Chinese Communist Party. 

The U.S.-India relationship is a vital pillar of our presence in the 

Indo-Pacific. India has achieved tremendous success as the world’s 

largest democracy, shifting from socialism to free market capitalism. 

With success comes responsibility. And India has an opportunity 

to expand their own manufacturing defense capabilities to protect 

their interests against those of Putin and the Chinese Communist 

Party. 

My father’s service in India with the Flying Tigers of World War 

II, and as the former Chairman of the India caucus, I was born 

with an appreciation of the people of India. We are always hopeful 

America’s long-term partner, Pakistan and its significant note to 

recognize the developing democracy of Bangladesh, well represented here in Washington by Muhammad Imran. 

Following the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which resulted in the death of 13 service members, abandonment of our allies and their families and the creation of a safe-haven for terrorists, the people of Afghanistan are suffering under Taliban rule. 

Women are prevented from working and girls are unable to attend 

school, effectively confining them to their homes. 

Recently, President Biden remarked that Al-Qaeda is gone from 

Afghanistan. And, that we received, quote, help from the Taliban 

to keep the terrorist extremists at bay. 

The U.N. Sanctions Monitoring Team concluded in a report that 

there are over 20 armed groups. And, they have enjoyed a greater 

freedom of movement and planning under the Taliban. The Administration’s reckless remarks are sadly completely detached from reality. 

As we consider American priorities for South and Central Asia, 

I want to thank the witnesses again for their service expertise and 

look forward to their presenting their remarks. And, it’s a real 

honor for me to be now recognizing our very esteemed Ranking 

Member, Dean Phillips, all the way from Minnesota. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Chair Wilson, for holding this important meeting. And, to Chair Kim and Ranking Member Bera from 

the Indo-Pacific Subcommittee, for joining us in this important 

work. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
3 

As I said during our last hearing, it is our subcommittee’s core 

responsibility to use Congress’ power of the purse to guide the 

State Department and USAID’s activities, and support our diplomatic corps, and then to provide robust oversight over the execution of that terribly important work. 

I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary Elizabeth Horst and Assistant Administrator Michael 

Schiffer. Thank you both for being with us today. 

We had a wonderful conversation with your colleagues not long 

ago, who handle Near East Affairs just last month. And, I look forward to engaging with both of you today on the Biden Administration’s Fiscal Year 2024 budget request for South and Central Asia. 

This hearing comes on the heels of the 2023 NATO Summit, 

where U.S. and European partners demonstrated unprecedented 

unity and support for the Ukrainian people in their fight against 

Russian aggression. Russia’s illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine 

has done more than just strengthened the NATO alliance, it has 

demonstrated to countries around the entire world that Russia is 

not a dependable partner. 

I’ll say it again, not a dependable partner. Not diplomatically, 

not economically, and not militarily. And, has created an opening 

for strengthened U.S. engagement particularly in South and Central Asia. 

In fact, I believe that the Biden Administration has rightly taken 

advantage of these opportunities by increasing engagement with 

the five Central Asian countries. Not only are these countries strategically located between Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan, but 

they are countries with growing economies, flourishing populations, 

and increasing interests in working with the United States of 

America. 

We must stay vigilant in our support for advancing democratic 

values and human rights in the entire region. I remain particularly 

concerned by the Kyrgyz court’s decision to terminate as a media 

outlet, Radio Azattyk, which is Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty’s local media outlet and a very trusted source for independent 

and reliable information in the country. 

Nevertheless, I’ve been pleased by regional efforts to reform and 

to modernize and to integrate including through cracking down on 

corruption, strengthening institutional checks and balances, and 

advancing individual rights and freedoms. I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today about how the United States is 

using this unique moment to advance our relationships with the 

C5. 

Pakistan, a major non-NATO ally, and the only formal U.S. ally 

in the SCA region, is experiencing multiple crises at the moment. 

Monsoon flooding during the summer of 2022 affected 33 million 

people, with over one-third of the country’s territory reportedly 

under water at the height of the rainfall. 

This natural disaster, in combination with one of the very worst 

economic crises in Pakistan’s history, widespread protests because 

of former President Khan’s arrest, and increased terrorist attacks 

from the Pakistani Taliban, have left the country terribly vulnerable. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
4 

Ensuring the future of democracy and long term stability in 

Pakistan, is in our United States’ national security interests. And, 

I do hope to hear from our witnesses today about how the Biden 

Administration is supporting the people of Pakistan during these 

challenging times. 

Finally, since the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan in 

2021, one of the main questions I, and, I believe, most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been struggling with, is how 

to provide support to the people of Afghanistan who are experiencing a crushing economic and humanitarian crisis, while preventing that support from benefitting the Taliban. 

As of May 2023, the World Food Program projected that 28 million people, two-thirds of Afghanistan’s population will require 

some form of assistance this year to survive. And, at the same 

time, I am deeply, deeply disturbed by the Taliban’s crackdown on 

everyday life for the people of Afghanistan, particularly as Chair 

Wilson has already mentioned, for women and girls who just by 

way of example, have been barred from universities and public 

parks, and face restrictions on travel without a male relative and 

on public dress. 

As the proud father of two wonderful daughters myself, this is 

heartbreaking and shameful. While we cannot and we should not 

recognize or support the Taliban in any way, we must work alongside our international partners to support the Afghan people and 

continue to advance the rights of women and girls in the country. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the 

Administration is carrying out this important work, while ensuring 

that humanitarian assistance undergoes proper vetting and oversight to ensure it reaches the people who need it the most and does 

not benefit or empower the Taliban. 

As we look at some of these challenges facing South and Central 

Asia today, great power competition, threats to democracy, economic and environmental shocks, just to name a few, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the State Department and USAID plan to use the requested funds for Fiscal Year 

2024 to mitigate these challenges, create opportunities, and demonstrate United States leadership and commitment to our partners 

in South and Central Asia. 

With that, I yield back and thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Dean Phillips. And, we’re indeed so fortunate to have both subcommittees together. But, such an important subcommittee, incredible. We’re so 

happy to be here with the Chairman of the Indo-Pacific Subcommittee, Young Kim. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. I am delighted that both of our two subcommittees can work together to 

examine the Fiscal Year 2024 budget for South and Central Asia. 

This hearing presents a remarkable opportunity for the subcommittee on the Indo-Pacific to shape the United States’ approach 

to the crucial region of South Asia. South Asia holds immense significance for our foreign policy and national security interests. 

And, the six nations in the region face a dynamic geopolitical 

landscape that presents challenges for U.S. policy objectives. First 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
5 

and foremost, we must acknowledge the escalating assertiveness of 

the CCP globally, and especially in South Asia. 

The CCP is aggressively asserting leadership in regional, economic, and financial initiatives. It is promoting its Belt and Road 

Initiative, which is an effort to boost infrastructure development 

and economic connectivity. The most prominent Belt and Road project, the $60 billion China/ 

Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, would grant China access to 

the Arabian Sea, allowing a portion of China’s seaborne trade to effectively bypass the Strait of Malacca, the strategic choke point 

that connects the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. 

Under CPEC, the CCP built a major port at Gwadar on Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast, coupled with a dual use military airbase 

and naval facility in nearby Jiwani. Under the guise of economic 

development, the CCP is using its South Asian neighbors to advance its agenda and undermining the rules based international 

order. 

Landlocked Nepal, who has relied on India for the majority of its 

trade and transit routes, has recently turned to Beijing for investment. And, the CCP has pledged connectivity projects that will provide alternative routes and reduce its dependency on India. 

With the United States holding and withdrawing aid in Bangladesh due to various concerns, the CCP has seized the opportunity, leaving little choice but to lean on Chinese investments. 

Meanwhile, the CCP has made significant and increasing foreign 

direct investment in Sri Lanka and has repeatedly been the top 

source of foreign direct investment to Sri Lanka. 

Second, the CCP’s intensifying of its presence both along the Indian border and the Indian Ocean. China’s fishing vessels are engaging in illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing. 

Aid and cooperation play a pivotal role not only in advancing 

U.S. interests in South Asia, but also in enhancing their prosperity. 

Yet, this year’s South and Central Asia budget represents a 2.3 

percent decrease from the previous year. 

And, it remains the least funded region by the State Department. 

At a time when the region faces the threat of terrorism, refugee 

displacement, and democratic backsliding, this budget discrepancy 

highlights the need for greater U.S. engagement. 

As the CCP aims to expand its economic activity, influence, and 

enhance its strategic presence, the United States must respond by 

bolstering our diplomatic presence in the region. It is imperative 

that we foster greater cooperation with the six South Asian nations 

on the economic, diplomatic, and security fronts. 

Our first step must be ensuring that all embassies and consulates are up and running. And, we must appoint and confirm ambassadors in a timely manner. 

Secondly, the U.S. must continue to deepen existing partnerships 

while also forging new ones. We must explore new avenues to expand our development and economic cooperation, maritime safety 

and security, and strengthen the capacities of law enforcement 

agencies by working bilaterally with South Asian countries. 

Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit to the United States 

delivered new bilateral initiatives to the table. Not only will this 

increase U.S.-India cooperation, but it helps set a precedent for 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
6 

how the United States should be conducting policy in the region. 

We must expand and accelerate such efforts across the region. 

So, in closing I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and 

the members from both subcommittees. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Young Kim. We 

now proceed to the Ranking Member Ami Bera. 

Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member 

Phillips and the Chairwoman of the Indo-Pacific Subcommittee, 

Congresswoman Kim for hosting this hearing. 

I’m going to keep my comments short. But, I appreciate the 

President’s FY 2024 budget, because it represents the values and 

the importance. 

But, I have to go on the record, yesterday, you know, was really 

disheartened to see the House Appropriations Committee Republicans and pass their Fiscal Year 2024 state foreign ops and related 

programs appropriations bill with a 15 percent cut in spending 

from Fiscal 2023 levels. 

So, as we go through the budget process, we’ve got to fix that. 

In a nonpartisan way, you know, Democrats and Republicans agree 

that the importance of countering China’s economic coercion, the 

importance of making sure we have a robust diplomatic presence 

throughout the region, South Asia, Central Asia, Middle East. 

The fact that we have to have robust funding to provide alternatives to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, that’s incredibly important. That we have to adequately fund USAID, State Department, 

to have the resources to mount robust public information campaigns to counter this information that’s out there. 

And, that’s why budgets reflect our values and priorities. And 

again, my disappointment in the 15 percent cut. And, hopefully as 

we go through the appropriations process and the budgeting process, we will be able to remedy that and adequately fund State and 

USAID. 

In addition, I’m heartened and look forward to working with the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Middle East, North Africa Subcommittee on strengthening our relationship with the Central Asian nations. Incredibly important right now, especially on 

the heels of the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

You know, but, the countries in Central Asia, while not perfect 

countries, very much want the U.S. presence there. And, you know, 

on that note, have had conversations with the Administration. 

We’ve introduced legislation with some of our colleagues in a bipartisan way on the Ways and Means Committee to repeal Jackson-Vanik to allow our companies too more fully engage in Central 

Asia. And, that will be a piece of legislation that I look forward to 

working with my colleagues on the other subcommittee with. 

In addition, you know, I’m proud on the Indo-Pacific subcommittee we had an earlier hearing on the Indian Ocean Region. 

A region that, you know, often we don’t pay adequate attention to. 

But, if we look at the competition that’s taking place in there, 

you know, whether it’s in Djibouti, whether it’s increasing PRC 

presence in the Emirates, whether it’s a presence developing ports 

in Pakistan, this is a place where, I think, our two subcommittees 

can also, you know, increase our presence and understanding. Because this is a huge maritime region where the number of goods 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
7 

and services that travel through the Indian Ocean is incredibly important to us. 

In addition, you know, look forward to working with the Administration to make sure we get an ambassador to the Maldives. An 

incredibly important, you know, there has been a nomination. You 

know, there’s some hold ups on opening the embassy there. But, I 

think we’ve got to get that done and get our ambassador in place. 

And lastly, you know, as we think about, you know, the two decades long war with Afghanistan, the one way we can adequately 

honor our men and women that served in Afghanistan, is to make 

sure those refugees that have come to the United States, that we 

honor them with that service. 

And, to that note, the Afghan Adjustment Act has been reintroduced. And, I think, this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. 

My home district in Sacramento County has the largest Afghan 

refugee population in the country. And, we’ve got to give these individuals a pathway to become permanent, legal residents. And, the 

Afghan Adjustment Act does that with additional security background checks and so forth. 

So again, I think, this is an incredibly important legislation that 

the two subcommittees certainly should work closely together, as 

well as with all of Congress to get passed and sent to the President’s desk. 

So, with that again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member 

of the subcommittees for hosting this hearing. And, I look forward 

to the witness testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much to Ranking Member Ami 

Bera. And, as we begin today, we think of history. And, I appreciate Congressman Bera pointing out the bipartisanship that I 

think you’re going to see substantially, not all, here. 

But, we began the day in a bipartisan manner. I was with Congressman James Moylan, the Delegate from Guam. Today is the 

79th Anniversary of the liberation of Guam. 

And so, there are things we don’t want to repeat. And so, but 

how brave the people of Guam, who were the only American’s who 

actually lived under the occupation of the Imperial Japan. 

And so, as history is being made, we need to understand and 

learn from history, peace through strength. With that, I’d like to 

thank both of our persons here today, Secretaries, and we’ll begin 

with your presentations. And then, we’ll go into a strictly maintained five minute question period. 

So, Secretary Elizabeth Horst, thank you. You are the Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of South and Central 

Asian Affairs. And then, grateful to have Michael Schiffer, the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Asia USAID. 

And so, you may proceed. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
8 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH HORST, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL 

ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND MICHAEL 

SCHIFFER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, 

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH HORST 

Ms. HORST. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Phillips, Chairwoman Kim, and Ranking Member Bera, South and Central Asia 

is a region vital to our national interests. 

It is at the crossroads of strategic competition with China and 

Russia. It is where the future of 21st Century economy will be written. And, it is home to one of our most consequential relationships, 

India. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2024 Foreign Assistance Request is $1.223 billion for South and Central Asia, providing the resources 

necessary for our ambitious agenda. It includes funds to expand 

our diplomatic presence in the Indo-Pacific, to build resilient energy markets, and to support counterterrorism and maritime security. The budget request also includes $2 billion over five years in 

mandatory funding to enable the United States to make gamechanging investments in the Indo-Pacific to out compete China. We 

look forward to working closely with Congress as we advance our 

goals in South and Central Asia. 

I’ve heard from many members on this Committee that we need 

to match our words with our resources in the Indo-Pacific. This 

budget requests substantial increases in funding for the region, and 

I’d like to provide some examples of how we would use these funds 

if appropriated by Congress. 

India is an essential partner in the Indo-Pacific. Prime Minister 

Modi’s state visit to Washington last month demonstrated that we 

are growing closer in alignment, specifically on emerging technologies and defense. Assistance to India targets energy security, 

supporting India’s ambitious goal of 500 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030. 

We appreciate Congress’ partnership on India, including on ensuring that the advancement of democracy, human rights, and religious freedom, are at the center of our partnership. 

Our Indo-Pacific assistance also enables us to work with key 

maritime states of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives to build 

maritime surveillance, counter illegal fishing, and prevent the illicit trafficking of people and goods. For example, we’ve provided 

three U.S. coast guard cutters to date to Sri Lanka, using Foreign 

Military Financing. 

And, when I visited the Port of Colombo earlier this year, I heard 

firsthand how Sri Lanka is using these vessels to patrol its exclusive economic zone and provide security to nearby shipping lanes. 

Ultimately, this has helped Sri Lanka resist pressure tactics by the 

PRC. 

I know the integrity of Pakistan’s democracy is a key concern to 

those on this committee. We firmly believe that a prosperous, 

democratic, and human rights-respecting Pakistan is important to 

U.S. interests. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
9 

We use our foreign assistance to support Pakistan’s independent 

civil society, strengthening their advocacy for reform, oversight, 

and accountability. 

I personally talked with advocates and journalists who thanked 

the United States for continuing to foster democratic communities 

and spaces. More broadly, our assistance to Pakistan targets discrete areas where we can productively collaborate with Pakistan, 

including on countering terrorism, promoting health, and addressing the climate crisis. 

Last year, catastrophic monsoons killed over 17 hundred people, 

displaced millions, and left a third of the country underwater. 

The United States’ leadership and swift response provided substantial assistance. And, a Defense Department air bridge delivered humanitarian supplies. Moving forward, our resources will 

focus on Climate-smart agriculture, clean energy, and water management. 

Our assistance to Afghanistan is consistent with our continuing 

interest in supporting the Afghan people, protecting United States 

citizens, and resettling Afghans to whom we have a special commitment. 

We strongly and unequivocally condemn the Taliban’s systemic 

abuses of women and girls, and other marginalized groups in Afghanistan. 

And, the United States will continue to provide assistance addressing the basic needs of Afghans where women can be safely 

and meaningfully involved in the aid cycle, from aid assessments 

to delivering monitoring. We have carefully crafted assistance to 

support the Afghan people, not the Taliban. 

In Central Asia we have a historic moment of opportunity. The 

countries of Central Asia are under enormous pressure from Moscow, which exerts significant control over energy and trade. 

Despite this pressure, they have refused to send troops to fight 

with Russia in Ukraine. They have emphasized Ukraine’s independent sovereignty and even provided humanitarian assistance to 

the people of Ukraine. 

That is why last year we launched the Economic Resilience Initiative in Central Asia. This initiative aims to catalyze transformative economic growth in the wake of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. 

And, through our assistance, we are expanding alternative trade 

routes, teaching thousands of Central Asians English, expanding 

job opportunities for returning labor migrants, and helping businesses succeed and grow. 

These efforts demonstrate our reliability as a partner, bringing 

Central Asia in closer alignment with us over the long-term. 

In conclusion, the President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 

2024 charts a clear path for engagement across South and Central 

Asia. And, we look forward to partnering with Congress on our interests in this strategically important region. Thank you. 

[The statement of Elizabeth Horst follows:] 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
10 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 56740A.001
11 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 56740A.002
12 

Mrs. KIM of California [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Horst. I now 

recognize Mr. Schiffer for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCHIFFER 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Chairwoman Kim, Ranking Member Phillips, 

Ranking Member Bera, Chairman Wilson, distinguished members 

of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today 

for the U.S. Agency for International Development and to speak 

about our role in advancing U.S. foreign policy priorities in South 

and Central Asia, and our Fiscal Year 2024 budget request. 

South and Central Asia faces pressing challenges with implications for countries far beyond the region, including an intensifying 

climate crisis, longstanding conflicts that disrupt livelihoods, and 

tangible threats to sovereignty in a region significantly affected by 

the gravitational pull from the People’s Republic of China and from 

Russia. 

However, public and civil society leaders across the region are 

consistently signaling pent up demand for regional cooperation opportunities and greater connectivity, improved democratic governance, and responsible stewardship of natural resources. 

As such, the President’s FY 2024 budget request for USAID includes slightly over $1 billion, $1.03 billion for South and Central 

Asia in the development assistance, economic support fund, assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia, in Global Health Program’s USAID accounts. 

Our FY 2024 budget request supports the overreaching development principals laid out in the President’s Indo-Pacific and Central 

Asia strategies to improve resilience to health and climate threats, 

foster sustainable, inclusive, and transparent economic growth, and 

strengthen democratic institutions, good government practices, and 

human rights. 

In Afghanistan, we will continue in a very, very difficult environment to collaborate with partners on the ground to preserve the 

gains that have been made over the past 20 years in areas of 

health, education, livelihood, human rights, and civil society, with 

a focus on the protection of women and girls and human rights. 

And, I want to assure this committee that USAID is fully cooperating with the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction/SIGAR. We have long been and remain committed to 

helping SIGAR fulfil its important statutory mandate. 

Consistent with President Biden’s deep commitment to transparency for the American people, USAID believes in the importance of Inspectors General to protect against fraud, waste, and 

abuse. 

We are committed to cooperating with all oversight bodies, including SIGAR, this committee, Congress, and both State and 

USAID’s Inspectors General. Moving forward, USAID will continue 

to work closely and proactively to keep SIGAR, Congress, and other 

oversight bodies appraised of our activities on the ground. 

In South Asia, our request is designed to promote regional cooperation to address regional challenges, addressing the root 

causes of climate change, bolstering gender equality and human 

rights, promoting democratic institutions and transparency, fosVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:25 Dec 07, 2024 Jkt 056740 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A740.XXX A740

rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
13 

tering inclusive economic growth in the wake of COVID–19, and 

enabling free and open digital technology and connectivity. 

This is especially important given that South Asia remains one 

of the least integrated regions of the world. We look to collaborate 

with our partners in the Quad and India to leverage innovations 

and partnership opportunities to address regional and global 

threats like the climate crisis, which is already contributing to 

losses of life and livelihood and global health security, consistent 

poverty and socioeconomic disparities. 

Likewise, as Secretary Horst offered, our development assistance 

in Pakistan is structured to help Pakistan build a stable, peaceful, 

and prosperous country. And to recover fully from the catastrophic 

floods of last year. 

Increasingly in Central Asia, we find partners that are seeking 

greater cooperation and engagement with the United States on 

strategic priorities such as economic integration and diversification 

and the clean energy transition. 

Indeed, our work in Central Asia is emerging as proof that development principals grounded in pluralistic values, good governance, 

and economic inclusion can deliver greater resilience, diversified 

economies, and stability based on partnerships and participation in 

the rules based international order. 

This request supports USAID’s work with both the interagency 

and our host government countries to address the mounting effects 

of climate change, advocate for rights, freedoms, and protections. 

And, where possible, support activities, journalists, and citizens 

facing intimidation and threats. 

With your continued support, and on behalf of the American people, USAID will continue our central role in realizing this vision, 

will increase in partner countries’ reliance and advancing sustainable prosperity and security for communities across the Indo-Pacific. 

I look forward to your counsel and guidance and to your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Michael Schiffer follows:] 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
14 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 56740A.003
15 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 56740A.004
16 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 56740A.005
17 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 56740A.006
18 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 56740A.007
19 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 56740A.008
20 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 56740A.009
21 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 56740A.010
22 

Mrs. KIM of California. Thank you, Mr. Schiffer. I will now recognize myself for five minutes. I want to thank both of you for your 

opening statements. 

The PRC is pouring money in infrastructure projects in the region, especially in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives. So, what 

has the Administration found to be the most effective method to 

counter the PRC’s cash diplomacy and infrastructure projects? 

And, what are we doing to ensure that the United States remains a partner of choice? I’d like to hear from both of you. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Thank you for that question. You know, I would 

start by offering that it’s critically important as we think about 

how to compete effectively with the CCP. That we start not with 

what we’re against, but with what we’re for. What our affirmative 

vision for the region is. 

And, our value proposition and what we can offer as a development partner. We have a better development model. We have a better development model because it’s grounded in robust governance 

institutions and vibrant, and support for vibrant civil society. 

That’s the key catalyst that allows for development engagement 

and economic growth to be sustainable over time. I think many of 

our partners in the region understand that. 

The main question that they have, frankly, and this is one where 

this committee can be critical, is whether or not we have the endurance to show up every day, meet them where they are, and 

work with them to solve their problems. 

When we have the support that we need, when we have the robust resourcing that’s reflected in the President’s budget request so 

that we can do that, we’re able to be successful. 

We found, for example, in Central Asia, and I will be sparse on 

the specifics here, but happy to come back to the committee in an 

appropriate setting, that we have a demand signal to work with 

them and provide technical assistance on financial management 

and debt management. And, they have asked us to lean in. 

Likewise, we’ve had a number of requests, and again, happy to 

come back in an appropriate setting, to work to make sure that 

American manufacturers of high tech goods have market access 

and are able to provide them with the equipment and the materials 

that they’re looking for so that they don’t have to rely on other 

more suspect suppliers. 

So, we have opportunities. We just need to make sure that we 

have the support to be able to show them. 

Mrs. KIM of California. I want to hear from Mr. Schiffer also, for 

your opinion before we get into another question. 

Ms. HORST. Sure. Thanks much for the question. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Or, Ms. Horst. 

Ms. HORST. I want to underscore what Assistant Administrator 

Schiffer had said about where we are offering an alternative. And, 

this is a word that many of you used in your opening statements. 

And, that’s really an American strength. We offer an alternative 

model to development. And, through our diplomacy, through a 

number of things, not only the bilateral support that we do, but 

also through the Quad, which is a grouping with Japan, India, and 

Australia, we’ve been able to offer a number of the countries in 

South Asia an alternative to what China offers. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
23 

We are careful about the way we use tools such as the Development Finance Corporation, the DFC, the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation, and others, again, offering an alternative to the way 

China finances its infrastructure projects. 

We know that long-term, we think this is where these countries 

will be most independent, most sovereign. And, we see a good response to that as well. 

Mrs. KIM of California. I want to hear from Mr. Schiffer. What 

does the USAID program in South Asia look like? 

And, how can USAID expand its presence in South Asia to help 

support the economic growth and support investments in food security? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Well, thank you. That is an excellent—it’s an excellent question. And, I would offer, you know, first off, as I know 

you appreciate, our presence in South Asia is varied because we 

seek to meet our partners where they are. 

And, the challenges that we have when it comes to food security, 

for example, in Sri Lanka or Nepal, are very different then what 

we face in Bangladesh or India. 

The President’s budget request includes $126 million for economic growth in agriculture, which is a 43 percent increase over 

the 2023 request. Precisely because as you suggest, we recognize 

that this is an important area for us to engage, especially given 

some of the knock-on effect of Russia’s illegal unjust further invasion of Ukraine. 

And, there are real opportunities to work in the region on food 

security in ways that help drive economic growth and development. 

Mrs. KIM of California. All right. Thank you. My time is up. I 

want to recognize Ranking Member Phillips for five minutes for 

your questions. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to continue to dig 

a little deeper on Chairwoman Kim’s questioning about our Central 

Asia strategy. 

Clearly, Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s aggression in the region, has opened a door of opportunity, I think it’s fair to say, for 

us to deepen our engagement. 

I’m curious what both of you here, starting with you, Ms. Horst, 

what do you hear from the C5 countries about what they would 

like to see more of from us? 

Ms. HORST. Thanks for that question. As I noted in my statement, we have a moment of opportunity with Central Asia right 

now. This is a time when they have shown remarkable independence and the message that we offer as an alternative to both Russia and also China, is one that’s really resonating. 

The program that I mentioned called ERICEN, the Economic Resilience Initiative in Central Asia, is just one example where we’re 

trying to do alternative trade routes. We’re trying to increase 

English language training so that—— 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Ms. Horst, I don’t want to interrupt, but—— 

Ms. HORST. Sure. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. My very distinct question is, what are we hearing 

from them about what they want? And, maybe this intersects. But, 

I really want to hear what we’re being asked. 

We don’t get to hear much of that. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
24 

Ms. HORST. Fair question. What they’re asking from us is support on sanctions. Helping them find a way that they can resist 

both pressures and giving them an alternative. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Um-hum. 

Ms. HORST. We have engaged very much with them on sanctions, 

particularly in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. 

Ms. HORST. As a way to not crush their own economies when 

they are at risk, particularly in Kazakhstan, they have had 200,000 

Russians come over the border. And, they’re looking for ways that 

they can make sure that they maintain their own internal security, 

both in Kazakhstan and other places. 

So, that’s what we’re hearing from them. They have really embraced the C5 +1 format, as you mentioned. And, we’re seeing that 

as a format that is a way that we can do regional connectivity in 

a way that we haven’t in the past. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. And, Mr. Schiffer, anything you want to add 

to what you might be hearing from any of the C5 countries? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Sure. It’s a very good question and a very important one. I was lucky enough to travel out to Central Asia earlier 

this year with Deputy Administrator Coleman. Although we went 

in February and I would recommend to Members of the committee 

that they go in the summer. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Ms. Horst and I are Minnesotans. We understand. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. And, I would offer that we heard consistently as 

we traveled across the region, a demand for U.S. engagement so 

that they had a diversity of options. 

And, that they could be connected not just to the north, to Russia, or to the east to the People’s Republic of China, but, to the 

west, to Europe and the United States as well. 

They look to us to provide technical assistance. I had mentioned 

earlier the demands of, you know, what we’ve gotten on debt management and financial management. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Um-hum. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. They’re looking to us to work with them to digitize 

their customs so that we can—— 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Reduce the cost of those transactions and increase 

trade flows. And, help them to build a middle corridor. 

So, I think there are significant opportunities. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. And, based on the budget and your strategies, you believe we’re well equipped to fulfill some of those requests? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. I would offer that if the President’s Budget request is met, we’re well positioned to fulfill those requests. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Okay. Contin—Ms. Horst, you mentioned 

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and, you know, we all note their economic and their political reform progress, also some increased interest in foreign investment and trade. 

Can you talk a little bit more about how we are supporting those 

particular efforts with countries that we believe are moving in the 

right direction? 

Ms. HORST. Sure. It’s something we’ve been working on for a long 

time. And, I think we’re starting to see payoffs for. Particularly in 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
25 

Uzbekistan where we’re seeing a real reform agenda under the 

President. 

We see opportunities for American companies in a variety of 

ways, including in tech. We have a nascent in agriculture as well, 

there’s opportunities there. 

In Kazakhstan in particular, we’ve had a long relationship in the 

energy sector. And, we’re trying to work with Kazakhstan to make 

sure they can diversify how Kazak energy gets to other parts of the 

world so it’s not as reliant on Russia. 

That’s something that’s very new. But, it’s something that we’re 

working with them on. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. And, conversely, can I ask you about Kyrgyzstan 

and, you know, I would argue they’re backsliding. And, how are we 

addressing that? 

Ms. HORST. Yeah. We do have concerns about democracy in 

Kyrgyzstan. I do want to thank you and several others who helped. 

We have good news on Radio Azattyk. 

As we heard this morning, the Bishkek City Court overruled the 

decision that had kept Radio Azattyk offline. And, I think that’s 

one example of when we work together, we are able to push back 

and help Kyrgyzstan keep on its democratic path. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Wonderful. I see my time is expiring, so I yield 

back. Thank you both. 

Mrs. KIM of California. All right. Thank you. I now recognize 

Representative Barr for five minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And, thank you to Assistant Secretary Horst and Administrator Schiffer for your service. 

I want to start with a Belt and Road Initiative question. It’s obvious that the Russian, the war against Ukraine has left a vacuum 

in Central Asia. And, the CCP is clearly attempting to fill that vacuum through Belt and Road Initiative. 

But, the Administration’s budget request for development assistance in South and Central Asia includes zero funding for Central 

Asia. You’ve mentioned DFC. And, I think DFC plays an important 

role, could play an important role in countering BRI. 

But, can you talk about how the Administration is countering 

Belt and Road in Central Asia? 

Ms. HORST. Broadly speaking, again, what I said before is the 

way we attempt to counter Belt and Road is to offer an alternative. 

To offer a diverse way of funding infrastructure, of developing their 

economy, of economic reform. 

We think that that is the best possible way to push back against 

China. Our assistance often comes with strings attached. And, 

sometimes it doesn’t seem like the fastest way to go forward. 

But, our experience has shown us that it is the long term in the 

best interest of the Central Asian countries. 

Mr. BARR. Are you all collaborating with DFC on specific projects 

in Central Asia to help attract that diversity of financing, private 

financing as an alternative to China? 

Ms. HORST. So, we work with DFC. I don’t have the specifics. 

And, I’d be happy to get back to you about specifically what DFC 

is doing. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
26 

But, broadly speaking, across the region we see DFC as an excellent arm that offers an alternative to the way that other countries 

have financed. 

Mr. BARR. Well, let me give you a couple of examples. There’s a 

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Which is a BRI project so far 

worth more than $62 billion. And, Pakistan is more than $30 billion in debt to China and unable to pay. 

And then there’s another example in Sri Lanka. According to the 

Director of the Asia-Pacific Department at the IMF, the Sri Lankan 

economy is expected to contract by 3 percent. And, the nation defaulted on its debt. 

But, China exploited this financial weakness, engaging in debt 

trap diplomacy. China is Sri Lanka’s biggest credit and it accounts 

for 10 percent of the country’s foreign debt. 

So, is DFC, the State Department, are you all involved in those 

two countries? 

Ms. HORST. So, in Pakistan, absolutely. The DFC is very interested in Pakistan. And, it has a project with a wind farm that has 

shown an alternative way of financing. 

Just a quick note on the CPEC as we call it, the Chinese-Pakistan Economic Corridor. This is something that we have long cautioned Pakistan about. And, we have said buyer beware. 

And, several years into the CPEC, I think the Pakistanis can 

make their own decision on whether this was a great investment. 

Or, whether they should be trying to a foreign investment that may 

come with strings attached but is really a long term better bet. 

The same is true for Sri Lanka as well. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. And, my final question relates to India. 

We had a great visit from Prime Minister Modi. He was well received there. Going to be celebrating their 75th year of independence coming up. 

We’ve got an excellent bipartisan delegation led by our colleagues, Congressman Waltz and Congressman Khanna, coming up 

in August to India. Sadly, I will not be joining them. But, I think 

they’re very capable of representing our interest there. 

I led, I co-led legislation with Congressman Waltz to fast-track 

U.S. weapons sales to India. We know of India’s over-dependence 

on Russia for arms. And, we want to create some separation there. 

What additional steps can the State Department take to help 

India get the weapons independent of Russia? 

Ms. HORST. Sure. Thanks for that question. So, you are exactly 

right, that Prime Minister Modi’s visit last month was demonstrating how consequential our relationship is with India. 

And, one of the things that came out of it was this increased relationship in our defense relationship. We’re looking at a number 

of different ways where we can collaborate on security and defense 

production. 

And, this is something we work on daily with our colleagues at 

the Pentagon as well. This is an important area where I think, to 

your point, we’re going to help India diversify away from Russia’s 

defense industry. 

Mr. BARR. And, how fast do you think we can achieve that? 

Ms. HORST. You know, that’s a question for both the Indian side 

and the U.S. industry. We’re moving faster than you would expect. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
27 

But, it’s probably never as fast as people want it to be. 

Mr. BARR. Yeah. While I don’t pretend to speak for all of my colleagues, but, I can think the sense of Congress is probably that we 

want that accelerated. 

Ms. HORST. Yeah. 

Mr. BARR. But, with that, my time is expired. I thank the Chair, 

and I yield back. 

Mrs. KIM of California. I now recognize Ranking Member Bera 

for five minutes. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairwoman. I’m thrilled about the interest in Central Asia and the importance at this moment in time. 

You know, except for Kyrgyzstan, the Central Asian nations are 

governed by Section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974, the so-called 

Jackson-Vanik Amendment. 

And, Jackson-Vanik is an outdated Cold War relic that originally 

targeted the Soviet Union and aligned communist countries. Which 

prevented the immigration of Jews and other religious minorities. 

In order to earn most favored nation tariff rates, the State Department must annually certify the countries under Jackson-Vanik, 

allowing free immigration. The State Department does so regularly 

for Kazakhstan without issue, as Kazakhstan has a reputation of 

multiculturalism and religious tolerance. 

However, Jackson-Vanik strains U.S. relations with Kazakhstan, 

a nation that is a tough neighborhood. And, my colleague from 

Minnesota, Mr. Phillips, asked, you know, what are they asking 

for? 

And, you know, I’ve traveled to the region. And, routinely the 

Central Asian nations are asking for a repeal of Jackson-Vanik as, 

you know, it impedes trade and investment. 

You know, I’m proud to co-lead the bipartisan Kazakhstan Permanent Normal Trade Relations Act of 2023, along with Representatives Panetta, Aderholt, Titus, and LaHood. 

I guess Ms. Horst, what impact does Jackson-Vanik have on U.S. 

relations with Kazakhstan and our ability to, and our companies’ 

ability to fully invest? 

Ms. HORST. Thanks for that question, because we couldn’t agree 

with you more that Jackson-Vanik is a tool of an era that has since 

passed. And, it is no longer the tool that we wanted it to be. 

You asked what impact it has? It holds back the relationships 

that we have with these countries. And they do ask for us to repeal 

it. 

We think that if we were able to repeal it, we would then be able 

to offer permanent normal trade relations. Which would again, to 

the earlier question about how can we help diversify, how can we 

help Central Asia push back against Russia and China? This is exactly one of the ways we do it. 

We very much would support graduating these three countries 

from Jackson-Vanik. We’d love to do all three at once. But, even 

if it was independently, individually, we’d very much welcome that. 

We think there are other tools we can use to push these countries on their human rights record. And, right now Jackson-Vanik 

just no longer is the tool that it used to be. 

Mr. BERA. Right. Well, I look forward to working with the Administration to get this done. Switching and maybe Administrator 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
28 

Schiffer, in early 2020 before the pandemic shut things down, I 

traveled to Sri Lanka and Nepal, specifically because these were 

MCC Compact countries that had MCC Compacts that were having 

trouble getting through their parliaments. 

Fortunately, we were able to get this to completion with Nepal. 

And the Nepalese people are thrilled with the investment. 

We didn’t have the same success in Sri Lanka. What is fascinating to me is, you know, a few months ago the Sri Lankans 

came into my office and they now very much want the MCCs back 

in Sri Lanka. 

And, you know, as I pointed out to them, it’s going to be very difficult, because, you know, you were awarded the compact. 

That said, it was also, as I was in Sri Lanka and Nepal, the 

disinformation campaigns about, you know, what these compacts 

meant and the importance of using tools like that, especially as we 

see the debt trap that Sri Lanka is in and the real challenge that 

they have. They understand that today. 

I guess, Mr. Schiffer, you know, thoughts about how we should 

both, you know, perhaps go back to Sri Lanka and think about, you 

know, the MCC again. Not easy to do. But, I think it’s important 

to consider given where they are and the instability they have 

there. 

But also, how we sell these programs and counter some of the 

disinformation? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Thank you for that question, Congressman. It’s a 

really important one. 

You know, I would offer that first off, for Sri Lanka, you know, 

right now our focus is in making sure that they are able to continue to perform under the IMF package that they’ve received that 

has helped to pull them back from, you know, the brink of what 

we had thought was going to be a financial catastrophe last year. 

They have done a good job thus far in living up to their commitments. And, done a good job on debt restructuring. We continue to 

provide them with technical assistance and advice for that. 

But, that is thing one. If they are able to stick to that plan, we 

have indicated to them that we want to engage, whether it’s with 

the MCC, DFC, our own programs with our colleagues at State to 

help them to drive the economic future that we think the Sri 

Lankans deserve. 

Mrs. KIM of California. The gentleman’s time has expired. Sorry. 

I now recognize Representative Baird for five minutes. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, I appreciate the witnesses being here. My question deals with back in April the Uzbekistan Energy Minister announced plans for the country to use supplies of Russian gas via the Central Asia Central—or Center gas 

pipeline. 

So, the CAC pipeline runs along the Turkmenistan and 

Kyrgyzstan border with—and goes through then Kazakhstan. So, 

and it ends up in Russia. 

While there’s been no official set in stone deal for the volume 

that is planned to be transported, this is still a clear effort by Russia to reassert their influence over Central Asia. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
29 

Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan already exports about $40 million 

per month in gas to China, which is nearly half of their overall exports. They average around $90 million. 

So, however, when I looked at the State Department’s budget 

justification, none of these energy deals were mentioned. And, it 

seems to focus on clean energy versus what Russia is actually 

doing. 

So, it was mentioned that there is an increasing need for ENR 

and USAID to support targeted initiatives to increase energy security. So, my question is, what are these targeted initiatives? 

And, what’s the State Department doing to counter Russian reassertion into Central Asia? And, why was there no mention of energy, Russian oil and gas, as part of the countering their influence 

in countries like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Well, if I can take the liberty of starting. Sir, it’s 

an excellent question. It is one that I would offer both USAID and 

State are focused on. 

And, we are working together to increase private sector investment and cross border energy trade. And, just to give you one little 

example, in this part year the State Department provided USAID 

with $4 million in countering PRC influence funding that allowed 

us to create a virtual platform called the American Innovation Center for Central Asia. 

Through which, our Power Central Asia activity partners and 

U.S. companies have been able to install American technology in 

the Central Asia electricity fund, or electricity system. 

And, we have used those funds further to install a wide area 

monitoring system that allows for a regional electricity trading 

platform to increase the electricity grid’s stability and to make sure 

that American and European energy flows are also part of the regional energy portfolio. 

Mr. BAIRD. And, in addition to that, I think Russian gas is somewhat dirtier than the U.S. gas or the CNG. So, I think that’s a factor, Madam Undersecretary. 

Ms. HORST. Let me just add that you’ve put your finger on a 

problem that is very real for Central Asia. And, they have 70 years’ 

worth of infrastructure that’s integrated with Russia. 

So, peeling them off from that is going to take time and investment. And, that’s exactly what Assistant Administrator Schiffer described. 

And, what we are trying to do is provide alternatives. But, it will 

take time. We are in constant dialogue with these governments 

about what the alternatives are, because frankly, they’re worried 

about Russia turning off the tap. 

They’re at incredible risk because of the extraordinary influence 

that Russia has over their energy and economy. 

Mr. BAIRD. One last question for either of you. You know, can we 

put sanctions on the Russian oil and gas if that deal did go 

through? 

Ms. HORST. So, right now we have encouraged countries around 

the world to adhere to the price cap that goes on for Russian oil 

and gas. And, the goal is not to disrupt global energy markets to 

make sure that Russian doesn’t profit from its energy sectors. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
30 

And, that’s something we’ve been working with countries around 

the world, including India and the region. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate your answers and thank you very much. 

And, I am always interested in making sure that our adversaries 

are not using these resources to support their efforts. 

And so, thank you for your answers. 

Mrs. KIM of California. The gentleman yields? 

Mr. BAIRD. I yield. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Thank you. All right. Now I recognize 

Representative Sherman for five minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Ms. Horst, an easy question. On July 

26, we’re having a briefing on democracy and human rights in 

Pakistan. All of my colleagues here are urged to attend. Can we 

count on you or perhaps a lesser light from your bureau joining us 

and providing some information on those topics to members of Congress? 

Ms. HORST. Absolutely. We’d be delighted to talk about what 

we’re doing in Pakistan. 

Mr. SHERMAN. See you on the 26th. We forget how important it 

was to get Osama Bin Laden. Here was a man who had killed 

thousands of Americans on American soil. 

What would our image be if we had not gotten him? How many 

terrorist attacks would he have inspired? How many would he have 

actually planned? 

We sent in SEAL Team Six, 23 men. No man was left behind 

until you realize there was a 24th man, Dr. Afridi. A Pakistani doctor who risked his life to help us get the worst terrorist in the 

world. 

He remains behind bars. He doesn’t have an American family or 

American fans really to put pressure on the State Department to 

get him out. 

Brittney Griner, on the other hand, was an American. She did 

not deliberately risk her life for the benefit of the antiterrorism efforts. She has, of course, inspired many girls through her great 

basketball play. We sent back to Russia the Merchant of Death, 

Viktor Bout in order to get her out. 

In prior years I have talked to your predecessors and suggested 

that we take Pakistan up on what may still or may not still be on 

the table, and that is a trade of Siddiqui for Afridi. And, they have 

assured me to be confident that we’re going to get Dr. Afridi out 

without giving up Siddiqui. That confidence was obviously misplaced. 

Are we willing, obviously you’re going to tell me that we’d like 

Afridi freed, and he’s got to be freed, and you can pound the table 

for emphasis. 

But, are we willing to make sure Afridi gets out? And, are we 

willing to take steps that are unpleasant in order to get him out? 

Ms. HORST. So, of course, as you know, we are very concerned 

about Dr. Afridi. He is innocent and we would like to get him 

out—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are we willing to trade Siddiqui for Afridi? Or are 

we willing to do anything else that’s going to be more successful 

than the last decade of failure? 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
31 

Ms. HORST. I can’t answer your question on that now. But, what 

I can promise you is to look and to see what kind of creative solutions we might do to bring Dr. Afridi home. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are you opposed to trading Siddiqui for Afridi? 

Ms. HORST. I would have to look at the legal ramifications of 

that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. There are no, we let out Bout. We can, you know, 

the President can let out anybody he wants. 

Ms. HORST. It’s the sort of thing that I would want to consult 

with my colleagues at DOJ. But I agree with you that we need to 

work to get Dr. Afridi home, Dr. Afridi out. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, nothing else other than a trade for Siddiqui 

is likely to work. Everything else that your many predecessors 

have said, which is almost exactly your words, has been a total failure. And we should not forget the 24th man. 

Let’s see, Pakistan was, is supposed to have a Supreme Court. 

That Supreme, well, it does have a Supreme Court that has ordered elections in one of its states, I believe it was Punjab. Those 

elections are not happening. 

They’re supposed to be nationwide elections in October. What can 

we do to make sure that democracy really prevails and that the 

majority of Pakistani voters can vote for the prime minister and 

parliament of their choice? 

Ms. HORST. So, we have conveyed publicly and privately that we 

expect Pakistan to adhere to its constitution and laws. And we 

fully anticipate that there will be elections no later than November. 

It is something that is important to us. And we think that Pakistan has a democratic tradition it needs to follow. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Have we commented on the failure to have elections in Punjab which were ordered by the Court? 

Ms. HORST. So, this is a complicated, I’m no by no means an expert on Pakistan’s constitution. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope we would comment. And finally, we need 

an Indian consulate in Los Angeles. We need an American consulate in Chandigarh. 

I know we’re creating some other consulates. And, we need to 

start seeing immigration visas processed in more than one place in 

India, perhaps like the Embassy in Delhi, in addition to Mumbai. 

There is, it is so important that we improve the visa and the 

passport process. I yield back. 

Mrs. KIM of California. The gentleman’s time has expired. Now 

I recognize Representative McCormick for five minutes. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you, Mrs. Chair. And, thank you to the 

witnesses today for being here. The President’s 2024 Fiscal Year 

budget request includes $11.1 billion for the Department of State 

and USAID to outcompete China. 

However, because of the foreign policy failures of the Biden Administration, in my opinion, countries throughout Central and 

South Asia are becoming trapped by China’s Belt and Road Initiative. 

This is having far reaching implications for the United States security policy in the region. For example, Pakistan owes nearly onethird of its foreign debt to China. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
32 

And in particular I’m troubled by recent Chinese build-up in the 

Ream Naval Base in Cambodia and the creation of the Gwadar 

Port in Pakistan, which have now been strengthened by the PRC’s 

deterrence capabilities against the free navigation of the South 

Asia and Indo-Pacific waters. Really concerning, obviously, with 

those ports right there. 

We all know the PRC uses the debt trap program, and maybe the 

United States has some ancient investments in similar ways. But, 

that’s inconsequential right now. 

What we’re seeing in China’s misbehavior is starting to warp 

that region right now. I’m really concerned about our priorities and 

how we’re going to bolster the U.S. relationships with those countries, such as India obviously being the most populous country in 

the region that has a similar constitution and similar outlooks on 

the world politics, and how we’re going to evolve in those security 

changes. 

Specifically, I know you talked to Mr. Barr and his question, but 

it was kind of vague as far as our arms sales, how we link them, 

India to the west instead of to Russia. You said it was moving 

quickly but didn’t give any specifics. 

And, I particularly want to know what are the hold-ups that 

we’re encountering? Because I’ve heard rumors about 51 percent, 

I know you know. And, what they want to have ownership of, and, 

what is holding back that transmission, especially with Ukraine 

going on right now in which Russia really can’t afford to sell arms 

too anywhere else right now. 

So, this is the perfect time to transition them to a western style 

and linked not only in their arms sales, but also military exercises. 

Ms. HORST. There was a lot in that question. So, let me try to 

hit some of the things. So, I think we’ve talked a little bit about 

what we’re doing to counter China broadly across the region. 

Pakistan is increasingly in debt to China. And, they know that 

and they’re in trouble. And, I think they’re seeing the consequences 

of this relationship. 

What are we doing about that? We are again trying to offer an 

alternative through a variety of tools that we have, but, it’s longterm. China didn’t establish itself quickly and, we are doing the 

same in a long-term way. 

With regards to what India is doing, and how we’re trying to diversify, these are deals that are going on with private American 

companies. So, I’m not at liberty to talk about the details. 

But, we’d be happy to follow up with your staff as we are able 

to talk about what we’re doing to make this move faster. 

Michael, you may want to add something. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Yes. If I can just add to that briefly. You know, 

we are clear-eyed about the challenge that we face from the PRC 

and the nature of the competition and its implications for development diplomacy. 

That’s why the Administration has asked for the out-compete 

funds as well as robust resources across the Indo-Pacific and for 

Central Asia. As we’ve talked about, you know, earlier today, we 

are facing a clear demand signal in the region for the United 

States to show up, to have a certain trajectory, and to be an enduring partner. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
33 

That’s what we want to do. Those are the sorts of programs that 

USAID and State are seeking to develop so that we can provide an 

alternative and demonstrate that democracy delivers and that we 

have a better development model. 

We hope and look forward to working with this committee to 

make sure that we have the resources to be able to do that. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Great. And I know we’re going over there also 

on our own CODEL to address this with India and other countries. 

We’ll be in Bangladesh as well. 

We also just dropped a bill recently that would shore up India’s 

longstanding claim to the Arunachal Pradesh region, as well as to 

dispute China’s claims in Tibet and so forth. 

I guess I’m just looking at what the Department itself can do to 

shore up these, to strengthen these relationships that really lay a 

bulwark against China’s aggression in those regions. Policy or otherwise that we can do to just kind of bolster our relationships to 

push back against that kind of aggression. 

Ms. HORST. And, we appreciate both what Congress’s role is playing in helping strengthen our relationship with India. Prime Minister Modi’s visit last month, I think, really demonstrated that 

we’re in new territory with India in an exciting way. Not just in 

the capital, but across the country. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Thank you. I now recognize Representative Connolly for five minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair. And, I welcome our two witnesses. This is a budget hearing. So, let’s talk a little bit about the 

budget. 

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Ops and relations 

programs cut $16.4 billion, or 24 percent from the President’s request, $7.2 billion or 12 percent below the enacted levels last year. 

I don’t know, could that have an impact on programs, Ms. Horst? 

Ms. HORST. So, the budget, we will make do with the budget that 

the President—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Horst, I didn’t ask that. Could this have an 

impact on what you’re planning and what you want to do and the 

objectives you set out? 

Because presumably, you put a number to the President’s request for a reason. 

Ms. HORST. Correct. We did. Will it have an impact? Most likely, 

yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Most likely? 

Ms. HORST. Yes. It will have an impact. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That’s your answer? Oh, okay. So, you’re inviting 

Congress with that answer, to cut 24 percent from the President’s 

request. 

I don’t know. I’ve been working in foreign aid for almost 50 

years. I think it’s unbelievable and potentially catastrophic. And, I 

think it will most certainly hurt your programs. 

Mr. Schiffer, maybe it would hurt AID programs. Apparently the 

State Department doesn’t think so. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. From an AID perspective, but really—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could you speak up, please? 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
34 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Certainly. My apologies. From an AID perspective, 

you know, we think that development diplomacy is the ground 

game for this national security. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah, yeah. I know. Would 24 percent hurt your 

programs? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. We think that the budget proposal that the President made is the necessary funding that we need to be able to—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It’s not a very good answer when you have a 

whole bunch of people who are, you know, giving Torquemada a 

run for competition in slashing your budget. 

And, I would suggest to both of you, you need a more robust response. In that budget, it only includes, with respect to climate 

change, money for biodiversity conservation. 

It actually prohibits funding for the green climate fund and the 

clean technology fund. And prohibits funding for any loss and damage claims attributed to climate change. 

I don’t know, in your region, is it affected by climate change? 

Could those prohibitions affect what you do and how you respond 

to the manifestations of climate change? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. I would offer that we always appreciate having 

the discretion to be able to face the problems that we see in the 

region. The Administrator and other senior members of this Administration have made very clear that once we put on climate—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I know the AID—let me suggest to you, Mr. 

Schiffer, I know the AID Administrator. I think she’d have a more 

robust answer. 

I think she would decry an explicit prohibition. Because it will 

be harmful to the countries we serve in that region and make us 

even less competitive against the Chinese, whom we are concerned 

about. 

What about you, Ms. Horst? Prohibitions bother you? Or, are we 

just going to live with them? 

Ms. HORST. We would—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Remember the Senate hasn’t been heard from 

yet. Your answers can influence what happens in the other body 

that hopefully will be more enlightened than what happened in the 

Foreign Ops subcommittee. 

Ms. HORST. To echo what my colleague, Mr. Schiffer, has said. 

We work with the constraints that we’re being given. 

But we also have found very creative ways to counter what’s 

going on in climate in our region. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would say to you both, the constraints are not 

given. This is a markup from the Foreign Ops subcommittee. This 

is an opportunity for you to weigh in on whether those are wise decisions or you’re just going to live with them. 

Could we move beyond the bureaucratic for a minute and actually talk about a budget policy that is evolving and that we can 

still shape presumably to your advantage and that of the countries 

we serve? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Our view is that the budget proposal that the 

President is making—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. I know. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. But, that’s, that is—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We stipulate that. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
35 

Mr. SCHIFFER. That is the budget we would urge Congress to 

have. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are you going to defend it? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. We’re seeking—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We will stipulate that that’s what, you know, all 

the wisdom went into that. This is the specific item. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. I think you’ll appreciate that, you know, discretion 

can be the better, you know, can be the better source of valor here. 

We obviously have, you know, support what is in the President’s 

budget proposal. That is what we would like to see Congress enact 

as proposed. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sure you’re both good people. But, your answers are very weak. And, are not the kind of answers, not the 

kind of conviction we need in these programs if we’re going to fend 

off the kinds of cuts that are being proposed that are almost unprecedented. 

And, I urge you to take that spirit back. But, this was not helpful. I yield back. 

Mrs. KIM of California. I now recognize Representative Lawler 

for five minutes. 

Mr. LAWLER. Well, that was entertaining. And, I commend the 

witnesses for not being led to state things that obviously you don’t 

feel are true. 

And clearly, the talking points that get used are not reality. So, 

thank you for actually holding your ground and not being led to say 

stupid things. 

Ms. Horst, is Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? 

Ms. HORST. Pardon me. So, we believe right now that Al-Qaeda 

cannot use Afghanistan as a base from which to hit the United 

States. 

Mr. LAWLER. No, no, no. I asked you a very specific question. Is 

Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? 

Ms. HORST. That is something that I think I’d rather talk about 

in a classified setting. This is a more general answer because of the 

nature of intel and some of our counterterrorism work that we’re 

doing. 

Mr. LAWLER. On June 30, when the Administration tried to 

whitewash the Afghanistan withdrawal by releasing the report on 

the July 4 holiday weekend, President Biden was asked about the 

report. And, he stated that Al-Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan. 

Do you agree with the President’s statement that Al-Qaeda is 

gone from Afghanistan? 

Ms. HORST. I would not contradict the President. 

Mr. LAWLER. So, you are stating for the record that Al-Qaeda is 

not in Afghanistan? 

Ms. HORST. What I’m stating for the record is that we no longer 

believe that Afghanistan is a base from which Al-Qaeda can threaten the homeland. 

Mr. LAWLER. Not what I’m asking. Are you—you just said on the 

record that you will not contradict the President. The President 

said Al-Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan. 

Are you stating for the record that Al-Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan, i.e., no longer there in Afghanistan? 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
36 

Ms. HORST. That is not what I’m stating. I am stating that I 

don’t think that Afghanistan is a threat, that Al-Qaeda cannot pose 

a threat to the United States from Afghanistan. 

And, when it does, as we saw in the example from al-Zawahiri, 

we are willing to go in and unilaterally take care of that threat. 

Mr. LAWLER. Do you agree with the President that the Taliban 

are helping the United States? 

Ms. HORST. I think that we are carefully monitoring to see 

whether the Taliban are living up to their commitments when it 

comes to counterterrorism. 

And again, when we think that they are not, we are going in on 

our own. 

Mr. LAWLER. Do you agree with the President that the Taliban 

are helping the United States? 

Ms. HORST. I think that the Taliban understand what their obligations are to us. 

Mr. LAWLER. So, when they bar female aid implementors from 

working, is that part of their obligations to us? Do you think 

they’re helping us? 

Ms. HORST. We’ve been very clear with the Taliban that what 

they’re doing with women and girls is absolutely abhorrent. We 

have made it clear that any kind of normalization with the Taliban 

depends on them allowing 50 percent of their country to be participating in public life in this sphere. 

So, we’ve been very clear—— 

Mr. LAWLER. So, if they’re, if what they’re doing with women is 

abhorrent, what exactly are they doing that’s helping us? 

Ms. HORST. I did not say that the Taliban were helping us. 

Mr. LAWLER. Okay. So, you disagree with the President’s comments that the Taliban are helping the United States? 

Ms. HORST. What I—— 

Mr. LAWLER. Thank you. And, I would just note, last month the 

United Nations Sanctions Monitoring Team reported that the 

Taliban has appointed at least three Al-Qaeda members to senior 

government positions. 

The Taliban pays Al-Qaeda monthly quote/unquote welfare payments. Al-Qaeda is operating at least six training facilities in Afghanistan, including one specifically dedicated to training suicide 

bombers. And, the Taliban uses Al-Qaeda manuals to train their 

security forces. 

So again, I ask you, do you agree with the President that AlQaeda is gone from Afghanistan and that the Taliban are helping 

the United States? 

And therefore, is the U.N. Sanctions Monitoring Team lying 

when they released this report? Or, do you disagree with what the 

President stated publicly? 

Ms. HORST. I would let the U.N. Monitoring Team report stand 

on its own. And again, come back to my point that we carefully 

monitor what is a threat to the United States. 

Mr. LAWLER. Okay. So, do you agree with the U.N. Sanctions 

Monitoring Team report? 

Ms. HORST. I would—— 

Mr. LAWLER. Do you think that is a—— 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
37 

Ms. HORST. I would need to read it more in detail. I will frankly 

tell you that I need to read it more in detail before I can tell you 

whether I agree or do not agree. 

Mr. LAWLER. Okay. I would just state for the record, it is clear 

that when the President said Al-Qaeda is gone, and that the 

Taliban are helping us, that was a lie. It’s not true. 

And, the U.N. Sanctions Monitoring Team’s report does stand on 

its own and should be believed by the Administration. And the Administration should take it seriously. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Thank you. I now recognize Representative Castro for five minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. The Administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy recognizes the importance of both the Pacific and Indian 

Oceans to U.S. interests. 

How do you define what U.S. interests are in the Indian Ocean 

region? And, what are U.S. security and economic interests there? 

And also, can you break down for me what in the President’s 

budget request for FY24 is specific to the Indian Ocean in the context of the Indo-Pacific? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Sure. Thank you for that question, Congressman. 

You know, I would say at the broadest level, our interests are in 

working with partners in the region to build strong and prosperous 

societies that are able to grow their economies and able to develop 

strong, vibrant civil societies and democratic institutions of governments. 

Societies in countries that can contribute to the rules-based 

international order and work with us to solve common problems, 

including the problem of climate change. So, at a most general 

level, that is what we seek to do. 

In terms of the Indian Ocean specific breakdown, I will have to 

pull into that and get back to you. And, we will follow up on that. 

Ms. HORST. Yeah, I would just underscore that our principles are 

about interconnectivity and diversification. 

And, we are using a number of tools, both on the economic side 

and the political side, as well as on the security side, to make sure 

that an Indo-Pacific region that’s free and market oriented and secure is our ultimate goal. 

Mr. CASTRO. And back in 2016, Congress and the Obama Administration designated India as a quote, major defense partner. And, 

terms like treaty ally and major non-NATO ally, are well defined 

in U.S. policy and come with specific commitments and privileges. 

Whereas, major defense partners are an evolving concept. 

What does major defense partner mean to the Biden Administration in the U.S.-India relationship, and how does it specifically set 

India apart? 

Ms. HORST. We saw with Prime Minister Modi’s visit last month 

that defense and security is becoming an increasing important part 

of our relationship with India and so, the term, major defense partner reflects just that. That we are trying to increase co-production. 

That we are looking for ways that we can coordinate on maritime 

domain awareness and other areas and truly expand the partnership beyond where it has been in the past. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
38 

Mr. CASTRO. And then finally, there has been considerable debate, especially during Prime Minister Modi’s state visit to the 

United States last month, on whether the United States bet on 

India has been worth it, particularly when it comes to whether 

India will align with the United States on Indo-Pacific security 

issues. 

What does the bet on India mean for you? And, what are our expectations from India on alignment on these security issues? 

Ms. HORST. So the bet on India, if you’ve read the National Security Strategy, is very clear. That we see India as being central to 

our Indo-Pacific strategy. 

And, what that means is the two biggest democracies in the 

world are working together to make the region more secure. That 

is it fundamentally, I think. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. And, I will offer from USAID perspective, I think 

we see a significant opportunity. And Prime Minister Modi’s visit 

really captured a lot of energy around this to take our development 

diplomacy partnership with India to the next stage so that we’re 

no longer just working in India. 

But, we’re working with and through India to provide public 

goods to the region and to construct that free and open Indo-Pacific 

order that we are seeking to support. 

Mr. CASTRO. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Mr. Castro, did you yield back the balance of your time? 

Mr. CASTRO. Yes. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Oh, thank you. I now recognize Representative Manning for five minutes. 

Ms. MANNING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I’ll continue the 

discussion of India that my colleague started. 

And, Ms. Horst, there is no question that our relationship with 

India, the world’s most populous democracy, is critically important, 

particularly in light of our changing and challenging relationship 

with China. And, you have both referenced the visit of Prime Minister Modi and the importance of that relationship. 

But, I’d like to raise an issue that is particularly distressing but 

is rarely discussed. And, that is the well-known problem of and culture of gang rape and other instances of sexual and physical violence against women in India. 

And, I’d like to submit for the record a recent article about the 

culture of gang rape, the impact it has on Indian women, and the 

persistence of this problem and the failure of the government to 

deal with that problem. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
39 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 56740A.011
40 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 56740A.012
41 

Ms. MANNING. You’ve both talked about the importance of 

human rights and the importance of equality, particularly gender 

equality. 

So, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what, if anything, 

the SCA is doing to address this problem, to make sure the perpetrators are held accountable, to change the attitude toward gang 

rape, and to improve gender equality overall? 

Ms. HORST. So, thank you for highlighting a problem that is just 

gut wrenching when you dig into it. The United States has worked 

with India on a number of issues, including human rights and gender rights. 

We have the U.S.-India Women’s Alliance, which is an umbrella 

organization that highlights a number of things we’re doing to promote women economic empowerment and women’s rights, gender 

equality issues. 

We had what was called the Shatter Summit that was hosted 

here a few months ago that exemplified what the United States 

and India can do together to look at these issues of discrimination 

against women. 

We also work on some basic things like rule of law and democracy programs. So, those are the kinds of things that we’re looking 

at when we look at this terrible problem. 

And, I’m going to turn to my colleague at USAID for some of the 

specifics on what we’re doing on his side of the house. 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Sure. Thank you. And, thank you for raising this 

very important issue. 

You know, we work with our partners in India to provide counseling for victims of gender-based violence. We work with our partners in civil society in India to address the broader, you know, context in which these activities take place. 

And we also work, as Secretary Horst pointed to, to make sure 

that we are supporting programs that will empower women economically, politically, socially, so that we can advance, you know, 

their state and their status in Indian society. 

Ms. MANNING. I’m delighted to hear you’re working with the 

women. But, they don’t seem to be the problem. It’s the men who 

are the problem. 

So, what are you doing to work with the men, work with the cultural issue, and work with the government? 

Mr. SCHIFFER. Well, our—the gender-based violence counseling 

that we do, for example, and the groups that we support that provide those services, that’s not just for women. That is a broader effort that includes both men and women. 

And frankly, we also work, as you know, on promoting issues related to the entire spectrum of the LGBTQI community, because 

this issue of gender-based violence is one that cuts across all of, 

you know, the full range of vulnerable communities. 

So, this is, I mean, this is something that, as I know you appreciate and understand, requires a certain amount of cultural delicacy and sensitivity. But, it is one that we are paying a lot of attention to. 

Ms. MANNING. Ms. Horst, you look like you have something else 

to say on this issue. 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
42 

Ms. HORST. I was just going to note, within the context of what 

we’re doing to combat trafficking in persons, we also work on the 

prevention and prosecution side with the Indian government across 

India and, we have been eager to partner with them to see what 

they can do to strengthen that aspect of it, both prosecution and 

protection. 

Ms. MANNING. I would just like to encourage as our relationship 

with India deepens, as we look at them as a more important ally, 

that this issue be raised at a governmental basis. 

There was a—there have been many articles about gang rapists 

who were convicted and then released after a very short amount 

of time, not serving anything close to their prison term, and paraded around the country. 

So, my time is expiring and I yield back. 

Mrs. KIM of California. Thank you. We have now come to the end 

of our hearing. 

So, I want to thank Ms. Horst and Mr. Schiffer for your valuable 

testimony. And, I also thank my colleagues and members for their 

questions. 

The members of the subcommittees may have some additional 

questions for the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to those in 

writing. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five days to 

submit questions, statements, and extraneous materials for the 

record, subject to the length limitations. 

And, without objection, the subcommittees will now stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARING
43 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 56740A.013
44 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 56740A.014
45 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 56740A.015
46 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 56740A.016
47 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 56740A.017
48 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 56740A.018
49 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 56740A.019
50 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 56740A.020
51 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 56740A.021
52 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 56740A.022
53 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 56740A.023
54 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 56740A.024
55 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 56740A.025
56 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 56740A.026
57 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 56740A.027
58 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 56740A.028
59 


rfrederick on LAP8M3WLY3PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 56740A.029