```

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

                 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
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        

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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-740                 WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                           
                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

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

                Brendan Shields, 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                  DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota, Ranking 
TIM BURCHETT, Tennesse                   Member
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 BRAD SHERMAN, California
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia
              Gabriella Zach, Subcommittee Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                    Subcommittee on the Indo-Pacific

                   YOUNG KIM, California, Chairwoman
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 AMI BERA, California, Ranking 
MARK GREEN, Tennesse                     Member
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa      BRAD SHERMAN, California
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
MIKE WALTZ, Florida                  WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
                                     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
                Dan Markus, Subcommittee Staff Director
                           
                           
                           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

 
                 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.
    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.
    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.
    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 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 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 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.

   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 game-
changing 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.
    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:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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, 
fostering 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:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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.
    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.
    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 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.
    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.
    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 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.
    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.
    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?
    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 one-third of its foreign debt to China.
    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 long-term. 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.
    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?
    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.
    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?
    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 
Al-Qaeda 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----
    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.
    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:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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.
    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.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                          [all]
```