Transcription
Mr. Roman, are you aware that we are sending $40 million a week to the Taliban?
Yes, sir. Can you name other instances of foreign aid going to terrorist organizations?
We have assisted al-Shabab in Somalia. There have been instances with the Hamzi network in Sudan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah in Syria. Dozens of terrorist organizations have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid.
Could you elaborate a little bit on the mechanisms in place to stop foreign aid from going to terrorist groups, and why are they not working, if we have any in place? I would note that these are—you notice these are—terrorist weaponry. You see some AKs, SKSs, some snipers, some clips, some clip carriers, probably made in China, and I believe these are small landmines here beside, right there.
Let's use Gaza as our case study. $2.1 billion in American taxpayers' money to Gaza since October 7th, when Hamas invaded Southern Israel. USAID money was going in terms of an emergency use authorization to try to go to parties that USAID formerly had a relationship with in the Gaza Strip. They had to have been vetted by OFAC; they should have been vetted against the Special Designated Terrorists lists from the State Department and from other Treasury organizations. Waivers were granted because they said that there was an emergency use to have that money come into Gaza, thereby jettisoning the usual typical screening procedures. As a result, 90% of aid that was going from the United States, by way of its agents in Gaza, ended up in Hamas-controlled areas. This is ridiculous. Essentially, what the US assistance to Gaza did was underwrite the ability for Hamas to survive until the ceasefire was just passed a few weeks ago. There was no strategic thought for it, and there was no screening. Seems like the emergency might have been to arm terrorists to kill civilians. Would that be accurate?
That's accurate, and even more than that. Samantha Powers, the administrator for USAID, was intent on having Israel not be able to defend itself.
Mr. Primar, is that correct? How do you say that? Prac… I got Birch it, man. Nobody gets mine right, so don't… don't worry about… what is it? Primara. Perfect. All right, thanks, brother. How do terrorists exploit our foreign aid loopholes?
Well, we have… we have a lot of our international… (pulls up mic) I’m sorry, can you hear me?
Yes, sir. You have international NGOs and UN agencies actively lobbying here in Washington, D.C., against pro-vetting policies that would prevent it. I was the senior vetting officer at USAID, and what… did you say the United Nations is doing this?
The UN? Sure. Everybody’s… everybody’s getting money, lobbying here. So the taxpayers fund this lobbyist who’s working against American interests?
Correct, possibly killing our allies and possibly Americans. They bring together groups in Washington that overseas work with groups that kill Americans.
Yeah, I don’t need a flowchart to show that. I appreciate it. Do you think USAID programs have been aligned with the national security interests of the US?
No, they have not. They have actually helped China.
How do these programs compromise our national security, Mr. Prim?
They actually push China; they actually push much of the world towards China on the green energy agenda. They push people—ordinary people, billions of people—towards China because of the resentment caused by our social re-engineering.
Are we being lobbied by these pro-communist China groups currently?
Well, a lot of these countries don’t even have to lobby because they get the money anyway, like South Africa. And in fact, these lobbyists have come to the House and have tried to kill legislation like H.R. 160, which was meant to increase transparency in US funding of overseas organizations.
Is that a current piece of legislation? That’s from the last session. Last… give me that number again.
H.R. 160. And what does it do?
It was meant to give us lawmakers the ability to have higher transparency and terror financing investigations aimed at scrutinizing extremist groups.
Mr. Prim, we had a regulation before we left in the last administration that anybody who touches money in areas in countries where there are terrorists, those names have to go through terrorist databases. That was overturned by Biden.
Chairlady, I am currently at 5 seconds, but I wanted to mention something. There’s a lot of rhetoric used on this committee, and I would urge my friends on both sides of the aisle: let’s stick to the actual information. This rhetoric… I’ve received death threats, and I know the chairlady has, and it needs to stop. We need to tone it down.
Thank you, Chairlady, and thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Madam Chairwoman, I’d like to ask for unanimous consent to enter a few items into the record relating to the waivers that have been provided by the secretary, and… because Mr. Barrett just went… now there is some reporting, and perhaps he’s in the room if he’d like to respond.
Madam Chair, in this reporting it says that Representative Barrett told a reporter that he has a real problem with a report that two Doge employees blocked PEPFAR funding that should have been granted a waiver by the secretary and said that if it was a mistake they should have been fired. We also have numerous reports here that these waivers may exist but are not being enforced, and there are thousands of federal aid workers across the world right now that are stranded, as well as international aid that is sitting in ports and docks.
If you have the documentation… without objection… I’m not sure if my name was… Miss Merch… could I… if I’m allowed to respond or not? It’s fine either way.
No, no, it’s just a report. I’m not… okay, I… I just… but anybody that works for the president that goes against what he says, he has a right to fire them. So thank you. Absolutely.