There were quite a few efforts made to conceal the fact that it was a Government program.

the entire foreign operations budget is about 1 percent of Federal spending, and the world is rapidly changing.

I struggle with whether we should cut off aid to Uganda or not.

Obviously, today we are focused on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and there will be questions about that.

I worry about our foreign aid programs. I am worried that they are not as relevant or effective as we may think and say they are.

we have spent millions of dollars, for example, on the Marti program even though we just made a lot of people wealthy, but it has not done much of any good whatsoever, but it makes people feel good to spend the money.

I do not want to over generalize, but these activities are often not the same as building institutions and organizations, owned and run by foreign governments and communities which, to me, is what real development, sustainable development…

So the Helms-Burton Act would make sure that, to show how tough we are, we could not help Cuban children who have health needs.

Frankly, I don't know how a small country like that handles the enormous burden put on it, but I applaud them for it.

This one had, this one from the get-go had no possibility of working. That is my problem with it.

I wonder to what extent significant experience in overseas development is a requirement for working at USAID?

Suppose the people of Crimea vote to leave Ukraine. The Russian parliament, which will do whatever President Putin tells it to, votes to annex Crimea, how do the U.S. and Europe, our allies, respond at that point?