[Senate Hearing 117-166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 117-166

                      THE STATE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
                   AND STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           OCTOBER 27, 2021

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       

                  Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
                  
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-952 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
   


                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

             ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman        
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
                                     BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
                 Damian Murphy, Staff Director        
        Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        

                              (ii)        


                      C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey..............     1

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho....................     3

McKeon, Hon. Brian, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and 
  Resources, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC............     5
    Prepared Statement...........................................     7

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Testimonies on the Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, Entered 
  into the Record on Behalf of Senator James E. Risch, Dated 
  October 28, 2021...............................................    30

Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez...........................    35

Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator James Risch...............................    44

Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons......................    58

Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Todd Young................................    58

Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz..................................    61

                                 (iii)
 
                    THE STATE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
                   AND STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION

                              ----------                              


       INSERT DATE HERE deg.WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Van Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, 
Portman, Young, Barrasso, and Hagerty.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. As this 
committee continues to seek to restore its position of 
conducting robust oversight, we greatly appreciate your 
willingness, like that of Secretary Blinken, to come before us 
for hearings, and that is refreshing.
    Let me also acknowledge that you and Secretary Blinken 
inherited a damaged and depleted State Department. As I 
documented in a committee report last year, ``Diplomacy in 
Crisis,'' the last Administration's repeated assault on State 
Department personnel, management, and resources were, in my 
view, unconscionable and dangerous for long-term U.S. foreign 
policy interests.
    When you assumed your position, morale was at its lowest 
point in decades, confidence in leadership had decayed, and key 
bureaus had been gutted.
    In fairness, however, the institutional, budgetary, and 
morale problems of the department are the result of many years, 
multiple administrations, and, yes, congressional action and 
inaction as well.
    I think there is now broad and bipartisan consensus that we 
have reached a crisis point, and there is a bipartisan desire 
to address the core structural and resource issues that have 
too long plagued the Department.
    With the Department being led by people such as yourself, 
who have dedicated so much of their careers to government 
service, I had been hoping to see a necessary effort to 
undertake a systematic reform and modernization effort.
    Today, I look forward to hearing specifics. What is your 
thinking about reforming and modernizing the department? Where 
do you see opportunities to ensure that resources are aligned 
with the department's missions? What are you doing to address 
the morale crisis and stem the loss of talented Foreign Service 
and Civil Service officers?
    As the Administration continues to deemphasize our military 
presence around the world, where is the necessary diplomatic 
counterweight?
    There are a number of other specific issues I hope you will 
address today. First, I hope you will address State's role in 
the Afghanistan evacuation. There is no doubt that the 
Department personnel performed heroically but, arguably, had 
the department been better positioned and structured to get 
ahead of some of the issues, particularly processing Afghan 
SIVs, P-1s and P-2s, the heroism would not have been necessary.
    Much like in the early days of the COVID pandemic when tens 
of thousands of American citizens were stranded around the 
world, while State Department personnel ultimately performed 
Herculean tasks to launch a successful repatriation effort, it 
took weeks of heavy lifting and congressional pressure and 
suggests the department needs to fundamentally alter 
institutional structures to deal with emergency contingencies, 
planning, and operations.
    I would also like to hear your plans to address a long-
standing priority of mine, significantly expanding diversity at 
the department, including long overdue improvements in 
recruitment and retention.
    Study after study has shown that a more diverse workforce 
leads to better decisions and outcomes for institutions, and it 
is essential for the State Department as an institution that 
represents our country to the world that we represent our 
values as a nation in celebrating all Americans.
    I would also like to hear your thinking about how the 
United States can best position ourselves to counter China in 
the conduct of diplomacy around the globe. China now has more 
diplomats, more missions, more concerted public diplomacy, and 
more money for its diplomacy than we do.
    In parts of Africa and Latin America, we are being badly 
out-lapped, and the holdup of confirming ambassadors by this 
body is, certainly, also hampering U.S. foreign policy 
objectives to be competitive with China.
    Relatedly, I also hope that you will address staffing and 
resource shortages that hamper our diplomacy. For example, a 
recent State Department Inspector General report found that the 
Africa Bureau has faced persistent staffing shortages and that 
the department has not appropriately prioritized the Bureau's 
needs.
    Critical posts such as our embassy in Niger lacked a 
political and economic officer for months. I look forward to 
hearing about the Department's plans to create a new Bureau of 
Cyberspace and Digital Policy and a Special Envoy for critical 
and emerging technology.
    As you well know, we are facing a new era of international 
cooperation and competition on cyber and technology issues. 
Real systematic change in how the United States responds to 
digital innovation will require swift institutional adaptation, 
and I believe these new structures are the right first steps.
    Finally, I would like to hear from you on the Department's 
response to the so-called anomalous health incidents or what 
some of us call Havana syndrome. For years the department did 
not take this seriously, stigmatizing those who reported 
incidents and failed to get those affected prompt treatment.
    I appreciate that you and the Secretary have prioritized 
this issue and I know you are committed to protecting our 
personnel, but the Department's response continues to fall 
short of what we owe our personnel and their families, and we 
look forward to hearing specifics.
    It is a broad agenda but that is the nature of the 
undertaking that you have.
    With that, Mr. Secretary, let me turn things over to the 
ranking member for his statement.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you, Secretary McKeon, for being here today.
    It has been nearly 20 years since Congress passed an 
authorization for the State Department. Over that time, the 
Department's need for reform of its operations and management 
has grown enormously.
    As such, I have spent the past 2 and a half years working 
with the chairman on a much-needed State Department 
authorization bill, partly on my watch and partly on his watch. 
We have not been successful to date, obviously.
    If we want to exercise full oversight of the State 
Department, which is the charge of this committee, we must 
regularly and consistently authorize the State Department. If 
we do not, we will get more of the same with the State 
Department choosing when and how it will listen to this 
committee.
    As the chairman knows and I experienced during last 
Congress, getting the State Department to do the basics--
provide witnesses for hearings, feedback on legislation, and 
updates before issues hit the news--is extremely difficult 
without authorizing bills.
    I look forward to working with the chairman and you, Mr. 
McKeon, on getting a State Department authorization across the 
finish line this Congress. Since today's hearing is also about 
the state of the State Department, we must address the 
Department's role in the hazardous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
    Despite the Administration's efforts to put Afghanistan in 
the rearview mirror, it remains a pressing national security 
concern for the Senate and for the American people.
    It has been over a month since Secretary Blinken appeared 
before this committee and we have yet to receive the 
Secretary's responses to our questions for the record that were 
propounded at that time.
    This is an unacceptable delay and we expect better 
responsiveness from the department, which they have always 
promised but have never executed on.
    On the issue of continued evacuations, in September, 
Secretary Blinken assured us that there were just 100 Americans 
remaining in Afghanistan that wished to depart. One hundred.
    Just last week, however, the team responsible for continued 
evacuations of Americans told us that they were working on over 
170 Americans who wished to depart from more than 360 Americans 
who remained there, and the list is growing.
    I want to make note and ask us to enter into the record 
aggregate data my staff has collected from 25 Senate offices 
about the botched evacuations. It should be noted that this is 
a snapshot of just one-quarter of the Senate's work to get 
people out.

[Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be found 
in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section 
at the end of this hearing.]

    We know that 16,688 cases were referred to the State 
Department during and immediately after the NEO. We only know 
of 110 individuals of the 16,000 who were successfully 
evacuated out of Afghanistan to the U.S. or to a third country. 
I have been working on one flight with several U.S. citizens 
with over 100 minors on that flight.
    I am also curious about the state of Embassy Kabul's 
workforce, particularly the fate of our locally employed staff. 
We owe a great debt to the Afghans who assisted our diplomatic 
efforts in Afghanistan for 20 years and it is shameful that 
they were not all evacuated before the Administration's 
arbitrary withdrawal.
    I look forward to hearing more details on establishing 
predictable mechanisms for the continued departure of Americans 
and the Afghans who assisted us in our mission there.
    Last Thursday, I, along with Armed Services Committee 
Ranking Member Inhofe and Homeland Security Ranking Member 
Portman, sent a letter to the Inspectors General of State, DoD, 
DHS, and USAID requesting a joint audit on the botched 
evacuation and the failure to deliver on the Special Immigrant 
Visa Program.
    As I mentioned at Secretary Blinken's hearing, the 
Department of Defense has a lot to answer for on SIVs as well. 
The bungled Afghanistan evacuation was a failure not only of 
the interagency but also of leadership at the top.
    We will not accept separate audits from each agency just 
pointing fingers at the others. We have seen a dramatic uptick 
in terrorist activity in Afghanistan, demonstrating the Taliban 
lacks the will and capability to prevent terrorists from using 
Afghanistan as a safe haven or, for that matter, even governing 
in the most basic sense.
    Coordination with Afghanistan's neighbors to address terror 
threats is critical, and I look forward to hearing an update 
from you today.
    I am not surprised but I am disappointed to hear that the 
Taliban is blocking women and girls from the workplace and 
higher education. Yet, the Department has signaled the intent 
to restart nonhumanitarian assistance to Afghanistan without 
securing concessions from the Taliban on these important 
issues.
    I have no doubt you are going to face some strenuous 
questions on that particular issue from this committee and 
others. Any further expansion of long-term assistance to 
Afghanistan requires a discussion with Congress.
    Finally, I and 29 of my colleagues introduced the 
Afghanistan Terrorism Oversight and Accountability Act. I have 
asked the chairman that we mark up this important bill soon.
    Mr. McKeon, I look forward to working with you on this 
matter.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    With that, Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. We would ask 
you to summarize your statement in 5 minutes or so, and your 
full statement will be included in the record, without 
objection.
    Mr. Secretary.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN MCKEON, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
 STATE FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. McKeon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 
Member Risch, members of the committee. I appreciate you having 
me here today. This is the first time I have appeared before 
you since I was confirmed in March. I am happy to be back here 
to report on many of the issues that you have raised in your 
opening statements.
    I know there is significant support on this committee for 
the Department's mission and its personnel, and I welcome the 
discussion of our authorization priorities and your priorities, 
and hope to build on the work that you have started.
    I, first, want to take a moment to recognize the State 
Department's remarkable public servants. It would be hard to 
overstate the unique challenges faced by our global workforce, 
especially during a lengthy global pandemic. Their resilience 
embodies the truest spirit of public service.
    I also want to speak to the Department's work since I came 
before you in March, including the steps taken to address some 
of the issues that you raised then.
    In May, the President submitted his budget request for 
fiscal year 2022. He requested a 10 percent increase for the 
State Department and USAID, which included the largest 
personnel increase for the State Department in a decade. It is 
a budget that reflects the importance of investing in our 
people and our technology, and we appreciate the support for 
these priorities in the Congress to date.
    President Biden has been clear from his first day in office 
about his commitment to put diplomacy at the center of our 
foreign policy. The President's first visit to a major Cabinet 
department was to the State Department, an intentional signal 
of the importance he places on diplomacy. Secretary Blinken is 
equally committed to this objective.
    Today, at the Foreign Service Institute later this morning 
the Secretary will publicly outline the Department's 
modernization agenda, which has five pillars, and I believe he 
came to speak to you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Risch, yesterday 
about some of these issues.
    First, building the department's capacity and expertise in 
areas critical to our national security, including cyber and 
emerging tech, climate, and global health.
    Second, elevating new voices and fostering a climate of 
initiative and innovation within the department.
    Third, we are determined to compete for talent and to build 
and retain a diverse, dynamic, and entrepreneurial workforce. 
The Secretary has appointed the Department's first ever Chief 
Diversity and Inclusion Officer. We are addressing a number of 
issues that make it challenging for officers to serve, from 
family member employment to assignment restrictions to the 
challenges that LGBTQ+ and employees of color face serving 
overseas.
    Fourth, we are working to modernize our technology, our 
communications, and our analytical capabilities.
    The final pillar focuses on our overseas engagement to 
ensure that our diplomats can conduct in-person diplomacy that 
is essential to advancing foreign policy goals. This gets at 
the issue of risk management.
    Pursuant to the President's National Security Memorandum 3, 
which he issued in February, an initiative that he undertook to 
revitalize our nation's foreign policy and the national 
security workforce, we have already taken steps to make 
systemic improvements in the way we recruit and retain 
employees.
    On recruitment, we have established a volunteer recruiter 
corps with 500 Foreign and Civil Service employees who will 
assist our efforts to recruit a diverse workforce. We have also 
requested funds and authorization for a paid student internship 
program.
    On retention, we have broadened access to childcare, we are 
enhancing telework opportunities, we are expanding eligibility 
for the student loan repayment program, and we are reviewing 
our performance management systems.
    On advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, we launched the Department's first DEIA 
Leadership Council and, as noted, the first Chief Diversity 
Officer.
    We have also sought to advance diversity in our senior 
appointments. There is a lot of other work going on that I can 
speak to during the Q&A.
    We have made considerable progress, but there is a lot of 
work ahead. We have reduced the lengthy hiring timeline and 
made security clearance processing more efficient, but we need 
to do better.
    Our passport processing during the peak summer travel 
season was inadequate. I am not going to try to gloss over it. 
We have surged resources in recent months that have measurably 
reduced waiting times.
    Finally, I just want to thank the committee for the large 
number of nominees--over 40--who have had their hearings in the 
last 2 months, but we still have 80 nominees pending before the 
Senate, many of them on the executive calendar. As I understand 
it, most of the confirmations are delayed due to unrelated 
policy disagreements.
    The development and execution of our national security 
policy depends on having senior leaders in place in our 
embassies and in Washington. In the first 9 months of the 
Biden-Harris administration, only five ambassadors to countries 
have been confirmed, just four of them yesterday. Our security 
and interests are substantially undermined because so many of 
our senior leadership roles are not occupied by Senate-
confirmed officials.
    While we can do more as an Administration to improve our 
part of the process, the level of delay and obstruction we have 
faced is unprecedented, and I speak with knowledge of working 
here for 20 years. I urge the Senate to act on these 
nominations with all haste.
    With that, I look forward to your questions, sir.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon

    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, members of the Committee--
thank you for having me here today.
    I know there is significant support on this Committee for the 
Department's mission and its personnel, so I welcome this discussion of 
our authorization priorities and hope we can build on the work you have 
already started.
    I first want to take a moment to recognize the Department's 
remarkable public servants. It would be hard to overstate the unique 
challenges faced by a global workforce, including for those serving 
domestically, especially during the long pandemic.
    They have also been serving through a transition that ushered in a 
significant shift in the Department's priorities and its role in 
interagency policy making, substantially increasing their workload as 
we seek to revitalize the Department to better serve the American 
people.
    Their resilience through it all, the way they rise to the challenge 
every day, continues in the truest spirit of public service.
    I also want to reflect on the months that have passed since I came 
before the Committee in March, including steps the Department has taken 
to address some of the issues you raised at that time.
    In May, the President submitted his budget for Fiscal Year 2022. He 
requested a 10 percent increase for the Department of State and USAID, 
which included the largest personnel increase for the State Department 
in a decade. This budget request reflects the importance of investing 
in our people, processes, and technology. We appreciate the support 
demonstrated for these priorities in the House-passed and draft Senate 
bills. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues on 
enacting the necessary funding and authorizations.
    On our modernization process: President Biden has been clear from 
his first day in office about his commitment to put diplomacy at the 
center of our foreign policy. The President's first visit to a major 
cabinet department was to the Department of State, an intentional 
signal of the importance he places on diplomacy. Secretary Blinken and 
I are equally committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that we 
can deliver today--and for many years to come.
    We have listened to the workforce and heard from the Department's 
partners and advocates in and out of government, including the 
Congress. There is also considerable information and advice provided by 
recent studies, reports and commissions that make clear the work we 
need to do to modernize diplomacy. We are drawing from all of this work 
to inform our decisions.
    This morning at an event at the Foreign Service Institute, 
Secretary Blinken will outline the Department's modernization agenda, 
which has five pillars:

   First, building the Department's capacity and expertise in 
        areas that will be critical to our national security in the 
        years ahead, particularly democratic governance, climate, 
        global health, cybersecurity and emerging technologies, 
        economics, and multilateral diplomacy. For example:

        We have conducted a review of our priorities and structure 
            on cybersecurity, digital policy, and emerging 
            technologies, and we are consulting with the Congress about 
            the proposed new organizational structure based on the 
            review process.

        We are launching a similar review on global health, to 
            make sure we are able to defeat COVID-19 and build the 
            global health security architecture to prevent and mitigate 
            future pandemics.

        We are taking steps to institutionalize and integrate our 
            work on climate across our diplomacy, including by adding 
            new climate-focused positions in every regional bureau and 
            in critical posts overseas.

   Second, we will elevate new voices and foster a climate of 
        initiative and innovation.

        The Secretary is launching a new Policy Ideas Channel to 
            allow employees, at any level in Washington and in the 
            field, to share creative policy ideas and initiatives 
            directly with Department leadership.

        We are also revitalizing the Dissent Channel as a 
            protected means of constructive, professional dissent and 
            alternative perspectives.

        And we will seek to enhance and elevate our approach to 
            partnerships with civil society, the private sector, and 
            state and local governments.

   Third, we are determined to win the war for talent by 
        continuing to build and retain a diverse, dynamic, and 
        entrepreneurial workforce and empowering and equipping all 
        employees to succeed. For example:

        The Secretary appointed the Department's first Chief 
            Diversity and Inclusion Officer, charged with developing 
            and implementing a strategic plan to ensure the Department 
            reflects the country's rich diversity from the entry-level 
            to the senior ranks. We can and must do better.

        We are investing in more professional training and 
            development for both the Foreign and Civil Service, 
            including opportunities for exchanges and rotations with 
            the interagency, private sector, and the Congress that will 
            enhance the Department's policy expertise. We want to 
            finally realize Secretary Powell's vision, for a training 
            float, which would provide a capacity to temporarily 
            backfill positions--so that we don't shortcut training or 
            sacrifice readiness.

        We are working to address the issues that make it 
            challenging to serve, from family member employment and 
            workplace flexibilities to assignment restrictions and the 
            unique challenges that LGBTQ+ employees and officers of 
            color may face serving overseas.

   Fourth, we are modernizing our technology, communications, 
        and analytical capabilities to work more flexibly, efficiently, 
        and securely and better connect with global audiences. For 
        example:

        We are seeking investments across the Department's IT 
            enterprise to expand mobile and secure communication 
            capabilities, improve access to data, and enable us to 
            succeed in the modern information environment while 
            strengthening protections against malicious cyber threats.

        And we are enhancing the Department's ability to utilize 
            data and leverage technology to solve foreign policy 
            challenges, including through the first-ever Enterprise 
            Data Strategy released in September.

   The final pillar focuses on broadening and deepening our 
        overseas engagement by working to ensure our diplomats can 
        conduct the kind of on-the-ground, in-person diplomacy that is 
        essential to advance U.S. foreign policy goals. We want to 
        strengthen our processes for evaluating the risks and benefits 
        of our overseas presence--including the risks entailed when we 
        are absent or less able to engage--and to encourage a culture 
        of being risk aware as opposed to risk averse.

    I want to say a bit more on our efforts to win the war for talent. 
Early in his tenure, President Biden issued National Security 
Memorandum-3--an initiative to revitalize our nation's foreign policy 
and national security workforce. We have already taken many steps to 
make systemic improvements to the way we recruit and retain employees. 
Let me highlight a few measures.
    On recruitment, we have established a Volunteer Recruiter Corps 
with 500 Foreign Service and Civil Service employees who will assist 
our efforts to recruit a diverse workforce, and we have separately 
worked with the Partnership for Public Service to develop improved 
Civil Service hiring and recruitment training for our managers. We have 
also requested the necessary funds and authorization for a semester-
length paid student internship program. And we are planning to advance 
an integrated Foreign and Civil Service recruitment strategy.
    On retention, we increased the childcare subsidy total family 
income threshold, are enhancing telework and remote work opportunities, 
expanded the number of positions eligible for the Student Loan 
Repayment Program, and are conducting a comprehensive review of the 
Foreign and Civil Service performance management systems. Also, as part 
of a long-term effort to develop a career-long professional development 
curriculum, the Department of State will design and seek to pilot in 
FY22 core professional skills training for mid-level Foreign and Civil 
Service employees.
    On advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility 
(DEIA), Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley is fully engaged as a voting 
member on key personnel selection committees; we launched the 
Department's first DEIA Leadership Council, chaired by the Secretary 
and made up of Deputy Assistant Secretaries and DEIA advisors from each 
bureau; and we have built a one-stop shop for the Department for DEIA 
information to share best practices, link to contacts, and find DEIA-
related resources such as executive orders, cables from the Department 
and posts, and trainings from the Foreign Service Institute. We have 
also sought to advance diversity in our senior appointments, both at 
the Senate-confirmed level and in senior positions in the bureaus.
    But this work is not just focused on the Department's workforce. I 
oversee the work of the Department's Agency Equity Team (AET) in 
response to President Biden's Executive Order 13985, ``Advancing Racial 
Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal 
Government.'' The AET focuses on how the Department can advance racial 
equity and support for underserved communities not only in our staffing 
but through our foreign policy and grants, contracts, public 
engagements and exchanges, and consular services.
    These are just a few of many examples of initiatives that are vital 
for modernizing the Department to address the generational challenges 
we are confronting today.
    While we have made considerable progress in some areas, there are 
also issues on which we're not yet where we hoped to be, despite our 
best efforts. For example, while we have cut down the lengthy hiring 
timeline and made security clearance processing more efficient, we need 
to do better. We also know that our processing of passports during the 
peak summer travel season was inadequate, but we have surged resources 
in recent months to reduce processing timelines.
    I also know that several members of the Committee are interested in 
the posture of our workforce. In September, the Department announced an 
updated framework for maintaining model safety principles and 
evaluating local risk indicators to determine our appropriate on-site 
workforce posture during the pandemic. OMB approved November 1, 2021 as 
our re-entry date when we can expand our on-site workforce presence, 
contingent upon local public health conditions. That date has already 
shifted to November 15 given current COVID-19 data. Based on our 
current assessment of the risk indicators, we will continue to limit 
workplace presence in the National Capital Region and the on-site 
workforce posture will remain ``mission critical functions only.'' We 
evaluate our posture every 2 weeks and anticipate a shift toward an 
increased presence soon, based on encouraging data trends. But it bears 
emphasis that we will continue to offer expanded telework opportunities 
and workplace flexibilities, incorporating the lessons learned since 
the start of the pandemic. For those overseas, our goal is to begin an 
increased return to the workplace, in accordance with each post's risk 
indicators, starting in January 2022.
    Finally, I want to thank the Committee for the large number of 
nominees--over 40--who had hearings in September and October, and the 
34 who were reported out of the Committee last week. There is still a 
lot of work ahead. As of today, there are more than 80 nominees before 
the Senate, including 41 pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. 
Seven career Senior Foreign Service Officers, passed out of Committee 
with full bipartisan support, have been pending on the Executive 
Calendar since June. Their confirmation is delayed not due to 
objections over their credentials, but unrelated policy disagreements.
    The development and execution of our national security policy 
depends on having senior leaders in place in our embassies overseas and 
in Washington. There is not another major power in the world that would 
leave the vast majority of its embassies without an ambassador in place 
for many months. In the first 9 months of the Biden-Harris 
administration, only five country ambassadors have been confirmed. 
Dozens of U.S. embassies in every region are led not by a Senate-
confirmed Ambassador but by a charge d'affaires. Our embassies are 
being led by dedicated personnel who are doing a fantastic job, and I 
am proud of all they have achieved. But there is no substitute for an 
empowered ambassador, and many governments do not provide access at the 
highest levels to officials who are not accredited ambassadors. The 
bottom line is this: our security and interests are substantially 
undermined because so many of our senior leadership roles are not 
occupied by confirmed officials. This compounds the challenges we face 
in pursuing our shared objectives, especially for functions that are 
critical for taking care of our workforce and leading our overseas 
missions. While we acknowledge there is more we can do as an 
administration to improve our part of the process, the level of delay 
and obstruction we face is unprecedented. I urge the Senate to act on 
these nominations with all haste.
    With that, I look forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. All right. We will start a round of 5-minute 
questions.
    I heard what you say in broad outlines, but what would be 
your top three priorities for assuring that the Department has 
the organization, the tools, and the resources it needs to meet 
its mission?
    Mr. McKeon. Well, the first priority, sir, is getting 
adequate funding and, as I said, we are very appreciative of 
where we stand in the appropriations process to date with 
Senator Coons being the new chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations.
    Second, investing in our workforce to try to build a 
workforce to face the challenges of the next several decades at 
a strategic level but also, as I mentioned, retention is a real 
concern. I mean, our attrition numbers are not as high as you 
might think, but, anecdotally, in some surveys there is a 
suggestion that a significant number of employees are thinking 
about leaving.
    That is the canary in the coal mine that we have to worry 
about and so we have to address a lot of the pain points that 
make it hard to serve and that undermine morale. So we will not 
hit a lot of home runs but we are trying to hit a lot of 
singles that add up to something to make their lives better.
    Then within the organization we need to empower people 
because it is a big organization with a global workforce, and 
there has been a tendency over the years, and I have been part 
of it in prior administrations, to try to manage everything 
with an 8000-mile screwdriver overseas. We have to empower our 
workforce at our missions but also in Washington to generate 
creative ideas and fully utilize our workforce.
    That is a cultural shift. That is nothing that we can do 
with resources, and it is going to take all of the leadership 
believing in it and having the back of our employees.
    The Chairman. Speaking about the staffing questions, 
something I have been at for 25 years between the House and the 
Senate is the diversity in the Foreign and Civil Service, 
particularly in the State Department, which has one of the 
worst records of any of the federal departments.
    It is not only one of the best ways of representing the 
United States and our values abroad, it is also, I believe, a 
national security imperative. How are you working to currently 
and how do you intend in the future to hire, retain, and 
promote a diverse Foreign and Civil Service?
    I hope you are looking at--when I have looked into this 
issue in the past, the oral exam has always been a somewhat 
amorphous process to me in terms of who can communicate well 
orally and who cannot. Then, of course, the review panel seems 
to be certain types of people.
    That is one of the elements, and we always hear about 
recruitment. Well, you have to recruit at diverse places to get 
a diverse workforce. There are some great institutions that are 
known for their Foreign Service and policy education but they 
do not necessarily provide the most diverse student body as a 
way to recruit.
    Can you talk to me a little bit about this?
    Mr. McKeon. I am happy to, Senator. It is probably worth a 
longer conversation separately, which we are happy to do.
    As I mentioned, we have the Chief Diversity Officer, Gina 
Abercrombie-Winstanley, and it is not just an officer, it is an 
office that we were staffing with, ultimately, about a dozen 
people, including people who understand data analysis, and one 
of her primary tasks that she wants to undertake is, really, 
getting at the data so we understand at a disaggregated level 
what the workforce looks like and what the promotion statistics 
look like, and then understanding what are the barriers to 
advancement within these services.
    She sits on some of the key personnel committees. We have 
what is called the Deputies Committee that recommends career 
officers for ambassador positions. She also sits on the 
committee that selects deputy chiefs of mission and principal 
officers.
    She has put out guidance to bureaus on more transparent and 
objective approaches to hiring. She is putting together a broad 
diversity and inclusion strategic plan. Across the department 
every bureau now typically has somebody who is assigned to this 
task and we have got a Department-wide diversity council that 
the Secretary chairs.
    On the recruitment issue, I have to tell you, I just looked 
at the statistics of people who are taking the exam and it is 
not a very good picture. Both the gender parity is not there--
the ratio between men and women taking the exam is two to one--
and underrepresented communities are not signing up to take the 
exam.
    Our Human Resources Bureau has done some analysis on both 
why women are not signing up to take the test and why African 
Americans in particular are not doing very well on the test, 
and so that will guide our thinking on how we try to strengthen 
our recruitment.
    One of our programs for diversifying the pipeline, the 
Rangel-Pickering Fellowships, are really critical and we have 
increased those by 50 percent and will sustain that, but there 
is a lot of different things we need to work on and we cannot 
flip a switch and improve it. We know that if we leave in a few 
years, the Secretary and I, and we have not made material 
progress, we will have failed.
    The Chairman. I appreciate all the statistical information, 
and for 25 years I have been accruing statistical information 
and making the case that we are not having a diverse workforce, 
and that information, I think, is very well situated already to 
know what the reality is.
    The question becomes, as I said to the Secretary yesterday, 
change starts at the top and if the top and you, as the 
Secretary in charge of management, if you make it clear to all 
of those underneath you that part of their performance review 
is how well they have worked to bring people, a diverse group 
of individuals, into their respective departments then that 
message will get out there.
    I hope that the leadership is pursuing a very clear message 
of how we are going to make judgments about--in part about how 
promotions and other opportunities exist because but for that 
we will talk, as we have for 25 years, about the statistics and 
we will be at the same place.
    This is not an issue of this Administration but it is an 
ongoing issue and I would hope that this is the Administration 
that begins to create change, at the end of the day.
    Mr. McKeon. I know you are over time, sir. If I could say a 
couple things on this.
    One, the Foreign Service promotion system has the--guides 
promotion with something they call the Promotion Precepts and 
those get revised every few years and we are working on the 
revision right now. It is a significant change in the way that 
we do it, and we are looking at a specific precept on diversity 
and inclusion, which would be, I think, a game changer.
    The Chairman. Well, we look forward to working with you on 
this. Let me turn to Senator Risch. We will have a further 
discussion. Thank you.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McKeon, one of the things that is really troubling to 
us is we understand that the State Department has indicated, 
perhaps decided already, that they are going to restart 
nonhumanitarian assistance to the Afghans.
    Now, set aside humanitarian assistance. We are already 
seeing a lot of pictures of starvation and what have you and 
they say the winter is going to be particularly bad.
    I want to talk about nonhumanitarian assistance. What are 
we talking about here? What is the State Department doing? What 
do you plan to do?
    Mr. McKeon. Senator Risch, we have done a review within the 
Department and with USAID on all of our assistance programs 
that were in the pipeline with Afghanistan and created what we 
call a stoplight chart--category of green, category of yellow, 
and category of red, the red being bilateral programs directly 
with the Afghan Government that we are not able to continue.
    The yellow ones we are taking a look at for further review 
but none have been approved to move forward, and then the green 
are programs that are, in several respects, similar to 
humanitarian assistance, some of the things, and we can get you 
a longer list, but the notes I have----
    Senator Risch. Give us some examples of that, if you would.
    Mr. McKeon. Yes. Sheltering vulnerable women, basic 
education, water and sanitation, health. They are humanitarian-
like but they have been considered in the economic assistance 
basket, if you will, in our categorization.
    Senator Risch. One of the things, of course, we are always 
concerned about when dealing with countries like Afghanistan 
how is this money going to be handled. If this gets in the 
hands of the Taliban, I have got serious reservations whether 
it is going to go to taking care of women and girls to go to 
school and that sort of thing, since we are hearing lots of 
stories about them shutting down schools and stopping women 
from the workforce, removing women judges from their positions.
    What are you doing about this? How are you handling this?
    Mr. McKeon. Senator, the aid is flowing through either 
nongovernmental organizations or U.N. agencies that have long 
records of working in difficult contexts and in the midst of 
civil wars like in Syria or the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    They have systems and an ability to ensure that the 
assistance does not fall into the wrong hands. You gave us a 
statute in the Continuing Resolution no funds shall go to the 
Taliban. We have a legal prohibition on that occurring and we 
have to be very mindful of it. If we get reports that money is 
being siphoned off, then we will just stop the flow of that 
program.
    Senator Risch. Can you give us any more specific examples 
of where this money is going and specifically how it is being 
kept out of the hands of the Taliban? It is hard to conceive 
that money flows into the country and the Taliban--obviously, 
they have a design to get their hands on it. How do you keep it 
out of their hands?
    Mr. McKeon. On the humanitarian assistance side and the 
types of sectors we are working in--our food and nutrition 
assistance, the health sector, including COVID-19 assistance, 
emergency shelter, and relief supplies--we are working at the 
provincial and local district level and the level of governance 
in the provinces is pretty mixed.
    I am not sure the Taliban is omnipresent everywhere in 
controlling what is happening, but I am happy to try to get you 
a more detailed briefing with folks working on these issues 
directly.
    Senator Risch. I would appreciate that.
    Let us talk about the evacuations. How many Americans are 
left in Afghanistan as we sit here today?
    Mr. McKeon. The number we are currently tracking, Senator, 
and I know, as you mentioned in your statement, it seems to be 
going up as we learn people who are there, the number we were 
tracking as of a couple of days ago, the total is a little over 
400, and we break that down into two categories because we are 
constantly communicating with them to see if they are ready to 
depart Afghanistan. The number of people who are ready to 
depart is around 225 and those they say that are not ready is 
about a hundred--a little south of 190.
    These numbers change all the time. Even somebody who told 
us last week they were ready to depart, if we call them today 
and say there is a flight in 2 days, can you get on it, say, oh 
well, we are not ready this week. Can we go next week?
    Senator Risch. I appreciate that. I suspect that is the 
exception as opposed to the rule, that when the people say they 
are ready to go I would suspect most of them are really, really 
ready to go.
    Mr. McKeon. Yes, you would think, but people have big 
extended families.
    Senator Risch. Sure.
    Mr. McKeon. They have roots in the country and they are 
human beings. They change their minds.
    Senator Risch. Right, I get that.
    The number--like I said, as we surveyed the offices we find 
about 16,000 cases that have been referred to your department 
and I got to tell you, I have people that are personal friends 
that have been working on flights out of there and they just 
are not getting the help.
    I mean, they are being told they have got--the department 
has got every excuse there is as to why they cannot get the 
people out of there and these are people that that helped. 
Every office, I think, in the Senate got calls from veterans 
from over there and other people who have worked over there and 
said, look, here is a list.
    These people went the extra mile for us. They are going to 
die, their families are going to die, if we do not get them out 
of there, and there just is not anything happening.
    I understand the leadership of that office has changed two 
or three times, but I will tell you, as the person in charge of 
management, I would strenuously urge that you personally take a 
look at that and see if you cannot move that on because I am 
telling you, this is not a partisan issue by any stretch of the 
imagination. This is a bipartisan issue, and I know that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are as frustrated as we 
are that we have left behind some pretty bad messes that we 
should have cleaned up and have not yet.
    I would urge you to take a personal look at that. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to speak to it 
if you would give me a minute, Mr. Chairman, but if you do not, 
I can catch up with Senator Risch later on this issue.
    Senator Risch. Okay. Could we hear from him?
    The Chairman. If you want to respond for a moment.
    Mr. McKeon. I will speak briefly. I have followed this 
pretty closely, Senator Risch, and meet with Beth Jones, who is 
the head of our team working on these issues now.
    The biggest obstacle right now to getting people out of 
Afghanistan is the Taliban, which keeps changing its mind about 
what the rules are in permitting people to depart, but we are 
working, first instance, trying to get Americans out and green 
card holders, but also people who worked with us, including 
people who worked with U.S. Embassy, and trying to get some 
regular flow of people out of Kabul and holding the Taliban to 
their commitment to permit freedom to travel.
    Some of the charter groups that I think you alluded to, 
many of them have been working out of flights out of Mazar-i-
Sharif where we had a much harder time getting fidelity on the 
manifests.
    We have had issues of stowaways on the planes or the flight 
crews coming into Al Udeid in Qatar wanting to stay there and 
not go back. Most of the flights out of Mazar want to come to 
the base in Qatar so we have an agreement with Qatar if these 
planes come these people are likely coming to the United 
States. We are not going to leave them there in Qatar. We need 
to get a better fidelity on the manifests and that has been a 
huge challenge.
    I will give you one example. Early on in this process there 
was a flight that was being organized and we were told there 
were about 10 or 12 Americans and 200 or so Afghans. We checked 
the passport records and validated that, yes, there were seven 
or eight American citizens on the list, and then we called them 
and most of them were in the United States. They were not in 
Afghanistan.
    Just drilling down and really understanding who is getting 
on that flight because we have nobody there on the ground in 
Mazar, because once they get to Qatar we own them.
    So I understand the frustration. We have been working very 
closely with a consortium of veterans groups about this, but we 
are working it hard every day, I can tell you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Deputy Secretary McKeon, for 
being here this morning and for your willingness to respond to 
our questions.
    I know you have offered to sit down with me on the Havana 
syndrome attacks, also known as anomalous health incidents, but 
I would be remiss if I did not raise some of my concerns today 
at this hearing because I continue to be disappointed by the 
State Department's response, even though I have heard from both 
you and Secretary Blinken that you are committed to ensuring 
that people who have been affected are--get the medical care 
they need.
    What I am still hearing from victims is that that is not 
happening always, and so there is, clearly, a disconnect 
between what is happening at the top levels of the State 
Department and how people are being treated, in some cases.
    Let me ask you a couple of questions. First of all, 
Ambassador Spratlen, who was designated at the Department to be 
the point person on this, left in September. I think it has 
been about 40 days since she has been gone, and the Secretary 
said that he was committed to ensuring that someone would 
replace her.
    Do you have any sense of when that is going to happen? Is 
there a protocol that is provided to all of our embassy 
personnel, all of our ambassadors, for how to treat reports of 
these kinds of attacks and get people medical care?
    Mr. McKeon. Yes, thank you, Senator. On Ambassador 
Spratlen, she performed great service and we were sorry to see 
her go. I expect the Secretary to make an announcement about a 
replacement in the next day or two.
    In terms of protocols, so when an officer at post reports 
an incident, they are instructed to either report it to the 
medical unit or the diplomatic security, the Regional Security 
Office, and both of those offices have a standard protocol.
    The RSO has a questionnaire that the officer fills out and 
then that is reported back to Washington, and then the medical 
officer, whether it is a doctor or a nurse, has what is called 
a triage tool and, similarly, it is a medical assessment of 
various things, but they are all being asked the same questions 
so we can try to have consistency in the data.
    Then if their symptoms are serious enough, some officers 
are medevaced and back here in Washington, we have recently 
organized a contract with Johns Hopkins University Medical 
System to get people into care quickly if they need it there. I 
know there has been interest in getting folks in Walter Reed, 
but that is not typically a fast process and the Hopkins 
contract allows us to get people more immediate care.
    Senator Shaheen. I have had the opportunity to question a 
number of the ambassadorial nominees about this issue and 
whether they had been briefed by the State Department, and I do 
not think there was anybody who said they had actually been 
briefed.
    Mr. McKeon. That surprises me, Senator. I have spoken--we 
have this course called the Ambassadorial Seminar for nominees 
for positions, whether they have been confirmed or not, out at 
the Foreign Service Institute.
    I spoke to the class in August, as did Ambassador Spratlen. 
I spoke about a lot of issues but I touched on this issue, and 
there is a class going on right now. I am speaking to them next 
week about this issue. Whoever told you that skipped the class 
that day, which would not be surprising because they do not go 
to the class every day.
    Senator Shaheen. Okay. Well, this was 2 weeks ago, and so I 
am glad to hear that, that there is an ongoing. Is there a 
written protocol that people are provided? You mentioned the 
questions that----
    Mr. McKeon. There have been several guidance cables to 
posts around the world, both classified and unclassified, about 
what to do, how to report, emphasizing that there is no stigma 
for those who wish to report.
    Both the Diplomat Security Service and the Medical Bureau 
have done their own messages to their individual workforces. I 
think Dr. Padget, the head of the Medical Bureau, did a town 
hall on this issue within the last couple of weeks. There is a 
lot of communication, both to the workforce at large but also 
to the units who have to deal with these issues directly.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    As we are talking about Afghanistan and, going forward, 
obviously, what is happening to women and girls there is a 
critical concern for, I think, probably all Americans.
    The Secretary has said that he expected to appoint someone 
to coordinate a strategy around how to respond on Afghan women 
and girls. That person has not yet been appointed.
    Do you expect that to happen soon and can you tell us who 
that is so that we can work with whoever is appointed to 
address concerns that we are hearing both from Afghans but also 
thinking about how we can be helpful in the United States?
    Mr. McKeon. I know that is still the Secretary's intention. 
I confess, I have lost the thread on where we are on selecting 
a person. When I come see you next week to talk about AHI I 
will have a better answer.
    Senator Shaheen. Good. Thank you. Hopefully, you will have 
the name of a person----
    Mr. McKeon. Even better.
    Senator Shaheen. --to share with us.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Deputy Secretary McKeon, thank you for 
appearing today and appreciate the chance to ask you a few 
questions. I begin by saying something that I think we can all 
agree with or almost all of us can, which was the Afghanistan 
withdrawal was a very sad day in American history and in human 
history for many, many reasons.
    At this stage, one of the things we are all concerned about 
is the number of people who are working with us and working 
with our military, who are fighting for our values, who are 
nonetheless still in Afghanistan.
    I understand that an Afghanistan task force was created to 
help get these individuals out, but I am interested in 
understanding how many people are associated with that task 
force. Is it effectively getting people out? What is the state 
of that work now?
    Mr. McKeon. Yes. Thank you, Senator Romney, and I concur in 
what you said at the beginning, and I know that there was a 
Marine from Utah who lost his life on August 26. As the 
Secretary said, we have a special relationship with the Marines 
and a lot of State Department officers knew some of those 
Marines from service in other posts.
    We have a task force--it is led by former Ambassador Beth 
Jones--that is looking across the continuum of how we are 
trying to get people out, which is how we are helping to 
facilitate travel out of Afghanistan at what we call the 
transit points, or lily pads, at military bases now in the 
Middle East, primarily, and then bringing them to the United 
States for resettlement activities.
    The current--there has been some turnover in the task force 
as people have gone back to their jobs and then we issued a new 
call for recruits. Recently, we put out a department wide call 
for people to come work on the task force and 140 or so people 
raised their hands.
    I will have to get you the precise number of people working 
on it in the Department. There are also people working out at 
the military bases on the resettlement work and at the bases in 
the Middle East who are either State or USAID people.
    The first priority right now, as I said, is American 
citizens and green card holders, but we are also working to 
evacuate Afghans at-risk and other people closely associated 
with the United States Government.
    There is a number of applicants for the Special Immigrant 
Visa Program who already have a visa. They were issued a visa 
back in August, or we have given them what we call an 
electronic visa. We are also working to try to arrange flights 
for them.
    Senator Romney. Deputy Secretary, I would just note that, 
at least speaking for myself, if there is need for additional 
resources, financial resources to provide additional personnel 
to speed this process, I would, for one, be very anxious to 
provide that support.
    I think we have a moral responsibility and an American 
commitment to help those who helped us and leave no one behind, 
not just our own citizens but others who fought alongside us.
    Mr. McKeon. Yes. Thank you.
    Senator Romney. On a very different area, many of us have a 
great deal of concern about what China's ambitions might be 
with regards to Taiwan, one, because of the people there who 
have enjoyed a freedom from the heavy hand of the Communist 
Chinese Party, but also for our own interests, particularly 
given the fact, for instance, that the great majority of the 
world's semiconductors are manufactured in Taiwan and this 
would be an attractive get for the Chinese Communist Party.
    What is or what can the State Department be doing to make 
sure that China understands what the consequence would be--I am 
not talking about military consequence--but the consequence 
would be of them taking an effort, a military effort, to grab 
Taiwan?
    Mr. McKeon. Senator, this is not something I work on very 
often, but I am familiar with the general contours of our 
Taiwan policy.
    As you know, it is grounded in the Taiwan Relations Act and 
our commitment to Taiwan's self-defense and providing their 
legitimate self-defense needs, which those arms sales go 
through the State Department approval process.
    I think, politically, it is a broader campaign that we do 
directly with the Chinese but with other governments to make it 
clear that coercion by China vis-a-vis Taiwan or, God forbid, 
the efforts to seek to change the status quo by nonmilitary 
means will not be accepted by the United States and the 
international community.
    Senator Romney. I guess the term ``will not be accepted 
by''--I would love to have that expanded upon, not necessarily 
right here in this hearing but to make it very clear to China 
what the consequence would be.
    I mean, oftentimes, we put in place sanctions on people who 
do things we do not like. The problem is the things we do not 
like have already occurred when those sanctions are put in 
place.
    I would love to be very clear to the Chinese Communist 
Party about what would occur not just on the part of the United 
States but of our allies and friends around the world were they 
to take kinetic action against the people of Taiwan, and think 
that that specificity might be helpful in helping them 
calculate just exactly what the cost, and I am talking about 
the diplomatic and economic cost might be were they to take 
such effort.
    Thank you, Deputy Secretary. I appreciate your 
participation today.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Secretary McKeon, welcome. Thank you, 
again, for your leadership at the State Department.
    Let me first follow up on a point that Senator Risch 
brought up in regards to Afghanistan and the procedures being 
used to help those that are vulnerable in Afghanistan, whether 
they are U.S. citizens, whether they are eligible for our 
special visas, or whether they are those at risk because of the 
Taliban government.
    I sent a letter to the State Department about a week ago 
and asked for a response before this hearing, and I have not 
gotten one, in regards to the apparent lack of transparency and 
openness in individual cases that we have.
    During the withdrawal, the evacuation, we had a pretty open 
process with the State Department on individual cases. That 
seemed to have changed once our presence was no longer in 
Afghanistan.
    I just really wanted to point out I was disappointed I did 
not get a response, but I do look forward to getting that 
response and following up with you as to how you are going to 
be working with our individual offices on the still significant 
amount of inquiries we get in regards to vulnerable people that 
are still remaining in Afghanistan.
    Mr. McKeon. Senator, I am told by our head of Legislative 
Affairs sitting behind me that the letter should have been 
delivered this morning. I looked at a draft last night. If you 
do not have it, we will make sure that you get it after this 
hearing.
    Senator Cardin. I thank you for that.
    First, I am very supportive of the announcements being made 
today, the five areas that you mentioned for significant reform 
within the State Department. I agree with Chairman Menendez's 
initial statements of how, over a long period of time, we have 
seen a decline in support for our Foreign Service officers in 
our diplomacy mission.
    So I do think it needs to be reinvigorated and I think the 
outline that you announced today is the right way forward for 
us to have those discussions. I do encourage us to have a 
robust interaction as these plans are being implemented because 
we are, certainly, going to have some comments. We may not be 
in total agreement with every move, but we, certainly, want to 
work together to achieve the objectives that you have set out.
    Let me mention an area that gives me great concern, and 
that is we have seen in regards to the training of our 
diplomatic service--Foreign Service people--that we have cut 
back pretty dramatically in their ability to get the type of 
training necessary to carry out those missions.
    We have also seen a decline within the mission's capacity 
to deal with the core values that make America the strong 
nation that it is in promoting democratic institutions and 
advancing human rights and dealing with anti-corruption 
measures in countries.
    We just do not have the capacity within our missions to 
carry this out and we do not have the trained Foreign Service 
officers in order to advance these core mission objectives.
    We, in Congress, are looking at following President Biden's 
leadership to advance these values but we need to have in 
country the capacity to deliver on that. Will you just share 
with us the priorities of making sure that we have the training 
resources available for our Foreign Service officers as well as 
the capacity in mission to deal with advancing these values?
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Senator Cardin. On the first issue, 
and it is mentioned in my longer statement for the record--I do 
not think I hit it in the oral statement--we are trying to 
build in what Secretary Powell first set a vision for, which is 
a training float. That is, a sufficient number of people in the 
workforce so that people can go off and get training and we do 
not lose our capability at missions and in Washington.
    We have a training float now, to some degree, because 
people go take language training for 6-12 months, but we need 
to build in a bigger cadre of people so that we can have that 
training and professional development floats so people can go 
on interagency rotations or even go outside the Government for 
a rotation.
    In the '22 budget we have asked for 500 new positions. We 
have been ambitious in our submission to OMB for the '23 budget 
to try to continue to build on that, but, obviously, that is a 
decision that would still need to be made.
    Then with regard to democracy and human rights and the core 
values the President has embraced as central to his foreign 
policy, there is broad guidance to our missions and our 
workforce about how to speak to these issues and amplify them.
    The President is hosting a Summit for Democracy later this 
year, which will be the first of a couple.
    In terms of the training for these officers to carry these 
messages, I will have to get back to you on exactly what we do 
at the Foreign Service Institute. I know there are some courses 
on human rights but I am not familiar with all the details.
    Senator Cardin. I would just underscore the summit. We all 
support the summit being held and the President's leadership on 
that. There will be countries participating in this summit that 
have challenges in regards to current trends on democracy. I 
hope that we are very direct in our messaging about the 
importance of not backsliding on democratic principles.
    Then lastly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to support your 
comments in regards to diversity and I would hope that the 
State Department would work with us, keep us informed as to the 
strategies they are using in order to make sure that our State 
Department workforce represents our country and the diversity 
of our country.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I understand Senator Young is with us virtually.
    Senator Young, are you with us virtually?
    Senator Young. I am. Yes, sir. Can you hear me?
    The Chairman. Yes, we can. Go ahead.
    Senator Young. All right. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. McKeon, I wish we could spend this hearing looking at 
long-term strategic resourcing issues for the State Department. 
I wish we had the luxury of rethinking the State Department, of 
evaluating new horizons of diplomatic efforts throughout the 
world. I especially wish we could discuss how we are shifting 
our focus to Asia to deal with the growing threats to national 
security from a rising China.
    Instead, we must first attend to this Administration's 
suboptimal withdrawal from Afghanistan, its careless failure to 
treat allies with respect to its self-inflicted wounds that 
have sapped our nation of vital resources at a critical time in 
our nation's history.
    I want to start with a very simple yes or no question, sir. 
Has our withdrawal from Afghanistan freed up resources at the 
State Department to focus on other strategic priorities in Asia 
such as the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party? Yes or 
no, sir.
    Mr. McKeon. We are spending fewer resources in Afghanistan, 
that is correct, though some of these resources may get 
rescinded in the appropriations process, but it is not a yes 
or----
    Senator Young. It has freed up resources to focus on other 
strategic priorities? We are not more focused on Afghanistan 
now than we were a couple of years ago?
    Mr. McKeon. In terms of our overall resources, that is 
correct. We still have a focus on the enduring commitment to 
Americans and green card holders and Afghans who have helped us 
to try to bring them out of the country.
    Yes, we have fewer department resources devoted to 
Afghanistan, but as I mentioned, we had a pretty big assistance 
pipeline, some of which probably will get rescinded in the 
appropriations process.
    Senator Young. All right.
    Mr. McKeon, let me follow up. I am a little skeptical only 
because I know the nature of the withdrawal has forced the 
department to pull officers and staff from Asia and throughout 
the world to stand up multiple crisis teams, and those teams 
are desperately trying to catch up to the crisis on the ground.
    We know diplomats have spent hundreds of hours reassuring 
allies and trying to repair our damaged reputation. That does 
not sound like a strategic refocusing.
    Can you provide specific numbers of personnel and funding 
that have been freed up as a result of the withdrawal, sir?
    Mr. McKeon. I will have to get you those numbers for the 
record, Senator Young. What I would say is we, certainly, have 
not lost focus on the importance of the generational challenge 
with regard to China and our Indo-Pacific strategy.
    I am unaware that we pulled officers from posts in Asia to 
work on the task force. We did have some consular officers at 
some of our bigger posts in the world, like in Manila and New 
Delhi, helping to call American citizens in August, but we have 
not pulled officers from missions in Asia and the Pacific.
    Senator Young. Okay. I will look forward to getting the 
specific numbers of personnel and funding that have been freed 
up as a result of the withdrawal.
    Mr. McKeon. I could also say, Senator, in both our '22 
budget and our pending '23 requests with OMB, as we look at 
increased personnel resources the number-one bureau, the bureau 
that is getting the most new positions, is the East Asia 
Pacific Bureau in both years.
    Senator Young. All right.
    Sir, how would you say that morale and confidence in State 
has been affected by our botched withdrawal from Afghanistan?
    Mr. McKeon. Well, Senator, with some humility, I am not 
sure I can speak to the morale of 75,000 people who work for 
the department. I would say that many people who stepped up to 
volunteer either to go to Afghanistan----
    Senator Young. I am going to just briefly respectfully 
interject. You are one of the leaders of the State Department. 
You are supposed to have your finger on the pulse of the morale 
of folks at the State Department.
    I think you can at least make a generalization about 
institutionally organizationally how folks on the line are 
doing right now so that we in Congress might fulfill our 
oversight responsibilities.
    Mr. McKeon. Senator, the people who volunteered to go to 
Kabul or who worked on the task force felt a strong sense of 
mission to help during the crisis and, I think, felt that they 
did the best they could and managed to save a lot of lives.
    I know people who came back from Kabul airport who are 
undergoing an emotional toll about the experience they went 
through. I think people--many people in the department served 
in Afghanistan over 20 years, so there is an array of emotions 
about what was invested and what was lost. I think--go ahead.
    Senator Young. I just--how can we possibly say in the end 
that the withdrawal has left us better equipped diplomatically 
to face other challenges? I will just end with that question.
    Mr. McKeon. I think in a broad sense, Senator, Afghanistan, 
over the last--at least the last decade was--we were investing 
substantial sums in human resources, both at the Defense 
Department and the State Department and USAID, which was, in 
some respects, an opportunity cost.
    I remember in the Obama administration in which I served 
President Obama constantly asking the question, what am I 
getting for $20 billion to $40 billion a year and what is the 
opportunity cost of that?
    Ultimately, the strategic shift away from Afghanistan, 
allowing us to focus on the priority you started with, which is 
the challenge of China, will be to our national benefit.
    Senator Young. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Secretary McKeon.
    Mr. Chair, I have a thought that I kind of maybe wanted to 
direct to the committee, to the leadership of the committee, a 
concern of mine.
    In discussions about Afghanistan in this committee and the 
Armed Services Committee there is analysis, as there should be, 
about the withdrawal and was it planned correctly.
    I have not yet in any of my committees, and I am not aware 
of it really happening in the Senate, of significant 
discussions in committee hearings about maybe the most pressing 
issue with respect to the Afghanistan withdrawal.
    We have brought tens of thousands of Afghans safely into 
the United States. They are in New Jersey. They are in 
Virginia. They are in New Mexico. They are in Indiana. They are 
in Wisconsin.
    I have visited two of the sites in Virginia. Quantico has 
about 5,000 Afghans on its base right now. Fort Lee has about 
2,000. Fort Pickett has about 10,000. I actually think the 
biggest marker of the success or failure of the Afghan 
evacuation is going to be the work that we do as a nation to 
help these families transition into being successful parts of 
American society.
    My worry is I am not hearing that as a focus of committee 
discussion. Some of the resettlement effort is owned by the 
State Department. The DHS is now the lead agency on the effort.
    Most of the Afghans who are not SIVs, they are in a 
humanitarian parole situation that will need some adjustment at 
the end of a 2-year period and that would likely go through the 
Judiciary Committee.
    There is tremendous needs of the resettlement agencies. 
Those would likely be handled via Appropriations, but I am kind 
of wondering, from a Senate oversight of this critical mission, 
going forward, I would love it if this committee might have a 
hearing about the resettlement effort, looking forward, and 
what we are going to do for these families, or a number of the 
committees doing it together because I think this is absolutely 
critical.
    When I went to Fort Lee at the end of August right at the 
beginning of the evacuation, the plan at that time--and 
families were being told this--is that they might be on a 
military base for 10 days to 2 weeks.
    When I went to Quantico last Monday, a week ago this past 
Monday, the families were being told they might be there for 3 
to 4 weeks. There were 5,000 Afghans on that base. They were 
letting 50 depart that day, and I just did my math. Okay. Fifty 
depart every day that is 100 days. That is 3 or 4 months, not 3 
or 4 weeks.
    It is all depending upon the resettlement agencies' ability 
to find jobs and housing, finding jobs in a tight labor market. 
I had a barbecue restaurant in Richmond call me the other day 
and say, I want to hire some Afghans because if I cannot hire 
Afghans I am not able to hire anybody.
    There are some market conditions right now that could make 
a resettlement effort may be easier than it would be at a time 
when the unemployment rate is high, but I am just worried in 
the discussions about Afghanistan that we have had beginning in 
late August to now I do not see a kind of organized discussion 
with a big spotlight on what do we need to do to successfully 
enable tens of thousands of Afghans to resettle and lead 
productive lives.
    Again, I do not know whether the Foreign Relations 
Committee is the right venue for that. Would it be HSGAC or 
would it be Judiciary or would it be Appropriations?
    I am feeling a compelling need that we should be about it 
because that work is going to be so tough, but the prospects of 
it being successful, ultimately, might be the most memorable 
thing about the end of the Afghan war.
    I do not know if you have thoughts about that. I am just 
kind of throwing it out there. I hope this committee might be 
able to take up this matter maybe in tandem with other 
committees.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the Senator for his 
observations. I agree with you. We have 9,000 in New Jersey. I 
visited them at McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, and the process, as I 
understand it, one of the--it does not seem to be the labor 
opportunities. That seems to be a real opportunity, as you 
point out. It is the housing element that seems to be a 
challenge across the country.
    To the extent that the committee has jurisdiction, I am 
happy to consider it, and to the extent that it exceeds our 
jurisdiction we are happy to engage with other committees to 
see if we can have either a joint hearing or at least create 
attention to what we do, moving forward.
    Senator Kaine. I very much appreciate that. I have one 
question for you.
    Mr. McKeon. I am happy to speak to this briefly, if you 
wish, Senator Kaine, but I do not want to chew up your time.
    Senator Kaine. Yes. Let me just ask you one question. The 
State Department has a Health Incidence Response Task Force 
looking at the Havana syndrome issues. The previous leader of 
that task force left on September 23 and, as far as I know, 
State has not appointed a new person to lead that task force.
    If I am correct about that, can you tell me that you will 
get a good director running that task force ASAP?
    Mr. McKeon. As I told Senator Shaheen, the Secretary is 
expected to make an announcement about a new coordinator in the 
next day or two.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    On August 19, President Biden vowed that he would get every 
American out of Afghanistan before withdrawing U.S. forces. He 
stated, ``Americans understand we are going to try and get it 
done before August 31.'' The President went on to say, ``And if 
there are American citizens left behind, we are going to stay 
until we get them out.''
    This Saturday, I attended the funeral services and memorial 
service for the life of Rylee McCollum, one of 13 of those 
soldiers. He was a U.S. Marine. A thousand people turned out in 
Wyoming to honor his life, a life he gave at the airport in 
Kabul.
    I am talking to you. Would you please pay attention?
    Mr. McKeon. I am listening, Senator. I am looking at my 
notes on this very issue.
    Senator Barrasso. The next day, the President reiterated a 
point, stating, ``Let me be clear. Any American who wants to 
come home, we will get you home.'' He is President of the 
United States.
    Well, he did not keep his word. On August 30, the U.S. 
military evacuation ended with the last five planes leaving 
Kabul without a single American onboard. The Biden 
administration left hundreds of Americans and thousands of 
Afghan partners behind enemy lines.
    The Administration seems in deep denial, greatly 
miscalculating how many U.S. citizens they left behind. One or 
the other, deep denial or great miscalculation.
    On September 13, Secretary Blinken said there were fewer 
than 200 American citizens in Afghanistan who wanted to leave.
    Yesterday, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl 
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that there 
were 450 American citizens still in Afghanistan. He said 196 
Americans were ready to leave Afghanistan. He also stated that 
since September 1, the U.S. Government has helped facilitate 
the departure of 234 U.S. citizens and 144 permanent residents.
    Today you testified to a different number. It has been 
almost 2 months since the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan. There 
are still American citizens trying to get home to get to safety 
still behind enemy lines.
    With no U.S. presence on the ground, what mechanism are you 
using to ensure the safe evacuation of Americans that the Biden 
administration left behind in Afghanistan?
    Mr. McKeon. Senator Barrasso, we are working every day to 
try to bring out the Americans who wish to depart. We are 
working with a couple of airline companies that are willing to 
go into the Kabul airport to bring people out on chartered 
aircraft. There is not normal commercial aircraft service right 
now at the Kabul airport. We have some flights that we expect 
to go this week to bring out several dozen Americans.
    Senator Barrasso. Several dozen. When do you believe all 
Americans who want to leave Afghanistan will be evacuated?
    Mr. McKeon. The number, as I said earlier, of people ready 
to depart is over 200. On the current pace, depending if we 
continue to have success with these charter flights, I think 
all of these people who say they are ready to depart will be 
offered an opportunity to depart in the next couple of weeks.
    Senator Barrasso. We have Americans still trapped in 
Afghanistan. What actions is this Administration taking to help 
secure the safety and the wellbeing of these American citizens?
    Mr. McKeon. We are talking to the Taliban in Doha about 
their commitment to permit freedom to travel, particularly 
American citizens, and we are working with, as I said, a couple 
of airlines who are willing to go into the Kabul airport.
    They have agents on the ground who are checking the 
manifests, ensuring that people who are coming onto the planes 
have the right documents, and it is something our task force, 
led by Ambassador Beth Jones, is working on hourly.
    Senator Barrasso. The Taliban has taken over Afghanistan. 
They are a foreign terrorist organization. There is increased 
insecurity, movement restrictions, threats posed to civilians. 
Afghanistan is in crisis.
    No U.S. civilian diplomat or military presence in the 
country other than those being held. The Administration wants 
to continue to provide foreign assistance, including economic 
support funds, to Afghanistan.
    During his testimony before the House Subcommittee on 
National Security, the Special Inspector General for 
Afghanistan Reconstruction stated, ``A reduced U.S. civilian 
and military presence in Afghanistan among a deteriorating 
security environment could create new challenges for conducting 
effective oversight of U.S.-funded grants, programs, and 
contracts for reconstruction work.''
    The question is, given the fact that there is now no U.S. 
diplomatic or military presence in Afghanistan, is there any 
way to ensure U.S. taxpayer resources will be used 
appropriately and actually go to the intended recipients?
    Mr. McKeon. Senator, the primary assistance we are 
providing in Afghanistan is humanitarian assistance through 
nongovernmental organizations, U.N. agencies like the World 
Food Programme.
    All of these organizations have long experience working in 
challenging environments where there has been civil war. We 
have confidence in that system, but if we see anomalies or 
money seeping off to the Taliban we will stop the programs. We 
have a statutory provision you have given us that says no 
funding to the Taliban.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Before I recognize Senator Murphy, I just have to say I 
wish we had had the alarm bells sound when President Trump made 
a deal with the Taliban that told them with a date certain--we 
will leave by this date--that released thousands of Taliban 
prisoners to the Taliban that only augmented their fighting 
force, that ultimately, dramatically reduced our troop presence 
before this Administration took over, and that got none of the 
commitments from the Taliban cemented before all those actions 
were taken. That set the stage.
    I do not excuse anybody for execution of what they decided, 
but it set the stage.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso has left, but it takes a lot of guts to 
come down to this committee and lecture the Administration 
about the conduct of foreign policy when right now Senate 
Republicans are using extraordinary powers on the Senate floor 
to deny this Administration the personnel they need to conduct 
this policy.
    Senator Barrasso is talking about whether or not U.S. 
taxpayer dollars are going to be effectively administered in 
Afghanistan. I just came from the floor trying to get approval 
for two totally noncontroversial USAID administrators whose job 
it is to oversee the expenditure of U.S. dollars in places in 
and around Afghanistan, and we were denied the ability to move 
two nominees that under any other administration would have 
gone by voice vote.
    The Assistant Secretary that oversees Afghanistan blocked. 
The Assistant Secretary that oversees refugee policy directly 
relevant to Afghanistan blocked by Republicans.
    So spare me the righteous indignation about whether or not 
this Administration is conducting foreign policy according to 
your priorities when you are at the same time denying the 
personnel necessary to protect this nation.
    Never before, never before, has a minority party gone to 
this length to stop a President's diplomatic team from being 
put in place. President Trump by this time had nearly 20 
ambassadors that were confirmed, 17 of them by voice vote. This 
President has four ambassadors in place.
    It is like criticizing your buddy for not fighting back 
after you just tied his hands behind his back.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to talk to you about the impact of 
not having ambassadors. We have great charges out there. They 
are fantastic. They are capable, but they are not ambassadors.
    In my travels around the world representing this committee 
and this Congress, there is a difference when you have an 
ambassador. There is a level of public diplomacy that an 
ambassador can engage in on behalf of the United States.
    There is, frankly, a level of meetings that can be secured 
in some countries only by an ambassador very different than 
what a charge can get.
    Can you just share with the committee what the impact is, 
the practical impact, of not having ambassadors and maybe, 
further, the practical impact of not having assistant 
secretaries in place to oversee our diplomacy?
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Senator Murphy. You have put your 
finger on a very important issue that concerns us. As you say, 
we have very talented officers serving as charges d'affaires in 
dozens of countries around the world, but they were selected to 
be deputy chief of mission--they were not selected to be chiefs 
of mission--and usually in the progression in the Foreign 
Service that is a job you hold before you get to be an 
ambassador.
    People are doing what we would call a stretch assignment. 
Many of them are performing very well in leading their missions 
but there are substantial costs. One you put your finger on, 
which is in some countries the government at the highest level 
will not receive an American representative unless they are the 
ambassador.
    We are not getting the meetings we need to have and having 
the influence that we want to have in that country.
    Secondly, it is an interagency mission. There are people 
from across the Government serving in our embassies. Having an 
accredited and confirmed ambassador leading that mission really 
makes a difference, having somebody who is empowered by the 
President and the Secretary.
    Then in Washington with assistant secretaries they drive 
the policy innovation. We cannot all do it from the seventh 
floor, and having Senate-confirmed people recommended by the 
Secretary, chosen by the President, it makes a big difference. 
The acting people we had in place were terrific but they--I 
think some of them after the last 4 years were not used to 
being empowered and not all of them always took the initiative.
    Having the folks that we have chosen in places made a 
difference. I can see it already with some of the assistant 
secretaries who have come in in the last few weeks.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you for that answer.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for being so vigilant about trying 
to move forward the President's national security team. I also 
know this is, largely, a crisis being created by one member of 
this committee but it does seem to be spreading.
    I was just on the floor asking for these two USAID 
administrators, and it was not Senator Cruz objecting. It was, 
in this case, Senator Marshall. So this remains a crisis that I 
hope this committee can get its head wrapped around.
    Lastly, just for the record, if I could send you some 
information on a bill that I am introducing today with Senator 
Cornyn on promoting more subnational diplomacy, trying to help 
the department organize mayors and first selectmen and 
governors to be able to represent the United States abroad. I 
know this is something you care deeply about and believe in.
    My time has expired, but I would love to continue to work 
with this committee and the Administration on trying to 
buttress our official diplomatic corps with more Americans who 
want to represent the good things about America abroad.
    Mr. McKeon. I will be happy to look at that and talk to you 
about it, Senator. This is of great interest to the Secretary.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
speak to Senator Murphy's point and come to Senator Barrasso's 
defense.
    With all due respect, Senator Murphy, this is about 
priorities. This is about how the Administration sets 
priorities. It is about how Senator Schumer sets priorities in 
terms of how he utilizes the time on the Senate floor.
    Since I have been here, I have seen the Board of Governors 
of the Postal Service seated, that time has been utilized to do 
that. Since I have been here, I have seen term appointees of 
the previous Administration pushed out of their positions, 
again, leaving these departments unsupervised.
    I myself was put through 30 hours of cloture before I could 
be named U.S. Ambassador to Japan. This has to do with a set of 
priorities and how floor time is utilized.
    I would like to turn to you now, Deputy Secretary McKeon. 
As you know, the Government of Israel strongly opposes 
President Biden's plan to reopen a U.S. Consulate for the 
Palestinians in Jerusalem, a controversial plan that would 
establish a second competing U.S. mission in Israel's capital 
city.
    The Trump administration followed the law, namely, the 
Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, by recognizing Jerusalem as 
Israel's eternal and undivided capital--that happened in 2017--
and then by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem 
in 2018.
    The Trump administration also closed the U.S. Consulate to 
the Palestinians and merged its functions into the U.S. 
Embassy's Palestinian Affairs Unit under the chief of mission's 
authority of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
    President Biden's proposal to open a second U.S. mission in 
Jerusalem would begin to reverse the recognition of Jerusalem 
and it would divide Israel's eternal and undivided capital 
city.
    Yesterday, I led a group of 36 senators to introduce a bill 
that would protect America's full and faithful implementation 
of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and it would ensure that 
there is only one U.S. mission, a U.S. Embassy to Israel that 
exists in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem.
    Deputy Secretary McKeon, I just want to confirm something 
on the record. Is it your understanding that under U.S. and 
international law the Government of Israel would have to 
provide its affirmative consent before the United States could 
reopen the U.S. Consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem? Or 
does the Biden administration believe it can move forward to 
establish a second U.S. mission in the Israel capital city of 
Jerusalem without the consent of the Government of Israel?
    Mr. McKeon. Senator, that is my understanding, that we need 
the consent of the host government to open any diplomatic 
facility.
    Senator Hagerty. That is my understanding as well, yet I do 
not understand that is the intention of this Administration. I 
appreciate you being on the record clarifying that that is a 
requirement.
    I know this is not necessarily your decision. You would be 
an implementer here, but the State Department should know that 
Congress has enacted laws that mandate that the United States 
should recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital 
of Israel and that it shall take all diplomatic steps to 
effectuate this recognition.
    Opening a second U.S. mission in Israel's capital city of 
Jerusalem will start to reverse this process.
    My next question, Deputy Secretary McKeon----
    Mr. McKeon. I would say, briefly, Senator, there is no 
intention to move the U.S. Embassy from Jerusalem.
    Senator Hagerty. I want to make certain that is the case. 
We voted 97 to 3 to make certain that that was the case.
    Deputy Secretary McKeon, I want to focus on the bipartisan 
issue of modernizing the State Department for the 21st century. 
As a former diplomat, I am personally committed to this issue.
    In July, Senator Cardin and I held a subcommittee hearing 
on this topic, and during that hearing former Deputy Secretary 
Stephen Biegun said, and I quote, ``Change is desperately 
urgently needed if the Department is to continue to serve the 
interest of the United States of America and the interest of 
the people in the employ of the Department of State.''
    It has been 41 years since the Congress last passed 
legislation on this issue and I believe it is now time for 
Congress to modernize the Foreign Service Act of 1980. I hope 
to work with Senator Cardin and the other members of the 
committee on this issue.
    Deputy Secretary McKeon, do you agree with former Deputy 
Secretary Biegun that change is, ``desperately and urgently 
needed'' at the State Department?
    Mr. McKeon. The modernization agenda that the Secretary is 
announcing this morning is precisely because we know that we 
have a historic moment where we need to enable the Department 
for the challenges of the next several decades.
    Senator Hagerty. I am glad we agree on that.
    Do you commit to working with this committee as well as the 
subcommittee on State Department management to reform the State 
Department, including testifying on this subject when 
necessary?
    Mr. McKeon. Yes, of course.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. I understand from your 
testimony that State is conducting a review on cybersecurity, 
digital policy, and emerging technologies. I also understand 
that you are contemplating a new cyber office that is going to 
report to Deputy Secretary Sherman. I hope to work with you and 
the Department to ensure that a highly capable and technically 
proficient nominee is appointed to that position.
    Thank you.
    Mr. McKeon. We welcome your suggestions. Yes, we are 
announcing a new bureau on cyberspace and digital policy.
    Senator Hagerty. I think it is critically important.
    Mr. McKeon. We will need to work with this committee and 
other committees to work through the notification process and 
get your consent.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin, I think you----
    Senator Cardin. I just wanted to acknowledge, Secretary 
McKeon, I did get your letter this morning and I just had a 
chance to read it. I just want to acknowledge for the record 
that the letter was----
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Senator. I am sorry it took until 
this morning.
    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have one final question for 
you and then we will adjourn.
    I applaud the recent announcement of the new Cyber Bureau 
and the technology Special Envoy as well as the work that the 
State Department has already done to center recent diplomatic 
efforts on technological cooperation.
    The question for me, including the concerns I have about IT 
security, repeated cyber intrusions of the Department's 
networks and systems, what steps are you planning to take to 
ensure that the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy and the 
Special Envoy for critical and emerging technologies will be 
successful in achieving their missions?
    Particularly, how do you plan to clarify the distinct 
missions between the Bureau and the technology Special Envoy? 
How do you intend to de-conflict their objectives and 
strategies?
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Senator. We think there is enough 
space for both because of the different work priorities that we 
expect them to undertake. The Cyber and Digital Policy Bureau 
will focus on international cybersecurity policy, digital 
freedom, and international digital policy, working with the 
International Telecommunications Union and trusted telecom 
issues and the like.
    The Special Envoy on critical and emerging technologies 
will focus in the first instance on issues like artificial 
intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, making sure 
that our engagement with both these sectors, the rest of the 
Government, and technology partners is advanced and in the 
right place.
    Part of the reason to have both of these entities reporting 
to Deputy Secretary Sherman directly, at least for the first 
year, is to ensuring harmony in their missions and that they 
are not stepping all over each other.
    The Chairman. We look forward to your continued engagement 
with the committee as you create this reorganization and 
structure and but we applaud--this is an area we think is 
incredibly important.
    Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
echo the points that you are making and say that it is 
critically important that in these positions we get people with 
the right technical proficiency.
    The evolution of these technologies is moving rapidly and I 
think it is going to be critically important that we get people 
that are deeply trained and immersed in this technology and the 
evolution that is underway and, again, we look forward to 
working with you closely on selecting those nominees.
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Senator. One of the reasons we 
created two separate entities rather than one large entity 
dealing with both is they are in some ways quite distinct and 
it is hard to find one person who is versed in both of these 
skill sets. That was part of the thinking.
    The Chairman. The record of this hearing will remain to the 
close of business tomorrow.
    With the thanks of the committee, this hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


Testimonies on the Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, Entered into the 
   Record on Behalf of Senator James E. Risch, Dated October 28, 2021

    Since today's hearing is also about the state of the State 
Department, we must address the Department's role in the hazardous 
withdrawal from Afghanistan.
    Despite the Administration's efforts to put Afghanistan in the 
rearview mirror, it remains a pressing national security concern for 
the Senate and the American people.
    On the issue of continued evacuations--in September, Secretary 
Blinken assured us that there were just 100 Americans remaining in 
Afghanistan that wished to depart. One hundred.
    Just last week, however, the team responsible for continued 
evacuations of Americans told us that they're working with over 170 
Americans who wish to depart from more than 360 who remain there. And 
the list is growing.
    I want to make note, and ask us to enter into the record, 
narratives my staff has collected from 25 Senate offices about the 
botched evacuations. It should be noted that this is a snapshot of just 
one quarter of the Senate's work to get people out.
    Data on Afghanistan evacuation requests from August 2021-October 
27, 2021 sent to the U.S. State Department from 25 Senate offices: 
Blackburn, Capito, Collins, Cotton, Crapo, Cruz, Daines, Fischer, 
Graham, Grassley, Hyde-Smith, Inhofe, Johnson, Lummis, Marshall, Risch, 
Romney, Rounds, Rubio, Sullivan, Thune, Tillis, Toomey, Wicker, and 
Young.

   The combined total of evacuation requests between the 25 
        offices is 16,688.

   Out of the 16,688 evacuees, we know of 110 who were 
        successfully evacuated out of Afghanistan to the United States 
        or to a regional third country.

   U.S. State Department was 99.3 percent non-responsive to 
        these members' requests.

    This is only a snapshot of the work Senate personal and committee 
offices have done to try to evacuate American citizens, lawful 
permanent residents (LPRs), Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders and 
applicants, and refugees from other at-risk groups such as local 
employees and contractors for the U.S. Government, journalists, and 
human rights advocates.
    We know that some offices bore an immense, lone responsibility to 
get Americans, SIV holders, LPRs, and Afghans at-risk out of the 
country as it fell to the Taliban. One Senate office described the lack 
of responsiveness from State:
Testimony No. 1
   From 25-30 August, I emailed [email protected] and 
        [email protected] multiple times for assistance with a family 
        outside of the gates of Hamid-Karzai International Airport. I 
        never received a specific response from [email protected] or 
        [email protected] about how to help those individuals, 
        even after I reported that the family had been severely beaten 
        by the Taliban, and even after I reported that one of the women 
        in our bus convoy had gone into labor. Two weeks later, I was 
        given the number to a State Department Afghan evacuation help 
        desk and asked how our people (who were receiving death threats 
        on their phones and being actively hunted by the Taliban) could 
        seek evacuation. I was told they should ``remain in place and 
        await further instructions.'' I have received no formal 
        guidance on how Special Immigrant Visa applicants and Priority-
        1/Priority-2 applicants might seek evacuation and despite the 
        State Department's assurances that they are working to 
        ``identify'' those who need evacuation, I have seen no guidance 
        from them on evacuation opportunities, other than commercial 
        flights for American citizens.
Testimony No. 2
   I submitted several American citizens, LPRs, and their 
        immediate family members for manifest consideration this week 
        with one group, and they were denied a place on the manifest. 
        If it is this difficult for American citizens and LPRs to 
        secure airlift, it will be impossible for SIV and P2 
        applicants. This means that they will remain in the country and 
        either: 1) their American friends will support them as long as 
        possible while they remain in hiding, or 2) they will attempt 
        to return to work at the risk of their own lives.

    The same Senate office describes the continued and arduous 
bureaucratic delays, resulting in life or death situations for American 
citizens and Afghans:
Testimony No. 3
   Meanwhile, flights have stalled due to diplomatic issues at 
        our lily pad countries. Last I heard, the United Arab Emirates' 
        Humanitarian City, which is where most flights are going, 
        contained approximately 9,000 refugees, and its capacity is 
        10,000. Some flights that have already been planned are not 
        being allowed into the United Arab Emirates because they need 
        to move people onward to the U.S. first, and this is not 
        happening quickly enough due to lack of consular support. 
        Another of our task forces, which sends its flights to Qatar, 
        has had to halt its operation due to a diplomatic holdup there. 
        We are always told that the State Department is working 
        negotiations and there may be a breakthrough any day, but I 
        have had a family in Mazar-i-Sharif waiting on a flight they 
        are manifested for almost a month.

    Another Senate office describes the grueling journey for American 
citizens through the streets of Kabul to the Airport, only to be turned 
away with no help from the United States Government:
Testimony No. 4
   During the NEO, a Pennsylvanian constituent, American 
        Citizen, and mother of two tried and failed to make it through 
        the streets of Kabul to the Hamid Karzai International Airport 
        (HKIA). She is an American Citizen who should have been given 
        priority to enter the gates of HKIA and onto a C-17 for 
        evacuation. While we she was waiting outside the gates, she was 
        teargassed, another time she nearly had her passport seized 
        from her and destroyed by a member of the Taliban who did not 
        want her to leave Afghanistan. On the day a suicide bomber made 
        it within range of HKIA, she was blocks away from the blast. 
        Ultimately, the only way she escaped Afghanistan was because a 
        veterans' group operating on the ground found her, protected 
        her, and put her on a private charter flight to Qatar on 
        September 10.
Testimony No. 5
   During the non-combatant evacuation operation, a 
        Pennsylvanian constituent, Legal Permanent Resident, tried to 
        make it to the Pakistani Embassy in Afghanistan to get a visa 
        prior to making the overland trip to Pakistan to escape. On his 
        travels to the Embassy, he was questioned by the Taliban about 
        his activity in the Embassy, to which he replied honestly. In 
        retaliation, the Taliban locked him in a dark room for several 
        hours. After begging for his life and to be let out, the 
        Taliban finally allowed him to leave to pray. Upon exiting the 
        room, he was beaten with their guns and suffered injuries. 
        Eventually, he was released to leave and received his visa from 
        the Embassy. Despite having a current U.S. K-1 visa foil in his 
        passport and an onward Pakistani visa, he had significant 
        difficulties in getting on a U.S. evacuation plane. He finally 
        paid $1400 USD to get on a charter flight from Hamid Karzai 
        International Airport to Islamabad, Pakistan on September 20, 
        2021.

    Caseworkers in my Twin Falls office described continued 
bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining basic guidance on movements and 
documentation, fundamental to the safety and security of American 
citizens, LPRs, and Afghans in Kabul during the NEO:
Testimony No. 6: Senator Risch
   After the fall of Kabul, the U.S. Embassy informed 
        stakeholders that all pending visas, passports, and 
        documentation for consular services had been destroyed. For a 
        pending LPR married to an Idaho constituent, this would have a 
        remarkable impact. On August 14, this refugee's visa to the 
        U.S. was issued by Embassy Kabul. On August 27, an evacuation 
        request was emailed after the notice of document disposal was 
        issued. The casework team emailed again on August 31 and 
        September 15 for further guidance but the State Department 
        provided none. On September 30, the Department informed the 
        casework team that the individuals would need to find a way out 
        of Afghanistan and transfer their case to another consular 
        section currently open. Again, the case was flagged for the 
        Department on October 6. On October 13, the Department 
        confirmed that the guidance had not changed and the individual 
        would need to find a way out of Afghanistan on their own, work 
        with another U.S. Embassy to have boarding foils and further 
        documentation issued, as well as the need to apply for a new 
        passport which the United States government cannot issue.

    An Idahoan details her harrowing journey to Afghanistan and her 
return home:
Testimony No. 7: Senator Risch
   From Katija Stjepovic, ``With Sen. Risch's help, woman 
        returns to Boise from Afghanistan,'' KTVB 7 News, Sept. 2, 
        2021:

        Wahida Ivey is a U.S. Citizen who was born in Afghanistan 
            and left in 1981 when Russia invaded the country. With help 
            from Senator Risch's office, she returned to Idaho after 
            visiting her family in Afghanistan for a week. She knew 
            that American's would soon evacuate the country, so she 
            wanted to see her cousins and sister before.

        ``I kind of knew what was about to happen, but I also knew 
            that if I didn't go see my sister, I probably would've 
            never got to see her again,'' she said.

        Ivey said what she saw were chaos and dysfunction. She 
            added that there was no priority to get the U.S. citizens 
            evacuated first. She made five attempts to get on a plane 
            back to America. What she saw throughout the process was 
            disturbing.

        ``Pushing shoving, Taliban are there at the gate, they are 
            hitting people with the wires, and I have bruises [where] I 
            took a couple of hits, they don't see people they see them 
            as this rush of animals standing at the doors, and these 
            people are just desperate to make it through that gate,'' 
            she said.

        Before her last attempt to get home, she called her 
            husband to say her final goodbye if she did not make it 
            home. Ivey said soldiers were not checking documents, just 
            opening the gates for a few people at a time but that her 
            cousin who is an active U.S. Embassy employee, was turned 
            away.

        ``When the suicide bombing happened, you just see this 
            river of blood, and I mean, you just can't, not everybody 
            has the stomach for it even after 45 years of war, you 
            can't stomach seeing people shoes, seeing peoples clothes, 
            seeing their blood just running down that river, and 
            pretend like it's not there? You just can't.''

        Ivey said her older sister attempted to get on a plane 
            with her but had to turn back because of a lack of food and 
            water.

        ``Under Taliban in control of the country, women have no 
            place you can't be a lady at any age to go out and just get 
            a grocery something as simple as that, unless you have a 
            man accompany you or have a male escort with you to go out 
            and do the basic everyday life,'' said Ivey.

        While Ivey is forever grateful that she was able to safely 
            return home, she fears for those who were left behind.

        ``We must hold on to the promise we made, to the people 
            that worked for us, to the people that held our hands when 
            we needed our hands to be held, they deserve much better 
            than that and we should not turn our back to them, it's not 
            okay,'' she said. ``These are also human beings, they have 
            family, they have children, it is their home but it's not a 
            home safe for them to live in.'''

    Another office elaborates on the lack of communication between the 
State Department and casework liaisons in various Senate offices:
Testimony No. 8
   During the non-combatant evacuation operation, caseworkers 
        shared the following anecdotes about the continuing lack of 
        guidance and information from the State Department:

        The State Department took days [after the fall of Kabul 
            and start of the NEO] to establish an email account for 
            Congressional and Senate Staff to file inquiries.

        The State Department failed to update their website in a 
            timely manner yet were asking Congressional Staff to check 
            it daily and provide the site to those seeking evacuation 
            assistance information and updates.

        State Department Liaisons appeared to be confused on their 
            own agency process, uneducated on how to assist 
            Congressional and Senate staff. This is a tough one because 
            the blame is not on our Liaisons, but on the 
            Administration.

        Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Applicants waiting on 
            guidance to Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA) 
            mimicking the same message said that Afghan Nationals were 
            allowed entry into the airport holding invalidated or 
            unsupportive documentation like energy bills, yet SIV 
            applicants and even our Legal Permanent Resident was denied 
            entry with paperwork in hand.

    This Senate office describes the consequences they faced due to the 
lack of communication between the Department, other agencies, and 
congressional staff, including a child with severe injuries:
Testimony No. 9
   M.H. of Portland, Maine drove to the Augusta, Maine 
        [immigration] office with her three children who have been in 
        Portland for about 5 years going through the citizenship 
        process. M, who speaks no English, and her 16-year old daughter 
        who translated, advocated for assistance for her husband 
        S.A.S.J., who has started the immigration process. He is in 
        Kabul. M also is seeking assistance for S's sister Z.K. She is 
        also in Kabul. She has two children, both boys. One is 
        currently in the hospital in Kabul after being shot in the face 
        outside of Hamid Karzai International Airport. They showed me a 
        video of him in his hospital bed. She has not started the 
        immigration process for herself or her boys. M is also seeking 
        help for her parents in Kabul M.S.H. and his wife B.M., who 
        also is seeking help for her brother G.H. and his family who 
        live in Logar. We began an inquiry with the Department of State 
        on Aug. 23, 2021. While going through the intake process with 
        Chuck and showing the video, M fainted after becoming 
        distraught. Augusta Emergency Services was called and brought 
        her to Maine General. The State Department acknowledged receipt 
        on Aug. 23. The child was shot in the face at Hamid-Karzai 
        International Airport. He was initially refused entry to 
        hospital and suffered extreme pain and trauma. Through Senator 
        Todd Young's office we were able to get the child to the Indira 
        Ghandi Children's Hospital to see a doctor there, whom I was 
        able to reach. The doctors there concluded that the child's 
        injuries were too severe for them to operate. He requires 
        first-world surgery. He is on pain meds and antibiotics. He is 
        not intubated. He is now home with his family. The child is the 
        maternal nephew of an Afghan Legal Permanent Resident (and 
        pending N400 applicant) in Portland Maine. Her spouse, who is 
        in Afghanistan with the family, has an active I-130: Immediate 
        Relative petition.
Testimony No. 10

   The American Citizen who reached out for help works at a 
        Veteran's Affairs office in Virginia. The citizen's spouse had 
        an approved immigration petition and an interview date in 2020 
        for KBL, but the U.S. Embassy in Kabul closed due to COVID-19 
        and was never reopened for interviews for her type. She had an 
        electronic visa on 8/24/21 and could not get through the gates 
        at Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA).

        From the American Citizen: ``Five days ago my wife entered 
            the Kabul airport and slept on the gravel awaiting her 
            flight to the U.S.A. She was told to get in a car by U.S. 
            forces to conduct biometrics. Shortly after she was dropped 
            off outside the airport with no explanation.''

   Senator Collins office has contacted multiple border 
        consulates/embassies including Doha and even if she COULD get 
        there, they have told us they are unable to process her case.

    This Senate office explains that American citizens had to resort to 
evacuation on their own merits including through private charter 
planes:
Testimony No. 11
   This group of Afghans had been on the ground transportation 
        and were at the airport in line and ready to be evacuated 
        several times. They were told to go home. Several members of 
        the group were injured in the airport blast. One member of the 
        group was 9 months pregnant, due to give birth any day. Had she 
        gone to the hospital to give birth the Taliban would have found 
        them.

        After four members of the group were evacuated through the 
        airport, two families, a total of 10 people, made it to the 
        Pakistan border where they found the borders closed.

        The private party our office was coordinating with was a former 
        military member who was in direct contact with this group 
        helping to coordinate on the ground movements to help them 
        evacuate. Our office was attempting to get in touch with folks 
        at the airport to allow these people in the gate at Hamid-
        Karzai International Airport. We were stymied at every point 
        and to this day still have no idea how any of them managed to 
        evacuate which leads us to understand that the State Department 
        had nothing to do with their successful evacuation. Our office 
        has not heard further from the State Department on the status 
        of this group since August 28.

    The following testimony by an office highlights the peril the lack 
of guidance put Afghans and Americans in place, leaving some without 
communications:
Testimony No. 12
   Our initial inquiry regarding this SIV case was made to the 
        State Department on 8/13/21. Follow up inquiries were made to 
        the State Department on 8/15/21, 8/16/21, 8/21/21, 8/23/21, and 
        8/29/21. The 8/16/21 follow-up inquiry to the State Department 
        was to provide notice of his departure from Mazar and arrival 
        in Kabul (see below for details). The first non-auto response 
        received from the State Department was 8/29/21, which provided 
        notice that he needed to contact the National Visa Center about 
        an issue with his application. He had contacted the National 
        Visa Center for assistance and status updates on multiple 
        occasions prior to my receiving notice of the error from the 
        State Department but had not received a response.

        The individual in question was in Mazar-i-Sharif when we 
        initially became aware of his case from a constituent who 
        served with him. We advised the individual to stay put until 
        the State Department provided further instruction, and, at that 
        time, Mazar also appeared to be the safest place for him since 
        it had not yet fallen to the Taliban. Once it became clear that 
        U.S. evacuation efforts would be confined to the Hamid-Karzai 
        International Airport, we informed him, and he made the 
        decision to travel to Kabul to better position himself in the 
        event the State Department would clear him for evacuation. We 
        are unsure if he is still alive, as our last communication with 
        him was 8/29/21.

    Finally, the last testimony highlights that even the upper echelons 
of the State Department were unable to even guarantee safe passage for 
American citizens, who put their lives at risk to board private charter 
flights when our government left them behind on August 31:
Testimony No. 13
   Our office began working on this case in 2019. We emailed 
        U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services and the National Visa 
        Center throughout the process leading up to Afghanistan 
        falling.

   We inquired with the State Department Task Force on 8/17/21, 
        the Task Force emailed that our inquiry was forwarded to the 
        appropriate team for action on 8/18/21. The family we were 
        trying to assist received their access passes and visas on 8/
        24/21 and began trying to get to Hamid Karzai International 
        Airport (HKIA), but were turned away every day. On 8/23/21 and 
        8/24/21 we called the State Department four times and left 
        voicemails.

   On 8/26/21, after HKIA was attacked, and it became clear 
        only certain American citizens and SIV holders would be cleared 
        to enter HKIA, we began coordinating with NGOs on ground 
        transportation for a group of 13 (four separate families/cases) 
        to Mazar-i-Sharif, where charter flights had been departing 
        earlier in the week. On 8/30/21, we provided head of the Task 
        Force with the information on our group of 13, as well as 
        notice of other American citizens in Mazar. In addition, we 
        provided the Task Force notice and additional information 
        surrounding the situation with the grounded charter flights in 
        Mazar.

   After becoming aware that the Department and Task Force had 
        been denying requests from NGOs for assistance in resolving the 
        issues with grounded flights, we escalated the matter to the 
        Secretary of State's office on 8/31/21. We connected NGOs to 
        Secretary of State's office on 9/1/21. On 9/4/21, we received 
        confirmation from the Department that the charter flights had 
        received approval from the Department to land at Al Udeid Air 
        Base (AUAB). The Department also confirmed that the landing 
        sites in Doha, Qatar were prepared to accept the flights, if 
        and when the flights received approval from the Taliban.

   We remained in nearly daily contact with both the Department 
        and NGOs from 9/4/21 to 9/16/21, assisting where/when needed, 
        as well as pressuring the Department to resolve the situation 
        with the flights as soon as possible. We received confirmation 
        from the Department 9/16/21 that wheels up for would likely be 
        occurring in the coming days, with the first flight set to take 
        off being the one carrying our group of 13. We received 
        confirmation from both the Department and NGOs that the first 
        flight carrying our group of 13 had departed Mazar for AUAB on 
        9/17/21.
                                 ______
                                 

   Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. Anomalous Health Incidents/Havana Syndrome: Nearly 5 
years after U.S. personnel overseas began suffering from a set of 
mysterious, but in many cases debilitating symptoms, we still have more 
questions than answers about the cause, the ongoing threat to 
personnel, and how we can better protect diplomats and others serving 
overseas. Do you believe that these incidents pose a serious threat to 
the health and security of our personnel?

    Answer. Yes. There is nothing I take more seriously than the health 
and security of U.S. Government personnel and their family members. The 
interagency community is actively examining a range of hypotheses but 
has made no determination about the cause of these incidents and/or 
whether they can be attributed to a foreign actor. AHIs have been a top 
priority for Secretary Blinken, who set clear goals for the Health 
Incident Response Task Force to strengthen the Department's 
communication with our workforce, provide care for affected employees 
and family members, and better deal more effectively with these events 
in the future as we continue to work closely with the interagency to 
find the cause of these AHIs. All Department of State employees receive 
regular updates about AHIs through various means of communication.

    Question. I understand that every post should now be following the 
same protocol in responding to reported incidents. Yet we continue to 
hear that personnel do not always receive the same response or 
treatment (i.e., from the medical or diplomatic security personnel) 
when they report an incident. How are you ensuring the response and 
access to care is the same for every affected individual?

    Answer. The Department has standard protocols for responding to 
reported incidents. In addition to these protocols, both Diplomatic 
Security and the Bureau of Medical Services have repeatedly messaged 
their employees to underscore the use of standard protocols, 
emphasizing the importance of taking every report of anomalous health 
incidents seriously, and providing updated guidance on how to respond 
to these incidents.

    Question. Has the Department instituted specific measures to better 
protect the Department's personnel going forward that you are able to 
discuss here?

    Answer. The Department has engaged with a series of top U.S. 
scientists in the effort to identify the cause of these incidents and 
to develop potential identification tools and countermeasures. Due to 
security constraints, I am unable to discuss specific measures, but 
would welcome the opportunity to speak about this in a secure setting.

    Question. What takeaways or lessons learned have we gleaned from 
the baseline testing pilot so far, and is the Department looking to 
expand those efforts?

    Answer. The Department launched a pilot program on June 1, 2021, to 
collect pre-incident health baseline information from employees and 
eligible family members in the Washington, DC area who are transferring 
to an overseas post. This information may be informative in the event 
of a reported anomalous health incident (AHI). Baseline testing remains 
available in the National Capital Region; testing at the Tri-Mission 
community in Vienna has concluded. State MED is undergoing an interim 
review of the pilot baseline program data to see if changes need to be 
made to make it a better tool. Regardless, MED plans to continue the 
pilot up to the original 1,500 individuals. Further review will then 
need be completed before contemplated further expansion of the program.

    Question. Can you assure me that the Department is doing everything 
in its power to assist the interagency and find out who is behind these 
attacks?

    Answer. Yes, I can assure you that the Department is doing 
everything within its power and in partnership with the interagency to 
identify the cause of AHIs. The interagency community is actively 
examining a range of hypotheses but has made no determination about the 
cause of the AHIs or whether they can be attributed to a foreign actor.

    Question. Morale/Political Appointees: At your confirmation 
hearing, I asked you what specific steps you would take to address the 
morale problems at the Department and to ensure that the Department's 
workforce is empowered and trusted to carry out its critical diplomatic 
work. Can you tell us today what concrete steps you have taken and what 
additional steps you plan to take to rebuild the morale of the people 
who serve at the Department?

    Answer. I am promoting and expanding workplace flexibilities--
including telework and remote work--and stressing the importance of 
caring for oneself and family. Our Employee Consultation Service (ECS) 
is integral to this effort. I fully support ECS's continued outreach to 
employees and family members to further reduce barriers to seeking care 
by increasing knowledge of the support ECS can offer and addressing any 
misperceptions that utilizing ECS will impose adverse consequences. I 
will ensure ECS has the resources it needs to permanently support its 
24/7 expansion of services. In addition, I am promoting resources that 
the Department offers to assist employees, including FSI workshops and 
engagements; 24/7 online access to Worklife4U to address personal 
issues, including mental health; and TalentCare, the single touchpoint 
for resources for well-being, community, safety, and workplace 
flexibilities.
    More broadly, the Secretary's modernization agenda is designed to 
enable our workforce to better address the national security challenges 
of the next several decades.

    Question. What steps have you taken to reverse the culture of fear 
surrounding political reprisal and retribution?

    Answer. I view our Foreign and Civil Service colleagues with the 
highest regard. Department employees are free to express their views as 
part of the Department's policy formulation process without fear of 
reprisal, including through the Dissent Channel. If any Department 
personnel feel that political reprisal and retribution are taking 
place, I strongly encourage them to report it to the appropriate 
authorities, for example the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). I 
will ensure that these matters are handled through the proper channels 
and assist the Secretary in providing this information promptly to 
Congress. We also have reminded employees that the Department will 
protect them from unlawful retaliation and reminded supervisors that 
they will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including 
separation, if they retaliate against employees. I have personally sent 
two Department-wide messages on this issue. The first one reminded 
employees of their responsibilities to cooperate with the OIG; the 
second message, co-signed by the Acting Inspector General, marked 
Whistleblower Appreciation Day and acknowledged the important role of 
whistleblowers in promoting accountability.

    Question. And what measures have you taken to protect the 
Department from a future administration that might once again seek to 
act in such a fashion?

    Answer. Career Civil Service and Foreign Service employees are 
protected by law from being removed from positions or deferred from 
promotions or appointments due to their political affiliation. It is 
incumbent on both the Congress and the Executive Branch to ensure that 
these laws are honored and enforced; you have my commitment that they 
will be during my tenure.

    Question. Afghanistan Evacuation: Americans, including U.S. 
Government employees, have reported that the State Department has had 
no communication pathway to successfully report Afghans in need of 
evacuation or assistance outside of Afghanistan. I have heard from 
other government agency employees that it is difficult to get through 
to the State Department and to discuss evacuations or assistance for 
Afghans overseas because the State Department lacks a coherent and 
transparent process or single point of contact with whom to discuss 
difficult cases of Afghans seeking assistance. Have you created a 
referral process for other government agencies or U.S. citizens and 
residents to alert the State Department of Afghans in need of 
evacuation?

    Answer. The Department of State posts information for the public 
pertaining to Afghans in need on its Afghanistan Inquiries page: 
https://www.state.gov/afghanistan-inquiries/. Constituents seeking to 
confirm that an individual was referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions 
Program (USRAP) Afghan P-1 and P-2 program can contact the USG agency 
that employed the individual or funded the particular NGO/contract that 
employed the individual and therefore would have made the referral. 
Information on the Priority-2 designation for access to the U.S. 
Refugee Admissions Program is available at https://www.state.gov/
refugee-admissions/. Information for Afghan nationals regarding the P-2 
designation and instructions for U.S.-based media and U.S. NGOs to 
submit P-2 referrals are available at https://www.wrapsnet.org/. For 
additional questions related to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, we 
ask that individuals please contact [email protected].

    Question. Members of my staff have flagged a number of cases over 
the last several months, many of which remain unresolved. The lack of 
response or resolution is disturbing. Will you commit that you will 
take action on these cases in a timely way?

    Answer. On November 9, the [email protected] 
congressional mailbox was established to complement existing 
congressional inquiry channels to specifically facilitate ongoing 
communication with Members of Congress and their staff regarding Afghan 
relocation inquiries. The Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts 
(CARE) team responds to these congressional inquiries about U.S. 
citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa 
holders and their immediate family who are requesting USG assistance to 
repatriate or relocate. For privacy and operational security reasons, 
CARE is limited in what can be shared. While individual cases, which 
are complex and varied, may take time to resolve, I commit to you that 
the Department will work to resolve these cases in as timely a manner 
as possible.

    Question. We understand that a number of active-duty U.S. service 
members have contacted the State Department for assistance with their 
immediate family members trapped in Afghanistan. Does the State 
Department have the ability to coordinate the evacuation of the family 
members of active-duty U.S. military?

    Answer. The Department of State continues to work with U.S. service 
members who alerted us of their immediate relatives in need of 
relocation assistance. The Department is also working closely with DoD 
for those service members who still have immediate relatives in 
Afghanistan.

    Question. Do immediate family members of our active-duty military 
qualify for SIV status?

    Answer. Statutorily, immediate family members may qualify for SIV 
status only if they are a spouse or unmarried child under 21 of a 
qualified SIV principal applicant, or they independently qualify as SIV 
principal applicants themselves. Afghan nationals who worked for or on 
behalf of the U.S. Government or ISAF or a successor mission in 
Afghanistan for at least 1 year, providing faithful and valuable 
service and meeting the other program requirements, can apply for the 
SIV program. If an individual who is currently active-duty military was 
admitted to the United States on a SIV and has maintained his or her 
lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (i.e., has not yet become a 
naturalized U.S. citizen), then their immediate family members may 
qualify for derivative SIVs. If the individual has never applied for an 
SIV, then their immediate family members cannot qualify as derivatives. 
Alternatively, members of our active-duty military who are U.S. 
citizens may petition for family-based immigrant visas for their 
spouse, children, parents, and siblings. LPRs, including members of the 
United States military, may petition for family-based immigrant visas 
for their spouse and unmarried children.

    Question. If not, will you prioritize family member evacuation via 
charter flights and resettlement to the United States or a third 
country under other programs?

    Answer. Individuals with a clear legal pathway to residency in the 
United States include U.S. citizens and their immediate family members, 
lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and their immediate family members, 
and valid U.S. immigrant visa holders--including Afghan Special 
Immigrant Visa holders--are our priority for the current relocation 
effort. We are committed to reuniting families, especially parents and 
minor children, who may have been separated during relocation 
operations in August 2021.

    Question. The fees associated with applications of U.S. visas, 
including Special Immigrant Visas, and humanitarian parole are very 
steep. Is the State Department considering offering a blanket waiver 
for all Afghan applicants in these categories given the precarious 
financial situation in which many Afghans find themselves? If not, why 
not?

    Answer. Applicants for the Special Immigrant Visa program for 
Afghan SIVs are exempt from all associated visa fees. Typically, SIV 
applicants are responsible for expenses related to the panel physical 
medical exam--these expenses are not controlled by the Department of 
State; however, the U.S. Government will be covering the cost of the 
panel physician medical exams for SIV applicants processed through 
Operation Allies Welcome at designated ``lily pad'' locations.
    I defer to the Department of Homeland Security regarding any fees 
associated with humanitarian parole.

    Question. Processing Afghans at Risk: I understand that consular 
officers are not involved in P-1 or P-2 processing for Afghans, but 
that they can make P-1 embassy referrals. What guidance have you given 
to consular officers working overseas on how to assist Afghans--whether 
P-1, P-2, SIV, or others--who may arrive at the U.S. Embassy seeking 
help?

    Answer. The Department continues to provide U.S. embassies and 
consulates worldwide with guidance for Afghans seeking help with 
refugee or visa processing. Personnel representing every part of all of 
our missions overseas remain committed to assisting Afghans at risk.

    Question. How are consular officers working with PRM refugee 
coordinators and Resettlement Support Centers to assist with refugee 
processing for Afghans?

    Answer. With the exception of ``following-to-join cases,'' consular 
officers are not involved with refugee processing.

    Question. Can they submit parole applications on behalf of SIV and 
P-2 eligible Afghans?

    Answer. Under extraordinary circumstances, U.S. Government 
agencies, including the Department of State, may request that DHS 
approve an individual for Significant Public Benefit Parole (SPBP) to 
the United States. Parole does not, in and of itself, confer any 
immigration benefits. It is authorized for a specific and temporary 
period of stay in the United States, during which time parolees may 
adjust their status by seeking asylum or other immigrant status.

    Question. Why is the Administration not doing remote/virtual 
processing for P-2 refugee-referred Afghans?

    Answer. The Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, 
and Migration (PRM) in coordination with the Department of Homeland 
Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) anticipate 
conducting both in-person and virtual processing of Afghans referred to 
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
    Once individuals depart Afghanistan and reach a third country where 
processing is possible, PRM reviews the individual's referral, creates 
a case for the individual, and assigns the case to the relevant 
Resettlement Support Center (RSC). Once the case is assigned, USRAP 
processing--including RSC pre-screening, security checks, USCIS 
interview and adjudication, medical examination, and resettlement 
agency placement--takes between 12-18 months. Virtual/remote processing 
can occur in multiple processing steps including RSC pre-screening and 
USCIS interview/adjudication.

    Question. Is there a way to break up the process to do some in-
country screening and then to give a tentative ``green light'' on their 
eligibility before having them flee to a third country?

    Answer. In-country processing of Afghans referred to the U.S. 
Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is not possible at this time since 
the U.S. Government does not have a physical presence in Afghanistan. 
As the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 
Migration (PRM) works through the referrals, the Department is emailing 
Afghans whose referral is complete. Please note that the Department is 
able to accept referrals for Afghans who are located in Afghanistan, 
but at this time is unable to begin processing those referrals until 
the individual departs Afghanistan.
    Once referred individuals depart Afghanistan and reach a third 
country where processing is possible, PRM will create a case for the 
individual and assign the case to the relevant Resettlement Support 
Center (RSC). At that time, processing through the USRAP may begin.

    Question. What are the P-2 numbers?

    Answer. PRM has received 11,469 P-2 referrals for a total of 48,134 
individuals, as of November 30, 2021.

    Question. Number of total referrals (primary applicants and primary 
applicants and dependents)?

    Answer. PRM has received 29,224 Afghan P-1 and P-2 referrals for 
principal applicants and 58,042 dependents, as of November 30, 2021.

    Question. Number that have begun processing?

    Answer. PRM has accepted 2,301 Afghan P-1 and P-2 referrals (10,112 
individuals) as complete. PRM has created 119 refugee cases (474 
individuals) for Afghans who are in a third country and can begin 
processing as of November 30, 2021.

    Question. Number approved?

    Answer. No Afghans referred to the USRAP since August 2021 have yet 
been approved and resettled to the United States. Generally, USRAP case 
processing can take between 12-18 months.

    Question. What is Consular Affairs doing to expedite the processing 
of SIV applications?

    Answer. The Department continues to expedite SIV applications at 
every stage of the SIV process, including by transferring cases to 
other U.S. embassies and consulates around the world where applicants 
are able to appear. The Department recognizes it is currently extremely 
difficult for Afghans to obtain a visa to a third country or to find a 
way to enter a third country, but is developing processing alternatives 
so the Department can continue to deliver these important consular 
services for the people of Afghanistan. The Department will also 
continue to expedite processing of SIV applications at stages of the 
process that are performed in the United States, such as assessing 
applicants for Chief of Mission (COM) approval.

    Question. Has the Department surged resources and people to review 
SIV applications?

    Answer. The Department quintupled the size of its Chief of Mission 
(COM) review team from 10 to 50; cross-trained an additional 54 
personnel at the National Visa Center in SIV processing to manage the 
increased demand; and sent additional officers to Embassy Kabul to 
assist with visa processing before the suspension of operations in 
August 2021. Embassies worldwide devoted consular staff to processing 
SIV applications remotely; our Consulate General in Guangzhou alone 
processed over 500 SIV applications, paving the way for nearly 1,500 
individuals to depart Afghanistan and enter the United States.

    Question. And at the current level of personnel and resources, what 
is the expected processing timeline for SIV applications?

    Answer. Processing times vary on a case-by-case basis and have 
fluctuated throughout 2021 because of shifting resources to surge 
processing capacity; however, the Department continues to report 
average processing times in quarterly reports to Congress on the SIV 
program. As of the FY 2021 Q3 report, total average processing time was 
665 days.

    Question. Reemployment Opportunities for Afghan Foreign Service 
Nationals (FSNs): The U.S. Government acted swiftly in relocating many 
of the State Department's foreign service nationals out of Afghanistan 
to the United States. Beyond the housing and integration assistance 
that the United States is providing via non-governmental organizations, 
how is the Department supporting those who may be interested in 
continuing their careers with the State Department?

    Answer. The Department has provided information to the former 
Locally Employed Staff from Kabul to find U.S. Government employment 
opportunities should they wish to continue working with the Department 
and if their resettlement location allows them to do so. The Department 
has also identified a number of individuals whose skills are needed 
immediately and is working on employing them via contract.

    Question. Who is leading the Department's efforts to rehire its 
FSNs, either via contracts or as direct hires?

    Answer. Former Locally Employed Staff from Kabul are eligible to 
apply for vacant U.S. Government positions, provided they have received 
work authorization, and they have been provided with information on how 
to find these positions. Given that the resettlement agencies in the 
Washington Metropolitan Area are oversubscribed, the Department's 
Bureau of Global Talent Management, in coordination with the Bureau of 
South and Central Asian Affairs and the Bureau of Population, Migration 
and Refugees, is focused on encouraging the Locally Employed Staff to 
resettle in areas where there are many employment opportunities and 
where they can receive support.

    Question. Fulbright: What actions will the Department take to allow 
current 2021-2022 Fulbright scholars and other F and J visa holders, 
like international students and faculty, to remain in the United States 
after their visas expire?

    Answer. The Department of State is committed to supporting the 
current cohort of 2021-2022 Afghanistan Fulbright students and scholars 
and their academic success by providing additional monitoring and 
support for their exchange programs. Regarding the future status of 
students and scholars after the completion of their programs, however, 
I would respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland Security, 
which is responsible for the status of persons once they have entered 
the United States.

    Question. What plans do the Department have for the future of the 
Fulbright program in Afghanistan?

    Answer. Since 2003, the Department's longstanding commitment to the 
Afghanistan Fulbright student and scholar programs has resulted in 950 
Afghan participants studying in the United States. In 2021, we welcomed 
the largest cohort to date of degree-seeking Fulbright students (109) 
at U.S. universities. The Department is committed to supporting these 
Afghan students' academic success by providing additional monitoring 
and support. The selection process for FY 2022-2023 Fulbright student 
program semi-finalists is currently on hold while we address 
significant safety, logistical, and programmatic constraints. The 
safety and welfare of Fulbright applicants and participants remains of 
paramount concern.

    Question. Civil Service: The structure of the Department's civil 
service means that civil service employees lack career mobility tracks. 
This makes career advancement and professional growth extremely 
difficult. What steps do you plan to take to enable civil service 
employees to grow professionally and to advance in their careers, just 
as foreign service officers can?

    Answer. I am committed to listening to the workforce and ensuring 
we retain high performers by investing in their professional 
development and strengthening programs that create viable career 
mobility pathways for those who aspire to reach their full potential. I 
support efforts such as developing a mobility float program that 
promotes and fosters continual employee career growth in a variety of 
ways and incentivizes bureaus to allow their Civil Service employees to 
participate in professional development opportunities while 
simultaneously filling gaps when needed, thereby reducing concerns of 
hiring managers that their mission goals will go unaddressed.
    The Department is also looking at next steps in developing a cadre 
of Civil Service talent development champions and advisors to help 
guide Civil Service careers, and developing Civil Service career 
mapping software to help employees explore career paths and build 
lasting careers with the Department.

    Question. State Department/USAID Reorganization, Budget, 
Leadership: Even with the previous Administration's reform efforts now 
dead, there are still a great many legitimate questions concerning the 
relationship of the State Department and USAID--how they coordinate on 
policy and implementation, how they are run, and how to balance funding 
they each require to conduct their operations. What are your views on 
how to improve the relationship between State and USAID?

    Answer. When State and USAID partner to advance the President's 
priorities in defending democracy, mitigating climate change, or ending 
COVID-19, our relationship is highly complementary. Because our policy 
priorities drive our resource decisions, I work closely with USAID 
leadership and rely on the comparative advantages and expertise of each 
agency. Currently, State and USAID teams are collaboratively developing 
a Joint Strategic Plan that will articulate shared U.S. Government 
priorities, goals, and objectives for the next 4 years. Our team at 
State builds budgets that incorporate USAID's corporate perspective as 
we ensure the coherence and efficiency of foreign assistance programs 
across State and USAID. Most important, at our embassies and missions 
around the world, our teams work closely together, collaborating to 
integrate diplomatic and development priorities.

    Question. Budget: For many years, the Department has faced deep 
budget cuts, even as the challenges we faced around the world were 
gathering and growing. And as they say, ``if you show me your budget, 
I'll tell you your priorities.'' Congress pushed back repeatedly 
against these proposed cuts in previous years, and I was pleased to see 
that this Administration's initial budget proposal is seeking to 
reverse the trend and ensure that we have a robust international 
affairs budget equal to the challenges American faces on the world 
stage. What is your view of what an appropriately resourced Function 
150 budget and State Department budget looks like?

    Answer. The $58.5 billion FY 2022 request for the Department of 
State and USAID demonstrates the importance the Administration places 
on diplomacy, development, and multilateralism and positions the 
Department to help deliver security and prosperity for the American 
people. The request meets the climate emergency head-on, strengthens 
global health, and enables us to defend and advance our democratic 
values, counter malign activity by our adversaries, and protect the 
rules-based order we helped to build, including by fully funding our 
commitments to international organizations and providing robust support 
for humanitarian assistance.

    Question. How do we ensure that ``base'' funding is restored to the 
Department after so many years of relying on ``OCO'' to fill the gaps?

    Answer. The $58.5 billion FY 2022 Request for the Department of 
State and USAID represents a 10 percent increase above the FY 2021 
Estimate. No Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding is 
requested, but previous OCO-funded activities are included in the 
request. This budget supports President Biden's bold agenda for 
strengthening America's place in the world through development and 
diplomacy and constitutes the largest staffing increase in State/USAID 
history to address our most pressing diplomatic and development 
challenges.

    Question. Embassy Security: I am interested in your views on 
managing the Department's personnel security needs. For example, there 
are competing organizations within State that have overlapping areas of 
responsibility, including Diplomatic Security and Overseas Building 
Operations. How do you plan to de-conflict and align the different 
demands of different organizations inside the Department to assure the 
security of the Department's personnel?

    Answer. The Department's mission to advance U.S. national security 
interests and the safety of U.S. citizens requires our diplomats to 
operate around the world in a variety of security environments. 
Department leadership acknowledges that our mission entails diverse 
types of risk and is committed to managing it smartly and 
appropriately. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) is the chair of 
the interagency Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB), which develops 
security standards for our facilities abroad to ensure we are able to 
meet mission objectives while protecting our personnel. The Bureau of 
Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) and DS work together to build 
facilities to those standards.

    Question. State Department Staffing--DRL and PRM: During the Trump 
administration, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and 
the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration were hollowed out, 
and remain understaffed to this day. These bureaus are critical in 
implementing President Biden's foreign policy agenda and in responding 
to ongoing crises, including in Afghanistan. What steps are you taking 
to remove barriers to fully staffing these bureaus as quickly as 
possible?

    Answer. In 2021, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration 
(PRM) was approved to add 68 new direct-hire positions and worked to 
quickly staff these positions utilizing all available recruitment 
mechanisms. Despite a slow security clearance process as well as 
unprecedented Afghanistan refugee resettlement operations, PRM has 
already filled, or is in the process of filling, 46 of the 68 new 
positions and is actively working to fill the remaining 22 positions.
    In 2017, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) had 
30 vacant civil service positions as a result of the hiring freeze, 
which have all been filled. Since 2017, Congress has increased DRL's 
administrative funding by 50 percent, which allowed the bureau to 
purchase 21 full-time positions to focus on foreign assistance 
programs. Most of these positions have now been filled, and continued 
recruitment remains a DRL priority.

    Question. State Department Staffing--Africa Bureau: During your 
confirmation process, I asked about a September 2020 Inspector 
General's report that identified $200 million in potentially wasteful 
spending on Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership programs due to 
mismanagement and inadequate oversight from staff in the Africa Bureau 
caused, in part, by staffing shortages. The report found that the State 
Department has not appropriately prioritized the Africa Bureau's needs. 
This neglect appears to extend to overseas postings, where our 
embassies in Niger and the Central African Republic, among others, 
lacked key staff for months on end. You pledged to work with the Bureau 
of African Affairs to ensure it has the resources, including personnel, 
necessary to meet the Bureau's objectives, and to explore enhancing 
incentives to serve at hardship posts, including those in Africa. What 
have you been able to accomplish in your first 6 months?

    Answer. In addition to requesting 35 new Foreign Service positions 
in the FY22 budget for the Bureau of African Affairs, the Department is 
taking a two-pronged approach to improve both the assignments process 
as well as incentives to serve at hardship posts, working to correct 
long-standing system imbalances. One of the approaches under 
consideration is an additional 10 percent pay incentive for those who 
are assigned to a Service Needs Differential post for a normal 2-year 
tour of duty. The Department already increased the number of Special 
(additional) R&Rs for those at our tougher postings. On assignments, we 
are working to produce an assignment system which encourages a greater 
number of FS employees to seek and accept positions in Sub-Saharan 
Africa.

    Question. U.S. Mission Iraq continues to operate at reduced 
capacity due to staffing shortages, security deficits, and U.S. 
Consulate Basra's persistent closure. This state of affairs impairs the 
ability of the State Department to advance U.S. interests in Iraq. 
Ordered Departure Status: When will the Department next make a 
determination on Embassy Baghdad's ordered departure status?

    Answer. The Secretary has been clear that the safety and security 
of our personnel is the Administration's highest priority, so the 
Department regularly assesses the security, threats, and health 
environment in Iraq. Mission Iraq went on Ordered Departure (OD) status 
effective March 25, 2020. OD for Embassy Baghdad and the Diplomatic 
Support Center will expire December 14, 2021, and the Department must 
make a determination whether to extend or end OD by that date.

    Question. What is Embassy Baghdad's current position regarding the 
need for a sustained ordered departure status?

    Answer. Discussions on ordered departure status are ongoing as 
Embassy Baghdad and the Department regularly review the security, 
threat, and health environment in Iraq.

    Question. What exact conditions must be met to pull down ordered 
departure and restore the Embassy to normal operations?

    Answer. The Secretary has been clear that the safety and security 
of our personnel is the Administration's highest priority, so the 
Department regularly assesses the security, threats, and health 
environment in Iraq. To terminate Ordered Departure for Embassy Baghdad 
and the Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center, the Acting Under Secretary 
for Management must determine that those conditions support a return to 
normal operations.

    Question. Has Embassy Baghdad's ordered departure status impacted 
the populations of U.S. contractors and third-country-nationals at 
post, or only affected U.S. direct hires?

    Answer. Embassy Baghdad's ordered departure status has had minimal 
impact on the populations of U.S. contractors and third-country 
nationals.

    Question. Impact on Embassy Staffing: What staffing increases at 
U.S. Mission Iraq has the Biden administration implemented since 
assuming office?

    Answer. To date, the Administration has not implemented any 
staffing increases at U.S. Mission Iraq. The Department of State 
routinely reviews and adjusts staffing levels at embassies and 
consulates throughout the world to ensure we have the proper resources 
to meet our national security objectives. The Department will continue 
to assess staffing needs and will make necessary staffing adjustments.
    That said, Embassy Baghdad had drawn down considerably in 
anticipation of the first anniversary of the killing of Qassem 
Soleimani. The personnel affected by that drawdown returned to post in 
the summer of 2021.

    Question. Consular: How many consular officers are currently at 
Embassy Baghdad and how does this relate to the number of U.S. direct 
hire consular position bills allotted to Embassy Baghdad?

    Answer. Embassy Baghdad's U.S. direct-hire consular positions are 
appropriately staffed under Ordered Departure status. We can provide a 
full break-out of our staffing at Embassy Baghdad in a briefing.

    Question. What is the impact of reduced manning in Embassy 
Baghdad's consular section on the provision of American citizens' 
services and visa processing?

    Answer. Embassy Baghdad's reduced staffing numbers have not had 
significant impact on their ability to process applications because the 
section has lacked public access since the destruction of the secure 
consular access point in the attack on the Embassy on December 31, 
2019. Since the attack, Embassy Baghdad has issued 1,939 U.S. 
passports, including 50 emergency passports, mostly for Embassy-
affiliated individuals and for emergency cases requiring complex 
movements outside the Embassy by our local employees. Embassy Baghdad 
continues to provide limited, but critical emergency services to U.S. 
citizens and some limited emergency visa services, while all other 
services in Iraq have been provided on a limited basis by Consulate 
General Erbil. Immigrant visa applicants may choose to apply at any 
embassy or consulate in a country to which they can travel. Once the 
secure consular access point is rebuilt, the Consular team at Embassy 
Baghdad is prepared to resume providing routine services to the public.

    Question. Diplomatic Security: How many diplomatic security 
officers are currently at post and how does this relate to the number 
of officers present when Embassy Baghdad is fully staffed? What is the 
impact on Embassy security of this discrepancy, and how is the mission 
compensating in their absence?

    Answer. The Secretary has been clear that the safety and security 
of our personnel is the Administration's highest priority. Staffing 
numbers fluctuate due to regular permanent change of station and rest 
and recuperation travel, but internal coordination and staggered 
departure and arrival times ensure all sections, including the Regional 
Security Office, are appropriately staffed to meet this critical 
function. For a more detailed answer we are happy to provide a 
briefing.

    Question. Other sections: How many State Department officers are 
presently supporting the Embassy's political, economic, and pol/mil 
portfolios from post and how do these numbers relate to normal 
operations?

    Answer. U.S. direct-hire positions in the political, economic, and 
pol/mil sections are filled pursuant to regular staffing reviews 
conducted by the Department and the Embassy. We can provide a full 
break out of our staffing in a briefing.

    Question. How, if it all, have reduced manning levels impacted the 
U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationship?

    Answer. The Department has no higher priority than the safety and 
security of our personnel, and we regularly review the security 
conditions dictating Mission Iraq's Ordered Departure status. We do not 
take lightly the decision to maintain reduced in-country staffing 
levels, but the safety of our people must come first. Although lower 
in-country staffing levels have undoubtedly strained Mission Iraq, our 
determined and resourceful diplomats consistently go above and beyond 
to make outsized contributions to U.S.-Iraq relations. The bilateral 
partnership is strong, thanks in no small part to these dedicated 
public servants.

    Question. Physical Security: Please provide the status of physical 
security repairs and facilities upgrades at Embassy Baghdad and the 
Department's current approach to determining the trajectory of U.S. 
Consulate Basra's future operations.

    Answer. Embassy Baghdad implemented short-term repairs and 
solutions following the December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, 
attacks. They include guard tower window replacements and an interim 
Consular screening area. The Department has awarded a contract to 
restore a Compound Access Control facility to support vehicular traffic 
and consular activities. Additional long-term solutions will be 
developed in the coming months.
    The Department does not foresee the security situation in southern 
Iraq improving in a way that would permit resumption of operations at 
Consulate General Basrah in the coming year.

    Question. When did the most recent attacks on Embassy Baghdad, the 
Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center, and Consulate Erbil take place?

    Answer. In 2021, there have been three indirect fire (IDF) attacks 
or incidents in the vicinity of U.S. Embassy Baghdad (BEC), most 
recently on July 29, although this was likely targeting Iraqi 
officials, and three in the vicinity of the Baghdad Diplomatic Support 
Center (BDSC), most recently on May 2. There have also been three 
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) attacks or incidents against the BEC, 
most recently on July 6; there were two against the BDSC, most recently 
on June 15. There were no UAS or IDF attacks that targeted Consulate 
Erbil. By comparison, there were 25 IDF incidents at the BEC and 13 at 
BDSC in 2020 and no UAS incidents.

    Question. What changes in physical security posture and policies 
have been adopted in response to the December 31, 2019 breach of U.S. 
Embassy Baghdad?

    Answer. Embassy Baghdad has one of the most robust security program 
of any embassy in the world and the Regional Security Office maintains 
a very high level of multi-layered security at Embassy Baghdad. Since 
the breach of December 31, 2019, we have continued to enhance security 
at the Embassy with additional personnel, physical security, and 
training. The embassy also continues to partner with the U.S. military 
to employ a DoD Security Force at the Embassy compound and has also 
employed enhanced countermeasures to protect against indirect fire and 
unmanned aerial systems.

    Question. Does the Department anticipate a potential threat to the 
Embassy's physical security pertaining to the December 31, 2021 
deadline for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq? If so, what 
contingency plans have been developed to address this potential threat?

    Answer. Militia groups aligned with Iran have been very vocal about 
their desire for U.S. forces to depart Iraq by the December 31 
``deadline,'' when U.S. forces are slated to be fulfilling only an 
``advise and assist'' role, and not a combat mission. Following 
December 31, while militias will likely focus their attacks on military 
targets, it is possible that militias could resume targeting diplomatic 
facilities in Baghdad, should they deem their efforts against the 
military presence to be ineffective or the political landscape to be 
unfavorable to their continued desire for power. Contingency plans and 
procedures to mitigate these potential threats are continually 
developed and refined in coordination with DoD.
                                 ______
                                 

   Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
                    Submitted by Senator James Risch

    Question. Is State Department leadership sharing information on 
Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs) with U.S. missions, including RSOs 
and medical unit personnel? Does that information include information 
on AHIs at other posts?

    Answer. Yes, State Department leadership is sharing information on 
AHIs with U.S. missions, including Regional Security Officers (RSOs) 
and medical unit personnel. We have released multiple communications to 
Department personnel and posts, offering guidance and support, that 
underscore reporting protocols, share the latest updates and knowledge 
on the Department's standardized response to posts who report possible 
AHIs, and reinforce the Health Incident Response Task Force's (HIRTF) 
significant role as the primary source for AHI-related materials 
including support from Washington, press engagements, and foreign 
engagements.

    Question. What is the role of the RSO and medical personnel at 
posts in working with those affected?

    Answer. The RSO guides those affected through the process of 
reporting the incident and sets up an interview to complete a health 
incident questionnaire and consent form. The Health Unit (HU) conducts 
a medical assessment and may complete a Triage Tool as deemed 
clinically necessary. The HU provider works with the MED Health Alert 
Response Team (HART) to determine next steps in appropriate care, 
including MEDEVAC when needed. RSO and medical personnel at posts treat 
every report seriously, objectively, and with sensitivity. There is no 
higher priority for me than the health, safety, and security of our 
personnel and family members serving domestically and overseas.

    Question. What is the medevac policy for AHI victims?

    Answer. The Bureau of Medical Services ensures that timely medevac 
support is available as needed based on a comprehensive clinical 
assessment. We recently secured a contract with Johns Hopkins 
University Hospital, which serves as a focal point for the network of 
top-tier centers of excellence where employees and eligible family 
members who have reported an AHI overseas have received care.

    Question. Are you sharing information and updates on AHIs with 
victims groups?

    Answer. Yes, we are. The Secretary, the new Coordinator for HIRTF, 
Ambassador Jonathan Moore, new Senior Care Coordinator Ambassador 
Margaret Uyehara, along with other members of HIRTF, held a video 
teleconference that I initiated with affected employees and family 
members on November 23, 2021, not only to share information and give 
updates, but also to answer questions from the community. It was my 
fourth bi-monthly meeting with this group and the second such meeting 
for the Secretary. I have also directed the release of multiple ALDAC 
cables relaying information about the Department's response, and we 
proactively contact Posts that have reported possible AHIs to assure 
speedy care and response for those affected.

    Question. Are those affected by AHIs considered ``victims'' by the 
Department?

    Answer. The Department's investigation surrounding these incidents 
is a fact-based mission. At this time, we lack evidence to declare 
exactly what or who is causing these incidents. There are many theories 
on the cause of these incidents, and whether they may be attributed to 
a foreign actor. What is certain, however, is that the experiences and 
symptoms of our affected employees are real. They cannot and should not 
be diminished.

    Question. Has the Department been working to provide victims the 
same benefits as victims from other government agencies? Are there 
certain benefits that have been provided by other government agencies 
that the Department has decided not to provide?

    Answer. We are currently working in collaboration with the 
interagency to ensure we proceed in lockstep with respect to those 
benefits provided to affected employees. Within the Department, I have 
convened a working group composed of representatives from the HIRTF, 
the Bureau of Administration, and regional executive directors, to 
address broader issues, such as information disclosure and housing, to 
ensure better and more consistent support for posts grappling with this 
challenging issue.

    Question. Is the Department requiring locally employed staff to be 
vaccinated?

    Answer. Post policies on vaccination for Locally Employed (LE) 
Staff will depend on local law. The Department will not mandate 
vaccination for LE staff where such a requirement would violate laws in 
the host country.

    Question. In places where local laws may prohibit vaccine 
requirements for locally employed staff, is the Department considering 
alternatives to vaccine requirements that would encourage locally 
employed staff to get vaccinated? If yes, what alternatives?

    Answer. All LE Staff are encouraged to receive the COVID-19 
vaccination and may contact their post Health Unit with questions about 
the COVID-19 vaccination or to schedule an appointment to be 
vaccinated. Around the world, our LE Staff have had a very high vaccine 
uptake.

    Question. In places where local laws may prohibit vaccine 
requirements, is the Department aware of other foreign missions that 
have required (or plan to require) their locally employed staff be 
vaccinated?

    Answer. We are not aware of such instances.

    Question. Restrictive security measures imposed by the State 
Department often keep our brave diplomats from leaving the walls of 
their embassy or consulate compounds, hampering their ability to 
interact with host government officials and locals. While it is 
important to keep our personnel safe, effective diplomacy cannot be 
conducted behind the walls of a fortress. Since being confirmed, what 
concrete steps have you taken to improve this situation? What steps do 
you intend to take in order to provide better access to our diplomats 
outside of embassy walls?

    Answer. While our data shows that over 95 percent of movement 
requests are approved and undertaken at our high threat/high risk 
diplomatic missions alone, I agree that the Department must balance the 
essential need to protect our people with the need to engage our 
partners and publics around the world to advance U.S. interests. I have 
reviewed the American Academy for Diplomacy's study and, under 
Secretary Blinken, finalized the Department's internal ``Operational 
Security Panel'' assessment and report. These, combined with draft 
legislation in Congress revising the current Accountability Review 
Board process, provide a roadmap for the Department with regards to 
potential legislative, internal processes, and organizational culture 
changes to ensure we aggressively, but smartly, pursue our national 
security interests.

    Question. How much input do regional bureaus have into the site 
selection and current and future needs assessments of a new embassy 
compound or new consulate compound?

    Answer. The site selection and acquisition for each new embassy and 
consulate project spans many years with constant touch points with the 
regional bureaus in the form of memos, briefings, trips, and 
Congressional notifications. Similarly, for the needs assessment, posts 
and regional bureaus are continuously consulted during the planning 
phase. Initially, a multi-disciplinary team from the Bureaus of 
Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) and Diplomatic Security and a post 
representative scores every site under consideration. The regional 
bureaus typically clear on a minimum of two action memos advanced for 
the OBO Director's approval as well as on the site acquisition 
Congressional notification (CN).

    Question. How many SECCA waiver requests did the Department issue 
in FY2020? How many waiver requests did the Department deny? Would you 
provide me with a list of the waiver requests that were denied?

    Answer. The Department issued nine SECCA waivers in FY 2020. There 
were no formal requests for SECCA waivers in FY 2020 that were denied.

    Question. Would you provide me with the recently completed Overseas 
Security Panel review led by AMB Bass?

    Answer. The State Department's mission to advance U.S. interests 
and to protect the safety of U.S. citizens requires our diplomats to 
operate around the world in a variety of security environments. The 
Operational Security Panel (OSP) evaluated existing policies, 
processes, and legislation as they impact our ability to adjust our 
presence quickly and cost-effectively in response to challenges and 
opportunities. The OSP report and its recommendations were shared with 
our oversight committees in December.

    Question. On March 12, my staff requested feedback from the 
Department on my Diplomatic Support and Security Act. I still have not 
received any Department comments on the legislation. Given that I 
introduced it months ago, the time for Department input has long 
passed. However, is this the type of wait I should expect on requests 
for comment in the future?

    Answer. I was briefed on your and Senator Murphy's bills, which 
were both referred to the Committee on ARB reform earlier this year, 
and I want to assure you we share many of the bills' sentiments and 
concerns, such that the bills may provide a starting point for a 
dialogue on updates to the ARB. While we continue to review the bills 
and their potential impact, I note that while we are in agreement on 
the broader goal of updating the process, we would urge that if 
legislation were to proceed, it should preserve maximum flexibility for 
the Secretary to operate with agility. Flexible authorities could 
advance important U.S. national security priorities and U.S. foreign 
policy, while considering the Department's security priorities. My team 
looks forward to an opportunity to engage with you and your team as the 
bill proceeds.

    Question. In order to create and continue employee excellence at 
the Department, accurate and direct employee evaluation reports (EERs) 
for Foreign Service Officers are imperative, though often lacking. Do 
you believe that it is important to provide employees with accurate, 
constructive feedback on their performances in order to encourage 
improvement and reward those who most succeed in their roles?

    Answer. The Department believes it is imperative to provide 
employees with constructive and robust feedback through the Employee 
Evaluation System. The Department strongly encourages Foreign Service 
employees at all grades to complete an Employee Evaluation Report 
(EER), Form DS-5055, to account for their performance during a rating 
cycle, demonstrate they have the potential to perform at a higher 
grade, and identify areas of improvement that can be addressed in the 
upcoming rating cycle. Additionally, the Department requires that 
supervisors and employees communicate through multiple performance 
counseling sessions over the course of an evaluation period and 
maintain a continuous dialogue to ensure employees have the information 
and guidance they need to succeed and excel.

    Question. What is the Department doing to support and encourage 
clear, accurate, and direct feedback to employees in order to improve 
performance and reward high achievers?

    Answer. The Department and the Bureau of Global Talent Management 
strive for transparency with employees of all grades throughout the 
Foreign Service and Civil Service evaluation processes. For example, 
Foreign Service Selection Boards provide feedback to rated employees, 
raters, and review panel chairs through counseling, criticism, and 
commendation letters. The Office of Performance Evaluation is 
conducting a Performance Management Reform review to improve the 
Foreign Service evaluation process and the decision criteria for tenure 
and promotion; this will enhance clarity of requirements and 
expectations within the promotion and performance management process, 
increase transparency, and reduce bias. We are undertaking similar 
efforts in our Civil Service Performance Evaluation process. High 
achievers, both Civil Service and Foreign Service, are rewarded through 
Meritorious and Quality Step Increases, Performance Pay, Presidential 
Rank Awards, and a variety of Department and Bureau recognition awards.

    Question. If the Department were given a ``training float'' (as you 
noted in your testimony), how would the Department use it? What 
specific types of training or professional development would a training 
allow?

    Answer. If enacted, a training float would allow more employees to 
participate in meaningful professional development opportunities, 
including long-term education and training, developmental rotations, 
domestic and overseas TDYs, and details. It would also allow the 
Department to explore additional education, learning, training, 
professional development and partnership opportunities with other USG 
agencies, local governments, and the private sector. These full-time 
professional development training/backfill positions would incentivize 
supervisors to empower employees to take advantage of these 
opportunities and support bureaus experiencing staffing gaps when 
employees are pursuing long-term career development opportunities.

    Question. Should the Department move towards a greater emphasis on 
professional development training (e.g., leadership training) in the 
Foreign Service? If yes, should this training occur at specific points 
of an officer's career?

    Answer. The Department recognizes the value of professional 
development for Foreign Service Officers. In addition to the leadership 
courses at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), completion of which are 
required at specific points of an officer's career for consideration 
for promotion at the mid and senior levels, FSI is currently designing 
professional skills training for mid-level employees to strengthen 
their analytical, communication, and advocacy skills. Officers at the 
mid and senior levels may also participate in external training at many 
academic institutions and military war colleges, as well as in detail 
assignments that broaden professional skills. We continue to grow both 
the number and breadth of these types of opportunities.

    Question. Do you support the Department's best and brightest 
Foreign Service Officers participating in interagency details? If yes, 
how is the Department encouraging these details, which are often not 
viewed as career advancing?

    Answer. We have long supported detailing Foreign Service Officers 
throughout the interagency and recognize these assignments as 
significant opportunities for professional growth. The skills and 
experience developed in such positions help our FSOs to lead in the 
interagency environment. To ensure that these positions are widely 
advertised, the Department offers a distinct cycle to highlight all 
interagency details.

    Question. Do you support the Department's best and brightest 
Foreign Service Officers participating in congressional fellowships? If 
yes, how is the Department encouraging these fellowships, which are 
often not viewed as career advancing?

    Answer. Congressional fellowships are one of the most highly 
competitive assignments for Foreign Service Officers (FSOs). Each year 
the Department selects at least 20 of our best FSOs for assignments as 
Pearson Fellows in Congressional offices. These are considered 
outstanding opportunities for improved communication with, and a better 
understanding of, Congress. To build upon these fellowships, we've 
approved a pilot to expand the program to include an immediate 
assignment in our Bureau of Legislative Affairs following the year with 
Congress. This will continue to strengthen the skills of FSOs as they 
promote strong communication between the Department and Congress. We 
have similar programs and numbers for Civil Service Congressional 
Fellowships.

    Question. At the outset of the pandemic, the Bureau of Consular 
Affairs (CA) took the proactive step of holding weekly congressional 
outreach meetings with senior Bureau officials. These weekly meetings 
have provided Congress with the information necessary to provide 
extraordinary funding and authorities to CA during its budget crisis 
created by the pandemic. While both the pandemic and CA's enormous 
budget issues remain, the weekly congressional outreach has stopped. Do 
you pledge to continue CA's weekly congressional staff calls?

    Answer. In March 2020, the Bureau of Consular Affairs proactively 
began to hold weekly congressional outreach calls with senior committee 
staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, and the Senate and House Appropriations Committees 
with a focus on COVID repatriation efforts. The calls moved to a 
biweekly schedule later in 2020 and turned to broader consular issues. 
While these meetings have been cancelled occasionally due to scheduling 
conflicts, and for a period while the bureau focused on Afghanistan, we 
have returned to a regular schedule of Thursday calls, usually 
occurring biweekly. The Bureau of Consular Affairs finds these calls a 
valuable way to communicate consular issues to Congress and is fully 
committed to continuing them.

    Question. The military takeover in Sudan this week, just hours 
following the departure of Special Envoy Feltman, further highlighted 
the lack of a full-time, high-level diplomatic presence for the United 
States in Khartoum. The coming weeks and months will be critical for 
the U.S./Sudan relationship. Is the naming of a nominee for U.S. 
Ambassador to Sudan a priority for the State Department? If yes, what 
are you doing to identify a qualified and experienced candidate and 
expedite their nomination with the White House? If no, why?

    Answer. The naming of a nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Sudan is a 
priority for the State Department. We are working closely with the 
White House to ensure that a qualified and experienced candidate is 
nominated at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Question. In the Questions for the Record for your nomination 
hearing in March, I raised the issue of chronic challenges with 
staffing the Africa Bureau, which you acknowledged and committed to 
exploring ways to remedy. You have now been in your position of Deputy 
Secretary of State for 6 months. What actions have you taken to address 
the staffing challenges faced by the Africa Bureau?

    Answer. In addition to requesting 35 new Foreign Service positions 
in the FY 2022 budget for the Bureau of African Affairs, to correct 
long-standing system imbalances we are taking a two-pronged approach to 
improve both the assignments process as well as incentives to serve at 
hardship posts. One of the approaches under consideration is an 
additional 10 percent pay incentive for those who are assigned to a 
Service Needs Differential post for a normal 2-year tour of duty. We 
already increased the number of Special (additional) R&Rs for those at 
our tougher postings. On assignments, we are working to produce an 
assignment system which encourages a greater number of FS employees to 
seek and accept positions in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Question. Burundi: In a briefing by the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative held with SFRC staff on Monday October 25, 2021, 
we were informed that Burundi will be receiving a benchmarking letter 
to outline a path toward its eligibility for trade preferences under 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The justification for 
this positive step forward with Burundi was Burundi's ``good election 
last year.'' President Ndayishimiye was also described as a 
``Tshisekedi-like figure'' who was eager for a better relationship with 
the United States. My staff was informed that this decision was made in 
coordination with the Department of State. Do you agree with this 
assessment?

    Answer. Since his election, President Ndayishimiye has undertaken 
reforms across multiple sectors and reengaged with the international 
community. While remaining cautious, we believe it is important to 
react positively to these actions to support the trajectory of reforms, 
which is in line with U.S. interest and years-long advocacy, while 
continuing to press the Government of Burundi to improve the human 
rights situation. If the Government of Burundi continues to make 
progress on meeting the AGOA eligibility criteria and refrains from 
engaging in gross violations of internationally recognized human 
rights, we will work with USTR and the interagency to assess whether 
Burundi is eligible for reinstatement in 2023.

    Question. What are you doing to strengthen the U.S. Foreign 
Service's Economic Corps as well as civil servants to ensure we are 
better postured to compete economically with China? Please be specific.

    Answer. We are working to ensure the Foreign Service and Civil 
Service have the resources--including sufficient personnel--and support 
they need to ensure U.S. businesses are positioned to compete and win 
on a global stage, and to confront the PRC's economic abuses. The State 
Department is focused on attracting highly qualified and diverse 
Economic Officers for the Foreign Service and Civil Service. We are 
strengthening our training and professional development in economic 
tradecraft, infrastructure, investment, commercial diplomacy, export 
controls, and sanctions. We have 19 Regional China Officers at posts 
around the world to help address the increasingly global nature of the 
challenges posed by the PRC, and we also recently created the Regional 
Technology Officers program to better position the United States to 
compete on technology issues.

    Question. You mentioned during the hearing that EAP will receive 
the greatest plus-up in personnel numbers in future budget requests. 
Please provide specific projected increases.

    Answer. Our FY 2022 request includes an increase of 30 new 
positions for EAP, nearly all for new Foreign Service positions 
overseas. The new political, economic, and public diplomacy officer 
positions will increase the Department's ability to combat undue 
influence throughout the region; strengthen U.S. diplomatic, economic, 
and security engagement; and counter the perception that the U.S. lacks 
staying power. Once finalized, I look forward to discussing our FY 2023 
request, which will continue our focus on supporting the United States' 
Indo-Pacific Strategy.

    Question. In his public comments, President Biden indicated the 
U.S. struck a deal with the Taliban for Kabul evacuations and continued 
evacuations after 31 August. Specifically, what was agreed to between 
the U.S. and the Taliban with respect to the evacuation of U.S. 
citizens and vulnerable Afghan allies?

    Answer. The United States communicated with the Taliban on matters 
of important U.S. operational interests, including the departure of 
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from Afghanistan. As part 
of this communication, the Taliban altered their actions in ways that 
allowed us to continue to facilitate the departure of U.S. citizens, 
Lawful Permanent Residents, and our Afghan allies.

    Question. Section 1217 of the NDAA FY 2021 requires that the 
Administration transmit any agreement or arrangement with the Taliban 
to Congress within 5 days. Why has the State Department not provided 
Congress any such agreement or arrangement as required by law?

    Answer. The Department remains committed to keeping Congress 
informed of any agreement or arrangement with the Taliban subsequent to 
the February 29, 2020, U.S.-Taliban Agreement, as well as materials 
relevant to such agreement or arrangement, consistent with section 
1217(b)(2) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283), which the 
Department has identified and is under the purview of the State 
Department.

    Question. Do you commit to providing Congress any agreement or 
arrangement, and relevant materials, made between the U.S. and the 
Taliban since August 14?

    Answer. The Department remains committed to keeping Congress 
informed of any agreement or arrangement with the Taliban subsequent to 
the February 29, 2020, U.S.-Taliban Agreement, as well as materials 
relevant to such agreement or arrangement, consistent with section 
1217(b)(2) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283), which the 
Department has identified and is under the purview of the State 
Department.

    Question. Section 1215 of the NDAA FY 2021 restricts funding for 
the Department of Defense for any activity to reduce force levels below 
both 4,000 and 2,000, until DoD submits a report to Congress or the 
President provides a written waiver. During the Afghanistan withdrawal, 
troop levels again exceeded 4,000 on the ground. Why has Congress not 
received either the required report or written waiver as mandated by 
law?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Defense.

    Question. President Biden previously said the United States ``will 
not conduct a hasty rush to exit. We'll do it responsibly deliberately 
and safely. And we will do it in full coordination with our allies and 
partners.'' However, scenes from the U.S.-led evacuation effort based 
out of Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA) suggested anything but 
a responsible, deliberate, and safe exit. Can you elaborate on the 
scale of forward planning?

    Answer. The safety and security of U.S. citizens, U.S. Government 
personnel, and their dependents are the highest Department priority. 
U.S. Embassy Kabul completed an annual Crisis Management Exercise in 
December 2020 to prepare for a potential large-scale Noncombatant 
Evacuation Operation (NEO). U.S. Embassy Kabul and various Department 
of State offices participated with the interagency in NEO planning 
discussions throughout the spring and summer of 2021. Planning efforts 
included a range of evacuation scenarios. U.S. Embassy Kabul worked 
closely with U.S. Forces-Afghanistan to ensure close coordination with 
the U.S. military on the ground in Afghanistan, and with U.S. Forces 
based in the region.

    Question. What contingencies were put in place in the wake of 
President Biden's April announcement that the United States would 
withdraw all forces by September 11, 2021?

    Answer. The Department of State engaged in contingency planning for 
a range of scenarios. The planning scenarios were based on a range of 
potential security conditions on the ground and a declining level of 
mission functions. The scenarios assumed reduced embassy footprints 
while maintaining core mission functions under various scenarios. 
Planning continued following the change in Administration in January 
2021.

    Question. How many U.S. citizens are currently in Afghanistan? 
Please address how many total U.S. citizens are in Afghanistan, 
independent of how many may have indicated at some point an interest in 
staying in Afghanistan. Of the persons evacuated from Afghanistan in 
August, how many are U.S. citizens?

    Answer. As of the conclusion of noncombatant evacuation operations, 
the United States facilitated the evacuation or relocation of over 
124,000 individuals, including nearly 6,000 U.S. citizens, through 
Kabul International Airport. Since August 31, and as of December 13, 
the Department has directly assisted in the departure of 479 U.S. 
citizens from Afghanistan. As of December 13, there are a few dozen 
U.S. citizens who have requested assistance with departure and are 
ready to depart. As of December 13, there are an additional 144 U.S. 
citizens in Afghanistan with whom we are in contact but who are not yet 
ready to depart. We are prepared to help them depart Afghanistan if and 
when they are ready to do so. Additionally, this number fluctuates 
depending on those who have made their presence in Afghanistan known to 
the Department, whether through the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program 
enrollment or other direct or indirect communication; expressed a 
desire for departure assistance: or have returned to Afghanistan and 
are again requesting assistance. Most U.S. citizens still in 
Afghanistan are there because they do not wish to leave non-U.S. 
citizen extended family members.

    Question. How many are U.S. legal permanent residents?

    Answer. LPRs are not required to register their location with the 
Department of State. As a result, we are unable to determine the number 
of LPRs in Afghanistan or any other given country. Since August 31, and 
as of December 13, however, we have directly assisted the departure of 
450 LPRs from Afghanistan.

    Question. How many are Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants?

    Answer. We estimate that more than 40 percent of the Afghans who we 
are admitting through Operation Allies Welcome are SIV eligible, some 
of whom were already in the SIV pipeline. Others are eligible but never 
applied. Additionally, many of the Afghans are family members of U.S. 
citizens and Green Card Holders (i.e., Lawful Permanent Residents), or 
they worked in careers that put them at risk, including as journalists, 
human rights activists, and humanitarian aid workers or for the former 
Afghan Government.

    Question. How many SIV applicants remain in the pipeline and what 
is the plan for processing their respective applications moving 
forward?

    Answer. The SIV application pipeline continues to grow as 
prospective applicants inquire about the SIV program and submit new 
applications for Chief of Mission (COM) approval, which determines 
threshold SIV employment qualifications. As of December 7, there were 
more than 41,000 principal applicants in the SIV pipeline. Most of 
these applicants, approximately 32,000, are in the pre-COM approval 
stage pending applicant action to submit a complete SIV application. 
Once that step is taken, a large portion of the ensuing SIV process 
takes place in the United States.
    As a result of the resources the Biden-Harris administration has 
surged into the SIV program and the steps we have taken to 
significantly increase staffing and eliminate redundancies, we are 
continuing to expedite processing at these stages. We have reduced 
processing times for the SIV program by more than 50 percent since 
taking office and have substantially increased the number of SIVs being 
issued. This year alone, the State Department has issued more than 
8,200 SIVs. Additionally, SIV applicants who have reached the interview 
stage may request to transfer their case to any immigrant visa 
processing U.S. embassy or consulate to which they are able to travel.

    Question. How many SIV applications did the Department process 
between April 2021 and August 2021? Specifically, what steps has the 
Department taken to streamline the process since President Biden took 
office in January 2021?

    Answer. The Department submits SIV issuance data to Congress 
through fiscal year (FY) quarterly reports, which are also posted 
publicly on travel.state.gov. According to the FY 2021 Q3 report, from 
April 1 through June 30, the Department issued SIVs to 615 principal 
applicants and 1,975 derivative applicants. The Department of State has 
issued more than 8,200 SIVs since January 20 and continues to process 
SIV applications daily. (The Q4 report has not yet been released.)
    We continue to look for ways to streamline the application process 
for SIVs and have already made significant changes make the program 
more efficient. Since January 2021, we have reduced processing times 
for the program by more than 50 percent and the Department increased 
total staff dedicated to SIV processing at the National Visa Center and 
quintupled staff on the team reviewing applications for COM approval. 
Before the suspension of operations at Embassy Kabul, the Department 
sent 26 additional consular staff to support SIV processing. After 
enactment of the Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
2021, the Secretary exercised his joint authority with the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to issue medical exam waivers for certain SIV 
applicants in Afghanistan. To further expedite processing, during 
Operation Allies Refuge, the Department issued foil-free electronic 
visas to SIV applicants ready for visa issuance traveling on U.S. 
chartered flights. The Department also recommended to DoD that they 
legally verify applicant employment and provide letters of 
recommendation required by statute, leading the DoD to set up Project 
Rabbit, which has expedited employment verification, a significant 
barrier for many applicants.

    Question. What is the U.S. plan for evacuating U.S. citizens, legal 
permanent residents, and SIV applicants from Afghanistan? Has there 
been any process in State's efforts to work with the Taliban to define 
appropriate travel documentations?

    Answer. Since August 31, the Department continues facilitating the 
departures of U.S. citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, and Afghan 
Special Immigrant Visa holders. The Department is continuing to 
facilitate the departure of Afghans affiliated with the U.S. 
Government, specifically our locally engaged staff and SIV holders. The 
Taliban and other countries that receive travelers from Afghanistan 
continue to require proper travel documents such as passports and 
visas.

    Question. Are you aware of reports of evacuated Afghans ``walking 
off'' of U.S. bases without completing proper vetting/medical measures 
and screenings? Please explain why you believe this is happening.

    Answer. Afghans who have departed the safe havens were vetted prior 
to arrival in the United States and underwent additional screening at 
the Port of Entry. They are required to receive critical vaccinations 
as a condition of their humanitarian parole.
    The vast majority of Afghans who have joined communities across the 
United States received initial resettlement assistance from 
resettlement agencies. The remaining number were Afghans with close 
ties in the United States who did not require resettlement agency 
support in finding housing in a new community, although many may access 
longer-term resettlement assistance. That is because they had strong 
support networks, such as U.S. citizen family members or friends, and 
chose to leave the safe havens to begin their new lives in the United 
States, consistent with the terms of their humanitarian parole.

    Question. What documentation providing proof of identity did the 
Department deem was sufficient for Afghan refugees transiting into the 
United States?

    Answer. We respectfully refer this question, regarding 
documentation at U.S. ports of entry, to the Department of Homeland 
Security.

    Question. The private sector and NGOs continue to seek 
opportunities through private charter flights and other means of 
evacuation for groups of Afghans, but are continuously being met with 
substantive bureaucratic obstacles. Can you please elaborate why the 
U.S. Department of State is inhibiting private entities from allowing 
chartered flights to evacuate at-risk Afghans?

    Answer. Operation Allies Welcome is a historic endeavor. We 
appreciate the desire and willingness of non-governmental organizations 
and private citizens to assist and are grateful to our governmental and 
NGO partners as we continue to improve our coordination. The Department 
reviews requests to support privately organized flights on a case-by-
case basis. This support involves evaluating the passenger manifest 
provided to us by the private group or groups organizing these flights 
to determine which proposed passengers, if any, are potentially 
eligible for permanent resettlement in the United States. There have 
been significant challenges with some of these privately organized 
flights. Without personnel on the ground to ensure the fidelity of the 
intended manifests, there is no ability to determine whether the 
passengers aboard the plane would be eligible for relocation or 
resettlement in the United States.

    Question. Please provide a plan that will facilitate these flights 
and necessary clearances for remaining American Citizens, SIV holders, 
Legal Permanent Residents, and other at-risk populations to be 
evacuated in a timely manner.

    Answer. The Department continues to focus on supporting departures, 
including for U.S. citizens, LPRs, and SIV holders. Locally Employed 
Staff and SIV applicants who have Chief of Mission approval and their 
qualifying relatives are also eligible for relocation and resettlement 
assistance through Operation Allies Welcome. We are also focused on 
family reunifications, particularly those separated during the NEO, and 
unaccompanied minors. Although we expect winter will impinge on Kabul 
Airport's ability to function reliably, we hope to bring out 2,000 
people per month, including 1,000 SIV holders and post-COM SIV 
applicants, each month through at least September 1, 2022, consistent 
with the Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States of 
America and the State of Qatar of Cooperation in Temporary Hosting of 
Individuals at Risk Due to the Situation in Afghanistan. This MOU was 
signed by Secretary Blinken and Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin 
Abdulrahman Al-Thani and entered into force on November 12. It 
formalized the U.S.-Qatar partnership to facilitate the travel of 
Afghans who are at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and 
serve as a transit point for eligible Afghans as they complete their 
SIV application process. This MOU has been reported and provided to 
Congress under the Case Act.

    Question. U.S. Service Members have family members still stuck in 
Afghanistan. They are getting little to no help or guidance on 
evacuations from the Departments of Defense or State. What is the 
Department doing to facilitate the immediate evacuation of family 
members of U.S. service members?

    Answer. The Department of State continues to work with U.S. service 
members who alerted us of their immediate relatives in need of 
relocation assistance. The Department is also working closely with the 
DoD for those service members who still have immediate relatives in 
Afghanistan.

    Question. There has been great inconsistency regarding the 
reporting of American Citizens still left in Afghanistan. At your 
hearing, you said that ``around 400 Americans'' were still in 
Afghanistan with ``225 ready to leave.'' At the end of the noncombatant 
evacuation operation (NEO), Congress was routinely told there were only 
``100 or so'' Americans left in Afghanistan. Please explain this 
discrepancy.

    Answer. The number of U.S. citizens of whom the Department of State 
is aware is in Afghanistan fluctuates depending on those who have made 
their presence in Afghanistan known to the Department, whether through 
the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program enrollment or other direct or 
indirect communication; expressed a desire for departure assistance; or 
have returned to Afghanistan and are again requesting assistance. As of 
December 13, there are a few dozen U.S. citizens who have requested 
assistance with departure and are ready to depart. Most U.S. citizens 
still in Afghanistan are there because they do not wish to leave non-
U.S. citizen extended family members. As of December 13, there are an 
additional 144 U.S. citizens in Afghanistan with whom we are in contact 
but who are not yet ready to depart. We are prepared to help them 
depart Afghanistan if and when they are ready to do so.

    Question. Please explain why the Administration insisted on using 
the ``100'' figure for over 2 months and why it was not until October 
26th that the number skyrocketed to 400.

    Answer. As Secretary Blinken said on August 30, ``If an American in 
Afghanistan tells us that they want to stay for now, and then in a week 
or a month or a year they reach out and say, 'I've changed my mind,' we 
will help them leave.'' That has happened as an additional number of 
U.S. citizens have now come forward and said we do want to leave.
    Others have come forward who had not previously made their presence 
in Afghanistan known to the Department of State. U.S. citizens are not 
required to register their location when they enter the country, so the 
information we have is dependent upon those U.S. citizens who decide to 
self-report their presence either through the Smart Traveler Enrollment 
Program or other communications. Additionally, some. U.S. citizens have 
returned to Afghanistan and are again requesting assistance.

    Question. How many of the following remain in Afghanistan: American 
Citizens?

    Answer. As of December 13, there are a few dozen U.S. citizens who 
have requested assistance with departure and are ready to depart. 
Additionally, this number fluctuates depending on those who have made 
their presence in Afghanistan known to the Department, whether through 
the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program or other direct or indirect 
communications; expressed a desire for departure assistance: or have 
returned to Afghanistan and are again requesting assistance. Most U.S. 
citizens still in Afghanistan are there because they do not wish to 
leave non-U.S. citizen extended family members. As of December 13, 
there are an additional 144 U.S. citizens in Afghanistan with whom we 
are in contact but who are not yet ready to depart. We are prepared to 
help them depart Afghanistan, if and when they are ready to do so.

    Question. How many of the following remain in Afghanistan: Legal 
Permanent Residents?

    Answer. Since August 31, and as of December 13, we have directly 
assisted the departure of 450 Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) from 
Afghanistan. We do not have a figure for how many LPRs have departed 
overall. LPRs are not required to register their location with the 
Department of State. As a result, we are unable to determine the number 
of LPRs in Afghanistan or any other given country.

    Question. How many of the following remain in Afghanistan: Special 
Issuance Visa (SIV) holders?

    Answer. More than half of the foiled SIV holders in Afghanistan 
have departed via USG support, and we are actively assisting those SIV 
holders who remain in Afghanistan, of which there are several hundred.

    Question. How many of the following remain in Afghanistan: SIV 
Applicants?

    Answer. We cannot offer an exact number of SIV holders and SIV 
applicants in Afghanistan, as some have already departed Afghanistan 
independent of our assistance, some were relocated and are in the 
United States, and some have not responded to our attempts to contact 
them.
    As of November 23, we estimate that more than 32,000 SIV principal 
applicants and derivatives who have received Chief of Mission (COM) 
approval remain in Afghanistan, the first step in the SIV application 
process where the applicant demonstrates they meet threshold employment 
requirements, as well more than as 32,000 SIV principal applicants and 
an undetermined number of derivatives still preparing their 
applications for COM approval or awaiting a COM decision.

    Question. How many of the following remain in Afghanistan: Locally 
Employed Staff?

    Answer. A small number of Locally Employed Staff chose not to be 
relocated in August. We remain in close contact with them to provide 
ongoing support. We also continue to work with contracting companies 
who had Afghan employees working at the Embassy to relocate those 
employees.

    Question. How many U.S. taxpayer dollars have funded Operation 
Allies Welcome and will continue to fund the resettlement efforts as 
spearheaded by the Departments of State and Defense?

    Answer. As of October 13, 2021, the Department has obligated $689.9 
million in support of Operation Allies Welcome and related Afghanistan 
efforts, primarily involving relocation and resettlement of individuals 
at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan.
    I respectfully refer you to the Department of Defense and other 
agencies for details regarding their funding of Operation Allies 
Welcome.

    Question. Were you ever made aware of any evacuation plans before 
the fall of Kabul? If so, when were they developed? Did they account 
for evacuations of every American Citizen and the necessary steps to 
ensure proper safety precautions for doing so?

    Answer. The Department of State engaged in prudent contingency 
planning with interagency partners for a range of scenarios. The 
planning scenarios were based on a range of potential security 
conditions on the ground and planned for a reduction in the Embassy 
footprint while maintaining core mission functions under various 
scenarios, including a scenario that planned for suspending operations 
at the Embassy.

    Question. What vetting measures are in place at the ``lily pads'' 
abroad before final resettlement in the United States?

    Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency on 
security vetting and screening before travelers are admitted into the 
United States. I respectfully refer you to DHS.

    Question. The United States evacuated Afghan nationals to various 
U.S. military bases around the world, including some in the continental 
United States. How long will the U.S. bases house refugees?

    Answer. Departments and agencies, under the leadership of the 
Department of Homeland Security, continue to work to resettle Afghan 
guests as quickly, safely, and securely as possible. Processing time on 
safe havens may vary depending on arrival time at the base; the time 
necessary to complete health assessments and to address any medical 
issues that arise; and how long it takes to complete the necessary 
administrative steps to apply for work authorization. Travel 
availability to their final destination and the absorptive capacity of 
local communities may affect the amount of time people will spend on 
the base. We are working with resettlement agencies to ensure Afghans 
can reach their new communities as soon as possible.

    Question. What happens to an Afghan national if they ``fail'' 
security vetting while overseas? Where does that individual go and what 
are next steps?

    Answer. I defer to the Department of Homeland Security regarding 
any more specific information on the screening and ports of entry 
process.

    Question. During the evacuation the U.S. Government used the Dulles 
Expo center as a place to screen arrivals from Afghanistan. How many 
State Department staff worked at the Dulles Expo center?

    Answer. Approximately 733 personnel from the Department of State 
staffed the Dulles Expo Center, providing 24/7 coverage, throughout the 
facility's use as a port of entry for arrivals from Afghanistan.

    Question. How much money did the State Department spend in order to 
operate the Dulles Expo Center?

    Answer. Outside of the funding authorized by the President for 
Operation Allies Welcome and related expenses, the Department does not 
have a specific breakout for costs and expenses attributable to the 
Dulles Expo Center at this time.

    Question. Under what authorities and with what funding was State 
operating the refugee intake centers at the Dulles Expo Center and in 
Philadelphia? What other agencies have contributed or are contributing 
funding?

    Answer. The Department of State provided support for individuals 
relocated from Afghanistan at the ports of entry at the Dulles Expo 
Center and in Philadelphia using Emergency Refugee and Migration 
Assistance (ERMA) Funds appropriated to carry out section 2(c) of the 
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (MRAA). On July 23, the 
President authorized the use of $100 million in ERMA funds to meet the 
unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs of refugees, victims of 
conflict, and other persons at-risk as a result of the situation in 
Afghanistan, including applicants for SIV visas, and he authorized an 
additional $500 million in ERMA funds for the same purpose on August 
16. On October 22, the President authorized the use of $976.1 million 
in ERMA funds to meet unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs to 
support Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department 
of State, including additional relocation of individuals at risk as a 
result of the situation in Afghanistan and related expenses. Other 
agencies supporting this effort, including USAID, DoD, DHS, HHS, and 
Peace Corps, are also relying on funding and authorities that may be 
available to these agencies for this purpose, including, as necessary, 
the drawdown directed under section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961.

    Question. Why was State, which does not handle domestic immigration 
or law enforcement, playing a leading role in a domestic intake 
facility for Afghans attempting to immigrate to the United States as 
refugees or visa holders?

    Answer. The Department of State provided support for individuals 
relocated from Afghanistan at the ports of entry at the Dulles Expo 
Center and in Philadelphia using Emergency Refugee and Migration 
Assistance (ERMA) Funds appropriated to carry out section 2(c) of the 
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (MRAA), which authorizes 
the President, when he determines it to be important to the national 
interest, to furnish assistance to meet unexpected urgent refugee and 
migration needs. The Department acted as part of a whole-of-government 
effort, alongside significant and vital roles played by the Department 
of Homeland Security, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of Health 
and Human Services, which ensured vaccination requirements were 
enforced and unaccompanied minors were cared for appropriately. U.S. 
federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies played similarly 
vital roles in close coordination with Customs and Border Protection in 
the screening and vetting of Afghan arrivals.
    For more information, I refer you to the Departments of Homeland 
Security and Health and Human Services, as well as the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation.

    Question. Approximately how many of the Afghans processed through 
Dulles/Philadelphia have no identifiable connection to the U.S. 
Government?

    Answer. The decision on admission category--U.S. Citizen, Lawful 
Permanent Resident, Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holder, or other 
category--for any individuals arriving to the United States, including 
Afghans who were relocated from overseas as a part of OAW, resides with 
the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection. 
The Department of Homeland Security, as the lead agency for Operation 
Allies Welcome (OAW), is in the best position to provide the most 
accurate breakdown of the various admissions categories of Afghans 
relocated as a part of OAW.

    Question. How many Afghans are believed to have left the Dulles 
facility without authorization?

    Answer. A small number of Afghans (approximately 242, or 0.68 
percent of all arrivals to Dulles under the airlift) chose to depart 
from Dulles with close family, friends, or an employer without any 
initial resettlement assistance or heading to safe havens to receive 
the services they provide. In these rare instances, these individuals 
are required to fulfill the conditions of their parole independently. 
This does not constitute an unauthorized departure from the facility, 
as Afghan arrivals were not under detention following their admission 
by CBP. The Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection fully screened and processed all arrivals under the airlift, 
regardless of their admission category. This included security 
screening involving law enforcement and intelligence partners, and a 
determination of admissibility to the United States for those arrivals 
who were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. This also 
included required medical screening for COVID-19.

    Question. How long did it take the Department to clarify the 
guidance governing whether Afghans were free to leave the facility or 
not?

    Answer. The Department released continuously updated guidance to 
employees at ports of entry regarding Afghan arrivals under the 
airlift, including guidance on how Afghan arrivals who may wish to 
depart independently could do so. All guidance was updated in real time 
as needed to address the changing circumstances at ports of entry. 
Therefore, guidance on the ability of an arrival to depart, and the 
terms and conditions of any such departure, would have been 
substantially contemporaneous with requests to depart.

    Question. When did the Department start keeping track of Afghans 
who left the Dulles facility upon arrival?

    Answer. This information was tracked from the beginning of 
processing operations for Afghan arrivals at the Dulles Expo Center.

    Question. Did the Department possess sufficient biometric equipment 
to collect the samples necessary for vetting the Afghans transiting 
through the ports of entry in Dulles and Philadelphia? If not, what 
steps were taken to rectify the situation and ensure sufficient data 
was collected for vetting?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security for information regarding vetting at U.S. ports of entry.

    Question. Is the State Department paying for flights for Afghan 
evacuees to arrive at lily pads from third countries? If yes, how much 
has this cost?

    Answer. The Department is using funding from the Emergencies in the 
Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS/K Fund) account to support 
relocation efforts associated with Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). As 
of January 10, the Department has committed or obligated $174 million 
for Kabul evacuation and OAW relocation flights, including $37 million 
to reimburse the Department of Defense for Kabul evacuation flights.

    Question. When will the State Department begin processing refugee 
applications for Afghans who have arrived in third countries?

    Answer. The Department of State has already begun processing 
refugee applications for Afghans who have arrived in third countries.

    Question. Please provide the latest record of the number of Afghan 
refugees currently awaiting processing at each lily pad, with a 
country-by-country breakdown.

    Answer. As of December 13, there were 3,277 individuals at the two 
remaining ``lily pad'' locations: 1,555 in the UAE and 1,722 in Qatar.

    Question. Please provide State Department estimates for the total 
number of Afghan refugees outside of USG custody being hosted by allied 
governments.

    Answer. The Department of State knows of over 14,000 Afghans who 
relocated from Afghanistan on allied government flights and private 
charters concurrently with, but separate from, the August 2021 
noncombatant evacuation operation. We know many Afghans continue to 
find ways to depart Afghanistan independently and we do not have clear 
data as to numbers of Afghans who departed Afghanistan after August 31 
on private charter or commercial flights and have arrived in third 
countries.

    Question. Please provide State Department estimates for the number 
of Afghan refugees outside of USG custody being hosted by allied 
governments that you expect will be transferred to U.S. lily pads for 
processing into the United States.

    Answer. The Department does not have control over privately 
organized flights. Therefore, we do not have an estimate of Afghan 
individuals who arrived in third countries on private flights nor their 
potential eligibility for relocation through Operation Allies Welcome 
(OAW). We are working with our interagency partners to mobilize 
additional capacity that will enable us to additionally process 
eligible Afghans who are in third countries for onward relocation to 
the United States in their current host country.
    There have been significant challenges with some privately 
organized flights. In several instances where private entities have 
chartered aircraft to transport individuals out of Afghanistan, 
identity checks on arrival at transit destinations have revealed that 
many passengers were not eligible for relocation to the United States 
and, in some cases, that the manifests were not accurate, despite the 
best efforts of the private organizations supporting these charters. 
This can put the individual travelers at-risk with no plan for 
relocation to the United States; has the potential to put strain on the 
bilateral relationship of the United States with the destination 
countries; and could make it more difficult for the U.S. Government to 
rely on those partner countries to assist in future relocations out of 
Afghanistan.

    Question. Please provide State Department estimates for the number 
of Afghan refugees outside of USG custody being hosted by allied 
governments that you expect will be granted visas to remain in the 
country, or to enter another country?

    Answer. The Department does not have data on Afghan individuals' 
personal applications for visas or asylum requests in third countries.

    Question. How has the State Department interfaced with governments 
hosting Afghan refugees to assist their process for determining whether 
these refugees can seek asylum within the country they are in, or 
whether they will be transferred to a lily pad for processing to the 
U.S.?

    Answer. Eligibility for asylum in third countries is determined by 
laws of the host country. As in other humanitarian crises, the United 
States engaged bilaterally and with international organizations to 
advocate for international protection for Afghans seeking asylum, as 
well as humanitarian assistance for refugee-hosting countries. This 
humanitarian diplomacy was carried out by bilateral missions and 
embassies and amplified by Washington in calls with partners and 
allies. We have worked closely with countries offering to host Afghan 
refugees to determine the most expeditious process for providing safe 
haven to the most vulnerable cases--whether in the United States or 
abroad.

    Question. Is the U.S. Government providing financial assistance for 
allied countries to host Afghan refugees? If so, what is the amount of 
financial assistance per country?

    Answer. The U.S. Government provides humanitarian assistance to 
independent organizations in countries hosting populations of Afghan 
refugees. In FY 2021, the United States provided nearly $474 million in 
humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees in the 
region, including $96 million to humanitarian organizations assisting 
Afghan refugee populations in countries such as Pakistan, Tajikistan, 
and Uzbekistan. This assistance aims to safeguard Afghan refugees in 
need of international protection; secure access to health and medical 
services; and advocate for proper asylum procedures. In Pakistan, which 
hosts the largest population of Afghan refugees, the United States 
provided nearly $52 million to humanitarian partners for malnutrition 
assistance, medical services, education, and registration pathways.

    Question. Camp Bondsteel, the same base from which we operate KFOR, 
is now being used to process those Afghan refugees who failed initial 
security screening. How many refugees are at Camp Bondsteel?

    Answer. Given the periodic movement of individuals into and out of 
Camp Liya (located within Camp Bondsteel) in Kosovo, the Department is 
not able to provide a reliable and current estimate of individuals 
there since Afghans and their families are permitted to travel onward 
if they are cleared through screening and vetting and they have 
received critical immunizations that are required and provided as a 
condition of their humanitarian parole. We can note that many 
individuals there are family members of individuals undergoing 
additional screening, so not all individuals located there are 
themselves undergoing additional screening.

    Question. What was the criteria for the initial security screening 
that they failed?

    Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency for 
the security vetting and screening on foreign nationals requesting to 
enter the United States. I respectfully refer you to DHS.

    Question. What does the U.S. plan to do with those refugees that 
cannot pass screening and therefore cannot enter the U.S.?

    Answer. If an individual referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions 
Program is denied refugee status, they will not be admitted to the 
United States. They may choose to remain in the third country or seek 
asylum in a country other than the United States.

    Question. In Albania, over a thousand Afghan refugees are being 
housed through the generosity of the Albanian Government. These 
refugees are the cream of the crop: judges, former employees of U.S.-
funded organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, and 
activists. Yet they are being told that they will likely have to remain 
in Albania for the next 18-20 months to be processed, while many 
Afghans who, despite not having worked with the U.S. or our allies, 
were lucky enough to find their way into the belly of a U.S. transport 
plane and are now walking the streets of the United States on 
humanitarian parole. These refugees are understandably disconcerted 
that they followed the rules and have found themselves stranded in a 
strange country, while those who did not follow the rules are now 
happily stateside. We understand that no one from the U.S. Federal 
Government (save the Embassy in Tirana) has visited these refugees. Why 
have they not been visited?

    Answer. We are grateful to the Government of Albania for providing 
a safe haven for these individuals. Our priority remains to ensure all 
individuals entering the United States meet the proper security and 
health vetting requirements. Embassy personnel in Tirana regularly 
visit the individuals relocated from Afghanistan and report to 
Washington on their status. The Senior Official for the Office of 
Global Women's Issues also visited the relocated Afghans in Albania. 
For those who are eligible for Operation Allies Welcome or referred to 
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the next step in their relocation 
process is vetting by the Department of Homeland Security, not by State 
Department personnel. Once the DHS-led vetting is complete, they can be 
considered for relocation to the United States.

    Question. Is there any consideration being given to sending embassy 
employees from the region for short-term TDY's to help process these 
individuals?

    Answer. The next step in their relocation process is vetting led by 
the Department of Homeland Security, not State Department personnel. 
Once the DHS-led vetting is complete, they can be considered for 
relocation to the United States.

    Question. Many embassies are sending their Foreign Service Officers 
to Camp Bondsteel to assist with processing. Why has this not been done 
in Albania?

    Answer. The individuals from Afghanistan hosted by the Government 
of Albania are sponsored by NGOs, not the U.S. Government, and for 
those who are eligible for Operation Allies Welcome or referred to the 
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the next step in their relocation 
process is vetting led by the Department of Homeland Security, not by 
Foreign Service Officers or other State Department personnel. Once the 
DHS-led vetting is complete, they can be considered for relocation to 
the United States.
                                 ______
                                 

   Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
               Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Question. How is the Department preparing for the virtual Democracy 
Summit that President Biden will convene on December 8-9? What steps 
can the Department and Congress take to modernize our tools for 
democracy assistance to meet 21st century challenges like digital 
authoritarianism, disinformation, and crackdowns on internet freedom? 
Would the Department welcome legislation from the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee that provides new tools to address these challenges 
and modernizes and authorizes our democracy programs like NED, IRI, 
NDI?

    Answer. The Summit will provide a forum for well-established and 
emerging democracies to discuss strengthening their resilience and 
overcoming challenges to advance freedom, prosperity, and respect for 
their citizens. The Department monitors program performance, results 
reporting, and academic research to assess the effectiveness of our 
programs and adjusts strategies to meet emerging global challenges to 
democracy and human rights. With respect to internet freedom, the 
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) conducts 
Congressionally mandated coordination activities for funding 
appropriated to address these critical concerns. Current legislation 
provides us with important tools to continue our work in combating 
digital authoritarianism, disinformation, and crackdowns on the 
internet, but the Department welcomes congressional engagement on these 
vital issues.
                                 ______
                                 

   Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
                    Submitted by Senator Todd Young

    Question. Can you provide specific numbers of personnel and funding 
that have been freed up as a result of the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

    Answer. The Department is assessing the personnel and funding 
associated with Afghanistan and the needs associated with the 
continuing diplomatic mission with Afghanistan as well as optimizing 
support of Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). The Department plans to 
redirect personnel and funding to establish an Afghanistan Affairs Unit 
(AAU) in Doha, Qatar, which would be the U.S. diplomatic mission to 
Afghanistan. Should resumption of operations in Kabul be possible at a 
future date, AAU personnel would be among the first to return. 
Additionally, the Department continues to review the staffing and 
funding necessary to facilitate the timely relocation and resettlement 
of Afghans in the United States or other endpoint locations. The 
Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE) will incorporate OAW 
operational support and logistics resources necessary to achieve this 
end.

    Question. How does the Department plan to redirect the personnel 
and funding that previously was directed towards Afghanistan?

    Answer. The Department continually seeks to optimize available 
resources. The FY 2022 Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman's mark 
proposes substantial rescissions and reductions to Afghanistan 
operations and assistance and redirects those savings to other 
priorities, which would constrain available resources in FY 2022. The 
Department currently has a team working on Afghanistan issues at 
Embassy Doha, and we will soon initiate congressional consultations on 
plans to establish an Afghanistan Affairs Unit (AAU) in Doha that would 
be the U.S. diplomatic mission to Afghanistan. The Department also 
continues to review the staffing and funding necessary to facilitate 
the relocation and resettlement of Afghans in the United States or 
other endpoint locations, including ensuring there are appropriate 
resources to support the work of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation 
Efforts (CARE).

    Question. In your testimony, you stated that the Department ``did 
not pull officers from missions in Asia'' to deal with the crisis 
response in Afghanistan. Can you confirm that no State Department 
personnel working in the Bureau of East Asia and the Pacific, whether 
in missions overseas or in Washington, DC, were redirected, reassigned, 
or placed on temporary duty travel to assist in the Afghanistan 
evacuation and related crisis response efforts?

    Answer. The transcript indicates that I stated that I was ``unaware 
that we've pulled officers from posts in Asia to work on the task 
force. We did have some consular officers, at some of our bigger posts 
in the world, like in Manila and New Delhi, helping to call American 
citizens in August. But we've not pulled officers from missions in East 
Asia[n] and the Pacific.''
    The State Department did, however, request volunteers from 
throughout the Department to assist with our crisis response and 
continues to request volunteer support. To date, 16 employees from the 
East Asian and Pacific Bureau traveled on TDY orders to support our 
crisis response and one employee was in Afghanistan when the crisis 
began. In Washington, around 20 of our staff from the East Asian and 
Pacific Bureau supported the taskforce. They did this with full support 
of their supervisors and on a voluntary basis. The Department continues 
to ask for volunteers to help with the increased workload and several 
employees have volunteered to support in the future.

    Question. On October 7, State spokesman Ned Price said there were 
dozens of Americans who wish to leave. On October 21, Ambassador Beth 
Jones told SFRC staff there were 363 Americans still in Afghanistan 
seeking to leave the country. On October 22, Mr. Price said there were 
between 100-200 Americans ready to leave. On October 26, Undersecretary 
for Defense Colin Kahl told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 
there were 439 American citizens still in Afghanistan. In your 
testimony, you said there were a little over 400 Americans in 
Afghanistan. These numbers had to come from somewhere. How can you 
explain this dramatic difference in numbers? Why do the numbers of 
total Americans in Afghanistan seem to increase with time?

    Answer. This number increases and decreases depending on those who 
have made their presence in Afghanistan known to the Department of 
State, expressed a desire for departure assistance, those who later 
changed their minds, and those who have returned to Afghanistan and are 
again requesting assistance. In addition, U.S. citizens are not 
required to register their location in Afghanistan with the U.S. 
Government, so the number is dependent upon U.S. citizens self-
reporting their presence whether through the Smart Traveler Enrollment 
Program or other direct or indirect communications.

    Question. Why did it take so long to give the Committee and the 
American people accurate numbers?

    Answer. The Department continues to provide Congress with regular 
updates on numbers of U.S. citizens evacuated from Afghanistan and 
those remaining in Afghanistan, with the most accurate figures we have 
at the time of reporting.

    Question. Is State confident that it has identified all Americans 
seeking to leave Afghanistan?

    Answer. The number of U.S. citizens fluctuates depending on those 
who have made their presence in Afghanistan known to the Department of 
State, expressed a desire for departure assistance, those who later 
changed their minds, and those who have returned to Afghanistan and are 
again requesting assistance. In addition, U.S. citizens are not 
required to register their location in Afghanistan with the U.S. 
Government, so the number is dependent upon U.S. citizens self-
reporting their presence whether through the Smart Traveler Enrollment 
Program or other direct or indirect communications.

    Question. The State Department Smart Traveler Enrollment Program 
(STEP), allows U.S. citizens to voluntarily register with the Embassy 
to be kept informed of the latest updates. Presumably, many Americans 
in Afghanistan participated in this program. How many Americans were 
registered in STEP in Afghanistan as of August 30?

    Answer. There were 5,721 U.S. enrollees in STEP for Afghanistan on 
August 30, 2021. This does not necessarily mean they were physically in 
Afghanistan at that time. Any person can enroll in STEP. While intended 
for U.S. citizens, the system cannot verify enrollees as citizens 
automatically. Duration of enrollment can greatly vary from enrollee to 
enrollee; individuals may disenroll at any time, or they may remain 
enrolled. While STEP may provide a good snapshot of the numbers of U.S. 
citizens potentially in-country and important contact information as it 
is a voluntary tool, it should not be considered precise or 
authoritative.

    Question. How many are currently registered in STEP as being in 
Afghanistan?

    Answer. There were 3,830 U.S. enrollees in STEP on October 27, 
2021. The number of enrollees changes daily as individuals enroll and 
others either disenroll or the timeframes for their stated presence in-
country expires. As there is no citizenship or presence requirement for 
STEP registration, the count of enrollees does not necessarily mean 
that this number of U.S. citizens was physically in Afghanistan on 
October 27, 2021.

    Question. Of those that were registered in STEP as of August 30, 
how many have been confirmed as departed Afghanistan?

    Answer. Since August 31, and as of December 13, we have directly 
assisted in the departure of 479 U.S. citizens from Afghanistan. We 
cannot confirm whether these 479 individuals were enrolled in STEP on 
August 30.

    Question. What further efforts is the Department taking to find and 
assist American citizens in Afghanistan?

    Answer. Our mission to assist U.S. citizens in Afghanistan, 
including those who have made known their wish to depart or have had 
that information relayed to the Department of State by family members 
or other concerned parties, has no deadline. Effective December 31, the 
Qatar Government will assume the role of protecting power of U.S. 
interests in Afghanistan and, as such, will assist the United States in 
providing limited consular services to U.S. citizens. Consular 
assistance may include accepting passport applications, offering 
notarial services for documentation, providing information, and helping 
in emergencies. We are grateful to the Qataris for their willingness to 
assume this responsibility.

    Question. Can you describe the various entities working on 
Afghanistan now within the Department? How is this all being 
coordinated?

    Answer. Secretary of State Blinken provides overall policy 
direction and oversight to the various Department entities working on 
Afghanistan. The Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) 
oversees the Special Representative for Afghanistan, SCA Afghanistan 
Desk and Executive Office, Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Effort 
(CARE), and U.S. bilateral mission to Afghanistan based in Doha, Qatar. 
The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) oversees Embassies Doha and 
Abu Dhabi, which support Operation Allies Refuge (OAR) and Operation 
Allies Welcome (OAW). Ongoing coordination among these and other 
entities occurs through regular Deputy-level meetings, working-level 
coordination calls, and in-person TDY support. I am briefed regularly 
on the work of the CARE team, as is the Secretary.

    Question. We understand that there is growing pressure to have 
refugees leave military bases as soon as Thanksgiving. At the same 
time, I am concerned the pressure and rush of the process may lower the 
quality of the vetting process. What steps is the State Department 
taking in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security to 
ensure that we are rigorously vetting refugees here in the United 
States?

    Answer. The Afghans in the United States that were relocated as 
part of OAW were not admitted as refugees and were not processed 
through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The Department of Homeland 
Security allowed them to enter the United States on Humanitarian 
Parole, which is valid for either 1 or 2 years, depending on their date 
of arrival. All guests are thoroughly vetted prior to arriving in the 
United States.
    For more information on the screening and vetting process, I 
respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland Security.

    Question. Last year, the State Department helped resettle less than 
12,000 refugees in the United States. We have around 55,000 Afghans at 
U.S. bases as of last week. How long does the State Department estimate 
it will take to resettle these refugees?

    Answer. The interagency, under the leadership of the Department of 
Homeland Security, continues to work to resettle Afghan guests as 
quickly, safely, and securely as possible. Processing time on safe 
havens may vary depending on arrival time at the base; the time 
necessary to complete health assessments and to address any medical 
issues that arise; and how long it takes to complete the necessary 
administrative steps to apply for work authorization. Travel 
availability to their final destination and the absorptive capacity of 
local communities may affect the amount of time people will spend on 
the base. The Department is working with resettlement agencies to 
ensure Afghans can reach their new communities as soon as possible.

    Question. Has this resettlement process diverted resources away 
from the immigration crisis occurring at our southern border?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security for information on whether Operation Allies Welcome has 
impacted the response to the situation at the southern border.
                                 ______
                                 

   Responses of Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon to Questions 
                     Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz

    Question. In September, Secretary Blinken confirmed in testimony to 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States had given 
the Taliban lists of Americans and Afghans who we hoped to evacuate 
from Afghanistan. He declined to provide the number of names on such 
lists, but confirmed ``we gave a manifest to the people at the 
checkpoint to demonstrate that those people were expected'' and ``This 
happened in a handful of situations.'' Has the Department of State 
figured out how many names we gave the Taliban of Americans and/or 
Afghans that we wanted out?

    Answer. In order to facilitate the safe movement of Locally 
Employed (LE) Staff to Kabul International Airport, there were a few 
instances in which Department officials on these Department-chartered 
transport buses for LE Staff confirmed with the Taliban at checkpoints 
those on the bus were in fact being evacuated with the help of the U.S. 
Government.

    Question. How many of the people on those lists--or what percent--
were ultimately successfully evacuated?

    Answer. Every Locally Employed Staff who wanted to leave during the 
August evacuations did leave on the Noncombatant Evacuation Operation 
flights prior to August 31.

    Question. Afghanistan / Child Brides: On August 27, according to 
public reports, the Department of State distributed internal 
documentation highlighting numerous instances in intake centers of 
sexual abuse, in which much Afghan males appeared with young girls and 
claimed they were their wives. And the documents said the Department of 
State request ``urgent guidance'' about what to do. Subsequently, news 
emerged that there had been multiple cases and arrests at intake 
centers and of evacuees for sexual assault. In September, Secretary 
Blinken confirmed in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee that there have been ``a limited number of cases where we 
have separated people'' over concerns related to child brides and 
sexual abuse. How many instances of human trafficking, polygamous 
marriages, and ``child brides'' has the Department of State identified?

    Answer. Protection of Afghans at-risk in U.S. safe havens is among 
our key objectives in relocating SIV holders, parolees, and their 
family members. This includes protection from gender-based violence, 
human trafficking, and forced marriage. I respectfully refer you to the 
Department of Homeland Security as the lead federal agency at U.S. safe 
havens for the number of cases of human trafficking, polygamous, 
underage, and forced marriage identified.

    Question. How many cases have there been in which administration 
officials separated people due to concerns related to human 
trafficking, polygamous marriages, or ``child brides''?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security as the lead federal agency at U.S. safe havens for the number 
of cases of separation due to concerns related to human trafficking, 
polygamous or early marriage.

    Question. In light of statutory authority under Title 8 of the 
United States Code Section 1227 to remove individuals who engage in 
smuggling, trafficking, marriage fraud, crimes of moral turpitude, 
child abuse, and domestic violence, has the Administration deported 
these offenders?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security for all matters related to immigration, including any 
individuals found to be inadmissible to the United States or placed in 
proceedings.

    Question. What steps has the Department of State taken to 
investigate reports of human trafficking, sexual abuse, child 
marriages, including opportunistic marriages facilitated by the 
evacuation process itself, among Afghan evacuees?

    Answer. The Department of State takes all reports of such actions 
very seriously. The Department is part of the recently constituted 
Gender and Vulnerable Population Protection Working Group (GVPP) of the 
interagency Unified Coordination Group, which focuses on these issues 
in particular. The GVPP has drafted standards and protocols clarifying 
how to identify and report such violations; what investigations and 
other actions would be taken in response to any reports, including by 
criminal law enforcement agencies; and how various mitigation measures 
might prevent them from occurring at all. I respectfully refer you to 
the Department of Homeland Security for additional information related 
to immigration.

    Question. To what extent is the Department of State coordinating 
with other agencies to deter future instances and punish past instances 
of human trafficking among those evacuated from Afghanistan?

    Answer. The Department of State is coordinating across the U.S. 
Government and with domestic and international partners to detect 
potential cases of forced marriage or other forms of abuse among 
vulnerable Afghans at relocation sites, as well as to prevent and 
investigate crimes and to protect any victims identified. At overseas 
processing locations, U.S. Embassies and military officials coordinate 
with local law enforcement authorities to refer alleged criminals for 
prosecution according to their jurisdiction.

    Question. What actions has or will the Administration take to 
address, such as through detention or deportation, the individuals who 
have engaged in human trafficking, polygamy, or sexual assault during 
the evacuations?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security for all matters related to immigration, including any 
individuals found to be inadmissible to the United States or placed in 
proceedings.

    Question. What steps, if any, has the Department of State taken to 
address child exploitation, including forced marriages and other sexual 
exploitation, inside transit and intake centers in the United States?

    Answer. The Department of State is coordinating across the U.S. 
Government and with domestic and international partners to detect 
potential cases of forced marriage or other forms of abuse among 
vulnerable Afghans at relocation sites, as well as to prevent and 
investigate crimes and to protect any victims identified. U.S. funding 
to international organizations supports the deployment of expert 
protection staff to identify and assist Afghans with particular 
vulnerabilities at overseas processing locations, including those at-
risk of early and forced marriage. I respectfully refer you to the 
Department of Homeland Security as the lead federal agency on steps 
taken at U.S. safe havens.

    Question. For reports of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual 
abuse, where did these acts occur? What guidance or orders have been 
issued to military bases if they witness or receive reports of a minor 
being sexually assaulted or abused by another Afghan evacuee, including 
by those claiming to be married to the victim?

    Answer. The Department of State, in coordination with USAID, issued 
guidance on protection standards for all Afghan relocation sites that 
aims to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, child abuse, and 
other risks. The State Department continues to monitor protection 
conditions at overseas processing locations. I respectfully refer you 
to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security for relevant 
guidance or orders issued to U.S. military bases and U.S. safe havens.

    Question. Will DHS commit to deport individuals evacuated from 
Afghanistan who have violated 8 U.S.C.  1227 by committing the 
following offenses: smuggling,  1227(a)(1)(E); marriage fraud,  
1227(a)(1)(G); crimes of moral turpitude,  1227(a)(2)(A)(i); crimes of 
domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse,  1227(a)(2)(E)(i); and 
trafficking,  1227(a)(2)(F)?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security for all matters related to immigration, including any 
individuals found to be inadmissible to the United States or placed in 
proceedings.

    Question. How many cases of sexual assault by evacuees is the 
Department of State aware of?

    Answer. I respectfully refer you to the Department of Homeland 
Security, which is the lead federal agency for Operation Allies Welcome 
safe havens, and the Department of Justice.

    Question. We now know that rapes by evacuees have occurred across 
your intake centers. In my home state of Texas, at a Fort Bliss shelter 
complex for refugees, a female service member was assaulted by 3-4 
Afghan male evacuees. At Fort McCoy in Wisconsin, two Afghan males have 
been charged with crimes as a result of investigations by the FBI and 
Fort McCoy Police Department. One, for allegedly sexually abusing two 
young boys, and the other for violently attacking his wife. I have been 
briefed on additional crimes, which for various reasons haven't been 
made public. I asked Secretary Blinken about the Department of State's 
request for guidance and about the scope of child trafficking 
facilitated by the Biden administration. He said that he was not aware 
of the guidance but was aware of a ``handful'' of cases. I'd like to 
ask you to clarify these answers--How many cases is the Department of 
State aware of where child brides were presented at intake centers?

    Answer. The Department of State is coordinating across the U.S. 
Government and with domestic and international partners to detect 
potential cases of forced marriage or other forms of abuse among 
vulnerable Afghans at relocation sites, as well as to prevent and 
investigate crimes and to protect any victims identified. U.S. funding 
to international organizations supports the deployment of expert 
protection staff to identify and assist Afghans with particular 
vulnerabilities at overseas processing locations, including those at 
risk of early and forced marriage. I respectfully refer you to the 
Department of Homeland Security as the lead federal agency on steps 
taken at U.S. safe havens and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
for information on domestic law enforcement actions.

                           [all]