[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING STATE DEPARTMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 21, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-92
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-146 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
American Samoa SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GABRIEL AMO, Rhode Island
JOHN JAMES, Michigan BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability
BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chairman
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JASON CROW, Colorado, Ranking
DARRELL ISSA, California Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MIKE WALTZ, Florida ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CORY MILLS,Florida SHELIA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas Florida
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
Parker Chapman, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
REPRESENTATIVES
Opening Statement of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael
McCaul 1
Opening Statement of Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member
Gregory Meeks.................................................. 3
Opening Statement of Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee
Chairman Brian Mast............................................ 4
Opening Statement of Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee
Ranking Member Jason Crow...................................... 7
WITNESSES
Testimony of Richard R. Verma, Deputy Secretary of State for
Management and Resources....................................... 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 40
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 41
Hearing Attendance............................................... 42
Materials for the Record
Frank R. Wolf Religious Freedom Act--Excerpt, Public Law 114-281
submitted by Representative Crow............................... 43
Don't Defund the Fight Against Russia and China's
Disinformationn, submitted by Representative Titus............. 46
Questions for the Record
Questions submitted to Richard Verma from Rep. Darrell Issa...... 48
Questions submitted to Richard Verma and Asst. Secretary Naz
Durakoglu from Rep. Brian Mast................................. 74
Questions submitted to Richard Verma and Asst. Secretary Naz
Durakoglu from Rep.Maria Elvira Salazar........................ 99
Questions submitted to Richard Verma from Rep. Beth Van Duyne.... 107
ASSESSING STATE DEPARTMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH OVERSIGHT
----------
Thursday, March 21, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:59 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Mast
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Mast. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability
will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to assess
the State Department's compliance with congressional oversight
by analyzing the efficiency and transparency between State's
Bureau of Legislative Affairs and House Foreign Affairs
Committee. Now, before we get going, I will be recognizing the
chairman of the full committee for an opening statement, and
the ranking member of the full committee for an opening
statement.
But before I do so, we have one of our members, Mr. Mills
here, who has his 9 year old Noah, just had a birthday. Do you
want to come up and see your dad, and have him tell you happy
birthday? All right, we will bring him up here. Yes, give him a
gavel, man. Happy birthday, buddy. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Mills. Happy birthday, buddy.
All right, I am now going to recognize Chairman McCaul for
any opening statement he wishes to give.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. McCAUL
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses for being here today, and Naz, congratulations on
your soon second child, oh boy. This is an oversight hearing.
Congressional oversight is a power vested under Article One of
the Constitution, we take that very seriously, it is part of
our system of checks and balances. It is my duty as chairman of
this committee to conduct rigorous oversight of the State
Department's activities, and learn how it is spending America's
taxpayer's money.
While I have worked in good faith with the State Department
on many matters, I have often found the relationship
challenging when it comes to obtaining requested information,
and that is why I sent a detailed letter over a month ago to
you, Deputy Secretary Verma. That letter reiterated problems
we've encountered in investigations related primarily to
Afghanistan, to facilitating illegal immigration through
Northern Mexico, to promoting atheism overseas, and other
misguided policies.
The 12 page letter received but a single paragraph
response. And while I appreciate Secretary Blinken cooperating
and working with me to turn over the Afghanistan after action
review interview notes, which is very helpful, it is also
necessary to talk about some of these other challenges.
Secretary Verma, over the course of my investigation, forty-one
percent of the documents produced were either heavily redacted
or consisted solely of public information available.
Like the eighty-one pages here related to Afghanistan, just
heavily redacted, as you can see. In fact, I would say almost
one hundred percent redacted, it is not very transparent, and
it is not very honest. I mean every one of these eighty pages
is blacked out. And I think we can do better, we can work
together on this for the American people. Beyond Afghanistan,
we all remember what happened regarding the suspended security
clearance of Special Envoy to Iran Robert Malley.
The scandal was known at the highest levels of the
department, but it was not shared with Congress for more than 2
months, and now it has been over three hundred days since the
suspension, and we still really have no answers, no details.
And as you know, we had to pass a law to ensure that we are
notified of things like this in the future. Additionally, I
found the department's lack of transparency and timeliness
regarding various arms sales disappointing.
For 2 years the State Department has delayed the approval
of export licenses for American companies to sell firearms to
both the Mexican military, and law enforcement to fight the
drug cartels. In fact, I was down in Mexico City with the
secretary of the Navy, and they raised this very issue with me,
and the Mexican Marines. Where are the weapons that we paid
for, we need them to fight the cartels in Mexico.
They are on the front lines, also trying to keep deadly
drugs like fentanyl, not so well I would say, out of the
country. In a time of crisis we should not be withholding the
tools they need to combat these deadly cartels. And I hope that
moving forward, as an eternal optimist, I hope we can consult
better with you, and you can consult better with Congress in
the future.
It seems to me at the staff level things get bogged down,
and I know this happens with Members of Congress and their
respective offices, but when I have a higher level discussion,
particularly with the secretary, we try to be more like the
adults in the room, we actually get progress and we get things
done. But I think in fairness to the secretary and myself, we
could avoid a lot of these problems if we could just work it
out at the staff level.
Without having to go through subpoenas, and then contempt
proceedings, and then finally getting the production that we've
sought, that we're legally entitled to, and under Article One
we are entitled to. That is our responsibility. I know, Naz,
you worked on The Hill, and you know that is a responsibility
we take very seriously. So, I want to thank the chairman for
holding this important hearing, and for the great work you're
doing on oversight.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to hopefully a more productive relationship with both
of you, thank you.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Meeks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Mast, and Ranking Member
Crow, for calling this important hearing. And I want to thank
Deputy Secretary Verma, and Assistant Secretary Durakoglu for
appearing here today. It is critical that the American people
have an understanding of the unprecedented cooperation this
committee is receiving from the State Department and its 19
investigations.
As the committee of jurisdiction for the Department of
State however, I want to also take a moment, especially in
light of the committee's hearing earlier this week assessing
the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan, to commend the
work of the State Department employees around the world who
responded in a heroically way to the unprecedented events
unfolding in Afghanistan in 2021.
From the counselors, officers standing side by side their
military colleagues at the gates of Hamid Karzai International
Airport, or those manning the twenty-four hour task forces in
Washington or at embassies abroad. I really want you to know
how important your work helping to facilitate the evacuation in
record time of one hundred and twenty-four thousand people has
not gone unnoticed by me.
I want to thank you and the people of the State Department
for all of the work, and dedication, and sacrifices you make on
behalf of the United States of America. Now, of course I have a
little difference of opinion of my good friend, the chairman of
this committee, on what has been happening with reference to
transparency. Throughout this Congress, the State Department
under Secretary Blinken has exemplified transparency and
cooperation.
Engaging extensively with the Foreign Affairs Committee's
majority oversight demands. To date, the department has
facilitated over 18 witnesses for transcribed interviews,
amounting to more than one hundred hours of testimony, and tens
of thousands of pages of documents, and over seventy-two
productions. I believe this is what compliance looks like.
Additionally, the State Department officials have appeared
before the committee on a range of topics, including
Afghanistan, council affairs, China, export controls, the
global engagement center, and climate change. I also believe
this is what compliance looks like. And the few instances where
Secretary Blinken has had legitimate concerns about the
chilling effect of the majority's request, he has found ways to
accommodate our Chairman McCaul.
Again, this is what compliance looks like. Secretary
Blinken's compliance is in stark contrast to his immediate
predecessor, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who rejected
congressional subpoenas issued for him, and for the State
Department to provide information and testimony to law makers,
including about the firing of the State Department's inspector
general. The majority's oversight inquiries across committees
have yielded no significant findings, no smoking guns to
substantiate allegations of misconduct and lack of
transparency.
I believe in responsible oversight, because it is critical,
it is a critical component of this committee's work. But it is
disheartening to witness the continuous diversion of American
taxpayer resources and attention toward baseless political
motivated investigations. Ironically, the majority's lack of
transparency is glaring, and I have continuously called on the
majority to release all the transcripts of the closed door
interviews conducted during this Congress.
The majority has yet to do so. Now, I appreciate my good
friend the chairman's promise to eventually make them public.
Yet it has been 15 months of sitting on the facts, and it seems
to me, cherry picking quotes to mislead the public. House
Republicans have a unique ability to almost immediately release
transcripts of transcribed interviews when it suits their
political narrative.
But wait months and still not release the transcripts when
it doesn't suit their agenda. The political agenda, their
political agenda has serious consequences. And publicly
releasing the name of an organization advocating for the rights
of marginalized people, subjecting them to threats and
harassments, is very dangerous. And allowing a disagreement on
policy to drive an investigation into a State Department grant
supporting freedom of belief is dangerous.
Previously holding hostage the State Department's ability
to counter Russian and Chinese disinformation is in fact
dangerous. And our duty to the American people is to pursue
oversight with integrity and focus on enhancing our national
security and governance. The continuous attempts to divide our
Nation, to erode our public trust in our institutions, and to
distract them from real challenges we face lead us nowhere and
must end.
Again, thank you Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Crow, and to
our witnesses for your willingness to voluntarily testify in
public hearing, I look forward to your insights.
I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks, I now recognize
myself for an opening statement, and I am going to get into the
mismanagement of oversight in that.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST
Mr. Mast.I will start by framing it in this way, it is
often said that quality is better than quantity, and in your
written testimony, which you will likely repeat in a moment,
you provide stats of being subject to thirty-eight
congressional investigations into State Department from the
House of Representatives.
Responding to 13 hundred congressional letters, providing
forty thousand pages worth of documents, provided testimony in
over a hundred hearings, and I thank you for all of that. I
thank the State Department for all that you have provided. But
unfortunately it is too often quantity and not quality, and I
would give you some examples in this as we move along.
We have classified briefers frequently come with little or
no answers to our questions, or with absolutely nonsensical
analysis. The documents are often just simply not what is
requested. When I requested the plan to withdraw from
Afghanistan, specifically the circumstances of withdraw that we
were going through at that time, I was not sent at all a plan
on what we were doing with that withdraw of Afghanistan.
But rather I was sent thousands of pages that generally
outlined how we would evacuate from any embassy, which was
absolutely not what we were requesting, and that is well known,
not how we plan to leave in that moment. This in turn results
in additional two, or three, or four, or five requests. So,
when you look at the number of how many requests you get for
inquiry, it is because your responding to us with something
that is not the answer to our original request, essentially
making it a dog and pony show.
If you're upset about getting too many inquiries from
Congress, it is because the quality of what you are sending us
is poor quality. And moreover, the quality of the foreign
policy is poor, and that is also why you are getting additional
inquiries. That is what requires us to ask so many questions.
That is why there are thirty-eight separate investigations from
the House of Representatives into the State Department.
Some of the poor policies resulting in many inquiries
include these, but would not be limited to these. But these
certainly, I think by most people's rationale for common sense,
warrant investigation. No. 1, I mentioned it already, the
catastrophic withdraw from Afghanistan, with thousands being
left behind, and those that are still there.
That warrants investigation, and it warrants inquiries,
sorry if that is an inconvenience. Picking 9/11 as an exit date
for the withdrawal of Afghanistan, that requires inquiries, a
request for explanation, and unfortunately we've had request
for explanation and witnesses, requests for witnesses go
unanswered. Restarting funding to UNRWA after President Trump
cut that off, that requires explanation.
Taking the Houthis off of the foreign terrorist
organization list requires answers. Having to revoke the
Special Representative for Iran Mr. Robert Malley, his security
clearance, that requires investigation. Funding drag shows in
Ecuador, that requires response from you all. When the State
Department goes out there and does that, we deserve answers for
why you would fund drag shows in Ecuador with the dollars of we
the people.
Building a port in Gaza, or proposing to build a port in
Gaza, that requires answers. Giving billions to Iran, giving
aid to the Taliban, hiring people at State Department because
of their skin color or sexual orientation, when you do that,
that requires answers. Flying a rainbow flag over the embassy
at the Vatican, that requires answers. When you go out there,
and you limit U.S. energy export potential while advancing
foreign energy export potential, that requires answers.
Funding LGBTQ activist groups supporting prostitution in
Colombia, yes, we want answers to that. When the Ambassador to
France is replacing paintings of the founders to replace them
with paintings of transgender activists, that requires answers.
And treating foreign aid like it is charity instead of a
transaction, like sending half a million dollar grants to Nepal
to advance atheism, that requires answers.
I want to examine aid to Nepal, to advance atheism there,
of half a million dollars, and I apologize, I am going to go
over the 5-minutes here, but I will make sure to reciprocate
the time to you if you desire it. In April, this is a long list
of actions, and you can count on the fact that we're going to
get into this in questions, I want to talk about the
stonewalling that has taken place.
In April 2021 a notice of funding went out that purports to
use American tax dollars to expand atheist networks in the
Middle East or South Asia. Then in 2022, June 30, 2022, we sent
a letter to State Department requesting information on this
grant. Later in 2022 we had not gotten a response, so we sent
another letter. Fast forward into the next year, Chairman
McCaul sent another letter with questions asking for the
production of documents, that would be No. 3.
Then you go later into 2023, HFAC staff emailed the
department's staff, your department's staff, to reiterate that
its request be attended to expeditiously, that would be attempt
No. 4 after several requests had been sent. Move into September
2023, absent any correspondence, documents, or written answers
from the department, or even acknowledgment of the other
emails, HFAC staff emailed the department requesting an update
on the status.
That would be attempt No. 5. Going to later of 2023, absent
any correspondence, documents, or written answers from the
department, again sent an email and correspondence requesting
information. Fast forward into October, your staff emailed HFAC
noting that it has now finalized a new production in response
to this inquiry, but refused to produce documents until it
received an assurance.
Quote ``an assurance from HFAC regarding the department's
serious concerns that information will be properly protected.''
I don't know that there should be a proper protection about
atheist grants in Nepal, where we should not be allowing the
American people to know what is going on, but that was the
response. October 19, 2023, HFAC staff emailed department staff
requesting State to produce all requested documents and
schedule transcribed interviews.
That was contact No. 7. Move on to later in October, State
made its first document production 20 October, 2023, first
document production. Later HFAC staff emailed department staff
acknowledging receipt of the production, but noted that it did
not include the documents that we know to be in State
Department's possession. That was contact No. 8 on one half a
million dollar issue.
Go later, October 27, 2023, department staff called HFAC
staff director expressing alarm over transcribed interview
requests of career State Department staff in the atheism grant
matter. Not sure why that is a problem, but that is what you
corresponded with us on. November, department staff emailed
HFAC staff stating that it would immediately get to work on
providing detailed answers to our questions.
Contact No. 9, we emailed you all noting that we have
already submitted questions that have never been answered. Go
on to a couple last contacts here. November 15 of 2023,
department staff emailed HFAC staff noting that the answers are
being drafted and reviewed to provide information. November 16
of 2023, HFAC staff emailed noting that today is the deadline,
and we cannot extend that deadline, and we still haven't
received the information.
That was contact No. 10. And November 28, 2023, State
failed to send proposed dates for transcribed interviews of
these senior bureau officials. That is one example of one grant
for half a million dollars that I think most people would agree
is absolutely a ridiculous use of the moneys of we the people
of the United States of America. Many of our questions did not
get answered until this actually took place.
The questions didn't get answered until HFAC staff were
actually in Nepal, and while in Nepal, sought out the answers.
It should not be faster to get answers from Kathmandu than from
just down the road in Foggy Bottom. We expect better from the
State Department, and we expect to hear specific answers from
you on how you plan to do better starting immediately. In that,
I apologize for going over my time.
I now recognize Ranking Member Crow for any opening
statement that you may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER JASON CROW
Mr.T4 Crow. Thank you, Chairman Mast, thank you for
calling this important hearing. And I appreciate the
opportunity to look holistically at the department's
responsiveness to congressional oversight over the course of
this Congress. As the ranking member of the Oversight
Subcommittee I have tracked these investigations closely, and I
am thankful to Secretary Blinken and to the department for
their cooperation, and for their respect for Congress'
constitutional oversight role.
I believe the department's track record demonstrates their
compliance, and shows that they have made good faith effort to
meet the majority's many, many requests. But there are
differences between a good faith oversight effort, of which we
have an obligation to pursue, in which you start with a
question. The way investigations are supposed to happen is you
start with a question.
Then you collect evidence, you hold hearings and briefings,
you collect evidence, and you look at documents, and then you
come to a conclusion based on that investigation. Versus in
these instances where the majority starts with an answer,
something that they want to show. And then they work backward
from there to try jam the facts in to meet their narrative.
But the good news is, is we have facts, and I love facts,
because they show really interesting things. There are 19
investigations that this committee, the Foreign Affairs
Committee under the majority control, has initiated this
Congress. Twelve of those are deemed active. There have been
seventy-two productions of documents and information in
response to those investigations.
When we printed this board, there were twenty-two thousand
pages, but because you continue to comply and do things on a
rolling basis, as of today there are over twenty-four thousand
pages of documents now provided to this committee. Eighteen
witnesses for transcribed interviews, and over one hundred
hours of testimony. That is a lot, and I can also say that has
been told to me by the State Department, there have been over
fifty thousand staff hours spent by staff of the State
Department responding to the inquiries of this committee.
But the chairman is also right that quality is important
too. Right? It is not just the quantity, but also what is being
provided. And he used an example, he said we asked for
information about the withdrawal of Afghanistan, and what we
got was policies pertaining to embassies and withdrawals. Well
folks, we have policies in the U.S. Government, and procedures
that apply to our government.
We're military folks by background, and there are standard
operating procedures that we're familiar with in our military
background that apply in every given instance. So, to say that
producing those policies is non-compliance is absurd, to be
generous. The administration has accommodated every request for
transcribed interviews in the investigation into the
Afghanistan withdrawal and provided more than 16 thousand pages
of documents just for that one investigation. The
administration has also gone to great lengths to meet
unprecedented requests that implicate really serious concerns
of whistleblower protections, chilling effect including coming
up with a new process to share with this committee the Dissent
Cable Channel and interview notes related to the after action
review of the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Recognizing the importance of this investigation, and going
to great lengths to accommodate the requests of this committee.
In those instances the department clearly communicated their
concerns, and Secretary Blinken made extraordinary
accommodations. But rather than a transparent and serious
investigation, this committee itself actually has not been
transparent on many occasions.
Has not released the transcripts of the many transcribed
interviews that we have conducted, which we have repeatedly
asked for. We have nothing to hide, the administration has
nothing to hide. So, let's produce the transcripts, because the
American people deserve to have these answers too. But here is
fundamentally what is happening here.
The majority disagrees with the policies of this
administration. That is the way it works. There are elections
in America, people win those elections and implement their
policies. So, a policy disagreement does not equal obstruction.
A policy disagreement does not equal non-compliance. You can
disagree, and we're supposed to have debates about these
policies and these programs, let's have those debates.
But do not say that there is obstruction, that they are not
working with us in good faith, because they have over and over
again proven their willingness to do this. And with all due
respect for the chairman, who is my brother in arms, and a
fellow combat veteran, in his parade of horribles, one of which
he spent a lot of time on was this atheism, this supposed
atheism grant that the State Department administered.
Well, here is the fact folks. This grant promotes
fundamental rights of freedom of religion. And guess where this
grant comes from, it is a grant program that is in direct
response to a statutory amendment by, wait for it, a Republican
member of this committee that created this program. Facts
matter. I look forward to having a fact based discussion in
this hearing, and I appreciate the witnesses for coming forward
to answer yet another series of questions by the majority.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Crow. We will now go
to the individuals for your opening statements. First we have
Hon. Richard Verma, deputy secretary of State for management
and resources. Next we have Hon. Naz Durakoglu, who is the
assistant secretary of the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, which
is commonly referred to as H.
Thank you both for being here today, your full statements
will be made a part of the record, and I will ask that you keep
your spoken remarks to 5 minutes in order to allow time for
member questions.
I now recognize Deputy Secretary Verma for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD VERMA, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES
Mr. Verma. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Chairman
McCaul, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, Ranking Member
Crow, and members of the committee, I am honored to testify
before you today regarding State Department compliance with
congressional oversight. I am joined by our assistant secretary
of State for legislative affairs, Naz Durakoglu, who many of
you know well, and who previously served as a staff member of
this committee.
I am proud to say that both the assistant secretary and I
have roots on Capitol Hill, where we served for many years. In
fact, I started working in this chamber when I was 18 years old
for the then chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, Jack Murtha, and I continued working for him
through college and law school.
There was no better training on the critical bipartisan
role that Congress plays in the shaping and oversight of U.S.
national security and foreign policy. I went on to serve in the
Air Force, and in the Senate as the national security advisor
to the senate leader for many years, and then as the assistant
secretary of State for legislative affairs.
The assistant secretary and I have enormous respect and
deep appreciation for the role that this committee plays in
supporting the department, and our nearly eighty thousand State
Department personnel spread in every corner of the world, and
every conflict zone. Our U.S. direct hire workforce comes from
every State in the country, and nearly 20 percent of our
workforce are veterans.
My role as deputy secretary of State for management and
resources, or DMR as the position is known, has been described
as the chief operating officer for the State Department. Next
week will be 1 year on the job for me. It has been an enormous
honor to return to the department after serving as the
assistant secretary, and as U.S. Ambassador to India.
In this first year I have been to over thirty of our
embassies and consulates around the world. From Kyiv, to
Baghdad, Jakarta, Sydney, Bogota, Jerusalem, the Western Indian
Ocean Islands, and so many places in between. Ours is a
department facing an unprecedented set of strategic challenges
from the war in Ukraine to conflict in the Middle East, to the
challenge posed by the People's Republic of China.
Not to mention the transnational challenges brought on by
climate change, health and food insecurity, democratic
retrenchment, cyber risks, and of course migration. Our
personnel are working in more places on a wider range of
issues, issues of urgent importance to the American people,
than ever before. This is the nature of the global picture we
face.
But what I have also discovered in my travels, and my
engagements with the workforce, is a deeply committed and
inspired team who are putting mission above all else. I know
many of you on this committee engage with them too on your
travels, and I am sure you've seen the same, and we are
grateful for your support.
The global landscape puts into perspective the urgency of
our jobs, the need to support our people in their missions, and
the need to work closely with all of you on policy development,
on oversight, and on appropriations. And I am pleased to be
able to say that under Secretary Blinken, and with the
leadership from the assistant secretary, the department has
reached record levels of engagement with Capitol Hill.
Since the beginning of the 118th Congress, department
officials have provided more than thirty-five hundred briefings
to Members of Congress and their staffs, testified in more than
a hundred congressional hearings, responded to more than 13
hundred congressional letters, and facilitated more than six
hundred and fifty CODELs and STAFFDELs.
And while these numbers are impressive, our relationship
with Congress is more than just hearings and briefings. We have
particularly demonstrated that commitment in our response to
congressional oversight. By our count, Mr. Chairman, there were
actually forty-five investigations by the House, there are some
thirty-four that are ongoing today, of the department, 19 from
this committee alone.
This is on top of the many staff level or more informal
requests for information we receive on a daily basis. In
response, the department has produced nearly forty-two thousand
pages of documents to Congress since January 2023. Of that
number, more than half has gone to this committee. The
department has also made 18 employees available for transcribed
interviews with this committee staff with each interview
lasting as long as eight or 9 hours, and two more are
scheduled.
However, global threats and foreign policy challenges do
not cease when we are responding to congressional oversight.
The same officers who are subject matter experts also have to
review every document that gets produced to the committee, and
they take that responsibility quite seriously. And while we've
increased our staffing for congressional oversight, the
department's primary function must remain the conduct of
American foreign policy.
I am grateful for the open channels of communication we've
had with all of you, and I am hoping we can find the right
balance in the months ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Richard Verma follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Verma. I ask unanimous consent
that the following member be allowed to sit on the dais and
participate in today's hearing, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Van Duyne. Without objection, so ordered. All right, we're now
going to move to member questions, thank you for your opening
statement. I understand that you will not be doing one, Ms.
Durakoglu, that is correct? Okay.
We're going to move to Mr. Perry, No. 1, for 5 minutes,
you are recognized.
Mr. Perry. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't
intend to head this direction, but I at least will for a
moment. I appreciate, first of all, let me say thank you for
your service, and Secretary Verma, particularly in uniform, as
there is some other formerly uniform service members here as
well, but it is not just about quantity, it is about quality.
I am looking at these documents, and it is a pretty thick
stack of documents, but now you both have pretty high education
here as I looked at your resume. Can either of you read
anything on this page? Or this page? Or this page? Or any of
these pages that all look the same? That came from you folks to
us. Now, I know it is probably a lot of work providing all this
information to us.
You worked here on The Hill, both of you did before at some
point in your career, and you know it is our job to do this.
And while we do have policy disagreements, and they are to be
expected based upon the outcome of elections, we need the
information so that we can do our job, because even though the
executive branch is making these decisions on executing the
law, we're the ones that make the law, as you know that, and we
need to make sure that the law is being executed as designed.
That having been said, I want to ask you folks about Robert
Malley. I think it has been about three hundred days, the
chairman of the full committee mentioned it. It is my
understanding that he is under investigation, and that he has
had his security clearance revoked--correction, suspended. Will
either one of you speak to that? Is the investigation still
ongoing, has his security clearance been revoked, what level of
security clearance are we talking about that he has maintained?
Is there a designator with that, is there SCI, is there L,
is there Q, is there weight, where do we stand?
Mr. Verma. Yes, Congressman, I will say the matter is still
under review. There is not a lot we can say in this public
setting. Frankly, I don't have the information to share with
you because it is under review. And I am hoping we can get to a
point where we can actually provide you with more information,
but as long as it is under review, there isn't a lot to provide
to you. And I think you have it basically right, the security
clearance is pending adjudication----
Mr. Perry. So, Mr. Secretary, you're an attorney, right?
And I think I read that, you're an attorney, you're familiar
with the Supreme Court, you know that they've held that even
ongoing law enforcement cases cannot limit the committee's
power to conduct its own inquiries, and I can give you the
case, I am sure you're familiar. But it seems like it is
limiting our ability right now, because you won't tell--so, do
you know what level clearance he had?
Mr. Verma. I don't know what level of clearance he had.
Mr. Perry. You don't know which level, were all levels
suspended, or just--how familiar are you with the case? And if
you're not familiar, should you be as the deputy secretary?
Mr. Verma. No, what happens, and Congressman, what I
understand is that the under secretary for management, and the
citizen secretary for diplomatic security actually came up in
closed session and did brief the chairman and ranking member.
Because of privacy restrictions, because of the law that you
cite, we were able to provide some details, but we can't do it
in open session.
So, we provided some administrative details. Again,
probably not enough to satisfy you or the committee members
today, and I understand your concern, but that is the
limitations we're operating under.
Mr. Perry. So, there are other members on the committee
here that have the same level of security clearance, is there a
commitment from your office--we don't want to take you away
from your work, but we need to know this information.
Understanding, and maybe the public doesn't know, but we're
talking about someone who I think can potentially be credibly
accused of assisting and aiding the enemy of the United States
of American in Iran.
Having regular contact, and so on, and so forth, would you
commit to a closed door setting, a closed session with the
other members of this committee for that information?
Mr. Verma. Yes, let me say two things. One, I'd be careful
about just jumping to conclusions like that----
Mr. Perry. I am not jumping to any conclusions, sir, I can
read.
Mr. Verma. Well, I think you are. And second, I'd be happy
to take that back and provide you with whatever administrative
information we can, and consistent with what the law allows us.
But yes, let me take it back.
Mr. Perry. So, can you tell us what the circumstances
were, how the department became aware of the allegations
surrounding Mr. Malley?
Mr. Verma. I actually don't have that information,
Congressman. I will say, I understand we have offered a full
committee briefing, and so that offer stands.
Mr. Perry. And we want more than just your administrative
details, sir, it has been three hundred days plus.
Mr. Verma. Congressman, we will do whatever we are able to
do given the pending nature of the investigation.
Mr. Perry. All right, Mr. Chairman, time has expired,
thank you.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Perry.
The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Crow.
Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Verma, just picking up
where we left off there with the last line of questioning, it
is true that the State Department has actually provided
information to this committee on this issue, this security
clearance issue regarding Mr. Malley, is that correct?
Mr. Verma. That is correct.
Mr. Crow. including a classified briefing with members, is
that correct?
Mr. Verma. That is correct.
Mr. Crow. In which all of the information available to the
department at that time that they can release, with the
restrictions of a personnel issue, because there are human
resources protections about what can be transmitted during the
pendency of an ongoing investigation, but notwithstanding those
restrictions, you have let us know what you all know?
Mr. Verma. That is correct.
Mr. Crow. Thank you. Ms. Durakoglu, I want to talk to you
about Afghanistan for a minute, because you have been at the
department for a while, and you saw first-hand the issues of
Afghanistan around the withdrawal. Can you just paint a picture
for us for a moment as to what it was like within the State
Department when that was happening, and how you've taken that
experience and translated that to our very real needs to do
oversight, and investigations, and ask questions about it?
Ms. Durakoglu. Sure, thank you, Congressman, and thank you
for your service as well. You're right, I was at the department
during the withdrawal, and I was tasked with essentially
receiving input from congressional offices, and I have to say
the input was quite heavy. There were a lot of folks seeking
assistance at the time. I happened to, for outside reasons,
found myself in Turkey at the time, so I was actually closer to
the time zone in Afghanistan.
So, the role that I ended up playing was calling up our
officers on the ground, and getting information from them about
which gates were open, what was going on that day, so that I
can then transmit it to Congress. I was in touch with the staff
directors of this committee and others quite regularly. And the
one thing I can say is I wasn't on the ground, I have immense
respect for those both at DOD and State Department who were.
When I regularly spoke to officers who actually were
personal contacts of mine from my time in Congress, I would
hear gun shots in the background, I would hear screaming. They
would talk to me through it, they would actually try to locate
individuals that certain Congressmen and women were looking
for. And often times the cell phone that they were using, they
would pass right to the marines that they were working with
side by side as well.
So, I will say it was a very difficult time, I think for
all of us, including those on this committee. But I have to say
the department was really doing everything it could, and I have
immense respect, particularly for those who volunteered to go
to Kabul.
Mr. Crow. Yes, thank you for that. And I mentioned in my
opening, this issue of some unprecedented requests, and the
department making accommodation on those. Can you talk about,
for example, the Dissent Channel cable issue, and how that came
about, and some of the substantial accommodations the
department made in responding to that request?
Ms. Durakoglu. Sure. So, as you know, Secretary Blinken was
actually before this committee, and he explained it himself.
But there are obviously extreme sensitivities to sharing the
Dissent Channel Cable, this is a confidential channel directly
to the secretary. The employees who participate on this, on
whatever issue they participate in, they expect it to remain
confidential for the most part.
So, when the request came in for the Dissent Channel, and I
will say the dissent actually originally was from democrats on
the committee back when they were in the majority, we talked to
the committee about providing briefings. And this was even
before 2023, there were briefings provided. And then post 2023
we provided a summary of the Dissent Channel Cable, which
actually took direct input from that cable.
We had our professionals who know about the Dissent Channel
come up here, and in a closed setting, discuss what the input
is, answer any questions, and then eventually we did provide it
in camera as well. And this was, I would say, an extraordinary
accommodation that has never actually been done before in the
history of the State Department.
Mr. Crow. Thank you. And in the time that we have, it is my
understanding that the Senate minority, the Republicans in the
Senate are actually holding up some Ambassador appointments
based on investigations that the majority in the House are
conducting on certain issues based on policy disagreements. Can
you just talk to me very briefly about that, and some instances
of those important appointments being held up?
Ms. Durakoglu. I have to think a little bit through this,
but I can say one person who is notably absent today is our
legal advisor, who obviously the L Bureau plays a big role in
accommodations, and the oversight process as well. The
department hasn't had a legal advisor since the beginning of
this administration, which is quite extraordinary. Our first
nominee had to withdraw, and we have a second nominee who
recently had her hearing, and was voted out yesterday.
But I will say it was against the will of the minority, and
she will be on the floor. This is someone who plays a big role,
I will say Ecuador was mentioned a few times, we don't have our
nominee to Ecuador. Moving forward, we also talked, I don't
know if we mentioned it, but I know a major focus of this
committee is the Bureau of Democracy Rights and Labor.
The administration has gone without an assistant secretary
for that bureau since the beginning as well. Also we had a
nominee who was forced to withdraw, actually forced not to
proceed, and we now have a second one too, who we're hoping to
lead the bureau. But I will say across the board we have just
dozens of folks who are waiting, mostly career officials. And I
don't know if the deputy secretary would like to comment on
that.
Mr. Verma. It is just hard to carry out the mission that I
think this committee wants us to carry out when we don't have
our chief of mission in Djibouti, and Nigeria, The African
Union, and Ecuador. In Haiti we didn't have an ambassador until
we had to have a cloture vote on the Senate floor. I know this
isn't your challenge, and it is the other chamber.
But when you are frustrated with the department, and our
inability to really move big policy initiatives or protect
people, we've got to get our people out in the field. And this
really should be a bipartisan concern. You look at every
commission after every crisis in the United States, 9-11
Commission forward, they talk about getting our people out in
the field as quickly as possible.
Including in the after action review for Afghanistan, they
talked about the absence of Senate confirmed people in top
jobs. So, I think as a bipartisan matter, I hope we can look at
this, a bicameral matter frankly, because it impacts U.S.
national security.
Mr. Crow. Thank you.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Crow. I would say I
think what makes it most difficult, bad policy is difficult to
defend. And I would say that I am glad you spoke about
Afghanistan, it does matter to have answers to your questions
in a timely way. The withdraw being in August, I was here in
this room asking questions in March prior to the withdraw, and
I asked three very specific questions.
How many SIVs were they anticipating, how many when you
count each of their family members, and how many staff did
State Department have working on that? State did not have the
answer, State promised to get us the answer, never got us the
answer. And we know that right now to this moment there was no
attempt to get that answer for us, and people are still running
for their lives.
That is the result of what happens when you all don't get
us the answer. That is not a question right now, Mr. Verma, I
will have my time to ask questions.
Right now I am going to recognize Mr. Mills for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mills. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both
for being here, I really appreciate it. Deputy Secretary Verma,
great to meet you in person, we've exchanged some phone calls
and texts. One of the things that one of my colleagues, and
also my fellow brother in combat arms, Mr. Crow, has said is
that start with a question, get the facts. So, I am going to
start with a question.
In August 2021, President Biden made a comment and said
that if you just show your blue passport at HKIA, that you'll
be permitted to enter, and allowed on the aircraft. Is that
correct?
Mr. Verma. Well, I think you know, Congressman, what was
happening in August 2021 at that airport, and how dangerous it
was, and we were----
Mr. Mills. Deputy Secretary, we are not debating at all, I
completely agree with you that it was chaotic. I completely
agree with you, I just want to know----
Mr. Verma. Right, so we got out one hundred----
Mr. Mills. I just want to know did he make that statement?
Mr. Verma. We got out one hundred and twenty-four thousand
people----
Mr. Mills. Did he make that statement?
Mr. Verma. Including six thousand Americans. And the
ability to show a blue passport was very challenging----
Mr. Mills. Deputy Secretary, this is how things get taken
out of context and start getting heated up. It is just a simple
yes or no. Did President Biden make that comment or not?
Mr. Verma. I don't know, I wasn't at the department at the
time, frankly, and----
Mr. Mills. Do you happen to remember, because he made it
clear if you're a blue passport holder, and you show your
passport at the gate, that you'd be permitted to enter. That
was in a direct quote.
Ms. Durakoglu. Sir, my apologies, we were taking a lot of
intake at that time, I actually don't remember the president's
comments on that. I do know----
Mr. Mills. Understood. Well, he did actually make that
comment, and if you will, can you just roll a piece of video
first? Because that starts with my question, now let's get to
the fact. It is actually going to be the one on Afghanistan.
You guys don't have that one, OK. There was blue passport
holders sitting outside on August 26 of 2021----
Mr. Mast. Mr. Mills, will you pause for a moment? We can
pause the time. Do we have whatever video you want? We can
check for that.
Mr. Mills. Do we have that on the videos?
Mr. Mast. Just pause his time for a moment.
Mr. Mills. I don't think they brought that one in,
unfortunately.
Mr. Mast. No, are you sure? Okay.
Mr. Mills. Too many actual videos to be entered into
record. But I would request to be entered into the record, Mr.
Chairman----
Mr. Mast. So ordered.
Mr. Mills. The video of Americans waving their passport
August 26 of 2021 outside of the Abbey Gate, not being
permitted entry. And subsequently losing their lives, and being
blown into the canal.
Mr. Mills. So, I am going to go ahead and continue on. We
talk about facts all the time, we talk about what actually took
place, and what occurred. Secretary Verma and I have actually
discussed the idea that we have a policy and a budgeting issue
when it comes to being responsive to Americans that are abroad.
But I want to figure out how it is that private citizens and
others are able to do things that the whole of government in
its entire is unsuccessful in being able to do.
I want to provide a couple of examples. So, here is the
first one, which is a mother and three children, born and
raised Amarillo, Texas natives that Congressman Ronny Jackson
out of Texas 13 had requested State Department assistance and
support for. And as a rear admiral, had requested support from
the Department of Defense, and was denied, and not even given
any ability to try and get this family into the HKIA area when
they were sitting at the gate.
And the actual guard said that the only thing the State
Department has to do is even say your name over the actual
comms, and we will permit you in. Task Force Afghanistan said
that we cannot provide that level of assistance, to say their
name. But that is OK, after 11 days, and multiple attempts by
the State Department and others to thwart our efforts, which we
came to find, that is that family successfully rescued by
myself and my team.
Now, let's look at other examples of this. In October 7 we
had the barbaric and horrendous incidents in Israel. We
requested support from the U.S. State Department to help to get
charter aircrafts in even after Germany, the Philippines, and
other nations had come in and successfully arranged that
through Ben Gurion Airport, yet where was the U.S. State
Department?
Well, I can tell you where I was. On October 11, I pulled
out the first thirty-two Americans, October 12, I pulled out
the next forty-five Americans. Going into Nazareth, Haifa,
going into Jerusalem, going into the West Bank, going into
other areas of Israel. Getting out two hundred and fifty-five
before the State Department in all of its might and all of its
finances even got a single charter aircraft.
Now, let's go to one more recent incident and example. The
spokesperson, Mr. Miller, of the U.S. State Department made a
comment about Haiti and its current disheveled capability of
Jimmy Cherizier, which is known as Barbeque, taking over Mankin
Khan (phonetic) G9, and the rest of the actual gangs who have
terrorized, and set fire, and cannibalized individuals.
When requesting support, the spokesman for the State
Department said we have no plan and or intent to help evacuate
and secure Americans. Well, at my own dime and expense once
again, here we go. And here is an example we will go ahead and
play of what that looks like.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Mills. These are Americans who had requested multiple
times from the U.S. State Department to gain assistance, to be
able to get them from their actual orphanage, to include the
gentleman Mitch Albom, a very well-known author and radio host,
who by the way is a known and well registered Democrat. You
see, when we care about the safety and security of Americans,
we don't look at political affiliations, or gender, or race, or
religion, or other things which are an other descript.
We care that they are a blue passport holder, and that is
supposed to matter. We went on to not only rescue them, but to
also rescue 13 more after that. To include a 2-month old baby,
and a 3-year old little girl who had been hiding, and locking
themselves in a chapel. Now, I am puzzled at how the President
of the United States and the United States DOS is telling us
that they don't have the ability to help and rescue these
Americans.
When private resources with limited resources can achieve
these great feats, and there is other organizations who are
doing amazing things. So, we can't talk about how the State
Department's main objective abroad is to help support, and to
rescue, and to help those abroad in every way, because we've
seen time and time again the failures that have occurred.
We see this through the multitude of NEOs that are
occurring, through the failed domestic and foreign policies
that is leading up to this, to the Americans that are being
abandoned. There is a pattern of abandonment that is existing
right now, and no confidence in our own government, which is
why Americans feel more secure calling private companies than
they do actually responding to the U.S. State Department, who
does what?
Sends them an automatic email and a website, please go
ahead and fill out. But guess what? The good thing is that you
do get shamed into your jobs. Because now all of a sudden you
had no purpose or no plan to rescue Americans, now you're
sending a charter. That is what it takes to get the State
Department to do their jobs, and that is unacceptable. So, you
need to let us know the resources, assets, and what needs to be
done, because we're willing to help that, but we get nothing
from you in return.
With that, I yield back, and thank you for indulging my
questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Mills.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Titus.
Mr. Verma. Mr. Chairman, can I respond to that, or?
Mr. Mast. Certainly, you may.
Mr. Verma. Look, over the past 12 months State Department
has helped seventy thousand Americans. Seventy thousand around
the world. Not one or two, or nine, or ten, seventy thousand.
We evacuated 12 hundred people----
Mr. Mills. Are you alluding that the one or two's lives
don't matter?
Mr. Verma. No, I am giving you the quantity and scale of
what we've done.
Mr. Mills. Okay.
Mr. Verma. We took out 12 hundred people from Sudan at
great risk. Our consulars, officers----
Mr. Mills. I actually commended you on Sudan, do you
remember this?
Mr. Mast. Mr. Verma is currently recognized.
Mr. Verma. I didn't see that, I appreciate that. We took
out thousands of people, offered up thousands of seats on
chartered aircraft from Israel. We are taking people out of
Haiti. I appreciate what you've done, Congressman. But I think
to demean the department the way you do, I think doesn't
reflect the reality.
Mr. Mills. But it is not demeaning, it is providing facts.
Isn't that what Mr. Crow had just talked about, was putting the
question, and getting facts?
Mr. Verma. These people----
Mr. Mills. There were people asking and begging for help.
Mr. Mast. Mr. Mills.
Mr. Verma. These consular officers are doing incredibly
heroic work----
Mr. Mills. I love what the State Department is doing, I
admire them.
Mr. Mast. Mr. Verma and Mr. Mills, hold on a minute. Mr.
Mills, I am happy to do a second round if you have more
questions. Mr. Verma, you can continue.
Mr. Verma. Look, I'd love to work with you. The budget that
you all passed out of here last fall was a twenty-five percent
cut to the State Department, twenty-five percent cut while you
were asking us to take on evacuation responsibilities of
Americans. We do so much to warn Americans where they are
going. Haiti has been a level four country where we actually
tell people not only not to go, but if you go our ability to
get you out is going to be limited.
So, I am looking forward to this conversation with you. I
hope we can support the budget to allow us to do things in a
more robust way.
Mr. Mast. Ms. Titus, you are recognized.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go back
to the subject of the investigations that we were mentioning
earlier so that the public knows exactly what the Republicans
on this committee want to be investigating. Department grant
support for at risk members of the LGTBQ community in Latin
America, and as was pointed out, this investigation derailed
the implementation of this grant after grantees were publicly
targeted by members of the House who had voted for the
assistance in the first place.
That is sending some mixed signals, I would say, by the
people across the aisle. The majority is also investigating the
State Department for following a law that was passed in 2016
that directs you to support advocates for religious freedom,
and now the majority is threatening these partners with
subpoenas if they don't sit for transcribed interviews. Again,
a law passed in 2016, you're doing what the law said, religious
freedom. Surely they support religious freedom.
The majority has also opened an investigation that has been
weaponized against diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility. They refuse to acknowledge that diversity is one
of our strengths, that perhaps we should allow people with
disabilities greater access. I can't believe they want to come
out opposed to that, but that is the tenor of things in their
investigations.
They refuse to acknowledge that this is a good thing, as
opposed to something that they want to get rid of, equity,
inclusion, and diversity. They've also held so many hearings on
Afghanistan, one this week, and one today, this hearing is kind
of devolving into that, there has been no new information, no
smoking gun after all of these hearings.
There are 11 other investigations that they are pursuing at
the expense of our time and the public's taxpayer dollars that
range from the Wuhan Institute to John Kerry, they want to
investigate John Kerry now. In response, I just want to say
this again, even though it has been already pointed out. The
State Department has turned over twenty-four thousand pages of
documents.
Produced 18 witnesses for transcribed interviews. One
hundred hours of testimony. Twenty-three closed door interviews
which we can't get access to. That is all in--I think you said
fifty thousand staff hours, all in response to these requests
for investigations. You mentioned the cutting of the budget
last time. Well, this time, in the budget that has just come
out, or the bill that we're going to be considering, there is
another 6 percent cut to the State Department.
How they expect you to do all of this, and deal with
international diplomacy at the same time is beyond me, and now
they want to cut 6 percent from the budget. And what do they
have to show for it? Absolutely nothing. We've not seen any
transcripts, we haven't heard the closed door interviews, there
are no new facts, no new damning substance that has been
uncovered.
It is just more performative politics. And in true to their
fashion, the way they've been operating, if you can't find a
smoking gun, then you just blow smoke, and that is what we've
been hearing. So, just to put all that out there again, don't
hesitate to make that a part of the record because that is what
is going on here. But I want to talk specifically about the
Global Engagement Center.
Again, that is something that is under investigation by
this committee, not a surprise. I'd like to ask unanimous
consent too, to put this article in the record. It was in the
Washington Post opinion, ``Don't Defund the Fight Against
Russia and China's Disinformation.''
[The information referred to appears in Appendix]
Ms. Titus. You all are probably familiar with that. One of
the things that is pointed out in here is that China spends
seven billion dollars or more annually. Russia spends about one
point five billion dollars annually. And we're having a hard
time getting around sixty-one million, million with an M, and
their billion with a B. But anyway, according to this article,
and to my research, and some of the things that you've had to
say, we need this agency. We should not be giving up the battle
for misinformation.
This agency is not something that combats disinformation
internally, but abroad. And so, I'd like for you all to talk
about it, and talk about what the implications are of failing
to reauthorize this agency, so that we can stand up for
democracy as Russia and China try to conduct this hidden or
secret war against us through their sources of disinformation.
Would you address that?
Mr. Crow. And before you do so, I wanted to make sure that
Ms. Titus' request for entry into record was recognized.
Mr. Mast. Yes, it is.
Mr. Crow. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Crow.
Mr. Verma. Congresswoman, thank you for raising the Global
Engagement Center. As you point out, it is a battle in the
information space. Our adversaries are not sitting back, they
are spending billions of dollars. They are trying to shape the
battlefield in the information space, and if we're not there
pushing back, if we're not there exposing what they are doing,
it not only sets us back, it sets our partners and our allies
around the world, and really puts us at risk.
So, we appreciate that the Global Engagement Center has
been designated as the point, and the lead for the Federal
Government to be out there exposing, and giving people the
tools to actually push back. They do absolutely no work in the
United States at all, and they do have a sunset clause at the
end of this year. I think it is vitally important that the
Global Engagement Center also be reauthorized.
Ms. Titus. I agree with that. And just a simple yes or no
so there is no question about it, the Global Engagement Center
does not conduct domestic focused programming, is that correct?
Mr. Verma. They conduct no work in the United States at
all.
Ms. Titus. And in this investigation that they are
conducting about the center, have you been forthcoming in
letting them know what some of your implementing partners are
doing, who they are, and how they are engaged?
Mr. Verma. One hundred percent.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Okay, is my time up? Seems like my time is a lot
shorter than your time. But thank you.
Mr. Mast. I think you're at about a minute fifty over,
isn't that about the same?
Ms. Titus. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. I certainly tried my best to make it as even as I
could here, and thank you for your questions. And Mr. Verma, I
do know that as we're speaking about the GEC, there were
absolutely domestic news outlets that were targeted by GEC
resources. So, let's not pretend as though that didn't happen,
that one hundred percent happened.
Mr. Verma. I don't know if this is a question, because I am
happy to respond to it. Because it really was----
Mr. Mast. It is not a question, we already did a hearing on
it with people that are experts on it.
Mr. Verma. It was, I think you're concerned about one of
their grantees, but they have strict guidelines----
Mr.Mast. I now recognize Ms. Salazar for her time for
questions.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this
time. And thank you, Mr. Verma, for being here, and willingly
answer our questions. I just want you to help me with just
basically one thing, which is to be able to obtain all
communications between the United States Embassy in Cuba, and a
small business called MADWOMAN, and I am going to explain to
you why.
It occurs that the United States Embassy has hired this
company called MADWOMAN that is supposedly in the hands of
private sector in Cuba, something that is very difficult to
believe, but that is the way they call themselves, the mipymes,
small business, Cubans owning their own small businesses. It
occurs that the owner of this small business called MADWOMAN
fires one of her employees called Alvaro Hernandez.
Just for the mere fact of writing in his own social media,
down with the dictatorship. The owner was honored by the State
Department, your State Department, as one of the top
entrepreneurs of the hemisphere, she is invited to come to
Washington. And as I said, she is doing business with the
United States Embassy to do some type of marketing on the
island.
At the same time this company, MADWOMAN, the offices are in
a building which is owned by the Cuban regime, and specifically
the military conglomerate. So, that is why I sent a letter to
President Biden, and I copied Secretary Blinken so we could
understand what is happening between the embassy and MADWOMAN.
And the only way we could do that if we could have all
communication, emails, texts, phone calls, letters between the
embassy and MADWOMAN.
Basically my question is could you commit to give us by
April 1, as I asked President Biden and Secretary Blinken to
offer that information to us, do you think that you could
commit to help me do that?
Mr. Verma. Sure, Congresswoman, I haven't seen your letter,
I am happy to followup with you after this hearing. If you want
to give me a copy of the letter, I am happy to take it back and
work on it right away.
Ms. Salazar. And so, that means that you would be willing
to dedicate resources from the State Department, and put some
interest in providing to my office all types of communication?
Mr. Verma. I am happy to dig into this on your behalf, I
don't know anything about it, I am sorry.
Ms. Salazar. No, I understand that you don't, that is why I
am--but you are third in command, you can definitely put some
resources that are at your disposal to look more into this,
because I sent the letter a few months ago, back in February,
and I have not received any type of response, and it is
important. Because I am sure that you don't want anyone to be
breaking the law.
There is an embargo against Cuba, we do not want to be
spending taxpayer's money on hiring companies that are close to
the regime, right? We want to help those Cubans that do want to
be part of the free market economy.
Mr. Verma. Yes. I can commit to you that we will take
this, and look into it, and come back to you right away.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much, I take your word for it.
I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ms. Salazar. And I would also point
out, because it has been brought up numerous times about the
transcribed interviews from Afghanistan, that those have begun
to be delivered. And what is being redacted from them is what
the minority requested to be redacted from them, that is part
of what is taking the time. So, some of them have been
delivered already, and they are working to be delivered.
Mr. Crow. Meaning delivered to the minority staff for
review----
Mr. Mast. Delivered to the minority staff, that is correct.
Mr. Crow. But not yet released yet.
Mr. Mast. Yes. To say that again in the affirmative, they
are being delivered to the minority staff. Some have been
delivered already. I am now going to recognize myself for 5
minutes. And I want to start by going to what I spoke about in
length in my opening comments. A half a million dollar grant to
Nepal regarding the expansion of atheism, and I would just
start with this question from senior State Department
personnel.
Do you believe that is an appropriate use of half a million
dollars of we the people, to expand atheism in Nepal?
Mr. Verma. Mr. Chairman, I have actually looked at this, I
have looked at the grant, I have looked at the materials, that
is not what the grant is for, and that is not what the work
would be for. And frankly, we would never authorize such a
grant to any organization to promote any kind of religion. As
the ranking member discussed, this was actually to fulfill a
requirement that this committee put forward to defend people
who were being persecuted for their beliefs.
Governments across the world, as you know, are cracking
down, can torture people, lock people up for their religious
beliefs----
Mr. Mast. So, you're saying today that no half a million
dollar grant for atheism in Nepal, or divided up in other
areas?
Mr. Verma. I have seen no evidence of any grant to promote
atheism in Nepal.
Mr. Mast. Are you familiar with those that you sent to our
committee to answer questions about this grant?
Mr. Verma. I am.
Mr. Mast. Okay, and are you familiar with that they
answered one hundred and forty times over that, that they just
didn't know, they weren't the decisionmakers on this, they
don't know, they don't know, they don't know?
Mr. Verma. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think you have to--I will
tell you what I have done, I have looked at the materials that
this grantee in Nepal has used. It was about supporting civil
society in Nepal so that they could defend themselves if they
were persecuted for believing a particular religion.
Mr. Mast. Which religion?
Mr. Verma. Or frankly, non-religion. It wasn't religion
specific, it was frankly agnostic. It was giving people the
right to be safe from persecution, which is exactly the intent
of the law.
Mr. Mast. Let's go back to the original question. Again,
as Senior State Department personnel, would it be appropriate
for the State Department to authorize half a million dollar
grant of the moneys of we the people of United States of
America to promote atheism?
Mr. Verma. It would not be appropriate to have a grant to
promote any religion or non-religion coming from the United
States. That is not what the International Religious Freedom
Office does. It is not what our Office of Democracy Human
Rights and Labor does.
Mr. Mast. Very good. So, Ms. Durakoglu, would you like to
respond to that as well? Would it be appropriate to give a half
million dollar grant to promote atheism in Nepal?
Ms. Durakoglu. No, it would not be, and I concur with the
deputy's statements. Could I add a data point to that? You
mentioned that the individuals who came up from our Religious
Freedom Office were continually saying I don't know on a number
of issues. These are, I believe, the same individuals that are
being requested for transcribed interviews. To be clear, we are
actually offering up the individual who would know, the senior
official.
So, just to be clear from earlier statements, we would like
to provide the senior official who actually is in charge of
this issue, to the committee.
Mr. Mast. We would love for you to provide that, but let's
not just talk about senior officials. Do you have a problem
with providing individuals that are not senior officials?
Mr. Verma. It does send a chilling effect, Mr. Chairman,
whenever you have grant administrators----
Mr. Mast. Be more specific, chilling effect?
Mr. Verma. Of, for example, if I am a relatively junior or
mid-level person, and I award grants from the Department of
State, and I am at risk of being called before a committee, or
testifying, or transcribed interviews, it is--and that is why
State Departments over respective administrations have had a
cutoff of deputy assistant secretary or senior executive
service to come up and appear before you.
We are simply carrying on that tradition, I think it is an
important one to protect the workforce, frankly to protect the
morale, and well being----
Mr. Mast. The workforce works for we the people of the
United States of America, and----
Mr. Verma. Right----
Mr. Mast. I would say absolutely, there should be a
chilling effect for anybody that writes a grant to spend any
dollars of we the people of the United States of America
whether to promote atheism in Nepal, or whether to do a drag
show in Ecuador, or promote prostitution in Colombia, or
whatever it might be. There should absolutely be a chilling
effect for any person at any level that goes out there and
conducts their work in such a manner.
Mr. Verma. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a disagreement
about the facts, and I don't--from what I have seen, and what I
have reviewed, and the transcripts I have reviewed, and the
grant materials of the organization in Nepal, and I have spent
a lot of time in and around Nepal, and South Asia, and I know
what risk people face, and I think this was exactly the right
kind of program to support civil society and protect them from
persecution.
Mr. Mast. Back to the point of this hearing, clearly you
disagree with this, but I would say certainly you had plenty of
time to prepare for that. Given that over the course of 2 years
and ten specific requests for information before your
department finally responded with anything, it took you quite a
long time to come up with the story that you're presenting to
me right now.
The other thing that I would say about that is there is a
complaint about needing more resources, needing more staff,
needing more personnel. Well, imagine if you cut down your work
load by ten, by a multiple of ten, how much more manageable it
would be if we didn't have to ask you ten times for everything
that we want. Whether its correspondence about a Dissent Cable
to which you all gave out public awards to people that were a
part of the Dissent Cable.
Or whether it is for information about drag show in
Ecuador, or grants in Nepal, or anything else. You could cut
that down by ten X if you responded with quality on the first
time.
Now I will recognize Ms. Van Duyne for her time.
Mr. Verma. I will say we spent fifty thousand----
Mr. Mast. You're not recognized.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, good
afternoon. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record
the House Committee on Small Business statement for the record.
[The information referred to was not submitted]
Ms. Van Duyne. The House Committee on Small Business'
subcommittee on oversight has been investigating the Federal
Government's censorship of American small business by proxy
since the beginning of this Congress. Our concerns began with a
release of the Twitter files. When investigative journalists
unearth collusion between the Federal Government, social media
companies, exorbitantly wealthy foundations, so-called non-
partisan fact checking companies to censor Americans online.
When it was revealed that the State Department, through its
Global Engagement Center, I am glad we're talking about that
today, funded the Global Disinformation Index, a company that
creates black lists of American media organizations, and ranks
them by GDI's perceived trustworthiness and risk, the committee
took action. The GDI down ranked conservative leaning
companies, and bolstered left leaning organizations.
Ironically, including those who are repeatedly guilty of
spreading false narratives. By labeling certain companies as
risky and untrustworthy based on their political views. The
GDI's ranking system interferes with the ability of
conservative leaning small businesses to earn revenue through
viewership and advertising. This is reflected in the GDI's
mission statement, which is to remove the financial incentive
to create disinformation by issuance of its dynamic exclusion
list.
Which is basically a black list disguised by an eloquent
name. Advertising platforms were pressured into ending
relationships with companies GDI labels as unreliable, thereby
demonetizing the disfavored companies, and redirecting money
and audiences to the media companies that GDI deems worthy.
GDI's CEO herself said the dynamic exclusion list had quote
``significant impact on the advertising revenue that has gone
to those sites.''
Two of the conservative leaning down ranked businesses, The
Federalist, and The Daily Wire, which by the way, are American
companies, have joined the State of Texas in a lawsuit against
State and GEC to stop the government from actively interfering
in the news media market, and attempting to render conservative
press outlets unprofitable.
The complaint alleges that by funding the infrastructure,
the development, marketing, and promotion of censorship
technology, the government is covertly suppressing the speech
at a segment of the American press with whose narrative they
disagree. So, you're not doing it, you're just paying somebody
else to do it. Other organizations funded by the GEC have been
caught sending lists of accounts to social media companies that
they label as purveyors of disinformation in order to have them
removed from online platforms.
We now know that American accounts were included in these
lists. It is a violation of the GEC's congressional mandate to
act against Americans, which you said you're not doing, but
we've got proof that you are. They could also not send taxpayer
money to third parties to accomplish the censorship they are
forbidden from doing themselves. By funding these companies,
making it fungible, the GEC is violating the First Amendment by
proxy.
The Federal Government cannot circumvent constitutional
protections by using private actors to accomplish what the
State itself is prohibited from doing. The full extent of the
GEC censorship scheme remains unknown, as the GEC has been
uncooperative with investigations into where they are sending
taxpayer money. Our first letter to State, which asks for
information on grants from Fiscal Year 2019 to present was not
answered for nearly 6 months.
Even communications with State legislative affairs team on
production schedules have been limited. Responses continue to
be incomplete, and delayed to this day. The single document
that was finally provided in December was a sliver of what was
requested. Featuring only cooperative agreements, instead of
all of the grants as asked.
It appears from the numerical system that was used for each
award that over a hundred cooperative agreements were
completely omitted from State's production, and some of the
admitted grants are publicly available online. So, it is
unclear why State did not comply with our request. Further,
information that was available on usaspending.gov was redacted
in State's limited production.
These omissions caused the committee to request more
information, including the identity of subawardees to see where
State's grant recipients were funneling taxpayer money. When
that response also went unanswered, the committee asked for a
briefing from a State grant officer to better understand the
GEC's grant issuance and oversight process.
This is also pertinent to the committee's investigation
given that State inspector general found that the GEC lacked
proper internal controls to ensure contractors did not perform
inherently governmental functions. However, that request also
went unanswered. So, when a memo was sent to members of the
committee to update this on their investigation with additional
redactions so as to be sensitive to the nature of the
information, we finally received a response from State.
It was not the one that we had hoped. When copies of the
redacted information appeared in a news article, State wrote
the committee a letter authored by you, Ms. Durakoglu, am I
close enough? A letter threatening to only share information in
camera moving forward. This is completely unacceptable, and
interferes with congressional oversight. Not only are members
of the committee entitled to this information, but none of it
was classified.
So, we will not be deterred by State's hedging, threats, or
obstruction, and we look forward to State's full and faithful
cooperation moving forward. But in the meantime we're demanding
accountability for State's non-compliance. Can I ask why did
State only provide the committee with cooperative agreements
when we asked for a redacted list of all GEC grants?
Project grants should have been included, and over 20 GEC
project grants are publicly available, and you omitted them
anyway, why?
Ms. Durakoglu. So, Congresswoman, I can take this one. And
first off, thank you, my husband is a Small Business
Administration employee, so thank you for your work. The work
that you reference by the Global Disinformation Index, if I
could just for 1 second----
Ms. Van Duyne. So, the question that I am asking is why did
you omit records that were publicly made available?
Ms. Durakoglu. So, from our perspective, we did not omit
records. We actually did provide a number, and I do have----
Ms. Van Duyne. We've got copies, you admitted records that
were readily available online that were not classified.
Ms.Durakoglu. I do have good news for you, we actually are
ready to make a production to you all next week as well.
Ms. Van Duyne. It took you 6 months to get this far, and
you're finally able to get us more than one document?
Ms.Durakoglu. I will say the Global Engagement Center is
under investigation by five separate committees right now.
But----
Ms.Van Duyne. Okay, I yield back, thank you very much,
Chairman.
Ms. Durakoglu. If I can respond, the Global Disinformation
Index that we're talking about, the work that you're
referencing happened in 2022. The Global Engagement Center
worked with them on a Chinese propaganda project in 2021, there
is actually no----
Ms.Van Duyne. I am simply asking why we can't get records
that we've requested. These records are available, much of it
is publicly available, and you have omitted it.
Ms.Durakoglu. Ma'am, you will get them next week.
Mr.Mast. Thank you both for your questions and responses.
Ms.Van Duyne. Thank you.
Mr.Mast. The chair now recognizes, again, Mr. Crow.
Mr.Crow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address
again, some of the issues that have been brought up in the
intervening period since my last round of questions. And one is
on this supposed atheism grant, which Mr. Verma, you were very
clear, is not the focus of the grant, is not what the money has
been spent on.
In fact I want to just mention that the majority, in its
investigation of this issue, took a transcribed interview, and
they have not agreed to actually release the transcript of that
interview to the minority. That is one of the TIs that they
have not agreed to release to us, No. 1. No. 2, they actually
thought it was so important that we look into this, despite the
fact that the State Department has been very clear that is not
what the money is spent on, and that is not the focus of this
grant.
The fact that it was a Republican member of this committee
that created the law for the grant, that they decided it was
important to send six staff from this committee, six, to Nepal
and India, and they spent 80000 dollars to take this trip to
conduct an onsite investigation of this issue. Where is the
evidence out of that trip?
You're going to send six members of this committee, staff
members, to go investigate this on the ground, and yet we're
sitting here asking questions like we know nothing about it.
So, clearly this is just political theater, and I apologize
that you have to sit here, and you have to deal with that. Mr.
Verma, what would you say about that?
Mr.Verma. Look, I appreciate your comments, Congressman
Crow, and I am grateful that the chairman is interested in this
issue. I am sorry that six staff members had to go to Nepal. I
care a lot about South Asia, I think about the challenges we
have in South Asia, and when I think about what could have been
done, there was no stop in Bangladesh to talk about the recent
election and human rights.
There was no stop in Bhutan to talk about the recent
election. There was no stop in Sri Lanka to talk about our
competition with China. There was no stop in Maldives to talk
about our new potential embassy, and our competition with
China. No stop in Mauritius to talk about our future of Diego
Garcia. I think about the challenges that are coming across our
desk each day in and around South Asia.
Including with our partners in Nepal, it is not a five
hundred thousand dollar grant. And I will continue to work on
this, Mr. Chairman, because I know you care about it. But I
think this is indicative of the challenge that we're having, is
that the biggest issues that we are facing are real, and
serious, and we want to engage with them on this committee, as
I talked to Congressman Mills about just recently. About what
is happening in Haiti, what is happening around the world, and
U.S. interests that are at stake.
Mr.Crow. I appreciate you pointing out, Mr. Verma, that
when oversight goes awry and becomes more political theater
than oversight, that it is not cost free. That takes resources,
that takes attention away from really important issues. And on
that, there was some discussion earlier about NEOs, non-
combatant evacuation operations. And listen, I will be the
first to join with my colleagues when a NEO doesn't go well, or
there are issues, in fact I have in the past.
Rightfully criticize, and press for answers on issues. But
I want to provide some important context here too. That NEOs
are inherently always really hard, and they are extremely
challenging, and one of the ways in which they are challenging,
while there are many, one is the United States of America does
not require its citizens to register with the State Department
when they travel or live abroad, is that correct?
Mr.Verma. That Is correct.
Mr.Crow. So, we really have no idea, no firm count in any
given instance how many Americans are on the ground in a place.
Mr.Verma. That is true.
Mr.Crow. Okay, and No. 2, when we talk about American
citizens, many times we're talking about dual nationals, right?
People who are dual national citizens of the United States, and
maybe the country in question. Is that also true?
Mr.Verma. That is true.
Mr.Crow. And is it also true that many of those folks have
family members, spouses, partners, or children who may not be
American citizens?
Mr.Verma. Very true, complex family----
Mr.Crow. Which then makes the NEO extremely complicated,
because you might have somebody with a blue passport, but they
are sitting there with their children, and others, and there
are many layers of analysis here that you have to go through to
effectuate a NEO, is that accurate?
Mr.Verma. Absolutely.
Mr.Crow. Okay.
Mr.Verma. Could I also just say that the NEO is not a State
Department call? Yes, we sign the letter that goes to the
Defense Department requesting the NEO, but it is a whole of
government decision that is taken quite seriously.
Mr.Crow. Okay, I appreciate that, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr.Mast. Thank you, Mr. Crow, and I appreciate your
comments about atheism, and yours, Mr. Verma. I am going to get
to this just after I recognize Mr. Mills, but just so you know,
I do have the grant here, I didn't write it out, we just
printed it out. And it says promoting and defending religious
freedom inclusive of atheist, humanist, non-practicing, and
non-affiliated individuals, and I will go into that more in
just a couple minutes, but apparently in all your investigation
over the course of those ten inquiries, you must not have come
across that.
Mr. Mills, you're recognized.
Mr.Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome Mr. Crow
on any of these evacuations that he'd welcome himself to join.
Mr. Verma, you made a comment earlier about the warning of a
level four situation in Haiti. Knowing that it is that risky,
you also understand that there is Department of State, and
USAID funded projects with expats still abroad under your
funding that are also trapped now.
So, if you recognize, I will give you an example, Chemonics
International, DAI, Creative Associates, et cetera. I won't say
which organizations, but there is organizations under your
funding who have called me and asked for support because they
couldn't get the State Department who funds them to help them
to get out. Now, I understand your position, and I will let you
answer, I apologize, Mr. Verma, I want to get my question out.
I understand your position in regards to giving warnings to
those in hostile and threatening positions. But these are
actual Americans that your programs funded to put them over
there that are now trapped, and trying to seek a way out.
Mr.Verma. Congressman, we make it very clear, and we have
tens of thousands of grantees around the world, that receiving
a grant from the United States is not guaranteed rescue in the
event of a challenge. In fact we want the grantees to have a
plan so that they can actually get out. To the extent we can
help them, we will try to do that, but it is not an obligation
in our contracts.
And in fact, we are quite clear, and I think the very good
aid partners that we have around the world, all the big NGO's,
they know exactly what they have to do to protect and support
their people, and we are grateful for the incredible work that
they do. And to the extent we can be helpful to them, we will.
Mr.Mills. That is understood. Now, let me ask this
question, and again, I agree with you that maybe we should look
at some policy changes. And I hope that you guys can help us
with those policy changes, and funding requests, I am all about
trying to do funding requests that we can appropriate that
would enable us to be able to further support those who get
caught in these conflict, post-conflict.
Because we see the world is on fire, we see things are not
getting better abroad, and we know that. You've got a
tremendous amount of experience, as do the many diplomatic
officers who work under you, and my hat goes off to them for
their service. I worked with the State Department, I know the
hard work that you guys put in every single day. But I can't
ignore the facts when Americans are constantly being left
behind.
When we can see through the geopolitical analysts, which by
the way I was one, and published over four documents and
articles on these subjects, and I think you and I have had some
discussion on this, I agree with what Mr. Crow said. We can
have policy objections, and maybe that is not going to be one
of those areas that means obstruction, but it also doesn't mean
success, it means failure.
I think until we actually start coming to a conclusion on
how we further support these types of operations,
organizations, and people like myself are going to have to
continue to go over there. The thing that is always very odd to
me is that not until political optics go wrong during election
years, or the narrative starts to basically work against
individuals do they start taking key actions.
Now, last week Miller said State Department has no intent,
no plan to evacuate. All of a sudden, lo and behold, now they
are jumping through hoops to try and get a plane. What changed?
Mr.Verma. Look, we have to be careful about what we say
publicly as well, right? Because you have to guard against the
poll factor, you have to guard against people rushing a
particular airport or facility. But trust me, we have been
watching, and working around the clock on Haiti for months, and
months, and months as the security situation has devolved.
We have been in touch with our aid organizations, we have
been in touch with the diaspora community here. We have been in
touch with missionary organizations to let them know it was
time to get people out.
Mr.Mills. Well, let me ask this question as a posed option,
and I am looking for feedback on this. If the State Department
doesn't have the resources, or the capacity, capability, even
through the help of DSS, mobile training teams, et cetera, why
wouldn't the State department want to work in conjunction in a
PPP like scenario with organizations or individuals such as
myself to support us.
As opposed to, and maybe not in our situation, or scenario,
but in others where the State Department has actually
intentionally worked against us to try and get us stonewalled,
and slow rolled on approvals. Why wouldn't we want to work
together in a more copasetic way?
Mr.Verma. Look, we talked the other night, we were trying
to be helpful to you and what you were doing, what you're doing
is very courageous. If something was to go wrong with your
flight, I just want to be honest with you, we'd have to--some
combination of the State Department and Defense Department
would have to come and help you get out. If your helicopter, if
your plane had a problem----
Mr.Mills. I just want to be clear, Mr. Verma, my life is no
more valuable than every other American----
Mr.Verma. You are a Member of Congress----
Mr.Mills. Yes, elected by the people, and I am their
employee, and I will never forget that, their life is just as
important as mine.
Mr.Verma. I am just saying there is a----
Mr.Mast. I am going to cut you both of right now because
votes have begun about 10 minutes ago.
I am now going to recognize Mr. Crow for a closing
statement.
Mr.Crow. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank both of our
witnesses for coming in, and being candid, fully answering the
questions that you were asked, at least those that you were
provided the opportunity to answer. And just to reiterate
again, that we have to be really diligent in differentiating
policy differences from procedural or claims of obstruction.
What we have had time and time again, in almost all of
these instances that you have heard from today, there have been
policy disagreements. Which are important to have, and I don't
shy away from policy disagreements, in fact this is what we're
supposed to do, internally debate policy disagreements. What I
bristle at is when folks take a policy disagreement, and they
cloak it in a claim of obstruction, or lack of good faith in
providing information.
I have seen the numbers of documents. I am one of the
members of this committee that actually has attended
transcribed interviews. I have read the AAR documents. I have
read and reviewed almost everything that has been provided by
this committee, or at least laid eyes on it to ensure it was
what you represented it to be. And I can tell you that you have
consistently jumped through hoops after hoops that have been
put before you.
Some of which you've never dealt with before, given the
unique nature of the requests coming from this committee, but
you have really made every effort to do that. So, with that, I
just wanted to give both of our witnesses 1 minute of my time
to make any last statements of things that you really needed to
address that you didn't get the opportunity to address given
time constraints. I will start with Mr. Verma.
Mr.Verma. Congressman Crow, thank you. Again, maybe I will
end where I started, which is with enormous respect for the
congressional role in foreign policy, in oversight of the
department, and what we do. And we understand sometimes we will
be in tension, we understand sometimes we may not agree. But I
think we share an objective in supporting the American people
around the world in advancing U.S. interests.
You will continue to have my commitment, and I know the
assistant secretary, and the secretary feel this way, of
working with the committee, and giving you the information that
you need to do your oversight job effectively. Appreciate it.
Mr.Crow. Thank you. Ms. Durakoglu?
Ms.Durakoglu. I completely concur with the deputy
secretary. And the one thing I would say is obviously
congressional relations is not exclusive to oversight and
investigations. The deputy secretary in his opening did mention
over thirty-five hundred just briefings across the board. We're
obviously more than happy to always accommodate any briefing
request, anything else that you all may need.
I hope that folks do feel comfortable reaching out even to
me directly, or anybody else, because we really do want to have
a good relationship. And I will go a step further, I actually
think we do have a very good relationship with this committee.
So, I know sometimes the tone is a little bit different, but if
I could just take off my official mask for a second, I actually
like a lot of the members on this committee on both sides.
I like the staff a lot, we actually do have engagements
outside of all of this, and this is actually, I think for the
most part, a model for what congressional engagement on both
sides should look like.
Mr.Crow. Thank you, I appreciate it. And I would like to
also enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, the language, the
statutory language of what was H.R. 1150, the Frank R. Wolf
International Religious Freedom Act.
Mr.Mast. So ordered.
[The information referred to appears in the Appendix]
Mr.Crow. This was a law that was passed by Congress through
this committee in a bipartisan way. Actually the lead co-
sponsor was a member of the majority. And it actually has
language, I am going to read this language actually, that the
State Department is legally obligated to comply with. It says
by inserting quote ``and the specific targeting of non-
atheists, humanists, and atheists because of their beliefs, end
quote, after religious persecution.''
So, this Congress, this committee, in a bipartisan way
actually, inserted into the law, a requirement that certain
things be effectuated, that you have had a legal obligation to
do so, and you have done so in compliance with the mandates of
this committee. So, with that, thank you again for coming
today.
I yield back.
Mr.Mast. I thank the ranking member. I now recognize myself
for a closing statement. The ranking member used the term
obstruction, and I am going to use the term obstruction as
well. Because obstruction is what has taken place in the past,
and obstruction is what has taken place today. You sat here,
Mr. Verma, and pretended as though you had no idea where the
word atheist might have come from in any sort of grant,
anything related to Nepal, anything.
You had support from the ranking member here about it, must
be crazy thinking that there is something, even went so far as
to say yes, that would not be an appropriate use of dollars for
the U.S. taxpayer, half a million dollars to go out there and
fund a grant for atheism. I will insert this into the record as
well, United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy
Human Rights and Labor.
[The information referred to was not submitted:]
Mr.Mast. Funding floor, five hundred thousand dollars, and
it says right here on the top, defending religious freedom
inclusive of atheist, humanist, non-practicing, non-affiliated
individuals. But maybe that is just a title, maybe it is just a
general title and not really what it does. But let's read a
little bit into it. It says this is the expected program
outcomes.
Increase capacity among members of the atheist and
heterodox individuals to form, join networks or organizations.
Let's go on and look at some more of the intents of it.
Creating or strengthening networks of advocates for the diverse
communities of atheists, there we go, there is another one.
Strengthening the capacity of organizations representing
diverse communities of atheists.
Different place there. And I don't have time to read all of
it, but you did just sit here, you told me just before this in
these remarks, told the committee you have a great deal of
respect for this committee. Apparently you have enough respect
for this committee to sit here for 5 minutes, and adamantly
deny that there is anything relating to a grant for atheism in
Nepal.
When in fact if you did the smallest amount of research
into your own agency, you would have known that it says right
there on the front page of the grant request, and then it says
more about it on page two, and page three, and keeps going
about it. So, I think that is a good example of the
obstruction, to include the ten times that we had to correspond
with you to just try and get anything about that.
That is just, as you pointed out, one small grant.
Unfortunately, half a million dollars is not small to anybody
in my community, but a small grant compared to what the State
Department doles out on a regular basis, and by the way, five
hundred thousand dollars, I think the average salary in Nepal
over the course of a month is something around two hundred
dollars a month is the average salary.
So, five hundred thousand dollars is a hell of a lot of
money in that place. So, that is a great example of
obstruction, one example of the many that we deal with here.
And again, I think it shows your level of respect for this
committee actually, because I know people were talking about
actually wanting facts. And there is an actual fact, the fact
is actually in front of you.
I notice you're not making eye contact with me anymore at
this point----
Mr.Verma. I am happy to respond----
Mr.Mast. You're not recognized at this point, we're in
closing statements----
Mr.Verma. I figured I wouldn't be----
Mr.Mast. So, in that, members of the subcommittee may have
some additional questions for the witnesses. You can count on
additional questions about this, and absolutely members of the
State Department that were involved in that should certainly
count on what you put forward as a chilling effect. People
should be chilled about writing grants like that.
They would be appropriately feeling what I would expect
them to feel if they feel chilled by writing grants like that.
So, good choice of words there, and we will ask you to expand
on those in writing. In that, pursuant to committee rules, all
members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and
extraneous materials for the record, subject to the length of
limitations without objection of the committee.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]