    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            THE NEED FOR AN AUTHORIZED STATE
                                       EPARTMENT
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 April 30, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-15

                                   __________

            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
    61-158PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman

    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey         Ranking Member
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California
    YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                  Florida
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona
        American Samoa                   JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE LATIMER, New York
    RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

                  James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Chairman Brian Mast.........................     1
    Opening Statement of Ranking Member Gregory Meeks................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Hon. James F. Jeffrey, Retired Career Foreign
      Service Officer, U.S. Department of State......................     5
      Prepared Statement.............................................     8
    Statement of Hon. David Hale, Former Under Secretary for
      Political Affairs, U.S. Department of State....................    14
      Prepared Statement.............................................    15
    Statement of Hon. Uzra Zeya, President and Ceo, Human Rights
      First..........................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    18

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    84
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    85
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    86

                            Materials for the Record

    Letter submitted to Marco Rubio from Rep. Baumgartner............    87
    Material for the record submitted by Rep. Connolly...............    89

                            Questions for the Record

    Questions from Rep. Baumgartner to Ambassador Hale...............    91
    Questions from Rep. Baumgartner to Ambassador Jeffrey............    94

                  THE NEED FOR AN AUTHORIZED STATE DEPARTMENT

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 30, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Mast
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Mast. Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to
    order. I ask everybody to rise and join me in reciting the
    Pledge of Allegiance.
        All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
    of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
    Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
    all.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, everybody, for your attendance.
    The purpose of this hearing today is to identify structural
    challenges and functional deficiencies that impede the
    Department of State's ability to fulfill its mission and to
    work to find solutions to those issues.
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST

        As I said, I called this hearing really to establish a
    simple fact. The State Department has many broken parts. It has
    been in many ways a broken part of our government for many
    years. It has been too big. It has had no clear mission or
    definition for public diplomacy.
        It has very little command and control over the dollars
    that it sends across the globe. It has spent your tax dollars
    in ways that would have been better if the State Department
    just lit the money on fire in many cases.
        Right now, more than 80 percent of the State Department is
    not authorized by Congress. That includes Bureau of
    International Security and Non-Proliferation, with a budget of
    $57 million and 247 employees; the Bureau of International
    Organizations, with a budget of 90 million and 370 employees;
    the Bureau of Administration, with a budget of 394 million and
    a staff of 700.
        Now, despite 80 percent of it not being authorized, the
    State Department's bureaus, offices, and programs, they
    continue to grow each and every year. Last year, the State
    Department employed more than 80,000 people across the globe.
        Between the year 2000 and the year 2024, the State
    Department's budget grew from roughly 9.5 billion to more than
    55 billion over the course of that time. Where did that money
    go? Does our foreign policy feel like it is five times more
    effective as we spent five times more dollars?
        Instead, we have had a State Department with plenty of
    duplicative programs, but again, not a clear mission and a
    clear outline on how to go out there and effect the missions
    positively on behalf of the American people and all of our
    interests.
        The largest operation of the State Department in any of our
    lifetimes was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was an
    abysmal failure. The State Department failed to plan
    everything, from how many people would be requesting visas to
    how many people would be needed to process those visas, and a
    thousand other things.
        The State Department is too big and it is also
    unaccountable because we have not conducted a comprehensive
    standalone reauthorization since 2002. It is also prioritizing
    the wrong things, in my opinion.
        That is why we saw American dollars going out the door to
    foreign companies, foreign countries, foreign NGO's, and
    foreign adversaries like the Taliban, with less oversight than
    it takes the average American citizen to get a driver's license
    at the DMV.
        Don't take my word for it, listen to what the State
    Department has funded with your tax dollars. And many of you
    heard me give me lists of hundreds and hundreds of items. I
    will list just a couple.
        Fourteen million dollars in cash vouchers for migrants at
    our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in
    Bosnia; one and a half million dollars to mobilize elderly
    lesbian, transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people to be
    involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a
    drag show in Ecuador; $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.
        I would challenge anybody in here to refute that American
    tax dollars were not spent in this way. I don't see anybody
    refuting that. I have hundreds of more examples of these, if
    not thousands.
        We have proof that these things happened. We have the
    documents, we have the photos, we have the receipts. These
    things are too stupid for us to try and make up, really.
        But this is not about scoring political points with each of
    those, otherwise I would give the full list. These programs
    were funded with American tax dollars because somewhere some
    person down the line at the State Department thought that
    programs like that were actually public diplomacy.
        This spending was not lifesaving, it didn't make American
    citizens visiting those countries safer or American businesses
    operating there more prosperous or a better partner. It didn't
    bring any of the countries in which the money was spent closer
    to America. In fact, many of these countries actively opposed
    what the State Department was actually doing.
        Yet State Department officials thought this was public
    diplomacy and exactly what America should be doing. Again, I
    personally disagree with that definition of public diplomacy.
    But we should have this debate, and we should figure out what
    American tax dollars should and should not be used for abroad.
        And that is what the debate about a State Department
    reauthorization is all about. That is what this hearing and a
    reauthorization process will accomplish. We need to restore
    command and control over the State Department so that you don't
    have USAID betraying its core mission by funding an $850,000
    transgender job fair in Bangladesh. Or $15 million in condoms
    to the Taliban. That did nothing to bolster America's national
    security.
        Even worse, the lack of accountability allows USAID to
    create a bloated industry where D.C. contractors profited off
    sky-high overhead costs, while people most in need received
    very little compared to what those contractors received. Even
    USAID admitted that just 12 percent of its grants went directly
    to local organizations.
        This lack of accountability at USAID is exactly why the
    agency needed to be brought back under the control of the State
    Department. And this is an idea that was embraced by President
    Bill Clinton and President Joe Biden, and it is moved that we
    should make permanent in our reauthorization bill.
        The State Department has been broken. That has been true.
    But it is also our responsibility as the Foreign Affairs
    Committee to fix those issues permanently. Until now, the State
    Department has never shrunk. It has never downsized its budget
    or eliminated an office or an envoy.
        President Trump, Secretary Rubio, and DOGE are already
    making changes, and they are looking at us to be a partner in
    that process. And we look forward to seeing Secretary Rubio to
    speak to us about that later in the month, next month.
        The only way that we do this as authorizers in the U.S.
    House of Representatives is by conducting that first full,
    comprehensive State Department reauthorization, again since
    2002.
        I thank you all for your participation in this hearing. I
    thank our witnesses for their testimoneys when they give them.
    I thank the ranking member and all of your members for their
    attendance today.
        The ranking member, Ranking Member Meeks, a Representative
    from New York, is now recognized for your opening statement.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS

        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Mast, Chairman Mast.
        I want to say thank you to all of our witnesses for joining
    us here today.
        As members of this committee, it our duty to reauthorize
    the State Department regularly, just as Congress does with
    respect to the Department of Defense.
        As chairman of the 117th Congress, I made it a priority to
    pass the first State Department reauthorization in 18 years,
    doing so in a bipartisan way, with then-ranking member McCaul.
    And that is because both Democrats and Republics believed that
    it was in the best interest of the American people and the U.S.
    national security for Congress to ensure our diplomatic and
    development professionals have all the tools that they need to
    succeed.
        Let me just say, I praise all of those professionals that
    work for the State Department, that work for USAID. They are
    individuals who are focused and dedicated their lives to the
    United States of America. They are of the top and most
    respected individuals.
        As we salute our military, we need to salute those that
    work for the State Department and USAID for their mission and
    the sacrifices that they make every day to their families and
    others for the benefit of those in-the citizens of the United
    States of America.
        I believe that both Democrats and Republicans believe it
    was in the best interest of the American people and national
    security for Congress to ensure our diplomatic and development
    professionals have all of the tools that they need to succeed.
        So while I appreciate that this hearing was called and
    agree with the need for Congress to regularly authorize the
    State Department, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid this committee's
    actions in this Congress have run counter to that goal.
        After all, how can we engage in a serious bipartisan
    conversation about strengthening the State Department and other
    agencies when Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Secretary Rubio have
    eviscerated the very department and instruments of national
    security we are supposed to support, while not being called
    even once for a hearing before this committee?
        While I appreciate the witnesses that we have here, and I
    know that we have proposed Secretary Rubio coming in on the
    21st, we have not had any hearing with anyone from the
    agencies. And we appreciate the words that the chairman comes
    up with about all of his statistics, but the ones that should
    be before us should be people from the administration. And we
    have not had one.
        So you can't remodel a home after you burn it to the
    ground. And Congress's legislative role should not be to simply
    rubber stamp the arsonists at work.
        This is a profound moment, I believe, a moment of shame for
    the Republican Party, as its members sit silently while
    Secretary Rubio allows Elon Musk and his army of teenagers, who
    have no foreign policy or even government experience or
    expertise, to dismantle the very agencies that they have
    supported in the past. United States Agency for International
    Development, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the Millennium
    Challenge Corporation, just to name a few, have all been met
    with a hatchet job for no reason.
        Meanwhile, Secretary Rubio and many of my Republican
    colleagues who in the past understood their value, if you
    talked to them in the past they did, fail to speak up, or
    worse, contort themselves to justify the administration's
    actions.
        There is no greater demonstration of this incredible
    cowardice, in my opinion, than that of Secretary Rubio, who
    knows this is wrong. Listen to his words when he was in the
    Senate, and listen to it now. You would not think it is the
    same individual. He knows it is wrong, but would rather sit
    atop a kingdom of ash than defend the work he once praised.
        I had hoped that Secretary Rubio would at least try to
    protect the Department of USAID and their workforces, who have
    dedicated their lives to serving the American people. Instead,
    he stood by while Musk and Marocco and DOGE illegally gutted
    USAID, a statutory agency, and condemned millions of people
    around the world to disease, starvation, and death by slashing
    foreign assistance, forfeiting U.S. global leadership in the
    process.
        So I see I am out of time, almost out of time, but I would
    just end this with this paragraph. The wanton destruction
    didn't end with USAID or Pete Marocco's exit. Most recently,
    Secretary Rubio gave this committee just 25 minutes before
    noticing-before announcing a sweeping dismantling of our soft
    power tools in the name of State reauthorization.
        With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks. Other
    members of the committee are reminded that opening statements
    may be submitted for the record.
        We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
    before us today on this important topic: Hon. James F. Jeffrey,
    Retired Career Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Department
    of State; Hon. David Hale, former Under Secretary for Political
    Affairs at the U.S. Department of State; and Hon. Uzra Zeya,
    President and CEO of Human Rights First.
        This committee recognizes the importance of the issues
    before us, and we are grateful to have you all speak with us
    today. Your full statements will be made a part of the record,
    and I will ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5
    minutes in order to allow time for members' questions.
        I now recognize Ambassador Jeffrey for his opening
    statement.

                       STATEMENT OF JAMES JEFFREY

        Mr. Jeffrey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, I appreciate
    deeply the opportunity to address this committee on such an
    important issue. To save State, we must prioritize national
    security objectives, consolidate State operations, and empower
    regional bureaus.
        I have submitted a statement for the record, which I will
    summarize now.
        Chairman Mast. Sir, could you maybe pull that microphone a
    little bit closer for everybody?
        Mr. Jeffrey. How is that, sir?
        Chairman Mast. Much better, thank you.
        Mr. Jeffrey. OK. But first, let me express my admiration
    for my former State Department colleagues, who, as
    Representative Meeks noted, serve our country with the same
    dedication I saw with my soldiers 50 years ago.
        Unfortunately, their success is hampered by structural
    problems in the State Department, which has drifted, over
    multiple administrations, from its core mission: the
    relentless, rigorous pursuit of national interests.
        For example, Congress asked State to develop strategic
    plans to be consistent with overall administration policy. Here
    is the framework chart for State's latest plan from 2022.
        By then, the Biden and earlier Trump administrations had
    made clear that great power competition was our most important
    objective. Yet the State Department plan has ``lead allies and
    partners to address shared challenges and competitors, prevent,
    deter, and resolve conflicts'' as only one of 19 objectives
    under five goals, listed as the fourth of five under the goal
    of global challenges.
        Obviously, Secretary Blinken and other Secretaries devote
    almost all of their time to national security. But formal plans
    have consequences, and this mishmash of objectives dulls
    State's focus.
        Another example: the 2024 report by the Commission on the
    National Defense Strategy noted that, ``Compared to DOD and the
    intelligence community, the State Department lacks a similar
    level of planning, joint operations, and shared undertaking of
    national security.''
        To rectify this, State must more closely align its
    strategic plan to the current national security strategy, be
    established as a national security agency, and develop formal
    planning, institutions, doctrine, and training.
        The next problem is dispersion of diplomatic activities to
    other agencies. I applaud the return of the USAID to its roots
    in the Department of State before the 1960's. I would add the
    Foreign Commercial Service and the military equipment programs
    under the NDAA Section 1209 that DOD now has. In contrast, I
    would transfer the visa section-the visa mission to the
    Department of Homeland Security.
        State's geographic bureaus are the main operational arms of
    the Secretary. These bureaus, however, need major modifications
    to still function. Secretaries Christopher through Blinken,
    when confronted with a crisis, be it North Korea, Bosnia,
    Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and more, assigned responsibility
    not to the geographic bureau and its Senate-confirmed assistant
    secretary, but to a senior non-confirmed special envoy
    reporting directly to the Secretary.
        I have been such an envoy three times, and I can attest
    this is a bad situation. But it keeps being repeated because it
    is the least bad approach, given the restraints with the
    regional bureaus.
        First they must balance management of large organizations
    with their diplomacy mission, and that mission is spread
    between and blurred traditional state-to-State diplomacy and
    expectations for transformational nation-building.
        One example is a human rights report required by Congress.
    This is for Bulgaria. It is 53 pages long. I did the first one
    in 1980, it was about five pages.
        Second, the bureaus have eight layers between the desk
    officer for a given country and the Secretary. When I was on
    the National Security Council, we had only two layers between
    such desk officers and the top.
        Third, bureaus' country responsibilities should be aligned
    with DOD's combatant commands.
        Fourth, even after the State reorganization just announced,
    the geographic bureaus are overwhelmed by ten global special
    activities bureaus and five offices overseen by three under
    secretaries and a new assistant. That element of the State
    Department needs further downsizing and structural changes to
    curtail interference with geographic bureaus' diplomatic
    missions in their communications to department leaders.
        Personnel is policy, and much of the blur and baggage
    within State flows from confusion about the roles of foreign
    service officers as manager, or global officer, or diplomat.
        Finally, whatever one administration changes by executive
    order, the next can reverse. And thus congressional action for
    reform is imperative.
        Thank you, sir.
        [The Prepared Statement of Mr. Jeffrey follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ambassador Jeffrey.
        I now recognize Ambassador Hale for his opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID HALE

        Mr. Hale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
    Ranking Member Meeks and the rest of the committee, for the
    opportunity to be with you.
        I have retired after four decades as a Foreign Service
    Officer at the State Department, and so I really do welcome the
    opportunity to share my experiences and do what we can to
    improve the situation, I think, Mr. Chairman, you have aptly
    described.
        I strongly support the idea of restoring the proper order
    of relationships between Congress and the State Department and
    the administration in terms of the authorization process in the
    bill. But I also strongly support the idea of revising and
    reforming the organizational structural issues at the State
    Department.
        I would underscore, though, that these kinds of reforms can
    only be as good as the leaders and staff who are assigned to
    undertake them at the State Department.
        So I would urge you after you are done with the business
    before the committee of the authorization bill to not get
    distracted and to be persistent in making sure the State
    follows up, and that they have the leadership, and the
    resources, and the mindset, and the training that are needed in
    order to whatever the authorization bill and the reorganization
    of the department demands of them.
        And that includes taking a very deep look at the way in
    which we hire, train, promote, and separate our staff, and
    making sure that the services, the Civil Service and the
    Foreign Service, have the skills to meet the emerging and
    future needs that are identified in those reorganizational
    charts.
        And I look at the latest, I don't know if it is an accurate
    one, but the reorganization chart that was leaked recently or
    released recently from the State Department, and it has got
    offices there that I warmly welcome in terms of emerging
    problems, science and technology, economics. But I would ask
    you to turn to the Foreign Service Institute and make sure that
    we are actually training people that can do those jobs. Because
    in my experience we are falling short in that area.
        I would also look forward of course to discussing, based on
    my own experience, how we can do a better job in all the topics
    that you raise. And all that in my mind goes, it means really
    going back to basics: what is the Foreign Service all about and
    what is the State Department meant to do.
        And by having a stronger connection between Congress and
    the State Department, we can make sure that we are following
    the direction of the American people, which is what service is
    all about.
        So I look forward to your questions and the opportunity to
    discuss these topics further.
        [The Prepared Statement of Mr. Hale follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ambassador Hale.
        I now recognize Ms. Zeya for her opening statement.

                         STATEMENT OF UZRA ZEYA

        Ms. Zeya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Meeks
    for the invitation to testify today. And I, too, am a retired
    former Foreign Service Officer, as well as the current
    President and CEO of Human Rights First. congressional
    oversight and guidance are vital to the work of the State
    Department as it navigates complex and overlapping crises
    around the world. State authorization can and should rebuild
    bipartisan consensus around the imperative for cost-effective
    diplomacy and foreign assistance that sustains U.S. human
    rights and humanitarian leadership and enhances American
    security, prosperity, and well-being.
        In that bipartisan spirit, I would like to underscore three
    key points. First, investing in U.S. human rights and
    humanitarian leadership makes Americans safer and more secure
    from autocratic overreach and transnational threats.
        Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine upended global food
    and energy security and threatened neighbors, including treaty
    allies. But Putin was thwarted, thanks to the courage of the
    Ukrainian people and trans-Atlantic solidarity, including vital
    U.S. humanitarian, democracy, and accountability support.
        Similarly, when the U.S. pushes back on transnational
    repression and gross violations of human rights like
    extrajudicial killings, torture, religious persecution, and
    arbitrary detention, it fosters safety for Americans at home
    and abroad.
        When U.S.-supported peace process include women and civil
    society, it increases the chances that resulting accords break
    cycles of conflict, keeping our troops out of harm's way. When
    the U.S. enforces human rights standards in our foreign
    security assistance, it creates more reliable partners and
    upholds U.S. law
        Second, U.S. human rights and humanitarian leadership makes
    our Nation more prosperous. That is why State long partnered
    with the Department of Labor and others to target forced labor,
    purge it from U.S. supply chains, and raise labor standards
    abroad.
        Recent slashing of programs supporting these activities
    hurts American workers and companies. Corruption is also a
    major barrier for U.S. companies investing and doing business
    overseas. This makes all the more concerning the current
    administration's suspended enforcement of core anti-U.S.
    corruption law.
        U.S. humanitarian leadership saves lives and advances U.S.
    security and prosperity by reducing onward migration to the
    United States and upholding legal pathways that enrich U.S.
    society. State Department advocacy for shared responsibility on
    migration in our hemisphere helped nearly two million
    Venezuelan refugees find protection in Colombia. It expanded
    asylum access in countries like Costa Rica and Mexico.
        U.S.-based refugee resettlement, now frozen and decimated
    at home, helps ensure other nations continue to host the vast
    majority of the world's refugees, but has also delivered
    billions of dollars in net gains to the U.S. economy.
        Third and finally, proposals to slash State personnel,
    bureaus, and offices and integrate virtually all functions into
    regional bureaus will hobble U.S. human rights and humanitarian
    leadership. With due respect to my former colleagues, over my
    three decades at State, I often saw regional bureaus shy away
    from difficult conversations or actions on human rights, even
    with U.S. adversaries.
        That is why Congress created an Assistant Secretary for
    Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and the DRL bureau, now
    being stripped of its policy role, programs, and much of its
    personnel after decades of bipartisan support holding the
    world's worst regimes to account, rallying democratic partners,
    and providing lifesaving support to thousands of human rights
    defenders worldwide.
        Meanwhile, elimination of the Conflict Stabilization Bureau
    and offices of global criminal justice and global women's
    issues will shutter negotiation support that helped push cease-
    fire agreements over the finish line and accountability efforts
    for the world's worst human rights violators and curtail U.S.
    leadership combating gender-based violence locally.
        These cuts also erase department leads on bipartisan
    legislation to modernize U.S. foreign policy, such as the
    Global Fragility Act and the Women, Peace, and Security Act.
    Vague consolidation plans combined with an unexplained 15
    percent cut in domestic State personnel and dissolution of
    USAID also bode poorly for effectiveness.
        Consolidation of the Office of Trafficking in Persons into
    the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration ignores J-
    TIPS's statutory mandate and leadership implementing the Uyghur
    Force Labor Prevention Act. Absorption of complex USAID
    disaster and other operations into an attenuated PRM Bureau is
    a recipe for failure.
        Oversight should ensure consolidation is not a cover for
    collapsing U.S. humanitarian and development leadership as we
    know it.
        I would urge you to raise the concerns I have shared today
    with the current administration before its plan become a fait
    accompli. And I also encourage you to seek the views of subject
    matter experts and international civil society leaders. They
    will remember if the United States was on their side.
        [The Prepared Statement of Ms. Zeya follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mast. I thank each of you for your opening
    statements. I am now going to move to questioning. I am going
    to begin with Chairman Emeritus McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me commend you for
    this noble effort. There is a reason why it hasn't happened
    since 2002. As Ranking Member Meeks mentioned, we worked
    together on State authorizations but not a full-scale.
    Oftentimes the Senate is the problem, even if we can get it
    through the House.
        But I do think it is important, because you know, when the
    diplomats fail, we get a war. That is what this committee is
    all about. This committee has the authority, the obligation to
    deal with issues of war and peace. And I have often thought why
    cannot this committee pass an authorization like the national
    defense authorization bill that the Armed Services Committee
    passes.
        Instead, about 25 percent of the NDAA comes out of this
    committee. So we use that vehicle to pass our authorizations.
    But if we fail to authorize, then we do abdicate our Article 1
    responsibilities. And we also don't have the proper
    capabilities to do the oversight that is necessary.
        If we authorize something within State, whoever is in the
    executive, it makes it more difficult for the executive to act
    against the Article 1 branch of Congress, no matter whether
    that is a Democrat or a Republican administration. And it is
    the Congress acting under its constitutional responsibilities.
        So again, I applaud you for this. I think this is going to
    be a healthy discussion. And I guess my question-and last, I
    have to say, just like the NDAA, it will be impossible for us
    to pass a State authorization, both House and Senate, if it is
    not bipartisan.
        And that is true with most legislation. In my 20 years as-
    you can have messaging bills, but if you really want to get
    things done, especially on an authorization like this, I think
    the NDAA is a good model to examine where House and Senate
    bipartisan work together to get a good piece of legislation
    done.
        But Mr. Chairman, we don't have to rely on the NDAA to do
    all of our authorizations of State. And that is what has
    happened since 2002, and it is a difficult process.
        So I want to ask all three of you, in the limited time,
    what are the long-term risks to our U.S. global leadership if
    Congress continues to operate without a regular reauthorization
    of the State Department?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I will start, Congressman. Without your input
    into a tightly organized Department of State, it will not reach
    its potential to coordinate, which is its core purpose:
    military power, economic power, values, and our partners and
    friends around the world into a coherent effort to advance the
    safety and the prosperity of the American people, which is the
    core goal.
        The military puts great effort into this in a way that,
    having been in both institutions as a career officer, I don't
    see to the same degree in the State Department. Anything you
    folks here can do to help that would be much appreciated.
        Mr. McCaul. Let me give a good example, Mr. Chairman. Under
    the first Trump administration, Mike Pompeo set up an office to
    deal with emergency contingencies in response to what he
    foresaw happening in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Biden
    administration eliminated that office. So when Afghanistan fell
    in a disastrous way, that office was not there to respond. And
    you know why? Because it wasn't authorized by Congress. Anymore
    thoughts?
        Mr. Hale. No, I think that is an excellent example. In
    addition to what you have said and what Jim has said I would
    say that one of the problems also is that the State Department
    tends to go on autopilot when it hasn't gotten the direction
    that it needs. And that is a natural bureaucratic instinct, but
    it needs to be fought all the time. And I think the annual
    authorization process can help make sure that the State
    Department is actually changing as events change and as
    requirements change.
        I think the more fundamental thing in my mind is that the
    longer the State Department goes without an authorization bill
    the more detached it is from the will of the American people.
    And so we need to make sure that Congress is playing its role
    to wake us up and hold us accountable--when I say us, it is on
    longer me, but I am in the organization I was part of for my
    entire adult life--and responsive and that we have an
    opportunity also to tell our story as to why we are--why we
    want to do things a certain way and have that debate with the
    authorizers, the appropriators.
        Mr. McCaul. My time is expired, but excellent point about
    the will of the American people. Otherwise, it is acting in an
    autocratic way without the will of the American people. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member
    Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you. And I actually don't disagree with
    almost anything that Mr. McCaul has said. In fact, that is a
    big concern of mine because what we have seen before us is not
    reform. It is abandoning decades of bipartisan support for
    centering human rights and democracy and our foreign policy
    without consultation, without engagement, and without any
    regard for Congress' constitutional role as a coequal branch of
    government.
        To this day Secretary Rubio refuses to follow the law and
    consult with Congress. And we have no reason to believe that
    will change. In the weeks ahead we fully expect him to endorse
    the next chapter of Project 2025 which will--closing hundreds
    of critical offices and potentially dozens of overseas posts,
    gutting the department's workforce, and slashing the budget,
    all of which will leave America weaker and more isolated. In
    fact, China and Russia will continue to celebrate as they have
    done so almost every day since January 20.
        And you know what Mr. McCaul said, I have a long track
    record working with any administration that wants to strengthen
    our national security and works in good faith toward that end.
    But obviously this is not business as usual. Donald Trump has
    taken a wrecking ball to our foreign policy, treated our allies
    as adversaries and our adversaries as allies, threatening to
    invade some of those allies, and launched a trade war that is
    hurting our economy and our constituents.
        So I would love more than anything to have a good-faith
    effort to reauthorize the State Department and I would welcome
    discussion to that end. But you know what, the State Department
    officials came to brief staff earlier this week only after
    their--but it was after their reorganization had been set into
    motion. And programs were cut and after the firing notices
    were--started going out. That is not consultation. That is to
    me insulting.
        And while I want to thank the chairman and my majority
    colleagues for arranging that belated briefing, Secretary
    Rubio's messages could not even answer basic questions like
    what offices should be closed, or how they arrived at a 15-
    percent domestic staffing reduction. So I think that there
    should be more consultations.
        Let me just ask you these questions. You can answer yes or
    no. Do you believe Congress must be meaningfully consulted on
    major State reorganization or changes to USAID including ending
    the vast majority of congressionally appropriated foreign
    assistance? Yes or no?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Yes.
        Mr. Hale. Yes, sir.
        Ms. Zeya. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. And another yes or no. Do you believe that
    sweeping changes like this, especially on items mandated in
    law, should be done--should it be done by an executive order or
    should you have to come to Congress?
        Mr. Jeffrey. There are legal issues here, Congressman, that
    I am not confident to get into, but again I will go with my
    first answer. When appropriate and when it is under law
    Congress must be consulted.
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Hale?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, if you want a sustainable decision I think
    it requires legislation and consultation with Congress.
        Ms. Zeya. I believe it absolutely requires consultation
    with Congress and a clear-cut connection between the ends and
    the means, which I am not seeing in this plan.
        Mr. Meeks. And also on top of all that, Secretary Rubio's
    cuts are already underway and the White House is reportedly
    readying a rescission of more than $9 billion from the State
    and Foreign Operations budget. Would the practical impacts of
    these cuts on our ability to advance U.S. interests globally be
    significant, or would they be detrimental?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I would have to see what the specifics are,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Hale. I agree with Jim's answer. I would want to see
    the details. I do believe an organization the size of the State
    Department could definitely use some serious reform.
        Ms. Zeya. I come out differently on this based on what I
    have seen so far in press reporting, a 50-percent cut in
    State's operational budget combined with the 80-percent-plus
    cut in foreign assistance from USAID. I think this has
    devastating consequences with respect to our own security and
    prosperity and our ability to project leadership. I would just
    note that the PRC is already filling that gap----
        Mr. Meeks. That is my next question.
        Ms. Zeya [continuing]. and we are seeing China increase its
    diplomatic spending. I have seen by over 8 percent for 2025,
    over 6 percent last year. And so again, to what end are we
    retreating from the field when our greatest geopolitical
    challenger is doubling down?
        Mr. Meeks. OK. Now just to indulge the chairman, just to
    have an answer with the two of you about that, what was just
    mentioned about our ability to compete with China. Significant
    or detrimental?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I will draw on a article in the Economist from
    March. And the Economist, as I think you all know, is a very
    internationalist, globalist, engagement-oriented platform. The
    death of foreign aid. It says that three-quarters of all
    foreign aid is in development, economic, political assistance.
    And it basically says there is very little evidence that this
    produces any results. And goes on to say the idea that aid buys
    soft power is unconvincing, too.
        Now anything in print can be challenged, but I would have
    to say my own experience on the ground beyond humanitarian
    assistance, which is critical; beyond security assistance,
    equally critical--all of the things we are doing to try to
    change societies, whether to compete with the Chinese or push
    back on the Russians, I haven't seen a whole lot of success.
    And I have been responsible for some of the largest ones,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
        Mr. Hale. I will draw on one chapter of my experience in
    Pakistan as Ambassador there. I inherited the Kerry-Luger-
    Berman aid pipeline, which frankly in hindsight I think was an
    experiment that proved to not have really succeeded in
    achieving foreign policy goals. There were some good things
    that were done with it, but for the most part the Pakistanis
    didn't want the assistance. They blocked a lot of it. And I
    don't think that if you had a objective measurement that it
    really changed the--either the growth of violent extremism in
    that part of the world or the cooperation of the Pakistani
    authorities to U.S. policy.
        In contrast, the Chinese were spending 50 to $60 billion in
    Belt and Road Initiative programs in Pakistan at the same time.
    They got a lot of credit for it. But over time it turned out as
    people discovered these were not grants like ours. They were
    loans. And the business plans were not--didn't make any sense.
    There was a lot of favoritism and corruption in it. And now
    they have a debt overhang that they can't deal with. So the
    Chinese approach also soured.
        So I am not sure that I want to--while not ignoring the
    fact that resources matter, that the amount of money we are
    spending versus what the Chinese are spending in any given
    country may be a starting point for a conversation, I don't
    know that it necessarily reflects an outcome of the way to
    measure exactly the best way the United States can influence
    behavior. Because aid does not change policies. It can enable a
    partner who already is in agreement with us to do the things we
    want, but dangling aid isn't going to make somebody do things
    that they don't otherwise feel is in their national interest.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you. I appreciate those answers. I now
    recognize----
        Ms. Zeya. Is there time for--oh, sorry. OK.
        Chairman Mast. I now recognize Representative Wilson for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed thank you
    each of you for being here today.
        And, Ambassador Jeffrey, we are grateful for your
    successful service as Special Representative for Syria with the
    first Trump administration where you led efforts to enforce the
    Caesar Act to hold terrorist sponsor and Bashar Assad, war
    criminal Putin, and Iran accountable.
        Ambassador, you were ultimately successful of the--
    providing the assistance with Turkiye and Saudi Arabia. In
    December Bashar Assad abdicated and fled to Moscow. In December
    a badge of honor I received is I was condemned by the Assad
    regime as an enemy of the State, which I recognize I was. And
    now he is gone.
        Last week I appreciate that Congressman Corey Mills and
    Mike--and Marlin Stutzman visited Damascus as Syria re-achieves
    independence. There is such opportunity for the people of Syria
    to restore freedom. The U.K. last week lifted sanctions.
        With that in mind, what do you think American policies
    should be to assist the people of Syria?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I gather that you are looking at me,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Wilson. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffrey. First of all, it was the Syrian people who
    overthrew Assad. What we had was effective policy done by
    several administrations with the full support of Congress
    working together with partners and allies that enabled the
    Syrian people to take that step. So I think it is a good
    example of what we are all trying to strive for today.
        I think we need to, as this administration is doing and as
    the Biden administration in its last days did, reach out slowly
    and carefully to the new government and take steps as the new
    government responds to our and other partners' legitimate
    security concerns. I think it is on a good path, Congressman,
    but time will tell.
        Mr. Wilson. Well again, it was your efforts that I think
    helped make this successful. So thank you so much.
        And indeed, Secretary Ambassador Hale, allies purchasing
    American defense products are experiencing undue delays in
    delivery for products that they have already paid for. For
    example, Taiwan had bought so much capability to defend
    themselves, but for years it has been held up, and then going
    through the foreign military sales process. In some cases the
    delays have been so significant that allies and partners are
    forced to look elsewhere.
        Thankfully, Congressman and Chairman Mike McCaul and now
    Chairman Brian Mast are champions for reform assisted by
    Ranking Member Greg Meeks. And, secretary, what changes do you
    believe should be made to streamline the process?
        Mr. Hale. I wouldn't assert that I have any great authority
    or ideas on that. I support the idea of streamlining it.
    Certainly I share your concern about the delays that we have
    witnessed over time. I had to dealt with this myself in Lebanon
    when I was Ambassador there. They were dealing with a
    tremendous ISIS threat and we wanted to rapidly provide
    assistance to the Lebanese authorities. And we were able to do
    that. It took a lot of hard work by an embassy, frankly, in our
    defense attache, myself, and the teams back here. So it can be
    done.
        But if you have ways in which you think we are able to
    streamline this while making sure that of course the money is
    not diverted into areas that are inappropriate or corrupt, by
    all means we should do that. Once we know we have a policy, it
    shouldn't be hard to figure out what we are going to do after
    that.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, I want to thank you. You indicated
    Ambassadorships in Islamabad and Beirut. My goodness, you
    really are selected for interesting places.
        But on a positive note, there has been change in Lebanon,
    too. And so what can we do to work together, hopefully in the
    spirit of Syria, with Lebanon?
        Mr. Hale. Well, I was also Ambassador in Jordan. So that
    was the garden spot for me. Yes, on Lebanon we have an
    opportunity that is rare in life. There is change underway. No
    one would have dreamt a year-and-a-half ago that we would be
    able to deal with what we are dealing with here. The worst
    thing we could do is abandon the Lebanese to themselves. They
    still need help. The central government is very weak. The
    moderates there, their families and people have been
    assassinated by Hezbollah over time. It is hard for them.
        So we need to keep the pressure on Iran. That is our role.
    Our role is not to tinker with the Lebanese reforms and steps.
    We should encourage that and help nurture it. But what America
    can do is make sure that whatever else we are doing with Iran
    we continue to hold them accountable for the support of
    Hezbollah and make sure that they know that we demand the
    disarmament of Hezbollah.
        Mr. Wilson. And indeed the Trump administration has maximum
    pressure on the head of the snake, the octopus. And Tehran
    should be on notice that in--for the people of Iran we are for
    them. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Wilson.
        We now recognize Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our witnesses for being here. I am
    actually really glad we are convening this hearing today. I
    will be honest, when I worked at the State Department I was
    incredibly frustrated with the long-time career diplomats who
    were very resistant to change. And I think that that mentality
    has contributed to the department's ineffectiveness over the
    years. I think reform is absolutely needed in the State
    Department. In fact, I passed bipartisan legislation to help
    address risk aversion and the bunker mentality at our embassies
    and other reforms: how we do security assistance, how we do
    foreign assistance. So that is why I am so disappointed that
    this reorganization effort has become a partisan exercise
    marred by chaos and without regard to the law.
        Between the leaked proposal we have seen to slash the
    department's budget in half, the commitments to cut staff by 15
    percent, despite the department now having to take on what is
    left of USAID programming, and reports that the department will
    significantly downsize its diplomatic presence abroad, taken
    together I actually don't think these reforms will lead to a
    more effective State Department, which is what we really want.
    The reality is we do need to think more strategically about
    what our national security priorities and interests are in a
    multipolar world.
        But, Chairman Mast, I just fundamentally disagree with you
    that human rights and our values aren't part of that because I
    think our power is derived from our ability to build
    international coalitions. And to do that we need to address our
    values and build our coalitions around that.
        So first I want to focus on an area of ongoing reform that
    I think we can learn from. Chairman Emeritus McCaul and I, my
    good friend, introduced a reauthorization for the Global
    Fragility Act. This focuses on important reforms for how we get
    to align policy and programs, more robust monitoring, and
    evaluation.
        But Secretary Rubio's reorganization proposal which shut
    down the Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau, which I
    actually worked at, which is leading the implementation--and
    look, we can have a separate debate on the best way to house
    the kind of conflict expertise in the department. We led a GAO
    review of CSO under the Biden administration. But, Secretary
    Zeya, as Under Secretary of State you oversaw the work of CSO
    and the Global Fragility Act. Can you discuss the importance of
    maintaining the Global Fragility Act team led by an assistant
    secretary as required by law to actually implement GFA and meet
    its statutory obligations?
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you, Representative Jacobs, and thanks to
    you and Representative McCaul for your bipartisan leadership on
    the Global Fragility Act.
        This is exactly the kind of State modernization that I
    think we should rally bipartisan support for. And I saw this
    firsthand in my role as under secretary visiting GFA partner
    countries: Mozambique, Cote d'Ivoire, as well as Haiti. And
    what I saw on the ground was a shift away from open-ended
    assistance commitments where implementation is defined as
    spending money and really focusing on measuring results,
    evidence-based approaches, and course corrections.
        And it is very sad to me that this effort is now being
    potentially extinguished just 2 years in when it is starting to
    bear fruit.
        It is about integrating State Department efforts with our
    colleagues at DOD, with USAID, but also with international
    partners who have followed our lead particularly in coastal
    West Africa where we have four embassies working together in an
    integrated way I have never seen. But you have got the
    international financial institutions, the EU, and the Brits
    coming in behind to focus on the same areas.
        And I do want to make a point about human rights and
    security and hard security. Representative Wilson mentioned his
    visit to Syria. I was a human rights officer in Syria under
    Hafez al-Assad. At this point our support for pluralism, for
    inclusion of women in Syria's transitional government and
    process, that is absolutely a guarantor of security. And Syria
    is a diverse country of many faiths. We cannot allow it to fall
    into a majoritarian system that oppresses so many of Syria's
    people after the immense suffering they have had. It is also
    why accountability is so important so we can finally achieve
    accountability for the Assad regime's horrific crimes.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I really appreciate that. And I
    think one of the really innovative reforms in the Global
    Fragility Act is being able to assess the effectiveness of U.S.
    policy in a single country across all of our activities done by
    all different agencies. And I know that sound simple, but
    actually GFA is the only capability we have ever had to assess
    whether or not our policy whole-of-government in a country is
    actually achieving its goals. So I do hope that Secretary Rubio
    will maintain that function.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Jacobs.
        We now recognize Representative Smith from New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
    calling this important hearing. And welcome to our very
    distinguished panel.
        I am the prime author of the bipartisan Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act of 2000. And among some of its provisions, or
    dozens of mutually reinforcing provisions, we established a
    tier system: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3--Tier 3 for the most
    egregious violators--not doing anything or complicit in human
    trafficking within their country--in the areas of prevention,
    prosecution, and protection.
        I have been very concerned and I have held dozens of
    hearings over the years with both administrations, all of the
    administrations, and we keep getting from the TIP Office
    Ambassador-at-large and from people in the TIP Office how there
    is almost like a hand-to-hand combat when certain nations are
    put on Tier 3. And many of our bureau chiefs, especially the
    assistant secretary for the region, argue don't do it. There
    are other equities that we need to be concerned about.
        And my argument has always been get it right. What you do
    on the sanctions piece, which is prescribed in the law as
    well--pre-scribed I should say--is purely up to the
    administration. But getting it right on the facts should be
    non-negotiable. And yet the most egregious example there was
    during the Obama administration when Reuters broke the story
    that there were more than a dozen nations that got artificially
    inflated grades because of other issues. So I had two hearings
    on that. And I said don't do that. You still have the victims.
        Now I am concerned that we get the integrity right on the
    process. And ditto for the International Religious Freedom Act.
    So call it the way it is. What we do on the sanctions piece is
    something that the Secretary of State and the President can
    negotiate.
        And I am wondering what your thought are now as we are
    going through this whole revamping. And Secretary Rubio I do
    believe is very strongly committed to both religious freedom
    and to trafficking issues. How do we ensure the integrity of
    the process, getting it right? Those bureaus need to be as
    independent as possible in my opinion. The TIP Office is made
    up of wonderful people who work overtime. And each embassy as
    you know, Mr. Ambassador, tender all of the data back as to
    what is going on in that individual country. How do we ensure
    that those--and there are other offices as well. But religious
    freedom and trafficking in persons. How do we ensure the
    integrity of that process? Yes, please?
        Ms. Zeya. Thanks so much, Representative Smith. I would say
    from my own experience I have seen how the TVPA effects change
    on the ground in the tier ranking system. And I would say as my
    role as under secretary I enjoyed very close collaboration with
    my counterpart, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and
    colleagues from regional bureaus in really focusing on the
    countries that we were seeing a degradation in conditions, but
    also recognizing opportunities for progress. I want to
    highlight two.
        Together the Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons
    working with civil society and the private sector worked
    tirelessly to successfully eradicate child and forced labor
    from the cotton industry in Uzbekistan. That might sound like
    an issue far away in a land that doesn't matter to Americans.
    It does matter to the U.S. cotton industry who cannot compete
    against forced labor-produced products.
        This is why I am so concerned about subsuming this office
    which really enjoys unrivaled global leadership on this mission
    to end human slavery into the Bureau of Population, Refugees,
    and Migration. The legal definition of human trafficking does
    not require movement across international borders. So I am
    quite worried that that is a downgrade that will really
    undercut efforts to end exploitation of some of the most
    vulnerable people at a moment when we are really making
    progress.
        I have also seen in the case of allies, like the Republic
    of Korea a downgrade to Tier 2 really produced a tremendous
    amount of effort and engagement, where we saw improvements
    where they were able to move back up to Tier 1. So the ranking
    system I think has had a very positive effect, although many
    didn't like it when it came out, in effecting change.
        Mr. Jeffrey. If I may briefly add to this. I was Ambassador
    to Albania, and boy, this was one of my top priorities. I
    haven't been too kind to soft power in my statement and some of
    my comments here today, but this is an example I think for the
    committee to look at where soft power can work. Because first
    of all, it reflects values that across the board Americans
    believe in, because this is terrible stuff. Second, it is
    something that is concrete that you can get governments to stop
    without changing their whole outlook to the universe, their
    philosophy, their religious background, and everything else.
    Much of what we do is broad. I have got to look like Denmark or
    you to look like Washington, DC.
        This is very specific. We monitor it closely. And you bet I
    was always trying to get Albania raised one level higher. And
    you can bet I was beaten down because we had concrete standards
    to go by. That is what the secretary should continue to enforce
    because it represents the will of not only the Congress, but
    the American people.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Smith.
        Representative Castro?
        Mr. Castro. Thanks, chairman.
        I have served on this committee for--well, since I got into
    Congress in January 2013 and have always supported a
    comprehensive authorization of the State Department. Doing so
    is a core responsibility of this committee and is our best
    opportunity to strengthen American leadership and diplomacy.
    And this committee has in recent years been successful in
    passing and enacting authorizing legislation to do just this.
        I have had the opportunity to contribute meaningful
    legislation now enacted to strengthen the State Department,
    USAID, and the Foreign Service. In drafting this legislation
    though there is always a balance that we strike. The language
    must be specific enough to set direction of the department, but
    flexible enough for our diplomats and foreign assistance
    professionals to implement the laws in an ever-changing
    international landscape. This has for decades been a careful
    balance built on trust and good faith between each Congress and
    each administration.
        Unfortunately, the Trump administration has abused this
    relationship and dynamic. Congress has for decades authorized
    specific programs and agencies: USAID, the Interamerican
    Foundation, the US African Development Foundation, The United
    States Institute of Peace, the Millennium Challenge
    Corporation. Bipartisan laws have established each of these
    agencies and their programs. Laws continue to direct funding
    for these agencies and their programs.
        In each of these cases the administration has directed the
    agencies to reduce operations to, quote, ``minimum required by
    statute,'' essentially closing the agencies down. They have
    abused the flexibility afforded by the law to essentially
    terminate these programs. And authorization to do something
    without a requirement that it specifically be done is being
    interpreted as permission to ignore congressional intent and
    refuse to undertake the activity.
        In the current environment if the Congress wants a law to
    be enacted, it seems the language must be very specific and
    bind the hands of our diplomats so that they have no
    flexibility.
        So I wanted to as Ambassadors Jeffrey and Hale, how
    effective do you think our diplomats would be if the laws
    provide the Department little to no flexibility because the
    Congress cannot trust the President of the United States to
    faithfully execute the laws of the United States?
        Mr. Jeffrey. The Secretary of State and his or her
    subordinates need a considerable amount of flexibility to carry
    out the intent of Congress. I don't want to get into what is
    the middle of a very partisan and hot debate. What I would say
    is it is very important that Congress not just authorize an
    activity or an agency, but State what the goals are in general
    terms. We can then operate in terms of what the military calls
    troops-to-task to figure out how to do that, what the
    procedures are, what kind of people we need. But general
    guidance in some detail is always good to know which direction
    you are going. And again, the Trafficking in People--it was
    very clear that Congress wanted us to put an end to this. And
    we have done a pretty good job.
        Mr. Castro. Ambassador?
        Mr. Hale. Yes. No, I would agree very much. And I would
    also underscore, would State the obvious that the world
    changes. Foreign policies needs to be nimble, and adroit, and
    able to respond to emerging problems that we didn't anticipate.
    Maybe we should have; maybe we shouldn't have, but we didn't.
        And we need to be able to have a consultation with you all
    here on the Hill about those emerging and changing threats, and
    opportunities as well and make sure that we have the
    flexibility we need, but also we are connected to you. And it
    is not just a matter of when you are--have your confirmation
    hearing or when you are called up for a very formal event, but
    the ongoing consultations of members and staff.
        Mr. Castro. Sure. Well, USAID, the Inter-American
    Foundation, the U..S African Development Foundation, the United
    States Institute of Peace, and the Millennium Challenge
    Corporation have all been established by law and have existing
    valid authorizations, yet the administration has moved to
    eliminate all of these entities. It has abused and exploited
    the difference between the spirit--or the gap between the
    spirit and the letter of the law. And so far this committee and
    this Congress have allowed the President and the administration
    to do that. Perhaps we will see in the coming years, but
    forever resetting the balance of power and control between the
    executive branch and the President and this Congress, that is
    going on in real time right now. This committee and this
    Congress are surrendering influence and control over our
    diplomacy to the President of the United States. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Castro.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important
    hearing. From ceding Congress' authority to the executive
    branch this entire exercise is about Congress reclaiming its
    important role in authorizing and reauthorizing the State
    Department.
        Thank you to our Ambassadors for your service. I just
    returned from a bipartisan CODEL to--from our embassy in Tokyo.
    I thanked our incredible Foreign Service personnel there in
    that spectacular embassy there and thanked them for their
    service. And I think our Foreign Service personnel who are
    forward deployed in embassies and missions across the globe and
    who do a great job representing our country and our values
    overseas--they deserve a reauthorized State Department that
    reforms in some cases the department, that in some cases
    economizes the department, rethinks and reimagines and
    modernizes the department, strengthens and in some cases
    refocuses the department. I think our Foreign Service personnel
    and our diplomats deserve that. And that is what this entire
    opportunity presents.
        I would like to take my time to clear the air on some
    negative press that this administration has received for this
    much-needed reorganization of the State Department. Critics
    have argued that cuts and reviews undermine American soft power
    and damage alliances with our allies, but our own Secretary of
    State and other senior officials have said that is not true.
    Secretary of State Rubio recently stated we are going to be
    involved in those things, caring about human rights, but it is
    going to be run at the embassy and regional level, not out of
    some office in Washington, DC.
        Speaking on the America First trade agenda, Secretary
    Bessent said America First does not mean America alone. To the
    contrary, it is a call for deeper collaboration and mutual
    respect among trade partners.
        Tammy Bruce, spokesperson for the State Department on
    reorganizing USAID, said that don't mistake a change for
    indicating that something is gone. It was never about us
    abandoning our commitment to funding of any kind, but it is
    going to look different. And now it will. It will actually be
    going to be within a functional framework.
        Secretary Rubio said about diplomacy in the Middle East:
    This is not a President that is looking to start wars. He is a
    President that is looking to stop the Houthis and present--
    prevent them. That is why we have been focused on Ukraine and
    that is why we are having talks with Iranians. We are committed
    to achieving a peaceful outcome that is acceptable to everyone.
    We want to achieve a peaceful resolution and not resort to
    anything else.
        Ambassador Jeffrey, do you see the need for consolidation
    and more streamlined processes at the State Department and more
    focus? And how could it be actually beneficial to advancing
    American foreign policy?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Yes, I do. I think first of all it is
    important that whatever this or any administration does it
    reflects a general thrust of policy that we can be sure the
    next administration, regardless of Republican or Democrat, will
    follow.
        When we deal with countries and they say yes to something
    we are asking, they are making an investment, just like people
    do in the stock market. And they are investing in an assumption
    that there will be returns on this. It is somewhat
    transactional. And thus predictability and consistency are
    important. So anything that streamlines the organization or
    makes it more efficient will help.
        Again, the devil is in the details on what you throw
    overboard, but there is a lot of stuff that needs to continue.
    Again, focus on the operating elements of the Department of
    State. Those are the geographic bureaus, those are the people
    who--even though they are only assistant secretaries, they
    spend much more time with the Secretary of State than most
    other people in the building and they are his or her operating
    arms. They are very important to empower.
        Mr. Barr. Well, I do think that refocusing and reorganizing
    really could enhance morale among our diplomats and give them
    additional mission and purpose.
        One final question about China in this new era of great
    power competition. Where should the State Department focus its
    efforts with respect to competition with the PRC and should we
    think seriously about some of our diplomatic efforts that
    actually push would-be partners into the arms of China, like
    our--the previous administration's efforts to push against the
    domestic law in Uganda that actually encouraged China to build
    a Belt and Road project there?
        Mr. Hale. Well, I was involved when I was under secretary
    in a major reorganization effort to confront the problem that
    we faced in China because the organization--while their--
    Washington consensus, as they say, had shifted and recognized
    the problem, the bureaucracy had not. And so we took the
    positions that were liberated out of Baghdad, Basrah, and Kabul
    as circumstances changed there and assigned them to the China
    team.
        A lot of people wanted them to be sent to China. And I was
    one of those arguing, and successfully so, against too much of
    that. Instead we needed those resources and those people, which
    are our main resource at the State Department, to be on the
    front lines where we were dealing with the invidious Chinese
    influence. And that included international organizations as
    well as different countries in the world. And you mentioned one
    of them.
        And so that is--and we did a--I think a pretty impressive
    exercise in gathering data to understand exactly what the
    nature of the Chinese threat was in every country in the world,
    both business, security, public diplomacy, all the different
    categories of influence, and decide where were the countries
    where frankly it was too far gone, that resources were wasted
    there. Where were the countries where there was competition and
    where was the competition needed? And then to make sure that
    our country teams in each of those places had the resources and
    the strategy to deal with it.
        Because how you deal with China and Thailand is going to be
    different than how you deal with it in El Salvador.
        And then to proselytize with our people to make sure they
    understood that whatever you were doing before, now China was
    at the top of your list. And I think we made great inroads.
        Mr. Barr. Well, I have great respect for our diplomats. And
    that is exactly why I support this reauthorization process to
    continue to strengthen the department. I yield back.
        Mrs. Biggs. I now recognize Representative Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Well, while we are hearing about
    devastating cuts that are coming from the other side of the
    aisle, I would like to talk about maybe some productive ways
    that we could enhance the mission through the State Department.
        One of those I believe is establishing a diplomatic reserve
    corps. That is an initiative that I believe would make the
    State Department more agile and better able to respond to
    crises around the world more quickly. And I am going to be
    introducing a bill that establishes such a corps.
        Ambassador Jeffrey, you have been a career Ambassador in
    Iraq, in Turkey. You mentioned Albania. You have been a deputy
    national security advisor. Would you speak to the advantages of
    having such a reserve corps?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I think they are extraordinary. I have seen
    how it works with the military. It is what kept us afloat in
    several conflicts, rotating people in and out. It also give the
    secretary flexibility without having to expand dramatically the
    personnel and the costs of the department because as you can
    see, that is not appreciated by everybody, here or in the
    country as a whole.
        A reserve corps would be much cheaper and in some respects
    more flexible because these are people who are ready to go in
    an instant's notice. In many cases we have tried variants of
    this on an experimental basis before and I think it proved its
    worth. So I would strongly support that. Because there will be
    surges. We are going to be involved in the kind of thing we did
    in Iraq and Afghanistan sooner or later, one way or the other.
    We have been doing so through the history of the Foreign
    Service and the U.S. Government.
        Ms. Titus. Doing well by doing good or vice versa. Well,
    thank you. I am glad to hear you say that. And I hope my
    colleagues will pay attention to that. That would meet some of
    their goals of being more efficient and also serving the
    mission.
        A second question is that if you look at Senator Rubio's
    comments during his confirmation hearing, he said preventing
    crises is a lot cheaper and a lot better than dealing with
    crises after the fact. Now, I happen to agree with that, but
    when I look at the State Department reorganization, I see that
    the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations has
    disappeared. I don't see it on the new organization chart.
    Looks like it is going to sunset according to the fact sheet. I
    think this bureau is very important. It plays a role in
    atrocities prevention, implementation of the Global Fragilities
    Act, conflict mapping and analysis, support for peace
    negotiations. But it is gone. I mean, where has it gone? Are
    these technical capacities going to exist elsewhere in the
    State Department?
        Would you address that, Ms. Zeya?
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you. Absolutely. The Bureau of Conflict
    Stabilization Operations has evolved really into the premier
    player supporting high stakes diplomatic negotiations,
    including the achievement of a cessation of hostilities
    agreement in Ethiopia that ended the devastating conflict in
    Tigray. But they have also helped our efforts to stand up a
    temporary political authority in Haiti. They have supported
    diplomatic efforts on Sudan. And as we have discussed, they are
    the government lead on the Global Fragility Act, a bipartisan
    effort to pursue evidence-based locally led approaches to
    better prevent and end conflict sustainably.
        So from an oversight perspective, I think there are a lot
    of questions as to what consolidation means, and there is a
    real imperative to ensure that the United States does not lose
    this tremendous reserve of expertise that is making a
    difference in an effort to slash and consolidate.
        And on the overall point of consolidation, I want to say
    that the world is so complex that you simply cannot concentrate
    it in the hands of six regional assistant secretaries .
        The functional bureaus of the Department of State are
    absolutely operational and strategic. One of the ones that I
    oversaw, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
    Enforcement stood up a coalition of more than 160 countries to
    fight the scourge of synthetic illicits and fentanyl.
        So this is really a moment for all players on the field not
    to take out our team members in a short-sighted effort to
    streamline that undercuts our interest.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. And I yield back.
        Mrs. Biggs. [Presiding.] The chair now recognizes
    Representative Jackson from Texas.
        Mr. Jackson from Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you
    to our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate your time.
        For over 20 years, Congress has failed to properly
    reauthorize the State Department, which has allowed the Federal
    bureaucracy to circumvent congressional oversight.
        If Biden's State Department proved anything to us, it is
    that these bloated agencies must be kept in check or Federal
    bureaucrats will act on their whims, independent of the needs
    of the American people.
        Thankfully, President Trump and Secretary Rubio have
    already taken decisive action to restructure the Department of
    State to better align with our foreign policy objectives and
    put citizens of the United States first.
        Both sides of the aisle have argued that Foreign Service
    performance evaluation and promotion process has lacked
    objectivity and transparency.
        The issue is largely due to the previous administration's
    obsession with DEI where former Secretary of State Blinken
    released a 5-year diversity, equity, inclusion and
    accessibility strategic plan to ``ensure that the Department of
    State is a leader in the governmentwide efforts to advance DEIA
    goals for Federal workforce.''
        Fortunately, President Trump and Secretary Rubio are
    working to ensure that all Foreign Service recruitment hiring,
    promotion, and retention decisions are based on the
    individual's merit and merit alone.
        Ambassador Hale, what can this committee do to ensure that
    Foreign Service personnel education and promotion processes are
    based on merit even after the Trump administration is
    completed?
        Mr. Hale. Well, I think this is a core concern. We are a
    meritocracy. The Foreign Service is largely based on--staffing
    is largely based on the Foreign Service exam that is
    competitive. And we are pledged to the concept of up or out. In
    my experience, however, in my career there was a lot of up but
    there wasn't much out. And my data may be--and undoubtedly is
    old, but when I was in the office, the data generally was about
    0.5 to 1.5 percent of the Foreign Service each year was
    separated basically for non-performance.
        I suspect there was probably more people than that who were
    not meeting the standards that objectively would be required. A
    part of the problem was that the promotion process produces a
    list where, you know, the bottom third of the lower performing
    staff. But then the next number you come into is how many
    positions do we have to fill. So the cut goes deeper than the
    cutoff mark for people who are really not performing by any
    objective standards. So the retained people who frankly really
    aren't capable, which is where streamlining can become very
    important.
        So we not only look at the people, but also look at the
    positions and make sure that the positions we have are really
    things we need to be doing.
        I personally don't get all that cut up in the
    reorganization charts. I am not saying they are not important,
    but what is important is filling those boxes with people who
    can do the job. I mean, A, filling them, which we have seen is
    a problem in some administration. And then B making sure, as I
    said at the beginning, that they actually have the skill set
    needed and are held accountable to their performance and that
    they understand the mindset of the Foreign Service should be.
    That we are policymakers. We are there to provide our expertise
    and knowledge and advice. Decisionmakers are other people And
    when decisions are made that we salute smartly and implement
    those policies rather than--but he also has to make sure we
    have a climate inside the Foreign Service and the civil service
    that enables dissent and creativity, which is going to produce
    the best policies we can have.
        Mr. Jackson from Texas. I agree with you on that. And I
    also think that recruitment and retention are going to be
    important as well, obviously, and I think that a merit-based
    system will help with the recruitment and retention and fill
    some of those boxes you were talking about.
        I have one more question real quick in my remaining time
    here. Consular officers play a vital role in our national
    defense adjudicating who receives a visa to come to the United
    States and who is denied entry.
        Ambassador Jeffrey, given the important role of the
    consular affairs office in maintaining the security of our
    borders, is there any merit to moving the consular visa
    adjudication function from the State Department to the
    Department of Homeland Security? And if not, why not?
        Mr. Jeffrey. As I indicated in my remarks, I will support
    that because the policies first, the policy is determined by
    Homeland Security, not the State Department.
        Second, we have more people from other agencies at our
    typical embassy than we do from the people at the State
    Department. So just because there would be more DH people and a
    few less State Department visa offices, that would not be major
    change in how embassies work or deal with.
        But the third thing is, and it gets to the question you
    posed today, but one reason that we are having a hard time
    evaluating on merit Foreign Service offices is that we don't
    know what their core skill is. The Marine Corps is well aware
    of what its purpose is, every marine a rifleman. The idea
    should be every Foreign Service officer a diplomat.
        But over the years the accumulation of functions has led to
    us thinking our people are managers. Now management is fine. I
    have got a Master's in Business Administration. But the core
    skill is diplomacy. And the visa function, unlike taking care
    of Americans abroad, which is a core consular diplomatic
    function, the visa function is a managerial function. It almost
    never involves dealing with the host government. We keep the
    host governments out of it just like they keep--you know, we
    don't have any say as a government in Germany or other
    countries letting Americans travel there. So I think that it
    would be cleaner and it would streamline how we look at
    ourselves if that function were to go.
        Mr. Jackson from Texas. Thank you, Ambassador. I appreciate
    your input, and I yield back. Thank you.
        Mrs. Biggs. [Presiding.] Thank you. I now recognize
    Representative Dean for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Dean. I thank you, Chairwoman, and I thank Ranking
    Member Meeks for organizing this hearing today. And I thank you
    Ambassadors and Secretary for your years of service and, of
    course, for your expertise that you are offering us today.
        As we review what has been a very chaotic time, lots of
    people are confused. And I have to admit whether I am speaking
    to folks from USAID here in the United States or abroad or I am
    speaking to folks from State Department here or abroad, having
    just come back from Denmark, Jordan, Israel, with Ranking
    Member Meeks, folks are confused. And I want to lift up the
    people who have worked for USAID, many of them dismissed with
    zero notice, not even able to take their own belongings, their
    own personal photos of their work, dismissed with such utter
    disregard. And now what is going on with the Department of
    State.
        I want to lift up the people who have worked in the
    Department of State. I am utterly impressed to a person with
    their dedication to diplomacy to service to this country and
    the same for USAID. So unfortunately since his return to office
    in January, President Trump has chosen to attempt to overpower
    foreign partners rather than engage in strategic diplomacy. His
    administration claims their policies will bring safety,
    security, and prosperity, many of the points that you brought
    up, Madam Secretary to America. but all that I have seen thus
    far is a reeling economy, weakened relationships with our
    allies and emboldened adversaries.
        The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, an approach to
    foreign aid, has always been the 3D approach, defense,
    diplomacy, development. Unfortunately, we have seen a Secretary
    of Defense for example who repeatedly compromises national
    security to no account.
        Shuttering of USAID under this administration, an agency
    that saves millions of lives and builds goodwill for America,
    builds our own national security. And now this drastic set of
    proposals and rapid changes to the State Department, which you
    said Madam Secretary, will hobble diplomatic strength and
    create a void that our adversaries are obviously taking a close
    look at and probably enjoying.
        Like USAID, as I said, State Department is filled with some
    of the most knowledgeable in foreign affairs, national
    security, and humanitarian work. It honors expertise and takes
    years to cultivate. And yet Secretary Rubio, and it's baffling
    to me, does not advocate for the very department he is tasked
    to lead. I don't understand that. Proposing further personnel
    and budget cuts that will exacerbate and damage and DOGE has
    already done great damage.
        Maybe I will start with you, Madam Secretary. You pointed
    out so succinctly the three points in your testimony and in
    your written testimony as well. Do you think that what we are
    seeing here with the cutes to the State Department has followed
    a critical analysis of where we could be streamlining, where we
    do have duplication of efforts, where we have talented people
    that we need to make sure stay there or grow there? Have we
    gone through that process, and did I just miss it?
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you, Representative Dean. I have seen no
    sign of such a process or even a strategy. And I do so
    appreciate your words commending the sacrifices and the
    commitment of former USAID colleagues as well as former State
    colleagues.
        I just want to share two quick stories about USAID's impact
    and who they are up against. I was in Kyiv last October where
    USAID literally was keeping the lights and the heat on.
        The night before my arrival, 150 drones rained down on
    Kyiv. They were Iranian provided, part of this axis, including
    Iran, the DPRK, and China also supporting Russia's continued
    illegal aggression against Ukraine.
        They tried unsuccessfully to destroy Ukraine's electric
    infrastructure. And it was USAID experts working in partnership
    with the Ukrainian government who were able to literally keep
    the population from freezing to death. That is one sign of
    their impact.
        A second is one the, I mentioned, fentanyl and
    counternarcotics efforts that are--you know, fentanyl is the
    leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and
    49. People may not realize that USAID, working in partnership
    with the State Department is literally clawing back rural
    territories formerly under the control of Clan del Golfo. And
    it isn't a siloed approach. It isn't just security. It is
    security and development. And it is human-centered security
    that meets the needs of the population and does not leave them
    to be preyed upon by the narcos and some of the world's worst
    criminal organizations.
        Ms. Dean. I thank you very much because that is a passion
    of mine. Opioid addiction has touched my family. I have a son
    in recovery, 12 years in recovery. And the fentanyl crisis that
    is stealing at this point 87,000 lives a year is something that
    we must pay attention to. And I have to admit the President has
    talked about caring about fentanyl. So why would just disregard
    where we are making progress?
        With that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Biggs. [Presiding.] Thank you. I now recognize
    Representative Self for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, this is an
    opportunity to get the State Department right, I hope. And I
    will tell you I am going to start with a quote from Clausewitz.
    ``War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.''
        I am convinced that we are--we call it great power
    competition. I am not sure that is what it is. I think we are
    in a hybrid war now. You may remember just a couple of days ago
    in Spain, Portugal, and southern part of France there was an
    outage. Siemens Security now says that it was a cyber attack.
    It was on the stated equipment, and it caused cascading failure
    across two countries and part of another.
        I want to pick up on something that Chairman Emeritus
    McCaul said because in your written statement, Ambassador
    Jeffrey, you talked about the DOD combatant commands need to be
    aligned with the bureaus. I am of the opinion, and I would like
    your opinion, State Department and DOD need to work together in
    the national interest of the United States across the world
    because policy in the State Department simply is acting in our
    national interest and eventually to preclude war between great
    powers.
        So I think that this committee ought to inform the NDAA
    because we ought to have a coordinated national policy for
    where we are going as a Nation, which would include the backup
    of hard power to any soft power that we exercise around the
    world.
        China is certainly on the march and they are making moves
    toward Taiwan. I just returned from Europe. And one of the
    points we were making to our European allies is when they build
    infrastructure such as pipelines, they need to be coordinated
    with the war plans that General Cavoli is putting in place in
    NATO and turning NATO into a legitimate warfighting
    organization.
        So yesterday, I held a hearing in the European Subcommittee
    on the Cyberspace and Digital Policy Branch of State
    Department. So I would ask you, Ambassador, for your thoughts
    on this and particularly the digital policy here because it is
    a part of the hybrid war that we are in now.
        Mr. Jeffrey. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for the
    Clausewitz quote. It is one of my favorites.
        Flag officers are responsible for the other means. That is
    their business. Our job is the continuation, that plug-in
    between policy and what the military is doing in the field, the
    things they blow up, the territory they hold, the territory
    they seize.
        And I found the military is very willing to listen to
    diplomats in the State Department. But the procedures, be it on
    the digital account, be it on emerging technologies, be it on
    new threats, the channels have to be clear cut.
        It is very hard to have two battle buddies, and most of our
    combatant commanders and most of our assistant secretaries are
    in that situation. And it undercuts the immediate understanding
    the sort of mind meld that you get in the field.
        For example, when I was in Iraq, later in Syria, I had a
    three or four star military counterpart in only one and those
    officers only had one. It was me. And it worked very, very
    well. So I do think that that is important.
        In terms of the new threats, again, we bring the civilian
    side, which is often very important on these emerging military
    technologies, again cyber, digital, all of that stuff, we can
    bring that to the table. And we can reinforce what the military
    is doing.
        Mr. Self. Very good. So for the two Ambassadors, where
    would you put cyberspace and digital policy, organizationally
    in the State Department, where would you put it?
        Mr. Hale. I think it is really hard, actually. You can have
    pros and cons for any of the conceivable ideas that I have
    seen. There was a movement to put it under P where I served. I
    didn't think that was a particularly wise idea, partly because
    I knew I didn't have the skill set, frankly, as undersecretary
    to really grapple with the cyber threat. It was beyond my
    experience zone.
        So I think the first thing, not to skip your answer. I will
    come back to it. But the first thing is to make sure we
    actually have people who can handle it, you know, have the
    background. We are diplomats as Jim said first and foremost. We
    also have to have the technical competence to deal with the
    subject matter at hand. And I don't believe we have been
    training people to deal with a cyber threat.
        I would put it in the T family is forced to make a
    decision. Because, again, I think you are more likely to get
    the kind of people who have the frame of mind to deal with it.
    It is global in nature, of course, and so that is where I would
    put it.
        And, I know time is of the essence, but I would just
    reinforce in my experience the coordination with the Foreign
    Service and embassies and combatant commanders has been superb.
    And it works far better in the field than DOD-State
    relationships do back here. Not that they are bad, but
    overseas, I think because we are all in the front lines of
    whatever we are dealing with, the cooperation and communication
    is really outstanding.
        Mr. Self. Very quickly, Ambassador, do you have an idea on
    CDP organizationally?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Yes. I would agree with David. It should be
    one which counter the global bureau's offices, probably T. But
    the key thing is those are the kind of global things I like
    because they provide technical expertise. It is a worldwide
    problem. It spreads beyond any regional bureau. And they
    provide support to us like the kind of terrorism people do.
    They don't try to do our job for us or take it away from us or
    compete with us. And that is very important.
        Mr. Self. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. [Presiding.] Thank you, Representative Self.
    Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this is my
    13th year on this committee. And, you know, why I have always
    enjoyed the Foreign Affairs Committee in the past under the
    guidance of Eliot Engel, Ed Royce, is, yes, we will have heated
    debate, but when we are out there abroad, we are representing
    the United States of America. And I think we are all proud as
    Democrats and Republicans of who we are as Americans and what
    we have accomplished.
        When I am out there, I do travel a lot both on this
    committee as well as on the Intelligence Committee. And Is see
    our brave men and women out there Foreign Service officers, aid
    and development folks in conflict zones and refugee camps, and
    I have the utmost respect for them as I do for our men and
    women in the military uniform as well and what they do to both
    provide the goodwill abroad as the people of the United States,
    but also to protect our services.
        So to the three, I do thank you for your service. If I look
    at the accomplishments of the United States, I am incredibly
    proud of what we did post-World War II in creating a world
    order that created relative peace and prosperity for 75 years,
    ending the cold war without actually going to war with the
    Soviet Union.
        Many of you were there on the front lines. And that was the
    military and our diplomatic corps working together. It wasn't
    Democratic or Republican. You know, we have had throughout that
    time Democratic and Republican administrations. We had a
    Congress, but we didn't go one way or the other.
        So I don't think, Mr. Chairman, you will find a lot of
    resistance to doing a State Department Authorization Act. But
    what I would urge is let's do this in a bipartisan way. We
    can't make this a Republican Authorization Bill or a Democratic
    Authorization Bill.
        Look, we are in the minority. I won't say let's meet at the
    50 yard line. We will go to your 40 yard line. But if you take
    us to the 10 yard line, to your end zone, we are not going to
    be able to do this.
        And the challenge there is there is going to be a day when
    the Democratics are back in the majority. I hope that is in
    2026, Chairman Meeks, and if we do this together, then we can
    actually have something enduring. We are not going to get it
    all right, but we can get it, you know, mostly right. So we are
    not constantly every two, 4 years going back and forth. That
    doesn't serve our interest well. That doesn't serve the world's
    interest well because this is a different world.
        We are in the 21st Century now. We have got to do this
    together. We have got to think about this. You know, I would
    not go about a reorganization the way President Trump is, but
    it is what it is. It is creating an opportunity for us to build
    something better that is more reflective of today's world, you
    know, where we have program that no longer make sense, great.
    But that doesn't mean, we should retreat from the world. We
    should take the best minds, folks like all three of you who
    have been on the front lines, use your expertise, tell us how
    we could do this better, what worked, what doesn't work. But we
    should do it in this committee as Democrats and Republicans
    working together so in 2 years, if we have the gavel, we are
    not undoing everything and starting from scratch. Let's do
    something that is lasting that gets better each time. Let's
    reaffirm who we are as the Foreign Affairs Committee.
        Chairman McCaul talked about what we do. Yes, we pass
    Authorization Bills, but we always attach it to the NDAA. There
    is so much that we should have jurisdiction over as the foreign
    Affairs Committee that goes into the Pentagon budget.
        That is not to knock the NDAA. But the NDAA is going to be
    a trillion dollar bill. We don't have to spend more money. We
    just have to take some of what is in that trillion dollar NDAA,
    pull it back into our budget, pull it back where it belongs in
    the State Department Authorization Bill. I am willing to work
    together.
        If we do this in a bipartisan way, we can keep the divisive
    stuff out of this. You know, we are going to need a State
    Department. We are going to need aid and development.
        I got time to spend with my good friend Joe Wilson. Every
    time he says War Criminal Putin, it makes me feel really good.
    But the real work is going to be, I hope, President Trump is
    successful in finding a cease-fire that is good for the
    Ukrainian people, but we are going to have to do a lot of work
    diplomatically to then make sure there is enduring peace.
        What is rebuilding Ukraine going to look like? You know,
    when Joe Wilson talks about the Butcher Assad, the Syrian
    people have a real opportunity here, but it is going to take
    diplomats. It is going to take Democrats, Republicans, a strong
    diplomatic corps to give them the best chance at success and
    peace.
        So, again, I am not going to ask you questions. Thank you
    for your service. Thank you for all those Foreign Service
    officers, but there is a real opportunity in this disruption.
    It is not how we do it. But if we work together as Democrats
    and Republicans, meet at the 40 yard line, we are going to like
    some things. We are not going to like some things. But we do
    this together in this committee, I think we can have a lasting
    State Department.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Bera. And I will
    just comment on your comments as well to say this State
    Department reauthorization, from building this process in the
    committee from the ground up has been about really looking at
    where this process has been done at this pedantic drum beat.
    You know, looking at Armed Services and saying, how did they
    get that accomplished every single Congress? How did they get
    that done? And make it an expectation that there is not
    appropriations for Armed Services without the authorization of
    Armed Services going on.
        Certainly if they can do it with a budget 10 times the size
    of what our budget is, then we should certainly have the
    ability to do that with the scope for what we have to deal with
    in terms of programming there.
        Every member, Republican, Democrat, will have that
    opportunity to submit their ideas, you know, to a portal for
    this to say this is what I want in a reauthorization. This is
    what I want to prioritize and deprioritize, and so 100 percent
    member driven process and the process to build out doing this.
        What is our focus in doing this has been to literally hire
    on staff from Armed Services because they have that muscle
    memory of doing that NDAA year after year after year that we
    want to say, hey, we need to create that muscle memory of doing
    that here on Foreign Affairs year after year after year,
    Congress after Congress. So your point has been reflected on
    now and has been reflected on in the past. So I thank you for
    your comments.
        Representative Kim, you are recognized.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Mast. And I also want to
    thank Ranking Member Meeks for holding today's hearing and
    thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
        As it has been stated, in 20 years, we have opportunity to,
    you know, work on reauthorizing the State Department. So as my
    colleague and ranking member on the subcommittee that we both
    serve on, I agree with him that we need to work together and
    find bipartisan reforms that will continue to strengthen our
    U.S. leadership on the world stage and also make sure the U.S.
    is remaining the partner of choice, you know, in the world
    stage, you know, with our allies and partners who depend on our
    leadership.
        The State Department over time has struggled to find its
    purpose and its most important authorities and functions have
    been absorbed by other agencies. This is especially true when
    it comes to the economic State craft.
        In 2012, President Obama proposed the consolidation of six
    agencies, including USTR, Commerce, and others, to bring
    coherence to our economic State group, craft, portfolio, but
    that effort failed to materialize.
        So I want to ask you, Mr. Hale, is bringing USTR back into
    the Department of State as it was before 1961, is that a good
    idea? Why or why not?
        Mr. Hale. I definitely believe that there is a need for
    greater integration and coordination of our international
    economic policies and resources and agencies. I am not wedded
    to any specific proposal on doing that. You would be a better
    judge of me, of the reality that there are important domestic,
    political factors in play here that would have be, you know,
    weighed.
        I certainly believe that I understand why a President wants
    to have a cabinet ranked member, you know, of his team dealing
    with trade. But I have witnessed firsthand where the separation
    of the agencies has not allowed us to do the best job possible.
        And USTR in particular suffers, if I may say so. They are
    very capable people, but it is a very small agency. And the
    bandwidth is such, I can only imagine how they are dealing with
    the amount of attention being focused on tariff and trade
    policies right now.
        So I would encourage not just thinking about what our
    embassies can do to better integrate, but how the State
    Department can incorporate some of these.
        And third, you know, there has been a lot of tinkering with
    the National Economic Council and having like an NSC equivalent
    to deal with national economic and international strategies. I
    haven't seen it really work the way the NSC works where it is a
    really functioning, demand driven organization where the
    President's leadership is clearly understood by everyone
    involved. That could be improved.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you. You know, in 1979, the Foreign
    Commercial Service and Foreign Agricultural Service were pulled
    out of the State Department, weakening our ability to advocate
    for American business overseas.
        So Mr. Jeffrey, should FCS and AFS be brought back into the
    Department?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Absolutely, Congresswoman. One of the core
    jobs of any embassy team led by the Ambassador is to promote
    American business, not just big ticket items such as military
    sales, commercial aircraft, energy projects, although those are
    always at the top of the agenda, but any kind of American
    business, American farming initiative in a country usually
    does, get the support of the Ambassador on his or her team.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you.
        Mr. Jeffrey. Thus, they should be under the----
        Mrs. Kim. I appreciate that perspective. You know, in 1999,
    I want to talk about the USIA now. The U.S. Information Agency
    was dissolved and its component parts pushed into the
    department and created undersecretary for public diplomacy. And
    so international broadcasting elements like Radio Free Asia,
    Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Liberty, and Voice of America,
    they were all merged into Broadcasting Board of Governors and
    BBG and its successor organization, the USAGM, that we are
    talking about today, were notoriously dysfunctional and
    desperately needed reform. That is widely accepted as fact.
        So should these organizations be put under the State
    Department's umbrella or be reconstituted as Federal grantees?
    Mr. Hale, can you answer that?
        Mr. Hale. Well, in my mind, they are foreign policy tools.
    So they are best led by the foreign policy agency, the primary
    agency which is the State Department.
        I would also though question, you know, in my background in
    the Middle East, the big question was the introduction after 9/
    11 of the Middle East broadcasting Enterprise. And I thought it
    was built on a false premise in that we, you know, Radio Free
    Europe, Voice of America, was fundamental during the cold war
    in filling a vacuum because the Soviet Union wasn't allowing
    any other news sources to come in. We were able to do that.
        That is not the problem in the Middle East. There are news
    sources there. We can get an American official or American
    voices on any platform we want. It is a question of content.
        So I wouldn't be spending money on building platforms to
    try to compete with Al Arabiya or Al Jazeera. I would be
    thinking about how we can use our talent to make our case on
    those and other platforms.
        Mrs. Kim. Talking about content, very briefly, Chairman, if
    USAGM is not replaced with some new organization, are we ceding
    the information space to our adversaries because content-wise,
    we are not winning the information war?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, definitely. And I experienced this as
    undersecretary in talking all around the world with our
    Ambassadors about what they needed.
        And we have plenty of PD resources in the Middle East and
    South Asia. We didn't in Europe. And they were--China was
    eating our lunch so to speak. And so, yes, but content, not
    necessarily replicating platforms.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Kim.
    Representative Olszewski.
        Mr. Olszewski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you, Chairman Mast, and Ranking Member Meeks for
    convening this hearing. Thank you to all of our witnesses. I
    appreciate my colleagues' flexibility, this committee
    flexibility as I bounce between here and a markup today.
        I also want to just say I very much look forward to
    engaging with Secretary Rubio. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
    help in facilitating that in the weeks ahead.
        As I have said many times before, this administration has
    the right maybe even the obligation to explore reforms and to
    ensure policies that align with its foreign policy goals.
    However, I do question some of the administration's recent
    actions in advancement of these objectives.
        I want to thank my friend and colleague, Representative
    Kim, for leading an amazing bipartisan trip to the East Pacific
    recently where I had the opportunity to see firsthand how many
    of our allies are losing confidence in America's commitment as
    this administration guts critical foreign aid funding and
    diplomatic programs.
        Our partners are confused and they are concerned about why
    the U.S. is voluntarily ceding influence to the region to
    China. Why can't we be stronger> We are being asked often. And
    we know that we can't be stronger is we are isolated.
        I will continue to be the drum with my colleagues on the
    importance of showing up and standing with our allies.
        What also concerns me is a lack of clarity from the State
    Department on how it plans to administer development
    assistance. We know that humanitarian programs are critical to
    strengthening stability in developing countries. But as the
    first Trump administration's own journey to self-reliance
    framework recognized, lasting stability requires also
    addressing root causes, including weak governance,
    infrastructure gaps, and economic exclusion.
        Discarding the very long-term development tools needed to
    prevent recurring crises and creating durable markets for U.S.
    goods is short-sighted in my opinion. It fails to provide
    countries with the support they need to transition off of U.S.
    assistance, a goal I think we all share.
        That being said, without development programs, partner
    countries will be unable to take on the kinds of projects that
    the DFC aims to finance alongside the U.S. private sector.
    Countries cannot simply transition from receiving humanitarian
    assistance to absorbing large scale private sector investments.
    There must be a middle phase that builds capacity, provide
    technical assistance, and grows economies.
        I will start with you, Undersecretary Zeya. Can you talk a
    little bit about why development assistance is such an integral
    part of U.S. foreign assistance, and how can we use State
    authorization to protect programs that drive long-term
    sustainable growth around the world?
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you, Congressman. I absolutely agree with
    you that we cannot neglect that middle phase and, you know,
    make the choice of just security and humanitarian assistance.
        What is development assistance? It is addressing the root
    causes of instability, which can threaten our own national
    security and prosperity. It is supporting health system that
    have put us on the cusp of eliminating HIV AIDS as a global
    scourge. And all of those gains are at risk of loss given some
    of the chaotic cuts that have been executed.
        But it is also about accountable governance, responsible
    governance. If you look at the migration challenge in this
    hemisphere, the toxic governance in Venezuela and Nicaragua,
    and Cuba has resulted in unprecedented out migration. We simply
    cannot afford to not care about the human rights situations in
    our own hemisphere and elsewhere.
        And look at who is cheering the removal of USAID from the
    field, you know, our biggest adversaries, Tehran, Beijing,
    Moscow. That should tell you something about the impact of
    these efforts and that this is not something to discard
    entirely because of objections to a handful of particular
    programs.
        Mr. Olszewski. Thank you for that. And with my remaining
    time, a question for everyone about the human impacts of this
    reorganization. Reports are suggesting a 15 percent reduction
    in U.S. based State Department personnel and the near total
    elimination of USAID and about 20,000 total. We are talking
    about real Americans, real impact, real work.
        This question, again, is for everyone. Does the State
    Department have the expertise and staff to take on these USAID
    foreign assistance functions, programming implementation and
    oversight, and what areas would the State Department need to
    staff up in order to handle that transition appropriately?
    Without adequate staff, will that impact the accountability in
    light of that first question?
        Ms. Zeya. I mean, the quick answer is no across the board.
    And whether it is disaster response, where I think we saw a
    disastrous outcome with respect to the earthquake in Burma
    where our team on the ground was fired and leaving a vacuum for
    the PRC and others to come in.
        With respect to famine response, I mean, it is very
    important to recognize the decades of technical expertise and
    operational leadership, which is very different from a lot of
    the assistance managed out of Washington, the teams in the PRM
    Bureau and PEPFAR have done a phenomenal job.
        But it doesn't add up to terminate the people with that
    expertise with no hope or no clear path to be reintegrated into
    a new entity.
        Mr. Hale. To my mind, the concept of integrating AID into
    the State Department, which, as was mentioned, goes all the way
    back. I was working for Madeleine Albright when she tried to do
    that in the mid-1990's.
        It isn't so much that you are going to find people who are
    current Foreign Service officers at the State Department who
    are suddenly going to be able to do USAID workers work, by the
    way much of which is done by contractors not by direct hire.
        It is that you need to do perhaps a better job than we have
    done to make sure that our foreign policies and aid policies
    are actually fully integrated, which overseas works reasonable
    well. In Washington, it doesn't work well at all. And you can
    cast blame in lots of different directions. I wouldn't blame
    people. I don't believe in demonizing anyone. I work well with
    my AID colleagues and have tremendous respect for them. But
    that to me is what AID should be about.
        To answer your question, of course, as it happens, is an
    office director for a certain geographical part of the world
    going to be automatically be able to be a manager for the aid
    programs as well? Of course not. You need to integrate these
    processes, not substitute them.
        Mr. Olszewski. Thank you very much. I yield, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our witnesses
    for being here today. You know, agriculture is important to me
    and it is important to our country. And we make a contribution
    from agriculture to USAID around the world and had the
    opportunity to go to Florida or to Africa a couple of times. So
    I am just setting the stage for my question here in a minute.
        Sometimes those commodities end up being in the hands of
    adversaries used as fundable, used as money instead of really
    ending up--so my point is that this statistic from USAID is
    only 12.7 percent of that funding actually ends up in the hands
    of the people we intended it for. And so that is the question.
        So now when you look at international organizations, the
    State Department contributes more than $8 billion annually to
    international organizations. And if we cannot audit that or
    make sure that it is going to the appropriate recipients, then
    I am concerned about it.
        So my question comes down to, going forward what do you
    think, with all of your experience, the actions should be from
    Congress in order to allow the government to have oversight
    mechanisms that are appropriate to assess the relevant
    information to ensure compliance from these different NGO's?
        I want to know what we can do to make sure that those
    commodities or whatever we are providing through USAID is
    really getting to the people who need it because I understand
    the concern about PRC, but I am not sure we are being as
    effective as we should be with our USAID.
        Ms. Zeya. If I might jump in, Congressman, I would say this
    is why it is so critical to resource that oversight. And, you
    know, the dismissal of inspectors general at multiple agencies,
    including USAID, I think, that was a setback. But certainly we
    have to make absolutely sure that all of that taxpayer funded
    assistance is reaching its intended recipient.
        I think the 12 percent was with respect to local partners
    who are, you know, the first recipient of this U.S. largesse.
    But I think you are absolutely right. But we have to, in this
    challenge funding environment, still have the manpower, the
    people, who can ensure the money is well spent.
        And I think individual agencies have layers of support for
    that. But the 15 percent cut across the board in the
    department, it is going to be difficult choice, I think on the
    domestic side where those cuts are going to come out.
        Mr. Jeffrey. I would just say that in my experience, most
    recently with Syria, USAID watched closely on diversion and who
    it was going to. And that is to be applauded. That is
    absolutely necessary. And whatever the organization is, it is
    important that those functions, under whatever hat, and the
    people who know how to do that, continue to carry out those
    functions.
        In terms of aid to international organizations, is the
    famous case of UNRWA and Gaza in particular, that is troubling.
    That is a special case. And it is something for Congress and I
    think the State Department to take a closer look at.
        Mr. Hale. Well, sure, I agree. I think that it is, you
    know, beholden on all of us to make sure that there is
    accountability and the money is not wasted. It goes to the
    recipients.
        I think there is also a deeper question, which is can we do
    a better job in measuring, actually, the impact that we are
    having. We have all of these sometimes grandiose objectives
    about our foreign assistance, which no one is going to disagree
    with. But is the way we are doing aid actually achieving those
    goals? And what is the process of measuring that and who is
    measuring it?
        And my experience in government is that we end up measuring
    the things that we can measure because that is easier so you
    measure how many, you know, young women in southern Lebanon
    have been trained in English when that is supposed to be a
    means to an objective of transforming a society to make sure
    that there is, you know, 100 percent, not 50 percent of the
    population is employable and that they have access to things
    that make them more moderately inclined and more economically
    competitive. We don't measure that. We measure how many girls
    are going to an English program, which I am all in favor of.
        The point is, we lost perspective because we lose sight of
    the objective that we have. And I won't name the country
    because it will be embarrassing. In one of my countries, I had
    an aid director come to me, she said, you know, it is 50 years
    of the USAID program in this country, we are going to have a
    celebration. Next year we are going to celebrate. And I said,
    no, we are not. I love the AID program. We are doing good stuff
    there. The country needs it. But we are not going to celebrate
    the fact that we have a forever AID program somewhere. And that
    is because we are not measuring the outcomes or the results in
    any meaningful way.
        So in the authorization process, you can help us do that,
    wonderful.
        Mr. Olszewski. I thank you. My time has run out, and so I
    yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Baird.
    Representative Amo.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you, Chairman Mast, and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today.
        None of the public hearings this committee has held on
    reauthorizing the State Department, including today's, have had
    a witness who was a current employee of the State Department.
        By comparison, at this point last Congress, we heard from
    seven current State Department officials, including the
    Secretary of State. So I look forward to seeing Secretary Rubio
    in this hearing room soon.
        This committee does not appear serious at this point about
    a thoughtful reauthorization process. If so, I would invite and
    have present current State leaders to be part of the public
    record so everybody can participate in the discussion.
        Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem
    content to once again rubber stamp President Trump and
    Secretary Rubio's half-baked plan to eliminate programs that
    save lives.
        Well, let's highlight some of these harms. Ms. Zeya, could
    you provide one word answers to the following questions?
        Would eliminating the Office to Monitor and Combat
    Trafficking and Persons help or hurt our antitrafficking
    efforts?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. Would it help or hurt our ability to rescue
    victims of human trafficking?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. Would it help or hurt our ability to identify and
    prosecute human traffickers?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. Turning now to the Office of Global Women's
    Issues, the branch focused on women and girls in peace and
    security processes. Would Secretary Rubio's elimination plan
    help or hurt women gaining leadership roles around the world?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. Secretary Rubio proposed gutting the Bureau of
    Conflict and Stabilization Operations, which works to prevent
    conflicts that increase the risk of terrorism, trafficking, and
    smuggling. Would eliminating this bureau help or hurt our
    national security?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. Would it help or hurt our ability to combat
    terrorist acts?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. Last, this bureau funds work to document human
    rights abuses, war crimes and other atrocities. Would
    eliminating this bureau hurt or help our ability to prevent
    human rights violations?
        Ms. Zeya. Hurt.
        Mr. Amo. So it is critical here. I know we just ran through
    that exercise, but there are clear decisions, clear contrasts.
    This plan puts us on the wrong side of those.
        Now, on this continued frustration that I have around
    humanitarian aid, you know, I refuse to be silent amid the
    unlawful effort to shut down USAID. And let me underscore
    unlawful.
        The reorganization plan completely eliminates USAID and
    calls for regional bureaus, the State Department, as we have
    talked about, to take over the development programming in their
    region.
        For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, USAID had been working
    on improving education to promote economic growth and political
    stability in the region.
        Ms. Zeya, you can take your time with this one. I don't
    need one word. But does the State Department have the expertise
    and staff necessary to effectively implement formerly USAID
    development programs like these education programs in Sub-
    Saharan Africa. And how does eliminating USAID harm our global
    development efforts?
        Ms. Zeya. Congressman, the short answer is no, it does not
    have the expertise and the resources.
        But I would also make the point that it simply does not add
    up to take on such responsibilities at the same time you are
    making an unjustified, unexplained 15 percent to the domestic
    staff.
        And we have talked a lot about the Foreign Service, which I
    was a member of proudly for three decades plus. But there is a
    civil service in the department, you know, over 10,000 strong,
    where there is a reserve of tremendous regional subject matter
    expertise.
        And I make the point about overseas presence because there
    is--there has been a strong USAID presence overseas both
    Americans and locally employed staff members who themselves are
    incredibly capable, dedicated employees of the United States
    who have really specialized in areas where you simply cannot
    assign that to a Foreign Service officer or GS-13 and expect to
    have success, by the way, while you are cutting the hide out of
    those offices or eliminating over 130 offices at the same time.
        Mr. Amo. Look, and my time is wrapping up, but I want to
    conclude with this. This reauthorization provides us with a
    great opportunity. And I am grateful that there is bipartisan
    agreement that we can use this moment to advance our interest,
    but not as we shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to the
    expertise, the talent, the capacities that we have to make
    American interests meet the moment with our values across the
    world.
        My time is expired, and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Amo. And I would
    remind you it would be unconventional to have unconfirmed
    appointees come and testify before us. Additionally, I don't
    know if you were present, but Mr. Marocco did come and speak to
    us, testify before us as well, and Secretary Rubio is scheduled
    to come sometime later in May. I don't know the exact date
    offhand.
        And I would just take the opportunity to thank Secretary
    Rubio for what is his commitment to the American people, which
    is to say very plainly that any dollar that goes out the door,
    whether to an American, a foreign company, a foreign NGO, a
    foreign non-profit, a foreign adversary, a foreign enemy, or
    anybody else, will meet the justification that it is better
    spent going abroad than staying in the pocket of an American.
    That is his standard. That he should be able to look somebody
    in the eye and say the dollar that came out of your pocket is
    better spent going to the Taliban or to some other continent or
    some non-government organization or somewhere else than staying
    in your pocket. That is the threshold that he wishes to meet,
    and I applaud him on that. And I recognize Representative
    McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    the witnesses for your testimony today. It has been 13 years
    since we last passed the State Department Reauthorization.
        Since then, we have seen the organization go totally
    overboard in promoting radical ideologies worldwide and
    executing our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I
    take very personally.
        President Trump and Secretary Rubio are reforging a State
    Department that champions American interests and responsibility
    of steward's taxpayer's dollars.
        Soon it will be our job to codify that, to make it
    permanent. I think when we talk about responsibilities and
    shifting responsibilities inside of our departments, Mr.
    Jeffrey, I wanted to ask you, there have been discussions about
    making the Department of Homeland Security responsible for
    overseas visa operations instead if the State.
        This is a critical matter, especially in my constituency,
    which is about 14 percent Indian diaspora, about 40 percent
    minorities, many who have family who come in and out of the
    United States. I just want to make sure that when we ensure the
    Department of Homeland Security takes over, that they are
    prepared to do so without any problems in the transition. Do
    you think that is possible?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I can't get into the details of who they would
    have. As a basic principle, however, they own the policies.
    They work with Congress to develop our overall immigration
    policy. The Immigration Naturalization Act is under their
    purview. And thus, I think they should have people in the field
    who are doing that, just like other agents have people in the
    field.
        Our rationale for that, Congressman, is that this usually
    doesn't involve high level country to country discussions
    because every country treats who comes in and out of its
    country as its own business. And for example, you may be
    issuing visas in Ecuador. The Ecuadorian government isn't going
    to be calling you all of the time to protest what you are doing
    or not doing. So you don't have the same level of diplomatic
    involvement. That is usually the litmus test for me of whether
    the State Department in an embassy should manage that through
    the State Department officers there or whether we should have
    other people out there.
        Mr. McCormick. So in other words, Rubio to execute this
    without losing any abilities or time but to make it a little
    bit safer for the American people?
        Mr. Jeffrey. The devil is always in the details on any
    administrative change. They always bring with them turmoil in
    the short run. In the long run, the question is, is it a more
    rational way of applying our resources and our focus? That is a
    function that isn't central to protecting the American people
    in terms of threats from abroad. Well, actually it is, I'm
    sorry. It is a very important mission. But it is one, again,
    that is technical in nature and that follows very specific
    laws, again, that DHS, not the State Department, puts out.
        Mr. McCormick. Okay. Great. Mr. Hale, million dollar
    question for you. Based on your experience, what specific
    changes can we make to the State Department through this
    Reauthorization Bill that would have the biggest positive
    impact on our national security and diplomacy. I know that is a
    big question. But if you can hone it down to what is the one
    big bite we can take out of this that would make us better?
        Mr. Hale. Insist that the Foreign Service actually goes
    back to basics. Whatever organizational chart you look at, you
    know, is going to reflect certain transitory values. But the
    Foreign Service has to do its basic core function of diplomacy.
        And so as you write this authorization bill, I would ask
    you again, as I said at the beginning, to be persistent and not
    just, you know, once you have written a bill, you are done. It
    is also about the continued engagement to make sure the Foreign
    Service actually have the training and the skills and the
    leadership needed to fulfill whatever mandates you have given
    to the authorization process.
        And I would say the biggest, to get really to your
    question, to me the biggest gap right now that I see when you
    look down the horizon that we are not ready for is the growing
    importance of science and technology in the work of diplomacy.
        We are never going to be scientists. We are never going to
    be, you know, that person. But we have to have much greater
    fluency in the substance of science writ large, I am talking
    about everything from cyber to pandemics than is the case
    today.
        Mr. McCormick. As a member of Cyber on HASC, as a member of
    Science, Space and Technology, and as a member of Foreign
    Affairs, I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for that
    summary. We didn't even coordinate. For that, I yield, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative McCormick.
    Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Our goal as
    a committee should be to make sure that the State Department is
    efficient and effective in driving U.S. foreign policy. And I
    would hope to have a frank, serious, and informed conversation
    here today about where we should be doubling down on our
    strategic investments and where we could do away with
    bureaucratic bloat.
        But then last week, Secretary Rubio unilaterally announced
    a drastic reorganization of the State Department without any
    input from the U.S. Congress.
        It is part of a troubling pattern of this administration
    sidelining or completely going around the co-equal legislative
    branch and the people we represent.
        While there is no question that American foreign policy has
    made serious mistakes over the decades, in nearly every case
    those failures were made worse because administrations hid the
    truth from Congress or they rushed decisions before the
    American people could weigh in.
        For all the Trump administration's talk about avoiding the
    foreign policy failures of the past, it is charging full speed
    into that same pattern.
        On the anniversary of the fall of Saigon, we should be
    learning from some of America's most painful foreign policy
    disasters, not repeating conditions that caused them.
        This reorganization is just the latest blow to the tools of
    American soft power, diplomacy, development, humanitarian
    leadership that have helped counter threats from Russian, Iran,
    and China for decades, that have boosted the Arizona economy by
    attracting foreign tourists, industry giants, and the best and
    brightest foreign students, that have reduced the flow of
    fentanyl by coordinating law enforcement across countries, that
    have helped reduce migration by helping people stay in their
    home countries instead of overwhelming our southern border even
    beyond what is already happening.
        No global challenge lends itself to quick or easy
    solutions, but each of them demand principled, consistent
    American leadership.
        Right now, the most dangerous lie we can indulge in is if
    we disentangle ourselves from the global economy and our
    humanitarian commitments and withdraw from our strategic
    alliances, that will somehow return America to greatness. It
    won't.
        America's interests are global. Arizona's interests are
    global. And our security and prosperity depend on the strength
    of our alliances.
        Ms. Zeya, why is engagement with Congress important, not
    just from a constitutional perspective, but from a practical
    one?
        Ms. Zeya. Well, I think, as one of my panelists mentioned
    earlier, it keeps the work of the State Department grounded
    with the will of the American people. But it also, that
    consultative process, what Secretary Blinken often called, you
    know, being present at the takeoff, not just the landing with
    respect to policies, I think it produces better outcomes.
        And when you look at, you know, U.S. humanitarian and human
    rights policy and the through line, the continuity, you know,
    it is built upon one bipartisan initiative after the other,
    whether it is the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 or the Global
    Magnitsky Act of 2016. And we have talked about the Trafficking
    Victims Protection Act, the International Religious Freedom
    Act.
        I seriously doubt that the Department of State, which I
    served proudly for most of my adult life, would have come up
    with those initiatives on its own without the leadership and
    the direction from the U.S. Congress.
        Mr. Stanton. A followup question. Do cuts of the kind
    proposed by Secretary Rubio signal an understanding of what is
    required to effectively compete with China, Russia, Iran, and
    other adversaries?
        Ms. Zeya. I don't see that strategy in what has been
    presented so far. And, you know, I will give you a small
    example. In addition to being an undersecretary, I was the U.S.
    special coordinator for Tibetan issues.
        Now this is a role in which we have had decades of
    bipartisan support. It is supporting preservation of the unique
    religious cultural linguistic traditions of the Tibetan people,
    but it is also about preventing a certain PRC effort to coop
    the succession of his Holiness, the Dalai Lama.
        Tibet is considered a core issue for the CCP. It is a focus
    of attention where the repression has taken on the enormity of
    over a million children in government-forced reeducation, so-
    called boarding schools.
        The future of that position is completely unclear on that
    org chart. We were a small office. We were able to rally
    greater international support, devote attention to an issue
    that is coming to the fore with the Dalai Lama turning 90 this
    year. If we walk away from roles like this, it is literally a
    free giveaway to the CCP.
        Mr. Stanton. That is a very powerful answer. I ran out of
    time. So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you.
        Representative Moylan?
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today and for your efforts to reauthorize the State
    Department--a long overdue task. And despite Secretary Rubio's
    excellent leadership, the State Department is in desperate need
    of reauthorization. Between budgetary constraints and
    overlapping objectives, the Department clearly needs Congress
    to undertake this belated process.
        Guam is at the forefront of many defense-related
    conversations, but it is important to recognize our role in
    other sectors of international relations. I want to commend the
    Guam Visitors Bureau and the Guam Economic Development
    Authority for serving as part of America's face in the Pacific.
    While these local agencies work tirelessly to promote positive
    international relations, I'm glad these committees seek to
    reauthorize the State Department because there are many areas
    of U.S. diplomacy to improve.
        One of the problems we must address is the reform of
    foreign assistance programs. This February, the committee
    explored options to enhance the role of U.S. assistance in
    USAID. The conclusion was obvious: cut the wasteful funds and
    keep the strategic valuable parts.
        As we contend with China, reauthorizing the Office of
    Foreign Assistance, the Global Partnership, and the Development
    Finance Corporation is imperative to enhance U.S. soft power.
        Similarly, the reauthorization will strengthen U.S. foreign
    policy from an economic perspective. During an East Asian and
    Pacific Subcommittee roundtable, it became evident that the
    State Department is undermanned in the economic sphere. Without
    doubt, developing relationships with other countries through
    economic tools can make the U.S. presence in the region more
    visible and effective. This also fosters mutual beneficial
    relations, while creating opportunities for the U.S. private
    sector, allowing Americans to feel the positive effects of our
    diplomatic efforts.
        Ambassador Hale, considering China's massive Belt and Road
    Initiative, how do you evaluate the current move by the
    administration to scale back these programs and the workforce?
    Based on your experience as a career Ambassador, what would be
    the most effective framework to plan, implement, and access
    foreign assistance programs under the Secretary of State?
        Mr. Hale. Well, we definitely need to make sure that we
    have the resources and manpower needed in order to deal with
    the Chinese--our competitive relationship with China across the
    globe; no question about that.
        I would say, though, as I said earlier, that we also need
    to measure the impact not by the amount spent, but by the
    results that we have achieved, and then, finetune whatever it
    is that we are doing.
        Our methodology is very different than the Chinese
    methodology, and to try to compete on the same terms that they
    do, you know, they have a state-directed economy. So, they can
    send whatever resources they want all around the world. No one
    is going to say no.
        The United States is a private sector economy, of course.
    So, no one at the State Department can sit and tell Bechtel
    where to spend their money. We need to help them, enable them,
    make sure that there is a level playing field; that the Chinese
    aren't eating everything up, but that is a little bit
    different.
        And so, I wouldn't necessarily say that dollar-for-dollar
    is the way to measure it. And, you know, we also have a
    Parkinson's law, the bureaucratic principle that work expands
    to the number of people you assign to do it. Right? What is it
    we want to do? is the starting point, not how many people are
    we going to get to do it.
        And so, I would argue--now, I will give you an example out
    of my career. When I was Director for Israeli-Palestinian
    Affairs, you know, we had a certain--a pretty big office. I
    went overseas. I came back 5 years later as the next-rung-up in
    the bureaucracy, Deputy Assistant Secretary.
        My enterprising successor had doubled the size of the
    office of the Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 5 years. The work
    hadn't changed; our interests hadn't changed; our programs
    hadn't changed. They were all busy people doing busy things.
    Did we need it? Who was there making the judgment? What are the
    results?
        And so, I would ask us to always bear that in mind.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you.
        Ambassador Jeffrey, we just have a few seconds here.
        As previously mentioned, an East Asia and Pacific
    Subcommittee roundtable determined the economic offices at the
    Department of State have been undermanned. Based on your career
    at both the State Department and the National Security Council,
    do you agree on this conclusion? What economic tools would you
    like to see fixed and reauthorized?
        Mr. Jeffrey. In terms of the economic side of the State
    Department, I'm not so sure we have too few offices. I think
    that they need to be better integrated into what other parts of
    the U.S. Government who have interests abroad--from the
    Department of Agriculture, USTR, we talked about earlier--that
    is something that needs to be worked on more. That can be
    through training. That can be through assignments in other
    agencies, which we try to do, but it is very hard in the
    bureaucracy.
        Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Ambassador. I'm sorry we have run
    out of time.
        Mr. Jeffrey. Pardon?
        Mr. Moylan. We ran out of time.
        Mr. Jeffrey. Okay.
        Mr. Moylan. But thank you for your comments. Thank you to
    the panel.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you.
        Representative Jackson?
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman.
        I thank each one of you for your participation.
        To Zeya, I would have a question regarding our critical
    health programs, such as PEPFAR that has been demonstrably
    extremely successful. It saved millions of lives. This network
    has saved millions. It has provided a strong health system that
    protects Americans domestically and abroad by detecting and
    responding to health threats before they can spread, as a core
    American value.
        But in recent months, we have been seeing--we have seen
    concerning decisions that have undercut America's global
    strength and put people at risk, whether through staffing
    shortages, funding delays, or unclear direction amid the
    evolving State Department reorganization.
        I have gone to several countries most recently and one of
    the pains that I have to hear is that there's food in the vans.
    There is HIV medicines. There is malaria vaccinations. We have
    employees that are stuck abroad. They cannot return home,
    American citizens, and they cannot distribute the food.
        Given this over-looming success of these programs and their
    vital role in our global strategy, how do we ensure that the
    integrity, effectiveness, and bipartisan support are not only
    preserved, but strengthened?
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you, Congressman. I think you have
    explained well, you know, what some of the chaotic impacts have
    been of the decisions we have seen since January.
        And I would just add on this point, that these health
    programs are not a giveaway. This is all about the well-being
    and the security of Americans. You know, if we learned anything
    from 2019, it is that pandemics know no borders and the impact
    can be absolutely devastating from an economic and a personal
    perspective.
        So again, with PEPFAR on the cusp of, by 2030, eliminating
    HIV/AIDS as a global scourge, to pull the rug out under from
    lifesaving antiretroviral programs, but also, I mean, it's come
    up a few times today with respect to the inherent dignity of
    all human beings, including LGBTQI+ persons, the delivery of
    these lifesaving programs to these communities is absolutely
    critical in our public health approach.
        But it isn't just HIV/AIDS. It is mpox. It is malaria. It
    is Ebola, which I was part of an effort under the Obama
    administration that helped contain the spread of Ebola in West
    Africa through a multi-country, U.S.-led effort.
        So, all I can say is that I hope they take a hard look at
    the impacts thus far; they consult with the partners whose own
    operations have been decimated by this lurching effort, but
    also with the communities that have benefited from this for
    years, and try to turn it around.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you.
        One other question I would have for you, DEIA and
    fellowship programs, I was startled to see a group of students
    in my office one morning that had their scholarships cut from
    their Foreign Service careers, and they were primarily African
    American and Hispanic students.
        Very specifically, at one point in my life I served on a
    Fulbright program and a scholars program. And so, it is just
    very clear that black students have been cut out, eliminated,
    from careers that have been introduced into Foreign Service.
        What have you seen to be the value of such fellowship
    programs, particularly targeting and being inclusive to bring
    in minority students? The Fulbright has not been touched. That
    primarily has a lot of Caucasians students, but the Payne and
    the Rangel Scholarships that have been outstanding African
    American members, those scholarships have been targeted and
    cut. Can you please elaborate? Is this consistent with our
    values?
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you for raising this. These fellowships,
    which include the Pickering, Rangel, the Payne Fellowships,
    they have long been the subject of deep-rooted bipartisan
    support.
        And I just want to say, these are not DEIA fellowships.
    These are not quotas. They are all about merit, but they are
    also about casting the net more widely, so that more bright
    students from across the country--you know, in terms of
    geographic representation, in terms of different backgrounds,
    you know--have the opportunity to consider, and also the
    financial support, to be able to pursue their education at the
    undergrad and graduate level and contribute to the Department.
    And over more than two decades, I have seen some incredible
    diplomats come through that program.
        I was, frankly, shocked by the cutoff and the impact, not
    only on the students involved, but on our Department, as this
    has, I think, been a proven magnet for great talent and
    excellent diplomats.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Well, Zeya, I thank you so much
    for contribution and your continued support.
        And under the Students for Fair Admissions Act law that was
    adhered to by the U.S. Supreme Court, diversity, equity, and
    inclusion is legal in the United States Armed Services. Someone
    in the administration needs to read the law. If it is good in
    the war room, if it is good at the United States Military
    Academies, it is good in the classroom; it is good in the
    workrooms.
        So, we need to make sure we enforce the law. There is
    nothing wrong about having diversity--E pluribus unum, out of
    many, we are one. There is nothing wrong with having equality,
    the 14th Amendment. There is nothing wrong with having
    inclusivity and accessibility, so people that have different
    abilities, that may need a wheelchair ramp or other things, can
    have access and have inclusion.
        Thank you for your years of service and continued success.
        I yield back, Chairman.
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you.
        Representative Davidson?
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Chairman, for this important
    hearing today and, frankly, for the alignment with the
    objectives the administration has laid out, which is really
    basic: that America's resources should reflect America's
    interests and when we use the State Department.
        It has been shocking, as a Member of Congress, to get here
    and say my suspicions have matched reality; that a lot of
    times, our Nation's diplomats are working at odds with the
    people that sent me here to represent them. And then, when
    Congress has weighed-in, they have evaded every kind of
    accountability.
        So, the mission alignment of agencies and bureaus at State
    are consistently out of line with what they should be doing.
    So, the correction that Secretary of State Rubio and, frankly,
    Chairman Mast are trying to accomplishment are long overdue.
        We authorize our Defense Department year-in and year-out
    via the NDAA. The idea that it is not possible for the State
    Department to be authorized ever, if not consistently, is
    absurd. The Constitution only authorizes the government to use
    the powers delegated to it in law, and unauthorized programs go
    against the spirit of our Nation and our Constitution.
        So, I look forward to the State Department authorization
    process, because the mission of the Department is too important
    to be left to career, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that
    simply ride out administration after administration and pursue
    their own agenda.
        Mr. Hale, in recent weeks, we have seen proposals
    circulating from the Rubio State Department outlining a total
    overhaul of their organizational chart that outlines missions
    and authorizes our Foreign Service corps.
        One move that I applaud, and I am looking to codify in
    upcoming legislation, is to move the Bureau of International
    Narcotics and Law Enforcement from the Democracy and Human
    Rights Branch to the International Security Branch of the State
    Department. It makes so much sense to me. And every year,
    thousands of Americans, often tens of thousands of Americans,
    every single year lose their lives to the fentanyl crisis.
    Foreign gang activity, transnational criminal organizations are
    killing American citizens, and countering this is part of the
    goal of INL.
        In 2023, a GAO report concluded that, quote, ``INL's
    efforts to implement assistance to Mexico have been hampered by
    incomplete performance management efforts.'' End quote. It went
    on to list issues with corruption, ineffective programming, and
    numerous systematic issues within democracy and human rights
    management.
        So, moving this org chart to me makes sense. What say you?
        Mr. Hale. I agree. I think it is a very successful bureau,
    by and large. I think it is a very valuable way to be
    functioning and to put our investments into that activity.
        In my experience at least, in the countries I served in,
    the partners of INL are primarily in the security arena. So, I
    think it is a much more natural fit.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Jeffrey, in a 2025 press release, the State Department
    admitted to breaking the law by funding abortions in Mozambique
    with Federal tax dollars. This violates the Helms Amendment.
    Despite openly breaking the law, there have been no serious
    consequences. The nonprofit or non-government organization,
    funded by government dollars, it gave back a minimal sum of
    dollar and nobody was ever held to account. At least 21 unborn
    babies were killed with the complicity of our United States
    State Department and our tax dollars. They can give back the
    money, but they can't bring back these lives. We know that it
    happened. So, we must have consequences written into our law.
        That is why last month I introduced the Aid Accountability
    Act of 2025. My bill would permanently ban Federal funding from
    organizations that break the law and violate the Helms
    Amendment. The bill would also disbar Federal service workers
    who participate in this.
        Mr. Jeffrey, what steps can we take in Congress to ensure
    that civil servants and non-government organizations comply
    with the laws we write?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Well, civil servants are subject to the
    discipline of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
    State has both criminal--that is, law enforcement and Inspector
    General--and administrative personnel tools that he or she can
    use to pursue anybody who has violated the law. In my
    experience, I have seen this repeatedly used, again, for those
    people who violated the law. So, I think that it is a question
    of letting the Secretary use those authorities that he has.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you for that, and I hope Secretary
    Rubio does just that. Obviously, Secretary Blinken wanted it to
    happen. That's part of why it happened.
        So, I thank Chairman Mast for this hearing today. We
    authorize DOD every year. It is time we do it for the State
    Department and make sure that Americans' resources advance
    America's interests, first and foremost.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Davidson.
        Just for our witnesses, are you all good? You don't need
    a--we still have a number of Representatives to ask questions.
    Are you all good? You don't need a restroom break or anything?
        Ms. Zeya. Good.
        Chairman Mast. Let me know if that changes.
        Mr. Jeffrey. Roll on.
        Chairman Mast. I'm happy to--say it again, sir?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Roll on.
        Chairman Mast. Very good. Don't hesitate to let me know. I
    know we have been going on for a while here.
        So, we are going to go to Representative Schneider.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank the witnesses for your observations and
    sharing your insights today.
        And I also want to thank the many men and women serving our
    Nation as diplomats, development workers, and in other critical
    duties around the world--oftentimes, in harm's way--who have
    dedicated their career to advancing our national interests,
    protecting our national security. I want them to know that
    their service and contributions are both recognized and
    appreciated.
        I frequently say in this forum that American foreign policy
    is like a three-legged stool, resting on defense, diplomacy,
    and development. As former Secretary of State Jim Mattis
    famously said, ``The less we are investing in diplomacy and
    development, the more we will have to spend on bullets for
    defense.''
        I believe that the fundamental mission that we are talking
    about for the Department of State in that effort to protect our
    Nation is to promote U.S. interests around the world and to
    help ensure/advance our national security. Do you all agree
    with that? Disagree with that view? Do I have a nod for agree?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I agree, but having worked with the Secretary
    previously, General Mattis, in Fallujah and some other places,
    I would say what is important is the smart use of diplomacy.
        Mr. Schneider. Hold that thought. I agree. I think that is
    the key thing.
        Mr. Jeffrey. And not the volume or the amount----
        Mr. Schneider. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffrey [continuing]. but whether it is smart and it is
    plugged into everything else.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Ambassador.
        And I will say--and maybe I'm going out on a limb here--but
    I would argue there is broad agreement on this committee, both
    Democrats and Republicans, that the State Department needs
    smart reform, and that many of the changes we are talking about
    are long past due. But reform has to support our national
    interests and protect our national security.
        Reform done the wrong way or for the wrong reasons, done
    impulsively or haphazardly or out of spite and personal
    vendetta, is more likely to put our interests at risk and
    diminish our national security posture.
        So, my question for the whole panel: does anyone think that
    what is currently happening at State, including mass firings of
    career professionals with years of experience and expertise and
    ending the vast majority of programs formerly under USAID, is
    strengthening U.S. global leadership or making the United
    States safer?
        Ambassador?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I think I'm not ready at this point to judge
    something that has already begun, but we haven't seen the
    endpoint. We don't know where Secretary Rubio will wind up on
    reductions of people, of money. He is going to come before this
    committee. I think you will have an opportunity to press him on
    that question.
        But again, there is nothing wrong with cutting things. The
    Clinton administration eliminated almost half a million----
        Mr. Schneider. I agree, it is the smart, I mean folks in
    the smart, and that is----
        Mr. Jeffrey. Right. So, I'm going to fall back on my--it
    has got to be smart. Excuse to evade----
        Mr. Schneider. And thoughtful and institutional----
        Mr. Jeffrey [continuing]. the question.
        Mr. Schneider. Ambassador Hale?
        Mr. Hale. I strongly support reform and cutting. I think
    there is a lot that can be pruned back. I agree, obviously--I
    don't know who would disagree in this context anyway--about it
    being done in an intelligent way and thoughtful way.
        I also share, though, there is a level of frustration,
    because we have all seen this over many decades, that when new
    teams come into the White House and want to change and reduce
    government, they get beaten back. They get swallowed by crises
    and bureaucratic resistance.
        So, I don't share--I wouldn't go about it the way it is
    being done, but I understand a little bit the impulse to be
    dramatic.
        Mr. Schneider. But I think that is why it is so important
    for this committee, with our authority under Article I, to take
    the initiative.
        Ambassador?
        Mr. Hale. I agree,
        Ms. Zeya. I do not see how what has happened so far is
    advancing our national interests. I think how and what you cut
    is critical.
        Mr. Schneider. Right. So, in my last minute, let me ask
    some rapid-fire questions.
        But would countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North
    Korea see the elimination or downgrade of the Bureau of
    Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor as a smart move to the
    advantage of the United States or as a move benefiting their
    own national agendas? So, just a yes-or-no answer.
        Ms. Zeya. Absolutely, the latter.
        Mr. Hale. Well, I don't see it being downgraded. I mean----
        Mr. Schneider. Okay.
        Mr. Jeffrey. I don't think that is on the top list of
    things the Chinese worry about us either doing or getting rid
    of.
        Mr. Schneider. But will they see it to their advantage?
        Because I ask the same question with the same countries, to
    the elimination or downgrade of the Office to Monitor and
    Combat Trafficking in Persons, as a smart move to the advantage
    of the United States or as a move benefiting their own national
    agenda?
        Ms. Zeya. It benefits our adversaries.
        Mr. Schneider. Okay. Would Russia see the elimination or
    downgrade of U.S. programs that document war crimes and support
    civil societies in Eastern Europe as a smart move to the
    advantage of the United States or a move benefiting their
    agendas?
        Ambassador Jeffrey?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Again, that is not one of the things that will
    move the dial on Russia's reaction to us. It is all about
    actual impact.----
        Mr. Schneider. But does it benefit us or benefit them? Does
    it benefit us or benefit them to downgrade programs to document
    war crimes and support civil society----
        Mr. Jeffrey. I have a lot of problems with how we define
    war crimes and how that is used.
        Mr. Schneider. Right. And I'm over time, but I will give
    the last two--a quick answer, yes or no?
        Mr. Hale. I think we should be doing it, but I don't think
    it changes Russian behavior.
        Ms. Zeya. I think it does have an impact, and the Office of
    Global Criminal Justice has helped real-time accountability
    occur in Ukraine with convictions of Russians for war crimes.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
        So, Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with you on this
    committee to try to find smart reform that moves us forward,
    that protects our interests, keeps Americans safe around the
    world and here at home.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. We will look forward to seeing your
    amendments, Mr. Schneider.
        Representative Biggs, you are recognized.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Mast.
        And I am grateful to our witnesses for being here today.
        So, as a member on both the House Foreign Affairs Committee
    and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I recognize
    the undeniable intersection between our diplomatic efforts and
    our activities in the space domain.
        The United States stands at a pivotal moment where our
    leadership in space is linked to our economic vitality, our
    national security, as well as our scientific progress and our
    overall standing on the global stage. Given this reality, a
    central aspect of our reauthorization review must be the State
    Department's strategic role in shaping and implementing the
    U.S. foreign policy concerning the space arena.
        In this context, the expertise and insights residing
    outside of government represent an invaluable resource.
    Effectively harnessing these perspectives is not merely
    beneficial; it is essential for crafting forward-looking,
    space-related foreign policy.
        Therefore, I would like to direct my first question to
    Ambassador Jeffrey. What specific strategies does the State
    Department, particularly through the Office of Space Affairs,
    currently employ to integrate the perspectives of non-
    governmental actors into both the formulation and the execution
    of U.S. foreign policy within the space domain?
        Mr. Jeffrey. It is a great question, Congresswoman, but I
    would like to defer it to Secretary Hale, who I think did more
    with space when he was Under Secretary than certainly I did
    working on Syria. Is that Okay with you?
        Mrs. Biggs. That's great. Thank you.
        Mr. Hale. Well, thank you very much, Jim, but I don't know
    that I did have much, anything to do with it. In my mind, it is
    one of those categories, though, of the emerging activities
    that backward-thinking, backward-looking organizational charts,
    authorization bills of the past, or the absence of them, is an
    impediment to dealing with the new challenges.
        And so, that is exactly why what we are talking about today
    is so valuable and so important, is to make sure we are
    actually resourced for the new threats.
        I don't know the answer to your question about how
    effective we are in integrating with NGO's. I would say the
    State Department is never going to be the lead on space. So,
    we're a very supporting actor. So, if I was in charge, I would
    say that our role should be to make sure that we are working
    with our other international partners to make sure our space
    policies are being effectively implemented and finding allies
    in that regard, and spotlighting the threats and challenges
    that, obviously, our competitors pose.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
        Well, I will go to a more general question, and I will be
    happy to have an answer from either of you. But what concrete
    steps can Congress and the State Department take to more
    effectively and proactively integrate non-governmental
    expertise directly into the Office of Space Affairs for foreign
    policy?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Having ducked your last question, I will try
    to take that, and Uzra wants to do it, too.
        We work at every level with NGO's. They are a major source
    of the thing we are always out there searching for, which is
    information. They are a major source of influence on our host
    governments. We have to be careful because we don't want to be
    interfering in internal affairs, although in many ways we do.
        So, I would say that there is a very healthy relationship.
    It has some tension between U.S. embassies, the State
    Department, and NGO's, both American and other countries,
    because they are major players on the international scene.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
        Ms. Zeya. And, Congresswoman, I would just thank you for
    highlighting the contributions and roles of non-governmental
    actors in international space policy. And we are facing, you
    know, a global closure of civil society space that affects
    academic, experts, universities as well. So, I think the State
    Department maintaining those channels to non-governmental
    actors, recognizing this is absolutely 21st century diplomacy,
    is essential.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, and with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Biggs.
        Representative Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, I appreciate that you are trying to follow in the
    footsteps of Ranking Member Meeks and reauthorize the State
    Department, but this process that is being done is not being
    done in a transparent or bipartisan way. An org chart alone
    does not tell us how offices will be staffed and how technical
    expertise will be retained; whether budget and resource
    allocations will reflect the mergings of offices and
    restructuring of foreign assistance, or whether the remaining
    offices will have the independence and authority to do good
    work, regardless of which politicians are in office.
        But Republicans have refused to hold even one hearing to
    date with Secretary Rubio to explain to the American people why
    they are dismantling vital agencies and programs. I understand
    from today that he, hopefully, will come to testify before this
    committee, and I hope, in fact, that that actually happens.
        The administration has already slashed our interagency,
    regardless of congressional authorization or input, and
    reportedly, plans to downsize our global presence by closing
    dozens of embassies and consulates. This reorganization would
    have dramatic U.S. national security implications, constitutes
    an unjustified seismic shift in the U.S. foreign policy
    enterprise, and includes many proposed measures that would be
    illegal and without congressional action. Let me be clear: what
    has been proposed by Republicans and this administration would
    make us less safe and risk American lives.
        The State Department, USAID, and its diplomatic corps have
    been the backbone of American foreign policy, advancing U.S.
    interests, strengthening alliances, and responding to global
    crisis. Democrats have never shied away from conversations
    about improving the existing system, but slashing the
    workforces; closing embassies, consulates, and missions, and
    dismantling key bureaus is reckless and cripples our ability to
    conduct diplomacy, counter China and Russia, and maintain our
    way of life.
        The administration must engage with Congress, including
    testifying before us to explain and defend these plans to
    restructure the country's premier diplomatic agencies.
    Otherwise, this is not a serious or thoughtful process, and
    Democrats will not rubberstamp half-baked, dangerous
    challenges.
        You know, I'm very concerned about just the lack of
    stability. I believe one of you testified in response to
    another member's question, just the ongoing nature of
    administration-to-administration-to-administration. And I'm
    very concerned about what that does to the role of U.S.
    stability in the world, as to how people view us as a partner.
    And are we less stable? Are we less reliable? Are we subject to
    such broad changing whims? And it makes us, I think, an
    unreliable partner, and it is very concerning to me.
        And also, I think this process of reorganization is
    appropriate. It is something we should absolutely do in a
    thoughtful, reasoned manner. But what has happened is the
    administration has taken a wrecking ball to our foreign policy,
    and then, we are supposed to come back and take a look at it in
    the rearview mirror. And that is not how the process is
    designed to work.
        The process should be: we should have people come in and
    testify regarding various programs and let us determine, have
    they fulfilled their mission? Did they never achieve the
    intended purpose? Have they exceeded their authority, or
    whatever the case may be? And then, this committee should be
    able to go through and decide and give directives: these are
    the programs that Congress chooses to fund. Rather than that,
    the administration has just obliterated them all, expecting
    this committee to rubberstamp it in full.
        So, my question to you is, what would be the practical
    impact of a nearly 50-percent cut to the Department's budget
    request by the administration on the State Department's
    programming and personnel?
        I think we are close on time. So, Dr. Zeya?
        Ms. Zeya. I would just repeat the point I made earlier,
    Congresswoman. It doesn't add up. And, you know, a 15-percent
    domestic staffing cut combined with a 50--5-0--percent
    operational cut, it is very hard for me to imagine how, you
    know, this conversation has been about meeting 21st century
    challenges, streamlining decisionmaking. Yes, absolutely, to be
    able to be more agile, more impactful for the American people.
        There's a lot of explaining to do, how this could possibly
    happen with--it doesn't even attenuate. That is a----
        Ms. Johnson. Right.
        Ms. Zeya. That is an unprecedented cut and chop to U.S.
    diplomatic operations.
        Ms. Johnson. I completely agree with you.
        Ms. Zeya. And we are talking about things like oversight,
    which are absolutely essential. How do you do that all with far
    fewer salaries paid and operations in place, when our
    adversaries are in maximum overdrive?
        Ms. Johnson. Right. Thank you. I'm out of time.
        Thank you so much, and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Johnson.
        I know it was before your time--you are a new member here--
    but there has been extensive opportunity to debate the merits
    of programs. And unfortunately, we have had person after person
    from the previous administration come here and literally lie to
    Republicans and Democrats, to our faces, about the programs
    that they said they weren't doing that they were doing.
        ``No, they don't exist.'' ``No, these slide decks don't
    exist.'' ``No, we weren't expanding atheism in Nepal,'' or in
    other countries.
        And then, we would get the phone calls after the hearing
    saying, ``Aw, sorry, we were wrong about that. We were, in
    fact, doing that. And sorry that we spent the last however long
    denying these things, that we were doing it.''--but never
    apologizing. Never saying, ``This is something that we
    shouldn't have been doing. This is not true diplomacy.''
        These are just the facts of what has taken place prior to
    your arrival here, and it is a lot of what brings us to where
    we are today, is the fact that there has not been oversight at
    the State Department and there has not been a comprehensive
    State Department reauthorization, unfortunately, which has
    really allowed these programs to continue, whether it is
    atheism in Nepal or drag shows in Ecuador, or transgender job
    fairs in Bangladesh--or take your pick of the thousands of
    programs that, unfortunately, the State Department is wasting
    American dollars on.
        Representative Lawler, the floor is yours.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
    you for holding this hearing today.
        Certainly, as this committee gets about its important work,
    as chair of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, and
    with oversight over M Branch, I certainly am committed to and
    focused on the importance of a State Department
    reauthorization. I think the fact is this has been a failure on
    the part of Congress for many years, in both parties, to
    actually reauthorize the work of the State Department, to
    provide the level of oversight that is necessary.
        And sadly, prior administrations have refused to cooperate.
    You know, we have had multiple hearings where we have asked
    administration officials for information. We had Samantha Power
    here, for instance, as head of USAID, and asked her numerous
    questions, and no answers provided about expenditures and
    programs that USAID was conducting itself. So, this hearing is
    immensely valuable, but, obviously, the work that we are
    undertaking is important.
        Right now, the Foreign Service Institute is not a degree-
    granting institution, unlike many of its Service-related
    counterparts. What would be the benefits of accrediting FSI and
    why has this not previously been pursued? And what challenges
    might, in fact, persist here?
        I will leave it open to any of you to engage.
        Mr. Jeffrey. I will start with that. I never thought of
    that as an initiative--and, of course, the military does do
    that with their programs, but they are very different programs.
    The Command and General Staff Schools, the War Colleges, these
    are year-long programs. They are very academic. They are very
    focused on the core skills of the profession.
        The Foreign Service Institute, aside from its superb long-
    term language training, which is in a separate category,
    basically, does short tradecraft courses. In fact, my main
    criticism with it is, other than the language training, most of
    it could be also offered to the Department of Transportation.
    It is all about process-y, managerial, get-along-with-each-
    other stuff. There is almost no training in the diplomatic
    tradecraft. There is almost no diplomatic history, the other
    things.
        If you go to any military college or any military----
        Mr. Lawler. But would you push--would you push to actually
    ensure that it engages in that?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Yes. I was actually--I did a 6-month course
    once, when we had it briefly, a model in the military 40 years
    ago. We then got rid of it.
        If we took a look at how the military does it and those
    kind of courses that build long-term expertise in our
    profession, certainly, they should be accredited.
        Mr. Lawler. I think the importance of language training for
    our diplomats who will be interfacing with their foreign
    counterparts daily cannot be understated. Foreign language
    training is one of the most crucial aspects of FSI's mission,
    as you mentioned.
        How thorough is the foreign language training at FSI and
    what can they do better to better equip our Foreign Service
    officers?
        Mr. Hale. I think the language program there is excellent.
    I'm sure everything can use a little bit of reform and making
    sure it is up-to-date. But I think it is one of the best things
    FSI does.
        I would just--take your time, but I would followup on what
    Jim said. Where I think FSI falls down is not giving us
    necessarily in the Foreign Service the skills we need to do
    tomorrow's job. It tends to be backward-looking and the
    management stuff is very weak.
        Most people, encounters with FSI during the course of their
    career is little, sort of computerized modules on things that
    are important, but routine--like how to keep your security, you
    know, your computer safe from--on security grounds and how to
    make sure you are living up to ethics rules; whereas, we need
    to understand better our core function--diplomacy.
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Hale, can you describe how the Bureau of
    Counterterrorism's efforts integrate with broader national
    security strategies, led by the National Security Council or
    other agencies?
        Mr. Hale. Yes. I think, you know, it was founded in the
    early seventies. It is one of those examples of an important
    international activity in which the State Department doesn't
    actually have the lead; our domestic agencies have that and
    they have their own relationships overseas, which are very
    important--intelligence and law enforcement and security. But
    it is very important that we have someone that is helping to
    coordinate that and make sure our embassies are on point and
    doing everything possible to defeat terrorism, and that they
    are at the table in their interagency discussions here in
    Washington. And I think they are well-staffed to do that.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Lawler.
        Ms. Zeya, I was told that you had a hard stop at 1 p.m. I
    don't know if that is something that you need to----
        Ms. Zeya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can stay an additional
    15 minutes.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you.
        Ms. Zeya. Uh-hum.
        Chairman Mast. We appreciate your testimony today. Thank
    you.
        Representative Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The efforts to make reform and to work together in a
    bipartisan effort I think is laudable, and certainly, I would
    encourage that.
        The State Department reauthorization, though, that is being
    contemplated this time seems to be unilateral lacking any sort
    of input, or input that I can determine, from the Congress. We
    haven't passed a State Department reauthorization. As my
    colleagues have already noted in previous comments, when we
    have had reforms, significantly, they have been in the
    reauthorization of the national defense bill, which we tend to
    have bipartisan support.
        And that has included efforts in the Cyber Diplomacy Act,
    which we heard about in Europe, which is more critical now than
    ever. We noted that in what occurred in the last day or two in
    Portugal and Spain and France.
        Secretary Rubio said he was reversing decades of bloated
    bureaucracy, but I think, without the input--and I think there
    is a lot of bipartisan goodwill here, if we would just work
    together--that would deal with some of the practices they would
    like to reform.
        I want to ask a question, and, of course, former Chairman
    McCaul I think indicated that as well and talked about the
    hurdles that we face in the House and the Senate.
        But, Ambassador Zeya, the Bureau of Democracy and Human
    Rights and Labor champions American values that include the
    rule of law and individual rights that bring us safer and
    stronger and more prosperous states. Having you previously
    worked at DRL, can you tell us why foreign assistance that
    supports human rights and the rule of law is so important for
    our own well-being and for trying to maintain stability around
    the world?
        Ms. Zeya. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.
        The rule of law is the basis for order and stability in
    partner countries. And, you know, I would point out here that
    DRL has played a very important role in supporting non-
    governmental organizations, civil society champions, USAID as
    well.
        But we have talked a bit about the Bureau of International
    Narcotics and Law Enforcement. They have also played a very
    important role on the issue of access to justice. Because in
    many societies, some of the vulnerabilities that violent
    extremists are able to exploit is the inability of government
    institutions to deliver justice, to deliver the rule of law.
        Mr. Costa. Well, and I think, you know, as President Reagan
    once said, if we are going to be that beacon of light on the
    shining hill, we need to stand up----
        Ms. Zeya. Right.
        Mr. Costa [continuing]. for human rights, as President
    Carter has also indicated during his presidency.
        Ambassador Jeffrey, you led the United States in a
    diplomatic effort and engagement in the Syria crisis that was
    talked about earlier this morning and defeating ISIS. Why was
    humanitarian assistance such a key part of your diplomatic
    engagement? And what risks do we run in conflicted areas where
    the United States fails to deliver lifesaving aid in your view?
        Mr. Jeffrey. It was absolutely essential. We continued aid
    with a Secretary level waiver because it involved at the time
    Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is now led by the guy who is the
    prime minister, or the president rather, of Syria, because they
    were on the terrorist list.
        But, nonetheless, it was so important. There were 3 million
    internally displaced people right along the Turkish border. If
    they had been pushed into Turkey and on into Europe, we would
    have had another crisis like we saw in Europe in 2015. The
    humanitarian assistance was absolutely essential to keeping
    them there. It was also essential to stabilizing the front
    militarily in that campaign.
        Likewise, the assistance we are providing to our Kurdish-
    led battle allies in the northeast of the country fighting the
    Islamic State, but also denying terrain to Assad, Iran, and
    Russia. So, this was extremely useful and it was very, very
    effectively carried out by USAID.
        Mr. Costa. Well, thank you.
        And, you know, the different tools in our diplomatic
    toolbox I think we can use, whether we refer to it as smart
    power or soft power.
        The fact of the matter is that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge
    you to try to enjoin in a bipartisan effort, to include that we
    don't abdicate our role in terms of our checks and balances in
    this effort to reorganize.
        Something that just bugs me right here recently is these
    cuts to a historical tool that we use called Voice of America,
    and other efforts to reach out to parts of the world. For the
    life of me, I can't understand why eliminating that makes any
    sense.
        Any of you care to comment?
        Ms. Zeya. I would just comment here, Congressman, we
    haven't talked about the role of Radio Free Asia, which
    reaches----
        Mr. Costa. All of those hooks----
        Ms. Zeya [continuing]. hundreds of millions of listeners,
    particularly in closed societies like China and in multiple
    languages. And again, the abrupt cutoff of that information,
    which is penetrating societies where censorship--you know, a
    government firewall controls all information--it is really an
    incalculable loss.
        Mr. Costa. Would you all agree?
        Mr. Hale. I agree in the case cited, where the platform is
    the only means to get the alternative information into those
    closed societies. I don't believe that that model works in
    areas such as the Middle East, where the problem isn't
    penetrating those countries today. They have very active media
    platforms which we can participate in. And so, I think it is
    very cost-effective to make sure that we are making sure that
    U.S. officials, American voices, are heard on those programs,
    but we don't necessarily need to replicate the model used
    against authoritarian, or totalitarian countries, actually.
        Mr. Jeffrey. I was the liaison officer to Radio Free
    Europe, Radio Liberty. At the time during the cold war, it was
    absolutely essential. Whether it is now essential today, given,
    as David mentioned earlier, the variety of different platforms
    that information is flowing around the world--I think what the
    administration, any administration, needs to do is, what is our
    message? Define and determine that, and then, figure out, what
    is the best way to get it out there? I'm not so sure it's VOA.
    I'm not so sure it's Radio Free Europe. What I am sure is we
    need to get our message out.
        Mr. Costa. I agree. Thank you for your service to our
    country.
        And my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
        And I will assure the committee again, and you as well,
    because I know you were speaking about it, the State Department
    reauthorization, we are looking forward to being an extremely
    member-driven process. All of the members on both sides will
    have every opportunity to offer their amendments, their
    suggestions, their ideas, and have the debate about what should
    be prioritized or not prioritized. And we look forward to your
    input as well.
        Mr. Costa. I look forward to that. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Kean?
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
        I am very interested in hearing how Congress can play an
    increased role in foreign policy by regularly authorizing State
    Department functions, so that its mission and its structure are
    clear.
        Back in February at a hearing held by this committee, I
    discussed with former Representative Ted Yoho how important it
    is to have bipartisan consistency and strategy in U.S. foreign
    policy. And I believe that it is important that America is a
    key leader in health innovation. And I believe that it is an
    important foreign policy tool that the State Department should
    use to America's benefit.
        A key program, though, I want to focus on today is PEPFAR.
    Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Hale, as Congress and this committee
    reauthorizes the State Department, what specific authorities or
    institutional reforms should we include to ensure that PEPFAR's
    mission, the global HIV/AIDS epidemic control, continues? And
    additionally, how can we use the authorizing legislation to
    strengthen PEPFAR's effectiveness within the State Department,
    as well as to align it with larger U.S. foreign policy
    objectives?
        Mr. Jeffrey. I was in the National Security Council when we
    started PEPFAR back almost 20 years, and it is one of the
    proudest things we have done.
        The first point is, it should continue. The second point is
    that it is not only of major humanitarian success, but also for
    global health systems' ability to react to epidemics and such,
    it is really, really effective as well.
        I'm not so sure how it feeds into soft power/hard power,
    but that is not the point. It should be supported by Congress,
    if necessary, by specific legislation.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you.
        Mr. Hale?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I agree with that, and I think it is perhaps
    most useful to cast it in terms of protecting our Nation. You
    know, it is better to fight Ebola in Uganda than in Milwaukee.
        Mr. Kean. So, following up on that, Mr. Hale, from your
    experience, how can we improve PEPFAR's effectiveness, as its
    functions are consolidated? And what can Congress do to ensure
    that the Department is able to manage PEPFAR's large
    operational footprint?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I'm not an expert on PEPFAR. So, you know, I
    hesitate to--I can't give a detailed answer. I would want to
    make sure that, as it is transitioned to the State Department,
    that the State Department is set up to management. And that may
    mean it doesn't look very different than what it looks like
    today.
        Jim touched on a very important point about all of this,
    which is, you know, when I became Under Secretary, I was
    surprised to see the amount of assistance going to African
    countries. And when you dig down into it, you see that, for the
    most part, it is about building health infrastructures that do
    not exist, and without that--you know, it is not just shots in
    the arm. It is you have to build a structure that is going to
    be durable to promote these health strategies.
        Mr. Kean. Okay. So, given PEPFAR's track record as one of
    the most successful U.S. foreign aid projects, Mr. Hale and Mr.
    Jeffrey, what lessons from PEPFAR's operational model should
    Congress seek to preserve as foreign assistance programs are
    restructured within the State Department?
        Mr. Jeffrey. It was set up in a quite focused, targeted,
    administratively lean way with very specific goals that were
    concrete and understandable and a way to measure success, among
    other things, by the number of people whose lives were saved
    and people who were not, did not succumb to HIV. So, I think
    those are the guidelines.
        Again, totally aside from the humanitarian side of it, from
    the administrative side of it, I think it was a very effective
    program. And I hope that, with all of this reorganization, we
    find a way to continue that program at the same level of
    competence.
        Mr. Hale. I concur.
        Mr. Kean. And so, give PEPFAR's role in strengthening
    diplomatic partnerships and stabilizing fragile states, Mr.
    Jeffrey and Mr. Hale, how should Congress seek to accomplish
    PEPFAR's mission while also streamlining State Department
    activities?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Again, ensure that--encourage, ensure,
    whatever verb we use, that the State Department doesn't neglect
    this as they move it around.
        But the one thing I would raise not an objection to, but a
    question to, is we can't oversell these things. This program
    deserves to be continued for its humanitarian purposes--and as
    Dave and I both mentioned, protecting of Americans from
    epidemics abroad. Whether it buys us all of that much support
    in these countries, whether it feeds into our larger foreign
    policy, I'm not so sure there's a lot of evidence to that. It
    doesn't matter; it is worthwhile in and of itself. But we
    shouldn't oversell a lot of these things as buying us a seat at
    the table that we otherwise wouldn't get.
        Mr. Hale. I think that is right.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Kean.
        Ms. Zeya, did you want to take that chance to----
        Ms. Zeya. No.
        Chairman Mast. Okay. Very good.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I want to thank the chair and
    I want to thank our ranking member.
        I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today,
    and I want to thank you, Ms. Zeya, for extending your time.
        Given how massive this State reorg proposal is, however, I
    would much rather be talking to Secretary Rubio. It is his
    proposal and he should be here walking us through it.
        I do agree with the chair that authorizing the State
    Department is an important function of this committee and
    reflects the critical role of Congress in shaping our foreign
    policy, but it is supposed to be a collaborative process--you
    know, Congress and the administration, input, not dictation.
        DOGE and MAGA extremists have hijacked a bipartisan set of
    foreign policy priorities to advance a fringe agenda that would
    never receive bipartisan support. A reorg that axes the value-
    based bureaus at the State Department is a capitulation to the
    MAGA culture warriors who view democracy and human rights and
    the rule of law as part of a woke, liberal agenda, not as
    fundamental American values that distinguish us from our
    adversaries and make us a leader on the world stage.
        The arbitrary 15 percent personnel cuts throughout the
    Department are further proof that Rubio's reorganization is a
    bending of the knee to Musk and DOGE and has little to do with
    improving the Department's efficiency or effectiveness. This
    slash-and-burn approach to our diplomatic toolbox reflected in
    this reorg will have real repercussions for Americans across
    the country.
        Red and blue districts nationwide are gearing up to host
    the upcoming FIFA World Cup and Summer Olympics. And these
    issues are passionate to me because they are going to be
    happening in my district as well. And the billions in projected
    economic impact will disappear if this administration cripples
    the State Department's ability to process spectators' visas by
    shuttering diplomatic missions abroad or cutting the
    Department's budget by 50 percent. The question isn't going to
    be, who will want to come here? The question is, who will be
    able to come here to attend as fans, as spectators, as
    participants, as athletes?
        The harm to my district and everyday Americans of this
    reckless approach to foreign policy is why I introduced the
    Defending American Diplomacy Act. My bill would require
    congressional input and approval if the executive branch wants
    to undertake a major reorg like this. And it shouldn't be
    partisan to say that Congress has the constitutional authority
    to exercise oversight, and will do it, to make changes like
    this to our foreign policy toolbox. It should be a no-brainer.
        Many of us went on CODELs during this past recess. Many of
    us in our visits with other countries probably heard the same
    thing; that the United States is leaving a vacuum that China is
    rushing to fill. I know when I was talking to our international
    partners, they kept saying the same thing about the United
    States: promises made; promises unkept.
        And it is so simple, I think, and easy to counter the PRC's
    influence by helping to feed malnourished children, by
    supporting educational programming, by providing lifesaving
    medicines--small things that make a big difference and they are
    real instruments in our diplomatic toolbox. And China is
    waiting for us to leave. They are saying, ``Give me all that.
    We can do all of that and even more.''
        So, Ms. Zeya, in the few seconds that I have left, in your
    time at State, have you ever seen a major reorg like this take
    place with zero consultation from Congress?
        Ms. Zeya. No, I have not. And I was a young diplomat back
    in the day during the Clinton administration, where reinventing
    government, you know, significantly shifted State Department
    responsibilities, absorbed USIA, and the like.
        I appreciate your underscoring the areas where U.S. values
    and interests intersect. And I would just add a few more
    longstanding responsibilities of the Department, such as
    supporting democratic reformers; supporting free and
    independent media; supporting free and fair elections, but also
    new areas: supporting rights, respecting technology.
        We have touched a bit on the creation of the Bureau of
    Digital And Cyber Policy. People may not realize it is a very
    close partner of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and
    Labor, which has forged for over a decade policy leadership on
    internet freedom that directly counters Russian and Chinese
    efforts to create closed systems; remake the international
    order to their advantage.
        So, the strategic value is not in conflict with our own
    values.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative.
        And I would also inform the committee that there has been
    extensive consultation between the administration and members
    of the committee, and Members of the House. Just, truthfully,
    not many members of the Democrat side of this committee, and
    that is not meant to be a snide comment.
        It is simply reflective of the fact that the last 4 years
    were spent with an administration that wasn't talking about the
    things that they were doing. They were lying about the things
    that they were doing. And even when this administration came
    in, they were looking to literally burn and shred proof of what
    they were doing at State Department and USAID.
        So, I don't think it should be surprising to many that,
    yes, a large amount of the consultation that is going on is not
    going on with the people that were cutting the checks to do
    drag shows in Ecuador or transgender musicals, or transgender
    plays, or transgender operas, or any of the other things.
        So, it is not that there is not consultation going on. It
    is just that there is no consultation going on with those that
    were lying and denying these programs.
        I will now go to Representative Shreve.
        Mr. Shreve. Thank you, Chairman Mast.
        And thanks to our witnesses. We may not have the Secretary
    of State, but we have some terrifically distinguished
    Ambassadors with us.
        And, Ms. Zeya, thanks for spending a little extra time with
    us.
        I'm a new member from Indiana and try to keep up with this
    hearing, as we are bouncing back with markup across the hallway
    in T&I.
        A plug for my State: we have been blessed in Indiana with
    ag--corn, beans, pork--but there is more than corn in Indiana.
    We are a big pharmaceutical-producing State. Lilly is our
    State. Aircraft engines, automotive manufacturing is central to
    our economy.
        And we have also produced some talent in this space. I
    interned a lifetime ago for Senator Lugar out here, whom some
    of you, too, may have worked with. Lee Hamilton was my
    Congressman back when I was in high school and I visited with
    him 2 weeks ago. So, we have got some bipartisan talent and a
    history of that coming out of Indiana, playing in this space.
        Of course, one of State's core functions is economic
    statecraft and leveraging America's strength to advance our
    national interests abroad. It is part and parcel with what
    State is all about.
        This administration's initiatives and this 119th Congress
    have been focused on rightsizing our Federal bureaucracy, and,
    yes, that includes the elimination of some ineffective
    functions and programs. The State Department is no exception.
        Ambassador Jeffrey, in your view, would our American
    businesses buying close to home and more broadly be better
    positioned for success in international markets under the
    current decentralized structure that we have at State today or
    through a recentralization--a recentralization--of economic
    authority within the State Department?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Under the previous organization and under the
    new organization that Secretary Rubio has proposed, you do have
    an Under Secretary for Economic Affairs and you have an energy
    and an economic bureau under them.
        But that is also a huge responsibility of each of the
    regional bureaus and the regional bureau Assistant Secretary.
    And it is one of the core responsibilities of every Ambassador
    to both promote economic integration between country acts and
    the United States, and specifically, commercial opportunities
    for American firms. It is something we believe very much in.
        And I think that the way that we have set it up is working
    well. The one change that I have proposed is that the Foreign
    Commercial Service, which is out there in the field with us and
    advising the Ambassador on how to help American businesses get
    deals, I think that should be put directly and officially under
    the Department of State. But beyond that, I wouldn't make any
    change.
        Mr. Shreve. All right.
        Ambassador Hale, I'm sure you have a perspective on this
    with your globetrotting career.
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I do. I think, overall, probably
    centralization would be the way to go. One of my pet peeves,
    frankly, is that the Foreign Commercial Service has not really
    stepped up to the game in most places where I worked. And if
    you talk to Corporate America, I don't think they are very
    impressed with the performance of our embassies and promoting
    business as a result.
        So, if we can give our Ambassadors greater resources in
    order to help American business overseas, I'm all for it, and I
    think that means talking to American business about identifying
    what it is that they need.
        The thing an ambassador can do is advocacy, but there is a
    lot of other work that needs to be done to help Corporate
    America have, you know, an even playing field, basically, is
    one of the goals.
        The other thing I would make an observation on, because I
    don't think a lot of people pay attention to it, is that we
    have executive directors at the World Bank, the IMF, the
    regional banks. They are not very well integrated into our
    foreign policy team. They really value their independence, and
    I can understand to a degree why they don't want to be dictated
    to by a number of agencies, but the level of coordination is
    really absent beneath the seventh floor level at our State
    Department. And the seventh floor principals at the State
    Department don't have the time to give day-to-day guidance when
    a vote is coming up to the World Bank.
        So, if we really want to deal with China and these
    problems, there needs to be better integration at that level as
    well.
        Mr. Shreve. Integration.
        Ambassadors, thank you.
        My time is expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Shreve.
        Representative McBride?
        Ms. McBride. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Chairman Mast, and, of course, Ranking
    Member Meeks, for both of your leadership.
        And thank you, Ambassadors, for staying with us and
    allowing us to get to our more junior members.
        The world is in upheaval--a fact that I believe every
    member of this committee can probably agree on. According to
    our Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, global conflict
    levels have nearly doubled in the last 5 years.
        The Council on Foreign Relations predicted that 2025 could
    be the most dangerous year yet in the 17 years they have
    conducted surveys on global conflicts to watch.
        That the current administration has chosen this moment to
    severely curtail our diplomatic and international development
    capacity is all the more baffling. More conflict globally makes
    the United States less secure. And an ever-shrinking U.S.
    presence globally creates an opportunity for China and Russia
    to fill that vacuum diplomatically, militarily, and
    economically.
        I'm committed to working with my colleagues across the
    aisle to pursue policies that will make Delawareans and all
    Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous. And while we
    can always do better, and while I believe in reforms to
    modernize our approach, over the last 101 days, this
    administration has left us less secure and less respected.
    Throwing out the alliances, organizations, and investments that
    fostered one of the longest periods of peace between great
    powers in human history is a tragic self-own.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we
    can empower the State Department and our diplomatic servants
    around the world to best advance the interests of American
    citizens.
        And I want to focus-in on a case study that I think helps
    to inform some of these conversations. In 2020, the United
    Kingdom eliminated their Department for International
    Development, merging it into their Foreign and Commonwealth
    Office. An independent watchdog said that that depleted their
    capacity for international development, and we recently have
    seen them transfer a large amount of their international
    development into their defense budgets.
        So, Ambassador Jeffrey, I'm curious your thoughts around
    lessons learned from the U.K. experience and how we can make
    sure that we are protecting international development--it is a
    critical tool for us diplomatically--and avoid what we have
    seen in the United Kingdom, where there has been a depletion
    with the merger of those two departments in their international
    development capacity.
        Mr. Jeffrey. No, again, I'm a fan of putting international
    development into, be it the foreign office in the case of the
    U.K., Australia, and other places, and do it that way, or as
    proposed now, putting it into the Department of State.
        And the reason is there has to be an alignment of the
    development. Because regardless of who is doing it, it is
    always doing some good for someone, and therefore, it is hard
    to argue against. But the point is--and David has mentioned
    this several times--what are the effects of it? How do we
    exploit those effects? How do we build an overall program that
    contributes to the prosperity and the peace of the American
    people?
        And I think that that is best achieved by putting it into
    the Department of State. Now, how you put it into the
    Department of State, how you preserve the skills that USAID was
    able to deploy--and I have seen them very effectively on the
    ground--that is a different question. But assuming that that is
    possible in this world--and it is--I think it would be better
    to put it in.
        Ms. McBride. Yes, I certainly think in a perfect world in a
    vacuum, coordination is, obviously, something we should foster
    and we should foster it organizationally with reforms. I'm just
    very concerned that we will see a replication of what has
    happened in the United Kingdom, where they have found that
    their international development capacity has diminished. I
    mean, coordination without actual investment is pointless. And
    we have seen in the United Kingdom them throwing the baby out
    with the bath water. It has made it easier for them to deplete
    their international development budget, move it into defense,
    because it has been merged into these larger budgets.
        And I am fearful that this administration will, similarly,
    use a consolidation and sort of an enveloping of this money
    into a larger entity as a means to eliminating these
    investments entirely.
        The final question I want to ask both of you: in 2017,
    Secretary Rubio said, when he was Senator Rubio, ``I don't want
    to see us move toward a foreign policy where human rights only
    matters when nothing else matters, when something more
    important isn't standing in our way.'' End of quote. I'm
    curious if you agree with then-Senator Rubio's points.
        Ambassador Hale?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I think advocacy and promoting human rights
    is a core element of our foreign policy. Anytime our foreign
    policy gets too far away from our values, we go wrong.
        That doesn't mean we can always accomplish the goal, but we
    should continue to have engagement of our partners across the
    world on this important topic.
        Ms. McBride. Thank you.
        Since we are out of time, I will just say I hope Senator
    Rubio is listened to by Secretary Rubio, but I'm,
    unfortunately, not particularly optimistic.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative McBride.
        I will now recognize the vice chair of the committee. He
    and I have both deferred all of our questions until the end.
    So, I recognize Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. David, we saved the worst for last.
        We couldn't have two more distinguished Ambassadors here
    with more regional history, in addition to your special
    assignments. But I'm going to ask a couple of questions that
    are more about how many years you have watched the State
    Department than necessarily some of the earlier questions.
        Ambassador Hale, you I think did a good job of explaining
    that Voice of America, Radio Free, fill in the blanks--we have
    everything everywhere as though it works everywhere. The idea
    that we would make a slimmer, targeted one, and one that nimbly
    might go from a place in which the truth cannot be gotten out
    any other way to another one--I'm going to throw one question
    in, not for a long answer, but just for conceptually.
        When you can't get--when you can get in, like in the Middle
    East, finding the ways to get those messages in in a way that
    they are heard--I'm going to ask rhetorically--is still
    critical. The question is, is that disconnected from the State
    Department or is that integral, not only to the State
    Department, but to all the other portions that look overseas--
    the CIA, the NSA, all these agencies? And if we are going to
    reinvent Radio Free--fill in the blank--should we reorganize
    it, so that it can, in fact, target the people in what we
    modernly, you know, look at in social media, and so on, as
    influencers? Would that be pretty much--that is the new way?
        Mr. Hale. I agree very much with the way you phrased it and
    the conceptualization. And to answer the question, I think it
    is a little bit haphazard at State. It really depends on
    whether there is a specific team dealing with a specific
    country or issue topic, and whether they have identified that
    in the way you thought of it, and they have the right people to
    advise them.
        Because, by the way, the way you deliver a message in Saudi
    Arabia is going to--it may sound a little different than the
    way Washington would have thought; that you can say any people
    there--you can say, no, no; yes, we have got the policy, but
    this is the way to present it, so you are going to be more
    compelling to your audience.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        And I'm going to skip to not one that goes back to many of
    your earlier years, but sort of mid-career in some ways. Major
    General Charles Williams, the Director of OBO for the Bush
    administration, is it fair to say that we previously reinvented
    the building of safe and effective facilities, and then, we
    have since abandoned them, such that those cost-benefits, the
    speed to market, if you will, that occurred under his--
    controversial sometimes--but his leadership has been lost?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I think it is one of the most frustrating
    experiences I had, was dealing with that office over time. And
    part of it is, of course, they do cling to their independence
    because they don't want Ambassadors to be sort of telling them
    what to do. They are having their own motives, so they need to
    make sure they are doing things properly for----
        Mr. Issa. Everybody wants a new office.
        Mr. Hale. Right, exactly.
        Mr. Issa. They want a gold office.
        Mr. Hale. Right. But there are local realities, too. But,
    yes, I thought we had, basically, developed a concept that
    dealt with security challenges of the day. It was costly, but
    it kept our people safe. And so, I don't know why we have to
    keep reinventing that one.
        Mr. Issa. Secretary, would you--I imagine, Ambassador, you
    would also agree that getting the backlog of embassies and
    consulates that are effective and safe should be one of the
    reauthorization priorities over, if you will, continuing to run
    out of money long before we deal with the backlog?
        Mr. Jeffrey. Absolutely. Ankara was a priority. It was
    attacked by a suicide bomber some years ago and he didn't get
    beyond the first line of defense. So, the system can work if
    you put effort and focus and resources into it.
        Mr. Issa. And my closing question--I always run out of time
    before I run out of the many questions on this--we all know the
    sort of biblical truism that ``if you give a man a fish. . .
    .'' It is clear that there were time, there were programs each
    of you understood and embraced that, in fact, for a time gave
    people fish.
        But, Ambassador Hale, you, rightfully so, said: don't
    celebrate 50 years of giving out fish. We all talk about the
    Marshall Plan and how it took a ruined, unproductive Europe and
    got it on its feet.
        As we rebuild aid of all sort, including the Trade
    Development Agency, which I was honored to be nominated to
    during the Trump administration, and so on, how much--where is
    the balance, in your opinion, between--and should there be a
    separation between the giving out of fish--giving of medicine,
    food, and so on--versus programs which claim to be about
    capability-building? And should we really define them
    differently, so that not all programs are equal?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I mean, I have said this before, but I want
    to emphasize it again. Whatever we do, the measurement is not
    the activity that we are doing. The measurement is the results
    that we are having, based on whatever our policy goal is.
        And this has been the frustration I think for this whole
    morning, this discussion. There are people who want to measure
    success by how many dollars we have spent and how many people
    we have spending those dollars. That is important, but it is
    not the outcome.
        And you can do things maybe with fewer people and fewer
    dollars, or maybe you need more dollars and more people. But I
    don't see that prism very often applied in the business I was
    in in the State Department. So, that, to me, is the key and it
    may lead you to more deeper involvement. That is what MCC was
    all about, was that kind of partnership to build capacity,
    which can be key.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, if I can close just with an observation?
        Shortly after the pause in funding, I was in the Middle
    East and I saw two programs that I think say it all. Two people
    came in in two countries.
        One tried to justify that, absolutely, we had to turn on
    the nominally $100 per teacher that was, quote, ``helping
    teachers do better work'' in that country.
        The other came in and said: we're halfway done building a
    water facility that will provide clean water in Jordan, as it
    turns out, to one of the driest and most water-resource-starved
    countries.
        One was just sort of saying, ``But money does good.'' The
    other was saying you don't want to have a monument to a half-
    done project sitting out there for years, so people can say,
    ``America reneged and quit.''
        Hopefully, as we go through reauthorization, but also, as
    we go through unpausing some programs with the Secretary, we
    will look at that question in that light of, was it nice to
    have or is it essential that we see and be given credit for the
    good work in some cases we are doing that changes lives?
        So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your indulgence and I look
    forward to your closing remarks.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Vice Chairman Issa. And
    truthfully, your closing remarks lead very well into the nature
    of my questions.
        I have deferred my questions to the end. I really enjoyed
    hearing the testimony, the questions and the answers, and the
    dialog back and forth. And a lot of it goes to--and this is
    where it segues to my friend, Mr. Issa--the old sentiment that,
    if everything is priority, then nothing is a priority.
        And for each of us, which nearly every member of this
    committee had questions, and every member of this committee
    that was here responded that they absolutely believe in the
    necessity for State Department reauthorizations. It is
    unanimous across everybody here.
        I can tell you things that I think we should deprioritize,
    largely individual grants, like grants for sex change surgeries
    in Guatemala, or Sesame Street in Iraq for $20 million, or to
    teach gender inclusivity through Ultimate Frisbee for $100,000.
    I don't know how many frisbees you get for $100,000. Or helping
    Indonesian coffee companies become more gender-friendly for
    $425,000. Right?
        The point is, I could say there's very specific individual
    grants and things that I disapprove of, and there are very
    specific programs that I say I prioritize these. I don't know
    that there's a number that we could put on it where it doesn't
    scale to doing more and more great things, like Development
    Finance Corporation, or other things. And so, that is where the
    nature of my questions go to each of you, and we will do one in
    one, one in one, one in one, and see how far down the line we
    get.
        But if we could just start, Ambassador Jeffrey, give me
    something that you would say, ``I really think this should be
    deprioritized,'' and juxtaposed, ``something I really think
    that this should be on the high end of the priority list.'' And
    then, likewise, Mr. Hale. And I would just love to hear you
    all, you know, give us the back-and-forth of where you would
    prioritize and deprioritize.
        Mr. Jeffrey. Again, I will seek refuge in this Economist
    article because it is not only middle-of-the-road, I would say
    it is more on the progressive side normally, but its findings
    are quite dramatic. And it gets to Congressman Issa's point,
    and that is, I both delivered symbolically, fish--and that was
    one reason for our success in Syria, the humanitarian
    programs--and I have been out there trying to teach people how,
    symbolically to fish. That is very hard to do.
        That gets to David's point, what are the effects? Do we
    really know what supply chain, what managerial models, what
    will actually make that work, not just in Country X, but in
    Village Y or in District Z?
        I have spent 9 years in Turkiye and 9 years in Germany. I
    speak both languages well. I don't begin to really know how
    those societies tick, as an outsider. It is very hardkinds of
    broad development social/political assistance, and claim that
    we are really seeing effects.
        There is where I would de-emphasize and I would focus,
    again, on humanitarian assistance, giving people fish. Keep
    them alive, so that they can eventually figure it out for
    themselves, and security assistance.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Hale, or Ambassador Hale?
        Mr. Hale. Yes, I would say that you do have to tailor what
    we are doing to the specific theater that we are operating in.
    And so, what you want to do in Mexico may be very different
    than what you want to do in, you know, Vietnam.
        But, to me, where it is easiest to demonstrate the link
    between outcomes, inputs and outcomes, is things like the
    security sector; globally, law enforcement, the same thing. It
    is harder to make that link, but I know in my bones that it is
    extremely beneficial to America to invest in education, and
    particularly, to expose as many people as we can through
    American educational tools, including universities that are
    overseas, like AUB or AUC.
        And economic assistance that is linked to developing a
    robust private sector to the extent we can in a country, if
    they are actually committed to doing it. Because that is where
    we are value-added.
        To talk about competing with China, it is not how much
    money we spend. It is, how do we make sure that these countries
    are able to compete on their own and not be penetrated by
    China?
        I would get rid of, to the greatest extent possible, the
    things that are, you know, basically, building new governance
    structures for countries. It has been we have tried and failed.
    So, that whole world of democracy-and state-building I think is
    of limited utility.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you.
        And I think, you know, some of what you have said today, I
    have really enjoyed, again, the dialog, the testimony. And I
    think a lot of it goes to we are looking to build partners. We
    are not looking to build permanent dependencies. And that is
    something that we shouldn't celebrate. That is something that
    we need to be reflective of, you know, what is the duration
    that this dependency has been going on? Has the dependency
    decreased? Has the dependency only increased?
        And if we are not reflecting on those things in every
    Congress and allowing Representatives to review these programs
    that are being undertaken by the executive branch and the State
    Department, and evaluating their effectiveness, then not only I
    think are we setting ourselves up for failure in diplomacy, but
    we are also failing to be good stewards of the people that fund
    every single program, which is the taxpayer of the United
    States of America.
        Again, I will thank you all for your testimony. I'm going
    to go to my closing remarks.
        And simply, I know we have had all of the members of this
    committee depart, but I have assured all of them numerous times
    that, as we talk about State Department reauthorization, it is
    going to be a member-led process, absolutely.
        We have been having many conversations with the
    administration, to this point about direction and things that
    we have rooted out in oversight over the years, and why things
    should change in this place or that place. And we are going to
    continue to have those dialogs with the administration right up
    until the point that this bill is written and beyond.
        And they are going to continue to work from their lane and
    doing what they can to make sure that they are good stewards
    and making sure that what we do in foreign policy is foreign
    policy that works to put America first; that it makes sense for
    Americans and makes us the partner of choice for these
    countries, and not a pariah with these countries that we are
    undertaking diplomacy in.
        And assure these members, you know, every member, that
    there will be portals and opportunity for every single one of
    them to input their amendments, their ideas, their thoughts,
    whatever it is that they want to add or detract from in this
    bill. And we look forward to making sure that we hear from each
    and every one of them, and hopefully, find that no members are
    silenced or precluded from offering the policies that they want
    to put forward, as sometimes takes place with minorities. They
    sometimes don't want to participate because, then, they had to
    say they were a part of the process, and I hope that is not the
    case of what takes place here.
        I do thank each of you for your valuable testimony.
        And I do thank, again, all the members for their questions.
        And members of the committee may have some additional
    questions for each of you witnesses, and we will ask that you
    respond to those questions in writing.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
    submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
    record, and subject to length limitations.
        Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]