[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGEMENT FAMILY FISCAL YEAR 2026
BUDGET POSTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIDDLE EAST AND
NORTH AFRICA
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 16, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-29
__________
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
62-443 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
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
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
DARRELL ISSA, California Florida, Ranking Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee BRAD SHERMAN, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
THOMAS KEAN, Jr, New Jersey WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
RYAN ZINKE, Montana KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington GEORGE LATIMER, New York
Sarah Miller, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Michael Lawler........ 1
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila
Cherfilus-McCormick............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Statement of Hon. Jose Cunningham, Acting Under Secretary (M),
U.S. Department of State....................................... 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 26
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 27
Hearing Attendance............................................... 28
MANAGEMENT FAMILY FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET POSTURE
----------
Wednesday, July 16, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Lawler
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Lawler. The Subcommittee on the Middle East and North
Africa will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to assess the budgetary
posture and strategic direction of the State Department's
management family for Fiscal Year 2026.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL LAWLER
Today, we convene to conduct oversight of the Department of
State's management family and review its budgetary posture and
strategic priorities for Fiscal Year 2026.
I want to thank our witness, Mr. Jose Cunningham, for
appearing before us. Mr. Cunningham is serving as both the
acting Under Secretary for Management and the Assistant
Secretary for Administration.
The Bureau of Management is the backbone of the State
Department. It touches every element of America's diplomatic
presence, from safeguarding our personnel and Americans abroad
to adjudicating passports and visas to managing our IT, our
embassies, and our financial systems.
These responsibilities are vital to our national security
and we appreciate the hard work of the men and women who make
up the M family.
But as we look ahead we must ask whether the department's
management architecture is fit for purpose in a world of rapid
geopolitical change, digital threats, and rising demands for
accountability.
Is our current structure delivering results or is it
weighed down by redundancy, fragmentation, and outdated
systems?
We'll be examining several core issues today: the
department's ability to modernize its technology, financial
management and administrative systems; how the department is
coordinating across bureaus to reduce duplication and deliver
cost effective services; whether key security functions like
counter intelligence and cyber security are integrated and
mission ready; and how the department is using flexible funding
tools like the Working Capital Fund to support shared services
and meet evolving global threats.
We'll also consider whether structural reforms are needed
to consolidate core management functions, streamline executive
offices, and align financial oversight with policy priorities
so that every taxpayer dollar advances our mission abroad.
Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of a strong and
collaborative partnership between Congress and the State
Department. When we work hand in hand, grounded in open,
timely, and transparent communication, we are best positioned
to advance our shared national security and foreign policy
goals.
Congress stands ready to support the department's mission
and we look forward to continuing that work together.
Mr. Cunningham, we look forward to your testimony and to a
robust discussion of how we can work together to ensure the
State Department is as agile, secure, and results driven as the
world demands.
With that, I now recognize the ranking member, my colleague
from Florida, Representative Cherfilus-McCormick, for her
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you so much for being here. Thank you to Under Secretary
Collins for coming here today and shedding some light.
Congress has been left in the dark as to the vision and
processes at the department, leading to many questions. For
example, last Friday 1,300 dedicated professionals at the State
Department were handed reduction in force announcements.
Several questions come to mind including what notices were
given, what was the process or the matrices to determine who
was being let go, and what is the strategy behind these RIFs.
These are the answers Congress is looking for and have not
heard from the department. The truth is Congress has not seen
any road map or coherent strategy. We know more from the media
about what's going on in the department. Without the department
filling in the gaps we only hear about the mishaps.
For example, even the basic administration of the RIFs was
flawed. Employees were mistakenly issued RIFs notices by the
department's own admission. Many still don't know where they
stand, especially those on detail, other agencies, or here on
the Capitol.
Others remain overseas waiting for answers. Moreover,
reports were--reports were at our hearing saying that these
notices, or RIFs, were being given just hours--only hours to
pack up their belongings, saying their goodbyes and to leave.
No explanation, no performance reviews, no recognitions for
their service--in some cases, not even the dignity of a proper
farewell.
Worse still, some of these individuals were working abroad
on assignment away from their families, serving our country and
now they're stranded.
Some have been cutoff from their official emails. Their
government passports have been confiscated and they have no
clear way to get home.
These are the Americans, our public servants. They have
been abandoned by their own country. This isn't just about
policy; it's about the people who are implementing the policy.
And, yet, today we will hear from this administration about
how this was all part of a strategic reorganization. We hear
buzz words like rightsizing, efficiency and accountability. For
these words to be true, we can't wait to hear about the systems
and the harm mitigation protocol that were being used before
these RIF decisions were made.
The Trump administration's own staff has boasted that the
reorganization process was led by 10 people. We know firsthand
that many of those people have no prior experiences in foreign
affairs policy.
They don't know what makes an embassy work, what makes a
regional or functional team successful. This administration
chose to act recklessly, rush a reorganization without experts'
input and fire over 1,000 State Department staff.
For all we know they will be begged to return, just like we
have seen in the countless other cases where DOGE-inspired cuts
fired essential personnel and experts only to bring them back
days or weeks later.
It is important to remember at this time of global unrest
we should be doing everything we can to strengthen, not weaken,
our diplomatic workforce.
When the world is on fire, you don't put the firefighters
off the truck. You equip them, you support them, you thank
them. But that's not what's happening here today.
These RIFs cut deeply into the heart of our diplomatic
workforce. We're not just losing positions. We are, in fact,
losing people, people who have spent years, sometimes decades,
building expertise in areas that are critical to our national
security, nuclear nonproliferation, democratic governance,
climate resilience, and regional stability.
We're losing young professionals who chose public service
over private sector salaries because they believed in something
bigger than themselves, the American mission, diplomacy and
democracy, people who missed birthdays, anniversaries and at
times with their loved ones to represent this country abroad
and now they've been told they are expendable.
We have heard particularly alarming stories about cuts to
consulate affairs despite repeated assurances from Secretary
Rubio that other passport proceedings would not be affected.
With the dismantling of the State Department workforce and
USAID also came the dismantling of trust, expertise, and the
spirit of Americans working at the State Department.
Rebuilding this destruction will take years. We look
forward to hear from you all of the procedures and processes in
place and look forward to working with you to help rebuild
them.
I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you to the ranking member.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have acting Under Secretary Jose
Cunningham before us today. Your full statements will be made
part of the record and I'll ask that you keep your spoken
remarks to 5 minutes in order to allow time for member
questions.
I now recognize acting Under Secretary Cunningham for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE CUNNINGHAM, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY (M),
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee (inaudible). I'm honored to appear
before this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget for the U.S. Department
of State's management family bureaus.
As Assistant Secretary of Administration at the State
Department and performing the duties of Under Secretary for
Management, I'm honored to present our budget priorities, which
are designed to ensure the department fulfills its mission and
that every dollar we spend and every action we take results in
measurable, positive outcomes for the American people.
Every day the 13 bureaus and offices that make up the
department's management family play a critical role in
supporting our domestic and global workforce, our logistics,
facilities, and security that underpin core diplomatic
functions and ensure the department is equipped to deliver its
mission effectively and efficiently.
Of the $28.5 billion total request the department is
requesting $11.3 billion for diplomatic engagement resources to
fund the department's principal operating accounts and to
provide necessary protection for the department's people,
property, and data.
Through our main operating accounts M family bureaus and
offices enable operations for all department bureaus and
offices and over 275 posts worldwide.
Our embassies around the world are the front lines of
diplomacy, representing the United States to the world while
providing critical information and identifying opportunities
and challenges long before they reach Washington, DC.
The M family is reviewing and reforming our operational
capabilities and is focused on quality, speed, and efficiency
to streamline and focus on the global workforce.
A good example of this is the department's continued
commitment to our review of high-threat high-risk posts through
the SCORE process where we are weighing decisions on how and
whether to main maintain U.S. diplomatic presence in dangerous
locations against the policy rewards of being there.
Another example is how the M family is using AI and data-
driven tools most recently to the to aid the Middle East Task
Force in identifying risk and potential critical assets and
data.
Our Office of Foreign Missions within the M family employs
reciprocity to help ensure our personnel abroad are treated
fairly and equitably by receiving states and works to protect
Americans from abuses of privileges and immunities by foreign
diplomats in the United States, all while safeguarding our
critical national interests at home.
I am personally working with our interagency partners to
maintain comprehensive and effective continuity of government
capabilities.
Taxpayers deserve a State Department that serves the
American people and champions the safety, security, and
prosperity of our Nation. In addition to our request for
appropriated resources the department plans to use $5.5 billion
collected in consular fees for enhanced visa process vetting
and passport enhancements.
As Secretary Rubio has stated, a visa is not a right. It is
a privilege. Individuals seeking entry into the United States
must demonstrate that their presence will not harm our national
interests.
We anticipate 21.8 million Americans will apply for
passports in 2026, and to ensure the needs of American people
are met Consular Affairs seeks to advance its information
technology infrastructure, streaming--including streamlining
passport applications through our highly successful online
passport renewal platform.
Consular Affairs is well equipped as we prepare for major
events like the FIFA World Cup that's going to be in 2026, the
2028 Olympics, and America 250.
We continue to address global challenges as demonstrated by
providing information and assistance to more than 27,000
individuals during the Israel-Iran conflict.
I look forward to working with Chairman Mast, Ranking
Member Meeks, and the entire committee on the State Department
authorization bill.
The Secretary has already begun the essential initiative of
restructuring the department to align our resources with policy
priorities. This effort will eliminate redundant functions,
enhance accountability, and empower our people to deliver
results.
Every bureau and office will have a clear responsibility
and mission. I look forward to answering your questions today
and hearing the committee's thoughts, particularly as you're
writing your State Department authorization bill, and I thank
you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Cunningham, the State Department's Fiscal Year 2026
budget request includes authority to obligate $517 million in
projected passport application and execution fees, and
Secretary Rubio noted that, quote, ``Every decision on a visa
application is a national security decision,'' end quote.
Is part of this funding request to deal with expanded
social media vetting, for instance?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you for that important question,
Chairman.
One of the great joys of my job is being able to work with
Consular Affairs. The professionals that we have on a global
basis are doing incredible work and you are absolutely right to
point out that national security is first and foremost as we
move forward.
The Consular Affairs team works diligently to make sure
that we are combating passport and visa fraud. We are also
addressing issues related to human trafficking and then, of
course, we work closely with Homeland Security to ensure that
we have got the right kind of entry qualifications for anybody
who is coming to the United States.
Part of that effort to make sure that we are addressing
national security concerns is making sure that we do everything
we can to look at those individuals who are applying for visas
overseas when they want to come to the United States.
Absolutely, a visa to the United States is a privilege. It
is not a right. And particularly I think we have found, given
what we have seen on college campuses and university campuses
over the last year and a half or so, we want to make sure that
we are vetting those applicants to ensure that they are not
involved with any kind of anti-Semitism or terrorism activity
and part of that, of course, is going to be taking a look at
their social media profile, looking at what they have posted in
the past, and ensuring that when they come to the United States
they're here for the reason that they say they are--hopefully,
getting to know America, learning our values, and studying in
these great institutions.
Mr. Lawler. While I agree that the vetting is absolutely
necessary, we do need to make sure that you have all the
resources to do it well and prevent delays or backlogs.
Under the prior administration we saw significant backlogs
in processing passports and visas, and all of our offices have
dealt with that.
Is the State Department hiring more staff to engage in that
expanded social media vetting and how else are you ensuring
that this program remains efficient and does not create a
backlog?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Chairman.
In fact, during the reorg that we just recently announced
as well as the intended reduction in force that went with that
and into effect on Friday, I'm pleased to say that Consular
Affairs did not take a hit.
We have the necessary manpower and workforce in place to be
able to address the issues that you were just talking about and
we won't have delays.
Right now for a passport, especially through this new
online passport renewal system, we're finding that folks are
able to get passports in anywhere from three to 6 weeks. The
average time is about 3 weeks right now, and then for visas the
median time for receiving a visa is about 1 month.
Mr. Lawler. State's Fiscal Year 1926 request includes an
$81.7 million reduction in worldwide security protection
funding for Iraq, reflecting equipment returns and a drawdown
of operations.
As the department considers scaling back its presence at
Embassy Baghdad what steps are being taken to ensure that core
diplomatic functions such as intelligence gathering, crisis
response, and interagency coordination can continue safely and
effectively?
Mr. Cunningham. It's an excellent question, sir. I must say
that not only pertaining to Baghdad and Iraq, on a regular
basis we are looking at our posture--our global posture--from a
security perspective.
I'm happy to say that the $28.5 billion request that we
have for Fiscal Year 1926 is about 48 percent less than the
Fiscal Year 1925 budget and so in essence what that means is
we're able to return or at least save about $20 billion-plus
for the American taxpayer.
Part and parcel of that, of course, is just finding
opportunities overseas for us to reduce our cost while at the
same time maintaining the security posture that we need not
only bilaterally but also multilaterally.
You are right to point out that in Baghdad we have found
significant cost savings by closing down our fixed and rotary
wing aircraft operation there.
We are looking for many, many more opportunities for cost
containment in Baghdad in particular just given the changing
nature of the relationship that we have in Iraq but also
broader--more broadly in the Middle East.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you. My time has expired.
I now recognize the ranking member, Representative
Cherfilus-McCormick, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to go and start digging in through the reduction
in force that recently transpired. There's been a lot of
questions about what happened in the processes.
So I wanted to give you the opportunity to tell us what
processes were in place to ensure that it was actually merit
based and what we--what did you take in consideration when you
released these people?
Mr. Cunningham. That's a fantastic question and one that
I've been intimately involved with for the past few months.
I had the good opportunity of working at Export-Import Bank
for the first 8 weeks, 9 weeks, of this administration and when
I moved to the State Department to assume this role I
encountered a State Department under the leadership of
Secretary Rubio that was talking in very broad strokes but
absolutely doing everything it needed to do to get down to
brass tacks and how we make America safer, stronger, and more
prosperous through a reorganization.
The reorganization was actually done in a very thoughtful
and organized way. When it came to the reduction in force it
was a data-driven exercise whereby we first and foremost looked
at the organizational structure that we needed in place in
order to carry out the America First foreign policy agenda.
So we put the organizational structure in place. As you can
imagine, we found a lot of waste, fraud, and mismanagement
along the way and those are--that's really what constituted--
when you hear about offices that were eliminated and removed
that's how we came up with the first organizational structure.
I focus on that reorg first because what we did was then,
you know, to follow along with that to ensure that we have the
right workforce that matched and aligned that organizational
structure we looked at positions.
We did not look at names. We did not look at titles. We
looked at positions that were necessary for us to carry out
that America First foreign policy agenda and worked very, very
closely with the Office of Personnel Management--OPM--to ensure
that we have the right folks in the Foreign Service, in the
Civil Service, and we also looked at it from a contracting
perspective.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. What are some of your data
points? I just don't want my time to lapse.
Mr. Cunningham. Sure.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. What were some of the data points
that you looked at? Because as we're talking to more and more
of our diplomats they're concerned about the merit-based
justifications for who actually was released.
Mr. Cunningham. Right. You're absolutely right to point out
that a merit-based personnel policy is absolutely vital. One of
the first things President Trump did in this administration was
to ensure through executive order that we had a merit-based
workforce, not only at the State Department but throughout
government.
Included in that was taking a good hard look at our
diversity, inclusion, and equity rules, and so what we have
today through this data-driven process that we used for the
reorganization is that we have--we made sure that we were
looking at skill sets wherein in the Foreign Service so we also
wanted to look at language capabilities.
We also wanted to look at their experience. We were able to
match up just about all of that with--and overlay it with the
organizational structure in place. We did that. This is
actually worth saying.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. My time is running out so I'm
sorry----
Mr. Cunningham. OK.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick [continuing]. I just want to jump
in. I also want to look at some of the mishaps that we're
actually seeing in the reports of people who were let go and
who have been hired back.
Was that anticipated when you guys were setting out your
process and procedures?
Mr. Cunningham. I have not heard of mishaps. We have found
an anomaly or two that absolutely needed to be addressed and if
you yourself, Ranking Member, hear of an anomaly and would like
to be able to share that with us we would--we will absolutely
look at that.
We're looking at all of those in a case by case basis.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And do you have a course
correction plan that you're going to be using, going forward,
in case these mishaps----
Mr. Cunningham. Absolutely, because we want to make sure
that we get this right, not only from a personnel perspective
but also, perhaps, even more importantly from a mission-driven
perspective to make sure that we're able to really deliver on
the America First foreign policy agenda.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And before my time runs out, we
have been hearing more and more about people who were actually
let go who were supposed to be rotating to other countries and
other posts, and they were actually supposed to go within a
day, 2 days, a week.
So those people who are no longer going to that new post
are they being replaced and do those people have the same
expertise as the people who were let go?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
I will say that more than likely you're referring to some
of the folks that--the effective date of the reduction in force
and the reorganization was May 29, and as you probably know
there was a stall in us being able to move on that reorg
because of a district judge in San Francisco.
Depending on where the individual was on May 29th when the
Secretary signed that reorganization in final that probably is
what dictates where that person is today and whether or not
they're going to be able to go on to a forward assignment or if
they got caught in an office that actually was eliminated.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from California
Representative Issa for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to followup briefly on that. So because of a--
what turned out to be a wrongful action of a rogue judge in
this case who was overturned people were basically RIFed and
not given one or 2 days' notice.
They were, by definition, given a substantial period of
time because the original date versus the effective date was 2
months apart, right?
Mr. Cunningham. That's absolutely right, Congressman, and I
thank you for pointing that out.
I must say that I'm from the corporate world as you are and
you know that oftentimes when we are doing a reorg or actually
implementing a reduction in force this often happens in the
corporate world without any notice whatsoever.
In this instance the workforce at the State Department knew
this was coming weeks if not months in advance.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Following up on a couple of areas, as you
know, Chairman Mast has set all of us as committee members as
vice chair, the subcommittee chairman, to do a full
reorganization of the State Department.
So this is one of the reasons it's so important was to
follow your reorganization and mirror our activity. There are a
couple of areas of concern that I want to touch with you
briefly.
One is since 2001 the State Department has had a dual
relationship in visas with Homeland Security. Just from the
time you've been there shouldn't this committee find a way to
harmonize that so we not have a he says/she said as we have had
where your people look at somebody but they can't say ``you're
in.''
In fact, the visa will disappear into Homeland Security for
an undetermined period of time without the ability for the
State Department to answer when they're going to be cleared or
not cleared. Is that correct?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Congressman, for that.
I do manage the Consular Affairs Bureau at the State
Department and I must say that we work hand in glove and
actually quite well with the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Issa. I'm going to interrupt you. No, you don't. It
doesn't work. It hasn't worked for 20-plus years. So the--I
would ask you to please look into it with a different eye.
Look into it as to the people who, quite frankly, may be
coming back to the United States multiple times, may be coming
back for school having been in the U.S. and they cannot get a
timely answer, and the authority does not lie with the State
Department.
But, ultimately, that's the odd situation is we rely on you
to do the interviews and then it disappears into Homeland
Security. I'm not badmouthing Homeland Security.
I'm proposing that harmonizing the authority to a single
place of accountability may in fact be something this committee
looks at.
Mr. Cunningham. I promise to look into that, sir.
Mr. Issa. I'm going to look onto one that is near and dear
to my heart. Ever since the tragedy at Benghazi we have
recognized that after the departure of George W. Bush's
administration the State Department went back to its old
standard at OBO of simply wanting to do one-of-a-kind beautiful
palaces like the one in London--I call it the Crystal Palace--
with huge cost overruns and time delays.
You currently have 24 embassies and consultants under
construction. Most are if not all are delayed. Fifteen are
delayed more than 2 years.
The Lebanon embassy is at about twice its original
forecast, is more than 6 years under construction, is not
completed, and we continue to rent 40 separate buildings now,
making it the most expensive embassy in the world.
What are you planning to do? What will the State Department
do to--and I'm asking you to put your businessman hat on--
returning to a standard design, returning to a schedule to--
returning to fixed contracts that have penalties for not making
deadlines, obviously, with some recognition of war and other
events that can be justified.
But when we're talking about simply cost overruns, change
orders that they ask for and then bill you for and the like,
what are you going to do to change that to get us out of a
situation in which we cannot give you enough money to meet the
requirement of making our State Department personnel safe
around the world unless we change the time schedule and the
cost for these buildings.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you for that, sir.
I am thrilled to be able to work hand in glove with our
professionals at OBO. They do an incredible job on a global
basis.
I must say----
Mr. Issa. Pardon me. I'm just going to interrupt briefly.
They are the source of that overrun, the source of those
decisions to make one of buildings. So I appreciate what you're
saying but what can we do to change us?
Under General Williams we had a program that was working.
It was reversed when President Obama came in and it's never
been sent back to a process that would give us timely delivery.
Mr. Cunningham. One very specific thing, Congressman, that
we are doing as a result of this reorganization is looking
exactly at--one of the points you made was at contracts and the
procurement function.
We have consolidated in this reorganization contracts and
procurement, IT, human resources, finance and accounting, and
the contracts and procurement function that took place in OBO
has now been moved to a new--it's not a bureau but it's a
directorate within the Management Bureau that will focus just
on global acquisitions.
And so we'll have much tighter, more unified opportunity to
look at those contracts and I'm happy to work with you and your
team to make sure that we follow the kind of rules that you're
looking for.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, and I'm pleased and I thank you for
your indulgence. Yield back.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Representative Issa.
I'm now going to start a second round of questioning and I
know there are other members on their way as well.
Mr. Cunningham, in your testimony you mentioned the SCORE
process as a key mechanism for evaluating whether to maintain a
diplomatic presence in high-threat environments.
Can you elaborate on how the SCORE process informs
strategic decisions about oversea posts including how it was
applied in the case of U.S. Embassy Baghdad and the
department's broader posture in Iraq?
Mr. Cunningham. Absolutely, Chairman. Thank you for that
question.
One of the--I'm blessed to be able to work hand in glove
with our Under Secretary for Foreign Policy, Allison Hooker, on
a regular basis in the SCORE process.
Part of that process is making sure that we support the
execution of the America First foreign policy and through that
process we're ensuring that we're looking at economic budget
issues as well as security issues to determine whether or not--
and we do this on a regular basis--whether or not that presence
is necessary for our mission.
Quite frankly, today, if we have a presence in a particular
country, it's because that's part of our policy and I support
the execution of that policy but--and part of the process
whereby we're looking as to whether or not we need to make any
changes in our footprint on a global basis and we'll adjust our
policy accordingly.
Mr. Lawler. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
We'll now recognize for 5 minutes Representative Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cunningham, I want to ask you a couple of real simple
questions and try to get your honest reaction here.
As you know, this past Friday the State Department laid off
over 1,300 employees including 1,100 of which were Civil
Service employees and 246 which were Foreign Service officers.
That figure is in addition to the, roughly, 1,600 employees
who have left the agency since January, many of whom will say
that they left under duress.
At the same time, the Foreign Service Institute has
indefinitely postponed any and all promotions, holding up
promotions and shutting the entry point for new Foreign Service
officers to get in.
So I'm disturbed by the sheer number of employees fired but
also by the seemingly indiscriminate nature and manner of those
firings. If I'm incorrect I certainly would welcome your
comments on some of this.
I'm concerned also about the loss of expertise from the
Civil Service and Foreign Service, employees that had dedicated
their lives, quite frankly, to serving this government, this
Nation, and the American people.
So can you for the sake of the committee here on the record
give us a sense of what you've done since being there to ensure
that the recent staff reductions at the State Department will
not harm--will not harm--the ability of the United States to
engage in important diplomatic work?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Congressman.
I can assure you right from the very start that what we're
doing will not disturb the important mission that we have.
I would welcome the opportunity just to talk to you a
little bit about how that America First foreign policy is in
place, how that relates to the reorganization as well as the
reduction in force that you were so specific about.
When Secretary Rubio came to office he pledged that we were
going to make foreign policy the purview of our Ambassadors, of
our embassies, of our operations overseas, and in order to
support that overseas element we decided that we needed to
streamline and consolidate our operations here in Washington,
DC, and through the reorganization as well as the attendant
reduction in forces we were able to do that.
Indeed, if you look at the----
Mr. Mfume. Well, let me reclaim my time here. I don't have
that much of it.
Secretary Rubio was before this full committee and we
entertained a number of State Department persons, the last of
which was just a couple of days ago.
I want to know, though, have you completed--since you're
saying this will not impact negatively have you completed an
assessment of the impact and the loss of expertise from the
State Department officials that have, as I said before, been
fired or let go this year?
That's a tremendous brain trust, a tremendous wealth of
experience, and so when you extrapolate that out of an existing
workforce I need to get some idea of what assurances were made
or what assessment was done to be able to say that there is no
impact.
Mr. Cunningham. Congressman, the assessment to actually
implement the reorganization and the attendant reduction in
force was done long in advance and, of course, we executed on
that on Friday.
It would be short sighted of me to say that we have already
done an assessment as the--of the impact on what happened on
Friday just a few days later, less than a week since that.
I can assure you that there are plenty of us--in fact, even
later this afternoon when I get back to the building we're
having our second meeting of a group of folks who were
responsible for the implementation of the reorganization to
make sure that we're looking at any potential anomalies that
have come to our attention.
Mr. Mfume. Good, and I hope that you would get back to us
with those anomalies or to say that there were none, or to say
that this assessment once it is done shows no negative impact.
Mr. Cunningham, 36 months ago the Government Accounting
Office released four recommendations, all of which were aimed
at improving diversity, equity, and inclusion as well as
accessibility in the State Department's workforce.
The previous administration made some progress in
addressing those but of those recommendations four of them
remain open.
Is there any plan in place by Secretary Rubio or yourself
or others to address the Government Accounting Office's
recommendations or since it is listed as DEI can we assume that
under this leadership at the State Department and at the White
House that they are dead?
Mr. Cunningham. Under this administration, sir, we have
eliminated diversity and inclusion initiatives throughout
government. That includes the State Department.
We have now moved to an entirely merit-based system that
looks at skill sets, language capabilities, and experience in
our identification, recruitment, hiring, and promotion and
retirement of our workforce on both the Civil Service side as
well as the Foreign Service side.
Mr. Mfume. I understand that and my time is expiring, but
I'd be less than honest if I didn't say I don't know how a less
diverse workforce will affect the efforts of the United States
to engage with the vast amount of different peoples and
cultures that are relevant to our national interests.
I don't know how we do that when we become less diverse. I
yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Issa. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
We now go to the gentleman from California Mr. Sherman for
5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. I want to echo the gentleman from Maryland. I
can't agree with him more. The world is diverse and we've--the
job of the State Department is our relationship with the world.
Okay. You've got to decide how much effort to put in the
process of giving visas, particularly business visas, tourist
visas. Business people come here to buy products, some of them
made in my district. Tourism is a big deal for Los Angeles.
And time and again I get calls from people who are delayed
for a year, 2 years, sometimes three or 4 months.
I was in the business world before I came here. I know our
chair has spent a lot of time in the business world. I've never
seen a good business deal that can wait 3 months for the
meeting.
Has the State Department ever even tried to calculate the
enormous harm that you do to our economy by basically telling
people in a lot of countries, don't try to do business in the
United States--it's a huge hassle. Don't try to visit the
United States. There are beautiful vistas elsewhere and it's a
huge hassle to get here.
Has there been any cost benefit analysis of the decision to
have what has got to be the slowest visa-granting process of
any foreign ministry in the world?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
It's a supreme joy of mine in this seat to be able to
manage Consular Affairs at this Department of State. We are
responsible for taking a look at visa fraud, passport fraud,
human trafficking, illegal immigration on a regular basis.
You specifically are pointing out the visa----
Mr. Sherman. It was pretty much a yes/no question. Has
there ever been an analysis cost----
Mr. Cunningham. The answer is yes. The answer is yes.
Mr. Sherman. So you have an analysis that says that the
delays in issuing business and tourist visas are not costing
America billions of dollars of economic activity?
Mr. Cunningham. The median wait time for all visas for
Consular Affairs globally is 1 month.
Mr. Sherman. Oh, that's great if your business deal wants
to wait a month. And by the way, I get calls all the time,
particularly from India, from Pakistan, where the delay is
four, five, 6 months and----
Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield to----
Mr. Sherman. I'll yield to the chair, yes.
Mr. Issa. Following up on that since we do see the same
situation, you're saying how long between the time you actually
get the appointment--you actually get there.
You are aware that it can be months, many months, sometimes
beyond belief, before somebody can get the appointment that
goes there.
So the 1-month may be a wonderful average but, you know,
Abraham Lincoln told us you could drown if you were six foot
tall in the average five foot depth river. The average doesn't
tell the story that the gentleman is talking about of delays of
months before you even get an appointment.
Mr. Sherman. And I would hope that you would do the
analysis because there are a lot of businesses that can't wait
a month and a lot of places in the world where that visa to,
first, get the appointment and then the appointment is a month
after you get it is many, many months.
Okay. We fired a bunch of people. You wanted to reduce the
number of staff, and it makes sense to look at the organization
chart and see some boxes and say, well, we don't need a person
in that box. We don't need a person in that box.
But what I understand you did is if you had a superb
employee in the box that you don't need you didn't move them to
another box. You fired them, and then you could have an
underperforming employee in a box you're keeping and you're
keeping that employee.
Did you evaluate the capacities and performance of
individuals and then put them in the boxes you wanted or did
you just fire anybody who was in a box that seemed like we
don't need that box?
Mr. Cunningham. Congressman, the reduction in force is all
about functions and not the individual, not people.
Mr. Sherman. Yes, but if you want to perform this function
and you have a great person that's performing a function you
don't need why not keep the great person and have them do the
function you want instead of firing people based--because in
the State Department you guys are moving people around from
function to function. It's a game of musical chairs.
Mr. Cunningham. It's what we do. It's what we do.
Mr. Sherman. If somebody happened to be 6 months ago a
great performer in a great function they still have a job. But
if somebody was a great performer and they've recently been
transferred to a function you don't need that great performer
is out, right?
Mr. Cunningham. In this instance, Congressman, if someone
has been RIFed--I'll start last Friday--they will have the
opportunity to apply for a job that absolutely fits their skill
set, their experience, and their language capabilities if
that's part of the job. We have a--we have the----
Mr. Sherman. But as far as immediate decisions you've
retained certain underperforming employees and you've
terminated some spectacular employees because you didn't
evaluate the individual employees and all of their experiences.
You just said, well, if in the musical chair games it is
the State Department, they happen to be in a box we don't need
they're out. They can apply for something else unless if
they're really good they'll find a job in the private sector.
I believe I've--have I gone too long?
Mr. Issa. You've gone as long as I'm going to let you go,
Mr. Sherman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from
Massachusetts Mr. Keating for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just concerned when you fired over a thousand employees
and, you know, eventually you're going to have to replace those
people--new people coming in.
What's your pitch to those people after you've just fired a
thousand career people?
Mr. Cunningham. Congressman, I'm afraid I didn't hear the
exact question. What's the----
Mr. Keating. I just said you just fired more than a
thousand employees.
Mr. Cunningham. Right.
Mr. Keating. Eventually you're going to have to recruit and
bring new people into the service. So what's your pitch to
these people after you've just fired these career people that
are thinking of making a career here?
I mean, what do you say to them? Maybe you'll get lucky.
Maybe if you take an allegiance to something beforehand.
I mean, what--you know, what if you had a son or daughter
and they're thinking of a career and they want to become a
Foreign Service person and have a career here? Would you be
worried that embarking on a career where career people just got
ruthlessly fired?
Mr. Cunningham. Congressman, there's never a perfect time
to conduct a reduction in force. We are very aware of that. We
took all the--we did everything we could with as much heart as
we could when we went through and exercised and implemented
this reduction in force on Friday.
Mr. Keating. Oh, please. You know, I have 5 minutes but I
don't believe that. You know what my son or daughter would call
that? BS.
This was just done so ruthlessly. So let's not even go
there because I don't have time for that. I'm concerned about
the future after you've done this and I'm concerned, too, so
many of the people that I know that have made careers and
people that I talk to that had careers a lot of those things
occurred in the university. Have you ever spoken to a U.S.
diplomat in residence?
Mr. Cunningham. I have, sir. Yes.
Mr. Keating. Do you see the value of that position?
Mr. Cunningham. In many instances, absolutely.
Mr. Keating. So you've got these young people. What would
you tell them, if it was your son or daughter, you know, about
job security?
Mr. Cunningham. I will say--Congressman, you are perhaps
referring to some of the details and fellowships that we have
in the State Department that take place with other government
agencies, with DOD, with nongovernmental organizations, with
State and local governments, as well as with people--as well as
with Congress.
Mr. Keating. I'm also--no, no, people at the college stage,
post college stage, who are thinking of making careers. You
know, this is going to--you don't think this would damage the
future potential to hire the best, going forward?
Mr. Cunningham. We made a concerted effort, sir, to put in
place an organizational structure that matched the foreign
policy goals of this administration.
Mr. Keating. Well, I'll tell you this. Those goals don't
include recruiting the best down the road coming forward. I'm
also concerned, too, when you're looking at major events like
the Olympics in 2028 and what's going, you know, are we going
to have the people in place.
I know the Secretary of State said don't worry about it,
but I don't see how in some of these countries we're going to
have the people in place to do big functions like that.
Mr. Cunningham. Congressman, we feel quite good about being
able to welcome visitors to the United States for the FIFA
World Cup as well as America 2025 and the Olympics in 2028.
I will tell you that the majority of the folks that we
expect to come for the FIFA World Cup will be coming from
Mexico and Canada so those folks for the most part have visas
and are able to come into the United States.
We have all of government effort to ensure that we are
prepared and ready for the onslaught of visitors that we
absolutely welcome to the U.S. for the Cup.
Mr. Keating. Remember those words when the time comes
because the way you're progressing with this and the things
you're doing don't inspire confidence that that's going to be
the place and invariably--we can look right down this row and
it's our offices that get these calls all the time when these
things aren't undertaken properly.
I just want to touch too--I don't have much time--on the
cuts to the consulate offices that have occurred and the
danger--you know, the dangers actually that represent not
having those in place in places like France and Germany.
Mr. Cunningham. Well, I can tell you that with the
reorganization and the reduction in the force that took place
last Friday there are no cuts to the number of personnel in the
Consular Affairs Bureau. We have--part of that whole
reorganization----
Mr. Keating. My time is running out.
So the cuts in the--there's no cuts in the fraud prevention
office?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir.
Mr. Keating. There's no cuts in the consular systems?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir.
Mr. Keating. And Technology Office?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir.
Mr. Keating. That's not the information I have. I yield
back.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back.
We now go to the gentleman from New York for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield my time to the ranker Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Representative.
I just wanted to followup on some questions. My biggest
question is that you mentioned that you were directed to reduce
by 15 percent for M and what was the basis of that number? How
did you derive that 15 percent that was supposed to be cut?
Mr. Cunningham. That 15 percent, Congresswoman, was not
just for the M family of bureaus but across the board at the
State Department.
When we started the reorg--the discussions regarding
reorganization we weren't looking at a specific number to cut a
certain percentage but, rather, we worked with our under
secretaries, with career and Foreign Service personnel, to make
sure that we got that right.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So that 15 percent was across the
board?
Mr. Cunningham. Across the board at the State Department,
yes.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. My next question--I just want to
clarify some statements. So when it comes to the Consular
Affairs there seems to be a discrepancy as far as the cuts
because we have reporting that there were cuts made and you're
saying that there were no cuts made. Is that correct?
Mr. Cunningham. There were no--there were no cuts in
Consular Affairs. I would just harken back to what I said
before it----
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So our information that we have
is different. If we can reconcile that with further
information----
Mr. Cunningham. We'd be happy to work with you on that. I
think a lot of it stems back to the fact that the decision and
the memo that was signed for reorganization and reduction in
force is effective May 29th and a lot of--any of those people
that were impacted were probably in a different place, maybe in
an office that had been eliminated on May 29th.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Well, as long as we can reconcile
it, because the information we have it does say that there were
cuts, and so we want to see that because we're concerned about
the impact that those cuts would have, specifically on
processing passports and visas.
So once we get that we can reconcile that and move forward.
The second thing I wanted to talk about also were some of
the cuts that were made to personnel in Syria. Now, Syria has
been an area that's been very fragile and we're starting to see
some--an uptick or some hope in Syria.
Reducing the number of the regional experts working on
Syria at the same time as the State Department is working on
reopening its embassy in Damascus is not just counterintuitive
but it also seems like a step backward. It puts American
citizens directly in harm's way across the Middle East.
I recently returned from a CODEL with Chairman Lawler in
which the issue was raised directly. What steps are you taking
actually to protect and make sure that we have adequate amount
of personnel in Syria but also to support so we can make sure
Syria does not regress?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that very
good question. I'm thrilled to be able to have been part of the
initial discussions about the changes that took place as a
result of President Trump's trip to the Middle East a little
more than a month ago.
It was during that time that he was able to--the President
himself was able to meet with the president of Syria and as a
result of that, quite frankly, everything in the Middle East
has changed.
We are looking forward to giving the Syrian people and the
Syrian government an opportunity to an economic and diplomatic
opportunity to deal with the rest of the world. In this seat as
Under Secretary of Management, I worked hand in glove with our
Operations Center Task Force, which was put in place to make
sure that we looked at all of----
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Because my time is running out--
--
Mr. Cunningham. Please.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick [continuing]. we want to know
about implementation and the proper number of personnel to
carry out that implementation. So with those cuts we want to
know how you're going to fill in. Do they have the accurate
expertise to make sure that we're successful in Syria?
Mr. Cunningham. I have very good news for you,
Congresswoman.
I do work very, very closely with our Ambassador to Turkey.
His name is Tom Barrack. He is also the special envoy to Syria
and he's already made a couple of trips to Damascus to meet
with the president of Syria.
All of the--many of the functions that are required to get
the proper security in place and get the right team in place in
order for him to make that trip successful and to raise the
flag above our embassy there--our Ambassador's residence there
on May 29th--fall under the purview of the Management Bureau.
And I was thrilled to be a part of that. We are looking
every single day--every time he wants to take a trip to the
region we work hand in glove with the----
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So as my time is running out,
could we receive from your office specific details of what
steps were taken so we can be able to make sure that we're on
an upward course and not a downward trajectory by having the
proper amount of personnel?
Mr. Cunningham. I'm happy, Congresswoman, to work with you
on that, yes.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. [Presiding.] Mr. Cunningham, I just want to
followup on one thing.
In today's threat environment cybersecurity and
counterintelligence must be fully integrated into all levels of
State Department operations with functions spread across
various bureaus and families.
Coordination and clarity are critical. How is the Bureau of
Management overseeing counterintelligence and cyber security
functions department wide?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Chairman, for that question.
In today's multipolar world where we are facing challenges
that are so unique to the 21st century, obviously, defending
against cyberattacks is a very important function of the
Management Bureau.
We have identified and responded to two very specific
nation State cyber-attacks recently, and we're doing everything
we can to ensure that our records retention and records review
of anything related to WhatsApp and Signal are part and parcel
of what we do.
We also have done something through this reorganization,
sir, to make sure that all of the--in fact, I think it was
seven or eight bureaus in the department had their own IT shops
and so we have consolidated that under our chief information
officer and we'll get the economies of scale that we need out
of that operation.
Mr. Lawler. Furthering up on this, what steps are being
taken to embed counter intelligence awareness and training into
the daily operations of overseas missions?
Mr. Cunningham. That's a very important question, sir.
There are a number of trainings that take place. In fact,
we're reimagining the kind of training that is necessary.
Earlier I think one of your colleagues mentioned the Foreign
Service Institute.
We're making sure that we have the right kind of training
and skill sets in place that will address any counter terrorist
issues before they head off and go overseas.
In fact, I'm--I think next week I'm going through a 2-day
training just to make sure that I understand what that training
entails and make sure that it also matches our goals in the
America First foreign policy agenda.
Mr. Lawler. I appreciate that. I thank the witness for his
valuable testimony as well as the members for their questions.
I thank the ranking member as well.
The members of the subcommittee may have some additional
questions for the witness and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing.
Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
record subject to the length limitations.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]