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

                         FY26 STATE DEPARTMENT POSTURE:
                           MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                  BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 July 15, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-28

                                   __________

            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
    63-758 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

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

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

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Michael Rigas, Deputy Secretary of State for
      Management and Resources, U.S. Department of State.............     5
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    64
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    65
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    66

                            Material for the Record

    Material for the record submitted by Rep. Bera...................    67
    Materials for the record 1 & 2 submitted by Rep. Dean............    71
    Material for the record submitted by Rep. Meeks..................    78
    Material for the record submitted by Rep. Olszewski..............    84

                            Questions for the Record

    Questions submitted to Rigas fro Rep. Castro.....................    95
    Questions submitted to Rigas from Rep. Kamlager-Dove.............   113
    Questions submitted to Rigas from Rep. Mast......................   125
    Questions submitted to Rigas from Rep. Meeks.....................   126
    Questions submitted to Rigas from Rep. Titus.....................   209

            FY26 STATE DEPARTMENT POSTURE: MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 15, 2025

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

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room
    2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Mast (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Mast. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
    to order. If you would all rise, and join me in 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. The purpose of this hearing today is to
    examine the progress made regarding the reorganization of the
    Department of State, the role that the Deputy Secretary of
    State for Management and Resources is playing in ensuring
    effective management of resources and operations within the
    Department, and the role of this position relative to the Under
    Secretary for Foreign Assistance and the Under Secretary for
    Management. I am now going to recognize myself for an opening
    statement.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST

        I think it has been very clear that Secretary Rubio is
    leading a sweeping overhaul to give us a State Department that
    is efficient and accountable, which is something that it has
    not been. A State Department where every single dollar that
    goes through that agency, it puts the United States of America
    first above all else.
        Foreign aid is not benevolence and it is not charity; it is
    a soft power that gives America a chance to get what it is that
    we need because of some mutual benefit that exists out there
    between two nations. It is not an opportunity to push radical
    liberal ideas on countries that would otherwise want to be our
    allies. As chairman of this Committee I have called out this
    madness for a number of years.
        Foreign aid programs with zero benefit to America, or even
    to the countries that they are supposedly helping. America in
    many cases would have been better off burning that money than
    spending it in the ways that it had previously. In the year
    2000 the State Department's budget was $9.5 billion dollars.
    Under Joe Biden, it was over 55 billion.
        And I don't think that we can say our foreign policy was
    $45 billion more effective in those years. This past Friday,
    1,300 State Department personnel were laid off. But guess what?
    Between 2007 and 2024, 23,000 new State Department employees
    had been added, more than the number of agents that Border
    Patrol is mandated to have by Congress.
        That to me is an astounding number. America did not get the
    return that it needed on that investment. I could give you a
    number of examples that we looked at in the Oversight
    Subcommittee, and on this Committee over the years, but I am
    going to give you just one right now. The disastrous withdraw
    from Afghanistan left 13 U.S. servicemembers dead at Abbey
    Gate.
        It left people literally hanging off the wings of military
    aircraft. Left an overrun embassy and billions of dollars, left
    behind along with millions of dollars of condoms left to the
    Taliban, those were real things. Many colleagues in here tried
    to defend that record. The same people who said Afghanistan was
    a glowing success, said that withdraw was perfect and flawless,
    and nothing could have been done better.
        The same people that said that are now begging us not to
    fix the broken machine that let that happen. That is not
    diplomacy, that is delusion. They will call President Trump's
    effort to eliminate 1,300 duplicative State Department roles
    self-sabotage and a gift to our adversaries.
        What they call self-sabotage, we call accountability for
    the real sabotage of those who led the Afghanistan withdraw,
    and the funding of transgender job fairs, and LGBTQ musicals,
    and DEI operas, and drag show tutorials. Our State Department
    should not be more concerned with promoting DEI and giving
    handouts to foreign NGO's than defending the interests of the
    American people.
        That is changing, under Secretary Rubio that is changing.
    This isn't disarmament, it is a strategic realignment. America
    needs a focused and mission driven State Department where every
    dollar, and every diplomat puts the United States of America
    first. A State Department that can answer, not only answer but
    actually takes the time to ask the question of what does
    America actually need from a country, or a region?
        What do we need from them? What does that country or region
    actually want from the United States of America? And does what
    we provide get us what we need, or does it not? Because if the
    State Department can't answer those questions, then it is not
    meeting the moment. We need a State Department that isn't
    afraid of removing career bureaucrats who think they are above
    oversight.
        Many of these so-called experts oversaw two decades of
    failure from botched regime change to a rising China and
    wasteful foreign aid. That is not expertise, that is inertia.
    Congress should not be using taxpayer money to fund permanent
    jobs programs for globalist insiders in my opinion. We should
    be funding a State Department that serves Americans.
        That means being able to explain why one dollar should go
    from a person's pocket to somebody who is in another country.
    Somebody who is not even an American, why should that take
    place? They better be able to explain that. If that rattles the
    career bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom, then good, they need to
    remember who it is exactly that they work for.
        Secretary Rubio is not hollowing out the State Department,
    he is rebuilding it to win, this is about fixing a broken
    system. Real reform makes the State Department stronger, not
    worker. Today's witness, Deputy Secretary Michael Rigas, is
    helping lead that charge. With a background in disciplined
    resource management, and a no nonsense approach to results, he
    is the right man to guide the next generation of State
    Department leadership.
        Mr. Rigas, thank you for being here. The American people
    are counting you to make sure that our diplomats serve one
    interest, and one interest only, the United States of America.
        And that, I am now going to recognize Ranking Member Meeks
    from New York for his opening statement.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS

        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary Rigas,
    I appreciate you are here to explain the Secretary's
    reorganization plans. This is a dark time for American
    diplomacy, President Trump continues to isolate the United
    States, alienate our allies, and create space for adversaries
    like Russia and China to fill the void. We face serious global
    challenges from Russia's war in Ukraine, and instability in the
    Middle East to great power competition with China.
        America's diplomats and development experts are our first
    line of defense. If we are serious about leading globally, we
    need a capable, strategic, and fully staffed diplomatic core.
    Instead, Mr. Secretary, you and Secretary Rubio are gutting the
    very institution we rely on to confront these threats. Just
    days ago you fired more than 1,300 State Department employees.
        Secretary Rubio claimed it was to put America first. But
    the people you dismissed, career public servants, many with
    decades of experience, working hard just as our folks in the
    military, believing in America, one soft power, one hard
    defense, but all patriots of the United States who have all put
    America first each and every day.
        They have served in war zones like Afghanistan and Iraq,
    responded to genocide in Burma, and helping bring Americans
    home during the COVID crisis. Let us be clear, you have created
    the largest brain drain in the State Department's modern
    history, occurring as China and others expand their global
    footprint, while we shrink ours. And you are doing it without a
    plan, proper consultation, or transparency.
        When this Committee asked for a rationale behind the
    State's 15 percent staffing cut, no one, no one could answer.
    Like so many of our oversight questions to your Department, we
    are still waiting. Your budget officials fell back on talking
    points about how the State Department's budget has doubled
    since 2000, ignoring inflation, the wars in Afghanistan and
    Iraq, and the Department's expanded mission, including
    implementing programs like PEPFAR, which has saved over 25
    million lives, and helped slow the spread of HIV and AIDS
    worldwide, even here at home.
        Meanwhile, the Defense Department's budget has almost
    tripled in that same 25-year timeframe. Both our soldiers are
    heroes, and our members of the State Department are heroes
    working for America every day. Yes, State's budget has grown to
    meet new challenges, but staffing hasn't kept pace. And if the
    Secretary really wants to shorten the clearance process, the
    Secretary can do that with a memo, not blind firings.
        Beyond the numbers, your disregard for congressional
    oversight is unacceptable. Since January we have sent dozens of
    letters asking about plans to reorganize the State Department,
    and unlawfully collapse USAID into State, rolled back mandated
    programs, diversity efforts, and closed offices supporting of
    Afghan allies. Guess what we have received? Almost nothing.
        The law requires consultation for a reason, and if the
    Secretary can't even stay to answer questions at the one
    hearing this Committee held with a State official, it is no
    surprise his staff follows suit. If you don't have answers to
    basic oversight questions, it would be wise to slow down and
    consider the consequences. The Secretary claimed this
    reorganization was a product of consultation with the
    workforce, that is false.
        Your colleague Andrew Veprek admitted it was designed by
    fewer than ten people. The Secretary also claimed his firing
    wouldn't affect overseas posts, also false. We have heard from
    diplomats who have already sent their families and belongings
    abroad, only to receive termination notices. Others assigned to
    serve at critical posts like Baghdad were fired weeks before
    starting language training, or deploying.
        You even fired officers traveling with the Secretary,
    people preparing his talking points for the very East Asia
    meetings he was tweeting about, that is not reform, that is
    chaos. You fired veterans serving at State without cause,
    without process, without dignity. One of those veterans said it
    best, and I quote ``These processes were not well thought out
    or executed. The personal aspect of this process was as botched
    as it could have been, and it was completely avoidable,''
    unquote.
        And you aren't just firing experts, you are gutting the
    programs they ran, programs that advanced America's interests,
    and protected American lives. What exactly is America First
    really all about? And let us not forget the $2.9 billion of so-
    called America First Opportunities Fund, a slush fund Secretary
    Rubio has proposed to spend on President Trump's whims with
    zero congressional oversight.
        House Republicans love to demand transparency, will they
    demand it now or rush to rubber stamp his latest power grab?
    So, Secretary Rigas, are you putting American diplomacy on a
    dangerous path? Step back from the brink, restore the dignity
    of American diplomats, and work with Congress on a smarter,
    strategic way forward. One that strengthens, not sabotages our
    global leadership.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks.
        I now recognize you, Deputy Secretary, for your opening
    statement.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL RIGAS, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
           MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Mr. Rigas. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Mast, Ranking
    Member Meeks, and esteemed members of the committee. Thank you
    for inviting me here today to speak about the President's
    Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for the Department of State
    totaling $28.5 billion. This figure is a decrease of $25.9
    billion, or 48 percent below the Fiscal Year 202025
    appropriations.
        As the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, it is
    my responsibility to ensure we are good stewards of the
    taxpayer dollars you provide the Department, and that they are
    spent in accordance with the goals of the President and the
    Secretary. Our budget reflects Secretary Rubio's department-
    wide reorganization, and the important work we are doing to
    make the State Department a more efficient and effective
    organization, better able to advance the core interests of the
    American people, and accountable to the American taxpayers.
        As Secretary Rubio has stated, we must reform and
    streamline the State Department so that it becomes an effective
    instrument of American foreign policy. When the Secretary
    announced the Department's reorganization plan on April 22d,
    the Department had over 1,500 office units in the United States
    alone. This is for an organization that implements foreign
    policy.
        Any foreign policy decision, statement, or action at the
    State Department must pass through more than a dozen or more
    separate offices for review and clearance before it even
    reaches a senior State Department official to approve a course
    of action. This time consuming and bureaucratic process is no
    way to run a department in the modern age, where we must move
    at the speed of relevance.
        The reorganization will merge, eliminate, consolidate, or
    streamline nearly 45 percent of the Department's domestic
    offices. Moving forward, every bureau and office will have a
    clear mission, and purpose. We want to empower our Ambassadors
    and diplomats in the field, and our regional bureaus in
    Washington to push forward the President's America First
    foreign policy agenda, and deliver results for the American
    people.
        For too long single issue offices have mushroomed in number
    and influence, often distorting our foreign policy objectives
    to serve their specific interests, slowing down the
    Department's ability to function. This reorganization includes
    a new approach to foreign assistance. As of July 1st USAID no
    longer implements foreign assistance. Secretary Rubio has
    ushered in a new era where the State Department takes the lead
    and utilizes foreign assistance as a core tool of strategic
    investment and engagement for the United States.
        The State Department will now directly administer foreign
    assistance and other functions in programs that align with the
    administration's policy priorities, as those are being
    transitioned to the State Department as well. This integration
    will better align our foreign aid with our foreign policy
    objectives, and will ensure that every taxpayer dollar spent is
    justified by its benefit to American national interests.
        Too often we have funneled billions of dollars in
    assistance projects that host governments did not even want,
    and that led to no tangible benefit to the American people. Too
    often we have tried to impose divisive ideologies on other
    countries, which have pushed away potential allies and partners
    into the hands of China, Russia, and others. Too often we have
    failed to leverage our generosity and good relations to bring
    home real achievements for the American people.
        The same American people who have bankrolled these programs
    for decades, which have not provided tangible benefits to their
    own communities. As the Secretary noted, the countries that
    benefit most from our generosity often fail to reciprocate that
    support. For example, Sub-Saharan African nations voted with
    the United States only 29 percent of the time in essential U.N.
    resolutions in 2023, despite receiving billions in assistance
    paid for by the American people.
        Going forward, the United States will remain the largest
    foreign aid donor in the world by a wide margin. China and
    Russia do not deliver the kind of lifesaving assistance that
    the American people have provided for decades, and there is no
    sign this will change, but our focus will be on trade, not aid,
    and we will always advance the interests of the United States.
        We will put the United States and the American people first
    in all aspects of our foreign policy, and we will continue to
    build and cultivate positive, constructive relationships with
    the governments and people of the world. Congress and American
    taxpayers expect us to deliver results for the American people,
    and I look forward to working with Secretary Rubio and this
    Committee to deliver those results.
        As I have said before, I know that every dollar we spend,
    and every program we fund comes from the labor of a taxpaying
    American family. Our goal is to have a State Department that is
    accountable to the American people, and effective in unleashing
    the potential of the world's most talented diplomatic
    workforce. Thank you for having me here today, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rigas follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mast. Thank you for your opening statement,
    Secretary.
        I am going to begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes of
    questioning, and then we will alternate between each side as we
    go down the line. I want to start with this, it is my
    understanding that there was a goal of 15 percent reduction in
    force, and that we are either close to meeting that, or have
    met that goal already. So, just beginning with that, what are
    the workforce modernization priorities that you want to focus
    on now at this point if we are getting close to that metric?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, thank you for that question, Chairman
    Mast. The priorities of the reorganization were to consolidate
    offices that had similar, duplicative, or overlapping
    functions, eliminate offices and bureaus whose functions were
    no longer relevant, or were not aligned with the
    administration's policy priorities, and to focus the work of
    the Department on making sure that everything we did was for
    the benefit of making America stronger, safer, and more
    prosperous.
        And the 15 percent number that you referenced came from our
    initial assessment after consulting with the under secretaries
    at the Department, which at the time were all, I think with the
    exception of one, they are all still career officers of the
    Department who are serving as senior bureau officials, where we
    asked them what do you need to operate, what does a successful
    Department organization look like to you?
        And they came back and provided us what they proposed for
    org charts for the Department that they thought ought to be
    functioning going forward.
        Chairman Mast. Very good, I appreciate that. And I think it
    is important that you work on focus. You mentioned in your
    comments just right now, Sub-Saharan Africa, and I think I can
    put a fine point on something you were saying. You were saying
    a lot of these Sub-Saharan African countries were not
    supporting the United States of America despite the support
    they were getting from us.
        A fine point I would put on that, these were some of the
    biggest recipients of PEPFAR, and they were giving the United
    States of America the least amount of support. And if our
    diplomats aren't paying attention to that, then again, they are
    not meeting the moment. They are just being delusional about
    what is supposed to be a soft power and not really being
    effective as a soft power.
        I want to switch gears to something else, and I want to
    talk about both your role, and the other deputy role. We have
    two deputy secretaries at the Department of State, it is a
    unique structure, and it brings me to a question about chain of
    command. And I have kind of thought about it in my mind, when
    one of my kids asks me something, and they don't like the
    answer, and then they go to my wife and ask her the same thing
    hoping for a different answer, and I worry sometimes that can
    take place within the Department.
        So, in us looking for effective ways to consolidate
    financial management, I am of the mind that we should consider
    a chief financial officer for the State Department, and I would
    like to know your opinions about that, giving them full
    statutory authority, and everything that they would need in
    that role, one deputy, one chief financial officer. I would
    love to know your opinions about that as a structure.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. The
    State Department is one of the CFO Act agencies, so it does
    have a statutory, Presidentially appointed, senate confirmed
    chief financial officer position. That position hasn't been
    filled in a number of years, the duties have been performed by
    an acting CFO, who has generally been the deputy, and the head
    of the CGFS Bureau.
        I think it would be prudent to consider nominating someone
    for that role. I think having--the DMR role serves as providing
    sort of a strategic oversight for the Department in terms of
    how we ought to be engaging our resources, and how we ought to
    be managing the Department, and the CFO is--and the deputies
    are more of sort of an action officer to execute and carry out
    those functions.
        So, I do think there is a role for the DMR, CFO
    relationship where one is setting the strategy, and the other
    one is executing on it.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, I appreciate that opinion. I
    think I have time for one more question, and you having time to
    answer it. I want to switch gears one more time to again, a
    totally different subject than one we were just covering in the
    previous two. President Trump implemented on April 9th an
    executive order reforming defense weapon sales, and I would
    just love for you to talk a little bit about the progress that
    is being made on reforming defense weapon sales.
        Obviously it is an important issue for this Committee, for
    both the ranking member and myself, it is something that we
    deal with probably on a daily basis, so I would love to hear
    what is going on with that.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. That
    is a role I have recently been designated as the point person
    to take care of that function at the Department, and work
    closely with my counterpart at the Department of Defense. I
    understand that process just takes too long, both the foreign
    direct military sales, and the commercial sales, and that is
    something I am definitely going to be looking into, and working
    with my counterparts at Defense to find opportunities to
    streamline that process and make it more effective.
        I think the President's push to have our NATO friends and
    allies contribute 5 percent of their GDP to NATO defense
    spending is going to be a big impetus to streamlining this
    process as well.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, my time is expired.
        I am now going to recognize Ranking Member Meeks for his 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, let me just ask you a
    quick question, what do you think of the people that work for
    the State Department, the women and men, are they good
    Americans?
        Mr. Rigas. Absolutely, sir, this is the third Presidential
    administration I have served in, and each time I have had the
    privilege of working with some of the most talented and
    dedicated patriots who want to serve this country. It is never
    easy to down size an organization, or eliminate offices or
    bureaus, but we had to put the mission first.
        Mr. Meeks. And they make sacrifices for this country,
    right?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, I think everyone----
        Mr. Meeks. They don't carry weapons, but like the men and
    women of our military, they love this country. They come from
    the Democrats, the Republicans, they come from all parts, and
    they basically took this job, making great sacrifices, even
    with their families, is that not correct?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, it is, sir.
        Mr. Meeks. And so these are individuals who, and I know
    when Secretary Rubio was Senator Rubio we had conversations,
    and he would always talk about them in a manner of them doing
    their job, and dedicated to do their jobs, not that they were
    not meeting the moment, they were meeting the moment, they were
    doing what was there, would you agree with that?
        Mr. Rigas. Certainly.
        Mr. Meeks. Okay. So, now let me ask this, because when
    Secretary Rubio was here, he said--well, he was in Malaysia I
    believe, that he was proud of the Department's reorganization.
    On how it was conducted, he said quote ``I would argue probably
    in the most deliberative way of anyone that has done one.''
    Now, to me that is a bold statement, and so I would hope that
    you would have something.
        So, let me just ask you, yes or no, did you develop a
    detailed national security strategy to define what objective
    the reorganization should achieve?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you, sir. My understanding is the national
    security strategy is developed by the National Security
    Council.
        Mr. Meeks. But you didn't do anything at the State, because
    State Department does a number of things that puts our national
    defense--they help us with that strategy. So, at the State
    Department was there anything, any strategy that defined what
    the objectives of the reorganization should achieve, so that we
    know we are moving forward? Was there, did you do that?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I mean the Secretary articulated that on
    his first day on the job.
        Mr. Meeks. If you did, then it should be something in
    writing, can you get us something to this Committee to provide,
    to show us what the national security strategy was?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, I think the Secretary provided extreme
    clarity on that when----
        Mr. Meeks. So, I want to see the document that you
    utilized. So, if you have one, please submit that to the
    Committee. The Committee has oversight responsibility, I would
    love to see what the strategic strategy was, and how you did
    these firings. Did you conduct a written analysis looking at
    the costs and the benefits of your proposed changes?
        Mr. Rigas. Sir, I can tell you the thoughtful analysis that
    was----
        Mr. Meeks. It is yes or no, was there an analysis done?
        Mr. Rigas. Certainly, I mean the individuals who provided--
    --
        Mr. Meeks. So, do you have the analysis, sir?
        Mr. Rigas. Who provided us their input, it was based on
    their years of experience.
        Mr. Meeks. Do you have an analysis so that we can know what
    was that analysis looking at the costs and the benefits of the
    proposed changes? If anyone is doing any work, and you are
    doing something that is really comprehensive, there is an
    analysis done, you are going to do this, this is the cost, this
    is why we are doing it. Do you have that in writing, sir?
        Mr. Rigas. I don't know if we have it in writing, but I
    certainly know that analysis was done on the----
        Mr. Meeks. If you have it, it should be in writing, and I
    would love to see a copy of it, so that we can have it. If not,
    then I don't know. Let me say this, did you conduct a staff
    survey of the Civil Service, Foreign Service, and local
    nationals who work with us overseas in our embassies
        Mr. Rigas. We did have a portal where we received 650
    comments from employees at the Department of State, and every
    single one of those comments were reviewed and considered, and,
    in fact, some of those comments resulted in changes to the
    reorganization----
        Mr. Meeks. Were those comments in writing?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Meeks. Okay, could you supply that to the Committee
    also, please?
        Mr. Rigas. I don't see why not, sure.
        Mr. Meeks. Now, in my opening statement I said that one of
    your colleagues boasted in a briefing, this is what I was--to
    the Committee, that the reorganization was developed actually
    not by talking to everybody, but by fewer than ten people, that
    is what he said to us. Fewer than ten people, not going around
    and talking to everyone in that regard, is that correct? Was
    his statement correct?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, I think there are what, six under
    secretaries, so if you count the six people who are the most
    senior, and most responsible for the various organizational
    families at the Department, that would be a minimum, and if you
    add four more people to that, I am not sure how many--all of
    the bureaus, you task the six under secretaries----
        Mr. Meeks. I am out of time, I just want to submit this for
    the record, Mr. Chairman. I have a State Department document of
    frequently asked questions from May that I would like to enter
    into the record. It says quote ``The present assignment of
    Foreign Service employees is not a factor for RIFs.''
        Chairman Mast. So ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the appendix:]
        Mr. Meeks. With that I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes the representative
    from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    convening this hearing, and Deputy Secretary Rigas, thank you
    for your testimony, and your leadership. A couple of questions,
    Secretary Rubio gave a very interesting turn of phrase when he
    said global spanning NGO's are part of the industrial complex
    at taxpayers' expense.
        I think that no matter what the organization is, you have
    got to make sure that the groups that we fund, that taxpayers
    subsidize are doing the job, and they are doing it efficiently,
    effectively, and inside the parameters of what the mandates
    are. So, I thought his comment, which I read on the State
    Department's website, was excellent. Let me ask you a question.
        You talked about in your testimony about the 1,500 office
    units in the U.S. for an organization that implements foreign
    policy. I am not sure totally what that means, but I know when
    I wrote a law back in the year 2004 on micro credit lending, we
    were trying to help the poorest of the poor, those making less
    than a dollar a day, and we had a great bill, totally
    bipartisan with my colleagues.
        And all of a sudden K Street weighed in, and they wanted
    their cut, and I was outraged by it when we got it over to the
    Senate, we lost. They had to get their piece of it at the
    expense, in my humble opinion, of the poorest of the poor. And
    I am not sure if that is what you are talking about, but are
    these people, maybe they mean well, but some of the NGO leaders
    get unbelievably large salaries, three and four times what any
    Member of Congress might make.
        And I wonder about that kind of subsidization for them, so
    maybe you want to speak to that. And as part of modernizing the
    Department, what steps are being taken to monitor U.S. foreign
    assistance to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse? If you could speak
    to that as well. And one last thing, for 4 years I tried
    desperately to get information out of the U.S. Department of
    State, and especially USAID about moneys that were flowing not
    only to PEPFAR, but elsewhere.
        What are we doing, who are we subsidizing, how much are
    they getting, and especially what are their sub-grantees
    getting? It was like pulling teeth, I would get these
    spreadsheets that weren't worth the paper they were printed on.
    Then I would ask as part of those data requests, what are they
    doing with it? Okay, you just gave 3 million to a sub-grantee,
    what are they doing with it?
        Crickets, could not get it. So, I thank you that you are
    trying, and I thank Secretary Rubio for really getting to some
    transparency. I couldn't get it, I met with Samantha Power,
    went over and met with her in her office, and a very nice
    person, but I wouldn't get the information. How do you do
    oversight? And our subcommittee was tasked with that oversight,
    and we couldn't get it.
        I have paper trails of all this stuff that doesn't mean
    anything, frankly, because I don't know what that means. It is
    like saying here is the scores of yesterday's game, eight to
    four, three to two. Who are they? We had no idea, and what they
    were actually buying with U.S. taxpayer funds. So, the
    transparency issue is to me, so extremely important. I know you
    are focused on that.
        And finally, just let me ask you if I could, the deputy
    secretary of management resources advises the Secretary on the
    Department's participation in the National Economic Council,
    and interagency economic policy matters. Is that not the role
    for the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs or the
    Department's Chief Economist?
        Mr. Rigas. So, thank you for that question, Congressman.
    With respect to foreign aid, yes, we have gone through, and I
    have got a whole list in front of me, and this has been
    articulated, I think previously, with respect to how money from
    USAID was being spent on all kinds of things that were
    completely unjustifiable. What we have proposed in the Fiscal
    Year 202026 budget is the America First Opportunity Fund.
        I know that got some criticism from the ranking member on
    that, but I think what that proposes to do is to ensure
    democratic accountability on how those funds are being spent.
    You see the President every day in front of the cameras taking
    questions from the media in the oval office, in cabinet
    meetings, when he is about to get on his plan, when he gets off
    his plane.
        He is completely accessible, the Secretary is as well, and
    if anyone wants to ask a question about how foreign assistance
    money is being spent, or how dollars from that fund are being
    spent to advance America's interests, they have an opportunity
    every single day to do that. By contrast, how these funds were
    spent at USAID, nobody knows who to ask why those moneys were
    spent, or who made the decision to spend money on a million
    dollars for voter ID in Haiti.
        There is page after page I have of examples like that. With
    respect to your question on the role of the deputy secretary
    for management and resources, this position provides a source
    for strategic oversight of the management and resources of how
    the Department conducts its affairs with oversight primarily of
    the M Bureau and of the F Bureau, but really Department wide.
        These other bureaus and officers are the action officers
    for those, taking care that that strategy is effectively
    delivered down the chain of command, and what they do every
    day.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would like to deal
    with a couple of your comments. You point out that 13 brave
    American soldiers died in Afghanistan under the Biden
    administration, I will point out 65 died under the first Trump
    administration. And Trump could have signed the unconditional
    surrender that he signed in 2020 in 2017. Instead, he kept us
    there, accomplished nothing for our country.
        Provided billions of dollars in weapons to Afghanistan with
    no plan to recapture them, and, most importantly, freed 5,000
    bloodthirsty terrorists, and then blames Biden when he leaves
    him with an Afghanistan that has thousands of American
    soldiers, and 5,000 recently released bloodthirsty terrorists,
    that the bloodthirsty terrorists try to kill the Americans.
        But what also concerns me, I represent the Pacific
    Palisades, Trump came to our district and said my constituents
    should sleep outdoors with no aid until our Governor changes
    his policy. And I thought that was the most outrageous thing I
    had heard until I hear that people of Africa should die of AIDS
    until their government changes how they vote in the United
    Nations.
        We just had a big brouhaha on the floor where they couldn't
    pass a rule, huge deal here in Congress, and it was about the
    Epstein files. Mr. Secretary, would it harm American foreign
    policy if we released the Epstein files? Assuming of course we
    redact the names of the victims.
        Mr. Rigas. Sir, I have no idea.
        Mr. Sherman. So, you have no reason to think that it would
    harm our foreign policy. Kari Lake was here talking about our
    broadcasting, and I pointed out that some 354 million people
    listen every week, or did until you shut it down. And she said,
    and I will quote, ``Those are government numbers, and I don't
    trust those numbers.'' Can we trust the listenership numbers
    issued by the State Department?
        Mr. Rigas. I am not sure what numbers you are referring to,
    sir.
        Mr. Sherman. Those are the numbers of people listening
    every week to Voice of America and its sisters.
        Mr. Rigas. Well, sir----
        Mr. Sherman. Issued by the State Department.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I am not familiar with that statement, or--
    --
        Mr. Sherman. Well, I will point out that not only were
    those numbers released under the Biden administration, but very
    similar numbers were released under the Trump administration.
    So, Kari Lake was sitting there saying we couldn't trust Trump
    administration government numbers. Can we trust Trump
    administration government numbers?
        Mr. Rigas. Sir, I would have to look at the numbers----
        Mr. Sherman. You are the management guy.
        Mr. Rigas. Right, I would have to look at what numbers you
    are referring to, I haven't had an opportunity to----
        Mr. Sherman. Officially released government--Okay.
    Secretary Rubio sat right there and told us no one had died as
    a result of the cuts to our foreign aid. Does the State
    Department stand by that conclusion? No one has died?
        Mr. Rigas. I would stand by Secretary Rubio's statement,
    sir, yes.
        Mr. Sherman. Okay, well we have behind me, the first to
    die, the first child to die, because you cutoff his AIDS
    medicine. But we are going to have 3.3 million people die as a
    result, and not only do we have that, we have the effect that
    cutting off aid does to migration, but also to diseases that
    affect us here in the United States. Because most of those 3.3
    million people are going to die because of tuberculosis,
    malaria, and AIDS.
        And every time someone in another country contracts one of
    those diseases, it is a chance for that disease to replicate,
    mutate, and migrate back here. So, we are going to have a lot
    of deaths in America, not only the 3.3 million deaths there.
    Now, you recently--I think it was today that 500 metric tons of
    emergency food reached its expiration date and is set to be
    burned.
        Was there a reason why food that was acquired even before
    the beginning of this administration now has to be burned
    because you didn't send it to starving people in Sudan and
    elsewhere?
        Mr. Rigas. Sir, I am not familiar with that particular
    story, but my understanding is it is the policy of the
    Government to not distribute expired food, or medicine.
        Mr. Sherman. Isn't it a huge management catastrophe to have
    food sit there in the warehouse for five and 6 months waiting
    for its expiration date, and never ship it overseas to starving
    people, isn't that a huge management problem?
        Mr. Rigas. I would have to look at what the issue is
    obviously, I don't know how long that food was there, or when
    it was due to expire.
        Mr. Sherman. Before Trump got there, and now you are going
    to burn it. It is hard to say that that is good management.
        I will yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        Will now recognize Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Deputy Secretary
    Rigas, I certainly appreciate your commitment, the Secretary's
    commitment, and the President's commitment to always advance
    the interests of the United States as you look to reform the
    State Department, which is patriotic work, and honors
    hardworking taxpayers, as you said. You are cognizant that
    every dollar you spend, every program we fund comes from the
    labor of taxpaying American families.
        I can't tell you how many hard working Kentucky taxpayers
    ask me why on earth did we fund some of the programs that we
    saw coming out of the USAID. And it is not just waste, it is
    that these expenditures in many cases were counter-productive.
    They were outlays that were directly at odds with American
    interests. And so, I welcome your testimony that we are finally
    shining a light on the fact that countries that benefit from
    our generosity often fail to reciprocate that support.
        Citing Sub-Saharan African nations who vote only 29 percent
    of the time on U.N. resolutions with the United States, despite
    receiving billions in assistance paid for by the American
    people. Now, you have heard the criticism of these reforms, so
    I want to give you an opportunity to respond to the following
    that we all hear.
        Well, if we withdraw from the space, if we leave even in
    these difficult, lesser developed countries where yes, we do
    have diplomatic challenges, if we just leave then China will
    fill the void. That the Belt and Road, or our adversaries will
    fill the void. Mr. Deputy Secretary, does it advance U.S.
    interests to continue to throw good money after bad to
    countries that actually cozy up to our adversaries, and don't
    do what we want at the United Nations?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Congressman. No, it
    certainly does not advance America's national interests to do
    that. I think what we are trying to do is tie any foreign
    assistance to measurable outcomes that deliver for the American
    people, that make them safer, stronger, or more prosperous. A
    lot of the so-called aid that China has delivered to countries
    has really been predatory lending that has not been--that put
    countries into debt traps which they now regret.
        So, I think the aid that we have--the so called aid that
    has been delivered previously by the Government of the United
    States, of USAID, has been things that the governments did not
    want, did not need, and was often promoting divisive ideologies
    in those countries.
        Mr. Barr. And true or false, after the proposed budget is
    implemented, and the streamlining and reforms go into effect,
    the United States will remain the largest single foreign aid
    donor in the world by a wide margin?
        Mr. Rigas. By a wide margin, that is correct, sir.
        Mr. Barr. Let us take one example of USAID funding under
    the previous administration. Under the Biden administration
    USAID provided over a half a million dollars to empower
    Uganda's LGBT community to push back against their own
    government's policy. And another 5 and a half million grant to
    shift public perception and attitudes in Uganda, a very
    socially conservative place, toward LGBT acceptance, and train
    LGBT individuals on the skills needed to engage in the economy.
        As a result of that policy Uganda agreed to a deal with
    China to finance a 5 billion dollar oil pipeline. Was that
    foreign assistance to fight this country, Uganda, was that in
    the interest of American national security, to push that
    country toward China?
        Mr. Rigas. No, I think anything that the prior
    administration did to push countries into China's arms were
    certainly not in the interest of the United States.
        Mr. Barr. No. So, it is not just about honoring our
    taxpayers, it is about advancing American interests, and there
    may be differences of opinion here in Congress about a
    particular country's views on a particular social topic, but I
    think that the job of the State Department is to advance
    American interests.
        And that is why I am so grateful to you, the Secretary, the
    President for reimagining our foreign assistance programs, and
    prioritizing what is in the interests of this country, not
    other countries. I don't have any more time, but I just want to
    reiterate, this is the right thing to do, and I think American
    soft power will not only persist under this administration, but
    it will actually work under this administration.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Trump,
    after years of having very, what he termed pleasant and
    friendly conversation with his friend, a person he admired as a
    genius, President Putin, suddenly realized he was being played
    for a fool. And he indeed, his words, realizes that Putin has
    given him a whole lot of bullshit during that time, and that
    Russia was continuing to bomb innocent civilians, women and
    children in the process.
        And he changed his policy in that regard, and so I want to
    ask you this question. Why did you fire the entire team
    investigating war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine? Why
    were those people fired?
        Mr. Rigas. Sir, I believe that office was consolidated, and
    the work of that office will be conducted by the regional
    bureau, and by the staff at posts overseas.
        Mr. Keating. And all of this is fine, people were let go
    from there that were assisting. I worked with the prosecutor
    from Ukraine as they were training their own people to deal
    with these. Here is the kind of crimes they have been
    committing. They have been committing serial rapes of teenagers
    by Russian soldiers. They were targeting maternity wards of
    hospitals.
        They were targeting emergency responders coming to give
    medical care to these innocent people that were being attacked.
    They committed torture of the worst kind against innocent
    civilians in communities like Bucha. They also took 20,000
    children, abducted them from their families, who knows where
    they are now. These are the kind of crimes that they are
    committing.
        And accountability, I mean this administration I guess is
    talking a lot about accountability for teenagers undergoing
    sexual assault, but what about here? What about what happened
    here? Making cuts in that area right now is critical in terms
    of helping Putin use terror against civilians to continue this.
    I just can't see the priorities, however you call cutting,
    reorganization down, it is the same thing.
        You are taking a team that was there working for years
    helping accountability occur, that is so important after this
    war is finally over, to have this happen. Now, You have also
    consolidated, whatever terms you want to use, you have
    eliminated two offices in the Bureau of Counterterrorism and
    Violent Extremism. And this is at a time when at home you are
    saying these are the greatest threats we have.
        Whatever small increment of money there is that could have
    helped that, play it against the billions of dollars that are
    being used now by our government, last in this great bill that
    was just passed, I say it sarcastically, and the money that was
    spent there going around, taking people off the streets with no
    criminal background, no violence, but you don't have enough
    money to counter the violent extremism that is coming from
    other countries?
        I mean, no wall can stop some of that effect here as a
    threat. People work and aspire, people here to get involved,
    but your cutting in that area is so short sighted, you are
    really worried about protecting the American people as a whole
    against violent extremism all the way from ISIS to Al Qaeda.
    So, those the areas you are cutting, you are cutting in areas
    dealing with our NATO allies.
        Our greatest asset that not only Russia, but we have our
    greatest asset against China that they don't have, and you are
    cutting in those areas as well. So, you are looking at all
    these areas taking great pride in making these incremental
    cuts, and saying you are just reorganizing, when indeed you are
    cutting, and your rationale is we are making America safer.
        Well, you are not being good stewards, in your words, of
    Americans in terms of their safety. You are not being good
    stewards in terms of the threat from violent extremism. You are
    not being good stewards in terms of the threat to the American
    people with Russia. And indeed, you are not being good stewards
    with what is going to happen when China views the actions of
    the U.S. in this regard, and comes in, not only makes their
    influence greater, but makes their threat to the American
    people greater as well.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman yields back. I found the
    comments amazing, I wouldn't be sarcastic about cutting
    American's taxes, which is what the Big Beautiful Bill was,
    while being serious about sending their money abroad, that
    seems very misguided to me.
        I now recognize Representative Kim.
        Mr. Keating. Mr. Chair, since you said that, I wouldn't be
    so cavalier about putting $5 trillion of debt to pay for that
    for our children and grandchildren----
        Chairman Mast. This is a Government that spends way too
    much money, and I thank the Secretary for working to take care
    of that, especially with dollars being sent abroad to other
    places, foreign countries, foreign NGO's, foreign terrorist
    organizations. But if you want to be sarcastic about cutting
    the taxes of Americans to do those things, that to me seems
    cavalier.
        Mr. Keating. I will just let it rise other than to say
    the----
        Chairman Mast. I would let that go.
        Mr. Keating. Things I addressed in my remarks were about
    threats to Americans. I will let it go.
        Chairman Mast. Probably wise to let that go.
        Representative Kim is recognized.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank the Secretary
    for joining us today. On May 29th, 2025 this year, the
    Committee received notification of the Department's intent to
    reorganize its domestic operations and functions. As part of
    this reorganization, the Department is eliminating the Bureau
    of Energy Resources, or ENR, so I want to talk to you a little
    bit about that.
        And also in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee in May, Secretary Rubio stated energy is going to be
    at the forefront of foreign policy for the next 100 years, we
    just don't produce enough global energy to meet the AI demand.
    I wholeheartedly agree with that.
        So, if energy policy will be at the forefront of our
    foreign policy for the next 100 years, as Secretary Rubio
    projects, and we know energy diplomacy is essential to meet our
    future AI demands, can you talk to us why there is a need to
    eliminate the Bureau of Energy Resources?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    So, that bureau has been consolidated into the Under Secretary
    for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment. So, those
    functions continue to remain, our commitment to energy
    development and energy dominance are one of the central themes
    of the President's administration. There is just simply a
    consolidation of that bureau into the larger economic bureau.
        Ms. Kim. It wasn't a criticism or anything, as you know, I
    chaired the Subcommittee on the E Family, so we welcome the
    opportunity to work on that issue. And I just had my
    subcommittee hearing on breaking the choke point of China's
    dominance on critical minerals, rare earth elements. I mean,
    these are so important issues, so I look forward to that
    opportunity, and hopefully I can work with you and your office
    in meeting those demands.
        But in 1980, moving on, the Foreign Commercial Service was
    pulled out of the Department of Commerce to--that was
    transferred to Commerce to elevate the importance of commercial
    diplomacy. But looking at the last few decades, the opposite
    has occurred in my view. The move divorced commercial diplomacy
    from our foreign policy.
        And limited the ability, or our ability to help American
    businesses access the foreign markets, and protect them from
    predatory practices. Our focus should be helping our American
    businesses, especially abroad, especially in the region, in the
    Indo-Pacific, especially with the diplomatic tools in the
    toolkit, in the box that is available.
        So, as we are working to reauthorize the State Department,
    we are considering a proposal to bring the FCS back into the
    Department. So, would you support such a move?
        Mr. Rigas. I would be happy to work with the Committee on
    that proposal. I think our engagement with countries, I think
    the President has really led the way on that with his trip to
    Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE where he showed the importance
    of economic diplomacy. Obviously there are other equities,
    other departments that may have a say in that, but I would be
    happy to weigh in about the importance of that work.
        Ms. Kim. I hope you can weigh in strongly as you do, and
    consider our proposal. You will allow my team to work with
    yours, and then make that transfer back to State, I hope it is
    as seamless as possible. So, I hope you can commit to working
    with my team on that.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Ms. Kim. Okay, and in April there were reports that the
    Department was considering closing its consulate office in
    Busan, South Korea. South Korea, as you know, is a very
    critical ally of the United States, and they share our concerns
    about North Korean aggression, expanding the Chinese influence,
    and especially in the economic and military areas, and Russian
    influence in the Indo-Pacific, especially the north areas.
        So, what is the status of that proposed closure of the U.S.
    consulate office in Busan, or is there such a proposal, to
    actually eliminate that consulate office from Busan, South
    Korea?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question. So, I don't believe
    there is any proposal to close any facilities overseas. I do
    know that there was an analysis that was done earlier this
    year, which reviewed every post overseas, its costs, its
    benefits, what services it was providing, any revenue it was
    generating, consular services in particular generates a fair
    amount of revenue for the Department.
        Ms. Kim. Is there any other areas in the U.S. consulates in
    East Asia and the Pacific Region that is under consideration?
        Mr. Rigas. So, I don't think it is fair to frame it as any
    post being under consideration for closure. I think an analysis
    was done on--or sort of a data call was done, and asked people
    to assess different posts overseas. But as of now there are no
    plans to close any facilities.
        Ms. Kim. It looks like my time is up, thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Bear.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record the Atlantic article
    from yesterday that Mr. Sherman was referring to.
        Chairman Mast. So ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the appendix]
        Mr. Bera. In that article, and we will make sure you get a
    copy, Secretary Rigas, it talks about 500 tons of emergency
    aid, high-energy biscuits that are going to get incinerated.
    Now, I come from the private sector, we spent $800,000 on
    shipping that aid over, and it was stored in warehouses in the
    Middle East. We are going to spend another $130,000 to
    incinerate those biscuits that have been sitting there.
        That to me does not seem like a good financial investment,
    since those were already sunk costs, we should have gotten that
    food to save lives of kids. We have not met before, I don't
    know you, so I will take you as an honest public servant. I
    appreciate that you described the folks that worked for the
    State Department, for USAID as talented and patriotic
    Americans, they are talented and patriotic Americans.
        I have traveled across this world, gone into refugee camps,
    gone into conflict zones in Africa, and Asia, and elsewhere,
    and you see these men and women, these diplomats, these civil
    servants out there doing their work every day, and I think it
    is reprehensible how they have been treated. Again, I am not
    arguing if you want to do a reorganization, if you want to go
    through section by section, program by program.
        But how these folks have been treated, in terms of being
    laid off 1 day, saying hey, come back the next day, being laid
    off the next day, you are going to lose a ton of talent, these
    folks that are at the peak of their career. And when we try to
    rebuild these organizations, even as they are streamlined,
    these folks are not coming back because of how poorly they have
    been treated, and that is extremely unfortunate.
        And to folks that are watching out there, I am sorry that
    you were treated that way. You guys are, as the Secretary said,
    talented and patriotic Americans. I appreciate that this
    country has changed now. I am a doctor by training, part of
    what led me into public service was growing up in the 1970's
    and 1980's, and seeing what we did when we saw commercials of
    babies in Africa starving to death, swollen bellies, flies on
    their eyes.
        We didn't just sit around, we are a faith based country, I
    appreciate that the chairman has us recite the pledge of
    allegiance, one nation under God. This is not what a faith
    based country does. I talk to faith based aid organizations all
    the time, we are a benevolent country of abundance. Our values
    are saying those folks that are dying out there, even if their
    governments don't agree with us, even if their governments
    don't vote for us, we don't want to see kids die.
        Is that who we are? Are we going to change who we are as a
    country? That isn't what I believe, the America that I believe
    in. I think this is a great nation, the United States of
    America, I think we are a nation that has been blessed. And I
    think we have a responsibility to lead the rest of the world
    based on our values.
        I understand, I have heard my colleagues on the other side,
    and in your opening testimony you said well, this is no longer
    about being out there benevolent and saving lives, this is
    about trade, not aid. I hope that is not who we have become as
    a country, I hope we are not now saying Okay, well we will go
    out and save those kids' lives, but you know what, here is what
    you have got to do in return for that.
        Again, that is not the America that I believe in, we
    designed a system that both supported American farmers,
    supported our economy, saved lives, put food out there, put
    medicines out there. Mr. Sherman is correct, millions of people
    are going to die around the world because we are not there,
    because of the vacuum. Secretary, do you know what percentage
    of the United States budget goes to foreign aid? Is it more or
    less than 5 percent?
        Mr. Rigas. It is certainly less than 5 percent, sir.
        Mr. Bera. Is it less than 2 percent?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I believe it is less than 1 percent of the
    total foreign budget. I think----
        Mr. Bera. It is less than 1 percent of our budget. So, if
    we spend less than 1 percent of our budget but we actually do
    good work around the world, we save lives, I have been to
    refugee camps where I see that American flag, and it says from
    the people of the United States. I have gone into villages post
    the Ebola crisis where they greet us, and they are cheering us,
    and they are saying thank you to the people of the United
    States, you saved our lives.
        That is what we do, that is what this is about, that is who
    we are blessed to be as the United States of America. I don't
    want to be China, I don't want to be Russia, the way they
    operate is purely transactional, and they don't do it for the
    betterment of the world. The world that we have created post-
    World War II, the United States of America, we damn well better
    be proud of it, and I am extremely disappointed at what is
    happening under this administration.
        It is going to leave us weaker, and less benevolent, and
    more transactional.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Mr. Bera. I think you speak true
    to your heart, we have traveled together, we have been
    together, I think it is always an important thing as we look at
    the budget, and I think we can all acknowledge it is less than
    1 percent, but it is still a borrowed 1 percent that we are
    dealing with. It is a 1-percent that we have to go out there
    and ask somebody else for money for.
        And just reflecting personally, most of us don't go out
    there and ask our local banks for a loan so that we can give
    that loan away. And it is something that we have to wrestle
    with as Americans as we deal with our budget, and I appreciate
    your thoughts on the issue.
        Mr. Rigas. I will just make one comment, I completely agree
    with your comments, Congressman. The lifesaving humanitarian
    assistance has been exempted from the Secretary's foreign
    assistance review, so that aid would continue to flow. I think
    we are looking at all these other examples that are not this
    lifesaving kind of humanitarian assistance.
        And even to the extent that we are providing that aid,
    there has to be some kind of graduation strategy so that 1
    year, 3 years, 5 years down the road these countries are able
    to assume that obligation themselves for their populations.
        Mr. Bera. Don't incinerate food aid that is out there, the
    aid that is in warehouses, et cetera, deliver that aid to folks
    before it spoils. Yes, it is going to cost a little bit to sign
    those contracts and so forth, but let us not--those are sunk
    costs, get that food to folks, and let us save those lives.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Kean.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Deputy
    Secretary Rigas for being here today. As we evaluate the work
    that is being done at the U.S. State Department, it is vital
    that America's global health programs continue to prioritize
    American innovation. I look forward to hearing how the State
    Department is continuing to implement U.S. global health
    priorities that protect all Americans.
        The State Department has an integral role to play in
    implementing global health programs like PEPFAR. Can you
    provide an update on the status of PEPFAR transition planning
    to partner country ownership?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, thank you for that question, Congressman.
    About 85 percent of the funds for PEPFAR for direct care is
    what we requested in the budget. The 15 percent that was not
    requested are for countries that we assess have the ability to
    execute those programs on their own. There is an overall 54
    percent cut for administrative non-direct care funds for
    PEPFAR.
        But again, as I mentioned, the 15 percent reduction
    represents our philosophy that as countries are able to
    administer these programs themselves, they should be taking on
    that responsibility.
        Mr. Kean. When will effective transition planning for
    partner country ownership for PEPFAR begin to move forward? And
    if conducted on a country by country basis, what countries do
    you plan to assess first?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I
    think that is I would have to refer that question to the bureau
    administering the program to get their assessment on which
    countries are sort of further up the chain when it comes to
    their ability to administer the program. But we would certainly
    start there with those who are most able to carry out delivery
    of the aid.
        Mr. Kean. And America's innovative companies have long been
    a cornerstone of America's global health efforts, could you
    share how programs like PEPFAR and Gavi can utilize American
    products to ensure effective solutions to global health
    problems?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, I mean we are leading the world when it
    comes to innovation in pharmaceuticals and lifesaving
    treatments, not just for Americans, for people all over the
    world. When it comes to PEPFAR, I think that has been a great
    example of how aid has been delivered. But the second letter in
    PEPFAR, the E stands for emergency, and this was an emergency
    program implemented over 20 years ago.
        And I think we need to ask ourselves how long can a program
    be an emergency, and when can we sort of move to a graduation
    strategy where countries can begin to take this responsibility
    on themselves, and move into a more normal kind of environment?
        Mr. Kean. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes Representative Olszewski.
        Mr. Olszewski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
    you, Deputy Secretary Rigas, for your time, and for your
    service. I did hear in your confirmation hearing that your
    father spent over 25 years as a public school teacher.
        Mr. Rigas. That is right.
        Mr. Olszewski. Please thank him for his service as a former
    public school teacher myself.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you, I will.
        Mr. Olszewski. Colleagues, as we know, the administration
    claimed to shut down USAID, and while we can sit here and
    debate whether or not the process was legal, we can debate
    whether it was warranted, what we don't want to do is debate
    facts. So, a few weeks ago Secretary Rubio wrote a eulogy of
    sorts for USAID, unfortunately it was a lie filled mess.
        So, I wanted to ask you, Mr. Rigas, as the chief operating
    officer of the State Department, I want to get your feedback on
    a few of the statements in that document. The first claim from
    Secretary Rubio was that quote ``USAID had a near infinite
    taxpayer budget.'' Is that a statement that you agree with, and
    support?
        Mr. Rigas. I think when you look at the spending that was
    taken, that the USAID department undertook, it is hard to
    justify how a lot of those dollars were spent unless people
    felt that there were no more important uses for those dollars
    than some of the frankly very wasteful spending that was done.
        Mr. Olszewski. Okay, and I think as a member of this
    Committee, I would more than welcome the opportunity to talk
    about how we could best spend those resources, but for me it is
    just interesting that he would say that considering back in
    2017 he said quote foreign aid as a part of the overall
    budget--I know this just came up with the ranking member--is
    less than 1 percent of the total amount.
        I think you guys just talked about that, and agreed, and
    anyone who tells you that we can slash foreign aid and it will
    bring us to balance is lying to you. So, it might be a small
    number, we might disagree on how it is spent, but it certainly
    doesn't sound like near infinite to me.
        The second claim that Secretary Rubio made was that quote
    ``USAID marketed its programs as charity rather than
    instruments of American foreign policy intended to advance our
    national interests.'' Is that something you would support in
    terms of a statement about USAID?
        Mr. Rigas. I think if you look at sort of the mindset--how
    else could you describe the mindset that would inform some of
    the spending that was done, that was not lifesaving
    humanitarian aid, but was kind of all of this social
    engineering spending that was not advancing American interests,
    and even the host countries themselves were not asking for it.
        Someone described it to me as sort of a reverse robbery,
    where we hold a gun to their head and tell them to take our
    money. That is not a way to sort of conduct foreign assistance,
    I don't think.
        Mr. Olszewski. Okay, I appreciate that. Again,
    contradicting himself, Secretary Rubio's past remarks was that
    foreign aid is not charity, and it is quote ``critical to our
    national security.'' Not a one off statement. He has also said
    that we give foreign aid because it is a quote ``cost effective
    way to further our national interests.'' And I just want to
    share in light of the deep cuts that are being proposed, I
    don't think there is a way to continue advancing those national
    interests again, even if we disagree about any specific
    program.
        Another claim from Secretary Rubio was that quote ``USAID
    had little to show since the end of the cold war.'' Is that a
    statement that you would agree with in terms of his assertions?
        Mr. Rigas. I think I would. I mean, I would like to know
    what American national interests that made America safer,
    stronger, or more prosperous could be tied to spending that was
    done by USAID.
        Mr. Olszewski. Okay, well again, I appreciate your
    response, but that claim is news to me. And Mr. Chairman, I
    would like to introduce for the record an article, and a study
    from Lancet that shows from 2011, which was after the cold war,
    until 2021, USAID supported efforts to have helped prevent more
    than 91 million deaths, including 30 million deaths among
    children.
        In 2000, more than one in four people lived in extreme
    poverty. Today, that number is fewer than one in ten, and
    again, that is thanks in large part to USAID led economic
    development programs. So, I would argue that is not little to
    show, that is actually quite a bit. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Mast. So ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the appendix]
        Mr. Rigas. The Secretary did exempt the humanitarian and
    lifesaving assistance from his foreign aid review, so that kind
    of assistance I think would continue, but I think we would want
    to see some kind of graduation strategy.
        Mr. Olszewski. Again, I think it just would be hard to
    graduate when we are absolutely gutting all of that, including
    those economic development programs, which has as I understand
    it, very little congressional oversight, it is one big lump sum
    with little oversight. So, as I have said countless times on
    this Committee, I am all for reform, I am willing to work with
    anyone to make sure our taxpayer dollars are used effectively.
        But as we think about the future of foreign assistance, we
    want to make sure that we are telling the truth about what is
    happening to the American people, and being real about what the
    numbers represent, and what that might limit us in being able
    to do. So again, I thank you for your time today.
        And Mr. Chairman, my time is up, so I will yield back to
    you, thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you.
        The chair now recognizes Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary, for being here with us today. The State Department
    has over 1,500 domestic offices in the United States, all for a
    department that has Benjamin Franklin on the wall up there, was
    meant for foreign policy. Can you elaborate on your plans to
    merge, eliminate, consolidate these offices?
        Mr. Rigas. So, thank you for that question, Congressman.
    So, the reorganization which we just sort of began to execute
    on Friday, will eliminate 100 offices, merge another hundred or
    so offices, so that the key functions that we want to continue
    will continue under a combined office. We do have a number, in
    Federal buildings all over the country you have got folks who
    are processing, or taking applications for passports, and what
    not.
        But it does seem that we do have probably more offices than
    we need for a foreign policy department in the United States.
        Mr. Self. And could you comment, and I will leave it an
    open question, on your plans to downsize your workforce? How is
    that going to be accomplished? To what end?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, so what we just did, we did the most
    complicated reduction in force that the Federal Government has
    ever seen, and we did that in consultation with the Office of
    Personnel Management. I believe we had over 173 competitive
    areas. And what a competitive area is, is an office that
    performs a function, and what we were able to do is when you
    are combining two offices, it is personnel agnostic.
        So, individuals who lost their jobs were not--there was no
    individual who was targeted, we asked the under secretaries to
    say what are the functions that you need to carry out the
    mission here? And what positions do you need to do that? And
    once those positions are identified, you then take all the
    employees who are in that competitive area, and you basically
    compete them against one another based on their seniority,
    their tenure, their skills.
        And those with the highest ranking scores are the ones who
    are retained, and those with the lowest ranking scores are the
    ones that do not make--once you have reached the complement or
    whatever, there is 50 people that you need in an office, or 20,
    the top 20 remain, and the remainder do not.
        So, even though there were certainly people who were
    qualified, and great patriots who separated from service, what
    you can take comfort in knowing is that the people who remained
    actually were selected using merit systems principles to
    actually have ranked as higher quality in terms of tenure, in
    terms of experience, in terms of skills to be able to carry out
    the mission.
        Mr. Self. So, I think I just heard the description of a
    meritocracy?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Self. Along those lines though, budget and planning
    actually coordinates with the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance
    Resources in developing policy plans, programs to achieve our
    goals. But we have heard that decisionmaking is slowed down due
    to budget functions being spread across the M Family, which
    includes budget planning, and the Office of Foreign Assistance.
    Can you describe how you are going to streamline those offices
    together to meet your goals?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes. So, that is an excellent point, and that is
    actually one of the key objectives of the reorganization, is
    taking all of these management support offices, which were
    spread out among the under secretary, that is an even further
    down among all of the bureaus and offices within each other
    under secretary family, and moving them up into one sort of EX
    bureau within each of the under secretariats, and then moving
    most of those management functions over to, shockingly, the
    management bureau of the Department.
        So, they are the one place where most of these functions
    will be executed. So, you won't have redundant offices
    throughout the Department executing on the same mission.
        Mr. Self. Very good. And in the last minute that I have,
    can you talk about examples of feedback you got from the
    workforce during your draw down planning?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, thank you. We got over 650 comments from
    the workforce, and these were really very thoughtful comments,
    which showed the experience that the workforce had, both among
    the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, and the care that
    they took, and the thought that they put into how things ought
    to work based on their experience.
        Describing pain points that they had in their work, how it
    was difficult to execute on the mission, where they thought we
    could improve, and all of those comments were reviewed,
    considered, and a number of them were implemented, or used to
    revise what the initial reorganization plan was.
        Mr. Self. Very good, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Dean.
        Ms. Dean. I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member,
    and I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Since his
    return to office in January President Trump has chosen to bully
    our foreign partner rather than to negotiate. This
    administration has claimed their policies will bring safety,
    security, and prosperity to America, but all I have seen thus
    far is weakened relationships with our allies, and emboldened
    adversaries.
        Friday's termination of 1,300 State Department employees, I
    would risk to say heroes, patriots, decades of experience and
    specialized technical expertise, will only make us worse off.
    Combined, they have hundreds of years of experience, expertise,
    sacrifice, and work, and they got a note on Friday, you are
    done. Secretary Rubio has repeatedly said addressing the threat
    to China is our national security interest.
        Yet the same day he was in Southeast Asia lauding the
    cooperation that will come from future engagements, the entire
    team that prepared him for his trip were fired. Offices that
    were responsible for ensuring arms control and non-
    proliferation of weapons by our adversaries, gutted. As we
    struggle with drug smuggling at our borders, and deaths in our
    communities, the Department fired those who were working to
    interdict drugs at foreign borders before they would get to our
    own.
        Those were fired were essential to our national security,
    they were selfless public servants who swore an oath to uphold
    the Constitution. I so regret the action that your Department
    took. They negotiated key agreements for our global stability,
    they ensured threats do not reach our borders, they sacrificed
    their own safety and time with their families, all in service
    to us, the United States of America.
        I believe the administration has actively betrayed them,
    and we in turn have lost experts who were quietly and
    faithfully keeping us safe. Secretary Rigas, how is any of this
    improving the safety and security for America?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for the question, Congressman. With
    respect to the office that prepared the Secretary for his trip
    overseas, so none of the country offices were affected, none of
    the foreign----
        Ms. Dean. People who prepped him were terminated. Thank
    you. That doesn't make us safer. Thank you.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, there was----
        Ms. Dean. That is such a non-sequitur, that does not make
    us safer, you fired 1,300 people, the very team who prepped him
    as he was in Asia. I want to followup on what the ranking
    member said in his line of questions, and I look forward to you
    sharing the six hundred respondents. Where did that survey go,
    to whom did it go, and to whom did it go back? Six-hundred
    respondents, who sent it out, and who got it?
        Mr. Rigas. It was a department-wide email distribution
    asking all employees, Foreign Service, Civil Service for
    their----
        Ms. Dean. So, how many people received that email,
    everybody?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, that is my understanding.
        Ms. Dean. Every single person, it is your understanding, I
    have spoken to people, they didn't receive it. It is your
    understanding it went to everybody, who sent it out, did you
    send it?
        Mr. Rigas. I did not send it, it was sent out by staff.
        Ms. Dean. Sent out by staff?
        Mr. Rigas. It was a global distribution list, so I would be
    curious as to someone saying they didn't get that email.
        Ms. Dean. Okay. We look forward to seeing exactly the
    distribution list and who wrote back, because I have a wonder,
    I bet they didn't write and say I think you need to can 1,300
    people on Friday. Let us talk, and shift to Gaza Humanitarian
    Foundation, the newly formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Do
    you agree that the American people deserve to know where their
    taxpayer dollars are being spent, and for what policy
    objectives they are being used?
        Mr. Rigas. Certainly.
        Ms. Dean. Do you know that all foreign assistance programs
    are required to conduct risk assessments for funding they will
    administer?
        Mr. Rigas. That sounds right to me.
        Ms. Dean. It is true. Never the less, it has been reported
    that the State Department waived nine mandatory
    counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards to rush the 30
    million dollar award in simply 5 days for this startup, Gaza
    Humanitarian Foundation, sound like the right way to go about
    that?
        Mr. Rigas. I am not familiar with this particular
    situation, but I would be happy to look into it.
        Ms. Dean. You are familiar with the famine, the deprivation
    in Gaza, the fact that other programs are there, like Ms. Cindy
    McCain World Food Program that have been working faithfully
    there for a very long time, not to mention UNRWA. Five days, 30
    million dollar grant, and they waved through nine mandatory
    counterterrorism reviews. Do you think that is efficient and
    effective?
        Mr. Rigas. I would have to look at that particular
    situation, my only----
        Ms. Dean. I would think you would want to, it is within
    your purview, it is $30 million.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I would have to----
        Ms. Dean. Let me move on.
        Mr. Rigas. Sure.
        Ms. Dean. This organization has been rejected by
    humanitarian and human rights organizations, it is proving to
    be a death trap for Gazans. Do you know that, and I want to ask
    as I end here, I recognize my time is up, Mr. Chairman, nearly
    900 Gazans have been shot and killed desperately seeking food
    in some of these aid areas, thousands----
        Mr. Huizenga [presiding]. The chair will remind members
    that you are more than welcome to put a question in writing
    through the chair, and that it will be submitted.
        Ms. Dean. And I will seek more questions. I seek unanimous
    consent to enter onto the record, may I tell you what I have?
        Mr. Huizenga. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Huizenga. An article?
        Ms. Dean. Two articles. Gaza, 875 People Confirmed Dead
    Trying to Source Food in Recent Weeks.
        Mr. Huizenga. So ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the appendix]
        Ms. Dean. And then a Reuters article, Former DOGE Employees
    Rushed Grant to Trump Backed Gaza Aid Group over Staff
    Objections.
        Mr. Huizenga. So ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the appendix]
        Ms. Dean. Thank you.
        Mr. Huizenga. With that, the gentlelady's time is expired.
        With that, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mackenzie
    is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Mackenzie. Mr. Deputy Secretary, thank you for being
    here today, and I would like to start by thanking you for all
    the tremendous work that you are doing at the Department. I
    will just speak for myself and our office, the constituent
    services that have been provided are exceptional. We have
    contacted your office and the Department a number of times to
    help with particular passport and immigration related issues,
    and just can't thank you enough for again, the incredible work.
        Regardless of any changes or anything you have made, the
    impact that I can say for my constituents and our office is
    exceptional. So, really, tremendous job that you and the
    Department are doing there. We have heard great things about
    the online renewal process for passports. The one area, and it
    is not necessarily a new issue, it is some that seems has been
    going on for years, is a small category relating to P-2 visas
    for internationally recognized entertainers.
        We have a number of cultural events in our local community,
    things from Music Fest to the Ukrainian Homestead Festival,
    where these international entertainers want to come into our
    community for just short periods of time, do their work,
    provide great entertainment, cultural experiences for those in
    our community, but unfortunately they have been many times
    getting hung up, and then ultimately missing the one event that
    they are looking to be able to possibly attend, or perform at.
        So, just want to talk to you about what you might be able
    to do to help us speed up, and improve that process for P-2
    visas.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Congressman, I
    would be happy to look into any specific issue you have with
    that visa, or any particular case. But if there are issues with
    that visa, I am happy to take that on board.
        Ms. Mackenzie. I appreciate that, and again, this is the
    type of action that we have seen out of the trump
    administration the entire time that you have been there, is
    your willingness to tackle these issues, and the staffing, and
    funding that you are looking for I think is the right sized
    approach for putting American priorities first around the
    world, but also making sure that our constituents back home are
    getting the services they need.
        So, I want to thank you again for all the work that you and
    the Trump administration are doing, and look forward to
    continuing to work with you. We will followup with you after
    the hearing. Thank you again.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you, Congressman.
        Ms. Mackenzie. I yield back.
        Mr. Huizenga. The gentleman yields back.
        With that, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you so much, Chairman, thank
    you so much for your time, and coming out today. To start this
    series of questions I would like to ask you, could you please
    furnish for us the definition of woke, what does woke mean?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, sir, I think in popular parlance a lot of
    people have a lot of different definitions for that word.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Your definition please?
        Mr. Rigas. I don't know that I have a definition.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Do you find something
    particularly offensive about diversity, equity, and inclusion,
    do you think it should be illegal?
        Mr. Rigas. I think how it has been applied, sir, seems to
    have been in violation of American civil rights law, and----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay, well that is incorrect, but
    let me get on to my other questioning. This administration has
    made no secret of its hostility toward diversity, equity, and
    inclusion programs, shutting them down not just at the State
    Department, but across the Federal Government. That is your
    prerogative, as you know, even if many of us believe as a co-
    equal branch of government, we believe that it undermines our
    national security, and weakens our diplomatic core.
        But let us talk about the implications of your obsession
    with diversity, equity, and inclusion over diplomacy. As you
    well know, Foreign and Civil Service officers rotate
    assignments. A career official could have landed in a job
    focused on increasing recruitment that was required by law, and
    retention of a diverse workforce through a standard assignment
    in a general cycle, which is hardly a political assignment.
        In fact, working to ensure that the Department's workforce
    reflects the America it represents sounds very patriotic to me.
    It is an asset that the United States has. I want to ask you,
    before this massive firing took place, what safeguards were in
    place to protect career officers from being targeted for
    removal simply because they served in a portfolio this
    administration now deems politically undesirable?
        Mr. Rigas. So, the functions of the offices and bureaus
    that were eliminated, some offices were eliminated, some
    offices were combined that were duplicative, and----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. But what was the criteria?
        Mr. Rigas. Had overlapping functions. If they were not sort
    of a core foreign policy mission of the United States, that is,
    I think one of the No. 1 criteria. Or if it was an office that
    no longer was relevant in----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. All right, well let me go forward,
    if you don't mind, in the interest of time that we have,
    because I was getting a bit of word salad, and couldn't figure
    out what you were saying. I know you to be an upstanding and
    law abiding citizen, Section 5403 of the 2022 NDAA strengthens
    recruitment of under-represented groups, mandating outreach to
    universities, employee affinity groups, and expanding paid
    student internships among other actions.
        But now under Secretary Rubio's leadership, which is
    substantially different than Senator Rubio's leadership,
    employee affinity groups are not allowed to meet, outreached
    efforts are paused, and critical recruitment programs like the
    Payne Fellowship have now been terminated. When you talk about
    replacing diversity, equity, inclusion, has anyone been removed
    from the Franklin Fellowship program in the State Department?
        Mr. Rigas. I am not familiar with the membership of the
    different programs at the Department, and who is in them, and
    who is not.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay, well they have not, I hope
    you will look into that next time. Can you tell us more about
    the Franklin Fellowship program, or why that program is being
    protected and preserved, isn't that a specialty interest group?
        Mr. Rigas. Sir, I could get back to you with information on
    that, my understanding is these affinity groups are sort of
    employee generated, and not----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I am being very specific about
    Franklin, the one group that has expanded during this time
    period.
        Mr. Rigas. My understanding is that is an affinity group
    that is founded by employees, and whose membership is managed
    by those employees themselves, it is not an official State
    Department organization. It is my understanding, I might be
    wrong, but I don't think it is----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Yes, your understanding is
    incorrect at this point, I hope you would refresh yourself on
    that. Section 504 of that bill requires the Secretary of State
    to reward and advance officials that promote diversity and
    inclusion. But under Secretary Rubio the Secretary has
    abolished the performance evaluation criteria, do you agree
    with that?
        Mr. Rigas. That was feedback we also got from a number of
    career Foreign Service Officers, that they felt that their
    language skills, their Foreign Service skills were not being
    adequately considered for promotion, and that----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. So, I would ask you, why are you
    not carrying out the law? It is real simple, I have got a very
    basic line, to follow the law, this is the law. Will you
    respect the law?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, absolutely, sir. If you want to let me
    know which particular law you think is not being faithfully
    executed, I would be happy to look into that.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. 5404.
        Mr. Rigas. I would be happy to look into that, sir.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, sir.
        I yield back at this time, thank you for coming out.
        Mr. Huizenga. The gentleman yields back.
        With that, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Shreve is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shreve. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Deputy
    Secretary Rigas. A couple points of feedback, your department
    did an extraordinary job for my office on behalf of a
    constituent in Columbus, Indiana, over the weekend in getting a
    visa. Had a constituent whose wife had a heart attack, young
    wife over in Kenya, and he hustled to get over there, and in
    the middle of the weekend the Department turned around a visa,
    she was in flight to Orly, or to De Gaulle, to get on to Kenya.
        So, I think constituents very much appreciate that
    continued level of service on behalf of the Department. I think
    your stated focus on trade over aid sells with the constituents
    that I represent in the 6th District of Indiana, and so I
    appreciate that. You noted in your opening comments that you
    had completed the folding of USAID into State just 15 days ago.
        But of course you have got decades of legislative
    directives and instructions, authorized assistance programs,
    that you have got to work with as part of the foreign
    assistance program, public laws. This must, I would think,
    materially impede your desired use of U.S. foreign assistance.
    If you agree with that, if you had your way, how would you
    reorient, restructure U.S. foreign assistance if you were
    untethered?
        Mr. Rigas. So, I think what the Secretary has articulated,
    and the President himself, is that foreign assistance should be
    tied to an American foreign policy objective, or Presidential
    foreign policy priority. And that we should be able to--there
    should be some kind of return on investment, whether it is
    going to make America safer, or if it is going to make America
    stronger, or it is going to make America more prosperous.
        I just spoke at the foreign assistance class at the Foreign
    Service Institute about 2 weeks ago, which was actually based
    on some of the feedback we got from Congress when we were
    briefing on the reorganization, they thought we ought to do
    more training on that, so I went out and spoke to the first
    class. And I got a question about should we be--could we
    provide foreign assistance for job development, or job
    training.
        And my response would be the way you could justify
    something like that is if we want to make a trade deal with a
    country, and they are concerned that this trade deal is going
    to negatively impact the population of that country, you say
    hey, if we can spend a million dollars on job training, where
    it is going to generate 10 million, or $100 million in net
    economic benefit to the United States, then to me that is a
    good return on investment.
        You say that is we spend a million, but we got 100 million
    back for American businesses, where we created jobs here in the
    United States. So, that is the kind of investment opportunity
    we want to make. We want to help countries help us, or if it
    comes to remigration, helping countries that want to be a safe
    third country for folks, or want to take back folks who have
    come illegally to the United States, but don't have the
    capacity, we can help them potentially do that as well.
        So, they are relieving a potential economic burden that
    might be coming from folks who are on U.S. assistance, and
    helping them return back safely to a safe country.
        Mr. Shreve. I appreciate that, I appreciate your service,
    and that of so many people that you work with. I know that
    those cuts had to be painful, but you are not spending your own
    money, and so I appreciate the work that you have undertaken,
    and are playing through. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast [presiding]. The representative yields back.
        With that, Representative McBride is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. McBride. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
    Mr. Deputy Secretary for joining us today, for your testimony,
    and for your patience as we go through the list. As we have
    talked about throughout the course of this hearing, over 1,300
    State Department employees were removed from their jobs last
    week. I am curious if you are aware that these layoffs reduced
    the staff at the office to monitor and combat trafficking in
    persons by 71 percent?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Ms. McBride. Okay, have we seen a 71 percent reduction in
    human trafficking globally?
        Mr. Rigas. My understanding is the responsibility of most
    of the folks who were reduced were actually writing reports.
    They were not actually engaging in the field as Foreign Service
    Officers.
        Ms. McBride. Is there not a role for individuals, employees
    of the State Department to be able to monitor, and understand
    the full scope of the human trafficking crisis?
        Mr. Rigas. Certainly, yes, that function continues to
    remain, and we do have people continuing to write reports, but
    there was just an excessive number of folks who were writing
    reports.
        Ms. McBride. So, 71 percent of this office was useless?
        Mr. Rigas. I would say there was a number of redundant
    functions. I would be happy to give you a list of the positions
    that were eliminated.
        Ms. McBride. I would appreciate that, I would appreciate a
    list. Because I do think it is--it boggles the mind, and defies
    belief that 71 percent of this Department was so dispensable
    amidst a global crisis of human trafficking. I am not surprised
    that the MAGA base is now questioning this administration's
    commitment to human trafficking globally and domestically.
        But I want to move on to talk about waste and corruption.
    While claiming to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, DOGE itself
    has estimated that shuttering USAID will cost taxpayers more
    than $6 billion, and millions of dollars' worth of humanitarian
    aid which the U.S. has already paid for and it is wasting away
    in warehouses across the world.
        This administration has destroyed the world's premiere
    international development agency because the DOGE bros didn't
    understand how to read a spreadsheet. This administration has
    also paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    while foreign interests spend millions at the President's
    resorts. I simply fail to see how these actions make Americans
    safer, stronger, or more prosperous.
        And I want to focus in on this topic of waste, fraud, and
    abuse. Mr. Deputy Secretary, are you aware of the America First
    Opportunity Fund that has been talked about?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Ms. McBride. Okay, what is this account actually going to
    fund?
        Mr. Rigas. So, this will be the premiere foreign assistance
    fund for the Department, which will be at the direction of the
    Secretary. And it will provide for foreign assistance that will
    make America safer, and stronger, and more prosperous, and will
    provide for democratic accountability in how those funds are
    being spent.
        So we don't have the situation where we had all these
    examples of foreign assistance spending that kind of shocked
    the conscience of ordinary Americans about how their taxpayer
    dollars were being spent overseas for purposes that didn't
    advance our national interests, or were being spent on things
    that even the host country did not want.
        Ms. McBride. Can you tell us what controls, if any, will be
    put in place to ensure that this fund cannot be used for
    personal or political benefits of anyone in this
    administration?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, I think there are numerous controls in
    place, you have public accountability, No. 1, you have
    congressional oversight, you have got inspectors general who
    can review all of these spendings.
        Ms. McBride. Congressional oversight, I don't think we are
    seeing much actual congressional oversight by the majority
    right now in this Congress of this administration, so I am
    skeptical that this slush fund will have any kind of
    appropriate oversight, and I am deeply worried about the effect
    of us sending $2.9 billion to the administration for a slush
    fund that has pretty limited oversight, and limited controls,
    or guardrails.
        Mr. Rigas. I would also add you have public oversight as
    well. I mean, as you know, the President is before the cameras
    almost every single day, at cabinet meetings, at the White
    House, getting on the plane, getting off the plane he is taking
    questions. Any enterprising reporter can ask him about how this
    money is being spent.
        Ms. McBride. You are right, he does talk a lot on TV right
    now, I did see him recently try to defend not releasing the
    Epstein files. But with that I will yield back.
        Mr. Rigas. The representative yields back.
        With that, the representative from Indiana, Mr. Baird is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate you
    being here, Mr. Secretary. And I guess my question focuses on
    the fact that your duties as the deputy secretary of management
    and resources, you oversee modernization and operational
    efficiency. In that vein I want to make sure that the--and we
    talk about soft diplomacy, and I am interested in agriculture.
        So, the commodities that end up going to some of these
    countries, I want to be sure that they actually reach those
    people that it was intended for. American farmers, and
    ranchers, and we as a country as well are a giving people, but
    we also want to make sure that it gets to those that we intend
    it go to. So, in that vein, I guess since your confirmation
    back in May, could you highlight--I want to give you the
    opportunity to highlight some of the inefficient areas that you
    have found.
        And what processes you are using, or decisions you are
    using to improve those efficiencies, and make sure that we are
    being effective for the kinds of programs that we are operating
    here.
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, thank you for that question, Congressman.
    So, we have conducted an extensive review of the organization
    at the Department led by the under secretaries at the
    Department, who at this point were all career Foreign Service
    Officers, career civil servants who have been at the Department
    for years, and have tremendous experience and knowledge about
    how things work.
        And how they don't work, and have experienced the
    Department on a bipartisan basis, through Republican
    administrations and Democrat administrations, and told us what
    they thought worked, where there were duplications, where there
    were offices that were not really performing well, how we could
    do a better job advancing America's foreign policy interests,
    and the President's foreign policy priorities.
        We looked at all of the management functions in the
    Department, and consolidated those mostly into the management
    bureau. But many of the bureaus and offices had their own
    management functions that did human resources functions, and
    accounting functions, and those were all consolidated into a
    single executive management office within the bureaus to allow
    for economies of scale, and to allow for efficiencies.
        So, we have done a lot of work to create these efficiencies
    across the Department, and looking at how we do foreign
    assistance, there was a huge foreign assistance review that was
    done at the Department before I arrived that looked at how we
    were spending money. And that has been the result, what has
    resulted from that is the Fiscal Year 202026 budget request,
    where we have the America First Opportunity Fund, to create
    better accountability for how those moneys are spent.
        And to ensure that they are spent to advance the
    Secretary's priorities, and to ensure the President's foreign
    policy is faithfully implemented.
        Ms. Baird. So, continuing in that vein, I had a chance to
    go to Africa a couple times, and one of the concerns that I saw
    there was nefarious groups, or gangs, or thugs in some ways,
    because those commodities end up being fungible, just like
    money, if you have got it, you have got control. Can you give
    me, or us some insight into how you think we are improving
    monitoring where those commodities are going?
        Mr. Rigas. So, I think for lifesaving humanitarian aid and
    foreign assistance, those programs were exempted from the
    foreign assistance review. But this is the kind of thing that
    as we take a closer look at how we do foreign assistance,
    making sure that we have partners on the ground who are able to
    ensure that our foreign assistance is able to be delivered
    securely, and that it is safeguarded from these kind of
    malevolent actions, and that other aid that is delivered is
    tied directly to a foreign policy priority that the President
    has.
        But if you have got sort of particular scenarios, or
    examples in individual countries that you want us to look at,
    happy to look at that, and make sure that to the extent those
    kinds of activities were happening, or our aid was subject to
    inappropriate use, that we could take corrective action on
    that.
        Ms. Baird. And I thank you for mentioning again, you
    mentioned it earlier, but the fact that those humanitarian
    efforts are exempted from what we are talking about. So, with
    that, I have got about 17 seconds left, and that is enough to
    just say thank you for what you do.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Huizenga. The gentleman yields back.
        With that, Representative Titus from Nevada is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I would like to pick back
    up with something Ms. Kim was saying earlier about the closing
    of consulates. Earlier this year the Department, your
    Department sent a preliminary notification to Congress that it
    was going to move to close dozens of consulates and embassies,
    and they are around the world, they range from Luxembourg, to
    the Maldives, from Durban, South Africa, to Busan, South Korea,
    I mean they are everywhere.
        And one that I was especially concerned about was in
    Europe, and that is Thessaloniki, the plans to close the
    consulate there in Thessaloniki, Greece. And I think this is at
    a time of real rising geopolitical instability, especially in
    that part of the world where Greece plays such a key role. The
    consulate there, especially, it is ensuring the potential of
    the base at Alexandroupoli and the port at Thessaloniki. It
    plays a role in the implementation of IMEC. It is helping
    people come to the Olympics.
        I just wonder, without the consulate, aren't the
    beneficiaries of our not being there going to be China and
    Russia? And given your experience and connections there, do you
    really think that is a good idea?
        Mr. Rigas. So, I don't think there has been any move to
    close the consulate in Thessaloniki. I do know a review was
    done of all of our overseas posts to assess their costs to the
    American taxpayer, to assess their benefits to the American
    taxpayer, to assess any revenue, as consulates can generate
    revenue through fees and visa applications. But my
    understanding is I don't think any decisions have been made
    regarding closure.
        But people may be drawing conclusions form that analysis if
    they are looking at a consulate that maybe is very high cost,
    or is in a remote area, or is not providing substantial
    benefit. But I would be happy to look at any particular
    concerns you have about individual consulates.
        Ms. Titus. Well, I appreciate that, because when the
    Secretary came to the Committee, I asked him about how we are
    going to process visas for people to come for upcoming Olympics
    and the World Cup if you are cutting these different
    consulates, because that is where a lot of people go. And he
    said, and I quote him, ``There is no proposal at this time to
    close embassies or consulates. There has been media reporting
    because people like to leak lies, but there has been no such
    proposal, and I think I would know.''
        Well, we are not hearing anymore specifics of what is
    happening with the study, is it going forward, are you going to
    consult with Congress, because that is the law before you close
    any of these overseas posts?
        Mr. Rigas. Certainly, I mean we have consulted on the
    reorganization that we have just begun to undertake, and my
    understanding is we provide briefings, I think eight briefings
    per day to the Congress on various activities that are
    happening at the Department, so I don't think this would be any
    different.
        Ms. Titus. All right, well if you can help me get that
    information, I would appreciate it. Because I think China is
    expanding its diplomatic footprint, while we are decreasing
    ours, and that seems to be not in our strategic interest.
    Another thing I would like to ask you about is what Ranking
    Member Meeks was talking about with the present assignment of
    Foreign Service employees not being a factor for RIFs.
        I think that was kind of the conclusion that he drew based
    on a circulated Department memo back from May. But we know that
    is not true because just last month without talking to Congress
    you all changed the Foreign Affairs Manual, and that is the
    document that sets out the procedure for RIFs, and that makes
    it easier to fire Foreign Service Officers.
        And when Committee staff repeatedly reached out to try to
    get details on the RIFs, they were told that the Department
    wouldn't provide such details in order to protect, I am
    quoting, ``the dignity of the workforce.'' So, I wonder if you
    will just explain to us what about the dignity of the workforce
    was protected when you just sent 1,300 employees home, and said
    ``thanks, but no thanks''?
        Mr. Rigas. Certainly, thank you. I mean, look, no one wants
    to be on the receiving end of a reduction in force notice. This
    happens all the time in the private sector. It happens--I think
    President Clinton, he reduced the Federal workforce by, I
    think, 370,000 employees. The Federal workforce was reduced by
    220,000 under President Obama.
        But we wanted to make sure that any employee was not
    finding out through media reports that they were going to be
    losing their job. We had a sacred responsibility to tell them
    individually, directly from the Department about their
    particular job situation, and that we didn't want them to get
    that notification from anyone else.
        Ms. Titus. But some of the reasons for why they were RIFed
    were just coincidence of being in the country, not anything
    that they had done, or the job wasn't needed, that seems to be
    pretty undignified, but thank you. And I guess my time is up.
        Mr. Huizenga. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        And I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr.
    Rigas, there has been a lot of speculation, and motivation
    projected onto you personally, the State Department, certainly
    the administration. Explain to us, what is the purpose of this
    fiscal and personnel realignment in your words?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Congressman. It is
    to align the mission of the Department with the core function,
    with what its original core function is, which is conducting
    the foreign policy and diplomacy of the U.S. Government.
        Mr. Huizenga. And are you saying that maybe we had gotten
    out of focus on some of that?
        Mr. Rigas. I think so, I think some of that started in the
    post-cold war environment where we didn't have that Soviet
    threat anymore, and so a lack of focus led to sort of an
    expansion of offices and issue specific areas that it was sort
    of a Department looking for a mission, looking for a function.
    I think we are now, I think it is pretty clear we are back in
    an era of great power competition.
        And I think that has focused the mind, and focused our
    intentions back to engaging in real diplomacy.
        Mr. Huizenga. Many of us up here questioned the role of
    USAID in pushing not aid, but philosophy, and actions onto a
    lot of countries. And I am assuming that this kind of reform is
    intended to enhance transparency, enhance efficiency, anything
    else it is trying to do?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, in centering the mission, empowering our
    diplomats, most of the work that has been consolidated, the
    offices that have been eliminated, have been to take those
    functions. The functions themselves haven't been eliminated, or
    at least the functions that we want to keep have not been
    eliminated, they have been moved----
        Mr. Huizenga. As you were pointing out with the office with
    trafficking.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, they have been moved to the regional
    bureaus, right? And to the posts overseas. So, our Ambassadors
    who are in those countries where say human trafficking is
    occurring, or the regional bureaus where it is a big problem,
    they are now the ones who are empowered, who know these
    countries best in order to best position the best possible
    position to take action.
        Mr. Huizenga. Is that why we put Ambassadors in place?
        Mr. Rigas. That is why we put Ambassadors in place. They
    have the title plenipotentiary because they are the chief
    ranking official in that country representing the President of
    the United States.
        Mr. Huizenga. Well, welcome to Washington, which always
    believes if ten is good, a hundred must be better, and frankly
    a thousand must be essential. So, I think we are seeing this
    disruption of this notion of just adding to budgets, and adding
    to FTEs, somehow that means a better product, or certainly that
    the interests of the United States are being brought about in a
    better manner around the world, and I mean that has clearly not
    been the case, correct?
        Mr. Rigas. That is correct, yes. And you see even some of
    the most successful and iconic American companies out there,
    Facebook, Microsoft, Google, they have laid off people, they do
    it all the time. And it is not because they don't have the
    money to pay for it, it is because those offices, or those
    functions aren't doing what they need to be doing, and they
    need to focus on their core mission.
        Mr. Huizenga. Not to mention $36 trillion in debt. So, I am
    going to move onm though. I am going to take on a personal
    issue, this has been a particular interest to me, that
    following the Biden administration's disastrous withdrawal from
    Afghanistan, the treatment of our Afghan allies. Again, these
    are Afghans who have risked their lives and their family's
    lives to serve alongside the U.S. Armed Force for years, thus
    saving countless American lives along the way.
        I know the chairman has had personal experience on this. I
    have said this on many occasions, that we must uphold that
    sacred commitment that we have made to them, and I believe
    these brave Afghanis who have undergone rigorous vetting
    processes that have been required, and properly so, are welcome
    into my neighborhood, and my State any time. Can you give me a
    quick update on the status of the U.S. Department of State's
    Office of Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, CARE?
        Mr. Rigas. So, yes. So, we are continuing to process those
    requests for folks who want to get SIV visas, I believe we have
    $500 million from the prior year that we deemed sufficient to
    continue operating that effort going forward into Fiscal Year
    202026. We have admitted, I think 1,200 folks under that
    program since the beginning of the administration.
        And the functions of the CARE Office have moved to the
    regional South Central Asia desk. Again, this is part of how we
    are empowering the regional bureaus, and the Ambassadors to
    take care of the diplomatic work in their countries, and in
    their regions, the people who are best positioned to know those
    areas best. So, that work is continuing.
        Mr. Huizenga. My time has expired.
        With that, Representative Jacobs from California is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary
    Rigas, thanks for being here. I want to start with the Global
    Fragility Act, as you know, a bipartisan landmark law that
    passed in 2019. This law was designed to implement many of the
    lessons from years of costly and unsuccessful U.S.
    stabilization efforts in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Somalia.
    And it was designed to make foreign assistance more strategic
    and effective.
        Something I know the Secretary has said he cares about,
    Congress remains very committed to this law. I just recently
    introduced a GFA Reauthorization Bill with Chair Emeritus
    McCaul, and the House National Security Appropriations Bill
    just appropriated money for GFA implementation. Secretary Rubio
    also recently promised Senator Coons in an appropriations
    hearing that GFA would still be implemented at the Department.
        However, the RIFs announced last week closed the office,
    the Conflict and Stabilization Bureau, and fired the staff that
    have implemented GFA since its passage. So, Deputy Secretary
    Rigas, how does the Department intend to implement the Global
    Fragility Act if you just fired all of the relevant staff with
    the institutional knowledge and expertise to do this
    effectively?
        Mr. Rigas. So, thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    The functions of that office are going to be carried out at the
    regional bureau level. And this is something the Secretary has
    talked about is empowering both our Ambassadors and the
    regional bureaus who are charged with doing the diplomacy,
    rather than sort of specific functional offices.
        So, we are focusing the functional offices, and empowering
    the regional offices to be able to carry out those diplomatic
    functions.
        Ms. Jacobs. Sure. There are about 20 people who were
    previously dedicated to GFA implementation, who were carrying
    out important coordinating, monitoring, evaluation, and
    learning, and planning functions. Exactly how will that be
    replaced?
        Mr. Rigas. So, those functions are going to be done at the
    regional bureau. So, each of the regional bureaus will take
    responsibility for those functions to ensure--and they are
    taking responsibility for foreign assistance in their regions,
    and the Ambassadors are going to have responsibility for that--
    --
        Ms. Jacobs. I understand. But why didn't you move over
    anyone with any actual experience with GFA to the regional
    bureaus if that was your intent instead of firing them?
        Mr. Rigas. So, the folks, I mean the folks who are in those
    offices are also working contemporaneously with people in the
    regional bureaus. So, I don't think it is correct to say people
    in the regional bureaus or at posts don't understand how to
    carry out foreign assistance in accordance with the Global
    Fragility Act. So, I am very confident they are going to be
    able to do that going forward.
        Ms. Jacobs. Deputy Secretary Rigas, you and I both know
    that Foreign Service Officers and civil servants in the
    regional bureaus are already stretched thin, and the idea that
    we are now putting on top of that significant programmatic, and
    coordinating, and monitoring, and evaluation on top of their
    existing work load without any of the expertise or
    institutional knowledge from that process over the last 5
    years, and remember, this bill passed when President Trump was
    President the first time.
        This is not some lefty priority, this is a bipartisan
    priority of Congress. Can you provide to our Committee a clear
    plan for how the Department will implement GFA, including by
    ensuring adequate staffing with the appropriate conflict
    expertise and implementation experience?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure. So, we have hired or are in the process of
    hiring about 400 folks who had worked at USAID at the regional
    bureaus, and at posts overseas, in addition to hiring about
    another 400 folks who are going to be locally employed staff
    who help to administer these programs.
        So, to the extent that we--and this is something we are
    going to be under constant evaluation and review to ensure that
    our Ambassadors and regional bureaus have the staff and
    expertise they need to be able to execute and implement on
    that.
        Ms. Jacobs. So, are you going to hire back any people from
    CSO, or people who worked specifically on the GFA?
        Mr. Rigas. So, to the extent that there are jobs that--so
    there are very prescriptive rules around how RIFs, reductions
    in force, have to be done in the Federal Government, and how
    people can be hired back. So, we have to make sure we are
    abiding how those rules are promulgated. But if there is a need
    that our Ambassadors or regional bureaus are demonstrating that
    they want, or need a particular expertise, we would be happy to
    consider that.
        Ms. Jacobs. Okay, well I will look forward to that written
    response from you on what the actual plan is. I will also say
    in the CN that we have received, the reorganization CN, it said
    the Office of Foreign Assistance Policy was going to take on
    certain statutory policy. What you are telling me is that it
    will actually be the regional bureaus who are doing the GFA
    implementation.
        So, if we could also get clarification on who actually will
    be responsible for the statutory, bipartisan, congressionally
    mandated GFA implementation, please include that in your
    written response on the plan to implement it. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Deputy Secretary, Secretary Rubio, OMB Director Vought, and
    administration officials have repeatedly asserted to Congress
    that funding is not being cut or frozen for the procurement and
    delivery of American-made, ready-to-use therapeutic foods.
        However, as of today, as I understand it, no RUTF orders
    have been processed this year. And the two nonprofit
    manufacturers who make these products, which are sourced from
    27 states across the U.S., are in danger of going out of
    business.
        Can you provide me with an update on the status of moving
    these orders forward?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I
    regret I am not familiar with this particular issue, but I
    would be happy to take it on board, look into it, and get you a
    response.
        Mr. Lawler. Okay, if you can do so expeditiously, that
    would be helpful.
        Mr. Rigas. I will do sir, thank you.
        Mr. Lawler. What is the status of the State Department's
    Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation efforts?
        Mr. Rigas. So that office, we are still processing SIV
    visas that, for under chief of mission authority. That work,
    like the work of a lot that is being done at the State
    Department now under our reorganization is being moved to the
    regional bureaus. So it is being moved from that, the CARE
    functions are being moved to the regional South Central Asia
    Desk.
        My understanding is we have admitted about 1200 people
    under this program since the beginning of the administration.
    And that work, you know, the processing of those visas,
    continues.
        Mr. Lawler. So you expect that that program under the
    auspices of the regional desk will continue moving forward.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, it is continuing under the South Central
    Asia Desk, so yes.
        Mr. Lawler. Okay. Do you see any-has there been any
    discussion of changes to the actual approval of visas for
    Afghanistan interpreters and others that helped us during the
    Afghanistan war moving forward, or do you see the program
    largely continuing as is?
        Mr. Rigas. My understanding is that about 400,000 people
    have been admitted with SIVs from Afghanistan. And that sort of
    the so-called easy cases have kind of made their way through.
    And there are sort of a number of hard cases at the end, are
    people who, you know, did not or could not passing vetting to
    be admitted into the United States.
        And so I think it is down to harder cases now, so I don't
    know that we are going to see the kinds of numbers we have seen
    previously admitted. But the review work continues.
        Mr. Lawler. One of the things that was obviously a big
    concern with USAID was some of the funding that went to
    different projects or entities that, you know, on the face we
    would not support. For instance, an antisemitic rapper who got
    $3 million to promote anti-Israeli rap songs in Gaza and the
    West Bank.
        As well as obviously funding that previously went to UNRWA
    on the work that they did to undermine and foment hate and
    antisemitism and teach Palestinian students to hate Jews, and
    frankly want to kill Jews, which is part of why we saw October
    7 happen.
        What is it that the State Department is doing now to make
    sure that that type of funding does not occur ever again? And
    two, obviously with the change in how we are getting
    humanitarian assistance into Gaza, how do you see that
    functioning?
        Mr. Rigas. So No. 1, I think the elimination of USAID as a
    foreign aid institution I think was step one to that. No. 2 was
    the creation of the America First Opportunity Fund, which is
    what the administration has proposed in its Fiscal Year 2026
    budget to ensure democratic accountability in how foreign
    assistance funds are being distributed.
        You look at this long list of USAID funds that I think kind
    of shocked the public conscience about how public taxpayer
    dollars were being spent. And you can't really answer the
    question who authorized that or who approved it, or there was
    no one that you could really hold it. I mean, you could
    technically hold the USAID Administrator accountable for that,
    but they are going to say I never saw or never approved it.
        With the America First Opportunity Fund, this is done at
    the discretion of the Secretary under the President's authority
    as the, you know, the chief foreign policy officer of the
    United States. And he is someone who is before the press every
    single day. He can be asked questions by the public.
        I mentioned earlier there is, you know, congressional
    oversight as well. The Inspector General can also review how
    moneys are being spent. So I think there is going to be
    questions about accountability. I think there are multiple
    layers of accountability for how that money is spent.
        And the ultimate accountability is to the American voter,
    right. They can say I don't like how this money was spent or I
    do.
        Mr. Lawler. Thanks. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Jayapal.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Deputy Secretary Rigas for being here. Before
    coming for Congress, I worked for a Seattle-based nonprofit
    that was one of the largest implementing global health issues
    around the world. And in our State, Washington State, global
    health is a leading industry. It creates tens of thousands of
    jobs right there at home. It generates billions of dollars for
    our economy.
        And the destruction of USAID and the massive cuts that we
    have seen to research and science and global health, I believe,
    are really weakening our soft power abilities through global
    development. And I think they are leaving Americans vulnerable
    to the spread of disease that does not know any boundaries.
        Thousands of people in my district have for State or for
    programs that receive that funding. And they have devoted their
    lives to putting America first. But you fired them, you fired
    them.
        Not based on merit, not based on skills, not based on work
    history. Not by looking at if there was anywhere else in the
    State Department that these career civil servants could be. You
    just fired them because you had a 15 percent staff firing
    target.
        One of them speaks multiple languages, had an onward
    assignment to promote U.S. businesses and strengthen our
    critical mineral supply chain. Another one was sent back after
    spending her entire life devoted to humanitarian assistance
    work in Afghanistan, Sudan, the Middle East, some of the
    toughest regions in the world, where we desperately will need
    translators, people with bilingual experience.
        Another one served in war zones in the Middle East and was
    fired 1 week away from qualifying for her pension after nearly
    20 years of service.
        It is stunning to me to see how these career civil servants
    have been treated by your administration. And on top of that,
    the administration's budget request slashes global health
    spending by almost two-thirds. And a recent study estimates
    that in 10 years, these cuts could cause 14 million preventable
    deaths. Fourteen million.
        I have worked all over the world, lived all over the world,
    and seen the power that the United States builds by the work
    that we do in other countries. I want to remind any public that
    may be watching that we spend less than a fraction of a percent
    of our budget on foreign assistance.
        In fact, sometimes I go out and people say you spend too
    much money. And I say great, you tell me what you think we
    spend. Usually they say around 20 percent. I say you tell me
    what you think we should spend, and I will do that, I will do
    that number.
        And you are laughing because you know that what people say
    back to me is spend 10 percent, if you just spent 10 percent, I
    would do that. I am like, great, I will take it. Because the
    work we do through these programs is so important and the
    skills and the talent of our public servants is so incredible.
        The average taxpayer, Mr. Rigas, spends 18 cents per day to
    fund USAID. That is funding that has saved over 90 million
    lives and prevented outbreaks that would have threatened
    American lives. And so I guess I just want to know, do you
    understand how your cuts are going to make Americans less safe?
        Mr. Rigas. So as I noted earlier, the Secretary has
    exempted lifesaving humanitarian assistance from the foreign
    aid review. So that kind of aid will continue.
        But as I also mentioned, we need to have a graduation
    strategy for countries for whom we are providing this kind of
    assistance, whether it is 1 year, 3 years, 5 years. Like when
    are they going to have the capacity to be able to administer
    these programs themselves? We have seen that with our Fiscal
    Year 2026 budget request for PEPFAR, which is----
        Ms. Jayapal. Let me stop you there just for a second to say
    that lifesaving aid alone, first of all, it is not flowing the
    way that we thought it was going to flow when the Secretary
    said that. Second, you know it is not enough. If you listen to
    the experts, lifesaving is very different than disease
    prevention.
        I have worked on disease prevention for a long time. When a
    disease breaks out, what you need to know is that there is a
    response immediately. And the work of USAID took disease
    prevention response times on outbreaks from 2 weeks to 2 days.
    That 2 weeks is a critical moment for us to be able to stop
    those diseases from spreading.
        And we are in situation now where we can't even analyze
    samples that come to us from other countries because they are
    being put through all kinds of other cuts at the CDC, at other
    agencies. And so it is simply just not the case that lifesaving
    is enough.
        I have 19 seconds so I want to turn to the Gaza
    Humanitarian Foundation. How many sites does GHF operate, do
    you know?
        Mr. Rigas. I do not know.
        Ms. Jayapal. That is under your jurisdiction, your
    resources. It is four. How many square miles is Gaza, do you
    know?
        Mr. Rigas. I do not.
        Ms. Jayapal. Guess what, it is over 140 square miles, six
    times the size of Manhattan. Do you know how often those sites
    are open?
        Mr. Rigas. I do not.
        Ms. Jayapal. They are barely open, Mr. Rigas. This is not
    the way to get aid to people in Gaza. And if you are going to
    be here over personnel and operations, I would ask that you
    know the details of what you are actually overseeing and ask
    the experts to come in and help you. Because whatever people
    say about UNRWA, we were delivering aid----
        Chairman Mast. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Jayapal. -to the people that needed it. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Issa is now recognized.
        Mr. Issa. Deputy Secretary, you have been beat up over the
    6-months or so that the new administration has been in trying
    to change what is effectively a lifetime of problems in how we
    implement the taxpayer dollars around the world. So I am going
    to switch a little bit. It is not going to be gentler or
    kinder, but it will be different.
        I want to talk about the things that have been wrong for a
    long time that I see currently what has gone on so far not
    implementing these changes. And I will give you the heads up,
    it is basically OBO operations, visa processing, and your IT,
    both CIO and CTO.
        So I will take them in reverse order. With the
    consolidation of so many disparate organizations, many of which
    had multiple CIOs/CTOs, multiple different server systems, and
    quite frankly didn't even talk within their organization, do
    you have or can you work with this committee to present us with
    a plan to get to a single, consolidated, and of course modern
    and secure, presumably cloud system so that we can have
    confidence that it is both secure and affordable?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I would be happy to do so, Congressman.
        Mr. Issa. Good. It will be a tough job. Second, I would
    like to talk about OBO. Long before Benghazi, the organization
    was a mess. Long before Benghazi, it was decades behind in
    meeting the modernization just for basic safety and security of
    embassies, much less desperate remote locations, offices, and
    so on.
        During the George W. Bush administration, there was
    tremendous progress made by changing from one-up designs to
    standard design, standard build. Obviously each site looked
    somewhat different, but standard parts and for the most part
    cookie cutter programs that allowed us to speed up
    dramatically. President Obama enjoyed during his 8 years the 4-
    years of work-of 8 years of work done by General Williams.
        Are you prepared to return to a system that is cost-
    effective, speeds up the process, and improves the security for
    all the men and women who work abroad?
        Mr. Rigas. Absolutely. And I think the cost of building
    overseas and the requirements that we put on our contractors, I
    believe we only have really two contractors that currently
    provide the services to us overseas, which I think is just not
    adequate. It is not enough competition. And there is not enough
    companies that are able to meet the requirements----
        Mr. Issa. I am shocked you say a duopoly is not a good way
    to do business.
        Mr. Rigas. Shock, yes.
        Mr. Issa. Well, thank you, and we look forward to working
    with that. Last, the chairman has announced and is in the
    process, as you know, of a full reauthorization of your agency.
    That is an amazing task and one that hasn't been done in
    decades. In that task, I want to call back to the era of the
    visa decision that was made during Chairman Henry Hyde's day.
        At that time, as the Department of Homeland Security was
    being stood up, the goal of the George W. Bush administration
    under Colin Powell, they planned on removing all visa services,
    the consular services, that actually do the interviews and
    evaluation and give the visas to foreigners. They were going to
    move it to Homeland Security. And Homeland Security would then
    field people as necessary.
        Henry Hyde, listening to the State Department, pushed hard
    and was able to stop that, on the theory that it was, A, a
    career path, and B, that it would streamline the process to
    keep it within State.
        Mr. Deputy Secretary, that hasn't proven to be true, has
    it?
        Mr. Rigas. No. I don't know, but I take your word for it.
        Mr. Issa. And in that sense, if you talk to anyone in your
    consular section, they are going to tell you that they are the
    beginning of the process. But at the end of the day, Homeland
    Security and other agencies not facing the public make all the
    decisions, and they can only say we don't have approval, we
    don't have delay.
        And those delays go on for months without answer. I am sure
    you have heard that.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Issa. In the reauthorization, would you work with the
    committee on the possibility that we do in fact implement some
    version of that original plan, one in which the forward-facing,
    the responsibility to Homeland Security to make those decisions
    in a single step, not in series of steps that are so opaque,
    would you agree to work with us at least on the concept and the
    possibility that that would be good for both the foreigners who
    wait in line, and quite frankly for a massive amount of people
    who begin in that position?
        And that position is, at least my observation, is truly not
    part of the career path of foreign officers.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I would be happy to work with you, sir.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        This is an important hearing. Mr. Deputy Secretary, as you
    well know, we are in the middle of a intense competition with
    China, and we will need the strongest military on the planet.
    But we will need more than the strongest military on the
    planet, because the true battle is for economic superiority,
    and of course is battle of communism versus our form of
    government, democracy.
        China has spent a vast amount on international development
    projects over the last decade, almost 700 billion over USA's 80
    billion. So I appreciate and support the request for a budget
    increase for the Development Finance Corporation to counter
    China's belt and road initiative.
        Let's be clear: China will outspend us. This means we need
    to be smarter about our spending. The Government Accountability
    Office suggested that our dollars go further if we have larger
    in-country presence.
        But Donald Trump, President Trump, just arbitrarily cut
    1300 department employees. That includes employees who were
    directly working on the U.S. response to China, who are experts
    in global tech competition, and who spoke fluent Mandarin.
        We know that multilateral efforts like export controls are
    more effective at protecting American supply chains when we
    work together with our allies than doing so alone. But
    President Trump has burned many relationships by imposing
    tariffs on our strongest allies and given China the ability to
    position itself as the defender of free trade.
        And then of course there are reckless cuts. This budget
    request moves USAID under the State Department, and only 14
    percent of the projects remain, and only 6 percent of USAID
    staff. China will see this vacuum and has already stepped in to
    fill it.
        This budget request zeros out funding for the United
    Nations, meanwhile China has been increasing its funding and
    putting its people in key leadership roles, shifting global
    power dynamics away from United States leadership.
        This budget request cuts funding for the international
    narcotics and law enforcement, funding that is directly used to
    curtail Chinese illegal transshipment and counter Chinese
    aggression in the South China Sea. China will undoubtedly take
    advantage of weaker law enforcement to expand its presence.
        Mr. Deputy Secretary, are you aware of how large China's
    oversea diplomatic footprint is around the globe? And then does
    it worry you that it is overtaking the United States'
    diplomatic footprint?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question, Congressman. My
    understanding is while we are somewhat equally matched in terms
    of how many posts we have overseas, the United States does have
    substantially more personnel serving overseas, both at the
    State Department and at the interagency at our posts overseas.
        Mr. Stanton. I really appreciate that, and I want to keep
    it that way and even continue to enhance it. I am a big
    believer that our diplomatic efforts are going to help us
    continue to lead the world.
        Deputy Secretary, according to the LOA Institute, China has
    the most expansive diplomatic network in the world, with more
    outposts in Africa, East Asia and Central Asia, and the Pacific
    Islands. Can you give us specific examples of how you plan to
    keep engaging in those regions after the reductions in force?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure. So first of all, the reductions in force
    only affected our domestic operations. They did not affect our
    Foreign Service Officers overseas.
        I think the President has really shown the way with his,
    you know, first trip abroad, where he went to Saudi Arabia,
    Qatar, and UAE about economic engagement, both U.S. investing
    there and bringing back an enormous amount of investments to
    the U.S. economy.
        And I think that is the kind of diplomatic and economic
    engagement we want to see that ties together the interests of
    the United States with countries overseas so that we are
    economic partners. We are helping them grow and they are
    helping us as well.
        Mr. Stanton. I think the restructure of the department and
    the reduction in force is going to be of enormous importance to
    both Democrats and Republicans here. So will you commit to
    keeping this committee informed about plans to restructure or
    reduce personnel who are posted abroad, and do so before you
    start implementing those changes?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Stanton. I really appreciate that. Here is what is at
    stake: China is taking advantage of this moment to strengthen
    their standing on the world stage. Meanwhile, the
    administration is gutting the State Department budget to its
    lowest level since before World War II.
        In my opinion, that does not make the United States
    stronger. When America retreats, China advances. When we fire
    our experts, they hire more. When we walk away from the table,
    they sit down and set the terms.
        And I believe we keep handing Beijing the keys to global
    leadership, the next generations will ask why we let America's
    influence crumble, not because we couldn't afford it, but
    because we didn't fight for it.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Perry.
        Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Deputy Secretary, welcome here. I am going to start with a
    2024 GAO report that flagged $3.2 million in duplicative
    contracts for overseas cultural programs. And I am just
    wondering if you can identify for us any specific duplicative
    contracts that have been terminated and kind of what metrics
    you use.
        I think the work you do is probably very difficult to
    measure success, but you know, contracts are contracts. Money
    is being spent. The American people demand something for it, as
    they should. How do you do that? Can you name any duplicative
    contracts that have been terminated?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, I don't have the specific contract lines
    in front of me, but there were what the Secretary has
    articulated in terms of how we want to spend our money both in
    grants and in contracts is that we can tie that directly to the
    three goals he has articulated.
        And that hopefully every contract and grant that we are
    delivering on or executing on is making American safer, making
    America stronger, and making America more prosperous.
        And if it is not doing all three, it should certainly be
    doing at least one. If it is not doing one, then we are not
    doing that contract and we are not doing that grant.
        Mr. Perry. So I kind of agree with that. Now, the State
    Department's budget has operated without reauthorization for 23
    years, which is astounding. Most Americans don't understand
    that and there is not a good explanation for 80 percent of the
    operations are literally unauthorized. A recent report exposed
    $1.8 million in grants for overseas gender equity programs,
    including 500,000 for workshops in Sub-Saharan Africa.
        Deputy Secretary, are you familiar with places like Chad,
    Somalia, Ethiopia? Do you think--like my colleague from Arizona
    was just talking about China winning the diplomatic race
    because we are not there, and we can afford to do more.
        Seems to me if you can't find enough food to eat, the last
    thing-or in, you know, the list of the last things you are
    interested in are gender equity programs, right. We can ill
    afford it. We are never going to be able to outpace China if it
    is just spending money. We have be smart about it, and we can't
    waste our money on things like that.
        Department has got a history of funding programs that
    stray, and the word ``stray'' I kind of use loosely, from
    American interests, like $700,000 for climate-focused art
    exhibits in Asia, per a 2023 OIG audit.
        You have a list of specific grants like those for gender
    equity or climate art exhibits that have been axed or realigned
    with the Fiscal Year 2026 budget with America's strategic
    priorities? Do you have anything like that?
        Mr. Rigas. I can certainly provide you a list. I mean, I
    have a series of examples here in front of me that I think
    have, you know, the Secretary has gone over in prior hearings
    as well as have been, you know, talked about from the White
    House podium about, you know, examples of grant spending from
    USAID that I think most Americans would agree was not a good
    use of taxpayer dollars.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, I think the list is replete. But every time
    you hear them. Look, you know, there are folks here that don't
    like the fact that we are trying to reduce the size of the
    government and that you have been put in charge of it.
        But you know, a 2023 OPM report revealed a 15 percent
    staffing increase since 2010, yet a 2024 CSIS study found no
    corresponding uptick in diplomatic outcomes, such as trade
    agreements or counterterrorism success, which leads American
    taxpayers who give up their hard-earned money for this to say
    what the heck are we paying for.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Perry. You know, program after program. So I am not
    going to ask you to go through them, but I think it is
    important that we remind everybody that there is a limited
    amount of funds, that we do have to compete globally with a
    adversary like China, and that we have to spend our money
    wisely, not on stupid things and not wastefully.
        I mean, I will turn to the 2021 SIGAR report that revealed
    1.2 billion in unaccounted-for funds during the Afghanistan
    withdrawal, which is a glaring-which is a glaring failure. And
    you know, if we talk about grants for cultural festivals in
    South Asia.
        Let me ask you then, so grants for a cultural festival in
    South Asia, does that-where does that fit into aligning
    America's priorities with defeating our adversaries in South
    Asia? How does that-is there something there that we are
    missing?
        Mr. Rigas. It does not. No, I think that is probably a
    misguided attempt by folks to think that was an exercise of
    soft power, but I don't think anyone could draw a line from how
    funding that enhances America's power or influence in that part
    of the world.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I apologize if some of the questions have been asked to you
    previously because we have had overlapping committee hearings.
        Part of the meat-and-potatoes, I think, of a legislative
    office is helping our constituent services with issues of
    passports, visa accounts. In the middle of California and
    Fresno and those counties, we have a large Latino community
    that has family members in not only Mexico but Central American
    countries, a large Punjabi population, large in India. And we
    deal with this daily.
        How many individuals within the Consular Affairs Bureau
    were terminated?
        Mr. Rigas. My understanding is we did not make any cuts in
    the Consular Affairs Bureau.
        Mr. Costa. They were not targeted for positions?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes-processing----
        Mr. Costa. I raised that issue with the Secretary as it
    related to some consular offices that had played a role within
    the department. I will send you a letter forwarding that.
        So then what is your process here? Do you have enough
    staffing to maintain current processing for passports on
    timelines?
        Mr. Rigas. There were no reductions to individuals who
    process passports or visas in Consular Affairs. So to the
    extent that we are able to implement, you know, technology
    solutions or other labor-saving----
        Mr. Costa. The technology solutions as you have made a
    transfer to computerization has had some challenges, has that
    not been the case?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, I mean, there is a modernization program
    underway----
        Mr. Costa. Right.
        Mr. Rigas. For passports.
        Mr. Costa. And that makes sense.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Costa. But it, like any new program, it hasn't been
    implemented without challenges, would you say?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, I think that is fair to say.
        Mr. Costa. The issue on terminations, how many of the State
    Department employees, including foreign officers, served in
    rotational assignments, do you know?
        Mr. Rigas. So my understanding is with respect to the
    Foreign Service is about 14,000 Foreign Service----
        Mr. Costa. And yes or no, were those part of those that
    were served termination notices?
        Mr. Rigas. There were I think 239 Foreign Service
    Officers----
        Mr. Costa. Was an assessment conducted on their
    performances? Because I have had anecdotal stories where they
    have gotten glowing reports on their past performance and then
    they were summarily dismissed.
        Mr. Rigas. So the reduction in force rules that exist in
    the government are very prescriptive. And so if you are
    eliminating----
        Mr. Costa. What were the metrics?
        Mr. Rigas. So if an office itself was eliminated and
    someone was in that office, if an entire, you know, we had
    offices that were eliminated and other offices that were
    combined or merged with other offices. But if you were in an
    office that was completely eliminated, everyone in that office,
    Foreign and Civil Service----
        Mr. Costa. We have got reports, and we will hopefully get
    clarity on that, those in Consular Services that were, their
    jobs were eliminated. And I would like to have you respond to
    that when I will get you the information. How does that sound?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure.
        Mr. Costa. Were they simply fired by serving in the wrong
    post, or what other considerations we are using to reassigning
    employees who have some of the toughest posts in some of the
    areas that are not the plum political assignments that
    administrations also have the opportunity to provide?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, thank you. So if a complete-so the
    reorganization affected domestic offices only. So if someone
    was serving in a domestic office and that office was completely
    closed, then the employees who were in that office, in that
    competitive area, would have been-would have received a
    reduction in force notice.
        Mr. Costa. Okay, well, we will followup with these other
    questions. Let me close on Food for Peace. Kansas, the State of
    Kansas sold half of its annual wheat crop abroad, representing
    significant income to Kansas farms. I am from California. But
    44 percent of our agriculture in California is exported.
        The administration I think proposes to eliminate Food for
    Peace and Fiscal Year 2026 budget. It has terminated many of
    the contracts, meaning those same farmers have to find
    alternative markets for crops, and many of them have lost
    incomes in the process, and that doesn't even count the impacts
    in the hundreds of millions of dollars of USAID.
        How does cutting American farmers' market access in
    international sales make America more prosperous?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, I would have to look into that particular
    program you referenced, sir.
        Mr. Costa. I would like you to, please.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Costa. And if you do, you might want to meet with some
    farmers or with recipients of the program to discuss the
    impacts of eliminating the program, not only Food for Peace,
    but what has been devastating and USAID, I believe.
        Mr. Rigas. I would be happy to look into that, sir. I know
    the President is a big fan of our farmers and wants to see them
    succeed.
        Mr. Costa. He tells that all the time, but this mass
    deportation is a real problem, let me tell you. And the
    Secretary of Agriculture talked about people on their work
    requirements, they are going to take those jobs. Give me a
    break. And automation? It is not there.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes----
        Mr. Costa. To be discussed, continued. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Schneider.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Deputy Secretary, thank you for being here today. I
    know it has been a long day. And just refresh, what is the
    mission statement for the Department of State?
        Mr. Rigas. While, I can provide you with a copy of that,
    sir----
        Mr. Schneider. I will read it to you.
        Mr. Rigas. Okay.
        Mr. Schneider. Protect and promote U.S. security,
    prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international
    environment in which all Americans can thrive. Do you support
    that?
        Mr. Rigas. Sounds good to me, yes.
        Mr. Schneider. Do you think that works whether it is a
    Democratic President or a Republican President across decades,
    across the century marks? That is the role of the State
    Department, right?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Schneider. Now, thinking of your role in this
    administration, how will you measure success against that
    mission 4 years from now?
        Mr. Rigas. So I think the Secretary has articulated that,
    that every action we take and every dollar we spend and every
    program we execute on should make American safer, should make
    America stronger----
        Mr. Schneider. But how will you measure? Give me-I mean,
    you are organizing, you are going through all these cuts and
    slashes and changes. How are you going to measure your success
    4 years from now when your term is over?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, so I think, No. 1, you can look at how we
    have engaged with our NATO allies, No. 1, that is making
    America stronger. They have all agreed to increase their
    spending from 2 percent of GDP to 5 percent, something where
    numerous prior administrations----
        Mr. Schneider. All right, so and I'm just, we are short on
    time so I am going to reclaim my time. But you said you have
    worked for three administrations, and you mentioned that we
    have entered a new era of great power competition. Who are our
    competitors in that?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, certainly I think China is at the top of
    that list.
        Mr. Schneider. Anyone else?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, we have both friendly competitors and
    unfriendly competitors.
        Mr. Schneider. Okay, but great power competition, it is
    China, it is Russia. How important are having and working with
    allies in determining who is going to win that great power
    competition?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, I think it is important that we have
    allies rather than clients, right. So what we have with, and I
    think we have seen that with our NATO allies. They have gone
    from being kind of dependents. You know, people used to joke
    that NATO was a military alliance of countries without
    militaries. And now we have got them to agree to spend 5
    percent of their GDP.
        Mr. Schneider. But what distinguishes, I would argue, the
    United States from China and certainly Russia is our allies,
    that relationship with NATO, the other alliance we have built.
    And those alliances, certainly there is a military aspect to
    it. But the diplomatic aspect.
        We had Defense Secretary Mattis testify before Congress. He
    said, you know, if we are not investing in aid and in
    diplomacy, development in diplomacy, we are going to have to
    invest more in guns and bullets. It is really important.
        And the U.S., because of our relationship with our allies,
    the work of all the people who serve us in the State
    Department, they may not wear the same uniforms as the
    military, but they go to places far, they go to places of
    danger, and they represent and promote and protect U.S.
    interests. And that is particularly important.
        Let me ask you, are the challenges confronting the U.S.
    around the world shrinking or growing?
        Mr. Rigas. I would say certainly our awareness of them is
    growing. And I think they are probably growing more than they
    are shrinking.
        Mr. Schneider. Okay. Is the role the United States needs to
    take on the global stage in working with allies and expressing
    leadership as we did in World War II, as we did after World War
    II, as we did in winning the cold war, is the importance of
    U.S. leadership shrinking or growing?
        Mr. Rigas. I think it is growing. I think the President has
    demonstrated that. I think he has been the biggest actor when
    it comes to American soft power.
        Mr. Schneider. And one last question, if the U.S. isn't
    leading, what country is in a position best to fill that void
    in that great power competition to protect U.S. interests and
    protect Americans around the world?
        Mr. Rigas. Sure, I think China is certainly making a play
    for that.
        Mr. Schneider. Of our allies, who is going to replace the
    U.S.? Not, we are competing with China, we don't want them to
    replace us. The U.S. is indispensable.
        So here is the thing, and I know many of my colleagues have
    spoken passionately and rightly about the damage this budget
    and reorganization will do to our diplomatic workforce and
    America's leadership in the world, and I agree with that.
        What strikes me, though, and where I am stuck, it is not
    just a matter of misplaced priorities or ideology. It is that I
    don't see a theory of success behind what you are doing, what
    the department is doing. You said the reorganization is about
    streamlining and focus.
        You are cutting thousands of skilled professionals without
    first developing a clear plan and having metrics for that plan
    and how the department will operate differently. It is not
    streamlining, it is amputating. You propose consolidating
    foreign assistance, but you haven't shown us how the department
    is prepared to manage these programs.
        What concerns me most is that there is no clear picture of
    how these actions position America to compete with China and
    respond to future crises. China is expanding their global
    diplomatic network. We are closing posts and reducing our
    people, losing expertise that took years, decades to develop.
    And we are not investing where we need to be.
        You say you manage foreign assistance like an investment
    program, but we are left wondering who is the portfolio
    manager. So my last question for you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, you
    said the goal is a more nimble State Department.
        Can you point to one example where another country has
    shrunk what they are doing, pulled back from their role in the
    world, where they successfully achieved the goals they set out
    to protect their interests and advance their policies?
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for that question. So the
    reorganization affected only the domestic footprint of the
    State Department, it did not affect our overseas posts. And in
    fact, it is designed to empower our Ambassadors.
        It is almost like we have forgotten that we have
    Ambassadors and regional bureaus who are engaging at posts, who
    are the, you know, the tip of the spear when it comes to how we
    engage with the rest of the world. This was focused on the
    bloated bureaucracy that was stateside here.
        We have got 1400 offices in the United States alone, 700-I
    mean 1400 locations, 700 bureaus and offices in the U.S. This
    is for----
        Mr. Schneider. All I know, and I am over time, thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, but I have gotten countless calls from
    constituents and families of constituents who have lost their
    job at oversea posts. So that statement that you not cutting--
    --
        Chairman Mast. You're over the time limit. The chair now
    recognizes----
        Mr. Schneider. Overseas doesn't----
        Chairman Mast [continuing]. Representative Kamalger-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        You know, and thank you, Deputy Secretary, for staying. I
    appreciate that.
        I serve as the ranking member for the South and Central
    Asia Subcommittee, so I want to focus on that bureau today. And
    I do know that two of my Republican colleagues asked questions
    about an issue that I am also going to ask you about. So you
    see that there is bipartisan concern.
        Would you agree with this statement, and it is a yes or no:
    the Statement should uphold our commitment to protect the
    Afghans who helped U.S. servicemembers stationed in
    Afghanistan.
        Mr. Rigas. Of course.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay, thank you. Are you aware then, and
    I think you are, but I am going to ask it anyway, are you aware
    of the law that a Republican-led Congress passed last year
    requiring a coordinator for the Afghan relocation efforts at
    the State Department, or CARE?
        Mr. Rigas. I am aware of the CARE office.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay, so then you are aware of the law,
    and you are clear on the congressional intent. Yet, your
    reorganization plan eliminates the CARE office, and the
    administration has refused to brief us on your plan for Afghan
    allies, or even give us a straight answer about who the
    coordinator is.
        And earlier you said that you are briefing the Congress
    eight times a day. I don't know who you are briefing, because
    as you can tell, there are both Republicans and Democrats that
    care about this issue. So can you reveal who the coordinator
    is?
        Mr. Rigas. So the functions for the CARE office have moved
    to the South Central Asia Bureau at the Department of State.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Right.
        Mr. Rigas. And to the----
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. But that doesn't answer the question----
        Mr. Rigas [continuing]. And to the regional Ambassadors.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. -about who the person is, who the
    coordinator is. Because there is a difference between a person
    who is doing the work and a function. I know you are folding
    everything into everything, it is like origami. But how come we
    don't know, how come you can't tell us, how come you won't tell
    us who the coordinator is?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, that would, I mean, the person who is in
    charge of the South Central Asia Bureau would be the Assistant
    Secretary for South Central Asia, so that would be the first
    person, I think----
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay, well, I would be interested, I
    think many of us would be interested in what that person is
    doing and have them answer some questions that we have, both
    Republicans and Democrats, about what is going with our Afghan
    allies.
        Because I ask this because on Friday, you fired the entire
    CARE leadership team. So, anyone who would have had the
    experience and the expertise to efficiently manage Afghan
    relocations, which is complicated, you know. And Secretary
    Rubio came in here, and we know he is doing 14 jobs.
        I don't not think you should be giving 14 jobs to the 12
    people that are left in the State Department who are handling
    such a complicated issue. So we have had, you know, we know
    that the CARE leadership team has been fired. We know that the
    CARE office has lost over 30 people since the beginning of the
    administration.
        And we know that that does not give you the capacity that
    you need to sustain the same pace of processing. And then on
    top of that, the administration is trying to terminate
    temporary protective status for Afghans living in the United
    States. So they are going to lose their work authorization, and
    then they are going to be deported back to Afghanistan, where
    the Taliban is waiting to get them.
        And these are people who actually worked to protect U.S.
    servicemembers overseas. I bring it up because everyone wants
    to, you know, last Congress, we had a hearing every week
    talking about Afghanistan. And now, very hard to get people to
    come and talk about Afghanistan and what is happening to our
    allies.
        And we are doing a disservice to our U.S. servicemembers,
    because what other country is going to say I am going to be
    willing to stick out my people's neck to help you when you are
    then going to sell my people down the river or back to the
    exact same people who are waiting to kill them.
        The second part of this is do you know what Camp As
    Sayliyah is?
        Mr. Rigas. I do not know what Camp As Sayliyah is.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay. So the camp is a U.S. facility in
    Doha where 1500 Afghan refugees are waiting to be resettled.
    And the administration is considering closing down the camp and
    then forcibly repatriating these Afghans, who have been in
    limbo in this facility waiting for years. They are going to
    repatriate them back to Afghanistan, back into the hands of the
    Taliban.
        So the question I asked you in the beginning, about the
    U.S. upholding its commitment to protecting these people, who
    risked their lives to protect us, we have got to do better. And
    that is on you. That is the responsibility of you, that is the
    responsibility of the State Department.
        And I sent a letter to the chair of this committee asking
    us to continue to ask questions about this, and I am going to
    continue to ask questions about this, because it is about our
    credibility. You are not talking about trade, you are not
    talking about aid, you are talking about reneging on your
    credibility to make sure that our servicemembers are protected
    when they go overseas to fight for us.
        And with that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for giving me extra
    time and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to take just a moment to tack onto what
    Representative Kamlager-Dove was talking about, because I was
    just in the Homeland Security hearing before this, talking
    about Afghanistan and this very issue. About all these Afghan
    folks who risked their lives in service of our military while
    in Afghanistan and all their losing of their temporary
    protected status benefits.
        And I would just like to echo her concerns, Mr. Chairman,
    about how unconscionable it is that we are turning our back on
    this group of people who risked their lives for our military.
        And Mr. Secretary, I would love for you to take these
    concerns that we are having about the fact that you are closing
    the CARE office, you are closing the support for this as just a
    dereliction of the United States' duty. It is a breach of
    promises. It is a breach of agreements.
        And I share her concerns about what does this do for the
    U.S. in future conflicts. Have a lot of concerns about that.
        I wanted to turn just to some just general issues about the
    terminations of so many people. I am concerned about the fact
    that were the terminations of all these folks in USAID based on
    merit? Were they based on length of service? Were they based on
    reviews? How were you determining who stays and who goes?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    Everything that happened at USAID happened before my tenure, so
    I can't speak directly to what occurred there. But it seems to
    me it was an elimination of function.
        Ms. Johnson. And what about ongoing RIFs within the State
    Department? Are those being done based on tenure, reviews,
    performance, length of service? How are those being evaluated?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, so the regulations surrounding reductions
    in force are very prescriptive, and they are personnel, they
    are person-agnostic. They are function-specific.
        So you look at a particular office and what functions you
    want to retain. If you are merging two or three offices, which
    happened, you know, over 100 times we were merging offices, and
    you say what functions do we want to retain.
        And then based on that, if you have got 20 functions you
    want to retain or 20 positions you want to retain and you have
    100 people in the pool from the three offices that are being
    combined, there is a very prescribed process that is done by
    OPM. And the State Department actually hired OPM to conduct
    this process. And they match people, you know, based on
    seniority, based on----
        Ms. Johnson. So length of service, performance, those
    things.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, so it is a merit-based process at that
    point.
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, I have a constituent in my district, and
    her annual evaluation form says she is an expert in high demand
    across the office, with the ability to balance numerous
    competing demands across portfolio and beyond. She is a rock
    star, a go-to person for technical knowledge. Not afraid. And
    she has over 15 years of service and was terminated.
        And my opinion, this is a huge disservice to the State
    Department and to the role. And isn't this the kind of person I
    would think that you would want to retain in our Foreign
    Service?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, sure. I mean, so the process I described
    does not allow for us to reach in grab a particular person that
    we would like to, you know, save from a RIF. It has to be done
    according to these prescribed regulations in the government
    that are merit-based and track, account for all of these other
    sort of requirements related to the position.
        And this is sort of what the law calls for and this is what
    have been----
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, but there is provisions in the law,
    though, for you to make sure that the purge is done based on-
    not based on optics, not based on ideology, but based on
    performance and a capacity to do the job. And the reality of it
    is that very experienced people are being depleted out of our
    Foreign Service at great peril to the United States of America
    and to our role in security in the world.
        I am very concerned. We spend a lot of time talking about
    USAID, but I am also very concerned about talking about the
    population, refugee, and migration program. I had the
    opportunity to be in some foreign countries where they were
    talking about how detrimental all the cuts are that the U.S.
    had in these programs.
        And those programs are designed to retain migrants within
    these home countries, and yet we are cutting all of the
    employees, the personnel, and the resources to these countries
    to keep people from illegally entering the United States. That
    makes absolutely no sense. This seems to be in contradiction to
    the goals here.
        And, but I also want to highlight, you know, this employee
    that I referenced was doing amazing work in PEPFAR, amazing
    work in HIV and AIDS to minimize the spread throughout the
    world and was doing incredible work in honor of programs set by
    another Republican President, George Bush.
        And it is really tragic that this administration has
    targeting in such a demonic way HIV and AIDS and PEPFAR and its
    role in saving lives.
        And with that, I am out of time and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The chair recognizes Representative Amo.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On Friday, as you know, President Trump arbitrarily filed
    1300 expert State Department staffers as part of his capricious
    effort to slash 15 percent of the State Department's domestic
    workforce. Look, our allies around the world are feeling the
    true impact of these dangerous choices, and our adversaries are
    grinning from ear to ear.
        China is already stepping into fill the void when we cut
    our foreign, ceding the airwaves to their propaganda and
    retreating from the global stage. That is what is happening.
        And when you claim you want to prevent waste, fraud, and
    abuse, the foreign aid freeze has led to the resources you
    oversee literally rotting at ports, medicine expiring, people
    dying. You know, as you have heard from some of my colleagues
    earlier today, you know, we learned that nearly 500 metric tons
    of emergency food assistance, enough to feed over a million
    children for a week, will expire in 24 hours.
        In a few weeks, this rotten aid will be incinerated,
    costing taxpayers an additional $130,000. This is a waste of
    taxpayer dollars. It is a loss of American jobs. And it is
    hurting American farmers who cannot sell their farm products to
    aid organizations. This is under your oversight.
        In my home State of Rhode Island, 120,000 boxes of the
    emergency food aid known as ready-to-use therapeutic food, or
    Plumpy'Nut, made by Edesia Nutrition, were stuck in a warehouse
    for months, months, before the State Department finally paid to
    transport them to treat the starving children in Sudan.
        Secretary Rubio announced USAID closing on July 1, and the
    remaining programs have been moved into the State Department.
    But it has been 2 weeks since then and 55 days since the
    Secretary sat here, sat where you are now, and I have seen no
    real action to get this aid moving.
        As I told Secretary Rubio, every day around 8,000 children
    die from global hunger. So why is there no clear plan to
    continue this foreign assistance? How many children must die?
    How many jobs, American jobs, are we going to see lost? We
    needed, needed to get these contracts approved months ago.
        And while there are delays in creating new contracts, there
    are also no answers about what is happening to supplies
    purchased with taxpayer dollars. Earlier this month, I sent
    this letter to the State Department about reports that unused
    supplies from canceled foreign assistance programs will go to
    waste.
        I asked you all to provide information by today on the
    process the State Department is using to review the status of
    supplies for now-terminated foreign assistance programs and
    what your plan was to ensure that these supplies purchased with
    taxpayer dollars are not diverted, destroyed, or otherwise go
    to waste. I haven't heard a response, right.
        We cannot continue to wait for answers while the food that
    could save these starving children rots in warehouses. That is
    not American leadership.
        So Secretary Rigas, what is your plan to ensure that these
    supplies for now-terminated foreign assistance programs do not
    go to waste? And what is your plan to take action now so we
    don't waste in the future?
        Because as you have said, you are a shepherd of taxpayer
    dollars. That is wasting taxpayer dollars. So tell me what the
    plan is.
        Mr. Rigas. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I would
    be happy to look into this particular issue about food that has
    passed its expiration date that is about to be incinerated. I
    think, you know, it is a policy to not distribute food or
    medicine that is past its expiration date. So getting an
    understanding of how that food----
        Mr. Amo. Yes, but it didn't have to get to the expiration
    date.
        Mr. Rigas. Right, yes, so getting an understanding of how
    that came to be, you know, what the shelf life is of this food.
    Is it 6 months, is it a year, is it 5 years. Who is tracking it
    and how it got to this situation I think is important and is--
    --
        Mr. Amo. Respectfully, Secretary, and I don't mean to cut
    you off, but I have heard this from the Secretary. I have
    asked, inquired, pleading. Because this should be an area of
    partnership. This is somewhere where we can shine and continue
    to shine in our leadership.
        But I can't take we are looking into it. That is
    unsatisfactory. So what is the plan?
        Mr. Rigas. We are going to make sure it doesn't happen
    again it what the plan is.
        Mr. Amo. Well, arbitrarily firing 15 percent of the staff
    is not a plan, because those people, those experts that you get
    rid of I am sure would have some role in making sure that your
    plan was viable and that you could let American leadership
    shine. So that is a failure. Do you agree?
        Mr. Rigas. I do not agree. I think the 15 percent----
        Mr. Amo. So it is a success.
        Mr. Rigas. The 15 percent that were let go----
        Mr. Amo. Well, I am talking about the waste of American
    aid.
        Mr. Rigas. Well, you are tying that to a reduction in
    force----
        Mr. Amo. I am indeed.
        Mr. Rigas. -that had nothing to do with that.
        Mr. Amo. Well, I believe that you do not have the personnel
    to get the job done, and I would like to see a plan. So I am
    going to request in writing your plan.
        My time is up.
        Chairman Mast. The chair now recognizes Representative
    Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        Deputy Secretary Rigas, last week the department laid off
    about 15 percent of its workforce. And you said earlier and had
    made a statement about the fact that the decisions were
    personnel-agnostic. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Rigas. That is correct.
        Mr. Castro. And as you know, members of the Foreign Service
    regularly rotate through different assignments. A number of
    such officers had started new positions in the last 6 weeks or
    have offers to start a position that the administration has not
    chosen to cut. But they received notices that they would be
    terminated based on their prior roles, those they held on May
    29, that they were no longer in.
        Some diplomats had even started new jobs in a foreign
    country, moved their family over there, enrolled their kids in
    school, and then received a notice that they would be
    terminated based on the job that they had on May 29, not the
    job that they currently held.
        If these people are terminated, the United States still
    needs to fill those roles with diplomats, many of whom would
    need to undergo months of training or language learning before
    they can join the position. In other words, the country would
    have to spend millions and millions of dollars when these
    people were already in those jobs.
        Are you aware of this situation, and will you revise the
    decisions and allow individuals who were terminated based on
    their job 2 months ago but have joined a new position or have
    an agreement to join a new position, whether abroad or in the
    United States, to continue in those roles?
        Mr. Rigas. So in order to conduct the reduction in force
    and the reorganization that we did, it was necessary to have an
    effective date. That effective date was as of May 29, which is
    when the Secretary signed, approved the reorganization plan.
    Unfortunately, you know, we wanted to move very quickly on
    that.
        Unfortunately, a district court judge in California saw fit
    to intercede and hold up that reorganization, putting people in
    a tremendous amount of limbo. So people were taking in this
    case, it sounds like individuals were moving or taking other
    actions that were not tied to their current duties that you----
        Mr. Castro. I mean, they were reassigned consistent with
    what the State Department does every year.
        Mr. Rigas. Right.
        Mr. Castro. So they were in new roles. But you are not
    disagreeing with me that they are in these new roles and they
    are getting terminated or fired. The new roles are not being
    cut out.
        So you are going to have to go replace those people with
    new people that you are going to have to spend literally
    millions and millions of dollars to train, when the purported
    reason for cutting out these folks is to save money.
        So I guess I am trying to work with you.
        Mr. Rigas. Yes.
        Mr. Castro. Will you reconsider what is relatively a small
    group in the total, reconsider the fact that these people
    already trained and were doing the work that you are going to
    need to now go fill?
        Mr. Rigas. So we have to abide by the reduction in force
    rules, and they are very prescriptive in terms of once a
    position is eliminated and the incumbent is eliminated, how
    they can return to Federal service and who is on those
    retention registers.
        Mr. Castro. Well, I mean, guess let me-the long and short
    of it, will these people have a chance to go back to the jobs
    they were currently holding when they were terminated? Not the
    old ones that they held on May 29, if you know?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes, well, we would have to do it in accordance
    with the law and according----
        Mr. Castro. But will you give them a chance to go back to
    work?
        Mr. Rigas. I have to do what the law calls for. And the----
        Mr. Castro. Well, then I am asking you, what does the law
    call for? Will you give this specific group of people in this
    conundrum the chance to go into those roles that they were
    actually working at when they were terminated?
        Mr. Rigas. If the law allows for that, certainly.
        Mr. Castro. So we have your commitment that if the law
    allows for it, that you will allow them back or consider them
    back for their roles?
        Mr. Rigas. Yes. My understanding is I don't think the law
    allows for it. I would be happy to check with legal counsel
    again, but they have been pretty adamant the entire time that--
    --
        Mr. Castro. Okay, if the law doesn't allow for it, then we
    just wasted millions of dollars. The decisions that you made
    wasted millions of dollars.
        Mr. Rigas. I would not agree with that.
        Mr. Castro. Well, we just went through it, right? They were
    in a new job, they have received the training for this new job.
    The number of them would total such that it was millions of
    dollars spent.
        Now, because these positions that they were holding when
    they were terminated were not cut out, right, so you are going
    to have to go and now hire people for those roles. So it is
    going to cost you millions and millions of dollars because of a
    decision that you made.
        Mr. Rigas. No, I don't agree with it. So we have about 14--
    --
        Mr. Castro. How do you not agree with it?
        Mr. Rigas. We have about 14,000 Foreign Service Officers.
    Ten-thousand of those Foreign Service Officers are deployed
    outside the U.S. We have about 4,000 Foreign Service Officers--
    --
        Mr. Castro. This applies to people in the U.S. and outside
    the U.S.
        Mr. Rigas. Who are working CONUS in the United States of
    America. So we need to get more of those 4,000 Foreign Service
    Officers working in foreign places, which is what their mission
    is.
        Mr. Castro. I guess I don't see how that answers my
    question. You made a decision that affects a small group of
    people. It is clearly a bad decision because it is going to
    cost us millions of dollars when you were trying to save a lot
    of money. But you are saying that you are not going to do
    everything you can to rectify that?
        Mr. Rigas. Well, what I am saying is we have Foreign
    Service Officers already on the payroll who are working in the
    United States of America.
        I have gotten letters from two mayors who say please give
    me back my Foreign Service Officer. And I am wondering what
    are--why is a Foreign Service Officer working for a mayor in
    the United States of America?
        Like, you don't join the Foreign Service to go work in, you
    know, Dearborn, Michigan, or in, you know, Orange--. Wherever
    these folks are working, they need to be working at posts
    overseas. Or they are diplomats in residence----
        Mr. Castro. But then why didn't you cut the jobs? You
    didn't cut the job.
        Mr. Rigas. No, we canceled those details. They were
    detailed to working for mayors in the United States of America.
    We recalled their details to come back to State----
        Mr. Castro. So to make this one last point, but again, they
    were working in these roles.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Castro. These roles were not terminated.
        Chairman Mast. All members have had their opportunity to
    ask their questions. I want to thank you for your time today. I
    am going to give you an opportunity to offer any closing
    statements, comments. You have been asked many questions. Any
    closing comments that you wish to make, and we will close out
    this hearing?
        Mr. Rigas. I just want to thank you, Chairman, and the
    members of the committee for their questions. It was my honor
    to be here before today to answer for the members of the
    committee, and I am happy to do it any time.
        I think it is an important function that you perform for
    the American people, and I appreciate the questions, the hard
    ones, the easy ones. And I am happy to, you know, give as much
    transparency as I can about what we are doing and how we are
    doing it so that your questions and concerns are satisfied.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Deputy Secretary Rigas.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days so
    submit statements, questions, extraneous materials for the
    record, subject to the length limitations.
        And without objection, this committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]