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


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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             April 30, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-15

                               __________

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


Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
61-158PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          
                       
                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

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

              James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                 Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                            REPRESENTATIVES

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

                               WITNESSES

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

                                APPENDIX

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

                        Materials for the Record

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

                        Questions for the Record

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

 
              THE NEED FOR AN AUTHORIZED STATE DEPARTMENT

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 30, 2025

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

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

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST

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

       OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS

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

                   STATEMENT OF JAMES JEFFREY

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

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID HALE

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

                     STATEMENT OF UZRA ZEYA

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


                                APPENDIX

                              ----------                              


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

                                 [all]