Helping American Businesses Win Abroad: Strengthening U.S. Commercial Diplomacy

The subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific and the subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa will come to order. This joint hearing will examine how our agencies can help American businesses compete and win in international markets. We will examine the shortcomings in the current architecture of our commercial diplomacy enterprise. And we will explore potential legislative reforms that this committee should consider as part of the forthcoming Foreign Service Act reform initiative. Reiterating what President Trump has said repeatedly, economic policy is foreign policy. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Again, good morning and welcome to this joint East Asia and the Pacific and Middle East and North Africa subcommittee hearing titled, Helping American Businesses Win Abroad: Strengthening U.S. Commercial Diplomacy. Commercial diplomacy is no longer a supporting function of foreign policy, it is foreign policy. The Trump administration has made clear that economic security is national security and that how we compete economically abroad directly shapes our strategic position in the world. This is a right time to take a hard look at whether our current approach to commercial diplomacy is fit for purpose. The United States possesses strong tools to support American businesses overseas, but those tools are not always organized or deployed to maximize impact. Our current model is split across multiple agencies and unevenly implemented at our embassies and posts abroad. This can create gaps in execution, unclear lines or responsibility, and missed opportunities. At the same time, global competition is intensifying and the demands on our commercial diplomacy system are only growing. We see this challenge most clearly in our competition with China, which deploys a highly coordinated, state-backed approach to supporting its companies abroad. The challenge for the United States is not merely recognizing this reality, but ensuring our own system is structured to compete effectively. Incremental changes will not be enough. This moment calls for more fundamental and potentially disruptive thinking about how we organize and execute commercial diplomacy. We should be willing to question whether a structure largely unchanged for decades remains right for today's challenges. That includes examining whether consolidating commercial diplomacy functions, such as by moving the Foreign Commercial Service into Department of State, could improve coordination and deliver better results. It also means considering whether the State Department itself needs to build a strong, more specialized commercial diplomacy capability, potentially through reform of the economic officer track or the creation of a dedicated commercial diplomacy career track. Ultimately, commercial diplomacy succeeds or fails at post. We must ensure we have the right people with the right expertise in the right places and that they are properly empowered and incentivized to deliver results for American businesses. Structure, workforce, and incentives all matter if we are serious about helping U.S. companies win abroad. Congress has taken steps to elevate commercial diplomacy, including through prior reforms focused on the role of chiefs of mission. Yet, we also have a responsibility to assess whether deeper structural changes are needed to align our resources, authorities, and personnel systems with our strategic objectives. So today's witnesses bring valuable firsthand experience from the field. We look forward to hearing what is working, where the system is falling apart, and most importantly, what changes would have the greatest impact. We are particularly interested in ideas that go beyond incremental fixes and address the underlying structure of the system itself. If we want American businesses to win abroad, we need a new commercial diplomacy model that is coordinated and competitive. That may require us to rethink longstanding structures and consider bold new approaches. So I look forward to a candid discussion on how we can get this right. The chair now recognizes the ranking member from California, Representative Bera, for a statement.

Thank you, Chairwoman Kim and Chairman Lawler, Ranking Member Sherman for co-hosting today's joint hearing and thank you to our witnesses for testifying before the subcommittees this morning. We live in an increasingly competitive global environment and it's critical that the United States fully leverages every tool at our disposal to support American workers, innovators, and entrepreneurs while advancing our strategic interests. One of the most important and overlooked tools we have is the Foreign Commercial Service. The FCS is a trade promotion arm of the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration, posting commercial officers at U.S. embassies and consulates overseas to promote U.S. exports and attract foreign direct investment. It was spun off of the State Department in the 1980s and as a result, FCS officers have specialized experience and training that equips them to support American businesses and create American jobs. The Foreign Commercial Service has postings in more than 75 markets representing more than 92 percent of the world's GDP. As part of the Department of Commerce, FCS is paired with a nationwide network of more than 100 U.S. export assistance centers. These domestic offices ensure that businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can access global opportunities regardless of where they are located. Yet despite the key role, the Foreign Commercial Service is facing significant challenges. The President's fiscal year 2027 budget requests a decrease of 150 million for the global markets account that houses the Foreign Commercial Service. This reduction would limit hiring, reduce overseas postings, and undermine the training and support that FCS officers require to be effective. Relative to both strategic competitors and allies, U.S. commercial diplomacy remains substantially under-resourced. Further reductions to the global markets account would erode U.S. economic security as the PRC gains strategic footholds around the world. At the same time, staffing levels have already declined as a result of deferred retirements and hiring freezes. That means fewer experts on the ground in key markets, fewer advocates for American companies abroad, and fewer eyes and ears identifying opportunities and challenges in real time. We should be asking ourselves a simple question. In a global economy where our competitors are investing heavily in commercial diplomacy, why would the United States choose to pull back? Countries like China are aggressively supporting their firms overseas with coordinated government backing, financing, and market access strategies. If we fail to match that level of equipment, we risk ceding economic and strategic ground. The Foreign Commercial Service should be at the center of our response. It should be leading efforts to promote emerging sectors like artificial intelligence. It should be helping American firms compete for major infrastructure and development projects financed by international institutions. And it should be playing a key role in strengthening supply chains, securing critical minerals, and reducing reliance on our strategic competitors. But to do that effectively, the service needs resources, staffing, and clear strategic direction. We also need to ensure that it is modernizing, leveraging digital tools, improving coordination with other agencies, and strengthening communication between its overseas officers and domestic offices. When American companies succeed abroad, they reinforce our alliances, set global standards, and project American values. When they are absent, others fill the void. Today's hearing is an opportunity to take a hard look at what is working and what is not, and what Congress can do to ensure that the Foreign Commercial Service is positioned to succeed in the years ahead. Thank you and with that I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee from New York, Representative Lawler, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairwoman Kim, for convening this important hearing. Today we examine the Department of Commerce's Foreign Commercial Service. We will learn how the service currently functions from a workforce and management perspective and contemplate potential structural reforms to improve the current systems. Commercial diplomacy is a valuable diplomatic tool to both advance U.S. business interests overseas and strengthen our economic security. Foreign service officers employed by Commerce work to help advance these diplomatic pillars, specifically helping U.S. industry compete in markets abroad and developing the relationships to attract more investment into the U.S. The Foreign Commercial Service is an essential asset of U.S. diplomacy, and it's Congress's job to ensure the service itself is structured to deliver results. We should be asking whether the current system, particularly within the economic cone, is producing the level of expertise needed to support U.S. businesses abroad, and whether officers are being incentivized to prioritize this work. As Congress considers broader reforms to the foreign service, commercial diplomacy needs to be part of that conversation. Whether that means strengthening the existing structure or building new capacity, the workforce cannot be overlooked. This also matters for how we compete globally, including whether countries that take a far more integrated approach to economic statecraft. Our effectiveness will depend on whether we are fully leveraging the people we have in the field. I'm interested in hearing from our witnesses about how these dynamics play out in practice. Where are the gaps in training, incentives, and staffing? And what changes would have the greatest impact? At the end of the day, if we are serious about strengthening commercial diplomacy, we need to ensure the State Department is rightly prioritizing this mission. I thank you and look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee from California, Representative Sherman, you're now recognized for your opening statement.

Thank you so much for having this hearing. It is a topic of some importance. But I wonder whether especially our subcommittee, the Middle East subcommittee, could perhaps focus on something that most people think is of greater importance, the war in Iran. We've not had meaningful hearings on the war of Iran since it started on February 28. And we haven't had a government witness come before us and explain what is our foreign policy. And to have hearing after hearing at the full committee and in the Middle East subcommittee on other topics, today reforming commercial diplomacy, is not a reason to fail to have Congress be a co-equal branch of government in determining this critical foreign policy issue. It is time for the full committee and the subcommittee to demand and if need be subpoena government witnesses to tell us about the war in Iran. As to commercial diplomacy, one issue that is rarely talked about is the extent to which our commercial diplomacy efforts can be influenced by corruption and campaign contributions. Imagine you have two companies, say Ford and Chevy, both trying to export to this or that country. Which one will see its products pushed and which, where will our commercial diplomacy lie? We have to take steps, and I'll be asking our witnesses about this, to make sure that it isn't Chevy because they gave a million dollars to the party in power rather than Ford that backed the other party. We also, I look at our commercial diplomacy and so often it is not job-oriented, it is profit-oriented, and it is designed to facilitate the supply chain of importers. The analysis cannot be which commercial policy will most increase profits of American companies. It has to be which commercial policies will increase wages in the United States. And for all too often I hear words like facilitate supply chains as cover for helping reduce manufacturing employment in the United States while increasing profits. We've seen the budget request for the commercial service cut by 30 percent. Perhaps the one thing Americans want our foreign policy establishment to do is to improve the economy of the United States, and yet this agency is being cut by 30 percent. It is interesting to see whether the agency should be part of the State Department or part of the Department of Commerce. Clearly there's expertise in the agency that exists now, and clearly the existing bureaucracy and its fans want to leave things exactly as they are now. But it is important that the diplomatic power of the United States be available to promote our commercial interests. And if foreign governments pay attention to our State Department, knowing that our Defense Department is right around the corner, one wonders will they pay attention on the commercial side. Those in the bureaucracy carrying out our foreign policy tend not to grow up with an interest in business and an interest in increasing business activity. They tend to grow up studying the great diplomatic achievements or lack thereof at Versailles, at all the most famous diplomatic encounters in the world. We need to hire capable people with a real interest in business. And finally, let me point out that perhaps the worst part of our foreign policy when it comes to business is an incredibly slow process of issuing visas. I think all of us have gotten the call. So-and-so needs to come, they're going to buy our product, they're going to invest in our company, and they can't get a visa, they can't get an interview. It's not a matter of whether they'll get it, they'll get it eventually, but business can't wait a year and a half for a file to rise on a bureaucrat's desk. Visas are an important part of our commerce, and I yield back.

Thank you. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record, and we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this very important topic. Mr. Jim Golsen, the Vice President of the Center for Corporate Diplomacy at the Meridian International Center. Ms. Christina Sharkey, the Senior Advisor at Edge Partners. And Mr. Arun Venkataraman, a partner at Covington & Burlington LLP. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us today. Your full statements will be made part of the record, and I'll ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. And I now recognize Mr. Golsen for an opening statement.

Madam Chairwoman Kim, Chairman Lawler, Ranking Member Bera, thank you so much, Ranking Member Sherman, for the invitation to have this conversation today. As we celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary this year, I think it's appropriate to reflect on Benjamin Joy. Mr. Joy was appointed by President George Washington in 1792 to be our country's first consul to India. He arrived in Calcutta in 1794 and was our nation's first commercial diplomat as he established commercial relations between our young nation and India. His courageous example inspired me and countless thousands of other foreign commercial service officers to serve as commercial diplomats around the world since that time. To this day, there's an award given to the State Department and commercial service officers who excel in collaboration named after Benjamin Joy as a testament to the real impact our commercial diplomats make in the modern world. Just as the world has changed dramatically since George Washington's time, so is the world changed since the foreign commercial service was removed from the State Department in 1980. My hope is that this hearing gives us the opportunity to reimagine the role of commercial diplomacy in the modern world and to prepare our country to compete globally. In order to do so, we must update the architecture of governmental commercial diplomacy, tighten coordination and the user interface with the private sector, and set us up effectively to compete with our strategic competitors. At the same time, we must lift up small business exporters and embrace critical and emerging technologies. This will require challenging past assumptions, empowering our existing diplomats, and recruiting diplomats based on updated criteria. It will also require understanding how internal and self-imposed funding demands have evolved over the past 25 years that have had unintended consequences of holding back our commercial diplomacy efforts globally. My written statement includes my recommendations, but I believe we all have to be clear-eyed that it will not be easy to change the status quo, but I firmly believe that it is urgent that we seize this moment to embrace change and partnership with the private sector to set our country up for success in the years to come. Finally, I don't think we change by trying to emulate our strategic competitors, but rather by embracing the inherent strength of our private sector and the entrepreneurial nature of our country. The world is eager to engage with our innovators, and I'm confident our government and diplomats can be that bridge in the modern world. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Golsen. I now recognize Ms. Sharkey for an opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairwoman, ranking members, and distinguished members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I built my career with the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service from an entry-level trade specialist covering South Asia through senior assignments across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe to my final role overseeing commercial operations across 15 U.S. embassies from Canada to Argentina. I'm here today because I believe this organization is one of America's most effective and least known economic tools, and because the moment to act on its behalf is now. Commercial diplomacy is often understood in terms of advancing U.S. trade policy, breaking down barriers for American companies doing business internationally, and advocating for U.S. solutions in foreign government procurement. I should know, I helped author and deliver a course on the subject. And that work is vital for American companies to compete and win in today's global marketplace. But the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is so much more. I ask this committee to broaden that definition and embrace the full scope of work being done by the men and women of this organization. Commercial diplomacy is also the work of helping American companies find customers in new markets and attracting foreign investment that creates jobs in American communities. It is the work that sustains American businesses and American workers every day, and it deserves to be a part of this conversation. In 2010, at the height of the Great Recession, I was working out of the U.S. Export Assistance Center in San Francisco, helping an Algerian trade delegation make connections at the World of Concrete trade show. I stopped to speak with the owner of a small company from North Carolina, a manufacturer of machines that produce concrete curbs. His company had worked with the commercial service to develop export markets before the recession hit. When I asked him how things were going, he told me those export sales had saved his company. When American contractors stopped buying, his foreign customers kept ordering. The commercial service had helped him build that market, and that market kept his employees working. That story is not exceptional. It's illustrative of the daily work being done by my former colleagues. In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service assisted more than 33,000 U.S. export clients and more than 10,000 companies exploring investment in the United States. 81 percent of those export clients were small and medium-sized businesses. 90 percent achieved their objectives. These numbers are not estimates. They are tracked transaction by transaction because accountability is built into the work from the beginning. But here's the challenge. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service has operated under chronic funding constraints for nearly my entire career. Today, the entire officer corps is smaller than a single A-100 incoming class at the State Department. The people responsible for supporting American exporters and attracting foreign investment across more than 70 markets worldwide would fit inside one entry-level orientation cohort. Over the past year, the organization has lost experienced officers and staff at a significant rate. I am one among those that left. That loss of institutional knowledge and expertise is real and has consequences for American businesses trying to compete in a world that is not waiting for us to get organized. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service deserves to be funded at the strategic asset it is. The return on investment is documented. The mission is clear. But after years of watching budgets that kept the service functional without making it exceptional, I've come to believe that the most realistic path to a better resourced, better positioned commercial diplomacy enterprise runs through the Department of State. State has the global reach, the diplomatic standing, and the institutional resources the commercial service has never had. With commercial officers embedded across State's full global network, export assistance and investment promotion could reach every embassy, including markets where American businesses currently have no one on their corner. The culture, the entrepreneurial spirit must be protected though in any transition. The goal is not to absorb the commercial service into State's structure. The goal is to build something better than either institution has achieved alone, combining State's global platform with the commercial service proven ability to deliver results for American business. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is critical in the fight for economic security. With the right structure, the right resources, and the right mandate, it can do even more for American businesses and American workers under the umbrella of the State Department. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions and the discussion.

Thank you, Ms. Sharkey. I now recognize Mr. Venkataraman for an opening statement.

Good morning. Chairwoman Kim, Chairman Lawler, Ranking Members Bera and Sherman, members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how to strengthen U.S. commercial diplomacy. Your decision to hold this hearing and tackle this issue is a testament to your leadership and underscores the unique role Congress can play in ensuring that U.S. commercial diplomacy institutions meet our growing economic security needs. I'm honored to share with you a summary of the thoughts that I've conveyed in my written submission. The history of the modern foreign commercial service begins with the Carter administration's decision at the direction of Congress in 1979 to better prioritize and advance U.S. commercial interests by transferring the function of commercial diplomacy from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Following a strategic review the Commerce Department undertook in the early 1990s, the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service has been helping U.S. companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, become exporters, building a strong track record of success in supporting entrepreneurship and jobs in communities across America, including in many of your districts. Central to this success was the congressionally directed separation of core commercial diplomacy from the State Department Foreign Service function. This separation has allowed FCS officers to advance American commercial interests abroad, among other things, by drawing on the strengths of the Commerce Department, like the deep sectoral and supply chain expertise in the International Trade Administration, the practical innovation knowledge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the ability to shape business legal frameworks through the Commercial Law Development Program. At the same time, we should be clear that separation has not meant isolation. To the contrary, the Commerce Department and State Department have deep and solid coordination and partnership in Washington and especially in overseas posts that well serves U.S. foreign economic and commercial interests. The bottom line is that this distinctness of a Foreign Service agency dedicated to commercial diplomacy and housed in a department charged with a commercial mission remains a strong foundation on which Congress can and should build a revitalized and fully resourced team of commercial diplomats. Ideally, this would include improvements in the three areas of agency mission, personnel, and congressional engagement. On the first point, Commerce needs to reorient the mission of the Commercial Service around economic security more broadly, rather than purely export promotion. Economic security cannot be achieved without an elevated role for the Advocacy Center and SelectUSA to ensure that our companies win more foreign procurements, including in areas like critical minerals, and bring more investment and jobs to the United States. Both programs need to be codified in statute and fully incorporated into the mission of the Commercial Service. And while it is natural here to focus on the work of the Foreign Commercial Service, we must not forget that their success depends also on the robust U.S. network of Commercial Service officers tied directly to local businesses and innovators. Advancing the economic security objective in a rapidly changing commercial and technology landscape also requires adaptable, well-trained personnel in the right locations around the world. Most important here is the need to correct the long-time understaffing of the Foreign Commercial Service, where we essentially have the same number of officers we did 40 years ago, while competitors like China have long surpassed us and are beating us at our own game with multiples of the officers we deploy. And they do so with a footprint in the most critical locations all around the world, leaving no region unsupported, something this committee has well recognized as a shortcoming of recent FCS operations. Finally, Congress needs to play a greater role to invest fully in the success of commercial diplomacy and to hold those efforts accountable to make sure they are succeeding. More regular reporting from and engagement with the Global Markets business unit responsible for commercial diplomacy in the Commerce Department can better ensure that Congress's expectations, those from 1979 as well as 2026, are fully met. I want to close by assuring the subcommittee that my recommendations in no way take away from my confidence in our commercial diplomats, who are some of the finest professionals in the federal government, driven by a clear mission to support U.S. business and delivering results with measurable metrics. The reasons for grounding U.S. commercial diplomacy in the Commerce Department rather than the State Department are even stronger today than they were when the FCS was created over 40 years ago. What is needed is not a new home for the Foreign Commercial Service, but a redefined mission and resources for them to do their job effectively on behalf of the American people. Thank you.

Thank you for all of your opening statements. I would like to now recognize the subcommittee chairman, Mike Lawler, on the Middle East and North Africa for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Foreign Service Act has not been comprehensively updated since 1980, despite significant changes in the global economic landscape. As commercial diplomacy becomes more central to U.S. foreign policy, questions remain about whether the Foreign Service's culture and incentives reflect that shift. Aligning mission and incentives will be key to modernization. Does the current incentive structure reflect the growing importance of commercial diplomacy as a core mission, and should Congress consider updating the Foreign Service Act to more explicitly prioritize support for U.S. businesses, including small and medium-sized entrepreneurs?

Thank you for the question. I think that the answer to the last part is yes. I think the authorities should be updated to reflect the realities of the global economy today. I think the incentive structure within the Foreign Commercial Service is present and certainly there's interest across the interagency to play a role, but the question is can we play that role in a coordinated, well-resourced way? I think that's a very, very much an open question.

And how could performance evaluations and promotion criteria be reformed to ensure officers are rewarded for delivering tangible commercial outcomes for American companies? Christina.

The Foreign Commercial Service currently has a system of KPIs, key performance indicators, that we are measured against. State Department doesn't have anything to my knowledge that is similar. We report on every company that we service, every service that we've done, the company's satisfaction levels. Those are all very well documented and leverages into our performance evaluations as officers. State Department could emulate that or adopt it as part of the Commercial Service.

Great.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think I want to second what Christina said about the key performance indicators, and that is something all officers work toward and is fully documented. What is missing, however, is a broadening of those performance indicators to reflect the full scope of the work necessary to advance American economic security. And that's where I think this committee and other members of Congress can really take a role in redefining that mission so that those performance indicators capture the full range of duties and outcomes that we expect commercial officers to perform.

Now, commercial diplomacy today requires specialized skills that go beyond traditional diplomatic training. As the mission evolves, training and professional development must keep pace. What does the current training look like to prepare Foreign Service officers to support U.S. businesses in competitive global markets, and is there any required training focused on commercial diplomacy and private sector engagement?

Yes, and I think this question is directly tied to resources. I think the official professional development resources have been frozen for some time. As my colleague Christina has said, the workforce itself is quite entrepreneurial and finds online courses, but could it be improved 100 percent? Officers find their training through private sector sources and open sources, but resources would be required in order to give officers the opportunity for that professional engagement in commercial diplomacy.

Congress has taken steps to elevate commercial diplomacy as a priority, including reinforcing the role of chiefs of mission. However, implementation may vary across posts. As part of modernization efforts, Congress may need to revisit how accountability is structured within the Foreign Service. How can Congress better ensure consistent implementation of commercial priorities across posts rather than relying on individual leadership styles?

I will say, Mr. Chairman, in my recent experience as a Foreign Commercial Service officer, ambassadors universally have been deeply interested in that work. I think to answer your question directly, the performance management of chief of missions should include a corporate diplomacy element. I think that would be helpful, but in practice, they have been side-by-side with Commercial Service officers in my experience.

And the global distribution of Foreign Service personnel has significant implications for U.S. commercial competitiveness. Does the current model for assigning Foreign Service personnel reflect where U.S. businesses need the most support today?

Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. The chairwoman pointed out that Commercial Service officers are present in countries that reflect about over 90 percent of the countries to which we export. That's an important metric, but cannot be the sole metric by which we measure success. In fact, it's the countries where we are absent where we are losing most particularly and where we need to have a stronger presence. And that requires both a second look at the current allocation of officers as has been tried to be done in recent years, but also just an upping of the resources needed to reach the whole world as our competitors have done.

Great. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member Bera for five minutes of your questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Listening to all of our opening statements as well as yours, I think there's broad agreement that Foreign Commercial Service officers are incredibly important if we want to compete in a global environment. We've got to be promoting our businesses. If we want to support our small businesses that do have products to export, helping them navigate a complicated world is extremely important. And again, if we want, this isn't the 1960s or 1970s when the United States could just show up and we had the best products and services. This is a very competitive global space right now. So adequately resourcing these services are super important. We also know we have multiple tools in the government. Obviously we talked about the FCS, but we've got the Development Finance Corporation, the MCC, Export-Import Bank, USTDA, the Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture promoting our crops. So again, broad agreement that this is important, it should be adequately funded in a global environment. I think the question that we, Congress, as well as this committee will grapple with is where's it best housed in an interagency process? And I think I'll direct my line of questioning to each of you to think about that. How best to coordinate across the interagency model? President Trump would probably take it as a compliment that DOGE has been disruptive. We are where we are, so let's not relitigate that. But we should think about not rebuilding what we had before, but how I'd like to approach this is what comes next and how do we create a process across multiple agencies that is most effective in promoting U.S. economic interest and U.S. business interest? So maybe we'll start over here and just let each of you answer that.

Thank you, Congressman. One of the things I discovered very early upon assuming the post as Assistant Secretary in visiting our officers across the United States was how incredibly well-connected they were and how they had a visceral sense of where solutions existed in government for small businesses that came to them with problems. One of the things they were clear about is that it's not up to the small businesses to work through the alphabet soup of all the agencies and all the tools available in the federal government. And so commercial officers in the United States in particular serve as an important frontline for intake of problems and concerns coming from small businesses and can then help them identify the tools across the federal government that might solve those problems, whether it's SBA or EXIM or other agencies. I think that core strength is something that can be built on and built up to do across the organization and to work in other areas like critical minerals and other strategic areas of importance.

Ms. Sharkey.

I would just add that when we're working in an embassy and you're the senior commercial officer, we're sitting side-by-side with our State Department colleagues at country team in front of the ambassador. You know, we're not down the street, down Constitution Avenue, we're working together daily to achieve those goals so that there is to American businesses and people that come to the embassy, there's no screen. They don't know that Commerce is helping them or State Department helping them or Energy is even helping them. Is that it really is a team spirit and it works well. The separation of the service from Commerce to State is not, I think, at issue. Is that we work very well together. It's more of a funding issue to be honest.

Mr. Golsen.

Thank you, sir. I think it really comes down to the U.S. Export Assistance Centers translating that alphabet soup based in communities across the United States. They play a critical role. There's no doubt that the user interface for the private sector needs to be streamlined, but absent that happening, the U.S. Export Assistance Centers play that critical role.

So if I again just taking your answers, you feel the current housing within Department of Commerce is fine. It's less where it's housed, it's more the tools and then having the resources here domestically that are available, you know, again whether that's in Commerce, SBA, that are available for those small businesses and even large businesses sometimes to say, hey, here's an opportunity, here's the tools, we'll help you navigate this and help you compete for those contracts. So again, there is going to be a debate about moving this to State Department versus keeping it in Commerce. You think the system's working, not adequately resourced, but...

Congressman, I think what I would say is in addition to what has been pointed out here and the value of the existing structure and the existing officers and their ability to connect other agencies, two other things that I do think need greater attention. One is helping the Foreign Commercial Service prioritize its efforts. It is and always will be an agency of scarce resources. There will never be enough resources to fully accomplish the objective. So it's important that at the direction of leaders in the Commerce Department that they are able to prioritize their work in sectors that matter most to Americans. So I think that is critical. I also think in addition to the prioritization piece of this is that we have to find a way for Commercial Service officers to get the training they need to respond to the constantly changing dynamics.

Gentleman's time's up, so can you please wrap up, please, quickly.

Sure. This is where I would just say, sir, that an equivalent of FSI for the commercial diplomacy function is critical and it would be different from what is at FSI right now.

Thank you. The Under Secretary Jason Evans testified here on March 19th that, in quote, "Our econ officers in the past have been trained to do economic reporting. Now we're shifting to a situation where commercial diplomacy is our policy. So we are working very closely with our econ officers to make sure they have the skill sets to go out there and do that commercial diplomacy," end quote. Mr. Golsen, what do you think of Under Secretary Evans' proposal to retrain econ officers to be commercial diplomats?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it reflects the centrality of commercial diplomacy today. And I go back to my user interface comment for the private sector. That has to be coordinated or we will not be successful overseas. So it certainly reflects that critical nature of it, but I hope that we can ensure it's aligned for the private sector as they interact with this engagement.

Great. Mr. Venkataraman, the Commerce Department has been cutting and reducing the size and resources of the Foreign Commercial Service for years. And so having served in Commerce, why do you believe Commerce has so little appreciation for FCS? Do you believe these cuts are consistent with the importance of commercial diplomacy and the U.S. interest?

Madam Chairwoman, I don't think it's a reflection or a lack of appreciation for the Commercial Service. I think in fact what it is is that the demands on the Commerce Department itself have grown considerably, not just in the Foreign Commercial Service, but also in the Bureau of Industry and Security and in other areas. And so as those demands have grown across the department, the funding across the department has not kept up with the needs.

Got it. As global economic competition intensifies, the State Department must be equipped to proactively advance the U.S. commercial interests. We agree with that. Current Foreign Service structures diffuse commercial responsibilities across cones, which may limit focus and accountability, particularly compared to the more specialized client-facing model of the FCS. So as Congress considers Foreign Service Act reform, especially a dedicated commercial diplomacy track could better align expertise, incentives, and career pathways with the growing importance of economic statecraft and commercial advocacy. So question to, it's a free-for-all, anyone can answer this. Should Congress establish a dedicated commercial diplomacy track within the Foreign Service? And what would be the advantages or risks compared to the FCS model? And can you also talk about guardrails? What guardrails should be in place for a commercial track to differ from the current economic cone in terms of hiring, training, and career progression? And then what skill sets or professional background should be prioritized, like in private sector, trade promotion, or investment facilitation? And then lastly, how should assignments and promotion incentives be structured to ensure sustained focus on delivering for the U.S. businesses? And I threw out a lot of questions there, so you guys can take whichever to respond to that.

So I'll go ahead and say yes, I think that should absolutely be examined. I think on the positive side and the main issue in my view for the Foreign Commercial Service over these past 20 years losing resource is the centralized cost structure of having a platform overseas. Not to get too technical, but ICASS, MCS, and the Foreign Service personnel system. That has not been managed well within the Department of Commerce over 25 years because it's very complex. And when it's time to cut, it's easy to cut that without understanding the unintended consequences. Having that structure inherently baked in with the State Department is helpful. I think the risk is losing that entrepreneurial spirit and client focus and expertise. So I would recommend against copy-pasting into an existing structure and rather having the opportunity to innovate how that looks going forward.

Got it. I'd like to have the other two have the opportunity to respond.

I think a good model that State Department actually had launched was the digital attache model. So thinking about the industries of the future and what's really pushing American economy, the American economy and where there is opportunities overseas. I understand that that program may not be as robust as it was before, but I think that's moving in the right direction. If there was a dedicated commercial cone, I would say that actually that would be more in line instead of having a commercial and economic cone to be more focused on commercial, to be more focused on American businesses and American industry. Again, thinking about how the Commercial Service could lend that model to the State Department would be excellent. We are only in the Commercial Service is only in 70-plus countries. Obviously State Department covers the entire globe. And so right now the Commercial Service is limited. And so State Department officers, econ officers in the commercial cone could actually represent American business in so many more markets. So it would be advantageous to the U.S. people.

Sure. Sure. You have the final word.

I would say, I think one thing we don't want to lose is that the econ officers at State are valuable. This is not a situation where we need to replace what they do by making them do something else. They have value and we should maintain that value and...

You have the final word.

I would say I think one thing we don't want to lose is that the econ officers at State are valuable. This is not a situation where we need to replace what they do by making them do something else. They have value and we should maintain that value. And what I'm seeing is a distinct value provided by the Foreign Commercial Service. And so wanting to maintain those separate the benefits that we get is I think important and not to conflate everything because we do need everything, but we do need them distinct in order to be able to accomplish what we need to accomplish.

Thank you all. I now recognize Ranking Member Sherman for five minutes of questioning.

Madam Chairwoman, the room's empty. Of course you have the greatest two members...

I'm still here. I'm still here. It's not empty.

As I was about to say, you do have the two greatest members of the Democratic Caucus here. And we have two Republicans in the room as well.

Two great California Republicans.

Yes.

We're all California.

We're all California. California rocks. This room would be full if we were to have a hearing on what we're doing in Iran. The greatest economic effect of our foreign policy today is the Strait of Hormuz. And instead we're focused on a matter which is not being covered live on C-SPAN 3. We need Rubio in that chair talking about what we're going to do to bring peace to the Middle East and to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Mr. Golsen, are our commercial services and other economic diplomacy efforts adequately funded? And how anecdotally I see the embassies of our major trading partners with the commercial attache and the trade attache being at the very heart of the embassy's operation. I don't see that in American embassies, but that's just anecdotal. We've had repeated budget cuts in this area. Are we funding this area adequately and how does it compare to the level of energy put forward by our trading competitors/friends?

Thank you, Ranking Member. I think the short answer is no, we are not. And it's for the reasons I highlighted on the internal cost structures of running a platform overseas on a State Department platform, which causes personnel cuts, cuts to training, cuts to travel. So no, sir, we are not.

And for what it's worth, I spent two years designated as the head of the Trade Development Agency. I appreciate the fact that under the chief of mission, everybody including the FBI works for the chief of mission.

Gotcha. Concerned a bit about the possibility of corruption. I'll ask all of our witnesses if you're aware of any academic or other studies or reports about the revolving door situation where people engaged in commercial diplomacy then end up with a good employment contract with an American company with overseas business interest. Has anybody studied this issue to your knowledge?

And so what I would say though and what I would submit, Congressman, is that the having these functions separated into the two agencies is actually a source of strength because much like the interagency process, by bringing the agencies together and having each agency fight hard for its perspective and then collectively creating a unified policy, I think that helps advance American interests. And so the Commerce Department has a history and a culture of being thinking business first, American business first. There's no doubt about that. There's not ever a real balancing of other interests that have to happen for any foreign service officer.

I'll take I assume the answer's no unless somebody jumps in and tells me. Likewise, has anyone studied whether campaign contributions influence the allocation of resources of our commercial diplomacy?

So and I'm going to pile on Ms. Sharkey. Is it fair to say that in a perfect world, you would have two centers of excellence? The entity, we'll call it Commerce for a moment, that recruits and develops people who understand domestic companies, that meets with them in the United States, that has large offices throughout the United States, and who in fact coordinate as many aspects of the export opportunity and encouragement as possible, and then working hand in hand with the State Department who has expertise A in overseas and B in the diplomacy of dealing with the barriers that may exist, some of them coming from, for example, China and nefarious activity. Isn't that essentially what if this committee does the right thing we would do is not build one organization because you can't you can't really make the State Department foreign service person an expert entrepreneur in Cleveland, Ohio? I use Cleveland for personal reasons.

Are you aware of any studies on this? All witnesses are shaking their head and saying no. Mr. Venkataraman, I previewed this in my opening statement. You get major American companies who we think are in America's interest because what's good for GM is good for America, they said a century ago. And they're pushing our commercial attaches and others to, I think in your words, strengthen supply chains.

I actually was born in Cleveland.

But often what this means is take actions which facilitate offshoring our manufacturing. Is there any system inside the State Department or the Department of Commerce to analyze not are we promoting the interests of a major American company, but is what they're asking us to do in the interest of raising wages or is it in the interest of facilitating imports? What formal analysis goes on there?

As was I.

Thank you, Ranking Member. There is in the heart of the mission of the Foreign Commercial Service as it stands today this clear focus on supporting companies that export and by virtue of exporting creating jobs in the United States and bringing those economic benefits back home. That is the value of the current mission. I think as we redefine the mission, I agree with you that we need to make sure that we keep that laser-like focus on bringing those benefits home. That doesn't mean we need to keep limit the mission to supporting exporting firms. I do believe there is a way to strengthen supply chains as we need to do to protect the American economy in a way that is that does support American jobs here.

Yes, sir. I think that recognizing the importance of helping small and medium-sized businesses export and the U.S. field's role in that is very important. And also that that work actually also informs our work overseas as well because breaking down barriers is not just something for large companies. It can affect small companies as well. So absolutely, I think having that network, you know, in theory, if we were very well resourced, if we had, you know, the training that was necessary, the HR, the we didn't have the administrative costs, it would be great to stay within Commerce because we do play a vital role. But that's just not the case and I don't foresee it being the case in the future.

Is there a formal checklist or study to see whether what we're being asked to do actually supports American jobs and do we favor those American exporters that pay a living wage versus those that are perhaps ununionized and pay very little?

As one Clevelander to another, you'll notice that I said Commerce, but I said it in parentheses. Today the EXIM Bank is an independent organization. The Trade Development Agency is independent. As a matter of fact, our entire funding system is a group of independent organizations. My question to you is as you're looking at currently what's in Commerce and currently what's not in Commerce, is it reasonable for this committee to think big and look at the possibility that it would be two entities? One that takes on the Belt and Road, one that works with all of our businesses including of course infrastructure developers all the way down to the small business and develops two centers of expertise. One that is classic State Department development, which is diplomacy, sometimes telling somebody to go to hell and having them pack happily for the trip. Secondly, those who in fact putting together the rest of the package. So my question is if we were looking at a consolidation, and let's forget about whether it's housed X, Y, and Z, but let's just assume for a moment that it were completely autonomous. That Trade Development, EXIM Bank, and the plethora of others including what is currently at Commerce became part of an organization who had a structural mission to do exactly what you're saying and had the combined resources to do so. Is that plausible knowing that in the first Trump administration they did some of that and we are now in a second Trump administration and there is a will to do something big to help us take on very difficult access barriers?

So we do not, as far as I'm aware and I'll let my colleagues speak to this, but we do not select the companies we help on the basis of what their wages are, but by virtue of the exporting function that they perform, it's how we make sure that American jobs are protected.

Yes, sir. I absolutely appreciate that kind of innovative thinking and different different approaches that could serve U.S. businesses best. So I think looking at every potential for a reorganization inside, outside Commerce, a whole trade reorganization is worthwhile and something that I would encourage the committee to do.

I yield back.

Well, with my Ranking Member seeming to be happy, I will... Who's next? Mr. Amo. Okay. Mr. Amo is recognized for five minutes and my apologies for running on. At one point we had nobody else in the queue. I apologize. Gentleman's recognized. Gentleman yields back. I'll follow up on that, I think a little bit. When we talk about consolidation, taking back something that's been at Commerce since the 1980s, we're talking about consolidating to the State Department. The State Department lost this function because they didn't pay attention to it, because it was perceived that they didn't have the tract and that other missions continued to take precedence, and including good relations sometimes can be about promoting a company doing business, but it also can get in the way of it. And I'll give you just a couple of examples. South Korea, Colombia, and for that matter all of Europe, but I'll just take the first two. South Korea has denied Google Maps the ability to do business. The State Department has not been effective in with a partner in which we are providing material support that keeps them from being invaded. Similarly, Coupang was fined over $100 million after they had material stolen from them and they worked with the government to have it recovered. They still were not only fined, but they were raided and their chief executives were called from the United States and then essentially imprisoned while they were being interrogated over something in which there was no data loss. Those are diplomatic challenges that fall to the State Department. Similarly, the equivalent of Costco, the Price organization operating in Colombia and throughout South America, finds itself effectively systematically being locked out to favor domestic companies. These are companies already doing business. Now isn't the primary ongoing requirement of the State Department is when somebody's already doing business in a foreign country to aid them, to make sure that they are being treated fairly, and isn't that a responsibility that there seems to be plenty of room to, if you will, do better? Now you're on the hot seat.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the leadership of both subcommittees for hosting this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being here. President Trump talks a big game about promoting U.S. trade, but his actions are doing the opposite. His chaotic and unlawful tariffs have strained relationships with our allies, weakened our commercial diplomacy, and raised costs for American businesses. His illegal war in Iran and blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have destabilized global markets. American businesses don't expand into new markets in chaos. You all know that. They need stability. They need predictability and right now they're getting neither. That's why programs like the Foreign Commercial Service matter. As you know, the Foreign Commercial Service helps American companies break into foreign markets and brings investment back home. It's a direct pipeline to jobs and growth in the United States. But this administration has deprioritized it. The facts are clear. DOGE pushed experienced officers out the door and the hiring freeze has left critical gaps. And now we're seeing the dire consequences. Foreign Commercial Service officers are posted to over 75 export markets which account for 90 percent of global GDP. But in smaller and emerging markets, there's often no dedicated presence at all. That leaves American businesses on their own as they navigate unfamiliar regulatory systems and commercial environments. For example, the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan doesn't have a Foreign Commercial Service presence, leaving companies interested in that market to be routed through Ankara, hundreds of miles away, in a completely different business and political environment. That's not a serious strategy for supporting U.S. businesses in emerging markets. So Mr. Venkataraman, how does the Foreign Commercial Service determine where officers should be posted overseas and what factors, for example, determine whether a market like Armenia would get a dedicated presence?

Happy to be in the hot seat. The answer is yes, but I want to be clear that this is not just a function of the State Department, right? This is, as my colleague Christina mentioned, at post, the ways in which the Commerce Department and State Department work together, it's just it's not even working together. They sit next to each other literally and they are on the country team together with the ambassador advising the ambassador. Thank you, Congressman. When looking at where to assign officers, and my colleague Christina was intimately involved in this when I first started in the position, we look at where American business is being done, but we need to look more what we started to do is look more where American business is not being done and why is it not being done there. Because what we know is that when American business is present in foreign countries, that serves as a vital connective tissue of partnership with that country. We want American business to succeed in foreign markets. And so if American business is not in a foreign market, that means they need help entering that foreign market. So we need to look at the gaps where American business is not located and not use that as a reason not to place officers there, but ask the question why is American business not there? And one of the things that we need to do with the Foreign Commercial Service is not be passive and not help people that come in, not just help people that come in, but be proactive. So for example, if there's a tender on a critical minerals project in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it should be the responsibility of the Foreign Commercial Service officer in in that country to not just see if American companies are interested, but to go hunt for American companies who should be interested because it is in our interest for American companies to participate in that tender. So we need some of and in order to do that, we need to be present in markets where American business is not sufficiently active yet.

And that makes sense. And so that's why we need the personnel. And so ultimately, you know that at embassies where there's no foreign commercial service presence like Armenia, State Department Foreign Service officers often, you know, fill in the economic section, fill that role. So could you speak to the difference in training, expertise, and mission between a Foreign Commercial Service officer and a State Department economic officer, and what do U.S. businesses lose as we, you know, try to fill those gaps when we don't have dedicated commercial expertise?

So I'll start and invite my colleagues to chime in. The I want to be clear that our State Department partners at these partner posts do receive training and they are fantastic partners. I mean, they are able to help us perform functions that we cannot perform by virtue of our absence. And so we work with them to give them initial training to to think a little bit more like a commercial officer and to respond to client interest the way a commercial officer would. But as you pointed out, Congressman, that is ad hoc, that is temporary, that is not a solid grounding of training, nor is it the years of expertise built up that a commercial officer brings to every post. That's not the fault of the economic officer at post. That partnership is important, but it is very much a second best solution that we have to live with today. Their training, they're exposed to economic policy, they understand macroeconomic conditions, and they can support business, but they are not a business-first mentality, which is what commercial officers bring.

Ms. Sharkey, if you could briefly.

Yes, sir. We do offer partnership post program and commercial tradecraft is offered at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center. But as Arun had said, yes, you know, these in a small post like Yerevan, you have, you know, a commercial officer, maybe one or two local staff. And they're juggling multiple priorities. So commercial isn't necessarily...

I'm sorry, but my time has expired. But thank you for your feedback and I yield back.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Representative Barr from Kentucky is in, so I would now recognize you for five minutes of your questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you to our... Oh, sorry. Can I ask you a question there? Sorry. All right, thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Just a few questions. Mr. Golsen, let me let me ask you first, given your experience as former deputy of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service, would consolidating U.S. commercial diplomacy functions under a single agency improve outcomes for U.S. businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises? And as you contemplate that answer, a follow-up question would be, how might such a restructuring enhance the effectiveness of current global markets framework, navigating non-tariff barriers and protecting U.S. companies' intellectual property?

Thank you for the question, sir. I think the answer is yes, if it's done inclusively, that includes the the local offices throughout the United States, the advocacy center, SelectUSA, etc., all elements of commercial diplomacy power. It would improve the user interface for the private sector. Yes, sir.

Thanks. For for any of you, the President's America First trade agenda has been important, in my view, in bringing in foreign investment into this country through trade deals, and the results are, you know, undeniable. Trillions of dollars in commitments of foreign direct investment, including a trillion dollars from Japan as a result of those tough but substantive negotiations. $600 billion from Meta, another $600 billion from Apple, which is moving 100 percent of the glass manufacturing for their iPhones and Apple Watches to my district in Harrodsburg, Kentucky, Mercer County, Kentucky. We have an existing Corning facility there in Mercer County, but jobs that are currently in China are coming to my district as a result of trade and tax policies from this administration. All of this hard glass is going to be manufactured by Kentuckians in my district as a result of these policies. Can you speak to the effectiveness of these efforts in strengthening U.S. economic competitiveness and what role, if any, should the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service play in expanding this inward investment momentum? Any of you.

Well, thank you, Congressman. I think the function of the inbound investment piece is insufficient attention is being paid to that right now by the Commercial Service. And it's not their fault. It's again, they're juggling many objectives. We need to prioritize that inbound investment piece as part of their function at posts. They're already doing that with the help of local staff, but that needs to be made more of a priority and more resources and more more staff given to do that.

Well, I'm the co-chair of the Global Investment in America Caucus. Part of the reason I am is not just because of this investment in Corning from Apple, but also because I represent, and I'm privileged to do so, the largest Toyota manufacturing plant in the world in Georgetown, Kentucky, and the supply chain. There's 10,000 team members there. This Japanese investment in Kentucky is is massive, and these are higher-paying jobs. So I just appreciate the Trump administration policies which are, again, inviting more of this, not less. Finally, China. In the face of intensifying strategic competition from the CCP, which routinely leverages state-backed financing, subsidies, and coercive economic practices to push its companies and reach globally, many are concerned that the United States is being left at a disadvantage. This is particularly true in critical minerals supply chains where China controls 70 percent of the mining and over 90 percent of refining. What specific reforms are needed to ensure that the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is fully aligned with our strategic and economic security priorities, especially countering Chinese influence in critical minerals?

Thank you, sir. I think it's personnel, where we place our Foreign Commercial Service officers in critical markets where we have that strategic competition and ensuring that they have the staff and resources necessary to be effective with the host government.

Well, anybody else? If not, let me just say this is kind of the a final editorial comment. When I've traveled as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I think it's important that as an ambassador from Kentucky and we each have our signature industries in our state, you know, we want to export more Kentucky bourbon whiskey, for example. And whether it's bourbon in Kentucky or maybe it's a signature, maybe it's wine in California, whatever it might be, we have our ability to use our state's assets as as diplomacy and engender goodwill. And we want to open up those markets for Kentucky bourbon. It's a great talking point. It's it's a great diplomatic point is and it's great for America. This is a this is a multi-billion dollar industry in Kentucky and it it makes people pro-American, frankly. Whether it's California wine or Kentucky bourbon whiskey, and we want to open up markets. This is a a very important part of commercial diplomacy. I would encourage all of you all as you pursue excellence in this area to think of Kentucky and open up those markets, especially India, 1.4 billion people. India needs to reduce its its trade barriers to American bourbon whiskey exports. That that is going to strengthen our alliances, strengthen our economic ties, and counter China all at the same time. With that, I yield back and next the gentlelady, Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick, is now recognized.

Thank you so much, Chairman, and thank you so much for opening the door for us to plug our cities. I didn't know we were going to be talking about Kentucky and the bourbon, but thank you. So I represent the wonderful state of Florida, and many of our constituents talk repeatedly about wanting to explore all the opportunities international. And I really love what you were talking about, Mr. Venkataraman, about our presence needs to be more than our presence, but actively scouting out opportunities for our businesses. I'm just not convinced that we have a plan or we have the actual footprints and steps so we can attain that. And so the United States is still a global export powerhouse, but in the very markets that will shape the next century, we are getting outplayed. In emerging markets across the Global South, our companies are watching competitors move faster, invest deeper, and lock in long-term markets share while we rely on tools and strategies designed for a different era. Nowhere in this more nowhere is this more obvious than in Africa, especially Northern Africa. For example, the African Continental Free Trade Area is knitting together a single, fast-growing market of more than 1.3 billion people, a young population and rising consumer demand projected into trillions of dollars. That should be an area where American innovation, American brands, and American values are front and center. Instead, others are writing the rules, building the infrastructure, and winning the loyalty of the next generation of consumers. That is why we are here today. Our core question is simple: is America actually equipped or or competent to actually achieve these goals? Our Foreign Commercial Services is supposed to be a tip of the spear for the United States businesses overseas, helping our firms find partners, navigate barriers, and stand toe-to-toe with state-backed rivals. But if we look honestly at the trend, it's hard to argue that our current approach is delivering the results we need. So I will be asking all of our witnesses these questions. In your judgment, is our foreign commercial apparatus, our people, our presence, our playbook, is it strong enough to make American business truly competitive in this emerging market, and if not, what would you suggest we add to it?

Yes, thank you for the question. Regarding Africa, I in my view, there's no doubt whatsoever we added recently offices to Zambia, to Cote d'Ivoire, and made an immediate impact. There's no substitute for having that on-the-ground presence, engaging the host government and private sector on American companies' behalf, large and small. So that's number one. We are not in enough locations. And that's fundamentally comes down to the internal cost structures that I keep on raising, but if we got that right, I think it would be highly effective to be in these these markets where we do face steep competition.

Well, I think that's the most basic, you know, step of this is presence, so we definitely do agree with you with the presence. But what else could we add to it? Because, you know, you said the statement very clearly: active acquisition, scouting out, and connecting our businesses. So if there's anything else that you would add for us to be able to reach this goal.

Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. I think the metrics of the officers need to be tied not just to the companies that come in, but to the companies they find and bring in to a market. One of the problems we have, Africa is a prime example of this, we have a number of American companies that frankly aren't very well informed on Africa. Or they think of Africa as a singular place, which of course it is not, it is a large continent with incredible diversity. There are markets that are hungry for American companies that have a lot to offer and have a lot of stability and a lot of opportunity to make money, and there are a lot of markets that are also incredibly problematic and hard to do business in. Africa is not one single place to do business. And so one of the things our officers can and should be doing is educating the American business community about the opportunities that exist in those markets that are most favorable and that are our closest partners and that are like-minded on many of these issues. And that requires making sure they are measured on that basis of finding the companies to come in to do the tenders, not just supporting companies that realize there are tenders and helping them, but finding companies to participate in the tenders in the first place so that we don't cede ground without even competing for tenders against our strategic competitors.

Thank you for that, because that's something I think this administration has done well in my district. We have been having opportunities in Africa and they've actually been sending people to connect, but I think you're absolutely correct about expanding and finding more opportunities because usually those opportunities might be a handful, if any. And so you have a, you know, maybe hundreds of companies, but there's only a handful of opportunities. So expanding that would be helpful. My next question that you can join because my time is running out, resources. What resources would you need if you have any requests, requirements, we would love to assist. That's for anybody.

Obviously, I think the budgeting or the budget request needs to be increased. So the current Trump administration has put a $150 million decrease and that obviously is unsustainable for the service.

Thank you, I yield back.

Gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Olszewski is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and impressive pronunciation there as well, so thank you, sir. And I also appreciate the title of this hearing: Helping American Businesses Win Abroad. I'll just start, though, by being clear. The best way that we can help American businesses win is to lower prices for American families. I was driving into D.C. today and I was shocked, shocked to see that gas prices are now $4.50 per gallon. A number that is set to grow even more with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. So I'll re-emphasize the point my colleagues have made earlier, we should also be having public hearings on the war in Iran. Those gas prices would be bad enough if that's just what Americans were paying at the pump, but surcharges are enacting consumer price increases everywhere, including a new 3.5 percent tax on all products purchased through Amazon. The impact of this war is only serving to compound the President's destructive tariff policy. So when we talk about helping American businesses win, we need to remember that this administration has failed on their promise to do what American businesses really need, that is to lower costs and create consistency. And yet, I choose to remain hopeful. Just last week, we were reminded once again of who we are or who we can be as a nation. Many of us watched in amazement as Artemis II splashed down. I personally felt so much pride in what NASA has accomplished with this mission. The icing on the cake for me was that Maryland's own Second District native, Reid Wiseman, was the captain of that mission. And I have to say the incredible NASA team reminded Americans why we have to stay competitive in the space race. It's good for our economy, it's good for our security, and as we experienced this week, this past week, it is good for American morale. Maryland also has a vibrant commercial space industry that I've been fortunate to engage with, first as Baltimore County Executive and now as a member of Congress. And so to keep that momentum going, we know that we need a strong Foreign and Commercial Service that can engage on these space issues, not the kind of extreme budget cuts that frankly were just referenced by you, Ms. Sharkey, from this administration. As we've heard, the president proposed a $150 million decrease for the account that funds Foreign Commercial Service. Combined with DOGE cuts and last year's hiring freeze, the FCS is under-resourced at precisely the time when commercial diplomacy is needed most. Meanwhile, the PRC understands that space leadership is not just about rockets, it's also about relationships. They have 10 times the number of commercial officers in several key posts around the world. That means better deals for Chinese companies, often at the expense of American businesses. As of 2025, China has signed nearly 200 space cooperation agreements with over 50 countries and international organizations. So I guess I'll ask in light of all that, Mr. Golsen, I know that Meridian has an exciting space diplomacy initiative, Global Space Cooperation Program that's focused on expanding international collaboration and helping American space firms compete globally. Can you talk to me first about what are the main diplomatic, regulatory, and bureaucratic barriers keeping U.S. space companies from maximizing these international partnerships and specifically outcompeting China and how commercial diplomacy can help address those?

Yeah, thank you very much for the question, Congressman. Meridian did recently host a space diplomacy forum where we had players from around the world, the space industry engaged, and importantly we're developing SME, small-medium sized enterprise engagement channels to enter that space. I think more broadly, we've been talking about economic security and critical emerging technologies and equipping U.S. companies to compete in that space. Overseas with our diplomats, that requires new training, new resources, and a new focus on markets where we have those opportunities for yes, the large space companies, but also the mid-sized and small ones as well.

Great, thank you. And then can you also speak to why it's important for our businesses that we have that technical and business knowledge of how this emerging space economy actually works?

Absolutely, because for a mid-sized company in particular, they don't have the resources to develop the in-house governmental expertise for diplomatic engagement. And so certainly there's actors like Meridian within Washington, but also embassies around the world, our embassies, U.S. embassies, that require that training and that engagement to help those mid-sized companies enter the market, whether it's the Emirates to compete against the Chinese or Brazil or you name it. We really need those experts on the ground.

I appreciate that very much and I do agree. I think that's why the U.S. needs a well-resourced cohort of commercial diplomats who can champion these American space companies abroad. We all want the U.S. to be the partner of choice for countries launching their first satellite, building ground stations, or joining collaborative missions, but to remain that trusted partner, we have to pair our technological leadership with strong diplomatic engagement. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Gentleman yields and before we wrap up, the ranking member is recognized for a final question.

Great, thank you to my good friend from Kentucky. I do think, you know, Kentucky bourbon, California wine, throw in some California pistachios, almonds, and walnuts, we could get a lot done and open up a bunch of export markets and crab cakes as well.

All goes together.

Yeah, my follow-up question is kind of a two-part question. When I think about multilateral development banks like the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United States, U.S. taxpayers are the biggest funders of a lot of these. But when you go out to bid in competition, the PRC often is getting these contracts and folks then say, hey, the United States is absent, why aren't you guys doing anything? Well, we are doing something and that's part of it. How do we get our companies to be more competitive? The second piece of it though is more complicated because I travel a lot and spend a lot of time in Asia and the Pacific Islands and Chinese business practices, Beijing's business practices operate in a way that we can't operate. We can't and we don't want our companies to drop bags of cash off here or there. How do we create a more competitive environment for our companies, especially when we're funding, we're the largest funders for these organizations and then get the recognition for the United States of America that we are actually the ones building this project? So I get it, you know, when the president talks about these are U.S. taxpayer dollars but someone else is doing the work. Obviously, I think Congressman Barr and I would like to see U.S. companies do this work if we're using our taxpayer dollars. I'd just be curious.

Yeah, I'll add quickly that the Advocacy Center at the Department of Commerce has multilateral development bank liaisons that do incredible work to try to level the playing field for U.S. companies bidding in that space. Of course, they're impacted by the same resource constraints we've been talking about this morning, but that program can and should be built on in my view to counter that competition that you're referencing.

But you get some of the unfair practices as contracts are being doled out sometimes and so that happens.

And Congressman, I would add that we did have the Advocacy Center do a tour around the country to actually bring awareness of these multilateral development bank projects to businesses where they are. Because they're often hard to discover, it's not readily available information and so it's important to get that information out there to make businesses aware of the opportunities that exist through these multilateral development banks. Because they do want to hire and award American companies some of these projects, but we've got to compete in order to win. I would also say that to your question about the challenge of competing without becoming China, it's one of the things that we always make clear is that our value proposition is fundamentally different. I always used to say that American business doesn't just willy-nilly show up and throw money into a country and it may take some time for them to make a decision to invest. The reason is because once they invest, they're all in. They're a corporate citizen committed to growing their business in that country and growing that economy. When an American business goes in, they're there for the long haul. They're not like these Chinese companies that if there's a political tiff, the Chinese government says get out of that country and then punishes that country. So the strength of American business lies not just in the great business practices, the great labor practices that we bring in, the great financial practices that we bring in, but the fact that we come in as true partners and that's a value proposition that is fundamentally distinct from that of our strategic competitors. We just have to make sure that American companies are present and in order for them to be present, we have to be present as officers.

Thank you all for your testimony. I want to thank the witnesses and the members also for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you all to respond to those in writing pursuant to committee rules. All members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length of limitations. Without objection, the committee now stands adjourned. Thank you.