Restoring Mission Focus: State Dept Authority, Accountability, Foreign Service

Yes sir.

Very good. Good morning. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order. I would ask everybody to rise, join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, one nation, under God, under God, indivisible, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. with liberty, and justice for all. The purpose of today's hearing is to provide an opportunity to assess the role the Foreign Service Officer and how management authorities can be used to restore a mission-driven foreign service that serves America's interests abroad. I now recognize the Chairman of the subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Representative Lawler, for the opening statement for the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we are here today to discuss one of the most vital components of American foreign policy and national security, our foreign service officers. FSO's work for the State Department in U S missions. They focus on the consular, economic, public diplomacy, management, and political policies and operations abroad. We call on them day in and day out to represent our values and put diplomacy into action throughout the world. Foreign service officers frequently serve in some of the challenging environments in the world. Today, many are posted across the Middle East, working around the clock to assist with the evacuation and protection of American citizens in a rapidly evolving security environment. Others serve in adversarial countries or strategic competitors that are not always friendly to US interests, like China. And some are stationed in high-threat environments, such as in I Iraq or Sudan, often serving separate from their families. Even in these conditions, FSOs must carry out their mission, advancing US interests and helping to keep our nation safe. There is no room for failure here. And yet the Foreign Service Act, which shapes how FSOs are trained and how they work, has largely remained untouched for the last four and a half decades. That changes now. And it starts with a comprehensive look at the mission intent of the Foreign Service. Today we will ask a basic but critical question. What is diplomacy? And how has the role of foreign service officers changed since the FSA was last reviewed over forty-five years ago? Last year, this committee passed meaningful State Department reforms to reauthorize and codify critical components of our national security apparatus. There, we focused on command and control in the department and its structure. Today, our hearing builds on legislation as we turn our attention to the State Department's culture, its diplomatic missions abroad, and how the Foreign Service Act should be adjusted to fit a world that has certainly changed since nineteen eighty. We are taking a deep dive into the existing authority uh authorizing authorities over FSOs, so Congress can provide them with more direction to promote American interests and national security in their missions. The FSA established the modern foreign service providing the State Department with the direction and protection to promote American interests and national security through our diplomats. Key components of this law describe the main functions, responsibilities, and purpose of the foreign service. They also direct the administration processes of the foreign service examinations and promotions. Further, the Foreign Service Act provides the FSO professional development programs and support. These are only a few of the many provisions that make our diplomatic corps what it is today. It is the responsibility of this committee to ensure that these authorities equip FSOs with the tools and training to represent a cohesive stance in promoting national security interests across the globe. The United States has nearly two hundred and eighty posts across the world, with almost fourteen thousand five hundred FSOs employed. At each post, the Foreign Service and our FSOs are the face, voice, and representatives of America. The trainings and systems in place for our FSOs should reflect that monumental task. It is critical that the service and our FSOs are united in a clear mission and rooted in a culture that effectively supports the needs of US foreign policy in this decade. Our witness today is Mister James uh Jason Evans, Under Secretary for Management at the State Department. Mister Evans oversees the recruitment, training, He, along with Secretary Rubio, sets the tone for our diplomatic posture put forward by the foreign service. Mister Evans, we appreciate your continued partnership and cooperation with Congress. And I just want to mention that this committee currently has three requests to your office that we look forward to hearing back on. These include a briefing on the department's internship and fellowship programming, a report related to the diplomatic reserve corps, and information regarding A one hundred courses, FSO cones, and trade craft courses. Getting answers here are vital to our efforts to ensure we are working hand-in-hand with the department to best equip our foreign service. Mister Evans, we look forward to your testimony and to our robust discussion on how we can work together to ensure our diplomats and the service have a clear vision and mission that fits the needs of American foreign policy in this century and the demands of the future. I yield the remainder of my time.

Chair now recognizes the ranking member from New York, Representative Meeks, for any opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, and thank you other Secretary Evans for joining us today. I welcome this hearing, though one hearing cannot substitute for the sustained oversight this committee has failed to conduct. What we're witnessing today is a severely diminished state department, reduced in capacity, reduced in credibility, and reduced in its ability to protect Americans abroad. That did not happen by accident. It is the direct result of this administration's ideological and ill-conceived decisions. As members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, our job is to conduct oversight of the State Department, assess its needs, and pass laws to strengthen what should be the world's premier diplomatic institution. That responsibility has been undermined by an administration that refuses to engage with Congress, refuses to provide information on its reorganization and decision making, and refuses to comply with the laws we've already passed or execute funding we've appropriated. My Republican colleagues have been complicit in the lack of transparency. We've seen the Trump administration take military action in Iran last June, in Venezuela in Venezuela in January, and now launch a war of choice in Iran. And yet to date, the majority has yet to hold a single hearing top administration officials on any of these issues. Together with all Democrats on this committee, I sent a letter earlier this week to President Trump demanding that Steve Whitgolf and Jared Kushner Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary Pete Hegseth testify publicly before this committee because the American people in Congress deserve answers about this administration's strategy and its plans for what comes next in Iran. I am deeply concerned by the state's lack of preparedness for this war. Mr. Under Secretary, the department was caught flat-footed and Americans have paid the price. The administration issued guidance far too late in a haphazard manner, placing American citizens living and traveling in the region at risk. Here is a specific contradiction that I expect you to address today. The department has not raised the travel advisories to do not travel, even as it is actively evacuating Americans from those countries, and as Ara- Iranian missiles and drone attacks continue against the United States and allied assets across the region. That is not a bureaucratic oversight. That is a failure in the duty to protect American citizens. I will also note that I, again with Democrats on this committee, sent a letter yesterday to Secretary Rubio demanding answers on the decision making that contributed to this failure to plan. We expect prompt written answers. And as this administration creates crises around the world, with no plan for what comes next, diplomacy grows more, not less, important. Yet, this administration has chosen to fire so many of its dedicated career experts across the department and instill unqualified political appointees at key leadership positions. At precisely the time when thousands of Americans were stranded, how did the department's decision to fire over one hundred people from consular affairs, the very people who could have coordinated charter flights, synchronized messaging, and supported Americans in the region, impact the department's ability to help vulnerable Americans? Mr. Under Secretary, I want an answer on how many Americans remain stranded or t- or in transiting, transitioning from the Middle East. And what is the plan to help bring them home? Because from where I sit, this is a dangerous level of mismanagement at the worst possible moment. Now, I know we've heard repeatedly from Secretary Rubio's reductions in force were meant to streamline the department. But I don't buy that. The administration has failed to provide Congress with a damage assessment For the rifts, despite repeated requests. How many Chinese and Farsi speakers did you fire? How many Iranian experts or grant experts did you terminate? If these actions strengthen the department, why not demonstrate it transparently? The refusal to provide this information confirms many, what many already suspect. These cuts weaken the department while increasing risk and cost. The American Foreign Service Association recently report Recent report tells a depressing story. Ninety-eight percent of members report reported declining morale. Eighty-six percent reported that the administration changes have directly impacted their ability to do their jobs. That is not streamlining. That is hollowing out the very institutions we rely on to manage crises, like the one the administration created in the Middle East. Elon Musk was allowed to upend department operations, canceling grants, terminating programs, dismantling institutional capacity, he never understood. The consequences are now visible. Americans placed in needless danger, expertise lost, and the next generation of diplomats left in limbo. Young people whose education taxpayers invested millions of dollars in. And finally, this administration has put fellowships and internships that recruit future diplomats into uncertainty and unilaterally and illegally terminated congressionally mandated efforts upon. The Trump administration is systematically Undercutting our diplomatic corps, it has recalled over thirty career uh ambassadors without real replacements and purged subject matter experts, and left a hundred and fifteen ambassador posts vacant, including in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Algeria, Kuwait, and Iraq at a time when they are most needed. This is not streamlining, this is self-sabotage. The American people deserve to be represented by the best and brightest. Instead, the administration has prioritized loyalty over expertise at the expense of the Unite- uh United States national security. Again, thank you for being here. And with that, and I again wait for your testimony, you're back by time.

Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. I appreciated much of the previous opening statement. We agree on much, but we agree on whether it was positive or negative. I would say that, you know, thank you for the reductions that you have done in having people on board that were conducting, spending the American taxpayer dollars on drag shows. I wouldn't call anybody a subject matter expert. So that's sending the American taxpayer dollars to do transgender job fairs or anything else. And I thank Elon Musk for working. As as much as he might not know everything, he knows enough to know that we do not need people working in government that are trying to queer maps. So I thank for uh thankful for all of those things. We agree on them taking place. We just disagree on whether they're positive or negative. Uh, your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll ask you to keep your space.

Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the topic of restoring mission focus at the Department of State and to discuss the authority, accountability, and role of the Foreign Service in advancing America's interests abroad. The Foreign Service is the backbone of American diplomacy, and its officers represent our nation's values and interests across the globe. As a twenty-four year career Foreign Service officer, having spent time overseas in assignments in places such as Afghanistan, Hong Kong, and Brazil, I am acutely aware of the role of the Foreign Service and the management operations that support it. As the Under-Secretary for Management, one of my mandates is to ensure that our policies and systems for recruiting, training, assigning, and evaluating the department's entire workforce, including foreign service officers, are thorough, fair, and mission-driven, are and are in alignment with the administration's federal workforce priorities and guidance. I combine this role with performing the duties of the Director General of the Foreign Service, ill- illustrating that an effective foreign service is at the center of this administration's vision for America first foreign policy. The department long struggled to perform basic diplomatic functions due to its former organizational structure and management operations. To begin to address these flaws, the department underwent a reorganization last year that restored mission focus and realigned domestic functions to better support its global mission, driving resources towards our two hundred and seventy-five posts worldwide. The actions taken by the department over the last year to reorganize have positioned us to implement much needed workforce reforms and identify improvements in the Foreign Service Act. The reorganization refocused the authorities associated with each of the domestic bureaus and offices, and better aligned our resources with the policy priorities we face in the modern era. It eliminated redundant functions, enhanced accountability, and empowered our people to deliver results. There is now a better foundation to address the current and future needs of the foreign service as a result of the reorganization, and the new strategic priorities from the administration. The Foreign Service Act has been in place for nearly forty-six years. Although our national security and foreign policy needs have changed significantly during that time, the department's focus of executing the national interest of Americans remains the same. It is imperative that the Foreign Service be staffed with skilled officers to meet these new demands. I am especially focused on ensuring that our management authorities are used to restore and enhance a global workforce, including the Foreign Service, that is agile, disciplined, and responsive to the needs of this country and of the American people. Given recent developments, I would like to take a moment to discuss the department's role in the Middle East, as the embassy security and evacuation of American citizens fall under my authority. The safety and security of our personnel and facilities remains our highest priority. I have provided directions to Chief of Mission and Deputy Chief of Mission around the world In addition to the usual global operations, department employees are working twenty-four seven around the globe on task forces to assist American citizens, including their colleagues. As security incidents have occurred at our overseas posts, the department has taken action to ensure the safety of our personnel. This includes following legal mandates to conduct security reviews to ensure the safety of our people and facilities now and in the future. The department has directed authorized and ordered departures from posts, the process whereby diplomats and their families temporarily return to safe havens away from their overseas assignments, and provided guidance and resources to support employees during these transitions. The department continues to execute its mission throughout these actions while prioritizing support to American citizens. Over the last few weeks, the department has assisted tens of thousands of American citizens. I want to thank the dedicated professionals around the world, which includes the department's foreign service officers and our colleagues from other federal agencies for their commitment to the safety and support of Americans. I look forward to working with this committee and with the dedicated professionals of the department to advance reforms that will strengthen the foreign service and ensure that America's interests are effectively represented abroad. I welcome your questions and look forward to our discussion. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you for your testimony. I agree with much of what you've said. I see the only thing diminished in the State Department is aimless spending. We're about to put a an embassy in Venezuela, which is amazing. I predict that we're gonna have an embassy open again in Iran, which again is just a testament to the fact that the State Department is not diminished, but that America is on the right track. In that, I wanna recognize Representative Lawler for any questions that he may have.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Under Secretary, thank you for being here and I wanna thank you and uh the department, Secretary Rubio, for uh the coordination on getting American citizens out of the middle east uh i have hundreds uh if not thousands uh of constituents uh that are in the middle east predominantly israel at any given time and uh so i certainly appreciate the cooperation we need to continue to remain vigilant uh uh to that end though i still have hundreds of people that are looking to get out and and so i appreciate your cooperation uh two weeks ago the mina subcommittee examined how performance evaluation support accountability and

Well, Thank you for that question and for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue, thank you for that question and for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue. One of the things we are truly focused on is actually evaluating the performance of our foreign service officers. Since I've been in the service twenty four years, our evaluations have been mainly an essay contest. We write what we did this year, our boss writes what they think we did this year, and then their boss writes a small paragraph about what they think we did this year. And we're evaluated for performance based on solely that report. To my mind, It depends on how well you can write as to whether or not you get promoted, not what you've done, not the impacts you've actually had. So what we've done is we've converted to a system whereby each employee is evaluated against the core precepts and given a score, so that we can truly rank our personnel and find out who really is performing the work that we need them to perform and who we can move up the line, versus who we need to move down the line. So it's it's truly an opportunity to focus and to to promote the right people to the right positions and make sure that we're we're actually evaluating people.

I appreciate that. And when talking about how best to focus the foreign service and how they can work effectively and efficiently on their missions, it's important to take into account the people themselves. So in order to have a successful foreign service, we need successful FSOs. When speaking directly with FSOs, what are the most common concerns they raise?

I think one of the things I see the most is, is people not understanding how certain people got promoted over other people and things like that, because it's not clear, it's not a transparent process. So I think by redoing how we do our evaluation, that's gonna allow us to address that situation. And really make sure that the people that are truly performing, are superstars, are the ones that are getting the opportunities.

And are the FSOs largely content with the process for assignments? uh and rotating every two to three years uh i mean i i will tell you on many of the codels that i've uh gone on you know we've met with a lot of the fso's they really do a tremendous job they know the people on the ground they know uh our counterparts uh in the respective uh countries um is there any interest in lengthening the period of time for a rotation

again thank you for allowing me to talk about that specific issue assignments is kind of the next phase of the operation. Once we get the the evaluation piece, the next thing I'm gonna turn my attention to is the assignments process, and make sure we're putting the right people in the right places with the right skill sets to do the things that are the priority for the administration for the department. So that is something we're gonna take a very close look at. Um, extending tours is something we're gonna discuss. Uh, everything is on the table at this point, as I keep telling my staff, everything is on the table, let's talk about everything, and then we'll come to the right answer, that we're doing what's in the best interest of the, the Foreign Service and of the American people.

And what are you doing currently to improve FSO retention? Are there any changes in the FSA structure that would make it easier for the State Department to retain FSOs?

I think there are things we can do to encourage Foreign Service officers to stay in. Um, one of the things that I'm looking at is how our positions are graded and make sure that we're giving people opportunities. As we identify these folks that are really performing well, we give them leadership opportunities earlier in their careers, to allow them to take on these roles and to develop their skill sets, to the benefit of not only themselves but also of the department.

And are you seeing any current staffing issues in the foreign service, specifically, you know, are there regions or missions today where insufficient foreign service staffing is directly undermining our influence or strategic interests?

Well, we've always got posts that are difficult to staff. These are some of the places that are in the most difficult places in the world. And those places will continue to be difficult to staff. One of the things we're doing is we're working with the regional bureaus to give them the opportunity to identify positions that are key to the policy and some of those may be in some of these difficult to staff locations and we're gonna fill those first to make sure we get people out to the places that are high the highest priority for the department.

Thank you, uh you're back.

Representative Meeks, ranking member Meeks.

Thank you. Let me start out by saying that I'm a big fan of our foreign and civil service officers. I travel around the world, I see them, I talk to them, uh, I just what they do, uh, for and represent the United States of America in a big way, all around the world. I, I, I salute them, um, uh, in a very, very big way. Uh, and so I'm not questioning them, at all. What I do question is some of the dis- political decisions that have been made, particularly when we talk about uh the current situation. So the war began on February twenty eighth. Uh Iranian retaliation against the United States and allied assets were entirely predictable. President Trump in routine fashion this week tried to deflect many of his feelings as Commander-in-Chief. He should have known that Iran would retaliate because Iran attacked Iraq and Qatar just last June after the June strikes. It should not have been a surprise. Yet the department did not issue a clear "depart now" message until March the second, by which point commercial travel options were already severely, severely constrained. So that delay created confusion and left Americans with fewer options to get out. I had phone calls coming almost every day from constituents, from members asking could I help get their people out. So let me, let me just start with current guidance. What is the current travel advisory for the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, And Bahrain.

Well, thank you for that question. The current travel advisory for those locations is a level three travel advisory, but it also includes the language within the travel advisory that there is an ongoing conflict and we advise people not to travel there.

So it's basically a reconsidered travel, right?

That is currently what it says, and and again it includes the language that advises people of the current situation that there is an ongoing conflict. And we advised them not to travel there.

So meanwhile though, only Iraq and Lebanon are designated do not travel. And both were at that level before the war even began. Now given that these countries have been and remain targets of Iranian missiles and drone attacks, why, you know, yeah, the Bahrain Bahrain uh officials have coming to Congress now to say that they're under constant attack and they may need more defensive weapons. Uh, we see what's taking place with our embassy in Saudi Arabia. Uh, we know that the UAE, uh, has been under attack, as well as Qatar. So why has the department not updated these advisories to what it is in Iraq and Lebanon, do not travel?

Well, the situations in Iraq and Lebanon existed long before the current. uh, operation. And those travel warnings have been in place for a considerable amount of time. The fact that we haven't updated any of the others is due to the fact that we believe this is a temporary situation. This is an ongoing operation, but at some point it will end, and when it does end, the travel in those areas will once again be relatively safe under the restriction of please pay attention, please be aware of the current conditions in these locations, as we've instructed people now, we tell people there's an ongoing conflict.

But we don't know when it's going to end, clearly.

So

So, we know that uh the Iranians and Americans could be subject to uh danger at any time because we know that these places are being struck now. So, at least while the danger is there, it seems to me there should be a change in advisory so that we don't have to worry about American citizens being caught in this war. And there should be a change.

Well, I w- I I would find it difficult to believe that any American citizen in the

Yeah.

region doesn't understand what's going on there right now and anyone that's planning to go to the region doesn't understand the situation that they would be putting themselves in.

Well, many are calling me now, because they've had planned for trips previously. And they're looking at it, just go to the State Department and look at what the uh uh what is being what this, what the designation has been. And when they see, you know, consider, reconsider travel, they start ask because they, some of them had put money up a thing, is it safe? They're calling to try to figure out. If they saw do not travel, number one, for many, that then will give them the ability to get out of some arrangements that they may have committed to financially and otherwise uh because many of their contracts will include that in there that in the case of those kinds of threats. But if there's nothing of that nature, uh they either go because they're paid for, et cetera. Uh and if we don't wa- if we want to avoid uh having the same kind of situation that we have shouldn't we and we can anticipate, shouldn't we um plan ahead of time as opposed to afterwards? For example, and my question before Fe- say February twenty eighth, was there any coordinated inter-agency planning uh conducted to prepare for the protection and potential evacuation of American citizens in the region before February twenty eighth?

Uh, sir, I'm not at liberty to discuss the planning process within the upper levels of the State Department in this setting. I'd be happy to take that off-line with you.

OK, I think the American people would like to know, but what about why was the Consumer C- Counselor Affairs-led Task Force uh not stood up prior to the outbreak of histilities?

The way we operate task forces within the State Department is, when a crisis occurs, we stand up a task force directed at that specific event. In this case, the Consular Affairs task force stood up very, very quickly, and we were able to staff it very quickly and begin reaching out to individuals in the region. We encourage everybody who travels overseas to enroll in our step program because what that will allow us to do is to send them messages very quickly so they can understand when a situation is changing, when a situation is emerging. So we encourage people to roll in step, and we begin issuing step messages almost immediately.

I'm out of time, but it just seems to me if we know we're going to war, we should have planned beforehand, let Congress know, let, make this certain ruling so we can protect Americans. If we don't plan beforehand, then we plan to fail and put Americans at risk, I yield back.

Representative Kim.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, and thank you, Under Secretary Evans, for testifying today. Uh, commercial diplomacy is a powerful tool for advancing our US foreign policy while delivering tangible results for and benefits to American workers and businesses. Yet, uh, in my travels across the Indo-Pacific in my capacity as Chair of the East Asia and the Pacific subcommittee, I have repeatedly seen US economic officers our embassies who are tasked with the job they are not trained to execute like the commercial diplomacy uh meanwhile our uh foreign commercial service officer corps is small under-resourced and disconnected from the embassy's strategic priorities the result is that our embassy struggled to open markets for american industry including small and mid-sized companies and like my office like many other congressional offices receive emails and calls from constituent business owners uh that are operating currently abroad but they need help in navigating an uneven playing field or a discriminatory business environment but too often they don't know who the right person is who is the go-to person and advocate for them at the uh us mission the foreign commercial service is only present in eighty countries i understand that means Econ officers perform the commercial diplomacy function at two thirds of our embassies and consulates. So can you differentiate between the role of a foreign service econ officer at the state and the role of a foreign commercial service officer at the treasury?

Oh, thank you for that question, and this is an important conversation. Our econ officers in the past have been trained to do economic reporting. That's what they've been trained to do and that's what they've been sent out to our posts to do. Now we are shifting to a situation where commercial diplomacy is our policy. So, we're working very closely with our Econ officers to make sure that they have the skill sets to go out there and do that commercial diplomacy. Our foreign commercial service colleagues are fantastic. They're really good at what they do. And we're working very closely with them to make sure that our Econ officers out at posts can have those same skill sets and perform those same functions.

So can you first talk about the the um the steps that a foreign service econ officer would take to resolve an issue that is pertaining to an unfair business regulation of raw discriminating against American businesses and you talk about uh equipping them with the right resources and even the authority to be able to mitigate those disputes and step in and make the decisions right there and then without having to go through so many steps at the top and get back down to uh you know settling the issue. Could you walk us through that steps?

No, exac- that is exactly what we're trying to do. We're trying to equip our economic officers with the ability to assess a situation, to understand the regulations in the countries that they're in, so that they can assist American businesses. It's some of our econ officers are really, really good at this, and some of them are still still learning how to do this type of thing. But they are learning and we're becoming very, very effective at it.

So to equip everybody at the level that we really need to have. them the full diplomatic uh authority? What additional tools or inter-agency mechanisms does the State Department need to empower FSOs to more effectively advocate for American businesses, including those small and mid-sized businesses uh that are trying to gain uh market access or navigate those challenging business environment abroad?

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's something I'll have to come back with you on, on the specific authorities that would need to be able to do that, but it is something that we're gonna look very closely at and make sure that we are training and equipping our our economic officers to perform the the uh commercial diplomacy function.

Uh, we are in a strategic competition with the United States and China is way ahead of us in every domain from AI to cyberspace to Arctic and space space. So foreign service must be prepared to upscale FSOs and I know we're having this conversation but uh we really need to hone in on technical expertise and fluency. including the cultural understanding so i know your foreign service institute which i visited when it was first being open or uh uh you know i i think it was two years ago or something so but i know they are really focused on language skills culture understanding that is really needed in our fso's uh to ensure america remains the partner of choice and have the competitive edge competitive edge also includes understanding their culture their you know being able to dialogue in the language where they are currently servicing. So can you talk about how the uh department prioritizes these uh resources and set clear benchmarks to build expertise in emerging domains like AI, space, cyberspace, and what additional authorities uh or support do you need from Congress, so that it can be more impactful?

No, thank you, the National Foreign Affairs Training Center is an amazing organization. And in addition to the language training that you mentioned and the cultural training that you mentioned, we do do a whole plethora of skills training to make sure that our officers have the skills they need before they go out to post. So that is something that we do out there at NFATC, and it's something we're gonna continue to focus on, we're gonna t- continue to put resources into to make sure we can address these things.

Thank you very much. My time's up. I yield back.

Channel A's time has expired. I now recognize the ranking member of the Middle East and North subcommittee gentleman from california mr. sherman for five minutes

thank you mr. chairman or acting chairman of this uh full committee we just had a hearing at the middle east subcommittee on these subjects uh the title was similar uh merit accountability uh and performance at uh state and we had the uh head of the uh human resources bureau and uh of course our subcommittee has uh uh jurisdiction in this area Um, I hope that this full committee would have a hearing on Iran and, uh, have government witnesses there. I pointed out at that hearing that the state department needs people with business backgrounds MBAs CPAs and rarely hires them because you've gotta manage the state department itself and you have to deal with business and trade issues our witness today is the counterpoint to my comments. not only an mba but a degree in accounting um i hope you're not rare at the state department but i believe you are um we discussed how the foreign service is privileged over the civil service with regard to us uh uh positions and uh we particularly discussed how while in private enterprise the most valuable asset is your employees we went in and dogged a bunch of employees at the State Department, but we didn't fire people based on who was a good performer. We fired them based on what position they happened to have that particular day, and of course lots of people rotate in the State Department, it's kind of like musical chairs, as to where you sit, if you happened to sit in the wrong place you were fired, no matter how good a performer you were. So our hearing uh dealt uh with a lot of important issues and those who uh are focused on this hearing may wanna look at the transcript uh of that. I wanna focus uh with our witness on the uh discrimination that is faced by those uh who are told well because your ancestors come from a particular part of the world, you have an assignment restriction. Now I can understand an assignment restriction if you know, your father is in jail in a particular country for political reasons, and uh uh that's a pressure point that could be used against you. But what I can't understand is why we would not use the valuable linguistic and cultural knowledge that the American population uh provides. Um, we still have uh people who ha- who who are suffering under these restrictions, um, who have top secret c- security clearances. So they're trusted with the most valuable information, just not about the part of the world that they actually know something about, or have a a linguistic and cultural knowledge of. Um, do we still restrict people based on their ethnic heritage as to where they can work and what issues they can work on?

Oh, thank you for that question. We currently do not have blanket restrictions as you're describing. What we do is we assess each individual based on where they wish to to be assigned. So we don't have a blanket like this person can never

It's not blanket, but I've

in this location.

talked to quite a number of people who said, well My uh, my parents or grandparents are from East Asia, so they won't let me work on East Asia. Do you still have that situation?

It is much deeper than that. We do a full assessment of the officer and of their family connections, to make sure that there is nothing that would compromise them, if they were to focus on that specific.

Is there anyone who doesn't have relatives in a country where they might be oppressed, who is told uh, that they can't work on particular issues?

Uh, I don't know of any specific cases where that has happened, but I'm happy to take that,

Do we doubt the

but I can take a look at it.

patriotism of people based upon what country their ancestors are from.

Absolutely not. Americans are Americans.

Um. OK. Uh, in twenty twenty five, how many uh officers working on Bureau of uh Overseas Buildings Operations and Bureau of Diplomatic Security uh left due to firings, rifts, doges, et cetera? Do you know?

Uh, there were very few. Um, I know in diplomatic security we we terminated zero diplomatic security special agents. Uh, there were some administrative staff that were, uh, involved in some of the reductions.

Now, um, the, you contract with people to provide services, you owe six hundred million dollars for work already performed. Uh, what are you doing to make sure that your contractors are getting paid?

We have a very robust review process and we are making sure that all of our contractors who have performed legitimate work for the department are being appropriately compensated.

But are the delays are greater now than they were two years ago? In those payments?

Uh, I don't have the the statistics on that. I can't say that.

Well,

I'll send it to the one way or the other.

I would hope that you would have statistics as to your total accounts payable, and how many of those accounts payable are uh uh more than thirty, sixty, ninety days old. So, I would you provide that for the committee?

Be happy to find that out. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, this time has expired, I now recognize Representative Moylan for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Under Secretary, thank you for your statement. Especially like one of the answers to the questions regarding how you improved on the evaluations. That's really helpful, and as an Army veteran myself, uh, I understand that mission clarity is so important to morale, uh, recruitment, and how we retain our officers. Uh, our foreign affairs, uh, service officers deserve to understand, uh, how the work contributes to national security. And our diplomats are, are the front-liner, front-liners, I, I consider. encountering Chinese influence abroad. Uh, they serve as diverse and critical roles and act as commercial or economic diplomats, intelligence collectors, and negotiators too. And without the FSOs, we lose influence abroad to the PRC and other adversaries. Um, so, Mr. Evans, um, you touched on this a little, but further clarify what makes an economic officer different from a treasury attache or a foreign commercial service officer? And what responsibilities do we expect of our economic officers?

Oh, thank you for that question. As I mentioned earlier, our economic officers have been trained to do economic reporting. They haven't had a whole lot of training on on the economic commercial diplomacy piece that we are now shifting to. This is a relatively new development within our service and we're working very hard to make sure that our economic officers do have that skill set. Many of them do, many of them when they go out to post are put in situations where they have to figure this out and they do an outstanding job. Our our foreign service officers are some of the best and brightest out there, and especially our economic officers who go through years of economic training to be able to become an economic officer. So, we have the ability to to really train these folks and make sure that they have the skill sets to do what they need to do alongside our foreign commercial service officers.

OK, and as we're recruiting for, for cones in the foreign services, uh, is there, is it a standardized, standardized, um, FSOT sufficient to determine the success as a political, economical, or other cone?

Well, thank you. We recruit generalists. So when we bring people into the foreign service, I myself am a foreign service generalist. I'm a management coned officer. But all of our, all of our folks that come in through that channel are generalists and are able to reach across the span of all the things that we do. And the reason we do that is because as we rise up through the organization, we truly need to understand what the entire organization does. I as a management officer need to understand what the political folks are doing, what the public diplomacy folks are doing, in order to do my job more effectively. And then as I take on leadership positions, I need to be able to direct those different tasks. So we bring in folks as generalists, Uh, at the same time if people come in with specific skills and abilities, we try to put them in positions where they can use those skills and abilities. So if come, someone comes in with an economic background, we'd like to put them in an econ position. They usually choose to become economic officers. So we like to put them in those positions and give them that opportunity to use that skill set.

Sounds like the Army, everybody's an infantry officer from the start. OK.

Yes, sir.

And then uh, section two O seven gives the chief submission authority over executive branch personnel at post. in critical regions like the Indo-Pacific, that authority and consensus is essential. Are there any challenges across the inter-agencies to that authority?