U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–478 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

S. HRG. 118–501 

MODERNIZATION AND MANAGEMENT: 

BUILDING A DEPARTMENT TO ADDRESS 

21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 16, 2024 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via http://www.govinfo.gov 
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

MITT ROMNEY, Utah 

PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

DAMIAN MURPHY, Staff Director

CHRISTOPHER M. SOCHA, Republican Staff Director

JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator From Maryland ................................... 1 

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho .................................................. 3 

Verma, Hon. Richard R., Deputy Secretary of State, Management and Resources, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ........................................ 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses of Mr. Richard R. Verma to Questions Submitted by Senator 

Benjamin L. Cardin ............................................................................................. 25 

Responses of Mr. Richard R. Verma to Questions Submitted by Senator 

James E. Risch ..................................................................................................... 30 

Responses of Mr. Richard R. Verma to Questions Submitted by Senator 

Robert Menendez .................................................................................................. 32 

Responses of Mr. Richard R. Verma to Questions Submitted by Senator 

Marco Rubio .......................................................................................................... 34 

Responses of Mr. Richard R. Verma to Questions Submitted by Senator 

John Barrasso ....................................................................................................... 38 

(III)

(1) 

MODERNIZATION AND MANAGEMENT: BUILDING A DEPARTMENT TO ADDRESS 21ST 

CENTURY CHALLENGES 

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2024 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:38 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Shaheen, Murphy, Kaine, 

Van Hollen, Risch, Ricketts, and Young. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 

come to order. 

We welcome Deputy Secretary, Verma, to our committee. 

It is nice to have you here. 

This hearing will focus on the State Department and the modernization efforts at the State Department. A hundred years ago, 

Congress passed the Rogers Act laying the foundation for today’s 

Foreign Service. 

As we commemorate this anniversary, we should also reflect that 

as to how much has changed over the years. In 1924, American 

diplomats communicating with Washington did not have cell 

phones. Traveling to embassies in Europe took days, and the Department only had 1,300 employees. 

Well, today’s work force includes over 75,000 dedicated employees worldwide. It is a far more diverse work force. Emails and 

smartphones have replaced telegrams and typewriters. And when 

crisis erupts, our diplomats can adapt and make decisions using 

real time information, whether it is AI or the spread of infectious 

diseases, climate change, or strategic competition with our adversaries. 

In the 21st century, diplomacy has never been more important. 

Our diplomats are on the front lines of advancing the values of our 

foreign policy. They work with indigenous communities defending 

the environment in Brazil. They partner with African leaders on 

democracy and good governance. They battle corruption and stand 

up for human rights. 

To succeed, we need them working in state of the art buildings, 

both at home and abroad. We need to support their Foreign Service 
2 

careers and also have to be concerned about their families, their 

spouses, their partners, and children. And we need leadership that 

can make trade offs to match our resources with our policy priorities. 

I applaud the Administration’s recent guidance on merit system 

principles that protect our Civil Service. 

Secretary Verma, I want to welcome you today, and thank you 

for your work in the Department, including your travel to support 

our work force in key posts in China, Brazil, India, and Ethiopia. 

As you know, I supported an ambitious modernization effort of 

the State Department. When I was active as the chair of the Subcommittee on State Department Management, working with Senator Hagerty, we held hearings and made many recommendations, 

many of which were incorporated in legislation that was passed by 

the Congress. 

I am pleased to see initiatives we supported in recent State authorizations bills realized like the establishment of the Provost and 

Board of Visitors at the Foreign Service Institute. I look forward 

to hearing about where we are on the Reserve Corps. We need to 

support training and professional development for our diplomats, 

so they have the tools they need to tackle the complex challenges 

of the 21st century. 

I am also pleased to hear you are developing the training courses 

on multilateral institutions so the United States is leading on these 

critical fronts, and that you are launching applications for the midcareer mentorship program. 

But I believe there is more progress that needs to be made. We 

need to invest in our diplomats’ skill sets from digital diplomacy, 

and economic statecraft, to crisis management, to language proficiency, and cultural understandings. Our diplomats need the 

knowledge and expertise to succeed in their mission. 

We also need to address the staff shortages that have a particularly large impact at hardship posts and mid-level positions. When 

our diplomatic missions are not adequately staffed, it hurts the 

mission and morale. That is why I supported the President’s budget request to continue hiring at an increased rate and incentivizing 

service in hardship posts. 

We also need to offer career advancement opportunities to attract 

and retain top talent. I look forward to the results of the Department’s new lateral entry program for mid-level employees. I applaud the Administration’s efforts to advance diversity and equity, 

including the appointment of the Department’s second Chief Diversity Officer and implementing equity action plans. 

Whether our diplomats come from Baltimore or Boise, our diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility policies mean they will 

serve with integrity and authenticity abroad. Our diplomats must 

reflect the diversity of our nation, and they must understand the 

global community, and have a better root in the needs that we 

have around the world. That means a more diverse work force. 

As Congress did a century ago with the Rogers Act, today we also 

have an essential role to play in the Department’s modernization 

efforts. For the last 3 years now, we have passed into law the State 

Department Authorization bills. I want to thank Senator Risch for 
3 

his cooperation as we have developed, in a bipartisan way, the reauthorization bills now in three Congresses. 

We look forward to doing the same again this year, which gives 

us an opportunity to advance the priorities of this committee to 

help you in regards to those modernization efforts. 

Coming back to this hearing, we hope this hearing will help us 

in sorting out what we can do to help you in your efforts to modernize the State Department. 

With that, let me yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, 

Senator Risch. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Verma, one of the primary roles of the Deputy Secretary for 

Management and Resources is to keep track and keep the Department moving forward while it is staying on track. From here, it 

does not appear things are going well. I hope you can shed some 

light today on why things seem to be going so badly for an organization this committee has tried so hard to steer in the right direction. 

As I have spent time as both the chairman and ranking member 

of this committee over the past 5 years, I have pushed the Department to rebalance its risk tolerance and be more forward leading 

in its overseas engagements. You have heard me say over and over 

again, we are not going to outcompete China with our personnel 

sitting behind Embassy walls. They need to get out. 

As part of this effort, I wrote and got enacted the Security Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act to help the Department open new diplomatic spaces quicker, and cheaper, and to advance our diplomatic interest. More than 2 years later, SECCA has 

not been implemented because the Department has not issued final 

guidance. 

That failure to issue final guidance is in violation of law. This 

means the Department cannot deliver on its ambitious agenda to 

open new embassies in places where we are directly contending 

with China, like the Pacific Islands. If the Department is going to 

take the threat from Beijing seriously, SECCA guidance needs to 

go out tomorrow. 

I am tired of the Department slow walking key reforms that 

would improve its efficiency and effectiveness. This Administration 

constantly talks about its modernization agenda, but it is focusing 

on the wrong things if it cannot get this right. It appears to many 

of us that the Department under President Biden is more concerned with pursuing its own arbitrary DEI goals than results focused efforts to modernize its operations and work force. 

Similarly, bureaucrats at Main State are micromanaging the 

U.S. embassy in Kyiv. Washington has put our ambassador there 

in a straitjacket by limiting the number of diplomats we can have 

on the ground and placing nonsensical travel restrictions on our 

own people there. 

Our experts on the ground should make these decisions, not folks 

sitting 5,000 miles away in Washington. These restrictions limit 

our effectiveness while also greatly reducing oversight of the assist-
4 

ance we send to the freedom fighters in Ukraine. This is not how 

you win a war. 

Most egregiously, the Rob Malley saga has been wildly out of 

control. I have learned that Mr. Malley illegally transferred classified documents to his personal email, an exceptionally troubling allegation, and one that I found out aside from the State Department 

who we have been asking these questions to for months. Your Department has failed to respond for months to repeat it in formal 

requests for information. 

We cannot help but conclude there is an orchestrated effort to obscure the facts from Congress. It is not just me, some radical Republican. The chairman and I have done this side by side, and we 

have been incredibly frustrated with the response that we have 

gotten. 

In fact, it was embarrassing, really, the hearing that we had. A 

closed hearing. Well, we tried to extricate the information, and 

these people, I think, could have withstood a torture session before 

they would release the information. It was disgusting. 

We deserve to know whether Mr. Malley’s crimes impacted U.S. 

Iran policy, influenced nuclear discussions, or swayed the President’s decisions to unfreeze cash for wrongfully detained Americans, or importantly, misinformed us as we try to formulate foreign 

policy. We want answers to our questions about what he did when 

he did it, and how much damage he has caused U.S. national security. We also deserve to know why he has not been prosecuted for 

mishandling classified documents. 

Finally, I want to underscore my disagreement with the Department continually rewarding unqualified people with promotions 

and ambassadorial nominations. In November 2023, I sent a letter 

stating that I would not support moving any nominees complicit in 

the horrific treatment of U.S. diplomats in China during COVID– 

19. 

You have heard me preach about this over and over again on this 

committee about how badly China treated our diplomats during 

Covid, and how the Department did not protect our employees 

there. So, I sent this letter on November 2023 saying I am not 

going to support anybody that was complicit. Well, lo and behold, 

somebody did not read the letter, or maybe nobody read the letter, 

because Embassy Beijing Charge ́ and DCM David Meale was 

named in that letter. Last week, the President nominated him to 

be U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh. 

Now, I am going to get beat up by my good friend here saying, 

now how come you will not let us have a hearing? Why will you 

not? I told you in November 2023, find somebody else for these positions. Mr. Meale presided over some of the worst abuses of our 

diplomats. In summer of 2021, the Chinese government stepped up 

its unlawful detention of American diplomats, unlawful detention 

of American diplomats, and put diplomats not in hospitals, but in 

container units with barred windows in overgrown fields outside 

major cities. 

The embassy did not try to get these people out, and they told 

U.S. diplomats to comply. No one who allowed a foreign adversary 

to treat U.S. diplomats this way should be a U.S. ambassador. In 

short, it seems like the Department currently cannot get out of its 
5 

own way and focus on what really matters, which is advancing U.S. 

national security and keeping Americans safe. 

There are more than 75,000 State Department employees, good 

people, hard working people. The vast, vast majority are who are 

doing very well. They are spread out across the globe, giving their 

blood, sweat, and tears to support this country. They deserve our 

best. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me just comment before introducing our 

deputy secretary. I certainly agree for your last two lines of your 

opening statement. On the Malley issue, it is been frustrating. I 

agree with you. I wanted to underscore a point that I agree that 

additional information should be made available in a classified setting. 

But I want to make it clear, I do not think the State Department 

has the opportunity to make that decision under investigation by 

a different agency, and the State Department is not the custodian 

of the information that the ranking member and I sought. 

Senator RISCH. But they do have the information. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is an active investigation in which they are required to follow the lead agency that has the information. That is 

my understanding of it. And they are not at liberty to be able to 

accommodate us without the lead agency giving the sign off and 

the lead agency will not give the sign off. 

Senator RISCH. I respectfully disagree. They have got it, they are 

in front of this committee—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not even sure they have all the information. 

Senator RISCH. They admitted they have. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is compartmentalized. 

Anyway, I just really wanted to make that clear. I do not hold 

the State Department responsible for the failure to provide the information. 

Senator RISCH. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I know we disagree on that. 

And the second one I want to just bring up about your concern 

about how diplomats were handled during Covid by the Chinese 

government. As we have been able to discover, that policy was set 

at State Department, not at Mission Beijing, and it was set by the 

political leadership at the State Department under the Trump administration. So, I am a little bit puzzled as to why you are taking 

this out on the appointments by the Biden administration. 

With that, let me introduce our witness for today. Richard Verma 

serves as the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. In this role, he acts as the Chief Operating Officer of the 

Department and leads the Department’s effort on modernization, 

foreign assistance, and a wide range of work force and strategic 

issues. 

Deputy Secretary Verma previously served as a U.S. Ambassador 

to India, where he led one of the largest diplomatic missions and 

championed historic progress in bilateral ties. He is also a former 

Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, and the former 

National Security Advisor to the Senate Majority Leader. 

Secretary Verma, it is a pleasure to have you here. You may proceed. Your full testimony will be made part of our record. We ask 
6 

that you try to summarize your comments in about 5 minutes so 

we can get engaged in the discussion. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD R. VERMA, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VERMA. Thank you. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished members of the committee. I am really grateful for the 

opportunity to testify before you today regarding our management 

of the State Department and the significant progress we have made 

on key reforms. 

I want to thank the committee for the strong support of the Department and our nearly 80,000 people spread across every corner 

of the world, serving in nearly every conflict zone. We are proud 

that our work force hails from every State in the country, with an 

estimated 20 percent who are also military veterans. It has been 

an enormous honor to return to the Department as Deputy Secretary, after serving as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 

and as U.S. Ambassador to India. 

In my first year, I have been to more than 45 of our embassies 

and consulates around the world. From the war in Ukraine, to the 

attacks of October 7 and the resulting broader escalation across the 

Middle East, to the intense global competition with the People’s Republic of China, the conventional geopolitical landscape is as challenging as it has ever been. 

Add to that, the transnational threats of terrorism, pandemics, 

climate change, migration, and cybersecurity, and you have a rising 

set of challenges that require even greater international coordination, cooperation, and leadership from the United States. 

This mix of old and new threats puts even greater weight on the 

important work done by diplomats and development experts across 

the world. And I am pleased to say that the Department is 

proactively adapting to new mission sets and is laser focused on 

building and supporting our work force to be better equipped to 

tackle today’s global challenges. 

Under our modernization agenda, we are focused on building new 

capacity and fostering expertise across emerging critical mission 

areas. We are hiring, and training, and retaining a diverse, and dynamic, and entrepreneurial team, and leveraging innovative new 

technologies and platforms. 

We launched, for example, several new offices and bureaus designed to centralize expertise. For example, the new Bureau of 

Cyberspace and Digital Policy, the Office of Critical and Emerging 

Technology, a Consolidated China House, and a new Bureau of 

Global Health Security and Diplomacy. We are also equipping our 

work force for new missions, and we are attracting, and training, 

and retaining the right talent. 

Let me just mention a few of the reforms. We have greatly increased our training opportunities, expanding our training float. 

We have a new mid-level training program at the Foreign Service 

Institute. We have a new learning policy, and we are creating new 

opportunities for civil servants and Foreign Service professionals to 

fill essential assignments. We are reaching out and recruiting in 
7 

new and innovative ways, expanding the pool of qualified applicants. 

Small but impactful changes such as how and when the Foreign 

Service exam is administered helps break down geographic and 

other barriers. We also now have paid internships for all our interns thanks to the support of Congress and this committee, in particular, which is a game changer for so many young Americans. 

We have a new employee retention unit, which collects data from 

across the employee experience, and we use it in exit interviews to 

better understand why people leave. And this team is developing 

the first ever wide Department retention plan. 

I also want to note the gratitude of the Department and our 

50,000 locally employed staff for the efforts of this committee to 

preserve the availability of special immigrant visas through the 

GRATEFUL Act. Our local staff now remain able to move their 

families to the United States at the conclusion of a career of long 

and faithful service to the U.S. Government. 

An empowered and educated work force also needs modern tools 

and technology, and we have a new, our enterprise-wide artificial 

intelligence strategy. We are using data analytics like we have 

never done before. We have a new cyber strategy. 

In terms of American citizen services, today, more Americans 

have passports than at any time in our history, with more than 160 

million valid U.S. passports in circulation. We issued 24 million 

passports in 2023. Similarly, more people can travel to the U.S. 

than ever before. We issued more than 10.4 million non-immigrant 

visas last year, 563,000 immigrant visas, resulting in nearly $240 

billion economic impact to the United States, contributing to more 

than 9.5 million American jobs. And we are bringing down the visa 

wait times considerably. 

The safety of American citizens overseas remains our highest priorities. Last year, we assisted nearly 70,000 Americans in some 

sort of crisis or emergency somewhere around the world. 

Finally, I want to note, in closing, our gratitude for the passage 

of the National Security Supplemental, which will greatly aid our 

efforts to support Ukraine and Israel, counter China in the IndoPacific, and provide urgent humanitarian support in key regions. 

So, while the range and complexity of the challenges confronting 

the U.S. and our allies and partners around the world can seem 

daunting, I am heartened and encouraged by our incredible work 

force and the missions they take on each day. And while the vast 

majority of their work goes unreported or unseen by the media, or 

even known by most Americans, the work they do, with your support, helps make the world a more secure, and more safe, and more 

prosperous place. 

And I am so grateful to our entire State Department team, and 

I know the Secretary and our leadership team will continue to support them in every possible way. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verma follows:] 
8 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Richard R. Verma 

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding 

our management of the State Department and the significant progress we have 

made on key reforms. 

I want to thank the Committee for the strong support of the Department and our 

nearly 80,000 people spread across every corner of the world, serving in nearly every 

conflict zone. We are proud that our workforce hails from every State in the country, 

with an estimated 20 percent who are also military veterans. 

It’s been an enormous honor to return to the Department as Deputy Secretary for 

Management and Resources, after serving as Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs and as U.S. Ambassador to India. In my first year, I’ve been to more than 45 

of our embassies and consulates around the world. 

From the war in Ukraine, to the attacks of October 7th, and the resulting broader 

escalation across the Middle East, to the intense global competition with the People’s Republic of China, the conventional geopolitical landscape is as challenging as 

ever. Add the transitional threats of terrorism, pandemics, climate change, migration, and cyber security, and you have a rising set of challenges that require even 

greater international coordination, cooperation, and leadership from the United 

States. This mix of old and new threats puts even greater weight on the important 

work done by diplomats and development experts across the world. 

I’m pleased to say that the Department is proactively adapting to new mission 

sets and is laser-focused on building and supporting our workforce to be better 

equipped to tackle today’s global challenges. Under Secretary Blinken’s leadership, 

we have advanced an ambitious Modernization Agenda focused on building new capacity and fostering expertise across emerging critical mission areas; hiring, training and retaining a diverse, dynamic and entrepreneurial team; and leveraging innovative new technologies and platforms in a risk aware way to work more effectively and efficiently around the world. 

We launched, for example, several new offices and bureaus designed to centralize 

expertise in these areas and support our colleagues around the world, including the 

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, the Office of Critical and Emerging Technology, a consolidated China House, and the Bureau of Global Health Security and 

Diplomacy. 

• As we equip a worldwide workforce for new missions, it becomes even more important that we are attracting, training and retaining the right talent. Let me name 

just a few of the reforms we are pursuing to ensure a model workplace: We’ve greatly increased our training opportunities, especially in critical mission areas—we have 

dramatically expanded our training float, we have new mid-level training programs 

at the Foreign Service Institute, we’ve rolled out a new learning policy and we are 

creating new opportunities and incentives for civil servants and foreign service professionals to fill essential assignments. 

• We are reaching out and recruiting in new and innovative ways, expanding the 

pool of highly qualified applicants. Small but impactful changes such as how and 

where the foreign service exam is administered helps break down geographic and 

other barriers. We also now have paid internships for all our interns, thanks to the 

support of Congress, and this committee in particular. This is a gamechanger for 

so many young Americans of diverse backgrounds hoping to start a career in foreign 

affairs. 

• We have established an employee Retention Unit, which collates data from 

across the employee experience and uses exit interviews to provide insights into why 

people stay and why they leave. This team is developing the first Department-wide 

retention plan. 

• I also want to note the gratitude of the Department of State, and our 50,000 

Locally Employed staff around the world, for the efforts of this committee, to preserve the availability of Special Immigrant Visas through the GRATEFUL Act. Our 

local staff remain able to move their families to the United States at the conclusion 

of a career of long and faithful service to the U.S. Government. 

An empowered and educated workforce also needs modern tools and technology 

infrastructure. Our new Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Strategy outlines how we 

are leaning forward responsibly on AI, building the secure infrastructure we need 

to lessen rote or repetitive tasks and enable our diplomats to spend less time faceto-screen and more time engaging face-to-face. 

In terms of American citizen services, today, more Americans have passports than 

at any time in our history with more than 160 million valid U.S. passports in cir-
9 

culation. We issued 24 million passports in 2023, shattering our record while also 

getting wait times back to pre-pandemic levels. 

Similarly, more people can travel to the United States now than ever before. In 

Fiscal Year 2023, we issued more than 10.4 million nonimmigrant visas and 563,000 

immigrant visas. In recent years, international visitors have contributed as much 

as $239 billion in annual spending to the U.S. economy and have supported an estimated 9.5 million American jobs. Though there are still places where visa interview 

wait times remain stubbornly high, the global median wait time is now under 40 

days. We continue to focus on those few posts where wait times remain high. 

The safety of American citizens overseas remains our highest priority. Since rolling out a new crisis management communications system in 2021, we have communicated with and assisted more than 70,000 individuals through 15 different crises 

around the world. In recent months, we have helped evacuate over 1,300 U.S. citizens and family members from Haiti and 1,800 U.S. citizens from Gaza. 

Finally, I want to note in closing our gratitude for the passage of the national security supplemental, which will greatly aid our efforts to support Ukraine and 

Israel, counter China’s malign influence in the Indo-Pacific region and provide urgent humanitarian support in key regions. 

While the range and complexity of challenges confronting the United States and 

our allies and partners around the world can seem daunting, I am heartened and 

encouraged by our incredible workforce and the missions they take on each day. 

While the vast majority of their work goes unreported or unseen by the media or 

even known by most Americans, the work they do, with your support, helps make 

the world a more secure and more prosperous place. I am so grateful to our entire 

State Department team, and I know the Secretary and our leadership team will continue to support them in every possible way. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will now have the first round. 

I just want to make an observation. During the height of coming 

out of Covid, the number of requests we got in our office concerning 

passport applications and the concerns about visa being issued, et 

cetera, required us almost to have additional staff people just to 

handle the calls to our office. 

I can tell now by the volume, that that issue has been on the 

right path of being resolved. The economic impact of visas and 

tourism here in the United States, I am glad you mentioned that, 

we hear that frequently, that the United States is a much more 

challenging destination for non-Americans to come to than other 

parts of the world. 

So, I am glad that you are focusing on that because it is not only 

an economic interest to make sure that that is handled efficiently, 

it is also to bring a better understanding of America and the people 

to people contact. So, I just really want to make that observation, 

and I thank you for the progress you are making, but we still need 

to make more. 

As you know, last December, following intense discussions with 

the State Department, we were able to pass the Combating Global 

Corruption Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. I 

thank Senator Young of this committee, my co-sponsor of that legislation, that requires the State Department to put a higher focus 

on anti-corruption activities in our mission consistent with President Biden’s statement as to the need of this as a core national security concern. 

Can you tell us how the budget that you have requested will 

allow you to implement this law, and how we are progressing to 

carry out the legislation that was passed? 
10 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for 

your leadership on that issue. We have been progressing well. We 

have been working closely with your staff. 

The report that is required is underway and being drafted. And 

so, this continues to be a very high priority for the Department. 

And I think you will be satisfied with the report and the mechanisms, and we have the resources to do this, and appreciate what 

the team has done. 

I will say I was able to be the senior U.S. official at the AntiCorruption Conference sponsored by the United Nations in December, in Atlanta of last year, which brought together over 100 countries from around the world. And this legislation actually featured 

in some of what we were talking about. 

But the role that the U.S. plays in combating corruption continues to be essential. And again, your leadership, and I think this 

legislation will be another important tool. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to give you a little bit more an opportunity to tell us how the China House is proceeding. It is a real 

effort to put an attention as to the challenges we have with China 

that allow so many of our diplomats to spend time understanding 

the challenges of China by actually being in a setting that gives 

them the background rather than being just in one country. Can 

you just tell us how the China House is proceeding? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, when we talk about modernizing the Department, 

we talk about making sure we are doing those missions that matter 

most to the American people and to our strategic interests. And obviously, our competition with China is top among them. 

And what we felt like is we needed not just a bilateral look at 

how we were doing in our competition, but we needed a global look 

and a global understanding of how we were competing with China, 

from Africa to Latin America, on trade, on security, people to people ties, you name it. 

And the China House is that consolidated effort. And so, that is 

actually up and running, and it is working well. We are going to 

continue to build that out, not only build it out, but also build out 

people’s expertise with regard to what is actually happening in 

China, with a deeper understanding. 

And so, when we talk about training, and we talk about critical 

missions, it is essential that we connect up the training that people 

have to give them the skill sets in these critical mission areas. So, 

we are incentivizing people to—actually, both Foreign Service and 

Civil Service—to have a deeper understanding on China. 

So, it is the China House effort, it is the additional training, and 

it is the resources that the Congress has given us to put into this 

competition. So, it is a full court press. 

The CHAIRMAN. If it was up to most of us on this committee, we 

would give you a larger share of the pie of this nation’s resources 

to carry out your mission. We think you are underfunded, generally, so I am not going to be too tough as to how the resources 

are being allocated and you being able to meet your mission. 

But we talk about the float so that our diplomats can get the 

training they need, whether they are spending time at the China 

House or whether they are taking a course at the facilities that are 
11 

available. Training is essential not only before they become diplomats, but when they are diplomats. Cannot do that unless you 

have the personnel that can fill in during the training missions. 

We have been trying to create this float. What progress have we 

made, and where are the challenges still in giving you adequate resources so that we can take advantage of the training opportunities 

that are there? 

Mr. VERMA. Right. 

I think we have actually made a lot of progress on the training 

float. So, at any given time, we have about 1,400 people undergoing 

some sort of training. The vast majority of those have been in language training. 

For the first time, we have added about 250 positions dedicated 

to training, but in the critical missions area, and about 150 of those 

are going to be Foreign Service specialists and generalists. And 

about a hundred of those are going to be Civil Service specialists. 

We have also made it possible for Civil Service employees to get 

the kind of mobility they have asked for by backfilling those Civil 

Service professionals that have gone into the training float. Colin 

Powell talked about establishing a training float 23 years ago. We 

are up and running on the training float. We are doing a lot more 

than language. 

You mentioned our budget constraints and our staffing shortages. It is hard when you have a 13 percent staffing gap on the 

Foreign Service and Civil Service to take people out and put them 

into training, but it is also essential. We have to be able to do it 

while we reduce this staffing gap. 

You know, fiscal year 2024 ended up with about a 6 percent 

budget cut, which also has a real impact in our ability to fully roll 

out the training float we want, but we are moving forward with it. 

The Secretary and I, and others believe it is very, very important. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Verma, you heard my criticism of the Department regarding the implementation of SECCA. SECCA was drafted and 

passed so that we could get things moving quicker. You are the 

person in charge of that, I gather. Is that right? 

Mr. VERMA. I am happy to be—— 

Senator RISCH. That is a yes or no. 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. I am happy to be that person. 

Senator RISCH. So, can you give me just a—I do not want a blah, 

blah, blah, answer. Give one sentence, why you have failed to comply with the law’s requirement that was passed 2 years ago, that 

you had 6 months to issue final guidance, and why 2 years later, 

that final guidance has not been issued. 

Mr. VERMA. So, Senator Risch, let me say up front, I agree with 

you. Our people want to be out engaging with the public. They do 

not want to be behind big walls. And so, we have actually been aggressively opening, frankly, new embassies in the Pacific Islands. 

We have a new embassy in Solomon Island, Seychelles in Indian 

Ocean, Tonga. We are opening in Vanuatu and Maldives. We have 

actually used the authority that you have given us to exercise the 

waiver on setback in a number of embassies around the world in 

new construction. 
12 

The guidance that you are asking for is coming out shortly. I 

promise you of that. We are in absolute agreement. Let me tell you 

why it is hard. Because you have to have that rigorous debate between the security professionals, between the people who are building, and we want to do this right. 

Because if you just say, well reduce the setback and co-locate in 

all of these places in the world, which is what the authority gives 

us, which is what we want, and you do not do it carefully, you do 

run into security challenges. We are doing it carefully. I think you 

will appreciate the guidance when it comes out. It is coming out 

soon. 

Senator RISCH. You said soon, and shortly. Those words mean 

something to me, but maybe not the same as what they mean to 

you. So, tell me what soon and shortly mean. 

And by the way, I think that is a good explanation of what you 

have given. It still does not respond to the fact that there is specific, final guidance that was required and did not come out. So, let 

us get that behind us and talk about when that will happen shortly 

or soon. 

Mr. VERMA. Look, we are working on it as we speak, and so this 

has been an intensive conversation, again, in the Department. And 

we want to do this, and we want to do it right, and we want to 

be able to roll this out in a way that, I think, lives up to the spirit. 

Frankly, we want to—— 

Senator RISCH. I know you. 

Mr. VERMA [continuing]. Do more. 

Senator RISCH. And that is why I had the law drawn, and 

passed, and got through. 

Mr. VERMA. Right. 

Senator RISCH. Will it be less than 6 months? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator RISCH. Will it be less than 90 days? 

Mr. VERMA. I am hoping it is in the next few weeks. 

Senator RISCH. Hope is not a strategy. All right. Well, thank you 

for what you are doing in that regard. I am glad you are paying 

attention to it. It is the right thing to do. And believe me, we 

worked with the Department, as you know, when we drew SECCA, 

and when we passed SECCA, and so we know the Department 

wants to do this. 

Mr. VERMA. I will say, there is a reason why I have been to 45 

embassies and consulates. It is not just for the frequent flyer miles. 

It is to really see firsthand the challenges in building in urban 

areas and the real security issues we have. But we want the flexibility, and I think you will be pleased with how we actually implement it. 

Senator RISCH. OK. 

I am going to ask these questions not expecting an answer, but 

I am going to ask you anyway. Can you confirm that the Bureau 

of Diplomatic Security suspended Mr. Malley’s clearance because 

he improperly transferred classified U.S. Government information 

to his personal email account and/or device that is not authorized 

to store such information? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. Senator, I think you know that we are limited 

on what we can say, and Rob Malley has been on leave since last 
13 

summer. It has been publicly reported that this is because of his— 

that his security clearance was suspended. There are security professionals that review this matter. 

I will just say it is consistent with longstanding executive branch 

and Department of State policies and practice that we cannot comment, or provide documents or information in a public setting related to personnel, security, law enforcement, or investigations pertaining to any individual. 

So, unfortunately, I do not have much I can share with you in 

this public setting. 

Senator RISCH. Can you confirm that a malign cyber actor actually gained access to Mr. Malley’s personal email and/or phone? 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, I am not in a position to speak to the status 

of the investigation or anything related to it. 

Senator RISCH. Well, my time is up, and I did not get what I 

wanted out of that, and probably will not until we agreed to issue 

a subpoena for that information. Thank you. 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, could I—Mr. Chairman, if it is OK. Senator, 

you raised our China situation, and I just wanted to, having just 

been in China last week, I just wanted to respond to that directly. 

And I know you raised it with me multiple times in the past, and 

I greatly appreciate you speaking out on behalf of the work force, 

especially those who had to go through a terrible situation in 

China. 

Senator RISCH. And you above all understand the work force disillusionment with the way they were treated by China, and the fact 

that they believed that the government did not stand up for them. 

Mr. VERMA. Well, Senator, I would say no one was happy with 

the situation. I will say we had to waive privileges and immunities 

in 50 countries in order to continue to show up in places, including 

in China. 

Senator RISCH. But they did not all treat them like China treated 

our work force. 

Mr. VERMA. Well, some were pretty bad. What our work force 

went through was not acceptable. And the 16 people, plus kids that 

were separated, again, not something that any of our work force 

should ever go through. I will say, as I said a year ago, to you over 

a year ago, in my own hearing, we had a choice to make about 

being present or not being present. 

Secretary Pompeo, the Under Secretary for Management, Governor Branstad, Ambassador Branstad, made a policy decision. I do 

not question that decision sitting before you today. They made a 

policy decision that it was in the interest of the United States to 

be there, and it was going to be really painful for the work force 

to get back to China. 

Now, the people who had to implement that, Rob Ford, David 

Mille, the people you were talking about, actually were the ones 

there on the ground trying to work through an exceptionally difficult situation, trying to arrange medevac for our people, trying to 

fight with the Chinese government every day on behalf of those 

people, and to hold them accountable, responsible, to punish them. 

I just feel is the wrong direction. Hold me accountable, honestly. 

I am the policy person. I am the senior official for management. 

But they were implementing a policy taken by leaders in Wash-
14 

ington and by the ambassador, again, who I am not faulting them. 

I am just saying it does send a chilling effect to senior officials 

around the world when they have to do difficult things. 

No one is accepting, or endorsing, or thinking what the Chinese 

did was acceptable. It was not. But these officials had to implement 

a very, very difficult situation, and frankly recovered from it, and 

brought us to a place of normalcy with Ambassador Burns’ leadership and others. 

So that is the only thing I wanted to say. I spent a lot of time 

on this, and I do not think we see it in the same way. And these 

are people you might vote against, but to block their consideration 

from future advancement is just—I just ask you to think about 

that. 

Senator RISCH. I can tell you, and you know, that the scars are 

long, and deep, and long lasting from what happened there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to comment. We are talking about, 

in most cases, career diplomats, and we expect our career diplomats to carry out the instructions of the senior management, 

from the President of the United States to the Secretary of State. 

And I just really want to agree completely with Secretary Verma. 

There is a morale issue when we question their dedication when 

they are basically carrying out a policy. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Deputy Secretary Verma for being 

here. And despite our questions, we very much appreciate the work 

that you do every day. 

Last month, I wrote a letter to President Biden. Senator Collins 

co-signed that with me, as did a number of our colleagues, including the chair and ranking member of this committee. We were concerned about evidence that has surfaced on the 60 Minutes program about the GRU’s involvement in directed energy attacks 

against our American government officials and their families. 

And we have not gotten a response to that letter, but I do remain 

concerned that this Administration seems reluctant to cite attribution for what is happening there, and to go back and reexamine the 

evidence that has surfaced, and reconsider the assessments of what 

went on there. 

So, can I ask for your help in working with the interagency to 

get a response to that letter? 

Mr. VERMA. Absolutely. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And I appreciated our conversation yesterday 

where I raised the concern about families who were affected by 

those attacks. I have a constituent whose young children were affected, and there is concern that once they turn 18, they will no 

longer be eligible for coverage for treatment. And we do not really 

know what the long term impacts are. So again, I hope the Department will work with our office to make necessary changes to ensure that families who have had children affected are going to have 

some reassurance that those kids are going to get the protection 

they need. 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, absolutely. Thank you for your leadership 

on this. Thank you for looking out for, again, our work force that 

has been impacted. The attribution question is one that continues 
15 

to be researched. As you know, the community has not been able 

to point to a specific actor or country, but that work continues. 

In the meantime, what the Secretary has said and what we are 

committed to is making sure people are taken care of. These are 

real symptoms with real impacts, and real pain, and real suffering, 

and they deserve to be cared for. And that is what we are doing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. We look forward to continuing to work on this to ensure that people are protected. 

I think one of the biggest threats to the United States and to democracies around the world is disinformation and misinformation. 

Now, the Global Engagement Center was set up to help address 

this issue. Their authorization is going to expire in December, and 

I think there are still too many in Congress who do not have an 

appreciation for what the Global Engagement Center was designed 

to do and how effective they are in carrying out that mission. 

So, can you talk for the benefit of anybody who may be listening 

about why they have a critical role to play in, not just in the State 

Department, but in our national security? 

Mr. VERMA. No, I appreciate you raising it. 

The Global Engagement Center has been doing an incredible job 

of shining a light on the misinformation and disinformation that is 

being used around the world to impact our partners and our allies. 

Frankly, to impact our own strategic interests. 

It is a very intense competition in that space, and we cannot cede 

the field to Russia, to China, to others. And we finally have a group 

of experts who are doing this and doing this exactly the right way. 

They do not operate in the United States in any way. I know there 

has been concerns about, ‘‘Are they funding that kind of research 

or programmatic activity in the United States?’’ They absolutely do 

not and will not. 

But to have their mandate expire at the end of the year would 

be a devastating blow to our effort to be able to compete in one of 

the new critical domains which we have to show up, and compete, 

and document, and show to people what our adversaries are doing. 

And this is the wrong time to cede the ground. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, I totally agree with that. 

Do you have any specific examples of what the GEC has done 

that we can point to that show their effectiveness? 

Mr. VERMA. Absolutely. I mean, they have put out a number of 

reports that actually attribute a lot of misinformation and 

disinformation to the Russian and Chinese governments, and the 

intent that that information was put out to do harm either to one 

of our partners or to our ourselves. 

So, it is shining a light on that. That is so important. And again, 

we can get you a—their work has been very, very impressive, and 

I think it should continue. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Again, I agree with that, and I hope that you 

will give some thought to how we better do outreach to the American public and to Members of Congress about the effectiveness of 

the GEC, and about why that is so important. 

As I said, I think one of the biggest threats to our country and 

our national security is disinformation, and there is not, I believe, 

enough of an appreciation on the part of the public for the extent 

to which certain issues are manipulated. 
16 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. I appreciate you raising it, Senator. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ricketts. 

Senator RICKETTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Deputy Secretary Verma, for being here today. 

On April 19, the Jewish Insider published an article tied entitled, 

‘‘Inside the State Department’s Anti-Israel Listening Sessions.’’ 

And I just want to read you a few quotes from State Department 

personnel who attended some of these listening sessions. 

‘‘It was overwhelmingly calls, including from people I respect, 

that we need to do more to sanction Israel. We need to do more 

to punish Israel. We need to be more serious concerning ways in 

which we can sanction them; condition aid, cut off aid, reduce 

weapons flow,’’ said one Foreign Service officer with two decades of 

Middle East experience. 

‘‘There were people whose issues do not have anything to do with 

the conflict, who are making the case for why we need to do more 

to bash Israel.’’ The article goes on to say that what stood out to 

some of the Department folks was that these recent listening sessions, senior leaders were unwilling to defend our support for 

Israel’s security, particularly in response to the chorus of employees seeking a harsher stance against the Jewish state there. 

As a result, lower level folks who support Israel do not feel empowered to speak up in these sessions, and to me, this sounds like 

it is a management problem. It is a leadership problem. It could 

be creating a toxic work environment here. We certainly do not 

want the State Department to become like Columbia University. 

Deputy Secretary Verma, as a senior leader in the Department, 

have you led or attended any of these listening sessions? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. Look, Senator, I do not know about that listening session that is described, but in terms of outreach to our work 

force, I have probably—I do not know, done 10, or 11, or 12 outreach. I have done town halls with embassies across the Middle 

East. I have done meetings with our Jewish American employees. 

I have done meetings with Arab American employees. I have done 

as much outreach as I possibly can, because this is a very difficult 

issue. 

I will tell you, in none of the meetings that I presided over or 

attended, was there anything that is being described in that article. 

So, I am not familiar with what that article is referencing. 

But boy, if we are not engaging with our work force during one 

of the most challenging situations, one of the most significant 

threats to Israel, and its people, one of the most horrific terrorist 

attacks, but also one of the most significant humanitarian difficult 

situations we have had in Gaza. 

These are issues that really weigh on people. I am proud of the 

work that the team continues to do to support Israel and its defense needs while we are also trying to make sure humanitarian 

goods are flowing. So, this engagement with the work force that I 

have been part of has nothing to do with what is described in that 

article. 
17 

Senator RICKETTS. So, obviously, you know, you have had experience there before. So, these listening sessions were not set up specifically to talk about Israel, or were they? 

Mr. VERMA. Again, I can only speak to what I have done. The 

outreach that I have done has been to hear what has been on people’s minds about the situation in the Middle East, both the impact 

that it has had on work force in terms of stress and workload. I 

mean—— 

Senator RICKETTS. So, but yes, they were about Israel. Were 

these things also, kind of, these listening sessions then done for 

Iraq and Afghanistan and other—— 

Mr. VERMA. Well, look, it was about the situation in the broader 

Middle East. It was not about Israel, specifically. It was about listening to the views of the work force itself, about what was happening. Both the—again, the terrible and horrific terrorist attack, 

and the impact that it is had on the work force in addition to how 

we now respond both militarily and from a humanitarian perspective. 

Senator RICKETTS. So were similar sessions done for different situations, like, again, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or something like that? 

Mr. VERMA. I can only speak to—I am sure they were during previous periods. I was not there to participate in those. But I will 

say, Senator, from a management perspective, I think these have 

been exceptionally important, and they have not been stilted or 

kind of preconceived to elicit one opinion over another. It is meant 

to, really, give folks a chance to express themselves and to frankly 

share information. 

Senator RICKETTS. So, there is other ways that people can voice 

their concerns, right, like dissent cables, which are supposed to remain silent. Do you worry that, at least in the perspective of some 

of the folks here who were quoted, that you are creating a chill? 

You talked about chilling effect earlier. You are creating a 

chilling effect here with the folks who support Israel that are not, 

at least in this case, did not feel supported by senior leadership to 

articulate the views of why we are doing what we are doing to 

allow Israel to defend themselves. 

Mr. VERMA. Look, I have not from the Secretary, from others, I 

have not seen that. And we have made it very clear that we will 

not stand for antisemitism in the Department. We will not stand 

for its viewpoints. We will not stand for people that speak or express opinions of antisemitism in that way. So, no, I do not see a 

chilling effect. 

Senator RICKETTS. Have you seen anybody resign with regard to 

feeling like Israel is not being supported enough, and do you worry 

that you are not—— 

Mr. VERMA. I have not seen that. 

Senator RICKETTS. You have not seen anybody resign with regard 

to that? 

Mr. VERMA. I have seen people resign because they think we are 

providing too much assistance, but I have not seen people resign 

because they think we are not doing enough to support Israel. 

Senator RICKETTS. OK. Great. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Van Hollen. 
18 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Secretary Verma. It is good to see you. It was good to 

talk with you yesterday in my office. 

I just wanted to pick up on a couple things that I asked you during your confirmation hearing. I think Senator Cardin raised them 

as well, but just to get an update because you made progress since 

confirmation on the passport backlog and the visa backlog. 

If you could just very briefly speak to what challenges remain 

mostly on both those fronts, and I know that there is still visa 

backlogs with respect to a number of countries. Could you just talk 

about where you are in your plan to get it to where we would like 

to be? 

Mr. VERMA. Sure. 

So, I am actually very happy to report that the passport processing times are back to pre-pandemic levels. So, 6 to 8 weeks for 

a routine request, 2 to 3 weeks for expedited. 48 percent of Americans have a passport. We have 160 million passports in circulation. 

2023, 24 million passports were issued. We are talking about a 

pilot to roll out on online renewal. 

So, there is actually a lot of innovation happening in the passport 

space, and feel really good about the progress that we have made. 

We have now got to keep up with the peak demand and travel season. And again, so far, we have gotten through that for this year. 

And all the credit goes to the consular team. Again, visa wait 

times, we are back to pre-pandemic levels except for one category, 

which is the visitor visa category. We have reduced the wait times 

by 70 percent in 18 months. So, the global median is about 40 days 

for visitor visas. That is the one category. 

There are a number of countries where we still have wait times 

that are too long; Mexico, Colombia, India, a few others, but even 

these are coming down. We are doing that by, frankly, hiring more 

people as much as we can, and the team does have a pathway to 

get these back to a normal wait time. 

I mentioned the huge economic impact that this has. The number 

of students coming, foreign students, that this contributes to American universities. So, this is really, really important to us, and I 

think there has been significant progress over the last year. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Well, congratulations on the progress, and 

look forward to working with you on making sure we ultimately get 

where we want to go. 

Thank you for referencing the GRATEFUL Act in your comments. I was proud to author that legislation to make good on our 

promises to foreign nationals who are working at our embassies 

and consulates around the world, and also to author the Foreign 

Service Families Act. 

So, if you could please just provide a brief update on implementation of the GRATEFUL Act and implementation of the Foreign 

Service Families Act. The Foreign Service Families Act specifically 

with respect to helping the spouses of our Foreign Service officers 

or other State Department employees find productive work in overseas posts. 

Mr. VERMA. Thank you for both of those. Both of those pieces of 

legislation were essential. I am told we have issued something like 

1,500 visas already under the GRATEFUL Act, under the special 
19 

immigrant visa category. So incredible uptake on that already, and 

I am also told that the wait times by this fall will again be back 

to a bit of a normal wait time instead of the multi-year period that 

people were facing. Hugely impactful already. 

On spousal employment or partner employment, eligible family 

member employment is a huge plus for the Department. We have 

people with incredible skills up to around 6,000 eligible family 

members that are being deployed around the world. And you will 

see them on consular lines, you will see them in political and economic sections. 

So, we are trying to do even better when it comes to security 

clearance process to make sure they are onboarded more quickly. 

But this is a really key component of making sure families are able 

to stay together, and frankly, that families can work, and that we 

want this incredible talent to contribute to the embassy mission. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate that, and thank you for your 

implementation of that. 

Last question. As you know, there are a number of doctors and 

other medical workers, including some Americans, who are right 

now trapped in Gaza, trying to get out. I have been in touch with 

Ambassador Lew about this. Could you explain, give me an update 

on where we are in making sure that they can safely leave? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes, Senator, again, thank you for raising it. We are 

aware of the case. We have been in touch with the government of 

Israel. We have been in touch with, again, our counterparts in 

Egypt and in the region to make sure we can get certain emergency 

cases, especially ones like these, the clearance that they need to get 

out safely. And the team is working on it as we speak. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. All right. I appreciate the updates from 

Ambassador Lew. If you could keep me posted from the home front 

here—— 

Mr. VERMA. Sure. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN [continuing]. I would appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Verma, I was pleased to see the budget 

request for fiscal year 2025 includes the creation of three new Foreign Service positions overseas for democracy and human rights. I 

must say three does not seem to be an adequate number. The 

human rights issues are extremely challenging, and we need to be 

aggressive in promoting human rights. 

Just tell me briefly how you anticipate these three positions aiding our assistance of advancing American values of human rights 

globally. 

Mr. VERMA. Well Senator, I agree with you; three is probably not 

sufficient. And we are in a situation where we are facing democratic backsliding and retrenchment in key parts of the world. So, 

we are going to have to continue to work on this. Let me come back 

to you with specifics about how these three positions are, where 

they are actually going to be implemented. 

But I will just say the team working on democracy, human 

rights, and labor continues to be so essential on their voice. And 

just showing up the American voice and American leadership in 

these difficult areas is really—without us as advocates, people 
20 

fighting for democracy in different parts of the world would be on 

their own. 

And so, the grants that we administer, the programs that we administer, really are a lifeline for so many different groups and so 

many different individuals in parts of the world, and I really credit 

the DRL team for what they do. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, let me ask you a specific question about the 

flexibility on staffing. We recognize that you have missions that 

have to be staffed, but there are urgent issues that develop. Sudan 

being a prime example. The RSF right now and the atrocities in 

Darfur is something that needs to be responded to. We now have 

a special envoy. 

How do you get the resources necessary to meet that type of 

challenge quickly as the manager of the State Department resources? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes, it is a great question, and it is also why the creation of a Reserve Corps is something that we want to stand up, 

with your support. So, what we try to do is we, again, we try to 

incentivize people to come into to critical missions. But we also do 

have a kind of rapid reserve group ready to respond to different crises. They have the background and expertise, they have worked on 

other crises in the past, and those are people we can sometimes 

pull into the critical missions as well. 

But at, this is actually, probably, a 2 year planning process 

where we actually look at what are the key priorities, what resources are needed, and then we allocate that over the course of 

the debate internally on our budget. And then we look at it again 

to make sure we have the right number of people working on the 

issue sets that matter. 

This is going to change as different crises pop up in the world. 

And you mentioned Sudan, for example. And so, the bureau will 

then have to shift resources over if they have it. They will come 

to the senior leaders if they need help from across the Department, 

and then we try to make that available. 

So, we try to be flexible and meet the need that the different bureaus have when there is an emergency or a crisis. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Sudan might be a good example for us to 

follow. It is extremely challenging right now, Sudan and Chad, and 

the complications by other countries offering support that is counterproductive to peace in the region. We need U.S. presence there. 

So, are we moving in regards to Sudan to make sure that we have 

adequate State Department resources to try to deal with this crisis? 

Mr. VERMA. So, one of the things about the Supplemental is that 

it did provide a significant amount of assistance for humanitarian 

relief. That was a big piece of the Supplemental that was essential 

to the Department. And so that gets deployed through our Population, Refugees, and Migration Bureau. It will get deployed 

through USAID. 

So yes, we are trying to put as much as we can into responding 

to the refugee situation that we have, which is massive, probably 

the largest in the world today, the exodus from Sudan. And it is 

a top priority for the Department. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
21 

Mr. VERMA. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I just want to respond. 

Senator Ricketts asked if there had been other listening sessions, 

and I am told that we have had other listening sessions on Afghanistan recently in the last couple years. And I know there were listening sessions on Iraq previously as well. So, it is not an uncommon practice. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, Secretary Verma. 

We have been working, you know, recently, and I certainly, have 

been working very hard on Americas in particular to move more 

nominations through the committee. But the fact remains that the 

Senate holds on ambassadorial nominees are harming our national 

interest. 

If you look at a chart of where we have people, and where we 

do not, and where the PRC and Russia have people, they have people everywhere. And often, you are looking at a big goose egg for 

us in critical parts of the world. 

Just some recent examples when there was the coup in Niger. 

We have a lot of U.S. service members in Niger, and we have lost 

U.S. service members in Niger in counterterrorism activities. We 

had no ambassador in country. That coup has led to a government 

that now wants to kick the U.S. out, and they have moved in a proRussia direction. But we had no ambassador. 

When the security situation in Haiti spiraled downward, we had 

no ambassador in place. When Hamas attacked Israel on October 

7, we did not have an ambassador in Egypt, we did not have a confirmed counterterrorism coordinator. 

When the Houthis started to fire at U.S. and other ships in the 

Red Sea, we did not have an ambassador in Djibouti. And China 

not only had an ambassador, but it was building a massive port 

there. 

Now, after these emergencies, I think there was a little bit of a 

guilt trip, ‘‘I guess we better have an ambassador,’’ and so those 

positions that I mentioned have now been filled, but after the fact. 

You know, the doors have opened, and the horses have escaped, 

and the coup has happened, and the U.S. relationship with the previous government is now kind of in the past tense. And we did not 

have an ambassador in place. 

Tell us how these holds affect State’s ability to advance U.S. interest and protect our national security. 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, thank you. Thank you for the question. 

We spent a lot of time on this, and I am concerned about the 

trend lines. When we go back and look 20 years ago in the Bush 

administration, it took about 75 days to go from nomination to confirmation. Today, that number is about 250 days from nomination 

to confirmation. 

Senator KAINE. And can I just interrupt you there? And that is 

not just for the political appointees. The thing that is a little bit 

unusual about this is you see the holds of these career appointees 

who served under Presidents of both parties, who had to pass one 

of the toughest exams in the country to become an FSO, and then 

have patriotically served all over the world. 
22 

You see the hold of the careers that in many instances are equally as deleterious and damaging as the holds on the politicals. And 

yet, when we get the careers on the floor, they end up passing like 

by a 90 to 10 vote. So, what was the hold all about? 

Mr. VERMA. Right. No, you are exactly right. 

So, it has a ripple effect. You mentioned we are not present 

where we need to be. Our deputy chief of mission and charge ́ is 

doing an incredible job, but when this Senate gives the stamp of 

approval to a President’s nominee to show up in capital, it is very 

different. 

Senator KAINE. Tell me that a little bit. So maybe there is an attitude up here like, ‘‘Well, we got some great DCMs, so why does 

it matter?’’ And we do have great DCMs, so tell us why it matters. 

Mr. VERMA. Your confirmation gives those candidates a different 

level of standing. They show up with a letter from the President 

that they present to the head of state, gives them a different level 

of understanding. They have chief admission authority over everyone. That means many times U.S. military personnel, aid experts. 

And so, they are there as the senior U.S. official to deal with crises 

that may happen, to take care of American citizens. That may happen. I think—— 

Senator KAINE. Is there not also kind of an informal power that 

comes in the reverse if you do not have a confirmed nominee? The 

country believes, wow, we must not be that important in the 

United States. 

Mr. VERMA. 100 percent. 

Senator KAINE. If we were important, they would have bothered 

to do what Russia, and China, and every other nation does, and 

have an ambassador occupying the embassy. 

Mr. VERMA. I was in Ethiopia 3 weeks ago. I met with the African Union leadership. They cannot understand why we do not have 

a U.S. Ambassador to the African Union, career person, given everything that has happened in Sudan and all across the region, and 

the huge implications it has not to have a U.S. official sitting at 

the table. That is one example. 

Senator KAINE. And there is nothing you can say to them that 

disabuses them from the notion of, if we mattered to you, you 

would have someone here, right? 

Mr. VERMA. Correct. 

Senator KAINE. I mean, you could give them every explanation, 

oh, the Senate, it is a complicated place, and there is procedural 

holds, whatever, but the message that they are going to take no 

matter what you say, is if it mattered to you, you would have someone here. 

Mr. VERMA. Exactly. There is nothing we can say to make them 

feel better. Also, I would just say for the candidates, and their families, partners, whatever their situation is, it is an enormous devastating morale issue as well, and it is just personally incredibly 

difficult. 

If you have children, for example, and you do not know if your 

kids are going to attend seventh grade in a foreign capital, or 

maybe eighth grade, or sixth grade. You cannot plan. You do not 

know what is going to happen. Let us say you are coming from the 

private sector, or civil society, or academia. You cannot plan. I 
23 

know this does not seem like a big issue, but for families it really 

is. 

Senator KAINE. It seems like a big issue to me. It would seem 

like it would create a significant retention challenge with mid-career people if they felt like their future was not based on the merits 

of their service, but you know, somebody is going to hold them up 

for something unrelated to anything that they did. 

Mr. VERMA. Unrelated. And I will tell you a lot of the holds are 

not public. They are secret. So, we do not even know who to turn 

to try to get the hold—— 

Senator KAINE. So because they are secret, again, I know what 

this means, but just for the public, if somebody on the Senate is 

holding you up, and it is secret, you do not even have the ability 

to, like, go to the person and say, ‘‘Hey, tell me all your concerns, 

and let me try to reassure you, and maybe I can, or maybe I cannot. But at least honor me for the years that I have devoted to this 

country, and give me an opportunity to just answer your questions 

and explain myself.’’ 

Mr. VERMA. And again, we need to solve this for our diplomats, 

regardless of what Administration you are in. I am proud to be 

here on behalf of the Secretary and the Biden administration, but 

I do not want the next Administration and the future ones to face 

similar challenges. 

We need our diplomats out and development experts out in the 

field showing up, actively engaged, representing the United States. 

And today, we are not doing that the way we could be and should 

be. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thanks Senator Kaine for raising that 

issue. It has been one of the most challenging aspects of being 

chairman of this committee, is trying to move nominations. 

We have, I guess, four hurdles. First, we have to make sure we 

have all the adequate information concerning the nominee, and 

sometimes that takes some time. But then, we have to schedule 

hearings, then we have to schedule a business meeting, then we 

have to get it through the floor. And all those are obstacles to the 

process. 

I wanted to acknowledge—Senator Ricketts came up with a good 

suggestion. We talked the other day on how we might be able to 

move the career nominees a lot faster. So, I think there is a hope, 

a bipartisan interest, to try to get the career nominees done as 

quickly as possible. And I could not agree more with the Deputy 

Secretary that holding up a nominee, particularly a career nominee 

for reasons unrelated to that individual’s qualifications is something that needs to end. 

Senator Ricketts, anything further? 

Senator RICKETTS. Yes. Actually, if I could just real quick. 

We talked mentioned about the PRC and the issue with the global footprint here. According to Lowy Institute for 2024 global diplomacy, the People’s Republic of China has the most expansive diploma network in the world, followed by the United States. 

But the PRC has a larger footprint in Africa. 60 posts to our 56. 

East Asia, 44 to our 27. Pacific Island countries, 9 to 8, catching 
24 

up. Central Asia, 76 after we withdraw Afghanistan. Obviously, we 

have talked about some of the diplomats and stuff. And I know 

that we are hitting up on the time here, so I will get to it. 

How are we doing versus the PRC, versus the competition? You 

know, we have made some progress, right? We have opened up 

some new embassies in the Pacific, but how are we doing? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes. Senator, thank you. It is a question we spend 

a lot of time working on, and I—look, I think we are doing well. 

When our diplomats are engaged, the tradecraft they bring to the 

table, the tools, and the skill sets they bring are at the top in terms 

of capabilities. The challenge that we are facing, again, is one, 

showing up. Getting our people out. 

Second, it is a budgetary challenge as well. I really appreciate 

now that we have new tools like Development Finance Corporation. 

We have old tools like Millennium Challenge Corporation. But you 

know, again, look at our State Department funding for this year is 

going to be cut by 6 percent. We have this staffing gap. We have 

the confirmation challenges. 

So, there is a lot we can do. Frankly, we are a national security 

agency. I think we ought to be funded and treated like a national 

security agency, and I think that would actually help us compete 

a lot better. So just like you are doing with State authorization and 

we have a bill now, thanks to your leadership and the chairman’s 

leadership, it is going to the defense bill. 

We need to think of our budget like a national security budget, 

too, and not kind of pick winners and losers in the national security game. We need to look at the landscape that we are confronting. 

So, I would like to have a bigger global footprint. I would love 

to show up in more places. We are also constrained by the reality 

of what we are up against, but when we compete directly, we do 

quite well. 

Senator RICKETTS. OK. 

Just briefly to follow up on that in. I know there was discussions 

about opening up embassies in Vanuatu, Kiribati, the Caribbean, 

maybe even embassy in Libya. Can you bring us up to date on any 

of those? 

Mr. VERMA. Yes, thank you, Senator. 

The Pacific Islands progress has been good. So new posts in Solomon Islands, Tonga. We are planning Vanuatu, Kiribati. So those 

are all coming up. And these will not look like typical embassies, 

and they are kind of embassies of the future. We are going to have 

people—I was at our embassy in the Seychelles. It is very different 

than what one might think of with a typical embassy, but it is important that we are there and have a presence. 

These will be challenging assignments for people, but also super 

important, and we have a lot of interest in them. So, on that front, 

we are doing well. I think our Indo-Pacific strategy is a holistic 

strategy. I look at our new partnerships, whether it is the Quad or 

whether it is AUKUS. So, we are showing up in different ways, different alignments, and different partnerships. 

And you mentioned our new embassies in the Caribbean, which 

we hope to open up here, too. Again, funding challenges. We have 

to work within, but yes, we would love to be in more places. We 
25 

have got to show up in the places that we are trying to staff as 

well, which again, have some posts that are hard to fill. So, we are 

trying to work on both at the same time. 

Senator RICKETTS. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Deputy Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kaine, anything further? 

Well, Deputy Secretary Verma, thank you very much for your 

testimony. Thank you very much for your service. 

The committee record will remain open until close of business tomorrow for members who may have questions that we would ask 

that you respond to for the record. And there being no further business, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you. 

Mr. VERMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF MR. RICHARD R. VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

Question. Combatting Global Corruption Act: Last December, following intensive 

discussions with key officials in the Department of State, Congress enacted (as part 

of the NDAA), and the President later signed, the Combatting Global Corruption 

Act that Senator Young and I had introduced. This new law will oblige the Administration to publish a public report detailing which countries around the world are 

‘‘sustaining or making good progress in anti-corruption efforts’’ and explaining why 

those governments belong on this so-called ‘‘white list.’’ There will also be a classified report presented to Congress that will enumerate those governments that are 

‘‘making limited or no efforts to comply with minimum standards . . . and are not 

achieving meaningful efforts on combating corruption.’’ The report will also describe 

‘‘key obstacles to combating corruption and present near-term and long-term strategies.’’ The law also requires that the Administration present to Congress ‘‘a proposed budget for preparing the first set of lists’’ in the years ahead. Does the budget 

you have presented to us for fiscal year 2025 include adequate resources for the implementation of these new requirements? Or would you ask that we appropriate additional sums to accomplish what this new law requires, or fence off funding to enable it to happen? 

Answer. The Department of State is determined to implement the Combating 

Global Corruption Act and to support it with the necessary resources. We are currently considering the resourcing needs that will be required to implement the law, 

including developing reports, providing training, and targeting capacity to assess 

Global Magnitsky sanctions. The reports may also implicate the need to use Section 

7031(c) visa restrictions. We are developing the methodology and budget report and 

expect to incorporate any resourcing requests via future budget formulation processes. 

Question. Modernization Agenda/State Authorization Act: In 2021, I led a series 

of subcommittee hearings focused on modernizing the Department, and was pleased 

to see Secretary Blinken’s Modernization Agenda has included many of the recommendations from those hearings, as well as legislation I and others from this 

committee included in State Department Authorization bills codifying new bureaus, 

supporting stronger recruitment, retention, and training efforts, diversity initiatives, 

and improving quality of life for our Foreign and Civil servants, among other initiatives. With complex global challenges mounting around the world from conflicts to 

climate change, modernizing the Department has taken on greater urgency—from 

finally completing renovations at main state and our embassies abroad to sustaining 

the Department’s diverse workforce. As we consider legislative priorities for this 

year’s State Authorization Act, it is important to understand the Department’s current legislative needs. What additional resources or hiring authorities is the State 

Department prioritizing in requests for this year’s bill and how would this legislation help expedite modernization efforts and support U.S. critical foreign policy missions? 
26 

Answer. Among my top legislative priorities to modernize the workforce are authorities to support the establishment of a State Department Reserve Corps (SDRC) 

to enable a first-class rapid-response surge capability. State is requesting authorities for: expanded Non-Competitive Eligibility to support employment for Eligible 

Family Members of U.S. Direct Hire employees overseas; administrative leave for 

employees serving at high risk, high threat posts and for rest and recuperation and 

locally observed holidays; and Special Hiring Authority for critical skills including 

passport and visa examining positions, Data Science, Information Technology Management, and Human Resource Management. These authorities will enable the Department to advance ongoing efforts to attract, retain, and deploy talent, and to create an agile workforce capable of meeting emerging challenges. 

Question. Modernization Agenda/State Authorization Act: The fiscal year 2025 budget request calls for $20 million to pilot a new Diplomatic Reserve Corps, that 

would be capable of surging contingency response efforts. If Congress were to provide funding for a new Diplomatic Reserve Corps, would the State Department require any new legal authorities from Congress at the pilot stage or subsequent 

phases of development? 

Answer. To implement the State Department Reserve Corps (SDRC), the Department would use the recall and reappointment authorities provided under 22 U.S.C. 

§ 3948 to hire retired and former Foreign Service Officers. The Department also 

seeks additional statutory hiring authority and reemployment rights specific to the 

SDRC to support the long-term success of the program, including the removal of 

dual compensation restrictions for annuitants registered with the SDRC. This SDRC 

would enhance the nation’s diplomatic capabilities by providing rapid and cost-effective response capabilities for emerging diplomatic challenges and crises. 

Question. Reorienting for Strategic Competition: A critical piece of modernizing 

the Department is ensuring it is equipped and resourced to pace with strategic competitors like Russia and China. That includes ensuring that the Department maintains a strategic posture in bilateral missions across the globe, but also in the 

United Nations, OSCE, and other multilateral spaces that are key to promoting 

democratic values globally such as the Organization for American States. The State 

Department Authorization Acts have included support for U.S. interns, details, 

secondees and other roles that would increase engagement at international organizations (IOs). What is your assessment of the Department’s efforts to realign both 

personnel and resources to counter China, Russia, and other adversaries, and cultivate like-minded countries in the U.N. system and other IOs? How is training 

being revamped to ensure diplomats are well-prepared for the complexities of multilateral diplomacy? 

Answer. I am committed to leading the Secretary’s Modernization Agenda to ensure that we are staffed, equipped, and resourced to compete with the People’s Republic of China and Russia. We are working hard to increase U.S. citizen employment in key U.N. roles, including within the junior professional officers’ ranks, and 

are creating new opportunities using the Secretary’s expanded training float for Foreign Service and Civil Service Officers that will help develop a cadre of diplomatic 

professionals with multilateral expertise. We continue to realign both personnel and 

resources to achieve this goal. 

Question. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: I am a strong supporter of Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility efforts in the Department. I have been heartened 

to see positive progress on this issue under Secretary Blinken’s tenure from efforts 

to address assignment restriction polices to accommodations for persons with disabilities. However, when we look at the highest levels of the Department less than 

20 percent of our Ambassadors and senior officers are of color, and recent climate 

survey results suggest higher attrition rates among LGBTQ+ and African-Americans. How is the Department working to retain employees, particularly those from 

underrepresented groups at the mid-levels who would advance to Ambassadorships 

and other senior levels in the coming years? 

Answer. Healthy retention rates at all levels, including through the mid-levels, 

are critical to ensuring diverse representation throughout our ranks. Importantly, 

the Department of State has seen significant growth in diversity in both the Senior 

Foreign Service and Senior Executive Service over the last decade, though we still 

have work to do. In 2022, the Secretary created a Retention Unit in the Bureau of 

Global Talent Management, which works in close partnership with the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. As part of the Secretary’s Modernization Agenda, the Department is implementing its first-ever Talent Retention Plan, which focuses on policies 

and tools to reduce attrition across target demographic groups, complementing the 

Department’s DEIA Strategic Plan. 
27 

Question. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: What is the Department doing to create 

intentional and transparent pathways to career advancement for civil service employees and ensure equitable pay and growth opportunities where possible for locally employed staff? 

Answer. I recognize the critical importance of providing clear pathways for career 

advancement. The Department established its first-ever Civil Service Mobility float 

program in 2023 and is launching a Career Pathing Tool in summer 2024 that will 

allow employees to explore different types of positions across all occupational series 

and create a more transparent and desired career path based on their own skills. 

I am also focused on winning the competition for talent and retaining the teams 

that power diplomacy. Our diplomats rely on our Locally Employed Staff and remain committed to dedicating resources necessary to improve compensation and 

benefits and make them more predictable, equitable, and transparent to the extent 

permitted by law. 

Question. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: News reports suggest some staff have 

left or are considering leaving the Department related to some of the Administration’s policy positions in recent years. How is the Department addressing concerns 

being expressed through dissent cables and other means? 

Answer. Overall, our attrition rates at the Department are among the lowest 

across Federal agencies. We offer voluntary, confidential exit interviews to departing 

employees and catalog resulting data to inform our understanding of key drivers of 

employee attrition. Out of more than 470 exit interviews over the past 2 years, only 

three interviewees discussed disagreement with policy as a factor in their decision 

to leave the Department. I firmly believe that debate and dissent make our policies 

and institution better. That is why I encouraged use of our internal dissent channel 

and expanded the use of listening sessions and other forums where employees can 

freely voice their opinions to leadership to understand all points of view. 

Question. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Now that the Department’s Equity Action Plan includes efforts to address antisemitism, racism, islamophobia, LGBTQI, 

disability, women’s and other human rights issues in addition to procurement and 

grants issues, and harmonizing equity strategies across the Department, will the 

Department create a central coordinating office and budget to support implementation of the Equity Action Plans as well as a budget that outlines planned spending 

per our Committee’s inquiry last year to ensure the success of such a monumental 

undertaking? 

Answer. The Department is committed to advancing equity, including in furtherance of its Equity Action Plan, and will continue to identify resources to support 

these efforts. Equity efforts are part of existing funding streams and lines of effort 

to further strengthen aspects of programmatic and operational integration. The 

seven Equity Principals noted in the Plan provide technical leadership to the Department in advancing their respective strategies. The Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor coordinates equity efforts through the Department Equity Council. 

Question. Human Rights in Africa: In February, I wrote a letter to the Secretary 

of State expressing my strong concern about the Department’s surprising reversal 

of a decision made during the Obama Administration to elevate the importance of 

democracy and human rights in Africa by having one Deputy Assistant Secretary 

(DAS) of State cover Africa as his or her only regional area of responsibility in the 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Currently one DAS covers 

Africa and Latin America—more than 80 countries in total. This is not sustainable, 

and sends a troubling signal about our commitment to human rights, democracy, 

and governance, especially following the Africa Leadership Summit. Will you commit to look into providing another DAS position in DRL to cover Africa and reporting back to my staff as soon as possible? 

Answer. The Department continues to prioritize promoting democratic governance 

and respect for human rights across Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, the Deputy Assistant Secretary who 

covers Sub-Saharan Africa frequently engages at high levels on issues related to 

democratic transitions, government accountability and transparency, including travel in recent months to Nigeria twice, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 

South Sudan to address concerns around ongoing human rights and democracy 

issues. I am committed to ensuring the bureau has the resources needed to continue 

this important work and look forward to keeping you apprised. 

Question. Cyber and Tech Talent at State: Last week, the Department unveiled 

its International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy, which lays out a frame-
28 

work for the Department’s international engagement on cyber-related matters. In 

order to implement this strategy properly, it is vital that the Department build its 

own capacity and expertise in cyber and emerging technology issues as part of its 

broader efforts to modernize diplomacy. What has the Department done, and what 

is the Department currently doing, to modernize its diplomatic workforce in order 

to tackle cyber and technology issues? 

Answer. The Department is building institutional capacity across the spectrum of 

technology topics and will have more than 200 diplomats trained with the skills, expertise, and tools to advance U.S. cyber and tech policy by the end of 2024. This 

will enable placement of a trained cyber/digital officer at every mission engaged on 

these topics. The Department also launched 15 tech-focused training details with external partners; built tech literacy into Chief of Mission selection criteria; and created an awards program to recognize excellence in tech diplomacy. 

Question. Cyber and Tech Talent at State: What is State doing to incentivize 

those with the necessary skillsets to come and stay at the Department? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2023, the Department approved recruitment incentives for 

newly appointed Civil Service and Foreign Service IT employees, to include employees with targeted cybersecurity skills and experience working in select mission-critical cyber-coded positions. 

The Department also has both an IT Skills Incentive Program (IT SIP) and Cyber 

Skills Incentive Program (Cyber SIP) that offer retention incentives after 1 year of 

service to eligible employees who obtain specific IT or cyber certifications and occupy 

specific IT or cyber positions. In fiscal year 2023, more than 600 eligible employees 

received either IT or Cyber SIP incentives. 

Question. Elevating Data Analytics for Diplomacy: I commend the Department for 

its efforts thus far to elevate data analytics in diplomacy and decisionmaking, particularly through the Center for Analytics—and more can be done. I believe this 

should be a core focus of the Department’s broader modernization efforts. As I stated during our hearing last fall on the Department’s adoption of AI tools, the Department sits on an incredible trove of valuable data just waiting to be unlocked by 

those with the necessary skills and resources. What is the Department doing to support its data analytics capabilities? How is data analytics being elevated within Department decisionmaking? 

Answer. Secretary Blinken and I prioritize data-driven decisionmaking in our diplomatic operations. The Center for Analytics (CfA) harnesses data for policy and 

operational decisions and released an Enterprise Data Strategy to enhance data 

management, accessibility, and use. We are leveraging advanced data analytics tools 

to extract meaningful insights from large datasets. We are fostering partnerships 

to share analytical methodologies and are embedding Chief Data Officers and analytics teams in bureaus to provide real-time data insights. 

Question. Elevating Data Analytics for Diplomacy: How is the Department 

prioritizing data science hiring and training? 

Answer. The Department is leading interagency efforts to attract top-tier data 

science talent through skills-based hiring. We have increased initiatives to recruit 

data scientists and bureau-level Chief Data Officers across the Department. Our 

embassy data program provides tools, resources, and expertise directly to diplomats 

overseas. We are committed to upskilling our existing workforce by offering data 

science and emerging technology trainings at the Foreign Service Institute. In addition, we have Department-wide events focused on data, artificial intelligence, and 

technology-driven modernization. 

Question. Online Passports Renewal: After the conclusion in March 2023 of the 

online passport renewal pilot program, the State Department decided to hold off on 

continuing the roll out based off consumer feedback and congressional concern over 

the IT infrastructure. Despite the Department’s intention to launch the program at 

the end of 2023, it was delayed yet again. What is behind the delay? What progress 

has been made and what challenges remain? When does the Department expect to 

launch this program? 

Answer. The Department analyzed the lessons of our 2022 online passport renewal (OPR) pilot to ensure the next iteration meets demand and produces a 

streamlined, scalable process. We moved OPR to a new platform and partnered with 

the U.S. Digital Service to refine our launch strategy ahead of a public beta release 

by mid-June 2024. During this public beta, we will accept a small number of online 

applications each day—ramping up over time—so we can track and quickly address 

any issues that arise and continuously improve the experience for the American people. 
29 

Question. Online Passports Renewal: What has the Department done to engage 

the private sector on commercially available technology for the online renewal program? 

Answer. The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) supports the use of commercially 

available technology to enhance the Department’s goals of digital transformation. 

CA engaged with the private sector to leverage a commercially available platform 

for Online Passport Renewal that will be part of its next release, and it will continue to look for similar opportunities in other modernization efforts. 

Question. Consular Fees: Since the pandemic, Congress has authorized the State 

Department to temporarily retain and expend the consular fees it collects. This 

year’s budget request includes a request to make this authority permanent as it 

once again expires at the end of the fiscal year. Congress has expressed concern over 

the lack of transparency in using consular fees to fund other State Department programs. Why should Congress permanently authorize this authority for the Department? 

Answer. The requested expenditure authorities are to use certain fees collected for 

consular services only to maintain consular operations, to include overhead services 

provided by the Department’s management platform. The authority addresses the 

structural imbalance of the fully fee-funded Consular and Border Security Programs 

(CBSP) account to support otherwise unfunded services to U.S. citizens and provides 

flexibility to maintain consular operations. 

Question. Consular Fees: How does the Department intend to use consular fees 

to improve consular services? What steps will the Department take to improve its 

transparency in reporting on fee collections and expenditures from this authority? 

Answer. The Department is using consular fees to hire additional civil and foreign 

service personnel and locally employed staff, as well as to improve its technological 

capabilities, enhance service delivery, and improve national security screening. The 

Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has a Customer Experience office and 

started a Passport Services modernization initiative to further these efforts. All consular revenue and spending, including cost-share toward Department programs, are 

included in the fiscal year 2025 Congressional Budget Justification. 

Question. Sudan: Human Rights Watch issued a report last week detailing horrific 

abuses by the RSF in Darfur. Many of us are concerned about a looming attack on 

El Fasher by the RSF which could result in additional atrocities. It is imperative 

that we support Special Envoy Perriello’s diplomatic efforts to bring about a 

ceasefire if we are to have any hope of averting another tragedy. I am concerned 

that he is not properly staffed, and the vague answers given to date about who reports to him are unsatisfactory. I understand USAID has detailed a few officers to 

more directly support the Special Envoy’s efforts. How many state direct hire positions has the Special Envoy been given to fill? 

Answer. We share your concern on recent abuses in Darfur and the dire situation 

in El Fasher and are committed to making sure the Special Envoy has the resources 

needed to continue efforts to press for a ceasefire. In the Department’s Bureau of 

African Affairs, the Office of Sudan and South Sudan (AF/SSS) is directly supporting the envoy, in addition to staff detailed from other agencies and bureaus. The 

AF/SSS team includes a director, deputy director, and three Sudan desk officers. His 

team also includes two office management specialists, four detailees from other 

agencies, and an expert detailed from the Negotiations Support Unit of the Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. 

Question. Sudan: How many State Department Foreign Service Officers of Special 

Envoy Perriello’s choosing have been re-assigned to report directly to him? Was he 

given the opportunity to select staff from the specialized unit from within the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations that has individuals with technical negotiation skills? It would seem to me to be a critical gap if not. 

Answer. The Special Envoy’s office has one detailee from the Bureau of Conflict 

and Stabilization Operations’ Negotiation Support Unit who was selected by the 

Special Envoy. In addition, he selected three detailees from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development and one from the Department of Homeland Security for 

his team. 
30 

RESPONSES OF MR. RICHARD R. VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES E. RISCH

Question. Pacific Island Expansion: Expanding the U.S. diplomatic presence overseas is critical to counter malign PRC influence and advance our diplomatic objectives, especially in the Pacific Islands. But too often, the Department can’t get out 

of its own way. As a result, it takes years to get an embassy up and running. I introduced ‘‘Embassy in a Box’’ legislation to help the Department hit the ground running when embassy doors open by cutting through the bureaucracy. Why does it 

take so long to get an embassy up and running, as it has in the Solomon Islands 

and Tonga? 

Answer. The Department fully supports initiatives that can enable our staff to 

begin work at new posts quickly and safely to accomplish top U.S. foreign policy 

goals. In the Pacific Islands, the geographic isolation, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient local medical care, small local hiring pool, and resource limitations create 

a complex logistical environment for establishing and maintaining diplomatic operations. However, we have utilized key regional support centers in Manila to ensure 

that both present and future posts in the region have adequate supplies and minimal logistical gaps. 

Question. Pacific Island Expansion: Can you explain how the Department could 

use expedited procedures and pre-approved resources to more efficiently and effectively stand up new small embassies? 

Answer. The Department is currently exploring expedited post opening procedures, to more efficiently and effectively open new small embassies. To promote a 

shorter timeline to establish these small embassy facilities, the Department can leverage legislative flexibilities and use standardized space requirement plans to capitalize on landlord-executed commercial space fit-outs. Regarding operations, the Department will devote resources during the pre-opening phase to best ensure that the 

initial permanent personnel have what they need in place to conduct diplomacy effectively. 

Question. Bix Aliu: As you know, this committee recently considered the nomination of Bix Aliu as Ambassador to Montenegro. At his hearing, I raised serious concerns about Mr. Aliu’s poor leadership and the toxic workplace culture he fostered, 

concerns that the Majority now also seems to share given that Mr. Aliu’s nomination did not advance. Remarkably, I now understand that Mr. Aliu has been appointed to chair the upcoming FS02–01 promotion panels for foreign service officers, 

putting him a position to potentially retaliate against whistleblowers. Secretary 

Blinken has claimed that one of his key priorities is addressing toxic leadership and 

improving leadership accountability at the Department. How is appointing an individual who has engaged in exactly this type of behavior consistent with that priority? 

Answer. The Department is committed to creating and maintaining a diverse and 

inclusive workplace free from harassment, toxic workplace behaviors, and retaliation. The Secretary has been consistent and clear on this, and the Department published new anti-bullying guidance for all personnel. We take allegations of such behavior seriously and have established procedures for pursuing accountability as appropriate. Employees selected to serve on promotion panels are vetted prior to being 

considered for service, take an oath of office, and are closely monitored throughout 

the process for adherence to all policies and procedures that govern the panels. All 

Foreign Service employees also have the right to submit a request for recusal of a 

board member who they believe will be unable to apply the precepts fairly and without bias in assessing their performance. The Secretary and I have every confidence 

that Mr. Aliu will continue to exhibit the range of good leadership qualities we demand of our senior leaders. 

Question. Bix Aliu: What message does it send to your workforce, particularly to 

those officers who may now be subject to illegal retaliation from Mr. Aliu? 

Answer. The Department is committed to protecting all personnel against retaliation, and employees found to have engaged in retaliation will be held accountable, 

including through disciplinary action up to and including separation where appropriate. Department employees and their managers have access to information on 

how to report allegations of retaliation. All Foreign Service employees also have the 

right to submit a request for recusal of a board member who they believe will be 

unable to apply the precepts fairly and without bias in assessing their performance. 

Question. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: During the most recent promotion 

cycle, the Department used its new ‘‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility 
31 

(DEIA),’’ promotion precept for the first time. Unlike the other promotion precepts, 

this one is not actually tied to how good you are at your job; it’s linked to the degree 

to which you are a missionary for progressive social causes. As bad as that is, what’s 

even worse is that we understand the Department is applying this precept retroactively. The Department’s new DEIA precept is not just a recap of principles previously listed under other precepts. It establishes new goals on how employees 

should understand and promote these concepts. Can you confirm that the Department is retroactively evaluating candidates for promotion based on a new, ideological test? 

Answer. A distinct DEIA core precept focused on both internally focused DEIA 

workplace goals and externally focused equity goals started with the 2022–2023 Foreign Service rating cycle. However, fostering diversity and inclusion within the 

workplace was a requirement in precepts from 2018 forward. Creating an inclusive 

workplace environment is a recognized best practice for creating top performing 

teams. When the people making decisions on behalf of the American people do not 

reflect the full diversity of our nation, we all lose, and our national security is weaker. Inclusion of different views, perspectives, and abilities strengthens our foreign 

policy. 

Question. Congressional Travel: Congressional Delegations (CODELs) and Staff 

Delegations (STAFFDELs) serve a critical oversight mission. Do you believe that 

embassies should support fully CODELs and STAFFDELs that seek to travel to 

post? 

Answer. The Department of State strongly supports and encourages congressional 

travel abroad. I understand the importance of meeting with your foreign counterparts and gaining on the ground insights and cross-cultural perspectives. More importantly, I understand that Congress has a critical role in conducting constitutionally mandated oversight of the executive branch to ensure taxpayer dollars are 

being spent wisely and in furtherance of advancing American’s foreign policy goals. 

These visits are critically important as Members of Congress serve as strong advocates for American values and can convey or echo Mission messages to senior foreign counterparts. In 2023 alone, the Department supported more than 594 congressional and staff delegations, including in war zones and other high-risk areas. 

Question. Congressional Travel: Do you believe that the only acceptable reason for 

an embassy to deny or push back on congressional travel involves simultaneous or 

overlapping visits by the President or First Lady of the United States, the Vice 

President, or the Secretaries of State or Defense? 

Answer. Each of our missions around the world are unique. Some of our larger 

posts are well equipped to handle multiple visits at the same time. On the other 

hand, some of our smaller missions simply do not have the resources or staffing to 

support simultaneous congressional visits. Congressional travel to certain regions 

may also be limited due to safety or security considerations; however, our goal is 

always to facilitate official foreign travel. Nevertheless, there may be rare instances 

where we need to ask congressional delegations for their flexibility in working with 

our posts to select alternate travel dates. Our foremost goal is to help congressional 

delegations meet the mission objectives of their trip and obtain important engagements with key officials, and sometimes the best way to accomplish this goal is to 

suggest slightly alternate travel dates. 

Question. Nominations: During your hearing, you had an exchange with Sen. 

Kaine regarding important posts that do not have a confirmed US Ambassador. One 

of the posts mentioned was Haiti. The US Senate did not receive the nomination 

for now Ambassador Dennis Hankins until May 30, 2023. For how many days did 

the Biden Administration fail to nominate someone to be US Ambassador to Haiti? 

Answer. The Department of State tracks vacancies at embassies overseas with the 

utmost seriousness. As I mentioned in the hearing, our Charge d’Affaires a.i. represented the United States and led the embassy until the Senate confirmed a U.S. 

Ambassador to Haiti. In the instance with Haiti, the nomination process took slightly longer than usual. Nevertheless, Senate confirmed leadership speaks volumes to 

our partners abroad, particularly in circumstances similar to those we have seen recently in Haiti. 

We were delighted to see Ambassador Hankins’ confirmation by the Senate on 

March 14, 2024. I fully support a speedy selection, vetting, and nominations process, 

and I appreciate the committee’s diligence in moving his nomination forward in a 

timely fashion. 
32 

Question. Nominations: Do you believe having a confirmed US Ambassador to 

Haiti is critical to the US national security interest? If yes, why did the Biden Administration take so long to submit a nomination to the US Senate? 

Answer. Yes, I believe a confirmed U.S. Ambassador to Haiti is in our national 

interest. Senate confirmed leadership speaks volumes to our foreign partners, particularly in circumstances similar to those we have seen recently in Haiti. Ambassador Hankins, who was confirmed by the Senate on March 14, 2024, is an experienced and capable diplomat to lead our mission in Haiti, and we welcome his confirmation. 

RESPONSES OF MR. RICHARD R. VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. The Department of State maintains that although increased Foreign 

Service hiring since fiscal year 2020 has strengthened its overseas presence, ‘‘chronic vacancies affecting core policy and management responsibilities’’ endure. Please 

provide specific detail as to where the State Department would prioritize filling vacancies should Congress provide the requisite funding for fiscal year 2025. 

Answer. This is one of my main priorities. At present, the largest staffing gaps 

are among Foreign Service Officers, Diplomatic Security Special Agents, Diplomatic 

Technology, and Office Management Specialists. The Fiscal Year 2025 Request 

would enable the Department to fill 200 Foreign Service vacancies and establish approximately 200 new positions across the Foreign Service and Civil Service to help 

address these gaps. 

In the meantime, in order to ensure the highest priority assignments are filled, 

the Department has developed a data-driven approach to strategically and equitably 

set limits for bureaus on the number of positions that may be advertised. Addressing staffing gaps would enable the Department to ease these limits. 

Question. How does the State Department determine which overseas vacancies to 

prioritize? 

Answer. For the 2025 assignment cycles, the Department is focused on its highest 

policy priorities and locations where chronic understaffing has impacted our ability 

to execute our mission. Priority criteria include: 

• Policy priorities; 

• Special Incentive Posts (SIPs); 

• High hardship posts with the highest vacancy rates; 

• Overseas consular positions; 

• Overseas positions in small sections; 

• Operations Center positions; and 

• Out-year language designated positions in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, 

and Russian. 

Question. Would the State Department priorities include filling vacancies at overseas posts in Africa, which have been a subject of congressional concern for over a 

year? 

Answer. With our current limited staffing, there will continue to be unfilled positions at posts in all bureaus, around the world. To mitigate this in Africa and other 

challenging locations, I have directed the Department to focus its efforts on filling 

all positions at our highest priority and hardest to fill posts, focusing on the recent 

vacancy rates in those posts to allocate recruitment incentives. The majority of posts 

in Africa benefit from these measures. 

Question. Some Members of Congress and other observers have criticized the 

State Department’s DEIA programming, with one member stating that the Office 

of Diversity and Inclusion ‘‘does the opposite of what America has always stood for, 

which is very simply the best man, the best woman for the job.’’ Others have criticized the State Department for what they view as elevating DEIA matters amid 

major national security challenges that require significant resources and attention 

in other critical regions. Please share your view of such criticism. 

Answer. Merit principles are the basis for all employment actions at the Department of State. We achieve DEIA values through, among other things, broad recruitment, mentoring, and training. When the people making decisions on behalf of the 

American people don’t reflect the full diversity of our Nation, we all lose, and our 

national security is weaker. Hiring and retaining a diverse workforce enables and 
33 

strengthens our ability to handle strategic national security interests. Diversity 

makes us stronger and more creative. It is how we bring to bear people’s many 

ideas, experiences, expertise, and contributions for the benefit of our organization 

and our country. 

Question. How will the Office of Diversity and Inclusion continue to work with 

Congress to properly address institutional challenges that prevent efficient recruitment, retention, and promotion of people of diverse backgrounds? 

Answer. The Department of State’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion will continue 

working with Congress through the Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs. The 

Department consistently seeks to recruit, promote, and retain a diplomatic workforce that reflects America’s diversity. Recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce 

enables and strengthens our ability to handle strategic national security interests. 

Question. Over the past 5 years, some U.S. policymakers have expressed concern 

about the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) apparent efforts to increase its role 

and influence in international organizations (IOs). Both the Trump and Biden Administrations created offices within the State Department to counter the influence 

of China and other countries in multilateral fora, including the United Nations system. The Congress has since enacted legislation aiming to directly or indirectly 

counter China’s influence in U.N. fora. What is your assessment of China’s current 

role and priorities in the U.N. system and other IOs? 

Answer. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) seeks to reshape international institutions, standards, and values to align with its world view and national agenda. 

It aims to use the United Nations to promote and extend its foreign policy initiatives. The PRC prioritizes economic development over human rights and rule of law, 

and it introduces rules and technical standards in standards-setting bodies to legitimize its approach. The PRC seeks to deny Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the 

United Nations and international organizations. 

Question. How is the United States working to counter these efforts? 

Answer. The United States’ multilateral strategy engages U.N. membership to 

strengthen the United Nations and rules-based international system in line with its 

founding values and principles. U.S. leadership promotes transparency and accountability to resist the PRC’s attempts to undermine U.N. governance and operations 

and promote its ideology. This includes highlighting U.S. contributions to address 

global challenges and supporting qualified candidates for U.N. positions. The United 

States also advocates for Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nations 

and other international organizations. 

Question. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate there 

were nearly 110,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States between December 

2022 and November 2023. Nearly 70 percent of those deaths were attributable to 

fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, primarily sourced from Mexico, and 28 percent 

were attributable to cocaine, primarily sourced from Colombia. How, if at all, has 

the State Department adjusted its security assistance programming in the Western 

Hemisphere over the past 5 years—and in the fiscal year 2025 budget request—to 

respond to the changing nature of the drug threat to the United States? 

Answer. The Department works to disempower criminal organizations responsible 

for producing and trafficking illicit drugs, including through precursor disruption, 

interdiction, prosecution, and asset seizure. We expanded our work with Mexico to 

increase illegal synthetic opioid detection, interdiction, and prosecution. In Colombia, we are advancing a more comprehensive counternarcotics approach, including 

through rural security and anti-money laundering. The $584.9 million in INCLE 

funding for the Western Hemisphere within the Department’s fiscal year 2025 budget request includes support for these efforts. 

Question. Please share how the State Department is currently addressing the role 

of foreign adversaries like China in the production and distribution of fentanyl and 

other synthetic opioids across Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Answer. Following months of intensive diplomacy, the President secured a commitment from People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi at the Woodside Summit to resume bilateral counternarcotics cooperation with a focus on reducing the 

flow of precursor chemicals fueling illicit fentanyl and synthetic drug trafficking. 

Immediately following the Summit, the PRC started to take actions including 

issuing a public notice to the PRC chemical industry, taking law enforcement action 

against PRC suppliers, submitting information to a global narcotics data base, and 

launching the U.S. PRC Counternarcotics Working Group. The Department is pressing the PRC to take continued and sustained action, in particular law enforcement 
34 

actions, to regulate all precursors controlled by the U.N. Commission on Narcotic 

Drugs and to disrupt illicit financing networks. 

Question. Many Latin American and Caribbean migrants, including an estimated 

6.5 million Venezuelans, are residing in other Latin American and Caribbean countries. How would the fiscal year 2025 budget request seek to support the resettlement and integration of these migrants? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2025 budget request for $1.215 billion includes $475 million for humanitarian assistance in the region to significantly contribute to regularization and integration programs in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, and 

throughout the region, providing capacity building and staffing for asylum authorities and documentation support for vulnerable people. It also funds our ongoing efforts to resettle individuals from the Western Hemisphere to partner countries and 

the United States via the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including $300 million 

for the Safe Mobility initiative. 

Question. To what extent have such activities proven effective in preventing migrants from leaving their initial places of resettlement to seek entry into the United 

States? 

Answer. In the Western Hemisphere, regularization and integration enable people 

to find protection closer to home. Of the 6.5 million displaced Venezuelans in Latin 

America, up to 90 percent remain in the region largely because of regularization and 

integration initiatives. Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru strengthened their integration 

and asylum systems with U.S. funding. For example, 2.5 million Venezuelans now 

have Temporary Protected Status in Colombia. 

Question. How can the State Department and the Congress work together to improve the interagency coordinated response to the migration crisis? 

Answer. We can work together to support integration, strengthen asylum and regularization, and deliver humanitarian assistance. This funding helps vulnerable people integrate in countries closer to home and rebuild their lives, and when needed, 

access lawful pathways for safe and orderly migration. Congressional support for the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request will advance these important lines of 

effort through the support of the Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 

Migration to partners that bolster registration, regularization, and integration in 

the region and provide protection, including through access to housing, medical care, 

education, and employment. 

RESPONSES OF MR. RICHARD R. VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. The State Department’s Modernization Agenda includes efforts to reexamine State’s policies and safeguards on risk, including with respect to technology, 

innovation, and emerging technologies. We have seen a significant uptick in the use 

of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) as weapons of war and surveillance. Many of 

the physical security measures the Department utilizes are based upon threats of 

the past when UAS technology did not exist or was not as accessible. Does the Department have the required resources to counter UAS when protecting our diplomats overseas or for its domestic protection missions? 

Answer. The Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) continually reviews and evaluates its global security platform for efficiencies and effectiveness to ensure the organization is optimizing its resources to meet the global mission of protecting life, property, and information. Despite increases over the last several years, the DS budget has not kept pace with the cost of the Department’s global 

security platform. As a result, DS conducted a global review of security resources 

to assess where reductions could be made, paring back those security programs that 

have been operating above standards established by the Overseas Security Policy 

Board (OSPB) while ensuring essential security services continue. While the global 

review will help contain costs, it will not solve the overall budget challenges that 

DS will continue to face in the future. 

Current market forces are increasing annual contractual costs across DS’ global 

security platform, as reflected by disrupted global supply chains, rapidly changing 

technology, increases to lifecycle replacement timelines, increasing global threats, 

and quickly changing operational environments that drive the sustained loss of purchasing power at current funding levels. Providing physical and technical security 

support, DS was appropriated $34.9 million for overseas Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems threat mitigation support. Additionally, the straight-line fiscal year 
35 

2024 appropriation has necessitated cuts across our global platform, which will continue into fiscal year 2025. Capability requirements and appropriate resource levels 

to mitigate specific threats are a part of a deliberate dialogue within the Department. DS is happy to discuss further in a classified briefing. 

Question. How much current resource allocation goes toward Unmanned Aerial 

Systems (UAS) threat mitigation? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2023, the Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Secu- rity (DS) was appropriated $34.9 million for overseas Counter-Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (C-UAS) threat mitigation support. Additionally, the straight-line fiscal 

year 2024 appropriation has necessitated cuts across our global platform, which will 

continue into fiscal year 2025. As a result, DS continues to make strategic reductions to its global security operations in fiscal year 2024 and through fiscal year 

2025 in line with funding levels prescribed in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. DS collaborates closely with our partner bureaus, and interagency partners to ensure we 

are meeting our security mission. Our partners are critical to our success. C-UAS 

capability requirements and appropriate resource levels to mitigate specific threats 

in a dynamic threat environment are a part of a deliberate dialogue within the Department. DS is happy to discuss further in a classified briefing. 

Question. The unfortunate trend of U.S. diplomats who have spied on their country continues, highlighted by the revelations that Manuel Rocha spied for over 40 

years for Cuba. How does the Department currently resource the Counterintelligence (CI) office in order to mitigate these types of threats? 

Answer. The Diplomatic Security Service’s (DSS) Office of Counterintelligence (CI) is responsible for the Department’s global CI programs and receives $1.95 million 

in operational DP funding, which is sub-allocated to Worldwide Security Program 

funds. This does not include the American Salaries for Full-Time Exempt personnel. 

This funding supports all investigations, vetting, analysis, and defensive programs 

covering a workforce of more than 100,000 employees across 300-plus embassies, 

consulates, and domestic facilities. Roughly 85 percent is allocated to contract staffing costs. 

Question. How will the Department’s fiscal year 2025 Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) account request properly resource the Counterintelligence (CI) office? 

Answer. The Department’s Diplomatic Security Service’s global security platform 

continues to face challenges due to rising costs, disrupted supply chains, evolving 

technology, longer replacement timelines, and increasing threats, leading to a continued loss of purchasing power. As a result, DS has adjusted service levels commensurate with appropriated funding to match the Department’s strategy and DS’ 

base budget. At this time, fiscal year 2025 will be resourced at the same levels as 

fiscal year 2024. 

Question. How much of the fiscal year 2025 Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) 

funding requested will utilize emerging technology, such as AI, to assist in discovery 

of these insider threats? 

Answer. In the Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), the Insider Threat Office has forecasted approximately $5 million in fiscal year 2025 Worldwide 

Security Program funding for emerging technology to counter insider threats. With 

the requirement of user activity monitoring on all classified systems as designated 

in E.O. 13587, user behavioral analytics will enhance the current system. With appropriate resourcing and partnership with the Bureau of Diplomatic Technology, DS 

intends to incorporate artificial intelligence in the analysis of all user activity on 

the enterprise network in future fiscal years. 

Question. Do you agree that State’s Counterintelligence (CI) program will be relied upon more in the era of great power competition to mitigate threats and protect 

employees from threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party, Russia, Cuba, and 

other malign actors? 

Answer. I acknowledge that in an era of great power competition, counterintelligence programs are crucial for mitigating threats and protecting employees, information, and activities from adversaries such as the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC), Russia, Cuba, and other malign actors. Our adversaries, including a rising 

PRC, an overtly aggressive Russia, an antagonistic Iran, and an ideologically driven 

Cuba, are employing increasingly advanced and far-reaching tactics that threaten 

U.S. national security and global diplomatic engagement. 

Question. As you noted in your testimony, the escalation of global conflict is evident, specifically across the Middle East, Ukraine, and in Africa. This is occurring 

against the backdrop of the intense global competition with the Chinese Communist 
36 

Party. The geopolitical landscape has changed and requires State, and you, to adjust 

finite resources accordingly based upon national security and advancing American 

prosperity. During your nomination hearing, I asked if you would ‘‘commit to an 

evaluation of the personnel numbers in each region and adjust accordingly?’’. Has 

the Department concluded the review of domestic and overseas positions for realignment based upon critical national security objectives, such as confronting China? If 

so, what adjustments have taken place, or will take place and when? 

Answer. The Department regularly assesses and reviews current and emerging 

foreign policy goals to align resources where they will have the greatest impact on 

our strategic priorities. As it pertains to China and the broader Indo-Pacific, the Department added 44 new positions in support of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) in 

fiscal year 2022. In fiscal year 2023, we added 55 positions. In fiscal year 2024, we 

added five new positions. The Department requested 58 new positions in support 

of the IPS in fiscal year 2025. These positions are being distributed across the Department to further the goals of the IPS. In addition, to further support efforts to 

confront China, the Department created the Office of Chinese Affairs (China House) 

to centralize the development and execution of China policy led by a newly established China Coordinator.? 

Question. What happens to overseas positions when an embassy closes or operations cease, such as in Sudan, Syria, or Afghanistan? 

Answer. As a result of the suspension of operation at posts, some of the associated 

Foreign Service positions became available for realignment to other critical areas, 

both overseas and domestic, to support high priorities including the impacted post 

externally. The Department closely assesses and reviews the positions and funding 

associated with these posts and the needs created by the suspension of operations 

to ensure the optimal realignment of resources. 

Question. How many of these overseas positions are converted to domestic positions? 

Answer. The Department regularly assesses and reviews current and future demands and needed resources to ensure the optimal alignment with current and 

emerging foreign policy goals. Resources are aligned where they will have the greatest impact on our strategic priorities while also meeting the needs of the service. 

To support high priorities, position realignments, both domestically and overseas, 

are made regularly. 

Question. How many of the hundreds of U.S. direct hire positions that were allocated for the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan shifted to other embassies or consulates 

in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) or shifted to other critical 

national security regions such as the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific (EAP)? 

Answer. As a result of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the associated Foreign 

Service positions became available for reassignment to other critical areas, both 

overseas and domestic, to support high priorities including Afghanistan externally. 

The Department closely assessed and reviewed the positions and funding associated 

with Afghanistan and the needs created by the withdrawal from Afghanistan to ensure the optimal realignment of resources. 

Question. The Department has requested funding to expand the State Department’s workforce by 52 foreign service officers and 150 domestic civil service personnel. It appears that there are currently almost one hundred vacant overseas positions in the Indo-Pacific (SCA and EAP Bureaus). How are you expediting filling 

these vacant positions with our diplomats to meet the challenge of the Chinese Communist Party in that region? 

Answer. The Department continues to prioritize hiring and filling vacant positions. In fiscal year 2024, the Department expects to hire more than 1,000 Foreign 

Service (FS) personnel and remains committed to protecting and promoting U.S. interests, including the Info-Pacific, by ensuring the Department is adequately staffed 

to fulfil its mission to the American people. 

Question. How many of these positions will be focused on the Indo-Pacific? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2025, the Department has requested an increase of 58 positions to increase strategic engagement and advance the Indo-Pacific Strategy and 

to compete with the regional influence of the People’s Republic of China. 

Question. How many current positions are authorized in the Department’s Office 

of Diversity and Inclusion? Are all of these positions filled? 

Answer. There are currently 13 positions authorized in the Department’s Office 

of Diversity and Inclusion. Nine positions are filled. 
37 

Question. Why is the Department focusing on advancing a divisive social agenda 

and at the expense of its core and stated mission of advancing American prosperity 

and national security, such as confronting the Chinese Communist Party in the 

Indo-Pacific? 

Answer. The Department works collaboratively with allies and partners to build 

an Indo-Pacific region that is free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient. The Department’s diversity and breadth of language skills are critical to advancing U.S. national security interests in the area. 

Question. Will any of the requested increase of 150 domestic Civil Service positions be for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion? 

Answer. None of the requested domestic Civil Service positions are for the Office 

of Diversity and Inclusion. 

Question. Will any foreign or civil service positions be shifted from other existing 

areas into the Office of Diversity and Inclusion if fiscal year 2025 increases for overall department positions are authorized? 

Answer. The Department assesses and aligns resources where they will have the 

greatest impact on strategic priorities. Our success depends on our adherence to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility principles to sustain operational excellence. Currently, there are no plans to transfer additional positions to the Office of 

Diversity and Inclusion. 

Question. In the recently passed national security supplemental appropriations 

bill, Congress appropriated $2 billion for Foreign Military Financing for the IndoPacific. How does State plan to utilize this funding in the region and which partners 

will receive the funding? 

Answer. The Department will use the supplemental Foreign Military Financing 

(FMF) to enhance self-defense capabilities, deepen our defense relationships, and 

outcompete strategic rivals. The Department will use FMF to support procurements 

of U.S. defense articles; ensure our Indo-Pacific partners have access to flexible, 

competitive financing through the expanded loan and loan guarantee authority; and 

open new co-production avenues to invigorate the efforts of Indo-Pacific partners to 

modernize their defense industrial bases. 

Question. How much funding will go to support Taiwan’s defense? Please be specific. 

Answer. I support providing supplemental Foreign Military Financing to Taiwan, 

and the United States remains committed to making available to Taiwan defense 

articles and services necessary to enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. I cannot provide specifics at this time, as internal discussions are ongoing 

regarding partner-specific funding allocations. However, we will submit the congressionally required spend plan to Congress soon that will lay out specific funding levels for Taiwan and other partners. 

Question. The Biden Administration has issued a President’s Management Agenda 

which lists one of the priorities as improving the web design and customer-experience by reducing customer burden and streamlining processes for citizens interacting with the U.S. Government. Using the recent passport processing backlog and 

issuance timelines as an example—passport processing times were previously at an 

all-time high and private U.S. industry has developed technologies, processes, and 

procedures to ensure the efficient submission of passport applications to the Department of State. The Department of State piloted an online passport processing system from August 2022 to February 2023. The Department has not committed to a 

date when the ability to submit an online passport application or renewal will be 

available to U.S. taxpayers. Not all of my constituents can take time off work or 

have a passport acceptance facility in close proximity that has readily available appointment options. What is the status of the State Department’s online passport application and renewal programs? 

Answer. The Department analyzed the lessons of our 2022 online passport renewal (OPR) pilot to ensure the next iteration meets demand and produces a 

streamlined, scalable process. We moved OPR to a new platform and partnered with 

the U.S. Digital Service to refine our launch strategy for release of a public beta 

of OPR by mid-June 2024. During this public beta, we will accept a small number 

of online applications each day—ramping up over time—so we can track and quickly 

address any issues that arise and continuously improve the experience for the 

American people. 
38 

Question. I asked a similar question to Assistant Secretary Bitter of Consular Affairs in June 2023 regarding when this online capability would be implemented. It 

is 2024—when will the Department implement the option of submitting an online 

passport application or renewal? 

Answer. The Department analyzed the lessons of our 2022 online passport renewal (OPR) pilot to ensure the next iteration meets demand and produces a 

streamlined, scalable process. We moved OPR to a new platform and partnered with 

the U.S. Digital Service to refine our launch strategy ahead of a public beta release 

by mid-June 2024. During this public beta, we will accept a small number of online 

applications each day—ramping up over time—so we can track and quickly address 

any issues that arise and continuously improve the experience for the American people. 

Question. I can renew my driver’s license online and have been able to for years. 

Is the $143 million the Department has asked for enough for it to join the 21st Century in this passport online application endeavor? 

Answer. The Department is committed to modernization efforts, and the fiscal 

year 2025 budget request of $143 million is part of the overall effort to establish 

online passport renewal (OPR). The Department analyzed the lessons of our 2022 

OPR pilot to ensure the next iteration meets demand and produces a streamlined, 

scalable process. We moved OPR to a new platform and partnered with the U.S. 

Digital Service to refine our launch strategy ahead of a public beta release by midJune 2024. 

Question. When will the online passport application or renewal functionality be 

open to U.S. citizens? 

Answer. The Department analyzed the lessons of our 2022 online passport renewal (OPR) pilot to ensure the next iteration meets demand and produces a 

streamlined, scalable process. We moved OPR to a new platform and partnered with 

the U.S. Digital Service to refine our launch strategy ahead of a public beta release 

by mid-June 2024. During this public beta, we will accept a small number of online 

applications each day—ramping up over time—so we can track and quickly address 

any issues that arise and continuously improve the experience for the American people. 

RESPONSES OF MR. RICHARD R. VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

Question. On April 29, 2020, Secretary Pompeo announced that the U.S. Department of State will begin requiring a Clean Path for all 5G network traffic entering 

and exiting U.S. diplomatic facilities. The 5G Clean Path is an end-to-end communication path that does not use any transmission, control, computing, or storage 

equipment from telecommunications vendors that may pose a national security risk 

to U.S. communications. A list of such vendors is maintained by the Federal Communications Commission as directed by Section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019. What is the current status of the State Department’s Clean Path plan announced in April 2020? 

Answer. This ongoing initiative stems from the 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act’s section 889, which bans Federal purchases and supplier 

use of products/services from five Chinese companies (Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, 

Hikvision, and Dahua, including subsidiaries/affiliates). To comply with the intent 

of section 889 and other regulatory guidance, we enforce mandatory Federal Acquisition Regulations with contracts and educate/train our user community on the risks 

associated with using products and services from covered contractors. 

Question. Are there diplomatic facilities outside of the United States that currently rely on untrusted telecommunications vendors to conduct official duties? 

Answer. There are facilities that rely on untrusted telecommunication to perform 

their mission. As a result, the Department of State requested and received waivers 

to the requirements of NDAA 2019 section 889, from the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence. Due to national security, the waivers were granted on August 

24, 2022. These waivers require the department to track usage and assist sites with 

building strategies to mitigate risks until the requirement is no longer needed. 

Question. Are there diplomatic personnel outside of the United States that currently rely on untrusted telecommunications vendors to conduct official duties? 
39 

Answer. Some personnel depend on untrusted telecommunication systems to accomplish their objectives. Consequently, the Department of State seeks and obtains 

waivers for NDAA 2019 section 889 requirements from the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence as needed. These waivers require the Department to monitor 

usage and help sites develop risk mitigation strategies until the requirement becomes obsolete. 

Æ